R v Torbert

[2015] ACTSC 331

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 v Hicks [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	Sentence imposed
Circumstances

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