Police v Jarod Bender (a pseudonym)
[2025] ACTCC 1
•31 July 2025
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) |
Cases Cited: | DPP v Kaye [2025] ACTSC 169 |
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 Theft in contravention of s 321 of the Code (maximum penalty 50 penalty units or six months imprisonment or both); and
(h)CH 397/2025 Ride/Drive Motor Vehicle Without Consent in contravention of s 318(2) of the Code (maximum penalty 500 penalty units or five years imprisonment or both).
It is noted that the maximum penalty that this Court can impose is two years per charge.[i]
Facts
4․Statements of Facts relating to each set of charges were tendered, and the facts therein were agreed to by both parties. The written facts were supplemented by video footage which was played and tendered during the sentencing submissions. They are summarised as follows
5․Series one relates to offences occurring on 9 August 2025. Jarod was, at that time, serving a suspended sentence for an offence of Ride/Drive Motor Vehicle Without Consent (CH 1640/2023). Between 10.30pm 8 August 2025 and 9am on 9 August 2025, a white BMW Hatchback (the BMW) and a grey SUV were reported stolen from a residence in Yarralumla. At about 1pm on 9 August 2025, the BMW was seen by police driving at excessive speeds in Symonston. Jarod, as well as two companions, were in the BMW wearing hooded jumpers and face coverings.
6․For the duration of these and proceeding events, Jarod was in the front passenger seat of the BMW. He later admitted that he was aware that the vehicle was stolen. CH 1007/24 relates to riding in the car as front seat passenger for the whole of the driving and CH 1089/2024 is a rolled up count encompassing each of the four events at Mugga Lane, Jefferies Street, Castleton Road and Calwell High School.
7․When the BMW was initially seen by police, the driver pointed his middle finger at them. Police activated lights and sirens and attempted to pull the car over. The vehicle accelerated and drove off at excessive speed. There is footage of the interior of the car at about this time in Mugga Lane. A motorcycle mounted police officer is pursuing the BMW from a safe distance. The camera pans back to Jarod who is holding and wielding an object with the obvious appearance of a black automatic pistol (the pistol). The pistol is a feature of the footage which also bears the words “fuck toric” super-imposed at the top of the screen. This would seem to be a reference to ACT Policing’s “Operation TORIC” - a task force (a fact that the Court can take judicial notice of) being tasked to stop exactly what the young people were doing – committing crimes in stolen motor vehicles.
8․Shortly afterwards, at 1.13pm, the BMW was spotted driving on the wrong side of the road near Gowrie Primary School. The BMW was driven past a parked vehicle on Jefferies Street Gowrie and the driver (not Jarod) pointed the pistol at Ms Greene who was sitting in the parked car.
9․The BMW drove past the witness out of sight onto Castleton Crescent. As the vehicle turned towards Bugden Avenue intersection, it drove past a pedestrian on the road named Ms Kemp. Jarod extended his arm from the passenger side window and pointed the pistol at Ms Kemp.
10․The BMW then approached Calwell High School. At 1.23pm it was reported at the school doing burnouts on the sports oval in the close vicinity of other students. The driver was aiming a pistol at the students
11․The BMW then sped towards three young girls sitting on the oval. They observed the front passenger (Jarod) with his arm outside the car window pointing a pistol at them. Jarod shouted at them, “Get on the ground mother fucker”. Other victims saw the driver (not Jarod) pointing the pistol out of the driver’s side window.
12․Calwell High School was placed into a lock down for a period of 2-hours.
13․The BMW left the scene and was later spotted by police on Lawrence Wacket Crescent in Theodore. An unmarked police SUV attempted to deploy tyre deflation devices. That police vehicle contained visible uniformed AFP officers. The BMW drove directly towards the police SUV and rammed into the front door resulting in (unstated) injuries to one of the officers. Jarod later admitted he was aware that this was a police vehicle. The BMW then left the scene and was found abandoned. The three male occupants proceeded to flee on foot. Jarod was arrested 260 metres away.
14․The second set of offences comprises events occurring on 27 February 2025, 1 March 2025, and 5 March 2025.
