DPP v Crompton (No 2)

The offender was sentenced for the following offences on 13 August 2025: Charge Offence Maximum penalty Penalty imposed number CAN Attempted aggravated robbery A fine of $400,000, 9 months imprisonment 4670/2024 contrary to s 310 by virtue of s 44 of imprisonment for to commence on 22 April the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) 25 years, or both 2024 and conclude on 21 (Criminal Code) January 2025 CAN Assault occasioning actual bodily Imprisonment for 5 15 months imprisonment 4667/2024 harm, contrary to s 24 of the Crimes years to commence on 1 Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act) November 2024 and conclude on 31 January 2026 CAN Intentional wounding, contrary to s Imprisonment for 5 12 months imprisonment 9034/2024 21 of the Crimes Act years to commence on 1 August 2025 and conclude on 31 July 2026 CAN Minor theft, contrary to s 321 of the A fine of $8,000, Good behaviour order of 4665/2024 Criminal Code imprisonment for 6 9 months to commence 1 months or both April 2026 and conclude on 31 December 2026. (Note: This sentence was not part of the DATO) CAN Common assault, contrary to s 26 of Imprisonment for 2 Good behaviour order of 6815/2024 the Crimes Act years 9 months to commence 1 April 2026 and conclude on 31 December 2026. (Note: This sentence was not part of the DATO) CAN Damage property, contrary to s A fine of $8,000 2 months imprisonment 10626/2024 116(3) of the Crimes Act by virtue of imprisonment for 2 to commence on 1 July s 45A of the Criminal Code years, or both 2026 and conclude on 31 August 2026 CAN Damage property, contrary to s A fine of $8,000 2 months imprisonment 4776/2024 116(3) of the Crimes Act imprisonment for 2 to commence on 11 years, or both August 2026 and conclude on 10 October 2026

The original total effective sentence was 2 years, 5 months and 10 days imprisonment to be served by way of a DATO. The offender had already spent 477 days in custody at that point. The sentence was backdated to commence on 22 April 2024 to take into account that time in custody and was to conclude on 10 October 2026 – only a few days away from the date of this sentence. What happened during the DATO?

As part of the DATO, the offender transitioned to the Salvation Army’s Canberra Recovery Services (CRS) residential rehabilitation program. He performed well initially but was exited from CRS due to conflicts with other residents after about 5 weeks of rehabilitation. The offender’s DATO was provisionally cancelled, and he was remanded in custody.

The offender continued using methylamphetamine whilst he was remanded in custody awaiting other rehabilitation options.

On 14 November 2025 (and then aged 21 years old), the offender was released from custody with planned accommodation, counselling and programs to attend.

On 24 November 2025, the offender was admitted into the Matrix drug and alcohol prevention program (Matrix). He performed well initially but lapsed into poly-substance use. His DATO was provisionally cancelled on 9 January 2026.

On 16 January 2026, the offender’s DATO was reinstated, and he was again accepted into Matrix. There was a single lapse into use of multiple illicit drugs, the offender then missed a court review and a warrant for his arrest was issued.

On 5 February 2026, his DATO was provisionally cancelled so that further treatment options could be explored.

On 11 March 2026, the offender was released from custody to attend a residential rehabilitation program at Karralika. He left the car enroute to Karralika and a warrant was issued for his arrest that afternoon.

On 19 March 2026, the offender was arrested for a fresh offence and remanded in custody in the Magistrates Court. His DATO was provisionally suspended.

The offender is now also before the court for sentence on the fresh charge. He is to be sentenced on: (a) CAN 4296/2026 – one count of going equipped for theft in contravention of s 315 of the Criminal Code which carries a maximum penalty of a $48,000 fine, 3 years imprisonment, or both.

On 24 July 2026, the fresh charge was committed to this Court for sentence, and the offender has remained remanded in custody ever since. No further rehabilitation option has been secured for him. Issues

Because the offender has breached his DATO by re-offending, by operation of statute his DATO must be cancelled.

The parties jointly submitted that a suspended sentence may be an appropriate outcome of that cancellation exercise.

The offender has to be sentenced for the fresh offence. The parties have jointly submitted that a sentence of something less than imprisonment may also be appropriate in the circumstances.

The focus of this sentencing exercise is fashioning an outcome that will recognise the offender’s youth and promote his rehabilitation. Fresh offending

At 8.42 am on Wednesday 11 March 2026, police were called to a carpark at Gungahlin College due to reports of a male trying to unlock parked cars.

Police arrived and could not see any criminal behaviour. They drove along Crinigan Circuit and saw the offender standing next to a parked Nissan Navara. He dropped a hammer and ran along the circuit. Police activated lights and sirens, gave chase, cornered the offender and arrested him.

The offender told police that he was using the hammer to smash a window and steal a car. Police were able to locate the dropped hammer. The incident was captured on the police car’s dash camera and no damage was alleged.

The offender was subject to a DATO at the time of the offending.

The offending occurred in broad daylight and was unsophisticated and highly likely to have been observed. It was submitted that the offender was highly intoxicated at the time and this would appear to be entirely consistent with the offending behaviour.

