• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

CAN 4087/2025 Obtaining property by deception, Fine of $160,000, imprisonment contrary to s 326 of the Code. for 10 years, or both.

CAN 4550/2025 Theft, contrary to s 308 of the Code. Fine of $160,000, imprisonment for 10 years, or both.

CAN 4552/2025 Burglary, contrary to s 311 of the Code. Fine of $224,000, imprisonment for 14 years, or both.

CAN 4557/2025 Possess housebreaking implements, Fine of $48,000, imprisonment contrary to s 315 of the Code. for three years, or both.

CAN 9059/2025 Attempted burglary, contrary to s 311 of Fine of $224,000, imprisonment the Code. for 14 years, or both.

CAN 11119/2025 Aggravated burglary, contrary to s 312 Fine of $320,000, imprisonment of the Code. for 20 years, or both.

CAN 4556/2025 Unlawful possession of stolen property, Fine of $8,000, imprisonment for contrary to s 324 of the Code. six months, or both.

CAN 11344/2025 Minor theft, contrary to s 321 of the Fine of $8,000, imprisonment for Code. six months, or both.

2. Under s 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentencing Act), a sentence of imprisonment is a sentence of last resort. Here, the offender accepted that terms of imprisonment inevitably followed from his conduct. He sought that such sentences be served by way of a drug and alcohol treatment order (Treatment Order): s 12A of the Sentencing Act. The prosecution did not oppose the imposition of a Treatment Order and the offender was found suitable for such an order by ACT Corrective Services. However, the offender was assessed as unsuitable for a Treatment Order by Canberra Health Services. Because the offender has already spent a considerable period of time in custody referable to the offending and has completed a drug rehabilitation program while in custody, I have decided not to impose a Treatment Order but to instead craft a sentence that takes account of the time in custody as well as supporting the offender’s ongoing rehabilitation, with a focus on successful reintegration into the community. Facts

Offending on 3 April 2025

3. At about 4:33am on 3 April 2025, the offender entered the carpark of an apartment building in Braddon. He accessed a black Nissan Navarra and took four items from that vehicle: (a) A Leica Robotic Total Station TS16 (a surveying device), valued at about $20,000. (b) A pair of Apple Airpods and case, valued at about $200. (c) A black leather wallet and its contents. (d) A pair of grey Adidas Campus 00 sneakers, valued at about $150.

4. The offender left the property with the items (CAN 4086/2025). He then used the bank card from the wallet in a number of transactions totalling $317.81 (CAN 4087/2025).

Offending on 25 April 2025

5. At about 9:35pm on 25 April 2025, the offender climbed over the locked electric gate of another apartment building in Braddon. He pulled a black balaclava over his face and entered the carpark, holding a screwdriver in his right hand (CAN 11119/2025).

6. The offender walked around the carpark, looking through the windows of several vehicles. He entered a corridor of the property for a brief time but soon returned to the carpark.

7. The offender approached a dark blue Honda CRV and took an Osprey backpack from inside the vehicle (CAN 11344/2025). The backpack and its contents were worth about $1,400.

8. The offender continued to look through the windows of vehicles in the carpark. He was approached and confronted by a resident of the property and subsequently left the carpark.

Offending on 26 April 2025

9. At about 3:50am on 26 April 2025, the offender entered the carpark of a residential property in Braddon. He approached a vehicle that had two bicycles secured to it. The offender cut through the fasteners of the bike rack and took the bicycles, which together were worth $31,000 (CAN 4550/2025).

10. At about 4:25am on the same day, the offender entered the carpark of a law firm in Braddon. He searched a vehicle but did not take anything, leaving the doors open. The offender then went to the side of the building. He had a backpack over one shoulder and a balaclava around his neck. The offender looked through several windows, then put his balaclava on and appeared to use tools to tamper with a window (CAN 9059/2025). The offender was unable to gain entry to the building.

Offending on 27 April 2025

11. At about 7:00am on 27 April 2025, residents of a property in Dickson awoke to find the offender sitting at their dining table eating food from their fridge (CAN 4552/2025). They attempted to remove him from their residence. The offender grabbed his belongings. He also took some personal items belonging to the residents, but returned the items immediately when requested. The offender then left the property.

12. The offender was apprehended by police a short time later outside the residence. Upon his lodgement at the Watch House, his bags were searched. The bags contained house-breaking implements, namely a 30-centimetre bladed hacksaw, two 30-centimetre bladed knives, a paint scraper and a multi-attachment screwdriver (CAN 4557/2025). The bags also contained stolen items, including a mobile phone, bottles of prescription medication, and several smaller bags and their contents (CAN 4556/2025).

