Director of Public Prosecutions v Warner-Chilstone

[2025] ACTSC 40

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

DPP v Warner-Chilstone

Citation: 

[2025] ACTSC 40

Hearing Date: 

7 February 2025

Decision Date: 

17 February 2025

Before:

Baker J

Decision: 

See [60]

Catchwords: 

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm – alcohol fuelled violence occurring at night – offender filmed victim’s injuries for entertainment – young offender – deterrence and denunciation – sentence of imprisonment imposed

Legislation Cited: 

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 20(1)

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss s 33(1)(p), 33(1)(w), 33(1)(j), 33(1)(za)

Cases Cited: 

Armstrong v Saddler [2024] ACTSC 263

Bennett v Daley [2021] ACTSC 159.

Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 57

Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428

DPP v Ledbrook-Miller [2024] ACTSC 254

DPP v Hicks [2025] ACTSC 15

DPP v Padreny [2024] ACTCA 4

Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462

Hasan v R [2010] VSCA 352; 31 VR 28

Nguyen v The King [2024] NSWCCA 178

Hili v R [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520

Jimmy v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 60; 77 NSWLR 540

KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51; 182 A Crim R 571

R v Crawford [2019] ACTSC 8

R v Deng [2017] ACTSC 338

R v Hidic [2017] ACTSC 307

R v Kepaoa [2017] ACTSC 414

R v Kepaoa (No 2) [2018] 24

R v McBride [2017] ACTSC 102

R v Myles [2017] ACTSC 194

R v Naing [2023] ACTSC 210

R v Nicholas; R v Palmer [2019] ACTCA 36

R v Peadon [2015] ACTSC 132

R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550

R v Sharma [2016] ACTSC 180

R v Torbett [2015] ACTSC 331

Parties: 

Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown)

Dylan Warner-Chilstone ( Offender)

Representation: 

Counsel

D Armstrong ( Crown)

P Edmonds ( Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown)

Paul Edmonds & Associates ( Offender)

File Numbers:

SCC 217, 218 of 2024

BAKER J:      

Introduction

1․Dylan Warner-Chilstone, the offender, has pleaded guilty to one count of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm pursuant to s 20(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT).

2․The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for 13 years.

The offending

3․In the early hours of the morning of 28 October 2023, the victim and his four friends (two females and two males) were standing outside McDonald’s at East Row in Civic. They had just finished a meal together and were preparing to get Ubers home.

4․At the same time, a separate group consisting of the offender, and three of his male friends walked past McDonald’s. Neither group knew each other.

5․The victim was standing slightly apart from the rest of his group. He felt something hit him on the back of the head. He turned and saw the offender’s group. He asked “What was that for?”. One of the offender’s friends, Mr Kuot Kuol, then began calling the victim derogative names. The victim said “you’re only acting like this because you’re in front of your friends”. After the victim said this, Mr Kuol walked up to the victim and slapped or punched him across his right cheek, causing the victim’s sunglasses to come off his hat, which was on his head.

6․The victim was shocked and confused. He went to retrieve his sunglasses from where they had fallen and started to walk away. The other members of the offender’s group laughed and smiled. Mr Kuol walked away, but continued to “cuss [the victim] out”. As Mr Kuol was walking away, he was looking at the victim, and walked into a pole. The victim laughed.

7․Mr Kuol then returned to the victim and aggressively said “come on, come on, let’s fight then. Let’s fight”. The victim backed away as Mr Kuol approached. The victim held up his hands and said “I don’t wanna fight”. Mr Kuol then began to punch the victim repeatedly to the left side of his head, using his right hand with “haymakers” (which I understand to be out of control, wide-swinging punches). While this occurred, the offender filmed the interaction on his phone.

8․After a number of punches, one of the victim’s friends attempted to restrain Mr Kuol by grabbing him from behind. The friend was unsuccessful and Mr Kuol then punched the victim’s friend several times in the head. Mr Kuol then turned to another friend of the victim and attempted to punch him. The victim’s friend dodged the punch, falling over in the process.

