//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2025] ACTSC 306
Supreme Court of the ACT
2025-07-16
Christensen AJ
Original judgment source is linked above.
Source: the ACT Courts (www.courts.act.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: DPP v Eneliko; DPP v Crichton; DPP v Pauga; DPP v Ogden (a pseudonym) Citation: [2025] ACTSC 306 Hearing Date: 4 June 2025 Decision Date: 16 July 2025 Before: Christensen AJ Decision: See [133] Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – joint commission aggravated burglary – joint commission intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm – joint commission assault occasioning actual bodily harm – four co-offenders – youthful offenders – young person – home invasion – stabbing – – planned, premeditated and targeted – motivation unclear – first offender principally responsible for physical violence offending – other co-offenders still have significant culpability – partial concurrency to reflect distinct offending and victims – parity – whether prosecution case overwhelmingly strong – differing reductions for pleas of guilty and assistance to authorities – subjective circumstances of co-offenders – deterrence, accountability and recognition of harm caused to victims – prospects of rehabilitation – deterrent effect of nonparole period not necessary – first to third offenders to serve partially suspended terms of imprisonment – young person has strong prospects of rehabilitation – young person to serve fully suspended term of imprisonment Legislation Cited: Children and Young People Act 2008 (ACT) s 94 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 19, 24, 116 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) Pt 4.4, Ch 8A, ss 35, 36, 133G Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 312 Cases Cited: Azzopardi v The Queen [2011] VSCA 372; 35 VR 43 Blundell v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 34 Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 DPP v Chatfield [2024] ACTSC 329; 21 ACTLR 329 DPP v Manns (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 405 DPP v Mena [2023] ACTSC 80 DPP v Parlov [2023] ACTSC 147 DPP v Roberts (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 146 DPP v Sean (a pseudonym) (No 4) [2023] ACTSC 97 DPP v Stasinos [2023] ACTSC 179 DPP v Vance (a pseudonym) [2024] ACTSC 308 DPP v Vincent (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 379 R v Barron [2020] ACTSC 281 R v Catanzariti [2020] ACTSC 326 R v Chevalier [2018] ACTSC 236 R v CN; R v SN; R v Rix [2019] ACTSC 293 R v Crick [2021] ACTSC 106 R v Jovanovic [2014] ACTSC 157 R v Hanrahan [2020] ACTSC 10 R v Saipani (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 228 R v Salcedo; R v Stretton (No 3) [2018] ACTSC 305 R v Sidaros (No 6) [2021] ACTSC 24 Smith v The Queen [2023] ACTCA 26 Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions Lytrell Eneliko (First Offender) Jacob Crichton (Second Offender) Raven Pauga (Third Offender) Nicky Ogden (a pseudonym) (Young Person) Representation: Counsel H Robinson (DPP) E Wallis (First Offender) J Nottle (Second Offender) S Robinson; D Ager (Third Offender) J Sabharwal (Young Person) Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Legal Aid ACT (First Offender) Peter Agoth & Associates (Second Offender) Fortify Legal (Third Offender) InPrivate Law (Young Person) File Numbers: SCC 353, 354, 378, 379 of 2024 SCC 32, 68 of 2025 CHRISTENSEN AJ: Introduction
The offending
Each of the offenders committed are to be sentenced for the following offences: (a) Aggravated burglary, contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code), carrying a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment, 2000 penalty units, or both; (b) Intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm, contrary to s 19(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act), carrying a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment; and (c) Assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to s 24(1) of the Crimes Act, carrying a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment.
In addition, the offender Raven Pauga is to be sentenced taking into account an additional offence pursuant to Pt 4.4 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentencing Act). I will do so in accordance with DPP v Vincent (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 379. This is an offence of minor damage property contrary to s 116(3) of the Crimes Act which carries a maximum penalty of 50 penalty units, two years imprisonment, or both.
The co-offenders are unknown to the victims. The agreed facts provide that the offending is likely related to a drug dispute. The co-offenders all reside in Sydney.
The agreed facts of the offending are drawn from closed circuit television (CCTV) footage, and other information obtained during the police investigation.
On the night of 28 April 2024, the co-offenders travelled from Sydney to Canberra. They returned to Sydney on a date and time not specified in the facts.
Subsequently, on Friday 3 May 2024, the co-offenders returned to Canberra, driven on this occasion by Junmar Baczarsa in a silver Nissan. They arrived in Canberra from about 8:37pm.
At about 10:39pm, they went to the McDonalds in Tuggeranong. The facts describe that the driver, and the offenders Eneliko, Pauga, and Crichton were observed to be at the McDonalds. They left the McDonalds at about 11:10pm.
On Saturday 4 May 2024 at about 1:54am, the silver Nissan went through the drive-thru at the Hungry Jacks in Condor. There were five occupants in the vehicle. They departed this location at about 2:09am.
Later in the morning of 4 May 2024, the silver Nissan parked outside of a residence in Condor. At least four males got out and accessed the boot. After about 25 minutes, they discarded rubbish from Hungry Jacks on the pavement and departed in the Nissan in the direction of an intersection that led to the street on which the home invasion occurred.
At 8am, Mr Eneliko walked to the west side of the intersection and looked in the direction of the victim’s house.
About four minutes later, Mr Eneliko walked up the street towards the house. He was carrying a brick which he placed behind the rear wheel of a red Holden, parked in the driveway. He knocked on the door and, when there was no answer, walked back to the driveway and took a knife out of his backpack, then returned to the front door and knocked again.
Police investigation
Effect on the victims
The victims did not provide victim impact statements, but the effect of the offending on them can be readily inferred. They were attacked, without warning, in their own home. Significant psychological results, including trauma, were likely caused.
Additionally, they experienced significant physical impacts. The extent of these were borne out in photographs tendered on sentence from the hospital that showed the injuries sustained, as well as medical reports which I have considered.
