DPP v Hagen [2025] ACTSC 519

1. The offender, Jordan Anthony Robert Hagen, came before me for sentence on 20 September 2025. An adjournment of the proceedings was sought and granted to facilitate the preparation of an up-to-date pre-sentence report. Accordingly, the matter was listed for today for the report to be prepared and provided to the parties and the Court. On 14 November 2025 the Court was advised that Mr Hagen had not engaged with the ACT Corrective Services officer who attended the Alexander Machonice Centre (AMC) to prepare the report.

2. On 20 November 2025 the legal representative for Mr Hagen explained that he had not understood that the person requesting to meet with him at the AMC on 7 October 2025 was there to prepare a pre-sentence report. On 24 November 2025 the Court was further advised by Mr Hagen’s legal representative that no further adjournment of the sentencing proceedings was sought by Mr Hagen.

3. Mr Hagen is now to be sentenced in relation to the following offences which he committed on 9 November 2023, having entered pleas of guilty on 26 May 2025: (a) Count 1 (CC2023/11664): Attempted aggravated burglary contrary to s 312 Criminal Code 2002 by virtue of s 44 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), which attracts a maximum penalty of 2000 penalty units, 20 years of imprisonment or both. (b) Count 2 (CC2023/11666): Assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s 24 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT); which attracts a maximum penalty of 5 years of imprisonment. (c) Count 3 (CC2023/11668): Assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s 24 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), which attracts a maximum penalty of 5 years of imprisonment.

4. On 30 May 2024 the offender entered pleas of guilty to the following offences that he committed on 23 November 2023: (a) CC2023/11661: Drive stolen motor vehicle without consent contrary to s 318(2) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), which attracts a maximum penalty of 500 penalty units, 5 years of imprisonment or both. (b) CC2023/11662: Unlawful possession of stolen property contrary to s 324(1) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), which attracts a maximum penalty of 50 penalty units, 6 months of imprisonment or both. This offence was transferred to this Court to be dealt with as a ‘related offence’. (c) CC2023/11669: Drive while licence suspended (repeat offender) contrary to s 32(2)(a) of the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT), which attracts a maximum penalty of 100 penalty units, 1 year of imprisonment or both. This offence was transferred to this Court to be dealt with as a ‘related offence’.

Facts

9 November 2023 offences (CC2023/11664, CC2023/11666 and CC2023/11668)

5. The offender is the former boyfriend of Samantha Chatfield, the co-offender. Co-offender Chatfield was formerly a close friend of FT. FT is the victim of CC2023/11666. FT had known the offender and co-offender Chatfield for several years.

6. At the time of the offence, FT resided with QN, known to FT as [reacted] at [redacted].

7. On 9 November 2023, at about 9:15pm, a white sedan pulled into the driveway of the [redacted] residence. On entering the lip of the driveway, the white sedan immediately performed a 3-point turn and departed west down [redacted]. The sedan came to a stop approximately 100 meters away, west of the driveway to the [redacted] residence and then turned off its headlights.

8. At about 9:17pm, the offender and co-offender Chatfield caused messages to be sent to FT from a Facebook account belonging to DS. The messages requested that FT meet DS at a park. FT drove around [redacted] on [redacted] Oval. FT attempted to call DS on Facebook Messenger and then sent him a Facebook message telling him to come to her car. When DS did not arrive at FT’s car, FT sent DS further Facebook messages accusing him of setting her up. FT sent DS a final Facebook message stating, “I’m going back home”.

9. At about 9:18pm, the white sedan moved from its position on the right-hand side of the road, drove west for a short distance and stopped, still on [redacted], facing west, on the left-hand side of the road, being the opposite side of the road from the [redacted]

Assault occasioning actual bodily harm FT (CC2023/11666)

10. At about 9:23pm, FT drove her BMW sedan into the driveway of the [redacted] residence. At about 9:24pm, FT got out of the driver’s side of the BMW. At the same time, the offender and co-offender Chatfield ran across the street and approached the driveway of the [redacted] residence from the west. Co-offender Chatfield and the offender ran towards FT as she got out of her car. The offender was running a few meters behind co-offender Chatfield carrying a metal pole, approximately 40 to 50 centimetres in length. The offender was wearing a branded hoodie and a balaclava.

