Director of Public Prosecutions v Kelly

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	DPP v Kelly
Citation:	[2025] ACTSC 465
Hearing Date:	1 October 2025, 13 October 2025
Final Submissions Date:	15 October 2025
Decision Date:	16 October 2025
Before:	Taylor J
Decision:	See [147].
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – family violence – aggravated choke, suffocate or strangle – aggravated intentional threat to kill – aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm – Bugmy considerations – guarded rehabilitative prospects – risk of institutionalisation – hardship to offender’s family – partially suspended sentence order
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss, 7, 34B Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 24, 28(2)(a), 30(a)(i) Family Violence Act 2016 (ACT)
Cases Cited:	Blundell v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 34 Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428 Director of Public Prosecutions v Padreny [2024] ACTCA 4 DPP v Donnelly [2025] ACTSC 411 DPP v Dunn [2025] ACTSC 8 DPP v Hiscox (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 230 DPP v Hogan [2024] ACTSC 245 DPP v Howarth [2024] ACTSC 322 DPP v Jewell [2023] ACTSC 348 DPP v Jewell [2023] ACTSC 348 DPP v Laic [2025] ACTSC 365 DPP v Moala (No 3) [2023] ACTSC 306 DPP v Whitall [2025] ACTSC 111 DPP v Williams [2024] ACTSC 303 Fares v DPP (No 2) [2025] ACTCA 2 Jewell v DPP [2024] ACTCA 30 Murphy v The King [2025] ACTCA 10 R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2 R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269
Texts Cited:	Bugmy Bar Book, Early Exposure to Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse (November 2019) Bugmy Bar Book, Child Abuse and Neglect (June 2024)
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions Christopher Allan Kelly ( Offender)
Representation:	Counsel S McLaughlin and M Zeini ( DPP) H Ameen ( Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Aboriginal Legal Service ( Offender)
File Number:	SCC 345 of 2024

TAYLOR J:

Introduction

The offender, Christopher Allan Kelly, is to be sentenced for the following offences:
(a) Aggravated choke, suffocate, strangle (CC2024/6712) contrary to s 28(2)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) which attracts a maximum penalty of 7 years of imprisonment.
(b) Aggravated intentional threat to kill (CC2024/6713) contrary to s 30(a)(i) of the Crimes Act which attracts a maximum penalty of 13 years of imprisonment.
(c) Aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm (CC2024/6715) contrary to s 24 of the Crimes Act which attracts a maximum penalty of 7 years of imprisonment.

Agreed facts

Christopher Kelly (‘the offender’) and [redacted] (‘the victim’) had been intimate partners since June 2023. They were engaged to be married.

Count 2 – Aggravated choke/suffocate/strangle (between 29/4/24 and 5/5/24)

On an occasion between 29 April 2024 and 5 May 2024, the victim was at the home of [the offender’s mother]. [The offender’s mother] resides at [redacted], in the Australian Capital Territory.
The offender had been drinking earlier in the day and was intoxicated. He had sat in his car, parked outside, with a bottle of alcohol. He left the car and walked into the house, where he entered an upstairs bedroom where the victim was sitting.
The offender approached the victim and refused to allow her to leave the room when she tried. The offender held the bottle of alcohol in one hand, and with his other hand he strangled the victim by placing his hand on the front of her neck, with a thumb on one side and four fingers on the other.
The victim recalls feeling ‘8’ on a scale of pain between 1 to 10, and that the offender held her for approximately 5 seconds. The offender released the victim when he became aware that she could not breathe.
The victim ran into another room. A short time later, the offender followed the victim and told her that she should not be scared and that he would never really hurt her. The victim went to another bedroom. The offender approached the door and told the victim how much he hated her and that the only way he would get ‘rid of’ her would be if she died.

Count 3 – Aggravated intentional threat to kill (between 6/5/24 and 12/6/24)

On an occasion between 6 May 2024 and 12 June 2024, the victim and the offender were at [redacted], in the Australian Capital Territory. They were seated in the lounge room, sometime after dinner at around 8PM.
The victim asked the offender if he would like to eat anything for dinner. The offender told her that he did not want anything that she cooked.
The offender approached the victim angrily. The victim recalled that on prior occasions he had told her that if he became angry, he would try to hug her and that would settle down his anger.
The victim hugged the offender. The offender squeezed the victim with force and told her that he would ‘squeeze every little bit of air out of her’ and said words to the effect that he would kill her.
The victim felt that the offender was not going to stop squeezing her. She felt as though she was being crushed and she screamed out for him to stop. The victim felt that one of her ribs may have cracked although there is no evidence that her ribs did crack.
The victim attended The Canberra Hospital via ambulance on 13 June 2024. [Redacted], registered nurse, contacted the victim’s grandmother, [redacted]. He then examined her at 5:52 PM and made note: “Pt partner present at arrival to ICU. Left shortly after. NOK [victim’s grandmother] contacted unit. Given update on pt current condition. [Victim’s grandmother] advised nursing staff that pt had informed [her] that she was experiencing sharp chest pain over past couple of days. Stated that a friend had hugged her on the weekend and pt reported to [victim’s grandmother] that she felt a pop in chest. Have updated medical team of information passed on to bedside nurse from [victim’s grandmother]. Pt has not reported any chest pain under care of author.”

Count 5 – Aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm (on 27 June 2024)