The court’s task

13. The task is to sentence the offender in accordance with the sentencing purposes set out in s 7 of the Sentencing Act, which include (in summary form) making the offender accountable and denouncing and adequately punishing his conduct, deterring the offender and other people from committing the same or similar offences, recognising the harm done to the victims of the crimes and the community and promoting an offender’s rehabilitation. The court must take into account the mandatory relevant considerations (s 33 of the Sentencing Act) insofar as they relate to the offender’s circumstances and sentence the offender in accordance with the principle of individualised justice: MT v The Queen [2021] ACTCA 26; 17 ACTLR 22 at [56].

Nature and circumstances of the offences (s 33(1)(a) of the Sentencing Act)

14. The requirement to consider the nature and circumstances of the offences includes a consideration of the objective seriousness of the conduct involved in accordance with established principles, which I will not repeat but have set out in other cases, such as DPP v Brymer [2025] ACTSC 430 at [25]-[26]. Thefts (including minor theft)

15. Applying R v Rosewarne [2021] ACTSC 217 at [120] and other authorities cited in DPP v Kristiansen [2025] ACTSC 536 at [143], the following considerations inform the objective seriousness of these offences: (a) The motive for the thefts. (b) The extent and value of the property taken. (c) Where the thefts occurred. (d) Whether the stolen items were of sentimental value or utilitarian value, such that they would be difficult or inconvenient to replace. (e) The degree of planning or premeditation.

16. All of the thefts were motivated by private financial gain and occurred in the carparks of residential premises. They are all fairly typical instances of this kind of offending.

17. The first theft was unsophisticated and opportunistic. However, the property taken was of a high value and would have been inconvenient for the victim to replace.

18. The minor theft was similarly opportunistic. The value of the property taken ($1,400) is relatively high in the context of minor theft (where the maximum value of property taken is $2,000). Replacing the items would have been inconvenient for the victim.

19. The second theft required some preparation because the offender had to cut through bike rack fasteners. The bicycles were of a significant value. The objective seriousness of this offence is further increased by the fact that the charge rolls up the taking of two bicycles: see R v Forrest (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 83 at [163]-[164].

Obtaining property by deception

20. The features relevant to a consideration of the objective seriousness of obtaining property by deception were outlined in DPP v Singh [2024] ACTSC 202 at [24] and the cases there-cited. I have considered the following factors: (a) The amount of money involved. (b) The degree of premeditation and sophistication. (c) The time period over which the offence was committed. (d) The repeat nature of the offending as suggesting an intention to continue unless the police became aware of the breach. (e) The level of dishonesty or breach of trust.

21. This offending involved transactions totalling $317.81 that were all made within a one-hour period. The offence was opportunistic. Applying Dukic v Tadic [2025] ACTSC 455 at [18], I consider that the offence here – where the offender obtained a modest amount of money through the dishonest use of someone else’s credit card – was of low objective seriousness. I acknowledge that that seriousness is increased because the charge rolls up several transactions: Forrest (No 2) at [163].

Burglaries (including attempted and aggravated burglaries)

22. In relation to each of the burglary offences, following DPP v Clissold [2023] ACTSC 250 at [33] and the cases there-cited, I have taken into account as being relevant: (a) The nature of the premises that were burgled. (b) Whether damage, not separately charged, was caused to the premises. (c) Whether the occupants of the premises were present at the time the burglaries were committed. (d) The motivation for the burglaries. (e) Whether the burglaries were pre-meditated, planned or organised, and their level of sophistication.

23. The aggravated burglary was of a residential property. Though the offender spent most of his time in the carpark of that property, there was a confrontation with a resident. The offender was motivated by private financial gain, and his offending involved a degree of premeditation, as he brought a balaclava and gloves. The aggravating circumstance here was that the offender carried an offensive weapon, although a screwdriver falls at the low end of seriousness on the spectrum of aggravated conduct.

24. The attempted burglary was of a commercial premises. No damage was caused to the property, and no occupants were present at the time the burglary was committed. The offending was again motivated by private financial gain and was somewhat premeditated, as the offender wore a balaclava and brought tools to try to gain access to the property. The offending was not particularly sophisticated but was somewhat sustained, with the offender examining multiple doors and windows before attempting to break in.

25. The burglary was of a residence. The occupants of that residence were present at the time the offence was committed, and they came face to face with the offender. The offence was spontaneous and opportunistic: the offender told police he had fallen asleep in the backyard of the residence, then entered the residence and, once inside, decided he was going to eat the occupants’ food.

Possess housebreaking implements

26. Following R v Campbell (No 2) [2022] ACTSC 370 at [59], I have assessed the objective seriousness of this offence by reference to the tools possessed by the offender. The offender had several tools in his possession. With the exception of the hacksaw, the tools were relatively ordinary items. However, the offender’s possession of a hacksaw and knives are of particular concern: those items are capable of inflicting serious damage, meaning that this was a serious example of that offence.