Assessment of the offending
The offending was objectively very serious. It was a planned, premeditated, and targeted entry to a residence. The motivation for the offending is not entirely clear, given the lack of effort to locate money, but it nonetheless had a motivation that is to be denounced.
There were multiple offenders who entered the house, and all had a role in the physical violence that occurred. The particular of there being multiple offenders accounts for the increased maximum penalty, with the number of offenders here being particularly aggravating. The intent with the burglary, to commit an offence that involved causing or threatening to cause harm, also makes this a serious example of the offence.
Mr Eneliko’s role in the aggravated burglary is elevated when compared to the other offenders given his role in first attending at the house and being the one to secure and gain entry, albeit no damage was caused in doing so. His conduct extended to taking action to prevent the victim’s vehicle from being readily moved. I note that there was damage caused to a window as the offenders left, with the identity of the offender who caused the damage unclear. It is agreed that it was not Mr Eneliko or Mr Pauga. In the circumstances, I do not place any weight on this conduct in the assessment of the offending.
The CCTV footage from the outside of the house, which I have viewed, shows the extent to which the offenders operated as a group in their approach and entry. However, I accept, as submitted on behalf of Mr Crichton, that the conduct involved “rudimentary co-ordination” and that the events were “crude and chaotic rather than organised and disciplined”. It was not “professional” conduct, as submitted on behalf of Mr Pauga, and it lacks the aggravating feature of the premises having been ransacked.
Nonetheless, the offenders were masked, which will have elevated the fear for the victims. The fear of the victims is made plain by the oral recording from the footage. Upon departure, Mr Pauga engaged in a gratuitous act of violence, indicative of the extent to which callous disregard was had for the victims. All of the offenders displayed callous disregard for the victims throughout the offending conduct.
Mr Eneliko was the principal offender in terms of the physical violence and most serious injuries, including having responsibility for taking the knife to the house. The facts provide that he was responsible for the multiple stab wounds inflicted on the female occupant. He inflicted this as part of a forceful entry to the house. This occurred at a stage as the other co-offenders entered, as she fell, meaning the assault inflicted on her was done with the proximity of all of the offenders and she was particularly vulnerable. I consider the other offenders still have significant culpability with respect to the assault on the female victim. She occasioned serious injuries in the context of bodily harm, to vulnerable parts of the body, with these inflicted by the use of an implement, aggravating the offending.
Lytrell Eneliko (CAN 2024/5514, CAN 2024/5516, CAN 2024/5515)
Police ascertained that the silver Nissan was leased to a person later identified as the mother of Mr Eneliko. His mother identified him on the CCTV footage from the victim’s house. On 27 May 2024, police attended at Mr Eneliko’s address in Mt Druitt, where he resided with his mother, and located: - the knife used, with the male victim’s blood on the blade; - clothing worn by Mr Eneliko at the time of the offence; and - clothing of a similar nature worn by Mr Pauga at the time of the offence.
Mr Eneliko was arrested at his workplace that day. The agreed facts provide that he made full admissions to the offending, but that he declined to identify his co-offenders or provide any motive.
Mr Eneliko is now aged 19 years. He was aged 18 years and some two months at the time of the offending.
As his biological age reveals, Mr Eneliko was a ‘youthful offender’ at the time of the offending. The sentencing principles for youthful offenders are therefore of application to Mr Eneliko, and indeed the other adult offenders. I accept in relation to all of the adult offenders that these principles warrant significant weight in the sentencing exercise, given the age, and relative youth, of the offenders.
The law recognises (see principally Azzopardi v The Queen [2011] VSCA 372; 35 VR 43 at [34]-36]) that such young adults lack the insight, judgment, and self-control of an older offender, and that there are greater prospects of rehabilitation as there is still opportunity for growth. Furthermore, the principles as to youthful offenders also provide that the effect of incarceration in an adult prison will likely impair, rather than improve, the prospects of successful rehabilitation.
Mr Eneliko’s subjective circumstances are set out in an intensive correction order (ICO) assessment report (assessment report) dated 26 May 2025, and in character references tendered on his behalf. He was not found suitable for an ICO in circumstances where he does not intend to reside in Canberra upon release from custody.
Mr Eneliko resided with his grandfather in his childhood, but reports positive relationships with his parents. He is the eldest of four children, and is particularly close to a brother. He previously engaged in church youth programs, but has rarely engaged in such activities in more recent times. He acknowledges that he has associated predominately with anti-social peers, including peers engaging in substance use. He has himself engaged in substance use since the age of 14 years with alcohol, and with cannabis use thereafter. He advised that he was “drunk” at the time of the offending. He is willing to engage in a substance rehabilitation program “if court ordered”.
Nonetheless, to his credit, he completed year 12 of schooling, and thereafter has engaged in casual labouring and retail jobs. He claims that he cut ties with anti-social peers approximately two months prior to his arrest and attempted to “change his life”. He has no mental health or physical health concerns.
Pleas of guilty and assistance to authorities
The pleas of guilty were entered at an arraignment in the Supreme Court. These are described in the material as being pleas of guilty to “the charges now before the Court in the ACT Supreme Court”. It is not clear to me whether they were the result of negotiations.
The history of the matter in the Supreme Court shows that the pleas of guilty were entered at an arraignment before a criminal case conference, or any trial, was listed. Such a plea of guilty is one that, subject to the court listings required, is not significantly distinct in respect of its utilitarian value, to one entered at a later stage in the Magistrates Court before a committal for sentence. I consider a reduction for the plea of guilty in the order of at least 20 per cent to be appropriate.
However, the prosecution submitted that s 35(4) of the Sentencing Act is of application, namely that there was an overwhelming case such that the Court must not make any significant reduction for a plea of guilty.
The difficulty with the prosecution’s submission is that it in part relies on the admissions made to the offending by Mr Eneliko. On behalf of Mr Eneliko, it was submitted that he ought be afforded a reduction in accordance with s 36 of the Sentencing Act to reflect the admissions he made to the police. I accept that these admissions were of assistance, although they were not complete in terms of any identification of other offenders. Having viewed the CCTV footage, in which the individual identity of each offender is difficult to discern, I consider the admissions were of significance.