On the evening of 26 June 2024, the victim could not find her insulin.
The victim was at an address in [redacted] where the offender resides. The victim was at the house in the morning, sometime before 8 AM. The offender’s daughter (from another partner, Ms G) was due to be dropped off at the house that morning.
The victim was ill. She had told the offender that she would go to the hospital before the offender’s daughter arrived so that she would not be sick in front of her.
The offender became verbally aggressive towards the victim and told her that she would rather go to hospital to be injected by random strangers than have him assist in injecting her insulin at home. The offender made comments toward the victim about her family and about her alleged infidelity towards him.
The victim tried to find her insulin but was not able to. The victim believed that the offender had hidden her insulin.
The victim called 000 to seek ambulance assistance for her diabetes. The offender was standing over the victim whilst she spoke to the emergency responder. The responder on the line asked if she required police assistance. The offender can be heard on the call. The call disconnects before police assistance can be requested.
The victim left the room and the offender followed her.
The victim called 000 once more and sought out assistance. The victim was starting to feel very ill and felt as though she was having an anxiety attack. The victim sat on an egg chair in front of the house at the request of the emergency responder. The emergency responded (sic) asked if she required police assistance, which she refused as the offender was standing over her.
The offender was trying to strangle the victim with his right hand her whilst she was on the phone to the hospital. The offender leaned over the victim’s body and placed his knee between her crotch to prevent her from leaving and continued to apply pressure to her neck.
The victim was in shock. The strangulation episode lasted for 5-10 seconds. The victim tried to force the offender’s hand off her neck. The offender released his hand and told her that he was sorry, that he did not realise he was doing it, and then hugged the victim.
The offender then moved away from the victim and locked the door and would not allow her to get back inside the house.
The victim then tried to leave and run towards the gates. The offender ran after her and grabbed her by the shoulders. He punched her in the face with a closed fist on the left hand side of her face.
The offender forced the victim to sit back on the egg chair outside the house. The victim attempted to leave once more, at which point he tackled her to the ground, causing her to scrape her knees against the pavement.
The victim pushed away from the offender and began walking to the Salvation Army store located [redacted]. The offender followed her and attempted to prevent her from leaving.
The victim entered the Salvation Army store and sought the assistance of an employee in calling 000. The employee saw her looking to be in pain and alternating between sitting down and lying in front of the store. The employee saw the offender approach her and hug her, which the victim did not respond
The ambulance attended the premises some 10 minutes later.
The offender approached the ambulance as the victim was wheeled out on a stretcher and began screaming at the paramedics.

Disclosures made by the victim

The victim told paramedics that she had not taken her insulin since the previous morning as her partner had been withholding it from her. She told the paramedics that her partner was physically abusive and that she went to the Salvation Army store to get away from him.
The victim was taken to The Canberra Hospital. At 11:37 AM, she was seen by registered nurse [redacted], who noted that she would wake up intermittently saying “don’t let him near me” and that “the patient was too drowsy to go in depth about abuse”.
The victim was seen by Dr [redacted], junior registrar, at 11:57 AM, who noted her be (sic) a difficult historian that reported a history of domestic violences to paramedics and “reports assaults.”
At 1:42 PM, the victim was seen by [redacted], registered nurse, who noted the same history as that given to the paramedics.
At 3:03 PM, the victim was assessed by Dr [redacted], junior registrar, who noted that she had abrasions on both knees which appeared to be recent.
At 8:56 AM on 29 June 2024, the victim was assessed by Dr [redacted], intern medical officer, who noted that the victim was “distressed and would like to speak to her grandma on the phone- reports violence from her boyfriend. Offered social work however at this point in time [the victim] would just like to speak to her Grandma.”
The victim’s grandmother attended the hospital shortly thereafter and assisted the victim in showering.
At 12:37 PM, a MET call was made after the victim felt lightheaded in the shower and began convulsing upon being returned to the bed. Emergency department registrar, Dr [redacted], noted that “reports of domestic violence during MET call” were made.
The victim subsequently made disclosures to her grandmother. [The victim’s grandmother] contacted 000 on 29 June 2024 and advised them that the victim had not told staff about the assault. She requested that the offender not be allowed to see her.
[The victim’s grandmother] disclosed the following:
(a) The victim called her on the morning of 29 June 2024 and told her that she needed help to leave the offender as he had been hurting her.
(b) The victim initially said she had tried to get away and had fallen over.
(c)   That when the victim had hurt her ribs recently, that it was the offender who caused it.
(d) That the offender had withheld her insulin.
(e) The victim made disclosures about being choked and being crash tackled when she tried to leave the house to get to the ambulance.
(f)    The victim told her that she had been choked and punched in the jaw.
(g) That she checked the victim’s body before taking her in to shower and noted some bruising on her neck and knees, but no other bruising on her back or shoulders that may have been caused by the offender.
(h) The victim felt pain in her chest near her rib cage.
(i)    The victim had previously disclosed that a friend had given her a bear hug and she felt her rib pop. She was asked by the victim to take her to the hospital but was unable to at that time.
(j)    The victim went to the hospital four days after the rib cage incident with high glucose levels but was still in pain from her ribs.
(k)   She had asked the victim at the time if the offender had been hurting her and the victim denied it.
[The victim’s grandmother] took photos of bruising on the victim’s neck and knees.
The victim spoke to the 000 operator and said that:
(a) The offender had punched her in the face;
(b) The offender had bear hugged her and told her that he was going to squeeze the life out of her and broke her rib;
(c) The offender strangled her;
(d) The offender crash tackled her; and
(e) The offender tried to ‘get her’ because she called an ambulance and he stopped her from having her insulin.
At 4:27 PM, registered nurse [redacted] examined the victim and noted: “Please do not give any information Regarding patient to anyone except patient's grandmother and patient's dad. They are patient's next of kin and details are on DHR. Patient's grandmother informed staff that patient has sore left side of Jaw, sternal area as a result of domestic violence and would like x ray done. Police involved”.
At 7:17 PM, Dr [redacted] examined the victim and noted: “Tender sternum and mandible in context of recent violence. Asked to order XR for above. Note patient had a CT brain and CXR on admission. On examination, left side mandible no visible bruising, tender to light palpitation, sternum tender to light palpitation no bruising or lumps.”
Constables Tristan McCann and Constable Patrick Anderson attended the hospital in response to the 000 call. They obtained a record of conversation with [the victim’s grandmother], as well as a Family Violence Evidence in Chief Interview with the victim wherein she disclosed the aforementioned assaults.
[The victim’s grandmother] disclosed that the victim had told her on the morning of 29 June that she had been assaulted, prompting her to attend the hospital. [The victim’s grandmother] took photographs of the victim’s neck where she saw marks that she believed were bruises.
Constable McCann obtained CCTV footage from outside of the Salvation Army store which shows the victim attempting to leave the address in [redacted] at 09:34 AM. The ambulance appears at 09:52 AM. The offender appears on screen at 09:53 AM and approaches the ambulance, then walks away after a few moments. He returns to the ambulance at 10:07 AM and leaves once again after a minute.
The victim was assessed by a Forensic Medical Officer, Dr [redacted], on 29 June 2024. She made the following disclosures:
(a) She woke up and was throwing up. The offender suggested she was doing that on purpose so that male doctors could touch her.
(b) The offender strangled her and told her that he was going to kill her.
(c)   The offender stuck his knee into her crotch and tried to keep her there to strangle her again.
(d) The offender crash tackled her, chased her out of the gate, pulled her by her shoulders and was screaming at her.
(e) The offender punched her in the face.
(f)    The offender used his right hand to apply pressure to the front of her neck.
(g) She experienced light-headedness and nausea at the time of the offence.
(h) She experienced neck pain, shortness of breath, an inability to breathe and thought she might die.
(i)    After the strangulation episode, she experienced neck pain, neck swelling, sore throat, difficulty swallowing, voice changes, cough, inability to breathe, light-headedness, headache, and seizures.
(j)    The offender had assaulted her approximately three weeks beforehand by bear hugging her to the extent that she felt her ribs cracked, and that he strangled her too.
(k)   She felt pain (clinical tenderness) in her right jaw, left chest, and central abdomen regions.
Forensic examination of the victim noted the following:
(a) An abrasion on the palm of the right hand.
(b) A 10mm diameter abrasion on the upper aspect of the right knee.
(c) A 30mm diameter abrasion on the lower aspect of the right knee.
(d) A 60mm diameter yellow bruise on the upper aspect of the right shin.
(e) A 10mm diameter abrasion on the upper aspect of the left knee.
(f) A 40mm diameter abrasion on the lower aspect of the left knee.
(g) A 50mm diameter yellow bruise on the upper aspect of the left shin.
ACTAS records from 9 May 2024 indicate that the victim was hospitalised due to a diabetic emergency. There is no disclosure of an assault on this occasion.
ACTAS records from 27 June 2024 indicate that the victim was found at the Salvation Army store with slurred speech. The offender attended shortly afterwards. The victim made disclosures that she had not had insulin since the morning before.
(a) She disclosed that her partner is physically abusive and strangled her that morning.
(b) The ACTAS records note nil ligature marks or haematoma.
(c) The ACTAS records note that there was a previous laceration on the victim’s arm that had re-opened with some minor bleeding.

