//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2026] ACTSC 297
Supreme Court of the ACT
2026-08-19
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 Wilson Citation: [2026] ACTSC 297 Hearing Date: 14 July 2026 Decision Date: 19 August 2026 Before: Muller J Decision: See [40] Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – discharge firearm – joint commission assault occasioning actual bodily harm – breach of good behaviour orders – subjective circumstances – psychological report – remorse – full-time imprisonment warranted Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 24, 27 Crimes (Sentencing Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), s 110 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 45A Firearms Act 1996 (ACT), s 43 Cases Cited: Cotter v Corvisy [2008] ACTSC 64; 1 ACTLR 299 DPP v Mena [2023] ACTSC 80 R v Barton [2001] NSWCCA 63; 121 A Crim R 185 R v Campbell [2010] ACTCA 20 R v Pattman [2017] ACTSC 331 R v Sidaros (No 6) [2021] ACTSC 24 Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; 164 CLR 465 Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions Bradley John Wilson (Offender) Representation: Counsel E Priestly (ACT Director of Public Prosecutions) J Moffett (Offender) Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Aboriginal Legal Service File Number: SCC 259 of 2025 MULLER J:
Bradley John Wilson was released from custody at the Alexander Maconochie Centre on 21 March 2025. He was released to a 12-month suspended sentence and good behaviour order having served two months in custody. He was at the time in a romantic relationship with Itiesha Marie Rowe. Rightly or wrongly, he held a belief at the time of his release that Farron Kemp, a man known to him, had been intimate with Ms Rowe while he was in custody. Mr Kemp had known Ms Rowe for a long time. He grew up with her and her brothers.
Upon his release Mr Wilson travelled to Ms Rowe’s home at Lyneham. There he met Ms Rowe and two other friends, Mr Quirk-Buckley and Ms Haren. A plan was concocted between the four to lure Mr Kemp to the house so Mr Wilson could exact retribution for the perceived intimacy with Ms Rowe. Shortly thereafter Mr Quirk-Buckley and Ms Haren left the house and met Mr Kemp at the car park near the Dickson Tradies club.
Mr Kemp then left the meeting and travelled to Ms Rowe’s house after receiving a message from her asking him to attend. He believed she wished to buy drugs from him. He drove to Ms Rowe’s house with his former partner Ms Fleming. In the meantime, Mr Quirk-Buckley made a call to Mr Wilson advising Mr Kemp was on the way.
When Mr Kemp arrived at the Lyneham house Ms Fleming remained in the car. Mr Kemp knocked on the front door, and was invited in by Ms Rowe. He entered the house and followed her towards the back where the kitchen was located. He proceeded to sit on a couch near the back door. Mr Wilson then emerged holding a home-made gun, which he pointed at Mr Kemp. Mr Kemp stood and walked towards the front door. As he placed his hands on the door handle Mr Wilson shot him at close range in the face causing injury to his face and shoulder. Mr Kemp left the house in his vehicle.
Shortly thereafter he was taken to the Canberra Hospital emergency department by ambulance suffering injuries to the right cheek and the right posterior shoulder requiring medical treatment.
The offending conduct
Mr Wilson comes before me for sentencing in relation to a number of joint commission offences as a consequence of the events described above. Charges relating to the co-offender Thomas Alexander Quirk-Buckley were remitted to the Magistrates Court on the day of hearing. The charges to which Mr Wilson enters a plea of guilty are: Discharge firearm – s Plea of Guilty – 24 Maximum Penalty: 10 27(3)(d) Crimes Act 1900 March 2026 Years Imprisonment (ACT) CC 2025/8041 Joint Commission Plea of Guilty – 24 Maximum Penalty: 5 Assault Occasioning March 2026 Years Imprisonment Actual Bodily Harm – s 24 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), by virtue of s 45A of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) CC 2025/8042
I am asked by Mr Wilson to take into account, as part of this sentencing exercise, additional offending. That power is enlivened by s 57 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005. The offending to be taken into account is:
Unlawful possession of a firearm – Maximum Penalty: 5 Years Imprisonment s 43(1)(a)(iii) Firearms Act 1996 (ACT) SCCAN 2025/524
Mr Wilson has not entered a formal plea to the charge but rather, pursuant to the relevant sentencing provisions, makes an admission of guilt as to the offending. I have taken the offence into account and I am guided by the approach taken by the Court of Appeal in R v Campbell [2010] ACTCA 20. That is: (a) the offender is not to be sentenced on any additional offences; (b) although the additional offences, once taken into account, may have the effect of altering or increasing the sentence that would otherwise be imposed on the principal charges, whatever sentence is imposed cannot exceed the maximum penalty for that offence; (c) I am not obliged, nor is it necessary for me to indicate precisely what effect is given to taking into account additional offending on sentence; (d) any consideration occurs in the same way that one would take other matters into account in the sentencing exercise; (e) relevant sentencing principles apply and may constrain the consideration of additional offending – particularly in regards to totality; and (f) in taking the additional offending into account greater weight is given to the need for personal deterrence as well as the community’s entitlement to exact retribution in the circumstance where there is no punishment imposed for particular offences: R v Barton [2001] NSWCCA 63; 121 A Crim R 185.