Cooperation with law enforcement, particularly with respect to such a serious offence, is to be encouraged. But equally, after considering the matters in s 36(3) of the Sentencing Act, the Court is not to impose a lesser penalty that is unreasonably disproportionate to the nature and circumstances of the offence. Here, the matters to be considered include that there was significant harm caused during serious offending, and that the admissions made were not complete.
To reconcile the role of the admissions in the prosecution’s submission that the case is an overwhelmingly strong one as a result, I propose to proceed by applying a reduction of 5 per cent for the utilitarian value of the plea of guilty, that is, I consider it was an overwhelmingly strong case, but will also apply a reduction of at least 15 per cent for the assistance to authorities. A total reduction in the order of at least 20 per cent is appropriate.
Time in custody
Jacob Crichton (CAN 2024/7500, CAN 2024/7501, CAN 2024/7503)
The offender Jacob Crichton was identified on the CCTV footage by his uncle and staff at his school. His residence in Tregear was searched by police on 5 August 2024. Clothing consistent with those worn by him during the offence was seized. He handed himself into police on 18 August 2024 and was arrested on a first instance warrant.
Mr Crichton is now 19 years of age. He was aged 18 years and 5 months at the time of the offending. He is a ‘youthful offender’. He is single and has no dependent children.
He has no criminal history in the ACT. [Redacted].
His subjective circumstances are set out in a pre-sentence report prepared by Community Corrections dated 19 May 2025 and a forensic psychological assessment by Ms Leesa Morris dated 2 June 2025.
Community Corrections report that while Mr Crichton was polite to assessors, he appeared evasive, and he provided inconsistent and sometimes contradictory information. His self-reported information, which was verified to a limited extent, is regarded by Community Corrections to be of limited reliability. In contrast, the forensic psychologist finds him to have discussed positive and negative aspects of his background without guardedness or defensiveness.
Mr Crichton said to Community Corrections that he was raised in Mt Druitt by his mother, however, his father claimed to have cared for him in more recent years. His parents separated when he was an infant. He has siblings with whom he has varying degrees of positive relationships. He explained further to the forensic psychologist that he lived primarily with his maternal grandfather from year seven, and that he was in recent years staying with his father on weekends.
Mr Crichton described to the forensic psychologist that his childhood was “pretty sad. I didn’t have a good figure to teach me stuff.” His mother was verbally and physical abusive towards him “because we didn’t have food”. He was exposed to parental substance use. His home circumstances required him to engage in employment as an adolescent to obtain necessities for himself.
Mr Crichton’s father explained to Community Corrections that his son has an estranged relationship with his mother due to her long-term instability, and that this has had a “lasting emotional impact” on Mr Crichton, who he describes as emotionally withdrawn. Mr Crichton’s father also provided a letter to the Court in which he expresses his love and support for his son, and the potential that he has.
The offender’s presentation to Community Corrections may go some way to explaining the limits to the remorse and insight Mr Crichton demonstrates. To Community Corrections, he confirmed an understanding of the unlawfulness of his behaviour, and expressed that he was “remorseful about what happened and stuff”, but is described as reflecting limited insight, with a minimisation of the offending behaviour and an absence of meaningful victim awareness. To the forensic psychologist, he was “wary” to discuss the offending, presumed to reflect his concern for the outcome of his co-offenders. The forensic psychologist finds that his lack of empathy may be explained by potential ADHD. Nonethless, in a letter to the Court, Mr Crichton sets out the shame he has for his offending and how he wishes he could take back his actions. He expresses an apology to the victims.
Pleas of guilty
The pleas of guilty by Mr Crichton were entered following a criminal case conference. The history of the matter in the Supreme Court suggests that this was after an earlier arraignment in which pleas of not guilty were entered. There was no trial listing.
While still providing utilitarian value, the pleas of guilty by Mr Crichton were not at the same level of value as the other offenders. In accordance with Blundell v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 34 at [12], a discount in the range of 15 to 20 per cent is warranted. I consider a reduction towards the upper end of that range, acknowledging that the pleas were entered prior to a trial listing, is appropriate.
The prosecution submitted that with respect to Mr Crichton, an overwhelmingly strong case was established. I accept that there was strong evidence to implicate Mr Crichton, but, as with Mr Eneliko and Mr Pauga, the CCTV footage from the premises limits the strength of the evidence to identify the particular offenders who attended at and entered the house. At the sentence hearing, the prosecution did not rely on the CCTV footage as being of sufficient quality to identify any individual offender in and of itself. Further, the established facts before this Court did not reveal the roles of the individual offenders, beyond Mr Eneliko, within the house, and beyond the acceptance of involvement in the violence offences by the pleas of guilty. I do not consider that the prosecution’s case for the offences was overwhelmingly strong with respect to Mr Crichton.
Time in custody
Raven Pauga (CAN 2024/6473, CAN 2024/6474, CAN 2024/6476, CAN 2024/6512)
During the police investigation, Mr Pauga made admissions to an undercover police officer. He said [sic]: Shit went south and now this shit is happening … all the boys are accepting it anyways, we knew the consequences too. But we just said fuck it, send it … cos we’ve been up there like four times and we were like na, we can’t just keep wasting our time coming up and coming back down, coming up and coming back down, so we all agreed to it, just get it over and done with … to much hassle aye.
On 1 July 2024, police arrested Mr Pauga during the execution of a search warrant at his residence in Shalvey. They located clothing consistent with that worn by him during the offending. His phone was seized. Analysis revealed a deleted exchange of texts with his partner describing his movement to and from Canberra in the relevant period, including when they started to return to Sydney.