Arrest of the offender

Constables McCann and Anderson attended the offender’s mother’s premises in [redacted] later that day. She denied that the offender was home and said that she did not recall any incident between her son and the victim.
Constables McCann and Anderson attended Ms G’s premises in [redacted]. Ms G and an unidentified male opened the door. Ms G stated that the offender had been there recently. In response to questioning by police, she said “nothing happened” and then asked if “this was about [redacted]” (the victim).
The offender presented at the door a short time later, wearing the same blue shirt that was seen on the CCTV footage from the Salvation Army. He was placed under arrest and cautioned immediately.

Utterances made by the offender

Upon his arrest, the offender said that he could not be arrested if he had not done anything wrong. The offender said “it’s going to be from that thing with [the victim], that’s what it’s from.” He was cautioned immediately again.
Constable McCann read the offender his rights and offered him the opportunity to speak to a lawyer before making any statement. The offender made further spontaneous utterances, not in response to any formal questioning by police. As captured on BWC, he said:
(a) “And why do you think she is not here? Cause this is my daughters house, and that’s why I kicked her out”
(b) “She went to hospital because of her inju – because of her diabetes, we all told her to go to hospital, she’s been spewing out, I said don’t do this at daughter’s house, I said fuck off, come back when you’re not sick, when you’re back at the hospital”.
(c) “They’re saying they’ve got evidence because of what [the victim] said because of domestic violence, I’m trying to explain that’s why she’s not here.”
(d) “This is not her house…all her money goes on drugs.”
Ms G stated that she wanted to give a statement about the matter. On 5 July 2024, she failed to attend a scheduled interview with the Informant. On 12 August, the Informant contacted Ms G and she advised that she did not want to provide a statement nor did she know anything of what happened.

Nature and circumstances of the offending

The maximum penalties provided for by the legislature serve as an indication of the relative seriousness of the offences. The maximum penalties in this matter reflect the community’s intolerance for violent offending committed in the context of domestic relationships. An assessment of the nature and circumstances of the offending requires consideration of the objective seriousness of the conduct establishing the offence. An assessment of where the offending falls on the spectrum, from the least serious example of the offence to the most serious example of the offence, is an important consideration. I have identified the following features of the offending conduct which inform the objective seriousness.

CC2024/6712: aggravated choke/suffocate/strange (FV)

The observations of McWilliam and Abraham JJ in Director of Public Prosecutions v Padreny [2024] ACTCA 4 at [131] are instructive:
For this offence, without being exhaustive, the following have been referred to: (1) the length of time during which the “choking” persisted; (2) the amount of force used; (3) whether the victim’s breathing was restricted; (4) whether verbal threats were made at the time of the choking; (5) whether the victim sustained any injuries; (6) whether any aides like rope or cable were used; (7) the vulnerabilities of the victim; (8) whether the conduct was deliberate and sustained, designed to threaten and inflict harm; and (9) whether the conduct occurred in a family violence context: see for example, R v Bonfield [2021] ACTSC 362 (Bonfield) at [68]-[69]; DPP v Linsley [2023] ACTSC 255 at [12]; and DPP v Rohrlach [2023] ACTSC 166 (Rohrlach). These features are not to be treated as a checklist.
The offending in this instance lasted approximately 5 seconds. The offender used one hand to strangle the victim from the front of her neck and prevented her from leaving the room to seek assistance. The offender was intoxicated. The victim described feeling ‘8’ on a scale of pain between 1 to 10. The offender released the victim when he became aware that she could not breathe. The offending was immediately followed by verbal threats. The offender told the victim that he would never really hurt her, though followed this by stating that the only way he would get “rid” of her, would be if she died. The offending was not planned or premeditated, nor did it involve the use of any weapon or aid, however it was deliberate and inflicted harm on the victim.
The offender submitted that the offence was “well below the midrange” of objective seriousness noting that:
(a) The offending conduct was limited to approximately 5 seconds;
(b) The offending was spontaneous and not pre-meditated; and
(c) The offender released the victim once he realised that she could not breath.
In my view, the features of the offence see it properly characterised as a serious example of the offence. It was offending which caused the victim to be unable to breathe. It was conduct designed to communicate to her the power of the offender and the lengths to which he was prepared to go in order to control her: see Murphy v The King [2025] ACTCA 10 at [140].

