Sentencing Update

Ben’s matter was listed for a sentencing hearing at the Downing Centre Court on Friday, 17 April 2026.

 

Unexpectedly, a significant volume of paperwork was served on Ben’s defence team on Thursday afternoon, which conveyed the clear message the prosecution would be strongly arguing for a gaol sentence of greater than two years imprisonment to be imposed.

 

On Friday morning, the courtroom was overwhelmed by the number of supporters in attendance, the overflow room filled with standing police officers. New South Wales Police Association representatives stood beside Ben for the duration of the proceedings.

 

Judge Culver opened proceedings by advising the parties a decision would not be handed down on the day due to the volume of paperwork she received the previous evening. This added further angst to Ben and his supporters, knowing the possibility of a gaol sentence would hang over him for a number of weeks to come.

 

Proceedings ensued with victim impact statements being made by the deceased’s parents. Jai's mother graciously advised the Court that she did not wish for a sentence of imprisonment to be imposed, as she did not want for Ben’s family to suffer in the way her family did. Despite the differences of opinion that led to charges being brought against Ben, it is common ground that the outcome for Jai and his family was undeniably tragic for everyone involved.

 

A manager from Corrective Services NSW appeared by video-link and gave evidence of gaol inmate classifications, intake assessments, cell layouts and prisoner holding arrangements. Evidence was evinced by the defence of the adverse mental health effects of solitary confinement - the usual practice in the case of police.

 

The prosecutor made a series of lengthy submissions that Ben’s driving involved a ‘high degree’ of danger, and there was no room for sentence mitigation as Ben mistakenly believed the deceased ‘would not’ traverse the barrier, rather than believing he ‘could not’ traverse the barrier.

 

In an argument the Judge initially questioned but later appeared to accept – the prosecution maintained for close to an hour that the words ‘would not’ Ben used in his notebook entry and directed interview could not be relied upon as a mitigating factor in sentencing. The prosecution argued that believing someone ‘would not’ act in a certain way was, at law, akin to wrongly estimating the speed of the stolen trailbike but taking the risk to arrest a person. The prosecution stated if Ben believed the deceased ‘could not have’ (rather than ‘would not have’) traversed the barrier, that conclusive belief could undoubtedly be relied upon in mitigation.

 

The time spent framing these complex and considered legal arguments was confronting, particularly in the context of Ben’s use of a singular word within hours of a highly traumatic event that unfolded in a matter of seconds.

 

Though the overall decision will be appealed, the sentencing proceedings had to be based upon the findings made by Her Honour during the substantive ‘liability’ hearing.

 

The defence took the Court’s attention to a number of cases providing guidance on matters involving ‘momentary misjudgement’. It was accepted by the Court that the total time between Ben’s decision to make the right hand turn and the moment of impact was 3.93 seconds, though the ‘period of actual danger’ was a fraction of a second - being the several metres Ben’s vehicle travelled past the secondary police vehicle already stationary at the intersection.

 

The prosecution stated Ben turned into the intersection while his vehicle was partially in the centre lane, and partially in the right-hand turning lane, without activating his lights and sirens. This was despite that at the time of impact, Ben was travelling on a green right-turn arrow while the deceased was riding a stolen trailbike on the incorrect side of a bike lane, significantly exceeding the speed limit, failing to turn against a left marking, mounting a hard reinforced barrier, entering the intersection against a red light and colliding with Ben’s vehicle as it came to a stop. The series of aggravated break and enters committed by the deceased earlier in the night was also not raised during the proceedings, as the ‘dangerous driving’ conviction is viewed at law in isolation of the surrounding narrative.

 

When Ben left the Downing Centre precinct for lunch, one of the accused’s supporters encouraged the media to “chase him” down the street, resulting in several cameras momentarily distracted by the concurrent Ben Roberts-Smith bail application, diverting their attention and running after Sergeant Bryant. These actions were reminiscent of the hearing in November 2025, where some supporters frequently called Ben and his police colleagues "dogs" and yelled other profanities when out of earshot of the presiding Judge.

 

In the sentencing context, a number of parallels were drawn by the defence to the recent matter of Christian White, where a police officer was found to have acted unreasonably and misjudged a situation that resulted in the death of Claire Nowland. In sentencing the former officer to a two-year community corrections order, Chief Justice Harrison recognised he made an error of judgement, and general deterrence was not required as part of sentencing as the offence was not pre-meditated and it was unlikely another police officer would repeat those actions in future.

 

Astoundingly, the prosecution submitted that Ben’s sentencing should be strongly distinguished and a term of imprisonment imposed. The prosecutor stated while Senior Constable White was under a mandated duty to remain at the nursing home and disarm the deceased to protect others, Sergeant Bryant was not under a duty to apprehend Jai at the time, as he should have taken into account the deceased was a young 'Sweetenham' offender on a stolen motorbike and would ride dangerously to escape. The prosecutor suggested Sergeant Bryant ought not to have taken action and general deterrence was important in sentencing as a clear message had to be sent to police facing similar situations.

​

The prosecutor told the court that while Ben expressed his remorse about the accident during his pre-sentence report, the remorse was assessed as minimal as he was planning to appeal the conviction and had not given an apology to the family of the deceased.

 

As the sentencing hearing came to a close, the prosecutor made an application under section 22B of the Bail Act for Ben to be remanded in custody until his next court appearance, on the grounds that Ben would inevitably be sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Judge Culver refused the application, stating she had to consider many ‘nuanced’ matters and although she had not made a decision if Ben would or would not be imprisoned, it was ‘not inevitable’ a sentence of imprisonment would ultimately be imposed.

 

Ben’s family, friends and colleagues all attest that the situation has affected Ben significantly. He has significant remorse and sympathy for the family of the deceased, has trouble sleeping, sought assistance for his mental health and has replayed the incident in his mind on hundreds of occasions.

 

The incident and Ben’s conviction received extensive conventional media and social media attention, a substantial amount of it being adverse coverage that placed a significant strain on Ben’s life and personal relationships.

 

Despite these facts, Ben has diligently continued to attend work every day since the incident and continues to make a significant contribution to the NSW Police Force. He has had an unblemished 27-year policing career, with over a decade acting in the role of Inspector. He has shown resilience and will continue fighting to clear his name.

 

Ben’s appreciation for the ongoing support he has received from the wider community, some sections of the media, the NSW Police Association and the entire police family is immeasurable. The generous donations will enable Ben to retain highly regarded legal representatives to run his appeal before the Court of Criminal Appeal in 2026.

 

The outcome of this matter will not only affect Ben, but the way policing is conducted in future.

 

Judge Culver is expected to deliver her sentence on 5 June 2026, at which time an appeal will be lodged.