In a deleted text exchange on 28 April 2024, Mr Pauga’s partner tried to dissuade him from being involved. This included expressing to him “you don’t need to do all of that to prove your loyalty or love for them that some dumb ass shit” [sic]. Mr Pauga’s replies included [sic]: [L]ast one babe … it’s not just that babe, it’s just the feeling of having boys you can lean back on when shits rough & when one of us have a situation we make sure to help it … baby you’ll never understand the game properly but when you figure it out you’ll know hwy you gotta do certain things at certain places, it’s fked up babe I’m telling you it’s a fkd up world, I honestly don’t how know I fit that shit & school in together … i can’t just walk away from what I’ve started babe … there two of my closest mates yk that already … I’ve stretched it out w [the young person] and jake through thick & thin.
The primacy that Mr Pauga places on supporting his peers, rather than making sound responsible decisions, is reflected in his age, being an age that enlivens the ‘youthful offender’ principles. He was aged 18 years and some three weeks at the time of the offending, and is now aged 19 years. He was previously in a long-term relationship and has no children.
He has no criminal history in the ACT. [Redacted].
Mr Pauga’s subjective circumstances are set out in a pre-sentence report dated 28 May 2025 and a psychological assessment of Dr Aaron Cunningham dated 28 May 2025.
He was born in New Zealand and is of Māori and Samoan heritage. His family migrated to Australia when he was one year of age and settled in Mt Druitt. He is the youngest of six children, and has maintained contact with family members, including his mother, while in custody. While he was homeless and sleeping in his car at the time of the offending, he has housing available with family members upon release from custody.
He also has the support of his family, with an older sister having provided a letter on his behalf. She speaks of the challenges in their childhood home, including the location they were raised. She explains that: [G]rowing up in Mount Druitt [played a role in the offending]. For a young man like Raven, being “tough” wasn’t a choice – it was a necessity. The postcode wars, gang violence, and social stigma that surround the area shaped much of his early experience. Nonetheless, the offending is described as out of character, with her brother being someone who is smart, bubbly, funny, humble, and gentle.
Pleas of guilty
Mr Pauga entered pleas of guilty in the Magistrates Court at a pre-hearing mention. While a plea of guilty was initially entered and a brief of evidence was required, no hearing date was listed, and the matters were committed for sentence to the Supreme Court. I consider a reduction in the order towards 25 per cent is appropriate.
The prosecution submitted that with respect to Mr Pauga an overwhelmingly strong case was established. I accept that there was strong evidence to implicate Mr Pauga, but, as with Mr Eneliko and Mr Crichton, the CCTV footage from the premises limits the strength of the evidence to identify the particular offenders who attended at and entered the house, and the role they played within the house. I do not consider that the prosecution’s case for the offences was overwhelmingly strong with respect to Mr Pauga.
Time in custody
Nicky Ogden (a pseudonym) (CC CAN 2024/1294, CC CAN 2024/1295, CC CAN 2024/1296)
On 14 October 2024 police executed a search warrant at the young person’s residence in Blackett. His mother identified him on the CCTV footage from the victim’s house. Police seized clothing consistent with that worn by the young person and by Mr Eneliko at the time of the offending.
The young person was summonsed that same day and has spent no time in custody in relation to these offences.
The young person is now 17 years and nine months of age. He was aged 16 years and seven months at the time of the offending. His age at the time of the offending raises different sentencing considerations to the other offenders, albeit there is not a significant distinction given the adult offenders were all youthful, and at a young age within such a range, at the time.
Nonetheless, an important distinction that does arise is that the sentencing considerations in respect of the young person are provided by Ch 8A of the Sentencing Act. Importantly, this includes s 133G, which relevantly provides: (1) This section applies if a court is sentencing a young offender to imprisonment under section 10. Note Section 10 allows a court to sentence an offender to imprisonment if satisfied that no other penalty is appropriate (2) The sentence of imprisonment must be a last resort and for the shortest appropriate term. (3) The court must consider making a combination sentence consisting of – (a) the sentence of imprisonment; and (b) a good behaviour order with a supervision condition. …
Further, both the prosecution and the representative on behalf of the young person submitted that the youth justice principles, per s 94 of the Children and Young People Act 2008 (ACT), were of relevance to the sentencing exercise for the young person. They are not, at least until submissions are made as to how they are of application and such submissions are accepted by a superior court: DPP v Vance (a pseudonym) [2024] ACTSC 308 at [45]; DPP v Sean (a pseudonym) (No 4) [2023] ACTSC 97 at [20]. Nonetheless, Ch 8A of the Sentencing Act is of relevance, and the significance of s 133G has already been observed. Additionally, the sentencing of a young person places primacy on individualised justice: s 133C(2) Sentencing Act.
I also note that a submission was made on the young person’s behalf that an additional reduction in sentence is warranted to reflect that the young person’s matter was committed for sentence to the Supreme Court, rather than dealt with in the Childrens Court. I was not assisted with submissions on behalf of the young person that articulated why and how this was relevant to the sentencing exercise. Accordingly, I decline to reflect this circumstance in the sentence.
The young person was born in Australia and is of Samoan heritage. His parents separated when he was around 7 years of age due to conflict arising from his father’s alcohol abuse. He has five siblings. He has a distant relationship with his father that he is repairing. Due to the exposure he had to alcohol use, the young person has no interest in substances.
Pleas of guilty
Parity
The co-offender, Junmar Baczarsa, was sentenced in the Magistrates Court on 15 May 2025. However, the extent to which the sentence imposed on that offender is informative for parity purposes is limited, as his role in the offending is significantly distinguishable to the current offenders.
Mr Baczsara was sentenced for his role as a driver. He did not engage in the home invasion that occurred thereafter, and had no knowledge of the knife. He was sentenced for an offence of aid and abet aggravated burglary (in company) with intent to cause harm. He pleaded guilty at a pre-hearing mention and was sentenced to 9 months and 16 days imprisonment, reduced from 12 months on account of his plea of guilty. The term of imprisonment was suspended on entry into a 12 month good behaviour order with 200 hours of community service.
