Judgments Library

• Sentencing for burglary offence after participation in sentencing conversation
• Psychologist report referred to Bugmy Bar Book chapters Childhood, Infant and Perinatal Exposure to, and Experience of, Domestic and Family Violence and Early Exposure to Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse: at [40], [42]
• Sentencing Judge accepted disadvantaged childhood must be given full weight and moral culpability reduced: at [70]

• Sentencing of 19 year old offender
• Recognised authorities holding youth justice principles still apply although not a juvenile offender – authorities reflect neurodevelopmental research, which recognises that whilst “legal adulthood begins at age 18 years in Australia, key brain regions, especially those involved in decision-making, emotional control, and social understanding, continue to develop until at least age 25”: Jody Kamminga et al, Decision-Making, Emotion and Behaviour Regulation in 18-to-25 Year-Olds: A Neurodevelopmental Perspective (Bugmy Bar Book Report, 2025) 18: at [31]

• Sentencing of 38 year old offender for drug offences and offences of violence against intimate partner.
• In considering impact of offender’s childhood referred to Bugmy Bar Book chapters: Early Exposure to Harmful Alcohol and Other Drug Use; Child Abuse and Neglect and Homelessness: at [29]

• Sentencing for recklessly inflict gbh
• Psychologist report cited research from Bugmy Bar Book Project – observed offender’s childhood experience was one which can have significant impact “on a child’s social and emotional well-being”: at [30]
• Sentencing Judge accepted offender’s disadvantaged childhood experience explains to a significant degree his resort to violence in face of a degree of provocation by victim and required reduction in moral culpability: at [47]

• Sentencing for family violence offences
• Offences occurred as a direct result of offender’s drug use – referred to Bugmy Bar Book, Early Exposure to Harmful Alcohol and Other Drug Use in considering normalising impact of offender’s exposure to parental drug use during childhood: at [16]

• Appeal against sentence for break and enter offences
• Noted the applicant’s family are part of the Stolen Generations – Sentencing Judge accepted that as an ongoing and intergenerational trauma referring to the Bugmy Bar Book: at [46]

• Sentence for domestic violence offences
• Sentencing Judge referred to Bugmy Bar Book: – stated homelessness is “one of the most potent examples of disadvantage in the community, and one of the most important markers of social exclusion” – took into account childhood disadvantage, drug and alcohol addiction and homelessness in reducing offender’s moral culpability: at [39]-[41]

• Sentence for drug offences
• Offender gave birth to child in custody – child being cared for by grandmother – referred to information provided from Bugmy Bar Book concerning negative impact of the incarceration of a parent on a child – concluded in this case harm to both mother and child significant – sentence will be deliberately lenient: at [77]-[78]

• Six executive summaries from Bugmy Bar Book tendered on behalf of offender:
  • [23] The Bugmy Bar Book is now recognised to be a reliable collation of expert research on the potential impacts of various forms of nationally recognised disadvantage on persons appearing before the criminal justice system. The book is evidence-based, distilling extracts from major reports and leading research in peer review journals into accessible summaries. In many respects, it footnotes basic truths that I find myself to be well acquainted with, at least since my involvement in the criminal law, which goes back to 1991. I am satisfied that the Bugmy Bar Book, and the executive summaries I have referred to, is the product of rigorous interagency and consultative review processes to ensure that it is accurate, comprehensive and contemporary.
  • [24] I find myself reaching the same conclusion expressed by Yehia SC DCJ, as her Honour then was, in the case of Tsingolas [2022] NSWDC 34 at [87]-[88], cited with approval by Lonegan J in Stanley (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 74 at [72].
  • [25] I accept that there are limits, nevertheless, on the Bugmy Bar Book and its various chapters. For such exogenous knowledge to become relevant, there must already be evidence before the Court establishing a form of disadvantage relevant to the Bugmy Bar Book chapters that are relied upon. Where this threshold of ‘specifics’ is reached, the Court can then have regard to the ‘generalities’ in the research when applying fundamental sentencing principles: see Campbell [2024] NSWDC 413 (Neilson DCJ) [87]-[88].
• In consideration of offender’s background referred to research where relevant to explain effects of experiences: at [26]