CC2024/6713: aggravated intentional threat to kill (FV)

In DPP v Jewell [2023] ACTSC 348 (an appeal by the offender was dismissed, Jewell v DPP [2024] ACTCA 30) McWilliam J usefully noted the following factors which various authorities have included as relevant to an assessment of the offence at [41]:
(a) If the threat is made in person or not;
(b) The subjective fear engendered in a victim by the threat;
(c) Any use of drugs by the offender at the time the threat is made;
(d) The nature and seriousness of the threat;
(e) If the offender has a weapon at the time of the threat;
(f) If the threat is capable of immediate realisation; and
(g) Any premeditation on behalf of the offender.
The offender conceded that the level of force involved and the statement by the offender that he was going to “squeeze every little bit of air out of her” and other words used by the offender to the effect that he was going to kill her, are of some significance. The offending included a physical act by the offender to give effect to the verbal threat. The threat was made in person, and although not premeditated or long in duration, was capable of immediate realisation given it was accompanied by the act of exerting significant force to physically squeeze the victim. The degree of force used caused the victim to fear that her rib had been cracked and she complained of chest pain to her grandmother in the days after.
To the extent that a submission was advanced that the victim had provoked the conduct, it ought to be soundly rejected. The victim asked the offender what he would like for dinner. On any rational, reasonable view of the circumstances the victim’s enquiry takes on no significance. Indeed, the offender’s response to a benign question intended to accommodate him demonstrates the irrational, explosive nature of his response.
The features of the offence see it properly characterised as a serious example.

CC2024/6715: aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm (FV)

The objective seriousness of this offence is to be assessed by reference to the degree of violence, the circumstances surrounding the offending, the nature of the injury sustained, and extent of harm suffered as a result.
The offence is a “rolled up” charge which captured a number of acts by the offender, the effect of which is an offence with a greater degree of criminality than one which captures a single act.
The victim was unwell at the time of the offending; a matter which was known to the offender. As a result, she was vulnerable and attempting to seek emergency assistance due to her deteriorating state because of her diabetes and lack of insulin. The offender was verbally abusive and made threats to kill the victim while he used one hand to strangle her around her throat. This lasted 5 to 10 seconds. The victim attempted to remove the offender’s hand from her throat. Following this, the offender punched the victim in the face, refused her entry back into the house and tackled her to the ground. The victim suffered bruising and six abrasions ranging between 10mm – 60mm in size on her knees and shins, as well as an abrasion on the palm of her right hand. The conduct was intentional.
I accept that the injuries suffered by the victim were not especially serious. The conduct revealed a desire by the offender to control and isolate the victim through fear, physical power and intimidation when she was acutely vulnerable. Notwithstanding the minor nature of the injuries, it is properly characterised as a serious example of the offence.

Subjective circumstances

An intensive corrections order assessment report (ICOAR) and pre-sentence report (PSR) was prepared. That material comprehensively recorded the offenders background history and personal circumstances as follows.
The offender is 32 years old and was born in Canberra. He was raised by his parents alongside his three siblings. His parents separated when he was young, and he has additional siblings from relationships his parents entered with new partners. The offender’s father is deceased, and the offender indicated he does not have many positive memories of him. He reported witnessing alcohol and drug abuse from his father, as well as domestic violence perpetrated by his father against his mother. He has a positive relationship with his mother, who is terminally ill and receiving full time care. The offender would reside with her if released on an intensive corrections order (ICO).
The offender reported he is single following separation from his ex-partner who is the victim in this matter. The author noted that records indicated that in August 2023 the offender was expecting his first child with the victim, however he claimed that she had fabricated that pregnancy. The offender was informed whilst on remand that a child he considered to be his from a previous relationship was not biologically connected to him, which he reported caused him significant emotional distress and led to him using methamphetamine.
The offender indicated he maintained connections with the Aboriginal community, including through Winnunga Nimmityjah Aboriginal Health and Community Services and the Cultural Services Team at the Alexander Maconochie Centre (AMC).
The offender did not complete mainstream schooling and referred to early experiences of attending school whilst intoxicated and being frequently involved in physical altercations. The offender reported he has never held consistent full-time employment and attributed this to having spent majority of his adult life in custody. Whilst at the AMC, the offender has held various employment positions such as kitchen hand and was recently appointed second in charge of the sweepers at his accommodation unit.
The offender reported no significant concerns with respect to his finances and intended to apply for a disability support pension. The author also noted that the offender, when in the community, mainly associates with people involved in anti-social behaviour.
The offender reported a history of problematic alcohol consumption and illicit substance dependency. The offender first began consuming alcohol at 8 years of age and drank large quantities daily until he was approximately 16 years of age. He was diagnosed with pancreatitis and reported he has since been abstinent from alcohol. The author noted that this claim was at odds with the facts of this matter which recorded that the offender was drinking alcohol and holding a bottle of alcohol.
The offender reported a significant history of illicit substance use commencing from 11 years of age. He first commenced using cannabis, escalating to daily heroin use and methamphetamine use. The offender stated that he would use whichever substance he could acquire, though cannabis and heroin were his drugs of choice. Prior to being remanded in custody in June 2024, the offender reported he had been abstinent from illicit substance use for approximately three years which he attributed to a sense of responsibility and commitment to being a father.
The author of these reports noted that on the offenders most recent community-based supervision dated 14 September 2023 there had been several circumstances where drug use had been disclosed, or where the offender had returned positive test results. The author expressed concern that the offender had failed to recount his history of illicit substance use accurately and concern that he had not engaged with drug related support services available to him whilst in custody. The author did note to the offender’s credit that he had sought assistance through his AMC Case Manager to apply for a residential rehabilitation program though was assessed as unsuitable.
The offender disclosed a history of mental health concerns including suicidal ideation. The offender reported he had been previously prescribed medication in relation to his mental health for several years however ceased use as they made him feel like a “zombie”. The offender disclosed that he had a hip and back injury as a result of a high-speed single motor vehicle collision in December 2020, where he attempted to take his own life. The offender noted that he experiences ongoing physical limitations because of this injury.
A letter from Canberra Health Services dated 6 August 2025 recorded that the offender had been seen by Custodial Mental Health Services upon induction to custody in June 2024 however was ‘disinterested’ in speaking with the team and denied any thoughts of self-harm. There was no evidence of major mental health illness recorded. Nonetheless, the service identified a history of diagnosis for borderline personality disorder (BPD), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The offender continues to be seen by the Custodial Primary Health Team for buvidal injections.
The offender was found unsuitable for an ICO.