Current sentencing practice
The prosecution assisted with authorities relied upon as relevant to current sentencing practice, albeit acknowledging the limitations such authorities are capable of providing: DPP v Chatfield [2024] ACTSC 329; 21 ACTLR 329 (DPP v Chatfield); DPP v Manns (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 405; Smith v The Queen [2023] ACTCA 26; DPP v Mena [2023] ACTSC 80; DPP v Parlov [2023] ACTSC 147; DPP v Roberts (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 146; R v Hanrahan [2020] ACTSC 10 (R v Hanrahan); R v Saipani (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 228; R v Salcedo; R v Stretton (No 3) [2018] ACTSC 305; R v Chevalier [2018] ACTSC 236 (R v Chevalier).
These authorities involve numerous examples with more serious features, such as motivation by family violence and use of more serious implements. They are distinguishable as they do not involve youthful offenders, although R v Hanrahan involved a 21 year old offender. There are some similarities in terms of the motivation for the offending that occurred in that matter, as well as it involving multiple co-offenders. There were, though, only minor injuries caused to the occupants. The sentence imposed for aggravated burglary in R v Hanrahan was one of two years imprisonment before the reduction for the plea of guilty. The sentence was immediately suspended with 200 hours of community service. Elkaim J observed in R v Hanrahan at [13], which is of application here, that “[y]oung men must understand that this kind of criminal conduct is not only unacceptable but will result in severe punishment.”
As to the physical violence offences, in R v Chevalier a term of five years imprisonment was imposed for an offence of intentional inflict grievous bodily harm. The offending included stabbing the victim in the back as he ran away, with more serious injuries occasioned than occurred here. The offender had a criminal history which denied leniency and he was not youthful.
Further as to the grievous bodily harm offence, the representative for Mr Eneliko assisted with the following additional authorities: R v Sidaros (No 6) [2021] ACTSC 24; R v Barron [2020] ACTSC 281; and R v Jovanovic [2014] ACTSC 157 (Jovanovic v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 29). Sentences in the range of ten years and nine months imprisonment, through to three years and six months imprisonment, for offenders that were not youthful, were imposed. As the representative for Mr Eneliko also drew the Court’s attention to, the authorities are “[r]eflective of the wide spectrum of injury that can constitute grievous bodily harm, the circumstances within which it can be inflicted and the variation in subjective factors”, such that the “outcomes vary considerably”: DPP v Chatfield at [141].
In addition, the representative for Mr Eneliko assisted with authorities that have considered the sentences imposed in ‘home invasion’ offences: R v CN; R v SN; R v Rix [2019] ACTSC 293; R v Crick [2021] ACTSC 106; R v Catanzariti [2020] ACTSC 326; DPP v Stasinos [2023] ACTSC 179. I have considered these authorities, but again, they are largely distinguishable given the particular circumstances of the offending here and the prominence of youth in the current sentencing exercise.
Consideration
As observed from the outset, it is plain that the only appropriate penalty is one that involves imprisonment. It is otherwise plain that the totality principle is of application, the offending being a single criminal episode. Nonetheless, there are distinct offences, and distinct victims involved, such that only partial concurrency is appropriate.
The parity principle is also of application, at least so far as the sentences are to reflect that Mr Eneliko has the highest culpability. The adult offenders’ subjective circumstances are not significantly dissimilar, although varying degrees of remorse, insight, and prospects of rehabilitation arise. There are also differing reductions for the pleas of guilty, and assistance to authorities. I have ‘rounded’ the terms of imprisonment to be imposed after the applicable reductions in favour of the offenders in order to achieve comprehensible sentence orders.
All of the adult offenders are though youthful, which is a significant consideration. And with respect to the young person, the particular sentencing considerations that arise are significant. The prosecution submitted that all of the offenders, including the young person, ought be sentenced to fulltime imprisonment, with a nonparole period set for the adult offenders and a partially suspended term for the young person. On behalf of all of the adult offenders, it was submitted that an early nonparole period be set to reflect the mitigating factors. With respect to the young person, it was submitted that a fully suspended term be imposed.
In respect of the adult offenders, I have given careful consideration as to whether the sentences should be concluded by way of a non-parole period or by a partial suspension of the sentence, and when this should occur. I have concluded that partially suspended terms of imprisonment are appropriate, with all of the adult offenders to serve further time in custody before that suspension occurs.
The decision to partially suspend the terms takes into account that they are all youthful offenders, and that they are serving sentences in a jurisdiction with distance from family members. Additionally, they each present with sufficiently favourable prospects of rehabilitation such that the deterrent effect of a parole order is not necessary at this time. A certainty of release date will provide them with an opportunity to plan for a future with better choices once they are released from custody, while also not discouraging them from looking towards such a future.
As to the young person, the legislated consideration that arises in respect of him, and his strong prospects of rehabilitation, lead me to conclude that a fully suspended sentence is appropriate. He has experienced the deterrent effect of the prospect of imprisonment. A period in fulltime custody, imposing distance from his family members who have been instrumental in his rehabilitation, and exposing him to his co-offenders and other offenders, would be significantly disruptive to the rehabilitation gains he has made. A stern period of imprisonment is still warranted to fulfill other sentencing considerations, but it will be a fully suspended term.
Orders
DPP v Eneliko (SCC 353, 354 of 2024) (1) On the charge of aggravated burglary (CAN 2024/5514), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 2 years, 4 months imprisonment, reduced from 3 years imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 27 May 2024 and end on 26 September 2026. (2) On the charge of intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm (CAN 2024/5516), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 2 years, 10 months imprisonment, reduced from 3 years, 8 months imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 27 September 2025 and end on 26 July 2028. (3) On the charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (CAN 2024/5515), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 1 year, 11 months imprisonment, reduced from 2 years, 6 months imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 27 June 2027 and end on 26 May 2029. (4) The total sentence period of imprisonment of 5 years, commencing on 27 May 2024 and ending on 26 May 2029, is suspended after 30 months, on 26 November 2026. (5) Lytrell Eneliko is required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender’s good behaviour obligations pursuant to s 85 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for a period of 2 years, 6 months and 1 day, from 26 November 2026 to 26 May 2029, with a probation condition that he accept supervision by the Commissioner of ACT Corrective Services or his delegate for the period of the undertaking or such lesser period as the person supervising him considers appropriate and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him.