• Sentencing for murder
• A ‘Gladue’ style report prepared and tendered to provide historic and cultural context for the offender – documents relied upon by report author included Bugmy Bar Book: at [55 – Fn 43]

• Appeal against sentence for family violence offences
• Court referred to appellant’s childhood exposure to violence and alcohol – noted the effects of this upbringing upon the appellant’s moral development, understanding of relationships, and capacity for selfcontrol are clear, referring to the Bugmy Bar Book chapters ‘Early Exposure to Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse’ and ‘Childhood, Infant and Perinatal Exposure to, and Experience of, Domestic and Family Violence’ – further noted the sentencing judge properly accepted the weight to be given to general deterrence and punishment should be moderated: at [60]

• Psychologist report admitted as fresh evidence on appeal
  • [17] Ms Edwige’s report in respect of the appellant provides a comprehensive analysis of his background, psychosocial history, education, history of substance abuse and medical and psychiatric history. She cites extensively from materials available from the Bugmy Bar Book Project, including its chapters on early exposure to alcohol and drugs, child abuse and neglect, child sexual abuse, out of home care and homelessness. The report is plainly relevant to sentencing considerations, including the application of the principles stated in Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571, the High Court’s articulation of which was the inspiration for the Bugmy Bar Book Project.
• Appeal allowed and matter remitted for resentence

• Sentence for assault and property offences – report of psychologist drew on literature about trauma contained in Bugmy Bar Book: at [58]
• In finding appellant’s childhood significantly impacted by mother’s heroin addiction Magistrate referred to Bugmy Bar Book: at [70]
• Found moral culpability substantially reduced: at [77]

• Psychologist Vanessa Edwige quoted from Bugmy Bar Book: Child Abuse and Neglect: at [91]-[92]
• Bugmy principles applied

• Psychologist Vanessa Edwige quoted from Bugmy Bar Book: Early Exposure to Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Child Abuse and Neglect: at [85]-[87]
• Bugmy principles applied

• Sentencing for offence of violence
• Offender of refugee background – no pre-sentence report available – submitted on behalf of offender ‘typical refugee reaction to police’ could explain refusal to co-operate with pre-sentence authorities – relied upon ‘Refugee Background paragraph’ in the Bugmy Bar Book
• Accepted by Sentencing Judge as possible explanation – also accepted relevance of passage in relation to trauma offender suffered as a child in South Sudan: at [14]-[16]

• Sentencing for property and burglary offences after participation in sentencing conversation
• Psychologist report referred to Bugmy Bar Book chapters Child Abuse and Neglect, Childhood, Infant and Perinatal Exposure to, and Experience of, Domestic and Family Violence, Early Exposure to Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Interrupted School Attendance and Suspension – accepted report demonstrated disadvantaged and traumatic childhood: at [01]-[105], [116]
• Sentencing Judge additionally referred to chapter Early Exposure to Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse: at [118]

• Sentencing of 17 year old Aboriginal offender for serious driving and robbery offences after participation in sentencing conversation in Pilot Circle Sentencing List.
• Psychologist referred to, and quoted from, ‘Child Abuse and Neglect’ and ‘Out of Home Care’ chapters of Bugmy Bar Book, noting lifelong and intergenerational impact of childhood trauma and link to contact with criminal justice system – Sentencing Judge accepted and gave full weight to profoundly disadvantaged and traumatic childhood – reduced moral culpability and substantially moderated weight given to general deterrence, denunciation and punishment : at [167]-[209]
• Psychologist report made detailed treatment recommendations including cultural supports and cultural healing plan – emphasis on facilitating offender’s cultural connectivity, identity and connectedness to culture confirmed what was reiterated by Elders Panel and Significance of Culture to Wellbeing, Healing and Rehabilitation Report (Dr Paul Gray and Vanessa Edwige, June 2021) – Sentencing Judge found that ‘with the appropriate supports in place offender’s prospects of rehabilitation are positive’: at [210]-[226]
• Noted concern that offender at risk of institutionalisation given his age, background of institutional care and evidence of short time in adult correctional centre – referred to Institutionalisation Report by Dr Robyn Shields AM and Dr Andrew Ellis, 2024: at [219]

