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… |
Continue reading R v Torbert
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- R v Torbert [2015] ACTSC 331
- Case
- [2015] ACTSC 331
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Torbert involved a young offender who inflicted grievous bodily harm upon another person in an alcohol-fuelled incident occurring at night. The offender recorded the injuries for entertainment purposes, leading to serious concerns about the nature of the offence and the appropriate sentence to be imposed. The case was heard and determined in a higher court in Australia, tasked with reviewing the sentence given to the offender by a lower court.
The central legal issues revolved around the principles of sentencing in cases of grievous bodily harm, particularly when alcohol is a contributing factor and the offender has demonstrated a callous disregard for the victim's suffering. The court was required to balance the need for deterrence and denunciation with considerations of the offender's age and the circumstances surrounding the offence. The court also needed to assess whether the original sentence was appropriate in light of the offender's conduct and the impact of the crime on the victim.
The higher court carefully examined the evidence and the principles of sentencing as they apply to grievous bodily harm. It considered the offender's age, the circumstances of the offence, and the impact on the victim. The court emphasised the importance of deterrence and denunciation in cases involving alcohol-fuelled violence, particularly when the offender has shown a lack of empathy by recording the incident. The higher court found that the original sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence or serve the necessary purposes of deterrence and denunciation. Consequently, the court set aside the original sentence and imposed a new sentence that better aligned with the principles of sentencing in such cases.
The final orders of the court included the setting aside of the original sentence and the imposition of a new sentence, reflecting a more appropriate balance between deterrence, denunciation, and the specific circumstances of the offender and the offence. The new sentence was intended to adequately address the gravity of the crime and its impact on the victim, while also considering the offender's age and the circumstances of the incident.
The central legal issues revolved around the principles of sentencing in cases of grievous bodily harm, particularly when alcohol is a contributing factor and the offender has demonstrated a callous disregard for the victim's suffering. The court was required to balance the need for deterrence and denunciation with considerations of the offender's age and the circumstances surrounding the offence. The court also needed to assess whether the original sentence was appropriate in light of the offender's conduct and the impact of the crime on the victim.
The higher court carefully examined the evidence and the principles of sentencing as they apply to grievous bodily harm. It considered the offender's age, the circumstances of the offence, and the impact on the victim. The court emphasised the importance of deterrence and denunciation in cases involving alcohol-fuelled violence, particularly when the offender has shown a lack of empathy by recording the incident. The higher court found that the original sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence or serve the necessary purposes of deterrence and denunciation. Consequently, the court set aside the original sentence and imposed a new sentence that better aligned with the principles of sentencing in such cases.
The final orders of the court included the setting aside of the original sentence and the imposition of a new sentence, reflecting a more appropriate balance between deterrence, denunciation, and the specific circumstances of the offender and the offence. The new sentence was intended to adequately address the gravity of the crime and its impact on the victim, while also considering the offender's age and the circumstances of the incident.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [60]
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.