DPP v Crichton (SCC 378, 379 of 2024) (1) On the charge of aggravated burglary (CAN 2024/7500), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment, reduced from 2 years, 6 months imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 18 August 2024 and end on 17 August 2026. (2) On the charge of intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm (CAN 2024/7501), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 2 years, 5 months imprisonment, reduced from 3 years imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 18 August 2025 and end on 17 January 2028. (3) On the charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (CAN 2024/7503), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 1 year, 8 months imprisonment, reduced from 2 years imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 18 December 2026 and end on 17 August 2028. (4) The total sentence period of imprisonment of 4 years, commencing on 18 August 2024 and ending on 17 August 2028, is suspended after 20 months, on 17 April 2026. (5) Jacob Crichton is required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender’s good behaviour obligations pursuant to s 85 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for a period of 2 years, 4 months and 1 day, from 17 April 2026 to 17 August 2028, with a probation condition that he accept supervision by the Commissioner of ACT Corrective Services or his delegate for the period of the undertaking or such lesser period as the person supervising him considers appropriate and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him.
DPP v Pauga (SCC 68 of 2025) (1) On the charge of aggravated burglary (CAN 2024/6473), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment, reduced from 2 years, 7 months imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 1 July 2024 and end on 30 June 2026. (2) On the charge of intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm (CAN 2024/6474), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 2 years, 3 months imprisonment, reduced from 3 years imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 1 July 2025 and end on 30 September 2027. (3) On the charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (CAN 2024/6512), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 1 year, 6 months imprisonment, reduced from 2 years imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 31 December 2026 and end on 30 June 2028. (4) In making these sentence orders, the additional offence of minor property damage (CAN 2024/6476) has been taken into account. (5) The total period of imprisonment of 4 years, commencing on 1 July 2024 and ending on 30 June 2028, is suspended after 20 months, on 28 February 2026. (6) Raven Pauga is required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender’s good behaviour obligations pursuant to s 85 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for a period of 2 years, 4 months and 3 days, from 28 February 2026 to 30 June 2028, with a probation condition that he accept supervision by the Commissioner of ACT Corrective Services or his delegate for the period of the undertaking or such lesser period as the person supervising him considers appropriate and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him.
DPP v Ogden (a pseudonym) (SCC 32 of 2025) (1) On the charge of aggravated burglary (CC CAN 2024/1294), the young person is convicted and sentenced to 1 year, 7 months imprisonment, reduced from 2 years imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 16 July 2025 and end on 15 February 2027. (2) On the charge of intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm (CC CAN 2024/1295), the young person is convicted and sentenced to 1 year, 11 months imprisonment, reduced from 2 years 6 months imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 16 July 2026 and end on 15 June 2028. (3) On the charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (CC CAN 2024/1296), the young person is convicted and sentenced to 1 year, 2 months imprisonment, reduced from 1 year, 6 months imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 16 November 2027 and end on 15 January 2029. (4) The total period of imprisonment of 3 years, 6 months imprisonment, commencing on 16 July 2025 and ending on 15 January 2029, is fully suspended. (5) Nicky Ogden is required to sign an undertaking to comply with the young person’s good behaviour obligations pursuant to s 85 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for a period 3 years, 6 months, from 16 July 2025 to 15 January 2029, with an additional condition, namely, a supervision condition within the meaning of s 133U of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT).
I certify that the preceding one hundred and thirty-three [133] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Acting Justice Christensen Associate: Date: 24 July 2025
The offenders Crichton, Pauga and the young person walked up the street and towards the driveway while Mr Eneliko continued knocking on the door and front window, while still holding the knife. Mr Baczarsa remained with the silver Nissan.
The female occupant of the house answered the door. She heard voices with an “Islander” or “New Zealand” accent.
Eneliko entered and stabbed her four times in the left arm and chest. She fell back as the co-offenders entered the house.
The male occupant of the house attempted to exit the bedroom. He was in his underwear. Mr Eneliko pushed him back into the room. The co-offenders were shouting “Where’s the money? Where’s the money?”. The male occupant, being a victim of the offending, was saying “Leave me alone, leave me alone”. The female occupant, being the other victim of the offending, screamed “There’s nothing here”.
The co-offenders forced the male victim to the bed and at least three of them were punching and kicking him, mostly in the head. Mr Eneliko stabbed him in the arm and the leg, as the victim was kicking out at the offenders.
Mr Eneliko put the knife back in the bag and all of the co-offenders left through the front door.
As they departed, Mr Pauga jumped on the windshield of the red Holden, shattering it. One of the offenders threw a rock through a front window of the residence, shattering it.
The co-offenders then fled the scene in the direction of the street where the vehicle was parked.
Police and paramedics attended. Both of the victims were triaged as category one patients, tourniquets were applied for their injuries, and they were transported to the Canberra Hospital.
The male victim sustained the following injuries: (a) A two centimetre incised wound on the left upper arm, that did not penetrate the muscle or fascia layers, and had a two centimetre diameter bruise underneath; (b) A two centimetre incised wound on the left forearm, that did not penetrate the fascia layer; (c) A one centimetre superficial incised wound on the left outer upper chest, which did not extend beyond the skin layer; (d) A one centimetre superficial incised wound on the mid left flank, which did not extend beyond the skin layer; and (e) A seven centimetre diameter bruise on the inner aspect of the left upper arm above the elbow.
The female victim sustained the following injuries: (a) Stab wound to the left upper arm; (b) Stab wound to the left posterior thigh; (c) Left front scalp haematoma with associated swelling; (d) Bruise to the left outer eyebrow and possible bruising to the left cheek, temporal region and nasal bridge; (e) Bruising over the right gluteal region; and (f) Tenderness to the jaw, right wrist, and right fifth toe.