11. FT ran, screaming as she went, towards the front door of the [redacted] residence, chased by the offender and co-offender Chatfield. She did not lock the BMW as she was running from the offender and co-offender Chatfield. The courtyard of the [redacted] residence has a metal gate, over a metre high. FT jumped over the gate as she ran from the offender, falling onto the concrete on the other side. FT sustained a fracture to the left radial head of her elbow joint along with abrasions to various parts of her body.

Attempted burglary and assault occasioning actual bodily harm on QN (CC2023/11664 and CC2023/11668)

12. FT got off the ground and ran into the front door, with the offender and co-offender Chatfield jumping the gate behind her. QN was inside the kitchen of the [redacted] residence and came to the front door as FT ran into the house. QN pushed the offender away from the front door and attempted to close it.

13. The offender struck QN once with the metal pole as QN was attempting to close the front door. QN raised his arm to defend himself and the offender struck QN with the metal pole a second time. The blow deflected off QN’s arm, with the metal pole striking him in the face. QN sustained a laceration on the inside of his lower lip, which produced blood.

14. QN pushed the offender away from the front door and closed the door, shutting the offender and co-offender Chatfield outside. QN held the door closed while the offender continued to try to open the door by pulling on it.

15. After failing to get into the residence, the offender struck the kitchen window twice with the metal pole. Co-offender Chatfield picked up an ornament from the courtyard and threw it through the kitchen window, causing the glass to shatter. The offender and co-offender Chatfield entered the driver’s side of FT’s BMW and rifled through the car.

16. At about 9:25pm, the offender ran west from the driveway of the [redacted] residence down [redacted] towards the white sedan, indicating to the driver. The white sedan performed a 3-point turn and followed the offender towards the [redacted] residence, stopping at near the driveway. The offender spoke briefly to the driver of the white sedan before getting into the passenger seat. Co-offender Chatfield got into the rear seat of the white sedan behind the driver. QN left the [redacted] residence carrying a hand axe and running towards the white sedan on foot. The white sedan drove west down [redacted], departing the area.

17. The statement of facts for charges CC2023/11661, CC2023/11662, CC2023/11669 are as follows:

23 November 2023 offences (CC2023/11661, CC2023/11662 and CC2023/11669)

18. At approximately 7:00am on Tuesday 21 November 0223, ST contacted ACT Policing Operations to report his Grey Holden Commodore Sedan displaying New South Wales (NSW) registration plate [redacted] and vehicle identification number [redacted] (the Commodore) as stolen.

19. At approximately 7:30am on Thursday 23 November 2023, TC contacted ACT Policing Operations to report his Australian Capital Territory (ACT) registration plates [redacted] (the Stolen Plates) as stolen.

20. At approximately 9:10pm on Thursday 23 November 2023, plain clothes police in an unmarked police vehicle fitted with covert emergency lights, observed the Commodore displaying the Stolen Plates driving eastbound on Franklin Street, Manuka. Police then followed the Commodore.

21. The Commodore entered the underground carpark of the Manuka Terrace Shopping Mall located on the corner of Franklin Street and Flinders Way, Manuka.

22. Police followed the Commodore into the carpark and observed the offender driving the Commodore. Police also observed two other occupants in the Commodore.

23. Co-offender Samantha Chatfield was identified seated in the front passenger seat of the Commodore. Co-accused David Bosma was identified seated in the rear passenger seat of the Commodore. The Commodore stopped in a designated parking space.

24. The offender, co-offender Chatfield and co-accused Bosma exited the Commodore and entered the Manuka Terrace Shopping Mall. A short time later, police observed the offender, co-offender Chatfield and co-accused Bosma exit the shopping mall and return to the Commodore. Police proceeded towards the Commodore and apprehended the offender, co-offender Chatfield and co-accused Bosma.

25. At approximately 9:20pm the same day, the offender was placed into custody and cautioned. During the arrest, the offender sustained a laceration to the right side of his face and was conveyed to The Canberra Hospital for medical treatment and was subsequently discharged back into police custody where he was transported to the ACT Regional Watch House.