15․On 27 February 2025, Jarod was on bail for the first series but no longer serving the suspended sentence on CH 1640/2023. On that day he was with a slightly older adult female. They attended Hype DC Outlet Store at the Canberra Outlet Centre.
16․Jarod took a pair of Nike shoes out of their box and placed them in his companion’s bag. They both proceeded to exit the store without paying for the shoes.
17․They were approached by a staff member who requested the return of the shoes several times. The staff member followed them outside the store urging the item’s return. The pair were approached by a second staff member who requested the same.
18․Jarod pushed the second staff member in the chest and pulled out a large kukri-styled machete from a sheath concealed in his clothing (CH 394/2025 Possess Offensive Weapon with Intent). Jarod advanced towards the same staff member, swinging the machete (CH 2025/395 Common Assault). The second staff member began to retreat.
19․Jarod then advanced towards the first staff member and aggressively swung the machete towards her (CH 2025/392 Joint Commission Aggravated Robbery).
20․The Canberra Outlet Centre initiated lockdown procedures whilst the two offenders fled the scene.
21․On 1 March 2025, Jarod shop-lifted a Hugo boss polo shirt worth $299 from David Jones in Canberra Centre. (CH 2025/396 Minor Theft)
22․On 5 March 2025, a stolen motor vehicle was located by police. Jarod and his co accused were both inside the stolen vehicle. They were arrested and he has been in youth custody since that day. (CH 2025/397 Ride Motor Vehicle Without Consent)
Subjective Circumstances
23․Jarod holds Italian heritage and has seven half siblings. Emergency action was taken when he was aged four. Authorities removed him from his parents care due to neglect, illicit drug use and repetitive involvement with the criminal courts.[ii] He had been in four different foster placements until April 2018 and then lived in residential care until self-placing with his mother in July 2020. The pre-sentence reports (PSRs) indicate that Jarod has moved between his parent’s care, residential care and being in custody since that time.[iii]
24․Care and protection notifications commenced for Jarod prior to his birth. The PSRs speak to parental substance abuse continuing from the neo-natal stage, family violence, adverse living environments, lack of parental supervision, parental mental health issues, emotional abuse including verbal threats to him as a child and actual physical abuse to him as a child.[iv] The history paints a picture of social deprivation such that the Bugmy[v] sentencing principles are enlivened.
25․Jarod’s schooling has been sporadic and spread over multiple schools in his life. He appears to have responded positively to schooling whilst in custody and has shown an aptitude and interest in training to become a barber.[vi]
26․Jarod has the physical appearance of a fit and strong young adult. The PSR cites a 2018 psychological report prepared by Dr Davies. That report confirmed early trauma and developmental disadvantage including exposure to extreme family violence, exposure to drug use, physical and emotional neglect, sexual abuse, early language difficulty, social and emotional development difficulties, self-regulation difficulties, attachment difficulties, externalising behaviour by way of aggression, self-harm, obsessions and an inability to discern safety (or lack of safety) in adults. [vii]
27․Jarod’s diagnosis was PTSD (complex trauma), reactive attachment disorder and ADHD. A letter dated 23 April 2025 from Mental Health, Justice Health Alcohol and Drug Services was prepared for CYF. The Court was not provided with the whole letter, but an excerpt appears in one of the reports prepared for the Court:
“Master [Bender] does not have a history or evidence of a major mental illness; he has a diagnosis of ADHD. Master [Bender] was offered and declined needing (sic) mental health support, aware of self-referral pathway and closed to Custodial Mental health Service at point of induction on 6 March 2025. Master [Bender] currently and has previously declined (sic) medications for ADHD.”
28․The PSR details concern about the level of accuracy of Jarod’s disclosures on his own substance abuse.[viii] He has disclosed a ‘need’ for alcohol and consumption of MDMA, cannabis, methamphetamine and cocaine when in the community.
29․Jarod is reported to have the following level of criminogenic needs:
(a)Substance use – high;
(b)Peer associations – high;
(c)Leisure and recreation – high;
(d)Personality and behaviour – moderate;
(e)Attitudes and orientation – moderate; and
(f)Risk of general recidivism – high.