As to the violence inflicted on the male occupant, the stabbing was again done by Mr Eneliko. There were again multiple uses of the knife, and he is directly responsible for the injuries that caused grievous bodily harm. The level of seriousness of the injuries within such offending is not at a significantly high level, although the victim required surgery and has been left with extensive scarring. It was submitted on Mr Eneliko’s behalf that he is not directly responsible for the injuries that do not amount to grievous bodily harm. I accept this. Nonetheless, he joined in on the assaultive incident being inflicted by the other offenders, by stabbing the victim.
This was an act of violence that was again done in the presence of the other offenders, who were engaging in their own acts of physical violence at the time, exacerbating the harm caused to the victim. He was in a vulnerable position at the time. Again, Mr Eneliko has the highest culpability with respect to the offending on the male occupant, but the other offenders still have significant culpability.
While the offending seemingly came to an end of the offender’s own volitation, after a period of some 10 minutes that they were proximate and in the house, this was after the victims had verbally resisted the conduct, and after they had been left without any assistance for their injuries.
He also has the support of family members, with this borne out in letters tendered on his behalf. His mother and aunt describe him as loving and obedient, and that he has expressed remorse for his actions. It is explained that he was a caring family member who experienced the loss of his grandparents which took a toll mentally and emotionally on him. Mr Eneliko is described as a good person at his core who deserves a second chance. Additionally, his Church Reverend speaks of knowing the offender since birth, and that he can attest to his integrity and dedication.
As to his reported attitude to the offences in the pre-sentence report, Mr Eneliko is reported to have not disputed the statement of facts, and to have not provided any explanation for the offending. He attributed his offending to having been under the influence of cannabis and alcohol, as well as unspecified mental health struggles. I am not satisfied thahhht, to the extent he had early exposure to substance misuse, any role of substances in the offending is mitigatory on sentence. The extent to which the offending was plainly premediated, and given that Mr Eneliko had a leadership role in the offending, both militate against such a conclusion.
He is described as offering a “moderate level of victim empathy”, which he “mixed … with self-concern at being separated from his family”.
Mr Eneliko has no criminal history in the ACT. [Redacted].
[Redacted].
It is also though of concern that Mr Eneliko’s behaviour in custody has involved disciplinary action on a number of occasions, and that records reflect that he has been generally non-compliant and disrespectful. He has also recently returned positive results for a substance not prescribed to him. While drawing firm conclusions from behaviour in custody must be approached with caution, particularly for a person not yet of full maturity, it gives pause as to the prospects of rehabilitation.
The assessment report finds that Mr Eneliko has a high risk of reoffending and that he is suitable for a high level of supervision, with community support recommended. A mental health assessment is also recommended. The assessment report also finds that he experienced “a challenging upbringing, witnessing family members abusing substances, not residing with his parents from a young age and being the victim of physical abuse by relatives”. On this basis, I accept the submission made on his behalf that the principles from Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 (Bugmy) are enlivened and accordingly his moral culpability is reduced.
Nonetheless, I consider that Mr Eneliko’s prospects of rehabilitation are to be regarded as guarded. He is plainly a young adult with potential, and protective factors available to him, but he needs to embrace this. Community protection has an elevated role in the sentencing exercise with respect to this offender.
Mr Crichton intends, upon release from custody, to return to his father’s home. He completed schooling to year 12, but has not yet obtained any further qualifications or training. He is motivated to do so though, describing that he is interested in a professional boxing career with a view to using that to “get … out of the ghetto life”. He has engaged in some casual work in the past. A family friend has also provided a letter of support and indicates his commitment to support Mr Crichton with employment upon release.
Mr Crichton did not report to Community Corrections any challenges with substance misuse, but testing and an occasion of contraband behaviour in custody suggests some concerns as to this. Further, the information he provided to the forensic psychologist suggests that he has used cannabis since 14 years of age. He is found to have a severe cannabis disorder in early remission due to the controlled custodial environment. In his letter to the Court, he explains that he has now been abstinent from substances for a period of some 11 months and he plans to keep it that way.
Community Corrections report that AMC custodial records otherwise indicate ongoing behavioural issues, including a failure to follow directions, assaultive conduct, threats, and involvement in ‘stand over’ activities. It must be recalled that such behaviours are reflective of challenges in a custodial environment and are not necessarily determinative as to prospects of rehabilitation once in the community. So much so is explained by Mr Crichton in the letter he provided to the Court in which he explained the circumstances of these behavioural challenges.
The forensic psychologist finds that Mr Crichton is a young man who “has not had any opportunity to develop a health sense of identity” and that he “still very clearly has the cognitive processing abilities of a teenager”. Nonetheless, he retains “some drive to improve his life and achieve goals”.
Overall, with respect to Mr Crichton’s subjective circumstances, the information before the Court satisfies me that the Bugmy principles are enlivened. With reference to traumatic incidents of his childhood, the forensic psychologist finds that Mr Crichton meets the diagnosis for complex posttraumatic stress disorder. The forensic psychologist also finds that Mr Crichton meets the criteria for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, with this requiring confirmation from a psychiatrist.
He does not have any diagnosed mental health concerns, but it is plain from the reports that Mr Crichton is in need of support to address matters from his childhood, and to assist him to embrace the protective factors available to him.
These are described by Community Corrections as including positive pro-social supports within the paternal family, his regular attendance at church, and his commitment to physical health, including training at the PCYC and boxing.
Community Corrections conclude that Mr Crichton requires a medium level of supervision. His criminogenic risks include his peer associations. Similarly, the forensic psychologist finds that Mr Crichton requires a moderate level of intervention to reduce his risk of violent recidivism. The forensic psychologist recommends that Mr Crichton would benefit from a substance use rehabilitation program and psychological intervention.
I find Mr Crichton’s prospects of rehabilitation to be guarded, although there is a solid prospect that as he matures and develops better insight and direction, he is capable of being a positive contributing member in the community. He will plainly benefit from a period of supervision in the community that will support this.
