//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2026] ACTSC 253
Supreme Court of the ACT
2026-07-22
Muller 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 TE Citation: [2026] ACTSC 253 Hearing Date: 1 July 2026 Decision Date: 22 July 2026 Before: Muller J Decision: See [43] Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – family violence – recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm – common assault – other offending taken into account – remorse – references – criminal history – previous breaches of community-based orders – full time imprisonment Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 20, 26, 381 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 10, 34B, 57, 331E, 331F Family Violence Act 2016 (ACT) Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) Cases Cited: Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 Director of Public Prosecutions v Hodge [2025] ACTSC 82 R v Campbell [2010] ACTCA 20 R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346 Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions TE (Offender) Representation: Counsel C Wanigaratne (DPP) E Wilson (Offender) Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Legal Aid ACT (Offender) File Number: SCC 236 of 2025 SCC 235 of 2025 MULLER J:
In the evening of 29 December 2024, TE exchanged a series of text messages with his former partner, [female victim’s name redacted], mainly concerning their shared daughter [name redacted]. Some of the messages threatened acts of violence and those threats passed both ways. The exchange was a continuation of earlier threatening remarks made between the two by text message on Christmas Day. The dialogue culminated in a suggested meeting between TE and [female victim’s name redacted] at a number of locations but that did not occur.
Later in the same evening [female victim’s name redacted] arrived by car at TE’s home address in Higgins. She was accompanied by four others including [male victim’s name redacted]. When the group arrived, TE was standing in the front yard of the Higgins unit. [Female victim’s name redacted] and [male victim’s name redacted], each holding weapons, exited the car and TE retrieved a 20 cm long knife from the ground.
[Male victim’s name redacted] then struck TE in the head with a long metal bar and [female victim’s name redacted] struck him in the side of the face with a baseball bat. TE then stabbed [female victim’s name redacted] with the knife in her left shoulder. He also took the baseball bat from her and used it to strike her on the right side of her torso.
[Male victim’s name redacted] retrieved another weapon from the car in the form of a jack handle. However, [female victim’s name redacted] yelled at him to return to the vehicle and he complied, returning to the driver’s seat of the vehicle. Thereafter, TE approached the vehicle with [male victim’s name redacted] seated in it. He punched the window adjacent to the driver’s seat whilst yelling at [male victim’s name redacted]. He then threw the baseball bat he was holding at the car. It is these events that comprise the Common Assault charge.
Although there were further threatening remarks, the melee essentially ended at that point.
The offending conduct
TE comes before me to be sentenced having entered a plea of guilty to charges as follows: Recklessly Inflict Contrary to s 20(2) of the Plea of Guilty entered on Grievous Bodily Harm Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) 20 March 2026 (Family Violence) Maximum Penalty: 15 SCCAN 2025/468 years imprisonment Common Assault Contrary to s 26(1) of the Plea of Guilty entered on Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) 20 March 2026 SCCAN 2025/469 Maximum Penalty: 2 years imprisonment
I am asked to take into account, as part of the sentencing exercise, additional offending. The power to do so arises in s 57 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT). The offending to be taken into account is:
Possess Offensive Weapon with Contrary to s 381(1) of the Crimes Act Intent 1900 (ACT) CC 2025/7526 Maximum Penalty: $2000, 1 year imprisonment or both
TE has not entered a formal plea to the latter charge, but makes an admission of guilt as to the offending for sentencing purposes. In addressing the additional offending, I have considered the guidance of the Court of Appeal in R v Campbell [2010] ACTCA 20 at [46]-[50]. I note in taking into account the additional offending, the offender is not to be separately sentenced for the conduct but there is a need to give greater weight to personal deterrence and to the community’s entitlement to appropriate retribution for serious offending. As s 57(3) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act provides, in undertaking the exercise I remain constrained by the maximum penalty for the principal offence. The totality principle is also to be applied.
The victims in this matter have not provided impact statements.
Other charges identified on the indictment have been discontinued or withdrawn.
Time in custody and pleas
TE was arrested on 1 January 2025 and released on bail the following day. He was on bail for a period of 250 days, from 2 January 2025 to 8 September 2025. There were no breaches in that period, and the bail conditions were strict, including reporting to police twice a day. On 8 September 2025 TE was arrested on unrelated matters predating the offences for sentence. Bail was refused in part due to the present offences. Importantly, TE has not been sentenced in relation to the other offences. There is no suggestion the period in custody since 8 September 2025 has already been taken into account in sentencing for other offences.
TE has therefore spent 320 days in custody attributable to the two charges on which he is to be sentenced.
The guilty pleas were entered at the criminal case conference. A trial date had been set for the matter however no criminal case conference occurred prior to the setting of that date due to the court’s administrative vacation. Applying usual principles, TE is entitled to a discount to reflect the utilitarian value of the pleas. He proposes a discount in the range of 15 to 20%. The prosecution acknowledged the suitability of a discount for an early plea. I will allow a discount at the upper end of the usual range taking into account the family violence nature of the offending where the plea avoids the need for the complainant and other family members present to give evidence.