Psychological report of Ms Edwige

Ms Edwige recorded that the offender is a Wiradjuri man through the ancestral birthrights of his mother. Ms Edwige noted the offender’s difficult upbringing, in particular his experience with his parents and their alcohol and drug use, as well as domestic violence in the home.
Ms Edwige noted that the offender was exposed to alcohol and drug use by his parents and other relatives. The offender considered that his parents substance abuse prevented them from being “present” parents and that they were unable to provide the care that he and his siblings required.
Ms Edwige extracted the following from the Bugmy Bar Book: ‘Early Exposure to Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse’ which observed:
The direct effects of early exposure to substance abuse on children may include: emotional and physical abuse and other forms of maltreatment; modelling of poor drinking and substance abusing behaviours; inadequate supervision; and separation from parents due to incarceration and hospitalisation. In turn, these factors increase the likelihood that children will themselves develop substance abuse problems, making it more probable that they will come into contact with the criminal justice system.
…
One of the major factors contributing to the development of behaviours of substance misuse was found to be an individual’s environment: ‘problematic adolescent drug use is more likely among those who are raised in extreme poverty, by sole parents, or where other family members use drugs’.
[Redacted].
Ms Edwige considered that violence in the home explained difficulties the offender’s mother had caring for her children. The offender’s older brother also physically abused him. The offender’s father left home when he was approximately 12 years of age. Ms Edwige cited the Bugmy Bar Book chapter: ‘Child Abuse and Neglect’:
Experiences of child maltreatment disrupt emotion recognition and regulation skills, which are critical for healthy relationships with peers and foundational to interpersonal relationships throughout life. These maladaptive interpersonal problems — for example, the premature sexualisation and shame that accompany sexual abuse — compromise the ability of some maltreated children to form stable friendships, which may lead to persistent relationship challenges over the life course. In this way, child maltreatment initiates a developmental cascade that disrupts social connection and other opportunities, conferring risk of mental disorders. In summary, the increased risk of multiple biological changes and psychosocial challenges in maltreated children are hypothesised to increase the risk of mental illness.
Consistent with the observation of the author of the PSR, Ms Edwige recorded a long history, commencing at a young age, of drug and alcohol use. [Redacted]. The offender has been on and off the buvidal treatment program whilst in custody but has not engaged in any drug and alcohol counselling or rehabilitation.
The offender reported to Ms Edwige that he had attempted suicide in 2020 by intentionally driving a car at 240 kilometres per hour into a brick wall. The offender sustained a ‘broken back’ from this incident and requires monthly cortisone injections.
The offender stopped taking ADHD medication when he stopped going to school. The offender also told Ms Edwige he had been previously diagnosed with anxiety, depression, PTSD and BPD which have been confirmed by other psychologists and psychiatrists throughout his periods of incarceration.
The offender reported he has never engaged in therapeutic support or counselling as he “does not trust anyone”. The offender engages in support groups with Yeddung Mura whilst in the community between 2023 and 2024.
The offender estimated that he has spent 13 years of his adult life in custody. The offender reported being advised that his children were not biologically his has had a significant impact on his wellbeing.
The offenders father passed away in 2020 and he was unable to attend his funeral as he was in custody, as a result he has been unable to grieve. Ms Edwige also recorded the offender’s mother is very sick and that the offender wants to look after her.
Ms Edwige concluded:
The offender’s developmental history showed a profoundly difficult childhood that was marred by significant childhood disadvantage. [The offender] from a young age has been exposed to multiple psychosocial stressors resulting in considerable disadvantage, that in my opinion, have impacted on his social and emotional wellbeing resulting in complex post-traumatic stress disorder, substance use disorders, a depressive disorder and borderline personality disorder. It is my opinion that these disorders have a significant impact on [the offender’s] emotional regulation, decision making and judgment.
She recommended he requires “significant” support to address his mental health issues to enhance his social and emotional wellbeing in an environment that is safe and conducive to therapeutic change. Ms Edwige anticipated that the offender would require a lengthy period of ongoing support and that he would benefit from the following:
(a) Reconnecting with his mother;
(b) Accessing services at Winnunga Aboriginal Health and Community Services such as supportive drug and alcohol counselling, psychological support and discussion with a general practitioner regarding pharmacological support for depressive/anxiety symptomatology;
(c) Accessing Yeddung Murra services such as the mentoring program, the yarning circle, and alcohol and drug support;
(d) Being referred to a culturally safe trauma informed psychologist to continue to develop skills to manage his trauma symptomatology; and
(e) Remaining on the buvidal treatment program until medically supervised to cease.

Letter under the hand of the offender’s mother

The offender’s mother acknowledged the offender’s poor childhood experience and noted the negative effect of his discovery that his child was not biologically his.
The offender’s mother detailed her significant health diagnosis, and the full time care she requires as a result. She recorded the difficulty she has caring for herself. Her full-time career has recently become unable to care for her, and the offender would be her preferred carer in the alternative.

The degree of responsibility for the offending

There is a basis to conclude that the offender is, on occasion, a poor historian. Any inaccuracy in the history he reported were largely with respect to his reliance on or abstinence from the use of drugs and/or alcohol at particular periods in his life. This capacity for inaccuracy does not undermine that which the material otherwise made plain; he had a disadvantaged childhood marred by exposure to violence, addiction, [redacted], neglect and deprivation. That background must be given “full weight” (Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 at [44]) and does not “diminish with the passage of time and repeat offending” but does not have the same “(mitigatory) relevance for all purposes of punishment”.
The effect of the offender’s childhood experience is such that he should not bear the same degree of responsibility as an offender who did not have the same negative experiences in childhood: see R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2 per Simpson J (with whom Bathurst CJ and Adamson J agreed at [69]).
The offender’s childhood experience included exposure to the kind of conduct he engaged in toward the victim. His childhood experience included physical violence as an acceptable response to conflict in the home. This does not excuse the offender’s behaviour toward the victim, but it does go some way to explaining it. Another feature of the offender’s disadvantaged childhood was exposure to drug and alcohol use at an early age. The offender commenced his own use at a time when he was not capable of making fully informed decisions.
It is difficult to disentangle the offender’s childhood experience and his mental health conditions. Based on the report of Ms Edwige, there is clearly a connection between their onset and development and the offender’s childhood experience.
Although I accept that there are countervailing considerations such as specific deterrence and protection of the community to which I will come, this is a matter where I am satisfied that the offender’s moral culpability should be reduced such that punishment and general deterrence should be moderated to some degree.