9․Shortly after this, Mr Kuol stumbled backwards into the victim, who then grabbed Mr Kuol by the back of his collar and threw him to the ground.

10․The victim started walking way after throwing Mr Kuol to the ground. Within seconds, the offender ran up behind the victim and, just as the victim turned to face the offender, the offender punched the victim in the left-hand side of his face with a right hook of significant force, causing the victim’s head to snap back.

11․The victim then ran away across East Row in the direction of the Mooseheads nightclub. The offender and one of his friends pursued the victim.

12․The victim ran onto the footpath on the opposite side of East Row to McDonald’s and attempted to weave in between people to escape his pursuers. At one point, the victim tripped over a homeless person’s swag, landing on the swag and some plastic bottles. While on the ground, the offender beat the victim, either with hits or punches, or a combination of both.

13․When the assault stopped, the victim got to his feet and heard someone to his left say “look at me”. The victim believed that someone was attempting to help him, but as he turned, he saw it was the offender, holding a mobile phone to his face, either taking a photo or recording a video.

14․The offender then ran, laughing, back across East Row to rejoin his group of friends who were standing in a group. The offender and his friends then walked away from McDonald’s toward Garema Place. As they walked, the offender showed one of his friends his phone. As the offender’s group walked past King O’Malley’s Pub, the offender and Mr Kuol were miming punches to each other.

15․Meanwhile, the victim’s friends came to the victim’s aid. One of the victim’s friends saw that the victim had a large amount of blood coming from his mouth, nose and laceration on his right eyebrow. The victim’s vision was blurry and he could not focus his eyes properly. His left eye was starting to swell and close. There was a cut on his eye that was bleeding and his nose was also bleeding. The victim’s friend helped him walk to the car park across from Mooseheads, where paramedics attended to him. The victim  was eventually conveyed to the Canberra Hospital by ambulance.

16․The victim suffered the following injuries as a result of the assault committed upon him by the offender:

(i)fractures of the left maxillary sinus, left zygomatic and left maxillary bones;

(ii)lacerations of the left eyebrow and lower lip;

(iii)left periorbital and facial haematoma;

(iv)fracture of the left scaphoid bone;

(v)abrasions of the proximal left palm;

(vi)abrasions to the forearm.

17․As a result of these injuries the victim suffers from the following:

(i)sensory deficit in distribution of the left maxillary nerve (infraorbital branch). The victim’s specialist is unable to say whether this altered sensation is temporary or permanent;

(ii)weakness of the buccal branch of the left facial nerve, demonstrated by inability to maintain a lip seal;

(iii)flattening of the left cheek (malar prominence) where there was cosmetic flattening of the cheek.

18․The lacerations to the victim’s eyebrow and lip have resulted in permanent scarring. The flattening of the cheekbones on the left side of the victim’s head may result in permanently altered cosmesis. The victim may have permanent and long-lasting sequelae from his injuries, including the possibility of ongoing alterations to the sensory or muscular function in the infraorbital and buccal nerves respectively.

Victim impact statement

19․In his victim impact statement, the victim described the effect of the assault upon him. The victim described how following the incident, he could not eat or shower himself, nor take a single breath without experiencing significant pain. The victim said that he has had numerous medical and physiotherapy appointments to try to recover physically.

20․The victim explained that his face is permanently scarred, and his facial bone structure has been permanently damaged as a result of the assault. The victim described his facial scarring as a “constant reminder” of the assault. The victim also suffers from nerve damage on the left side of his face, as well as severe jaw clicking, which continues to cause him pain.

21․The victim has also suffered emotionally and financially as a result of the offending. The victim continues to have nightmares following the assault. He has not been out socially with his friends since the assault. He feels extremely anxious around large crowds, and is consciously looking around him.