• Sentencing of 17 year old Aboriginal offender for serious driving and robbery offences after participation in sentencing conversation in Pilot Circle Sentencing List – profoundly disadvantaged and traumatic childhood – removed from parents at 14 months – foster care involved abuse, separation from siblings and instability – no meaningful connection with any adult charged with his care – let down by system – history of contact with juvenile justice system
• Psychologist referred to, and quoted from, ‘Child Abuse and Neglect’ and ‘Out of Home Care’ chapters of Bugmy Bar Book, noting lifelong and intergenerational impact of childhood trauma and link to contact with criminal justice system – Sentencing Judge accepted and gave full weight to profoundly disadvantaged and traumatic childhood – reduced moral culpability and substantially moderated weight given to general deterrence, denunciation and punishment: at [167]-[209]

[199] Pedro’s childhood was absent meaningful connection with any adult charged with his care. Ms Edwige observed:

[Pedro] described feelings of loss and grief associated with his foster parent’s inability to demonstrate genuine regard. The impact this had on [Pedro]’s sense of self, identity, belonging and connectedness was profound.

[200] The only continuous feature of Pedro’s life has been instability. He has spent much of his teenage life either in custody or at residential facilities. As noted by Ms Edwige, “If the primary caregiver is replaced by an institution this impacts on the meaningful development of self-identity and in turn how the child and later adult relates to others”.

[201] Pedro has not had the kind of consistent moral guidance necessary to properly navigate the challenges of adolescence. As a consequence, Pedro necessarily “has fewer emotional resources to guide his (or her) behavioural decisions” than a person who had a “normal” or “advantaged” upbringing: R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2 per Simpson J at [69] (with whom Bathurst CJ and Adamson J agreed).

• Further noted history of institutional care also contributed to risk of institutionalisation, which can impact potential for rehabilitation: at [218]-[223]

• Sentencing of 17 year old Aboriginal offender for serious driving and robbery offences after participation in sentencing conversation in Pilot Circle Sentencing List – profoundly disadvantaged and traumatic childhood – removed from parents at 14 months – foster care involved abuse, separation from siblings and instability – no meaningful connection with any adult charged with his care – let down by system – history of contact with juvenile justice system – Bugmy considerations given full weight: at [167]-[209]
• Psychologist report made detailed treatment recommendations including cultural supports and cultural healing plan – emphasis on facilitating offender’s cultural connectivity, identity and connectedness to culture – positive prospects of rehabilitation: at [210]-[226]
• Noted offender at risk of institutionalisation given his background of institutional care and evidence of short time in adult correctional centre – accelerated impact of youth detention as a source of institutionalisation compared to adults – “children are less able to tolerate highly constrained environments without distorting their developmental trajectory” (see Institutionalisation, Dr Robyn Shields AM and Dr Andrew, 2024): at [218]-[219]
• Sentencing Judge found:

[222] … The risk of institutionalisation has the capacity to drastically impede his rehabilitative potential. By virtue of his youth, Pedro has the capacity to be guided toward positive change notwithstanding some of the negative patterns he has thus far established: see Azzopardi v R [2011] VSCA 372; 35 VR 43 and R v Forster-Jones (No 2) [2019] ACTSC 286. The effect on Pedro of incarceration in an adult prison at this stage of his life would undoubtedly hinder his capacity for rehabilitation. This includes the risk that the environment, as well as the anti-social attitudes it fuels, will become normalised.

[223] Rehabilitation is a pursuit in both Pedro and the community’s interests, it being the most durable guarantor of community protection: Hogan v Hinch [2011] HCA 4; 243 CLR 506 at [32].