Mr Wilson has spent a period of 517 days in custody attributable to the two charges on which he is to be sentenced. His bail was refused on 21 March 2025.
Mr Wilson has relevant breach matters to be dealt with in this sentencing exercise; specifically charges CC 2024/9142 and CC 2024/9138, to which he was subject to good behaviour orders.
The victim has not provided a victim impact statement.
Guilty plea
A plea of guilty was offered on 8 August 2025 in the Magistrates Court, prior to committal. As the charge of joint commission attempted aggravated robbery was subsequently withdrawn the plea was made to the charges now forming the indictment. Mr Wilson concedes there was a lack of admission to an agreement to commit the offending but in circumstances where the initial charges included a much more serious offence.
He therefore submits that although his pleas were ultimately entered after arraignment at the criminal case conference, the utilitarian value of the plea should accommodate the earlier plea offer. In the circumstances he submits a discount in the vicinity of 20 – 25% is appropriate.
Nature and circumstances of the offence
The summary of events set out above is drawn from the agreed statement of facts.
In assessing the objective seriousness of the offending, I consider the following matters to carry particular significance: (a) Regardless of his subjective belief about Mr Kemp’s conduct, Mr Wilson deliberately discharged a firearm at close range to the face of his victim. (b) He did so within a private residence to which the victim had been lured. That is, the offence involved an element of planning by Mr Wilson. (c) His intent in doing so was to exact retribution and could only have been with a view to causing injury. (d) His voluntary intoxication from the use of illicit drugs does not alter the seriousness of the offending. (e) Notwithstanding the absence of a victim impact statement, the effect on the victim would have been significant both in terms of the immediate physical injury and the psychological trauma engendered by this kind of episode. I do not rely upon the absence of a victim impact statement to draw any inference as to the significance of the injuries and their impact.
Reflecting upon those matters in concert, I am satisfied the conduct of Mr Wilson constitutes a serious example of this type of offending.
Circumstances of the offender
I have the benefit of a pre-sentence report under the hand of Ellen Grieves and an expert opinion from Vanessa Edwige, registered psychologist.
Mr Wilson is aged 26 years. He identifies as a Ngunnawal man via his mother’s ancestral heritage. There is no suggestion of any trauma or disadvantage until he was aged about 12 years. Having said that, there is some uncertainty in the evidence as to Mr Wilson’s precise age when life events turned. Ms Edwige received a history of the death of Mr Wilson’s mother when he was aged 12, but elsewhere in the evidence it is suggested the event occurred when he was aged between 8 and 12 years. His mother’s death occurred in tragic circumstances. Mr Wilson’s father was driving the family car and swerved to avoid a kangaroo resulting in a rollover accident. Mr Wilson’s mother died as a result of her accident-related injuries and other family members in the vehicle, including Mr Wilson, were also injured. The evidence indicates Mr Wilson assisted in removing his mother’s body from the vehicle. On any view of the experience its impact upon him would have been extreme and profound. Mr Wilson identifies this life changing event as a turning point in his mental health and in his move into addictive behaviours. I will return to the evidence of Ms Edwige later, but one of the factors of significance she identifies is the absence of any effective grief counselling for Mr Wilson following his mother’s death and up until the present time. The prosecution concedes Mr Wilson’s moral culpability “can be somewhat moderated due to the impact of his mental health on his decision-making, judgement, behaviour and regulation”.
Mr Wilson completed his schooling at year 10 level. He struggled at school with learning difficulties, and his latter years were disrupted by suspension for fighting and absenteeism. Since leaving school he has engaged in a range of employment activities, suggesting a reasonable prospect of re-engagement in paid employment upon his eventual release from custody. There is evidence of what Ms Edwige describes as a pathological pattern of behaviours related to drug use and to a lesser extent alcohol use. Mr Wilson told Ms Edwige that he commenced smoking cannabis at age 14 and methamphetamine use at age 18.