30․Significant effort was put into reports by CYF. Jarod chose not to participate in the first PSR dated 13 January 2025. He is not to be punished for that.[ix] That report was prepared for the first series only. A second report was prepared for 15 April 2025 that included participation by Jarod. That PSR included the second series. On 15 April 2025 a third (update) PSR was ordered for 24 June 2025.
31․A therapeutic correction assessment was also ordered for 24 June 2025. That report found Jarod unsuitable for such an order. It noted:
“[Jarod] has identified that he would not be willing to comply with a Therapeutic Corrections Order, he is aware of his issues with compliance and does not believe he would successfully engage with such an order.”
Pre-Sentence Custody
32․Jarod has spent a significant amount in custody prior to sentence. He was arrested for the first series of offences on 9 August 2024 and released on bail on 10 August 2024. He was then arrested for the second series on 6 March 2025 and has remained in custody since that date. The PSRs indicate respectful engagement with staff but for one assault on a staff member in 2024.[x]
Criminal History
33․Jarod is not able to be sentenced with the lenience that the Court might afford a first offender. He has a significant criminal history that includes relevant prior sentences of imprisonment for Ride/Drive Motor vehicle Without Consent (twice in 2024 and once in 2023), Common Assault in 2023, Affray in 2023, Possess Offensive Weapon With Intent in 2023 and Aggravated Robbery twice in 2023.
Insight, Remorse And Reductions For Guilty Pleas
34․Pleas of guilty were entered to the first series on 30 September 2024 - less than two months after the offending and arrest and pleas of guilty were entered to the second series on 17 March 2025 - only two weeks after arrest. These pleas are accepted by the Court as Jarod’s complete acceptance of responsibility for the offending.
35․The second PSR contains Jarod’s expressions of remorse for his offending. He conceded that he was sober for the first series of offences and that is accepted by the Court as Jarod again taking full responsibility for his offending without trying to limit or explain his culpability.[xi] He acknowledged that the schools and owner of the car would have been impacted by his offending and “I don’t know, frightened because of the firearm and lockdown”.[xii] After reflecting on his behaviour he intended to refrain from stealing cars, getting into stolen cars and changing who he “hangs around”[xiii] with.
36․The same PSR deals with Jarod’s remorse for the second series. He again accepted sober responsibility for his offending. He did note that he had been taking un-prescribed Seroquel to sleep each night and experienced negative effects when coming down from that drug. This was not considered by the Court to be offered as an attempt to erode criminal responsibility.
37․Jarod appeared to be at a loss to explain this offending. He stated that he had bought the machete that day and had the capacity to pay for what he stole. Jarod accepted the impact that his offending had on the shop workers and shoppers. He did note that there were not many shoppers at the time, but this was accepted by the Court as a statement of fact rather than an attempt to minimise the offending. He accepted that he would have inspired fear in workers and shoppers about them returning to the shops.
38․There was nothing in the PSR that suggested offender’s pride in the second series. Jarod acknowledged that the footage from the outlet centre had been reported worldwide. He expressed concern about his unblurred image being so widely associated with his offending and the likely impact it would have on his future life.
39․The Court concluded that Jarod’s level of remorse was genuine and consistent with his guilty pleas. Further, his level of insight is significant given his educational limits and own significant trauma experience.
40․Despite the strength of the prosecution cases, I formed the view that the maximum discount of 25 per cent should be applied in the circumstances. One of the key aspects of the youth justice principles is encouraging young people to accept responsibility for their criminal offending.[xiv] Applying significant discounts in response to guilty pleas would seem to be one of the obvious ways that the Court can provide such encouragement.
Victim Impact Statements
41․Three Victim Impact Statements (VIS) were tendered. They all arise from the first series.
42․Ms Greene had been attending a school assembly at Gowrie primary School. The pistol had been pointed directly at her face during the offending. She did not nominate who did so in her VIS. She reported being badly affected by the offending. At the time she did not know if the gun was real or if this was how she was going to die. She is now in a constant state of fear as a result of the offending.