Remorse and rehabilitation

The offender has demonstrated some remorse.
Ms Edwige recorded the following statement from the offender:
If we were going to stay together. She refused. I could have gone about it in different ways. I am not justifying what happened. I am remorseful for all those actions. Should never have happened.

I accept his plea of guilty is an indication of willingness to take responsibility for his offending conduct. Remarks attributed to him in the PSR and ICOAR placed some blame for the offending on the victim’s infidelity. Counsel for the offender reiterated the offender’s acceptance of the agreed statement of facts and submitted that he did not intend by his remarks to deflect from his own responsibility.
An assessment of the offender’s prospects of rehabilitation is not straight forward. Reflective of his disadvantaged childhood, the offender has an extensive criminal history though it does not contain any serious history of family violence offending. He has had mixed success on community-based orders in the past though in more recent years did successfully complete a suspended sentence order. This was suggested to reflect his capacity for success in the community when subject to supervision which has more immediate consequences such as a return to court for any breach conduct with the prospect of a further period of full-time imprisonment. The prosecution embraced this submission.
The offender identified a regime of support available to him from First Nations support providers in the community. The detail of which I will come to further on in these remarks. Suffice it to say that the offender has available to him substantial support in the community from services expert in the provision of assistance to First Nations offenders with complex needs.
I remain guarded about the offender’s prospects of rehabilitation. His history of non-compliance and re-offending does not bode well for his chance of reform. That said, his recent success with a suspended sentence order speaks to his real potential in the right circumstances. On any view his prospect of rehabilitation would be significantly strengthened if he were to genuinely engage with service providers intended to assist him to overcome his challenges with respect to addiction and his mental wellbeing. The material before me demonstrated that offender is willing to engage in First Nations specific supports which have been confirmed as available to him in the community.

Victim impact statement

The victim in this matter did not provide a victim impact statement (‘VIS’). The absence of a VIS does not indicate anything regarding the harm suffered by the victim. From the facts of this matter, it is an inescapable conclusion that the offending would have been a terrifying and painful experience for the victim.

Pleas of guilty

The offender entered pleas of guilty to the offences in full satisfaction of the indictment following negotiation and resolution of the matter at the criminal case conference.
There is no reason to depart from the usual reduction that the timing of his pleas would attract: see Blundell v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 34 at [12]. Accordingly, I will reduce the sentence by 20 per cent in recognition of the significant utilitarian value of the pleas which included that the victim was spared participation in a criminal trial.

Criminal history

As I have already recorded the offender has an extensive criminal history which includes convictions for burglary, driving offences, theft, unlawful possession of stolen property, destroy/damage property, and obtain property by deception. The offender has a single conviction for family violence related offending, [redacted]. I infer from the outcome, being a conviction and a modest fine, that the offending was not particularly serious and it did not involve the same victim.
The offender’s criminal history limits the leniency that can be afforded to him.

Time in custody

The offender was arrested on 29 June 2024 and has remained in custody since. I will backdate the offender’s sentence accordingly.

Current sentencing practise

No sentencing outcome is a precedent, and I bear in mind that sentencing statistics and comparable cases do not define the range of available sentences nor place a cap on the upper or lower ranges of a possible sentence: Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428 at 445 [51]-[53]. The consistency pursued by having regard to sentencing practise is in the application of legal principal not numerical equivalence.
The prosecution identified the following outcomes for the following offences.

Aggravated choke/suffocate/strange (FV): DPP v Laic [2025] ACTSC 365, DPP v Howarth [2024] ACTSC 322 and DPP v Hogan [2024] ACTSC 245

In Laic, the offender placed one or both hands around the neck of the victim before pushing her around the house. The offender strangled the victim a second time against the wall. There were two counts of aggravated choke/suffocate/strangle. The offender was 35 years old, with a minimal criminal history, a positive upbringing and pleas of guilty were entered following the criminal case conference. Following the application of a discount between 15 and 20 per cent, the offender was sentenced to 11 months and 15 days of imprisonment for each offence. An intensive correction order was imposed.
In Howarth, the offender was charged with two counts of aggravated choke/suffocate/strangle as well as other offences. One count related to the offender grabbing the victim by the throat forcefully with both hands and pushing her against the wall whilst saying “[i]f it wasn’t for the kids, I would kill you and slice your throat”. The second count related to the offender pushing the victims head into a toilet bowl and flushing it, then throwing her phone into the toilet and later blocking her from taking a shower. The offender was 36 years old and had a deprived upbringing, having joined alcoholics anonymous with a recovery plan in place. Pleas of guilty were entered prior to a trial date being set. Following a 25 per cent discount, the offender was sentenced on each count to 2 years and 4 months of imprisonment for each offence which were ordered to be served concurrently.
In Hogan, the offender was charged with one count of aggravated choke/suffocate/strangle as well as other offences. The offender grabbed the victims throat in both hands and began choking her whilst she struggled to break free, applying pressure to her throat for 15 seconds stopping her from breathing. Whilst the offender choked the victim, he told her “I’m going to kill you, you fat slut, I don’t want our son”. The offender was a young man who was on conditional liberty at the time of the offending. The offender had significant trauma and a deprived upbringing. A plea of guilty was entered at the first opportunity. The sentence was reduced by 25 per cent to 18 months of imprisonment.
In DPP v Whitall [2025] ACTSC 111 the offender accused the victim of infidelity and was sentenced for aggravated choke/suffocate/strangle among other offences. The offender told the victim she was a “cheating, dog” grabbing her by the throat and squeezing her resulting in dizziness and difficulty breathing. The offender also grabbed the victim by the throat and punched her in the nose twice. The victim felt like she was going to pass out. The offender was 33 years old and had mental health difficulties as well as substance abuse issues since childhood. A plea of guilty was entered following the criminal case conference. Following a 20 per cent reduction the offender was sentenced to 28 months of imprisonment for the choking offence.