In terms of his current circumstances, there are positives and negatives. On the positive Mr Wilson is in a steady relationship and is actively engaged in a stepfather role with the two young children of his partner. He has good family support and accommodation options in the community with his father. On the negative side, there is substantive evidence of prior non-compliance, not the least of which is the example of the subject offending, occurring as it did on the day he was released from custody under good behaviour conditions. There is also his demonstrated readiness to resort to violence to manage problems; pointing to Mr Wilson being a danger to the community and relevantly, to the need for specific deterrence.
Character reference and apology
Mr Wilson’s sister Kimberly provides a supportive reference. She attests to the profound impact of the subject events upon him and to his remorse and accepted responsibility for his actions. Ms Wilson has observed her brother to reflect on his choices over the period of his incarceration. She is supportive of his willingness to engage in rehabilitation and education. She offers her personal support for him upon his release.
Mr Wilson provides a letter of apology in which he expresses his genuine remorse for the offending. He refers to the opportunity time in custody has provided for him to reflect upon his actions and his understanding of the need to rebuild trust, over time, through improved actions and behaviours. He extends his apology to his entire family as well as the victim and his loved ones. Although the prosecution expresses some scepticism about the genuineness of the remorse that is expressed in these circumstances, I am satisfied it is a genuine expression. I note it is consistent with the observations of Ms Edwige concerning apparent remorse and reflection.
Mr Wilson’s prior criminal history
The report of Ms Edwige
Ms Edwige assessed Mr Wilson on one occasion via AVL, and the assessment process took 90 minutes. Mr Wilson was located in the AMC at the time. She describes his participation in the assessment process as “cooperative, polite and respectful”. He presented without any notable cognitive deficits, but displayed a flat affect.
She records, after his mother’s death, Mr Wilson commenced associating with young people engaging in criminal behaviour, and staying away from home. His first exposure to a custodial experience was for riding a motorbike without a licence. Ms Edwige records that in spite of drug and alcohol use commencing at a relatively young age, Mr Wilson has never participated in drug and alcohol counselling in the form of a residential drug and alcohol program. He was previously accepted into Oolong House, but bail was refused and he was unable to join the program. He has been engaging in the programs offered by Yeddung Mura at the AMC. Ms Kristy Langi, Mr Wilson’s Case Manager at Yeddung Mura, explains Mr Wilson has “actively engag[ed]” and “demonstrated a willingness to participate” in group programs centred around grief, loss, trauma, anger management and accountability. Ms Langi explains the programs are designed to increase “self-awareness, develop healthy coping strategies, encourage emotional regulation and promote personal responsibility”.
At the time of the subject offending Mr Wilson concedes he was paranoid and angry after using crystal methamphetamine.
As to diagnosis Ms Edwige opines: Mr. Wilson presents with a pathological pattern of behaviours related to the use of Amphetamines and Cannabis. Mr. Wilson meets the criteria in the DSM 5 for Substance Use Disorder (Stimulant and Cannabis Use Disorder in sustained remission in a controlled environment).
She concludes he is suffering from prolonged grief disorder arising from his mother’s sudden death in a car accident. By his own account the onset of his substance use and antisocial behaviours was closely linked, at least in the temporal sense, with his mother’s death. Ms Edwige concludes the link is more than temporal and assesses his life to have been profoundly shaped by that loss. She notes the sudden loss of a parent in childhood is “a recognised and significant risk factor for later substance use and behavioural difficulties.” She accepts that life event also resulted in a growing distance and lack of communication between Mr Wilson and his father. She says, “In my opinion it is this loss of supervision and support, rather than any inherent characteristic of his own, that explains Mr Wilson’s drift towards antisocial peers”.
She considers Mr Wilson’s grief associated with the loss of his mother to remain substantially unresolved. Ms Edwige concludes: It is my opinion that Mr. Wilson’s history of polysubstance misuse and his unresolved grief substantially exacerbated his psychological vulnerability and contributed to impaired judgement and emotional dysregulation at the time of the offences. It is my opinion that Mr. Wilson at the time of the offences had mental health impairments that were clinically significant and meets the diagnostic criteria in the DSM 5 and DSM 5-TR for Substance Use Disorder and Prolonged Grief Disorder.
I accept as Ms Edwige suggests, Mr Wilson has been profoundly affected by the death of his mother in tragic circumstances at a formative stage in his life. I accept also there is a reasonable likelihood of a causal connection between the impact of that loss and the onset of his antisocial behaviours. Those background matters in concert with the lack of opportunity for engagement with counselling or treatment to address the ongoing effects of those matters is relevant in the sentencing exercise as to the sentence itself and the prospects of rehabilitation.