26. The offender stated to police that he was under the influence of illicit substances and was therefore deemed not fit to participate in a record of interview.

27. Police located the VIN on the Commodore which showed [redacted] Checks conducted on police indices confirmed the Commodore to belong to ST reported stolen on 21 November 2023.

28. Police located affixed to the Commodore the ACT registration plates [redacted]. Checks conducted on police indices confirmed the Stolen Plates belonged to TC reported stolen on 23 November 2023.

29. Checks conducted on police indices outlined that the offender’s ACT driver licence was suspended on 22 December 2020 due to failure to comply with an infringement notice management plan. The offender’s ACT driver licence remained suspended on 23 November 2023.

Sentencing considerations

Victim impact statement and medical material

30. The victim, FT provided a victim impact statement.

31. FT described the injuries she suffered which included a broken elbow. The collection of injuries caused her ongoing and debilitating pain. She outlined psychological trauma which she has endured since the offending, including anxiety and nightmares. She has been unable to return to work or participate in her usual social and physical activities because of the physical and psychological effects of the offending. As a result, her financial stability and quality of life have been negatively affected.

32. A report from Dr Vanita Parekh detailed that the victim had sustained a break to her left radial head which involved the elbow joint. Dr Parekh noted that this type of fracture can be difficult to repair and can result in a protracted healing period. The victim did not require medical intervention for the fracture.

33. Additionally, Dr Parekh detailed that the victim sustained abrasions to the left side of her body, specifically her chest, ribcage, left hip and top of her left foot, which were consistent with falling on her left side.

Nature and circumstances of the offending

34. The offences on 9 November 2023 were committed in company. An assessment of the offender’s role revealed him to be significantly involved in the offending which included pursuing FT while carrying a metal pole and using the metal pole to assault QN and inflict harm upon him. The use of a weapon capable of causing significant harm contributed to the overall air of threat and menace involved in the incident. QN was struck in the face, a vulnerable part of the body, with the weapon.

35. The injuries suffered by FT were not directly inflicted by the offender though were clearly the result of the offender and co-offender’s pursuit of her. FT was clearly fearful of the offending group. The fracture suffered was not an insignificant injury and would have caused pain. The injuries suffered by QN appeared to be largely superficial, though undoubtedly caused pain and discomfort.

36. The burglary offence was an attempt at entering a residential address at a time when the occupants were present. The offence was not completed because the attempt at entry to the premises was thwarted. It was an unsophisticated example of the offence. There was some degree of planning involved noting the use of a balaclava, the nature of the messages in the lead up to the offending and the use of a vehicle to flee the scene. Damage was caused to the premises and the offender was armed.

37. The offences on 23 November 2023 were typical examples of each of the offences. I note the owner of the vehicle suffered the inconvenience of being without it for a period, though there is no evidence that the vehicle was damaged or used in the commission of other offences. The offender drove the vehicle for a relatively brief period with two passengers. The possession of the stolen registration plates was for a brief period.

Subjective circumstances

38. A report authored by psychologist, Ms Vanessa Edwige was before the Court. So too an Intensive Corrections Assessment Report (ICOAR) filed for the purposes of sentencing proceedings in the Magistrates Court in October 2024.

39. Mr Edwige comprehensively detailed the offender’s background and upbringing. The details in Ms Edwige’s report were consistent with the information contained in the ICOAR.

40. The offender is a 26 year old Wiradjuri man. He was born in Queensland and lived with his mother and father. The offender was exposed to domestic violence and both his parents smoked marijuana and drank alcohol. His father used crystal methamphetamine. His parents separated when he was 3 years old and his father died when he was 4 years old in an accident. The offender moved to the ACT with his mother when he was 6 years old.

41. Once in Canberra the offender’s mother re-partnered. This partner used drugs, drank alcohol and engaged in acts of family violence towards the offender. The offender was required to undergo plastic surgery for an injury inflicted upon him by his mother’s new partner. He told Ms Edwige “I was scared of him”. His mother’s partner was incarcerated for domestic violence offences committed against her and the offender recalled visiting him in jail. The offender’s mother separated from her partner when he was approximately 9-10 years of age and left him “for good” when he was around 14 or 15 years of age.