Aggravated reckless threat to kill (FV): Whitall, DPP v Hiscox (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 230 and DPP v Jewell [2023] ACTSC 348

In Whitall, the offender put a knife against the victim’s throat and said words to the effect of “[i]f it were up to me, I would put you in the back of your car and no one will know you are dead, and I can make sure no one knows where you are”. The victim could feel the knife on her throat and thought the offender was going to slit her throat at any moment. The offender’s subjective circumstances in this matter are outlined at [120]. Following an approximately 20 per cent discount for the plea of guilty, the offender was convicted and sentenced to 30 months of imprisonment.
In Hiscox, the offender assaulted the victim in his home with a wooden hockey stick. The offender showed the victim a light source stating, “you know what I am, don’t you?” and “you ever tell anybody about this and the last thing you’re gonna see is a bright light like this”. The offender was 34 years old, commenced substance use at 14 years of age and had a limited criminal history. The offender entered a plea of guilty in the Magistrates Court. Following a 25 per cent discount for his plea of guilty, the offender was sentenced to 9 months of imprisonment.
In Jewell, the offender and victim had been in a relationship for approximately two years; the offender went to the victim’s house with a large hunting knife and threatened to kick in the front door. When the victim opened the door, the offender grabbed her and pointed the knife at her, saying he was going to kill her. The victim pleaded with him to let her go and he eventually gave her the knife and told her to kill him. He left the house after an hour. The offender suffered from significant mental health issues, left school at 13 years of age and the offending was committed in breach of previous court orders. Bugmy and R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269 were applied. The offender was afforded a 25 per cent discount for the plea of guilty and was sentenced to 4 years and 6 months of imprisonment on this offence. An appeal by the offender was dismissed: see Jewell v DPP [2024] ACTCA 30.

Aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm (FV): DPP v Dunn [2025] ACTSC 8 and DPP v Williams [2024] ACTSC 303

In Dunn, the offender pushed the victim on to her back and pressed on her torso, shoulder and upper chest for approximately 45 seconds. The victim had difficulty breathing and felt as though she was going to die. The offender had a disadvantaged upbringing and commenced consuming alcohol at age 15. The offender had no criminal history and entered a plea of guilty following the case conference. Following a 15 per cent discount for his plea of guilty the offender was convicted and sentenced to 18 months of imprisonment wholly suspended upon entering into a good behaviour order for a period of 2 years.
In Williams, the offender assaulted the victim in the course of an argument. The offender had woken the victim up from her sleep and became ‘rough with her’. The offender pushed her into a wall, causing her to hit her head, followed by a course of conduct in which he sat on the victim whilst her face was pushed into the floor, causing her to lose consciousness. The offender was 38 years old and had been exposed to domestic violence in his childhood. The offender had substance dependency and a dated criminal history with convictions for family violence offending. Following a 20 per cent discount for his plea of guilty, the offender was convicted and sentenced to 1 year, 2 months and 12 days of imprisonment.