22․The victim explained that his injuries, including the facial fractures and his broken wrist, as well as psychological trauma, have prevented him from attending university classes and work, while he was still required to pay rent, groceries and other bills. The victim explained that he continues to suffer “both physically and mentally whilst also trying to recover financially”.

The offender’s background

23․The offender is one of seven children. The offender has an older brother who is autistic. A younger sister passed away when the offender was five years old.

24․The offender’s parents separated in 2016. He had a difficult upbringing, as both his parents were addicted to alcohol and other illicit substances. The offender’s father was both verbally and physically abusive to him. In a letter to the Court, the offender’s mother confirmed that the offender “copp[ed] the brunt of his father’s abuse from a young age”. At age 13, the offender and his siblings began living with their paternal grandmother.

25․Mr Edmonds, who appeared for the offender, did not submit that the offender’s background was such as to mitigate the offender’s moral culpability for his offending; cf Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571. I will however, take into account the offender’s background as part of his subjective case.

26․The offender has had little contact with his father since his parents’ separation. However, the offender has a very close relationship with his mother, who has been clean of drug and alcohol use for two years. In her letter of support, the offender’s mother spoke of how the offender supported her through her sobriety. The offender has been in a relationship with his girlfriend for the past five years.

27․The offender completed year 11. Since year 11, he worked briefly as a carpentry apprentice and later worked as a casual removalist. He was unemployed between February 2024 and 6 January 2025, when he then commenced employment with a commercial aircon and sheet metal fabrication company. A letter dated 29 January 2025 from the offender’s employer confirms that the offender is presently employed full-time, and describes him as a “fast and efficient worker”.

28․The offender told the author of the pre-sentence report (PSR) that he has never used illicit substances. He admitted that alcohol had previously been an issue for him, and that he had fallen into a cycle of binge drinking, consuming large quantities of alcohol on weekends. He said that he is not consumed any alcohol since a week after the offence was committed.

29․The offender does not have a prior criminal history. The offender has also been charged with an offence of common assault in New South Wales. I was informed by the offender’s counsel that the offender intends to plead guilty to this offence. He has not yet been sentenced for this offending in New South Wales.

30․Letters from the offender’s mother and an education officer from the offender’s school each describe the present offending as out of character.

Sentencing considerations

Intoxication (s 33(1)(p) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT))

31․The offender was affected by alcohol at the time of the offending. There is no suggestion that this consumption was anything other than self-induced. The offender’s intoxication does not mitigate the offender’s culpability for the offence: R v Naing [2023] ACTSC 210 at [41] citing Hasan v R [2010] VSCA 352; 31 VR 28 at [20]–[34]; R v Sharma [2016] ACTSC 180 at [19]; Bennett v Daley [2021] ACTSC 159.

Remorse (Sentencing Act s 33(1)(w))

32․In his interview with the PSR author, the offender disputed some aspects of the statement of facts. However, he also said that due to his level of intoxication, he might not remember everything that had occurred. The offender said that he did not remember punching the victim after he chased him, and suggested that the injuries to the victim’s face may have occurred when the victim tripped over the gutter and fell.

33․The offender also claimed that he had not been filming the victim and said that he had been face timing his girlfriend. I note that Mr Edmonds, who appeared for the offender, informed the Court that the offender now accepts that he was filming the victim, as is set out in the Statement of Facts. By his plea, and in the agreed Statement of Facts, the offender also agrees that he caused the victim’s injuries. The offender told the author of the PSR that he does not believe he would have acted in this way had he not been intoxicated.

34․The author of the PSR reported that the offender “appeared remorseful”. The author also said that the offender displayed some insight into his offending, noting that the offender had actively taken steps to remove himself from antisocial associates and that he continued to abstain from alcohol. The offender’s mother and his former education officer also spoke of the offender’s remorse. They each described the offending as out of character.

35․On the basis of the PSR and the letters provided, I accept that the offender has shown some remorse for his actions. However, in circumstances where the offender was continuing to attempt to minimise his involvement in the offending as late as his interview with the PSR author, I consider that this remorse is limited.

Plea of guilty (Sentencing Act s 33(1)(j))

36․The offender entered a plea of guilty after the Criminal Case Conference. In accordance with the decisions of the Court of Appeal in DPP v Padreny [2024] ACTCA 4 at [69] –[74], citing R v Nicholas; R v Palmer [2019] ACTCA 36 at [49] – [53] I will afford the offender a 20% reduction of the sentence to be imposed to reflect the utilitarian value of this plea.

Current Sentencing patterns (Sentencing Act s 33(1)(za))

37․Annexed to this judgment is a table of sentences imposed in this jurisdiction for offences of reckless infliction of grievous bodily harm.

38․I have carefully considered the sentences imposed in these decisions, as required by s 33(1)(za) of the Sentencing Act. However, in doing so, I have also borne in mind that these cases illustrate, but do not define, the possible range of sentences available, and that sentencing practice cannot cap the upper nor lower ranges of a possible sentence: R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550 at 560 [29]; Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428 at [51]–[53]. The function of comparative cases is not to pursue strict mathematical equivalence as between sentencing outcomes for the same offence, but rather to ensure consistency in the application of relevant principles: Hili v R [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520.

39․Importantly, as will be discussed further below, in my view, the offending in the present case was more serious than the offending considered in the majority of these cases. Specifically, the present case is unusual, because the offending was prolonged, the offender pursued the victim after striking the initial blow, and because the offender did not show any immediate remorse, but rather engaged in conduct (filming of the victim’s injuries) which demonstrated that he considered the assault to be a form of entertainment for himself and others. The consistent application of principle must take into account these differences between the offender’s culpability and the culpability of the offenders considered in the comparative cases.

Parity

40․Mr Kuol was charged with two counts of common assault and one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Mr Kuol pleaded guilty to all counts and was sentenced in the Magistrates Court.

41․The first charge of common assault related to the same victim as the charges against the offender. For this charge, Mr Kuol was convicted and sentenced to a three-week term of imprisonment, which was fully suspended upon him entering into a 12-month good behaviour order (GBO). Mr Kuol received a 12-month GBO and a 6-week term of imprisonment suspended upon entering into a GBO for the second common assault charge and the assault occasioning actual bodily harm charge respectively.

42․I accept that parity principles apply: see Jimmy v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 60; 77 NSWLR 540, discussed in Nguyen v The King [2024] NSWCCA 178 at [73] – [76]. However, Mr Kuol’s offending was significantly less serious than the offender’s, as reflected by the much less serious charges with which he was sentenced in comparison to the offender. In these circumstances, the sentences imposed on Mr Kuol do not shed much light on the proper sentence to be imposed on the offender: Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462 at [30].

Determination

43․Numerous authorities of this Court have recognised the grave concern of the community toward the prevalence of alcohol fuelled violence on public streets at night.

44․In R v Myles [2017] ACTSC 194, Murrell CJ observed (at [32]) that:

The community is gravely concerned about the prevalence of alcohol fuelled ‘one punch’ attacks by young men. Such attacks may devastate the lives of victims, and they impact on the ability of other young people to confidently enjoy public socialising. The sentencing purpose of general deterrence must be clearly reflected in the sentence that is imposed.

45․In R v Kepaoa [2017] ACTSC 414, Mossop J observed (at [41]) that:

Clearly, these kinds of drunken attacks by young men are a matter of considerable community concern and have the potential to cause extremely serious harm to the victims. A sentencing purpose of general deterrence must be clearly reflected in the sentence that is imposed… Punishment, accountability, denunciation and the recognition of the harm to the victim are also sentencing purposes that are important in this case. Clearly, the court must recognise the harm to the community that arises from this kind of behaviour.

46․Similarly, in Sharma, Elkaim J said (at [34]):

The courts must emphasise to young people that the consumption of large amounts of alcohol, or drugs, that places them in situations where they act with reckless indifference towards other persons and cause very severe injuries is entirely inappropriate. As has tragically been seen around Australia, the tragedy can include the death of the victim.