42. At age 10 the offender was removed from his mother’s care and placed into foster care with a non-Indigenous family. As a result, the offender was separated from his younger brothers. The offender reported that he would attempt to go back home to his mother during this time. He was eventually placed back in the care of his mother after she had attended rehabilitation. He later went to live with his maternal grandparents in Holder. He reported that this was positive but he stopped living with them because he wanted to return to live with his mother. He reported that his mother had been “coming into jail a few times” to see him. He has a sister currently in foster care in Queensland.

43. [Redacted]. He was introduced to cannabis at age 11 and methylamphetamine at age 13.[Redacted]. [Redacted].

44. Ms Edwidge highlighted that early exposure to substances abuse increases “the likelihood that children will themselves develop substance abuse problems, making it more probable that they will come into contact with the criminal justice system” [redacted].

45. The offender’s mother re-partnered when he was 16 years old and the offender reported that domestic violence featured in that relationship. He reported that his mother was assaulted by this partner with a hammer resulting in damage to her head which has affected her memory. Ms Edwige observed that “fears and anxiety elicited by traumatic situations, such as exposure to violence, do not disappear with age.”

46. The offender started a relationship with Ms Chatfield when he was 22 years old. He told Ms Edwige that she was a lot older than him and has three children of her own. The offender said “whatever she asked me to do I just did it”. He attributed his failure to go before the sentence administration board to Ms Chatfield stating that “she is the reason I am locked up this time. She wouldn’t let me go to a parole board meeting.”. The offender is now in relationship with a different partner that he met at the AMC.

47. The offender completed much of his high school education [redacted]. The offender recalled that when he was completing his primary schooling he was suspended multiple times. The offender has been diagnosed with dyslexia, Attention-Deficit-Hyperactivity- Disorder (ADHD) and Attention-Deficit-Disorder (ADD). He reported struggling with learning though excelling in sport.

48. As previously canvased, the offender has a history of drug and alcohol abuse. He reported that he stopped smoking marijuana when he was 20-21 years of age and continued to use crystal methamphetamine. He started using heroin when he was 21 but reported ceasing a year ago. He has been on the Buvidal treatment program for a year and when last in the community he engaged in drug and alcohol counselling with Every Man once a week for a period of 3-4 weeks. The offender has not been to a residential drug rehabilitation program and has in the past applied to go to the Canberra Recovery Service.

49. In July 2025 he was assessed by a psychiatrist in relation to [redacted]. That psychiatrist diagnosed the offender with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), Cluster B Personality traits, depression and anxiety. The offender is not currently prescribed any medication for his mental health diagnosis and has never engaged in any form of therapy.

50. Ms Edwige observed the offender to present with a flat affect. The offender reported that he finds it difficult to experience positive emotions, he has poor self-esteem and that he has significant anxiety and flashbacks connected to his past traumatic experiences.

51. Ms Edwige considered that the offender presented with developmental disadvantage and complex developmental trauma. The offender scored 7 out of 10 on the Adverse Childhood Experiences Questionnaire; scores of 4 or above are considered clinically significant.

52. Ms Edwige noted that adverse childhood experiences “…impact on a child’s executive functioning, being metacognitive skills and skills of behaviour regulation. This constant state (survival) and the impact this has on brain development is referred to as complex developmental trauma.”

53. Ms Edwige considered the offender fulfilled the diagnostic criteria for complex PTSD, stimulant and opioid use disorder, Major Depressive Disorder and Anxious Distress. The presence of these disorders significantly affects the offender’s capacity for emotional regulation, sound decision making and judgment.

54. Ms Edwige concluded that at the time of the offending, the offender’s mental health impairments were clinically significant and affected his ability to make reasoned judgments, think clearly, regulate his behaviour and appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct. Ms Edwige recommended that the offender’s mental health needs would be best met in the community and that he demonstrated behaviour consistent with institutionalisation.