Nature and circumstances of the offence
The parties, in advance of sentencing, provided me with an agreed statement of facts which provides the factual basis for the summary of events set out above.
Importantly, TE and [female victim’s name redacted] were previously in a romantic relationship and share two children together. Notwithstanding her role as an aggressor in the initial altercation, TE’s use of a knife escalated the matter and must have caused [female victim’s name redacted] real fear of serious injury for herself and her companions. That much is reflected in her direction to [male victim’s name redacted] to return to the car once the knife was produced. The use of a knife elevates the seriousness of the offending in that it was a highly dangerous weapon utilised deliberately to cause serious physical harm. I am mindful it was used in circumstances where TE had already been struck with blunt force weapons sustaining blows to the head and face. His use of the knife is thus in the nature of excessive force directed at least in part to defending himself. I am also mindful he was at his own home when these events occurred.
I am required to have regard to any injury, loss or damage resulting from the offence and its effect on the victim: ss 331E and 331F of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act. [Female victim’s name redacted] injuries were in the nature of a laceration of approximately 3 cm to the back of her left shoulder caused by the blow with the knife and a partially collapsed lung and bruising to her right breast caused by the blow to the torso with the baseball bat. [Female victim’s name redacted] was conveyed to Hospital for treatment of her injuries. It is not apparent what treatment was required for the laceration, however, a chest drain was used in the treatment of [female victim’s name redacted] partially collapsed lung. She spent a period of at least two days in hospital from 29 December 2024 until 31 December 2024 when police spoke to her. It is not known if [female victim’s name redacted] spent further time in hospital nor whether further treatment was required. Whilst there is no evidence of particular psychological sequelae the experience of the injuries would clearly have been traumatic. The absence of a victim impact statement must not be relied upon to draw any inference as to the significance of the injuries and their impact.
The circumstances of the Common Assault as I have described them above place that offending at the lower end of seriousness. There was no force applied to [male victim’s name redacted] and the incident was of short duration.
Viewed as a whole, I assess the offence of Recklessly Inflict Grievous Bodily Harm to be a moderately serious example of this type of offending and the offence of Common Assault as a less serious example of the type of offending.
Whilst the maximum penalty for each of the offences provides a yardstick for the sentencing exercise, the sentence imposed must be proportional to the seriousness of the offending against the spectrum of objective seriousness.
Other relevant facts
Circumstances of the offender
I have the benefit of a pre-sentence report. TE is now aged 38 years. He has been known to ACT Corrective Services since 2008 when supervised on a Good Behaviour Order for Common Assault. He has breached orders in the past. His behaviour whilst in custody on this occasion has been positive.
TE is one of three children. He describes a traumatic childhood due to his father’s violence and alcohol abuse. His father gave him alcohol as an infant. His mother and siblings moved to Batemans Bay when TE was aged five to escape his father. He moved to Canberra for employment at the age of 17. TE has daily contact with his mother, occasional contact with his sister and no contact with his brother. He is the father of three children from two relationships, and he has mixed contact with them.
He has been in a relationship with his current partner for three and a half years. Whilst in the community TE shared a residence in Higgins with his parter although he is not named on the lease. He believes he can return to that accommodation post custody.
TE left school halfway through year 11 to pursue an apprenticeship, which he did not complete. Over the years since, he has enjoyed employment in various trades and outdoor services. In custody TE is employed in grounds maintenance, which is a trusted position in the prison system. TE receives Centrelink Job Seeker payments whist in the community and earned income from previous employment. He receives Disability Support benefits in the form of a pension card and access to the disability employment service, although he is not the recipient of a disability support pension. He has no debt.
TE describes pro-social community friendships with regular contact to support his mental health. He has not had contact with his friends whilst in custody although expects to re-establish his connections once released. He enjoys fixing cars with his son.
TE’s first experience of alcohol was as an infant when it was administered by his father to get him to sleep. He consumed alcohol by choice from the age of 13 and his alcohol consumption became significantly problematic from the age of 17 when he would drink to intoxication. He then ceased use for a period of time until 23 years of age. He has been “in and out” of residential programs. Prior to custody, TE was consuming 12 litres of fortified wine a day, was in a constant state of intoxication and properly describes himself as a functioning alcoholic.
TE admits weekly use of MDMA and more recently cannabis and methamphetamines. He says the latter is used for self-medicating symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). He hopes to remain abstinent when released but was unable to complete the SMART Recovery program whilst in custody. ADHD was diagnosed and treated in his early years with prescription medication. Prescription of appropriate medication has recently resumed in custody. TE believes this has had a positive impact. He also reports diagnoses of anxiety and depression. He is receiving treatment for damage to his liver due to his alcohol abuse.