Mr Pauga reports circumstances of his childhood that satisfy me that he experienced socioeconomic disadvantage such that the principles from Bugmy are enlivened. This includes exposure to substances and violence. As the psychologist finds, exposure to violence in childhood can reduce emotional intelligence and moral development by impairing emotional regulation, empathy and impulse control. As Mr Pauga expresses in his letter to the Court, his childhood circumstances led to him to feel responsible to provide for his family. Mr Pauga’s moral culpability for his offending is reduced as a result of his childhood experiences.
Mr Pauga himself commenced use of substances from the age of 15 years, with this increasing to regular use prior to the offending. He acknowledges that this was becoming problematic. He has sought to engage with treatment for this while in custody. He otherwise has no mental illness or physical health concerns. Having said that, the psychologist finds that Mr Pauga has impairments in verbal comprehension and reasoning.
He engaged in organised sports until the age of 14 years, when he disengaged to spend more time with friends. He completed schooling to year 10, and thereafter engaged with a work skills program through the PCYC. He has interest in pursuing employment in a trade industry in the future.
He has completed certificates while in custody and has engaged in employment in the custodial environment. He is also engaging with alcohol and gambling programs. As to his conduct otherwise while in custody, there have been some poor behaviours and disrespect exhibited, but he is also described as displaying some positive behaviours. This includes that he has attended a Christian education program.
He is described as acknowledging that the victims were physically injured by the offending and that they would have been traumatised by the event. He explained that he became involved in the offending as he thought he would receive some financial reward, and he planned to give the money to his family. The psychologist finds that, consistent with his relative psychological and emotional immaturity, Mr Pauga’s remorse was focused on the consequences he had suffered from the offences. However, in a letter to the Court, Mr Pauga expresses his guilt and remorse for the offending. He expresses that he is extremely ashamed and wishes that he could undo the pain, harm, and trauma he caused the victims. He expresses an apology to them.
The pre-sentence report assesses Mr Pauga to be in need of a medium level of supervision. Similarly, the psychological assessment finds that supervision would be of benefit, with Mr Pauga presenting with a moderate risk of future violent offending. His main offending risk factor is association with other disaffected peers.
Mr Pauga has solid prospects of rehabilitation, but caution remains. He appears to maintain loyalty to negative peer associates, and would benefit from support once in the community to move towards a more positive trajectory for his life.
The young person and his family identify as Catholic, and religion is important to them. The Samoan culture is also important to his family, and the young person reports that his family is important to him, and he has a close and respectful relationship with his mother. In 2022 he moved with his mother into his grandmother’s house, and then from May 2024, into his older brother’s home. This was after the offending and done with a view to “get him far away from the friends who were getting into trouble from Mount Druitt”.
His mother, brother and sister in law have written character references on his behalf. They speak of the young person’s remorse, and his positive growth since the offending. They speak of their confidence that he will continue on this more positive path. They also speak of his positive attributes, being a responsible, respectful, and valued family member.
The young person grew up in Sydney and completed schooling to year 10. He was a school captain in primary school. He was a good student until about year 10 when he became friends with anti-social peers. Since he moved to live with his brother, he now spends his time working, going to the gym, spending time with family, and avoiding anti-social peers.
[Redacted].
Since mid 2024, he has been employed in two jobs, most recently being a casual job as a ‘dock hand’. He has considered going into the military, but is awaiting the outcome of the court proceedings. He demonstrates responsibility, covering his personal expenses and contributing to household expenses.
The young person does not report any mental health concerns, and he is in good physical health and maintains his fitness. He has recently re-engaged with a rugby club and enjoys going to the gym.
As to his attitude to the offences, he demonstrates insight and maturity beyond that displayed by his co-offenders. The young person expressed to the pre-sentence report assessors his regret for the offending and that he “feels bad” for the victims. His explanation for the offending was that he thought they were going on a camping trip, and that he didn’t know why the victims were targeted and was “confused” and “shocked” by what happened. On his behalf, it was submitted that the offender was a “misguided follower”. I accept this to an extent, having considered all of the material available with respect to the young person. However, there is also a sufficient basis to conclude that he had an active role with his co-offenders.
In a letter he wrote to the Court, he expresses his “deepest and sincerest apologies for the harm and pain” caused and that he is truly sorry. He speaks directly to the victims and apologises for the harm he has caused. He acknowledges that he “made the wrong choice”. He expresses that he is surrounding himself with better influences and is trying to make his family proud.
Youth Justice and Adolescent Services prepared a comprehensive pre-sentence report dated 28 May 2025 with respect to the young person. This finds that the young person has a very strong familial bond and a “great support” network within his family. He is described as having pro-social views, that he appears respectful of authority, has been involved in pro-social activities and has engaged in continuous daily employment. He has identified that his peers are not his friends, they are people who do not have his best interests in mind, and he no longer associates with them.
The pre-sentence report concludes that the young person is in a low risk category for general recidivism. The report assessed that given the young person’s significant positive progress, supervision is not recommended. As will become apparent, I consider a period of supervision is warranted, to be for a period deemed necessary by the NSW Department of Community and Justice. This is appropriate to enforce deterrence and mitigate against any future risk of the young person engaging in such offending, and with anti-social associates.
It is also found in the report that the young person is assessed as suitable for community service work. In circumstances where the young person is otherwise engaging fully with employment and pro-social activities, I consider a community service condition to not be appropriate.
It is readily apparent that, despite the serious conduct that he was involved in, the young person has strong and positive prospects of rehabilitation.
None of this is to say that the offences were not anything other than of the utmost seriousness, with it being significantly concerning behaviour which caused significant harm to members of the ACT community. The sentencing purposes of deterrence, accountability, and recognition of the harm caused will be reflected in the sentences to be imposed. The offenders – whether they are young or youthful – must understand that if they do not take this opportunity to choose a life that does not involve resorting to violence, they risk the imposition of lengthy periods in custody.