Unlawful possession of stolen property

27. In assessing the objective seriousness of this offence, I have considered the nature of the stolen property, its value, how easy it is to replace, and the length of time over which the property was possessed unlawfully: Brymer at [31].

28. It is unclear how long the offender had the stolen property in his possession for, but the property consisted of a significant number of stolen items. The loss of a phone and prescription medication in particular would have caused considerable inconvenience and carried financial consequences for their respective owners.

Pleas of guilty (ss 33(1)(j) and 35 of the Sentencing Act)

29. The offender pleaded guilty to each of the offences at an early opportunity. He is entitled to a discount and the penalty that would otherwise have been imposed but for the guilty pleas must be explicitly stated: s 37(2)(a) of the Sentencing Act. In the exercise of the court’s discretion, I have determined that a 25% discount is appropriate for each of the guilty pleas.

30. The reasons for that decision are as follows: (a) The power is enlivened pursuant to s 35(3) of the Sentencing Act. (b) The applicable discount for a guilty plea is a matter of discretion: Cranfield v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 3 at [37]-[38]. Utilitarian value is a primary consideration: Monfries v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 46; 19 ACTLR 99 at [47] and R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103 at [49]. (c) For some of the offences, the offender pleaded guilty at the first opportunity. For others, a brief of evidence was prepared. In some cases that may reduce the discount but it does not necessarily exclude a significant discount and, in the circumstances here, the preparation of a brief to enable the offender to understand the charges was not something that I considered to have reduced what was otherwise considerable utilitarian value in the pleas being entered at early stages. (d) Having considered the statutory matters set out in s 35(2) of the Sentencing Act (including victim impact and seriousness of the conduct), the common approach of applying a percentage discount here was appropriate.

Subjective circumstances of the offender (s 33(1)(m) of the Sentencing Act)

31. The offender is 31 years old. His background was before the court through two reports. It indicates a degree of social disadvantage including an unstable upbringing, and drug use in his teenage years. His mental health appears to fluctuate. Unfortunately, he currently has no family support, although there is an aunt with whom he did have a connection, prior to his drug use interfering with that relationship.

32. The offender completed high school to year 10 and has had some success in obtaining trade-related work prior to being in custody. He is currently in receipt of Centrelink benefits.

33. The offender’s drug use appears to have escalated in recent years and there is no doubt that it was linked to the offences, with the burglaries and thefts funding a drug habit.

34. That said, his criminal history is limited. It does not suggest he is a habitual criminal, but it suggests an inability to regulate. More significant is the fact that, save for the offending on 3 April 2025, the offences for which he is being sentenced all occurred while the offender was on conditional liberty at the time, which is an aggravating factor: see KQE v DPP [2024] ACTCA 7 at [40].

Victim impact

35. There were no victim impact statements in this case. While the court does not speculate, that does not mean that the court ignores the victim impact entirely. These types of crimes not only have direct specific impact on individual victims, but contribute indirectly to a decrease in community safety and how people feel in their homes.

Voluntary treatment for matters that may have contributed to the offence (s 33(1)(t) of the Sentencing Act)

36. Since the offending, the offender has completed an anger management course and the AOD Solaris Therapeutic Community Program at AMC. The offender is to be commended for taking these rehabilitative steps and this informs the ultimate disposition. Remorse (s 33(1)(w) of the Sentencing Act)

37. The offender expressed some remorse in his conversations with report writers, displaying a degree of insight into how his behaviour impacted the victims of his offending.

Current sentencing practice (s 33(1)(za) of the Sentencing Act)

38. I have taken a number of cases into account to ensure consistency in sentencing practice, accepting that the objective in doing so is not to bind the sentencing court to achieve numerical equivalence with similar sentences imposed in the same jurisdiction: see Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520 at [48]. Those cases include the comparable cases helpfully provided by the prosecution, namely DPP v Dunn (a pseudonym) [2026] ACTSC 88; DPP v Saunders [2025] ACTSC 160; Campbell; and DPP v Barnes (No 2) [2024] ACTSC 240.

Pre-sentence custody

39. As at the date of sentence, the offender has spent 361 days in custody referable to the offending. This time will be taken into account by way of backdating his sentence and this too influences the ultimate disposition.

Totality

40. The approach to principles of concurrency and accumulation has been set out in Dawson v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 9 at [37] (and the cases there-cited). The majority of the offences here were the result of what might be vernacularly described as a three-day drug bender. They may generally be viewed as part of a course of conduct (s 33(1)(c) of the Sentencing Act), making it appropriate for those offences to be imposed with a high degree of concurrency. However, the sentence must still be structured so that it does not give rise to any perception of a discount for multiple offending (see Forster- Jones v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 31 at [79]) as well as recognising the harm to separate victims in each case. A similar approach was adopted in DPP v Matthews [2025] ACTSC 11 at [37].