55. Treatment options recommended by Ms Edwige included supportive drug and alcohol rehabilitation and therapeutic intervention with a focus on self-regulation, coping skills, resilience building and self-esteem. It was also recommended that, should he so wish, the offender have access to cultural support and build a stronger sense of cultural identity through engaging in cultural practices. Ms Edwige suggested that the offender would benefit from engagement with First Nations specific support services including referral to the Ngunnawal Bush Healing Farm, Yedding Mura and psychiatric care at Winnunga Nimmityjah Aboriginal Health and Community Services for an ADHD assessment and long-term therapeutic support.

56. The offender completed a 10-week offender program in May 2024 while in custody and has in the past engaged with Everyman. He was recorded to have engaged well and positively in the offender in the program in May 2024. Urinalysis in August and September 2024 returned negative results. The offender’s ADHD diagnosis was confirmed in the October 2024 ICOAR and he was recorded to experience deafness in his left ear. The offender’s criminogenic risk factors in October 2024 were identified to be substance abuse, mental health, unemployment, accommodation and anti-social influences. Those factors appear to have persisted.

57. The ICOAR identified that the offender would benefit from completing the Solaris Therapeutic Community program in custody. The offender was assessed as being a “high risk” of re-offending with several unaddressed criminogenic needs. It was against this background that he was found unsuitable for an intensive correction order.

Responsibility, remorse and rehabilitation

58. The offender’s childhood experience was disadvantaged. The offender was removed from his mother’s care at age 10, exposed to drugs and alcohol use, criminal activity and domestic violence at an early age [redacted]. The offender’s mother, brother and grandfather have all engaged in the criminal justice system [redacted]. Consequently, he is, I accept, at risk of institutionalisation.

59. The offender’s disadvantaged childhood experience must be given “full weight”: Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37. The effect of that childhood was recorded by Ms Edwige to include impaired emotional regulation and decision-making skills. This explains the offender’s criminal conduct to a degree. I am satisfied that giving “full weight” to the offender’s childhood experience reduces his moral culpability to some extent and moderates the weight of general deterrence and punishment.

60. The offender is a relatively young man with an extensive criminal history. He has expressed some remorse for his conduct and by his pleas of guilty has accepted responsibility. When interviewed by Ms Edwige the offender expressed that he felt sorry “that [he] did that” and that “they didn’t deserve it”.

61. The offender has indicated his willingness to engage in supports which would assist him to address those factors influencing his interaction with the criminal justice system. He has in the past had some success with rehabilitation support services. He has achieved numerous certificates whilst in custody.

62. The status of the relationship between the co-offender and the offender which he identified as central to the commission of the most serious offences before the Court is unclear. To the extent that the dysfunction in the relationship was put forward as some explanation for the motivation of the offending I accept it. But as the prosecutor submitted it was not an explanation that mitigates the offending to any significant degree.

63. The relationship is clearly not one in the offender or the co-offender’s interest. It was undoubtedly attended to by some complexity and dysfunction consistent with the offender’s mother and brother being dealt with for offences involving the co-offender. ACT Corrective Services documents recorded that the co-offender has previously admitted to ‘spiking’ the offender’s drink with illicit substances in an effort to have the offender arrested and remanded in custody for breaching bail conditions not to consume illicit substances.

64. It was submitted that the relationship is now over, and the offender is focused on his own rehabilitation. Upon his release there is the prosect of a relocation with his mother, when his brother is also released from prison.

65. A letter written by the offender sets out some of the challenges that he has faced in custody which included difficulties accessing material from his solicitors and a sense that he was unable to access supports which may assist him. The offender expressed a desire to leave Canberra and moved to Queensland with his family in order to have a fresh start. The offender acknowledged that his history of offending has resulted in numerous significant moments in his life such as birthdays and Christmas celebrations being missed. The offender expressed deep regret about the pain he has caused to his family in particular his mother.

66. The offender’s letter revealed some insight into the need for him to make meaningful changes so he can avoid a future similar to that of his past. The offender identified the need for him to access employment, change his peer influences and pursue stability more generally, in order to change the direction of his life. I accept the offender has demonstrated some remorse for his offending conduct but much of his regret flows from the effect of his conduct upon his own life and the lives of his family members, particularly his mother.

