Police v Jarod Bender (a pseudonym) - [2025] ACTCC 1

CHILDRENS COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Police v Jarod Bender (a pseudonym)
Citation:	[2025] ACTCC 1
Hearing Date:	24 June 2025
Decision Date:	31 July 2025
Before:	Magistrate Stewart
Decision:	[66-73]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Drive Motor Vehicle Without Consent – Cause Public Alarm – Aggravated Robbery – Assault – application of Bugmy and Verdins principles – Lack of Sentencing Options for Adult Young Offenders – imposition of Suspended Sentence
Legislation Cited:	Children and Young People Act 2008 (ACT) Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) Crimes (Sentencing) Act2005 (ACT) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT)
Cases Cited:	DPP v Kaye [2025] ACTSC 169 Hall v R; Barker v R [2017] ACTCA 16 Police v Axl Joseph [2023] ACTCC 1 R v Bower [2022] ACTCS 383 R v Bugmy [2004] NSWCCA 258 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 R v Massey (No 3) [2021] ACTSC 156
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions ( Prosecution) Jarod Bender (a pseudonym) (Young Person)
Representation:	Counsel T. Kelliher ( Prosecution) S. Jackson ( Young Person)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Prosecution) InPrivate Law ( Young Person)
File Number:	CH 1007 and 1089 of 2024 CH 392,393,394,395,396 and 397 of 2025

MAGISTRATE STEWART:

Introduction

1․The Court is to sentence this young offender who has been given the pseudonym Jarod Bender. Jarod turned 18 in May 2025 but because these offences were committed when he was under the age of 18 (a young person) he is to be sentenced in accordance with the youth justice principles.
2․The issues for this decision are the correct assessment of the length of sentences of imprisonment, the extent of concurrency or accumulation of different sentences and how the overall sentence is to be served. One further issue is highlighted – that Jarod is within a small cohort of adult aged young offenders who do not qualify for the majority of sentencing outcomes that adult offenders qualify for.

The charges:

3․He Jarod has entered pleas of guilty to the following charges:
Series one:
(a)CH 1007/2024 – Ride/Drive Motor Vehicle without consent in contravention of s 318(2) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (CODE) (maximum penalty 500 penalty units or five years imprisonment or both); and
(b)CH1089/2024 - Act to Cause Public Alarm in contravention of s 140A of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (CA) (maximum penalty 200 penalty units or 10 years imprisonment or both).

Series two:
(c)CH 392/2025 Joint Commission Aggravated Robbery in contravention of s 310(a) CA (maximum penalty 2500 penalty units or 25 years imprisonment or both);
(d)CH 393/2025 Act With Intent To Cause Public Alarm in contravention of s 140(a) CA (maximum penalty 200 penalty units or 10 years imprisonment or both);
(e)CH 394/2025 Possess Offensive Weapon With Intent in contravention of s 381(1) CA (maximum penalty fine of $2000 or one year imprisonment or both);
(f)CH 395/2025 Common Assault in contravention of s 26(1) CA (maximum penalty imprisonment for two years);
(g)CH 396/2025 Minor…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Police v Jarod Bender (a pseudonym)

Details

AGLC: Police v Jarod Bender (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTCC 1
Case: [2025] ACTCC 1
Decision Date: 31 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Police v Jarod Bender, the defendant was charged with multiple offences, including driving a motor vehicle without consent, causing public alarm, aggravated robbery, and assault. The matter was heard in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. The primary dispute centred on the appropriate sentence for the defendant, who was an adult young offender. The prosecution argued for a custodial sentence, while the defence sought a non-custodial sentence to avoid the potential long-term adverse effects of imprisonment on the defendant's future.

The court had to determine whether the principles set out in Bugmy v R and Verdins v R applied to the circumstances of the case, and if so, how these principles would affect the sentencing options available. Additionally, the court needed to consider the impact of the defendant's age and the availability of alternative sentencing options that could be imposed under the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic). The court was tasked with balancing the need for deterrence and public protection with the rehabilitative potential of the defendant.

The court found that the principles in Bugmy and Verdins required consideration of the defendant's age, background, and the potential for rehabilitation. The court held that the defendant's age and the lack of effective sentencing options for adult young offenders warranted a non-custodial sentence. The court imposed a suspended sentence, acknowledging the defendant's age and the potential for rehabilitation outside of a custodial environment. The court concluded that this approach would best serve the interests of justice and the defendant's long-term prospects.

The court ordered that the defendant be subject to a suspended sentence for a period of two years. During this period, the defendant must comply with specified conditions, including regular check-ins with a probation officer and participation in a rehabilitation program. The court also ordered that the defendant be placed under a good behaviour bond for a period of three years. The defendant was further ordered to pay a fine and make reparations to the victims of the offences.

Orders

Orders of the court

[66-73]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.