Sentencing options
Current sentencing practice
Each of the parties provided comparable cases for my assistance. As Mr Wilson submits no case is ever truly comparable in a sentencing exercise.
In R v Sidaros (No 6) [2021] ACTSC 24, for the offence of act endangering life, which involved multiple discharges of a loaded firearm, Mossop J imposed a sentence of four years. The offender in that case had a criminal history involving only irrelevant minor traffic matters, however, the act endangering life offence was only one of a number of offences for which a total head sentence of nine years and nine months was imposed. The other offences were made up of intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm, attempted arson with intent to endanger life, aggravated burglary, arson, dishonestly drive a motor vehicle without consent and failing to properly store ammunition.
In a similar vein, Mr Wilson identifies comparable matters such as DPP v Mena [2023] ACTSC 80 where a comparable offence of unlawful discharge of loaded firearm at another person attracted a sentence of 18 months. Again, it was in the context of sentencing for other related offences. Noting in each of the cases to which I have referred the totality principle necessarily bears on the sentence imposed for each of the individual charges, I consider them to be of less assistance as comparators.
I have found assistance in the decision of R v Pattman [2017] ACTSC 331, where Stephen Pattman was charged with an offence of act endangering life by intentionally and unlawfully discharging a loaded firearm pursuant to s 27(3)(d) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), and carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years. Mr Pattman had no criminal history although he was a member of the Rebels Outlaw Motorcycle Gang. A head sentence of four years and four months was imposed, reduced to 3 years and 11 months. The sentence was ordered to be served by way of an intensive corrections order.
Sentences
Mr Wilson is in breach of two good behaviour orders attached to previous suspended sentences as a consequence of the subject offending. I therefore cancel the good behaviour orders and impose the suspended sentences. A sentence of six months imprisonment is imposed pursuant to s 110(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Administration) Act 2005 (ACT). Given the entirely separate nature of that offending and the subject offending, I do not consider it appropriate to apply any concurrency for that sentence.
For the offence of discharge firearm at another person contrary to s 27(3)(d) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment, I consider the appropriate starting point for that offence to be a sentence of three years. For the offence of joint commission assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s 24 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), by virtue of s 45A of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), carrying a maximum penalty of five years, I consider a sentence of 2 years to be appropriate. I have also taken into account as part of the sentencing exercise the additional offending of unlawful possession of a firearm contrary to s 43(1)(a)(iii) of the Firearms Act 1996 (ACT). I note in taking into account the additional offending, Mr Wilson 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.
Applying totality, I am mindful the offences in this instance occurred in the course of a single episode and they are properly to be viewed as part of a course of conduct with a consequent degree of concurrency. I am mindful of the need to structure the sentence so as not to provide a discount for multiple offending. After allowing for concurrency the total sentence I reach for the subject offending is three years and six months. Applying a discount of approximately 20% for a plea of guilty gives a head sentence of two years and nine months. I propose to apply a relatively generous non-parole period of one year and six months amounting to slightly in excess of 50% of the head sentence. I have done so because I consider it appropriate to afford Mr Wilson the best opportunity upon his release for an extended period of supervision whilst he undertakes counselling and treatment with a view to addressing both his recalcitrant mental health issues and drug and alcohol addiction. When the previously imposed sentence of six months for breach of the good behaviour orders is added, Mr Wilson will face an effective non-parole period of two years, commencing on 20 March 2025.
The sentences I have imposed, and concurrency, are reflected in the table set out below: Orders
Bradley John Wilson please stand: (1) Bradley John Wilson, pursuant to s 110(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), I cancel the good behaviour orders that you were subject to on charges CC 2024/9138 and CC 2024/9142, convict and sentence you to six months imprisonment commencing 20 March 2025 and ending 19 September 2025. (2) Bradley John Wilson, I convict you in relation to the offence of discharging a firearm contrary to s 27(3)(d) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), and sentence you to a total effective sentence of two years, four months and 24 days commencing 20 September 2025 and ending 12 February 2028. (3) Bradley John Wilson, I convict you in relation to the offence of joint commission assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s 24 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), by virtue of s 45A of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), and sentence you to a total effective sentence of one year, seven months and 6 days commencing 14 October 2026 and ending 19 May 2028. (4) The overall head sentence, inclusive of the breach conviction, will be for a period of 3 years and 2 months; with 2 years and 9 months of that period attributed to the subject offending. (5) The non-parole period will be for a period of two years, commencing 20 March 2025.
I certify that the preceding forty [40] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of his Honour Justice Muller. Associate: MG Malouf Date: 19 August 2026
DPP
Wilson