Disposition

41. A sentence of imprisonment should never exceed the minimum that is necessary to accomplish relevant sentencing objectives: Thorn v Laidlaw [2005] ACTCA 49 at [30]. In this case, the offender has effectively spent a year in full-time custody. Factoring in the offender’s background and how he has used his time while in custody, that period of time is sufficient, in terms of proportionality to the objective seriousness of the offending, to achieve the objectives of denunciation, punishment, general and specific deterrence and recognition of victim impact. It means that other objectives such as rehabilitation and long-term protection of the community can appropriately be prioritised going forward. Building on the completion of what was essentially a residential (albeit custodial) drug rehabilitation program, the offender will now need support and supervision to carry that success through to reintegrating into the community. Experience suggests that such supervision should be for a lengthy period because there may be a number of programs undertaken at different times so as not to become overwhelming. Further, and of equal importance, it is one thing to refrain from using substances in a custodial setting; it is quite another to continue that abstinence in the community. 41. Viewing the offender’s circumstances and what was going on in his life at the time the offending occurred in their entirety, it seems to me that before he was taken into custody, the offender had become a bit lost in life. He had lost immediate family members, he did not have regular employment, and he had not developed any clear purpose or direction to keep him connected and thriving in the Canberra community. One of the things that a partially suspended sentence could achieve here is the opportunity for the offender to participate in intervention programs in the community, with a view to better outcomes for the offender and hopefully that translates into better protection for the community in the longer term. The offender is encouraged to take full advantage of those opportunities.

Orders

42. The orders of the Court are: (1) For CAN 4087/2025, the offence of obtaining property by deception, contrary to s 326 of the Code, the offender is convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for two months, reduced from two months and 21 days on account of his guilty plea, backdated to start on 23 April 2025 and end on 22 June 2025. (2) For CAN 4086/2025, the offence of theft, contrary to s 308 of the Code, the offender is convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 12 months, reduced from 16 months on account of his guilty plea, backdated to start on 20 May 2025 and end on 19 May 2026. (3) For CAN 4550/2025, the offence of theft, contrary to s 308 of the Code, the offender is convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 12 months, reduced from 16 months on account of his guilty plea, to start on 1 December 2025 and end on 30 November 2026. (4) For CAN 4552/2025, the offence of burglary, contrary to s 311 of the Code, the offender is convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for nine months, reduced from 12 months on account of his guilty plea, to start on 1 August 2026 and end on 30 April 2027. (5) For CAN 11119/2025, the offence of aggravated burglary, contrary to s 312 of the Code, the offender is convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for eight months and seven days, reduced from 11 months on account of his guilty plea, to start on 1 February 2027 and end on 7 October 2027. (6) For CAN 9059/2025, the offence of attempted burglary, contrary to s 311 of the Code, the offender is convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for three months and 22 days, reduced from five months on account of his guilty plea, to start on 1 August 2027 and end on 22 November 2027. (7) For CAN 4556/2025, the offence of unlawful possession of stolen property, contrary to s 324 of the Code, the offender is convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for three months, reduced from four months on account of his guilty plea, to start on 20 October 2027 and end on 19 January 2028. (8) For CAN 4557/2025, the offence of possess housebreaking implements, contrary to s 315 of the Code, the offender is convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for three months, reduced from four months on account of his guilty plea, to start on 20 December 2027 and end on 19 March 2028. (9) For CAN 11344/2025, the offence of minor theft, contrary to s 321 of the Code, the offender is convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for three months, reduced from four months on account of his guilty plea, to start on 1 February 2028 and conclude on 30 April 2028. (10) The total effective term of the sentence imposed is three years and eight days, from 23 April 2025 to 30 April 2028. (11) The sentence is to be suspended from 20 April 2026 on the condition that the offender enter into a good behaviour order for the remainder of the sentence (20 April 2026 to 30 April 2028) including undertaking to comply with the following conditions: (a) The core conditions pursuant to ss 85 and 86 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT); (b) A further condition pursuant to s 13(4)(g) of the Sentencing Act, that the offender is to report to ACT Corrective Services on or before 4:00pm on Tuesday 21 April 2026 and thereafter to submit to the supervision of the Director-General responsible for administering the sentence or their delegate for as long as deemed necessary, including to comply with any directions targeted at supporting the offender’s abstention from controlled substances, such as urinalysis. (c) The condition that the offender attend such educational, vocational, and counselling programs as are deemed appropriate, including any suitable program directed at improving the offender’s reading.

I certify that the preceding forty-two [42] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Justice McWilliam.

Associate: Date: