DPP v Mena

Sugimatatihuna Bernard Gabriel Mena was convicted of attempted murder, aggravated burglary, and discharging a loaded arm to cause reasonable apprehension of harm, with the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory presiding over the sentencing. The attempted murder was committed with a .22 calibre firearm, and while the injuries sustained by the victim were serious, they were fortunately not fatal. The court determined that the intention to kill was not premeditated, and the attempted murder offence was in the mid-range of objective seriousness. The aggravated burglary offence, which occurred in the early hours of the morning in a residential house, was also in the mid-range of objective seriousness. Mena's subjective circumstances, including his young age, deprived background, complex mental health conditions, and criminal history, were taken into account in the sentencing process.

The court considered Mena's prospects of rehabilitation and the need for specific deterrence and protection of the community. Despite his complex circumstances, the court found that Mena had not taken responsibility for his current offending or expressed any remorse. Based on these factors, the court imposed sentences of imprisonment for each offence. The sentences were concurrent, with the exception of one year for the aggravated burglary offence. The court also imposed suspended sentences of imprisonment for breaches of good behaviour orders. The aggregate sentence of imprisonment was nine years and ten months, with a non-parole period of five years and five months, reflecting Mena's young age and potential for rehabilitation.

The court issued orders cancelling the breached good behaviour orders and imposing sentences of imprisonment for each offence, with the non-parole period commencing on 2 November 2021 and ending on 1 April 2027. The sentences were designed to provide specific deterrence, protect the community, and address Mena's need for rehabilitation and treatment of his mental health conditions.