43․Ms Kemp was the victim from Gowrie. She remembered that the offender holding the pistol was in the passenger seat. He pointed a gun at her. She was shocked and frightened. She has had trouble sleeping since the offending and was worried prior to the sentencing process about her VIS being tendered. The whole incident has, unsurprisingly, caused her stress and distress.
44․The third VIS was from a female young person at the Calwell High School. I will not further identify her because of her age. Her account is vivid and harrowing. The car initially came at her head on. It then slipped and slid on the grass as it passed her as someone pointed a gun directly at her and told her to get down “mother fucker”. She was terrified and was worried that she was going to die.
45․This young victim has had to state her experiences and thoughts repeatedly to the police, her school, her community and her psychologist. She remains scared, frustrated, traumatised and furious as a direct result of the offending. It has been a horrible and devastating experience for her.
Consideration
46․I make some general observations. All of this offending was gravely serious. However, it is important that the Court sets out how it comes to appraising the objective seriousness that it ascribes to offending.
47․The first series involved the use of a pistol. It is accepted that there is no proof of this object being a working or loaded firearm. It was not discharged during the offending and it was not recovered or analysed. However, there is nothing about the appearance of the pistol that indicates it was anything other than a firearm. Jarod (or the report author) referred to it as a firearm in the PSR. No objection was taken to that or any other aspect of the PSRs. Whatever it was, it was a pistol of some type – be that a firearm, replica firearm or gel blaster or something else – and it had the same effect on the victims of the offending. It was brandished with the intent of inspiring fear. I will sentence on the basis that it was not a working or loaded firearm as there is no proof of those aggravating circumstances.
48․There is an element of adoption of American gun and “gangsta” culture in this series. Like most aspects of sentencing this is a double-edged sword. First of all, there is the immaturity associated with culture replication. Secondly, there is the recognition of fear caused by the American reality of mass shootings – particularly at schools. Australians are very aware of the reality of regular mass shooting deaths at American schools and the possibility that such things may occur in Australia is not remote. The offending could never have been expected to not be taken as a deadly threat.
49․Similarly, and although it was not broached in the PSRs, the second series occurred only 10 months after the multiple stabbing murders at Westfield Bondi Junction shopping centre. That horrific event is entrenched in the memory of Australians. As a nation we are acutely aware that people can be killed at shopping centres for no reason. This added threat factor may not have been on Jarod’s mind at all – but courts can no longer assume that victims do not fear death in Bondi-like circumstances.
50․The fact that both sets of offending caused lockdowns in a school and in a shopping centre further informs the court of the objective seriousness of the offending.
51․For the first series, I will not take into account the aggravating circumstance of Jarod being subject to a suspended sentence of imprisonment as I intend to impose that sentence. This is because the suspended sentence order was breached by like and more severe offending.
52․Following R v Massey (No 3) [2021] ACTSC 156 at [29], these are the applicable considerations for measuring objective seriousness in ride/drive matters[xv] in the context of CH 1007/2024:
(a)There was a single driver and two passengers in the vehicle;
(b)The length of the driving was about 18-20 kms (not including circular driving at the school);
(c)The manner of driving included refusal to stop for police, speeding, driving on the incorrect side of the road, performing burn-outs or circle-work on school grass, driving the vehicle at school children and use of the vehicle to commit the offence of Causing Public Alarm;
(d)The vehicle was damaged to an unknown extent by driving it into a police vehicle;
(e)It can be assumed that given the vehicle was abandoned after the collision with police that it was only this intervention that stopped the driving and further offending.
(f)This offender was a front seat passenger and not a driver.
53․I choose to add some commentary to the learned decisions of the superior courts on this offence. This Court regularly deals with the offence of Ride/Drive Motor Vehicle Without Consent in the context of young offenders. The Court only ever sees a single offender involved when the offending involves the use of a motorcycle, moped or scooter. Even then a pillion passenger is sometimes involved. The very nature of young offending is that the joy is derived from sharing the experience with passengers. Absent passengers, it is highly likely that this type of offending would not occur with young people.
54․In this case Jarod was an integral part of the voyage. The pistol used in the offending was shared between him and the driver. It would seem that he recorded the Mugga Lane part of the offending. Both decamped from the abandoned vehicle. Nothing suggests that he withdrew from or did not agree to any part of the driving. There seems to be little basis to differentiate from the criminality of the driver and Jarod as the front passenger in the circumstances of this matter.