47․These comments apply with particular force in the present case. The present offending is more serious than the offending involved in many ‘one punch’ assaults. This was not a case where an offender, affected by alcohol, lashed out at a victim in a ‘thoughtless moment’, and immediately regretted his actions; cf DPP vHicks [2025] ACTSC 15 at [20] (where the offender, after wounding the victim, held the victim in his arms, cried out for help and said “I’m so sorry bro”). In the present case, the offender, after having filmed an assault committed by a co-offender, then punched the victim’s head with force, before pursuing the victim and continuing his assault. When the offender saw the victim’s facial injuries up close, he did not attempt to summon assistance, but instead filmed the victim’s injuries, before running, laughing, to join his friends.

48․The injuries that were sustained by the victim are serious. As the prosecutor submitted, the victim’s injuries involved separate injuries inflicted over multiple planes of the body, which required significant medical intervention. The victim sustained various fractures to his face and to his hand. These injuries have had a permanent impact upon the victim. The victim has sustained permanent scarring. The location of that scarring, on the victim’s face, will be a constant and visible reminder to the victim of the attack upon him. The victim’s sensory experiences to his face and hand continue to be affected. There is a possibility that the victim’s reduced sensory perception will be permanent. The emotional sequalae must also be recognised. The victim has nightmares and has withdrawn socially following the assault.

49․The offender’s motivation for the offending does not operate by way of mitigation. Having viewed the CCTV footage of part of the assault, I am satisfied that the offender’s actions were in retribution for the victim having pushed the offender’s friend. The offender acted at a time when the victim was attempting to distance himself from the offender’s friend. As I have already noted, immediately following the offending, the offender filmed the victim’s injuries, and walked away with his friends, laughing and miming the assault that had just occurred.

50․Mr Edmonds, who appeared for the offender submitted that I should find that the objective seriousness of the offending is “just below the mid-range”. I have elsewhere observed that a finding of objective seriousness by reference to a range is not required: Armstrong v Saddler [2024] ACTSC 263 at [47]; DPP v Ledbrook-Miller [2024] ACTSC 254 at [33].

51․If it were necessary to make a finding of objective seriousness on a scale, I would not accept that the objective seriousness of the present offending is below mid-range in the present case. The injuries inflicted, whilst not the most serious that are encompassed by the description “grievous bodily harm”, are also not the least serious encompassed by this offence. The assault was not planned, and no weapons were used. However, the prolonged nature of the attack is a matter that operates by way of aggravation. The offender pursued the victim whilst the victim was attempting to retreat and to remove himself from the situation. At the point that the victim attempted to flee, the offender had an opportunity to desist from further offending, but did not do so. If required, I would assess the objective seriousness of the offending as being at least mid-range.

52․In making an assessment of the objective seriousness of the offending, I have not taken into account the offender’s conduct in filming Mr Kuol’s assault, or the offender’s conduct in filming the victim’s injuries after the offender’s assault, as this filming did not occur during the offending itself. However, the offender’s conduct in filming before and after the assault is relevant more generally to the determination of the proper sentence to be imposed, particularly as it demonstrates a broader lack of remorse and an attitude to the offending at the time which heightens the need for denunciation and deterrence (both general and specific).

53․Mr Edmonds properly conceded that the s 10 threshold is crossed. No sentence other than imprisonment can meet the need for general and specific deterrence, denunciation, and recognition of the harm caused to the victim and the public.

54․Mr Edmonds submitted that the purposes of sentencing could, however, be met by a form of sentence that permitted the offender to serve this sentence in the community. The offender has not been assessed for an Intensive Correction Order, as he currently resides in New South Wales. However, Mr Edmonds submitted that the purposes of sentencing could be met by a fully suspended sentence, a deferred sentence or Griffiths remand.

55․I do not agree. For the reasons I have already outlined, the offending in the present case was callous. The offending resulted in the infliction of serious injuries on the victim, both of a psychological and physical character. The offender treated the assault, and the victim’s injuries as a form of entertainment.

56․A sentence must be imposed that denounces this conduct in unequivocal terms. The sentence to be imposed must also deter the offender, and other young people, from engaging in like behaviour. Finally, the sentence to be imposed must recognise the harm that has been occasioned to the victim, and to the broader community by the offender’s conduct. Any sentence other than full time imprisonment would not be sufficient to meet these purposes.

57․I have taken into account the offender’s youth: s 33(1)(m) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 1999 (ACT). It is well recognised that the need for rehabilitation is heightened when sentencing a young person such as the offender: KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51; 182 A Crim R 571 at [22] – [23]. Although the charge of common assault gives rise to some concerns, I find that the offender has reasonable prospects of rehabilitation, particularly in view of his strong family support and the offender’s decision to abstain from alcohol following the incident. I also accept that the offender will find custody more difficult because of his youth: s 33(1)(r) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act. However, I do not consider that the matters outweighs the countervailing considerations to which I have referred at [55] – [56] above. The facilitation of the offender’s rehabilitation will nonetheless, be a significant factor in determining the ratio between the parole and non-parole periods that I will impose. I have also taken into account the offender’s youth in considering the hardship of this sentence of imprisonment.

58․Taking into account each of the matters addressed above, the appropriate sentence to be imposed is one of full-time imprisonment for a period of 26 months. After applying the 20% reduction for the offender’s guilty plea, the sentence to be imposed will be imprisonment for one year, eight months and 24 days. A non-parole period of 12 imprisonment will also be imposed.

59․The offender has served one day of pre-sentence custody. The sentence to be imposed will be backdated by one day to take this pre-sentence custody into account.

Orders

60․For those reasons the following orders are made:

(a)The offender is convicted of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm (CAN11759/2023) and sentenced to a period of imprisonment for 1 year, 8 months and 24 days, to expire on 8 November 2026.

(b)A non-parole period of 12 months will be imposed. This non-parole period will expire on 15 February 2026.

I certify that the preceding sixty [60] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Justice Baker