The offending lies at the lower end of objective seriousness and does not give rise to a requirement for a sentence of imprisonment.

The offender entered a plea of guilty in the Magistrates Court at an early stage of the proceedings. He accepted full responsibility for his behaviour at the time of his arrest and is entitled to a full 25% reduction in penalty for his plea. Mandatory sentencing considerations

McWilliam J’s original considerations under ss 6, 7, 10, and 33 of the CS Act in DPP v Crompton [2025] ACTSC 352 at [3]-[74] have not been eroded by time and are adopted. It is not necessary to repeat them.

A pre-sentence report was prepared for 24 July 2026. It details the following updated information. The offender: (a) Remains single and dependant free; (b) Has maintained a positive relationship with his mother, step-father and his younger step-siblings who all live in New South Wales (NSW); (c) Had recently re-established communication with his father; (d) Has displayed mixed behaviour whilst in custody ranging from negative behaviour by way of fighting, being verbally abusive and stealing, to the positive where he has received two complimentary case notes for supporting other detainees; (e) Has been employed as a sweeper in the custodial setting since 14 May 2026; (f) Had attended SMART recovery sessions whilst in custody; (g) Has been prescribed Buvidal injections whilst in custody (I take judicial notice of the fact that Buvidal reduces cravings and blocks the euphoric effects of some illicit drugs); (h) Intends to live in Justice Housing Program accommodation or with his mother upon release (the latter being disclosed during the sentence hearing); and (i) Remains physically and mentally healthy but now has a formal diagnosis of opioid use dependency.

The offender remains in custody and is impecunious.

The Court can take judicial notice of the negative effect on family relationships that further imprisonment will cause.

I accept that the offender was affected by self-administered illicit substances at the time of the offending.

A conviction will have no particular effect on the offender. A further custodial sentence would likely have little beneficial effect given that the offender has spent so much time in custody at such a young age.

There is no discernible sentencing practice for this type of offending. Pre-sentence custody

The offender had spent a total of 471 days in custody at the time of his original sentence. That time was taken into account in the original sentence of McWilliam J. That calculation spanned from arrest on 22 April 2024 to sentence on 5 August 2025.

The offender has spent a further 295 days in custody during his DATO.

Pursuant to the decision of Murrel CJ in R v Hyde [2020] ACTSC 301 at [37]-[38], the offender is entitled to a further credit of 21 days as an adjustment for the 43 days that he spent in residential rehabilitation.

That accumulation amounts to 316 days in custody and gives rise to a back date of 19 November 2025. Prospects of rehabilitation

The offender has shown that he is unusually treatment resistant. Multiple options imposed by the Court have not led to success.

He is a young man and he speaks of a genuine desire to remove illicit substances from his life.

His relationship with his mother, step-father and siblings is a crucial one. If he lapses into substance use upon release and whilst living with them, he runs the risk of fracturing those relationships and causing irreparable damage to them. Totality

The sheer amount of time in custody has almost overwhelmed traditional considerations of totality. I have observed totality in the unusual circumstances of this matter. Consideration

As it has turned out, the DATO that was imposed was not a ‘soft’ sentence at all. This case serves as a stark demonstration of how harsh a DATO can be if a participant is treatment resistant and re-offends during the order.

If the offender had been sentenced to a head sentence and nonparole period instead of a DATO, he would have been eligible for parole a long time ago. Instead, he has served almost all of his sentence in custody.

As McWilliam J observed in DPP v Booth (No 3) [2026] ACTSC 79 at [7]-[8], there is a broad discretion conferred where a DATO is to be cancelled: The legislation is clear as to the first consequence of a breach of a Treatment Order where a sentencing order is imposed for a further offence, as was the case here. The court must cancel the Treatment Order: s 80ZD(3) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentencing Act). 8. The court must now either impose the sentence of imprisonment that was suspended or, if the court considers it appropriate in the circumstances, resentence the offender for each offence in relation to which the Treatment Order was made: s 80ZD(4) of the Sentencing Act. If the court decides to resentence the offender, it may do so in any way in which the court could deal with the offender if it had convicted the offender of the offences at the time of resentencing, except by way of a further Treatment Order: s 80ZD(4)(b) of the Sentencing Act.

I have determined that even though a significant sentence of actual imprisonment has been served, this is not a matter where a nonparole period is appropriate.

By 5 August 2025, all of the sentence on CAN 4760/2026 had been served. There is no purpose to changing those dates.

I have taken the unusual step of splitting the next two sentences over the two periods that the offender has spent in custody.

The sentence of 15 months imprisonment on CAN 4667/2024 commenced on 1 November 2024. 278 days (7 months and 5 days) were served by the date of the original sentence on 5 August 2025.

The sentence of 12 months imprisonment on CAN 9034/2024 commenced on 1 August 2025. There is a notional 5 days credit for time that had been served by the date of the original sentence on 5 August 2025. I have taken that into account by allowing for greater concurrency between CAN 4667/2024 and CAN 4670/2024 than was afforded in McWilliam J’s original sentence.