55․The Court finds that the objective seriousness of the matter was high – above the median for this type of offending.
56․The CH 1089/2024 offence of Act To Cause Public Alarm is of low prevalence. I agree with the prosecution submissions that these following factors contribute to the assessment of objective seriousness. I have added some of my own:
(a)A pistol was produced and pointed at multiple people on multiple occasions. It was accompanied by the threat and command to get on the ground. The use of a pistol makes the use of lethal force in response by police more likely;
(b)A whole school (including many individual direct victims) and two other adults were affected by the offending;
(c)The school was locked down for two hours as a result of the offending;
(d)The offending involves a rolled up count that encompasses all of the victims;
(e)The threat of driving at victims and the pointing of the firearm were both objectively and subjectively serious and deadly threats; and
(f)The impact on the victims has been profound.
57․The Court finds that the objective seriousness is somewhere just above the median level of objective seriousness. Factors that may have increased the objective seriousness might include the application of physical force, injuries caused by those fleeing the offending and actual shots being discharged.
58․For the second series, the CH 392/2025 offence of Joint Commission Aggravated Robbery has had significant attention from the superior courts. Jarod was on bail. This is an aggravating feature. The statutory aggravations of joint commission and the use of the machete are also present. These are the Henry[xvi] features of this charge:
(a)The robbery was committed by a 17 year old offender with a history of two sentences of imprisonment for the same offence type;
(b)A machete that was capable of killing or inflicting serious injury was produced and swung at a victim by the offender;
(c)The offending involved limited planning and appeared to be an on the spot decision (apart from the bringing of a machete to a shopping centre);
(d)No actual violence other than a push was used, but the obvious threat of use of the machete was made;
(e)The victim was in a vulnerable position as a shop worker;
(f)The item taken was a pair of Nike brand shoes to an unknown value; and
(g)A plea of guilty was entered in circumstances where the footage of the offending made for a very strong prosecution case.
59․The matter falls in the upper median level of objective seriousness.
60․The common assault CH 395/2025 is a non-battery assault that involved brandishing the machete. It lies in the lower mid-range of objective seriousness.
61․The CH 396/2025 theft of the shirt involved the theft of a $299 garment. The value speaks to the seriousness of the offending in circumstances where there is no sentimental or other value attached to the item.[xvii] It can be dealt with in the absence of a sentence of imprisonment.
62․The final Ride/Drive Motor Vehicle Without Consent charge (CH 397/2025) is a benign version of the offence. I agree with the prosecution assessment of the features of objective seriousness:
(a)The period of driving is unknown;
(b)No use of the vehicle to commit an offence is alleged;
(c)The young offender was the driver;
(d)Nothing about the manner of driving is alleged;
(e)There was a single adult passenger in the vehicle.
63․I accept the prosecution submission that the matter can be dealt with in a manner that does not involve imprisonment.
Parity between co-offenders
64․I sentenced the two co-offenders as follows:
(a)For the driver the relevant charges are:
i.CH 1085/2024 Drive Motor Vehicle Without Consent - three months imprisonment reduced from four months for the guilty plea[xviii];
ii.CH 1082/2024 Act To Cause Public Alarm – nine months imprisonment reduced from 12 months for the guilty plea; and
iii.CH 1017/2024 Drive Motor Vehicle At Police - 12 months imprisonment.
(b)For the rear seat passenger, the relevant charge is CH 1010/2024 Ride/Drive Motor Vehicle Without Consent. He was sentenced to 88 Days imprisonment reduced from 120 days for the guilty plea with a further two day reduction for time in custody. That sentence was wholly suspended.
65․The adult co-accused in series two is yet to be sentenced.
Sentences of the Court
66․I cancel and impose the suspended sentence of 24 days on CH 1640/2023. That sentence will be backdated (to take into account the date that Jarod was taken into custody on the second series and then backdated a further two days for the time in custody on the first series) to run from 4 March 2025 to 27 March 2025.
