//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2026] ACTSC 169
Supreme Court of the ACT
2026-05-26
Baker J
Original judgment source is linked above.
Source: the ACT Courts (www.courts.act.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: DPP v Percival Citation: [2026] ACTSC 169 Hearing Date: 10 & 11 March 2026; 11 May 2026 Decision Date: 26 May 2026 Before: Baker J Decision: (1) For the offence of intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm (CC6387/2024), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 3 years, 4 months and 24 days imprisonment, commencing on 9 September 2025 and expiring on 1 February 2029. (2) A non-parole period of 2 years will be imposed, commencing on 9 September 2025 and expiring on 8 September 2027. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm – no weapon – offender demanding drugs from victim – serious injuries to victim’s head – no finding of remorse – significant criminal history – long history of substance use – imprisonment Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 19 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 33 Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions Drew Reginald Percival (Offender) Representation: Counsel A Chatterton (DPP) S Baker-Goldsmith (Offender) Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Bevan & Co (Offender) File Number: SCC 386 of 2024 BAKER J: Introduction
The offending
On the evening of 19 June 2024, the victim attended a unit where the offender was staying. The offender and the victim started to argue. The offender asked the victim for drugs. The victim replied with words to the effect of “I can’t sell you drugs.” The offender continued to demand drugs.
When the victim continued to refuse to provide drugs to the offender, the offender struck the victim repeatedly on various sides of his head. The offender also repeatedly kicked the victim in the ribs. The victim began crawling away, but was dragged backwards by his ankles. The offender stomped on the victim’s head. The victim’s phone, wallet and keys fell out of his pockets while he was being dragged.
The victim then took out of his pocket a clear bag that contained approximately half a gram to one gram of ice and threw it onto the ground. The offender immediately stopped his assault of the victim. At around 10pm, the victim returned to his own unit and police and ambulance were called. The victim was found to have sustained the following injuries in the assault: (a) Right zygomatic process fracture; th (b) Fracture of the 10 rib; (c) Open lacerations of the upper left lip; (d) Left periorbital ecchymosis; and (e) Swollen left periorbital area.
The laceration to the victim’s lip will leave a scar, which may be permanent. The injuries to the victim’s head can result in temporary or permanent damage, including an increased risk of Parkinson’s Disease or dementia.
When police conducted searches the following morning, the victim’s wallet was located in the bin in the unit where the offender was staying, and the victim’s phone was found in the offender’s backpack. I note that the offender is not to be sentenced for any property offences in relation to this property.
The offender said to the police words to the effect of, “I remember there being words said” and “I would only [hurt] someone who deserved it… if I did I don’t remember fuck all. But I usually remember pretty well.”
Procedural history
A “no show” Intensive Correction Order Assessment Report (ICOAR) dated 27 February 2026 recorded that the offender had failed to report to or respond to contact from Corrective Services.
At an initial hearing of the proceedings on 10 March 2026, counsel for the offender explained that while the ICOAR order had been sent to the legal representatives at the time the order was made, the offender had not been aware of the order in circumstances where a different solicitor later assumed carriage of the matter. Accordingly, a further ICOAR was ordered.
The second ICOAR report found the offender to be not suitable for an Intensive Correction Order (ICO), for the reasons of unaddressed substance dependency issues and an absence of approved accommodation.
The proceedings were listed for further hearing following the production of the second ICOAR. At that sentencing hearing, counsel for the offender tendered a letter from Justice Housing ACT, which advised that the offender has been found suitable to be allocated transitional housing from the Justice Housing Program upon release from custody.
The offender
The offender has resided in Tasmania for most of his life. In 2021, he relocated to Canberra to be closer to his children who were living in NSW with their mother. The ICOAR writer recorded that the offender spoke positively of his parents and expressed a desire to return to Tasmania in the near future.
The offender completed school to year 9 and subsequently worked primarily in labouring roles through his family’s business. He was last employed in Victoria for approximately 9 months, prior to his move to Canberra in 2021. The offender told the ICOAR writer that he hoped to seek employment following finalisation of the present matter.
The offender has a child from a recent relationship, who was aged 10 months and in kinship care at the time of the second ICOAR. Children Youth and Families (CYF) noted that the offender’s historical engagement with their service has been poor and that contact with his child would be based on the offender’s level of engagement with CYF after the offender is released.