Canberra Health Services advise TE is diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, co-morbid substance use disorder and ADHD. Custodial Mental Health Services note a historical diagnosis of schizophrenia. On admission they identified anxiety, paranoia and drug induced psychosis. On psychiatric review in February 2026, it was noted TE’s psychological symptoms are likely due to trauma as opposed to a psychotic disorder.
In the community, there have been mixed outcomes from treatment interventions and multiple failures by TE to attend outpatient appointments.
TE expresses regret about the offending. He is aware of the damage done to his relationship with [female victim’s name redacted] with whom he continued to have a friendship notwithstanding their romantic relationship ending at an earlier time. He recognises the negative impact of alcohol on his behaviour; attributing the escalation of the subject events to alcohol use. He accepts the conflict should have been resolved by talking, as had occurred in the past. The writers of the pre-sentence report find TE able to meet a financial penalty and suitable for a Good Behaviour Order with appropriate conditions. They consider him unfit for a community service work condition.
The prosecution properly concedes Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 principles are enlivened. I accept this concession. TE has a long history of significant trauma, beginning in early childhood where he was not only subject to physical abuse but introduced to alcohol. In relation to his alcohol use, I accept as TE submits, his alcohol use is a factor in the subject offences. His introduction to alcohol at the hands of his father at a very young age also enlivens R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346 principles which have been accepted in this court as arising in the context of early alcohol use, as well as early drug use: Director of Public Prosecutions v Hodge [2025] ACTSC 82 at [56]-[58]. I accept TE’s profound childhood deprivation is to be given full weight in sentencing. I accept also his childhood exposure to violence and alcohol abuse combined with his ongoing alcohol consumption explains, in part, his recourse to violence in the circumstances under consideration.
Character references
Before me are two character references in support of TE, provided by his mother and his sister. His mother describes TE as a kind, caring and compassionate person. She refers to his expressed remorse and accepted responsibility for his offending, his understanding of the seriousness of his behaviour and his regret. She says TE is someone who is generous and willing to help others and has expressed remorse for his actions.
TE’s sister reiterates those observations and goes further, highlighting the challenges she and TE faced in early childhood, which she says provide context to the choices he has made. She observes TE is a devoted father to his children and she believes he is committed to making better choices for himself and his family.
TE’s prior criminal history
TE has an extensive criminal history in the ACT and New South Wales. He has prior convictions for assault both in the ACT and New South Wales. He has no prior convictions for serious family violence offences in the Territory, however, has been convicted of offences relating to instances of assault and damage to property in a family violence context in New South Wales. There is a small gap between the prior offending, with the last conviction and sentence in July 2023, and the subject offending in December 2024.
There is also some evidence before me of a failure to comply with previous community-based orders. TE’s criminal history details five ‘breach’ instances. On 20 November 2018 TE was sentenced to an 18 month Good Behaviour Order on charge CC 2016/8280; on 6 June 2019, TE was re-sentenced having breached that order, but no further action was taken – this occurred again on 23 October 2019. This exercise occurred in the same terms for charge CC 2016/8645. On 6 June 2019 TE was sentenced to a suspended term on charge CC 2019/812; he was re-sentenced having breached the Good Behaviour Order attached to that suspended term on 23 October 2019 to a term of full time imprisonment. The history of violence and past non-compliance with community-based interventions demonstrates personal deterrence must be given reasonable weight in the present case.
Remorse
Sentencing options
Sentencing in the family violence context
As the first offence is in the family violence context, I must have regard to the matters set out in s 34B of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act. I must also have regard to the matters mentioned in the preamble to the Family Violence Act 2016 (ACT). They include relevantly: (a) admonishment of family violence in any form; (b) recognition of freedom from family violence as a human right; (c) the need for protection of human rights in accordance with the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT); and (d) the need for a coordinated legal and social response to prevent family violence and to support victims by promoting the accountability of perpetrators.
The offending in this instance, notwithstanding its characterisation as excessive self-defence, warrants a suitable family violence denunciation.
Current sentencing practice
Sentences
Having regard to the nature of the offence of Recklessly Inflict Grievous Bodily Harm, I consider the appropriate starting point for that offence to be 3 years against a maximum penalty of 15 years. For the offence of Common Assault carrying a maximum penalty of two years, I consider a sentence of two months to be appropriate. Applying a discount of approximately 20% to the total sentence of 3 years and 2 months, gives a head sentence of two years and six months, with 50 days of that period allocated to the lesser offence. I propose to apply a non-parole period of 16 months, with one month of that period allocated to the lesser offence, to allow a reasonable period of parole supervision. To do so is consistent with the principle that family violence is best addressed through a coordinated legal and social response.
As there are separate proceedings pending against the offender, I will publish the judgment using the pseudonym “TE”.
Orders
I certify that the preceding forty-three [43] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of his Honour Justice Muller. Associate: MG Malouf Date: 22 July 2026
DPP
TE