Determination

The purposes of sentencing are set out in s 7 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT). The reduction of the offender’s moral culpability moderates the weight of punishment and general deterrence to a degree. The sentence imposed must recognise the harm done to the victim, deter the offender, hold him accountable and give effect to his prospect of rehabilitation.
I have regard to those matters contained in s 34B of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act. The preamble to the Family Violence Act 2016 (ACT), a consideration of which s 34B mandates, recognises that “family violence extends beyond physical violence and may involve the exploitation of power imbalances and patterns of abuse over many years”. The offending in this instance did not extend over a protracted period but I acknowledge that it did involve the offender exploiting his physical power over the victim and her vulnerabilities. The conduct engaged in by the offender reflected his desire to emotionally, physically and psychologically control the victim including by communicating to her that he was in control of whether she would take her next breath. It is conduct unfortunately familiar to this court and indeed to courts across the country dealing with the effects, usually of men who cannot control their need to dominate and intimidate their female partners into submission. It is conduct which our community has overwhelmingly made clear that women must be protected from and cannot be tolerated to any extent in a civilised society.
As I observed in DPP v Donnelly [2025] ACTSC 411, perpetrators of family violence should be left in no doubt that the use of violence in intimate relationships is unacceptable. Consequences of such conduct can and will include being sentenced to periods of full-time imprisonment.
The offender was assessed as unsuitable for an ICO. The ICOAR author noted that although the accommodation nominated with his mother was assessed as suitable, the offender was assessed as presenting with a high risk of general re-offending which requires a high level of intervention and supervision. His primary risk factors were identified as a history of alcohol and drug abuse, mental health concerns, the nature of the offences, anti-social associations, history of poor compliance towards community-based orders, unemployment and past re-offending.
It was submitted on behalf of the offender that the appropriate sentencing outcome would be a partially suspended sentence to take into account the time he has already served and to promote his rehabilitation.
The submission that the offender is at risk of institutionalisation was not without merit. For a relatively young man the offender has spent much of his adult life incarcerated; he is undoubtedly at risk of becoming entrenched in a cycle of institutionalisation. I acknowledge that the imposition of any further periods of full-time imprisonment, will inevitably serve to further entrench that cycle.
Hardship to an offender’s family need not be exceptional before it can be considered, (see DPP v Moala (No 3) [2023] ACTSC 306 at [47]-[48] and Fares v DPP (No 2) [2025] ACTCA 2). I accept that a sentence of imprisonment will cause hardship to his mother who is very unwell and who would prefer to rely on him for care and support. The effect on the offender’s mother, as well as the risk of institutionalisation, are unfortunate consequences of the serious offending for which he must be held accountable. Those considerations cannot undermine the significance of the purposes of sentencing of significant weight in this matter.
As was conceded by the prosecutor they are matters that can properly influence a consideration of the period the offender must spend in full-time imprisonment before his release to the community.
The prosecutor also conceded that this is a matter where a non-parole period outside the ‘usual range’ would be warranted. It was in this context that the prosecutor lent support to the submission that a partially suspended sentence may be appropriate in this instance taking into account the more recent success that the offender has had complying with such an order. The prosecutor acknowledged that a suspended sentence order provides the Court with overarching supervision with respect to compliance and includes the prospect of an immediate return to full-time imprisonment for conduct in breach of the order. The prosecutor also identified the capacity for the supervision component of a suspended sentence order to extend beyond the period of imprisonment which could have the effect of promoting community safety whilst holding the offender accountable with respect to his rehabilitative progress.
On any view the offender requires a regime of support which also ensures accountability for a substantial period to effect meaningful change. That he does not have a significant criminal history for family violence offending, despite his persistent contact with the criminal justice system, strengthens to some extent his prospect for reform with the appropriate supports in place.
The offender can be supported upon his release to the community by Winnunga Nimmityjah Aboriginal Health and Community Services, Ngunnawal Bush Healing Farm (NBHF) and the Aboriginal Legal Service’s (ALS) Bail Support team. This is consistent with the plan endorsed by Ms Edwige.
All three services have recorded their support for the offender and their capacity to provide him with targeted assistance to strengthen his ability to remain in the community without risk to himself or significantly, to others. A letter of support from Winnunga Nimmityjah confirmed that the offender would be able to access a range of culturally focused programs such as a men’s support group, cooking group, anxiety and depression group, the alcohol and drug program as well as access to the full range of clinical support. An ALS Bail Support officer confirmed that their program is willing and able to support the offender to be referred to service providers as necessary with a view to devising a comprehensive plan for his transition to the community.
The offender has a confirmed place on the NBHF day program upon his release which includes daily transport and a requirement that he abstain from use of alcohol or drugs.
In addition, the offender provided correspondence from Yeddung Mura Aboriginal Corporation which confirmed his past engagement with their service and the ability for him to re-engage immediately upon his release. The letter from Yeddung Mura confirmed that they can assist the offender with practical support such as transport and provide him ongoing and substantial individualised case management which would include participation in their programs to address mental wellbeing, anger management, smart recovery and First Nations cultural connectivity.
Reflective of that material, counsel for the offender identified a regime of specific conditions which he submitted would promote the offender’s compliance, protect the community and require personal accountability from the offender. It was also submitted on the offender’s behalf, consistent with the views expressed by Ms Edwige, that his preference for engaging substantially with First Nations service providers rather than with programs offered by ACT Corrective Services is reflective of his long-term cycle of offending and realistically offers the best chance of him complying with Court orders in the community. Compliance with conditions designed to promote his rehabilitation, in turn enhances community safety.
The conditions of any suspended sentence can be crafted to ensure that the offender is subject to a substantial regime of supervision reflecting his need for extensive support whilst giving effect to the suitability of culturally appropriate services. A partially suspended sentence order will also permit the offender a certain release date in circumstances where he has accommodation with his mother and a desire to provide to her support and care which I am satisfied will enhance her quality of life.
I am to sentence the offender for multiple offences. Each offence was separate from the other and occasioned separate harm to the victim. To properly recognise the harm occasioned to the victim and to avoid the perception that multiple offences result in a discount, there should be some accumulation between the sentences imposed. The sentence must be just and appropriate and reflect the overall criminality involved.
The starting point for the charge of aggravated choke, suffocate, strangle (CC2024/6712) is 30 months of imprisonment reduced to 24 months of imprisonment in recognition of his plea of guilty.
The starting point for the charge of aggravated intentional threat to kill (CC2024/6713) is 36 months of imprisonment reduced to 2 years, 4 months and 23 days of imprisonment in recognition of his plea of guilty.
The starting point for the charge of aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm (CC2024/6715) is 36 months of imprisonment reduced to 2 years, 4 months and 23 days of imprisonment in recognition of his plea of guilty.

In view of the regime of support that is available to the offender I am satisfied that it is appropriate to suspend the sentence after he has served a substantial period on condition that he comply with a good behaviour order for a significant period which require him to meaningfully engage with rehabilitation and demonstrate his abstinence from the use of illicit substances and alcohol. Given the length of the sentence I will impose I do not consider it necessary in this instance to require the offender to be supervised beyond the period of imprisonment.

Orders

I make the following orders:
(a) On the charge of aggravated choke, suffocate, strangle (CC2024/6712) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 2 years of imprisonment to start on 29 June 2024 and end on 28 June 2026.
(b) On the charge of aggravated intentional threat to kill (CC2024/6713) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 2 years, 4 months and 23 days of imprisonment to start on 6 April 2025 and end on 28 August 2027.
(c) On the charge of aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm (CC2024/6715) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 2 years, 4 months and 23 days of imprisonment to start on 6 August 2026 and end on 28 December 2028.
(d) The total period of imprisonment imposed is 4 years and 6 months. In each case the period of imprisonment is to be suspended from 29 December 2025 on condition that the offender comply with the obligation to be of good behaviour until 28 December 2028 together with the following conditions:

(i)Accept supervision from ACT Corrective Services and comply with all reasonable directions including in relation to urinalysis, mental health assessments, treatment and care, drug and alcohol programs and education and employment.
(ii)No later than 5 January 2026 report to the Ngunnawal Bush Healing Farm Day program and commence it at the direction of Ngunnawal Bush Healing Farm staff and clinicians.
(iii)No later than 5 January 2026 report to Yeddung Mura Aboriginal Corporation and comply with all recommendations made by their staff with respect to programs and supports offered by Yeddung Mura Aboriginal Corporation.
(iv)No later than 5 January 2026 attend upon Winnunga Nimmityjah Aboriginal Health Service and comply with all recommendations made by Winnunga Nimmityjah staff and clinicians with respect to medical assessments (including mental health assessments), treatment (including prescribed medication) and care as well as with respect to participation in programs such as the anxiety and depression group session, the alcohol and drug program and any other program offered by the service.
(v)Consent to the provision of information by the Ngunnawal Bush Healing Farm, Yeddung Mura and Winnunga Nimmityjah to ACT Corrective Services in relation to his participation, attendance and compliance with their recommendations, programs and support services.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and forty-seven [147] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Justice Taylor

Associate: P Beohm

Date: 17.10.2025

[2025] ACTSC 465

16 October 2025