The offender reported that he has experienced persistent pain since being a victim of an assault two years ago and is currently receiving treatment and medication for this. Diagnoses of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, depression and drug induced psychosis were confirmed by Canberra Health Services. The offender indicated that he has been on antipsychotic medication and antidepressants for a number of years. I will take into account each of these matters when determining the sentence to impose.
The offender also reported a long history of illicit substance use, commencing with cannabis at age 16. He also reported intermittent use of methamphetamine from the early 2000s but did not identify this as problematic. Records indicate that the offender tested positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine and cocaine upon admission to the Alexander Machonachie Centre in March 2026. At the final sentencing hearing, counsel for the offender advised the Court that she had been instructed that the offender had been abstinent from all drugs since he has been in custody, however she acknowledged that there were no drug tests available to confirm these instructions.
Comparative cases
The Court is required by s 33(1)(za) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) to consider sentences imposed in comparative cases when determining the sentences to be imposed on the offender. Counsel for the offender referred to ACT Sentencing Database statistics and submitted that these indicate that there are a variety of penalties given upon conviction for this offence and an immediate term of imprisonment is not inevitable. The prosecution also provided summaries of a number of sentencing decisions of this Court for the relevant offence.
I have taken the sentences imposed in those decisions into account. In doing so, I have borne in mind the limitations of comparative cases and sentencing statistics. Importantly, as the prosecutor recognised, there are a limited number of recent sentences in this jurisdiction for the offence of intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm, and none are directly comparable to the present. In particular, many of the cases referred to by the prosecutor involve more serious offending than the present case and all of the cases referred to by the prosecution involved use of a weapon. However, while the present case did not involve use of a weapon, the offending involved a prolonged attack to the victim’s head and appears to be motivated solely by a demand for drugs. Determination
The offending was serious. As the prosecutor submitted, whilst the degree of premeditation or planning non-existent, the offender’s attack was ferocious, and involved the infliction of force to various parts of the victim’s head, as well as kicks to the victim’s ribs. The victim was unable to defend himself. The offender continued to assault the victim whilst he was trying to crawl away from the offender. Whilst the injuries sustained by the victim are not the most serious that are encompassed by an offence of this type, the assault was directed at the victim’s face, and the victim’s injuries may result in permanent scarring and disfigurement.
It was submitted on behalf of the offender that the facts were silent as to who commenced the physical altercation. However, the agreed facts record that the physical altercation started after the victim refused to provide the offender drugs and the offender continued to press the topic. There is no basis to find, on the balance of probabilities, that the victim started the physical altercation. There is no suggestion in the agreed facts that the offender was acting in self-defence.
When interviewed by the ICOAR author, the offender indicated that he did not agree with the statement of facts and blamed the victim for his actions leading up to the incident. The ICOAR author recorded that the offender was instead more concerned with the impact that the incident had on his own life. I am not satisfied that the offender has demonstrated any remorse.
The offender has an extensive criminal history across the ACT, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and Queensland. The offender’s criminal history records significant non-compliance with court orders and breaches of conditional liberty. I have taken into account that the majority of this criminal history does not relate to offences of violence, and there was a period between 2019 and 2023 where the offender did not commit any offences. Nonetheless, his history is not one that gives rise to leniency and given the offender’s lack of insight and remorse, I find that the offender’s prospects of rehabilitation are guarded at best.
In view of the need for denunciation of the offending and recognition of the harm caused to the victim, and bearing in mind the offender’s history of non-compliance with court orders, I have determined that no sentence other than full time imprisonment is appropriate. In particular, it is not appropriate to impose an ICO.
I have taken into account the offender’s physical pain and mental illnesses in determining both the type of sentence to be served, and the length of the sentence to be imposed.
The offender pleaded guilty at a criminal case conference. I will afford the offender a 15% reduction in the sentence to be imposed by reason of this plea of guilty.
The sentence to be imposed will be four years’ imprisonment, reduced to imprisonment for 3 years, 4 months and 24 days on account of the offender’s plea of guilty. The non-parole period, which has also been reduced roughly by the same proportion on account of the offender’s plea of guilty, will be imprisonment for 2 years.
Orders
I certify that the preceding twenty-seven [27] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Justice Baker. Associate: Date: 28 June 2026
DPP
Percival