67․On series one convictions are recorded on each charge:
(a)On CH 1089/2024 - Act to Cause Public Alarm, I impose a sentence of nine months imprisonment reduced from 12 months on account of the guilty plea. That sentence will be backdated to run from 28 March 2025 to 27 December 2025. There is no basis for concurrency with the imposed suspended sentence as I have not taken it into account as an aggravating feature on this charge; and
(b)On CH 1007/2024 – Ride/Drive Motor Vehicle without consent, I impose a sentence of three months imprisonment reduced from four months for the guilty plea. That sentence will be partially concurrent to allow for totality and will run from 28 November 2025 to 27 February 2026.
68․On series two convictions are also recorded on each charge:
(a)On CH 392/2025 Joint Commission Aggravated Robbery, I impose a sentence of 12 months imprisonment reduced from 16 months for the guilty plea. That sentence will be concurrent as to two months with 1007/2024 to allow for totality and will run from 28 December 2025 to 27 December 2026;
(b)On CH 393/2025 Act with Intent to Cause Public Alarm, I impose a sentence of nine months reduced from 12 months on account of the guilty plea. To allow for totality that sentence will run from 28 June 2026 to 27 March 2027;
(c)On CH 394/2025 Possess Offensive Weapon I impose a sentence of rising of the Court;
(d)On CH 395/2025 Common Assault, I impose a sentence of one month imprisonment reduced from six weeks for the guilty plea (and acknowledge that this is slightly more than a 25 per cent reduction). That sentence will run from 13 March 2027 to 12 April 2027 to allow for totality;
(e)On CH 396/2025 Minor Theft, I impose a conviction and fine of $300 reduced from $400 with no time to pay; and
(f)On CH 397/2025 Ride/Drive Motor Vehicle Without Consent I impose a conviction and a fine of $1500 reduced from $2000 with no time to pay.
69․A total sentence of two years, one month and nine days is imposed. That sentence will run from 4 March 2025 to 12 April 2027.
70․Young people cannot be sentenced to parole or Intensive corrections orders[xix]. This remains so even when they are adults being sentenced for youth offences. As was teased out in these proceedings young offenders who have turned 18 are not eligible for the Supreme Court Drug and Alcohol Sentence List.
71․Jarod has himself accepted that he cannot comply with the close supervision of a therapeutic corrections order. He has been assessed as having a high risk of re-offending.
72․In those circumstances I impose a partially suspended sentence meaning that the sentence of two years, one month and nine days will be suspended after 15 months – that being the shortest appropriate term[xx] that Jarod should spend in custody for this offending. He will then be released on a 12 month suspended sentence order with a ten month and nine day sentence hanging over him.
73․The suspended sentence order will require ACT Corrections supervision for the whole of the 12 months and allows for assessments, programs and counselling as directed, medical treatment and supervision as directed, rehabilitation programs as directed, and education and training condition as directed. There are no alcohol and drug conditions as this offending was sober offending.
| I certify that the preceding seventy-three [73] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of his Honour Magistrate Stewart Associate: Zeinab Elsheekhly Date: 31 July 2025 |
[i] S375AA(12)(a)
[ii] PSR dated 13 January 2025 at 4.9
[iii] Ibid at 5.2
[iv] Ibid at 5
[v] R v Bugmy [2004] NSWCCA 258
[vi] PSR dated 13 January 2025 at 9
[vii] Ibid at 9-10
[viii] Ibid at 10.7
[ix] See s34 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) generally in this regard
[x] Ibid at 4.5
[xi] Second PSR at 6.9
[xii] Ibid at 7.2
[xiii] Ibid
[xiv] See s94(1)(a) Children and Young People Act 2008 (ACT) (CYP Act)
[xv] See also recently DPP v Kaye [2025] ACTSC 169
[xvi] R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 also Hall v R; Barker v R [2017] ACTCA 16
[xvii] R v Bower [2022] ACTCS 383 at [72]
[xviii] On reflection the start point for this sentence appears to be mercifully low. It has not been appealed to my knowledge and I will observe parity in those circumstances.
[xix] Police v Axl Joseph [2023] ACTCC 1
[xx] See s133G CYP Act
0
6
4