Associate: A McKay

Date: 18/02/2025

ANNEXURE A – TABLE OF COMPARATIVE CASES

Objective Circumstances	Subjective Circumstances	Sentence imposed
DPP v Hicks [2025] ACTSC 15 (McWilliam J)	Single charge of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm. Offender swung knife at the victim, causing 5cm and 10cm lacerations to his face. Wound repaired with stitches, steristrips and antibiotic ointment.	Offender expressed immediate remorse after incident. Offender had criminal history of property damage offences, weapons related convictions and attempted aggravated robbery. Offender had background of drug use. Bugmy and Verdins principles relevant to sentence.	Following discount of 25% for guilty plea, offender sentenced to 1 year and 7 months imprisonment, to be served by way of ICO.
R v Crawford [2019] ACTSC 8 (Elkaim J)	Single charge of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm. During an altercation, the offender hit the victim on the left side of his face with a glass cup. The victim suffered permanent damage to his eyesight from a ruptured globe and leakage of the vitreous gel from within his eye. The victim may never regain full vision and has required further surgery.	Offender is of Indigenous heritage and had background of substance abuse. Offender expressed remorse for her actions and had no criminal record.	Following discount of 25% for guilty plea, offender sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, wholly suspended upon entering into a GBO.
R v Hidic [2017] ACTSC 307 (Murrell CJ)	Single charge of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm. Occurred in the context of a sporting event. Victim suffered sunken eye socket, three chipped teeth, bruising, 4cm laceration to the cheekbone.	Offender was 21 years old at the time of offence and had no criminal history at the time of sentence. The offender accepted responsibility for his actions and later demonstrated some remorse.	2 years and 7 months imprisonment served by way of ICO.  Offender ordered to serve 300 hours of community service and pay reparation of $13,650.20.
R v Myles [2017] ACTSC 194 (Murrell CJ)	Single charge of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm. Offending involved one punch attack during which the offender was heavily intoxicated. Victim suffered a fractured jaw in two places and required screws and plates to be inserted. Victim could not work for six weeks nor consume solid food and suffered psychological impacts.	Offender expressed desire to engage in restorative justice. The offender was 23 years old at the time of the offence and had no significant criminal history. The offender had reported issues with alcohol and illicit substances.	After 25% discount following guilty plea, offender sentenced to one year and 10 months imprisonment served by way of ICO. Offender ordered to serve 249 hours of community service within 12 months.
R v Deng [2017] ACTSC 338 (Mossop J)	Single charge of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm. Offending involved one punch attack which caused significant injury to the victim’s jaw, requiring pins and plates in surgery.	The offender had no relevant criminal history and demonstrated insight into his offending and expressed remorse. The offender was 22 years of age when he was sentenced.	The offender was sentenced to a period of imprisonment for 16 months, reduced to 12 months to take into account the early plea of guilty, to be served by way of ICO.
R v McBride [2017] ACTSC 102 (Elkaim J)	Single charge of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm. Offender breached three suspended sentence imposed in the Magistrates Court. Offender stabbed victim in the stomach with a steak knife. Victim suffered a collapsed lung and spent 24 hours in the ICU.	Offender had a significant criminal history and was considered to be a high risk of reoffending. Offender also had history of drug use and diagnoses of borderline personality disorder.	Offender sentenced to a term of imprisonment for three years, following reduction of 20% for guilty plea. A non parole period of 1 year, 7 months and 30 days was set.
R v Kepaoa [2017] ACTSC 414; R v Kepaoa (No 2) [2018] 24 (Mossop J)	Charge of recklessly infecting grievous bodily harm and transfer charge of common assault. Offender punched victim in the face twice after altercation in nightclub. Victim’s jaw was fractured requiring wire plates and screws. Common assault charge related to pushing one of the victim’s friends.	Offender was 28 years old with two children from previous relationship. Some problematic use of alcohol. Offender expressed disgust at his actions and empathy for the victim, apologising for his actions. Assessed as low risk of re-offending.	Following discount of 25% for guilty plea, a sentence of imprisonment for 22 months to be served by way of ICO was imposed, 249 hours of community service and a condition that the offender attend any programs or counselling as directed. Sentence for common assault offence was 12-month GBO.
R v Sharma [2016] ACTSC 180 (Elkaim J)	Single charge of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm. One punch attack fuelled by alcohol consumption. Victim’s jaw was fractured and required to insert a titanium plate. Victim was in hospital for four days and reported ongoing psychological impacts.	Offender was 20 years of age at the time with no criminal history. Offender demonstrated remorse and wrote a letter to the victim expressing sorrow.	Following discount of 25%, offender was sentenced to imprisonment for 27 months, suspended after a period of 9 months upon the offender entering into a good behaviour order.
R v Torbett [2015] ACTSC 331 (Robinson AJ)	Single charge of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm. Offender swung a machete at the complainant, severing a tendon in his left leg and cutting into the bone.	Offender was 36 at time of offending. Reported physical abuse from his step-father on a daily basis for 10 years. Left school at aged 14 and reported substance abuse and mental health issues.	Following application of a 25% discount, the offender was sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years and 3 months, with a non-parole period of three years.
R v Peadon [2015] ACTSC 132 (Burns J)	Single charge of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm and two charges of burglary. Offender entered house of former partner and her boyfriend on two evenings. On the second evening, the offender picked up a knife from the premises and the victim placed his hands on the blade to protect himself.	Offender voluntarily undertook programs for anger management and alcohol abuse whilst in the AMC. Alcohol abuse played a role in the offending. Offender expressed remorse for his actions and for the victims and was considered to have good prospects of rehabilitation.	Following application of 25% discount, for charge of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm, the offender was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment, wholly suspended upon entering into a GBO.