67. Ms Edwige concluded that the offender would have good prospects of rehabilitation if he were to access culturally appropriate drug and alcohol rehabilitation and therapy. The offender has the capacity for rehabilitation, and I accept his desire for reform is genuine. Whether he can put his current mindset into action is another matter. His criminal history demonstrates the challenge of community-based orders for him in the past. In 2021, Elkaim J in R v Hagen (No 2) [2021] ACTSC 260 recorded (at [17]) that it was challenging for the offender to comply with supervision in the community. That concern remains true for the offender in 2025.

68. As it stands, I am guarded about the offender’s prospect of rehabilitation. His prospect of rehabilitation would be substantially enhanced if he was able to access the kinds of supports identified by Ms Edwige.

Conditional liberty

69. The offender committed the offences on 9 November and 23 November 2023; a time when he was subject to a parole order which was to expire on 31 December 2023 and was cancelled on 30 November 2023. The notice of cancellation from the Sentence Administration Board recorded that the “revised date” of the offender’s head sentence was 23 January 2024 which I took to mean the date his sentence would expire.

70. By the time of his arrest for these offences, consistent with the pattern revealed in his criminal history, the offender had been in the community on parole for only 149 days. The offender has been in custody since his arrest. The commission of the offences while on conditional liberty is an aggravating circumstance; the offender having betrayed the opportunity to be in the community.

Criminal history

71. The offender has an extensive criminal history which includes convictions for like offending. For example, the offender has 13 entries for driving related offences, and 3 entries for assault offences. The offender has breached community-based orders in the past resulting in their cancellation with the offender re-sentenced to a term of full-time imprisonment. The offender’s criminal history disentitles him to leniency.

Time in custody

72. The offender has spent 679 days in custody solely attributable to these offences. The sentence imposed will be backdated accordingly.

Plea of guilty

73. The offender pleaded guilty to the aggravated burglary and the two assault offences on 26 May 2025; one week before the trial was set to take place on 3 June 2025. Although the plea of guilty was not entered at an early stage it was not ‘on the steps of the court’. There was some utilitarian value in the offender’s plea. The court was spared the cost of a criminal trial and the victims were spared the experience of giving evidence and being subject to cross-examination. A reduction in the sentence imposed of around 10 per cent is appropriate.

74. The pleas of guilty for the driving offences and the unlawful possession offence were entered at an early opportunity in the Magistrates Court and a reduction of 25% is appropriate to recognise the significant utilitarian value of those pleas of guilty.

Sentencing practice

75. No sentencing outcome is a precedent and I bear in mind that sentencing statistics and comparable cases do not define the range of available sentences nor place a cap on the upper or lower ranges of a possible sentence.

76. The prosecution drew my attention to comparative sentences including; DPP v Chatfield [2024] ACTSC 329; 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 Saipani (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 228; R v Salcedo; R v Stretton (No 3) [2018] ACTSC 305; R v Chevalier [2018] ACTSC 236. Annexed to this judgment are summaries of the outcomes in each case.

Parity

77. There being a co-offender parity is a relevant consideration. The co-offender Ms Chatfield was sentenced, on 22 May 2024 to the following: (a) Attempted aggravated burglary (CC2023/11653): 12 months' imprisonment reduced from 16 months on account of her plea of guilty commencing on 23 November 2023 and suspended on 22 May 2024 upon entering into a good behaviour order for 18 months (b) Damage property (CC2023/11657): 3 months' imprisonment reduced from 4 months on account of her plea of guilty commencing on 23 November 2024 and suspended on 22 May 2024 upon entering into a good behaviour order for 18 months

78. It is useful to recall the observations of the Court of Appeal in Thompson v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 2 at [24]: The notion that like cases should be treated alike is fundamental to any rational and fair system of criminal justice: Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606, 610–11 per Mason J. Unjustifiable disparity is an infringement of the equal justice norm: Green v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462 at [32] (Green). However, just as equal justice requires that like offenders should be treated alike, relevant differences should also be acknowledged: Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295, 301–2 (Postiglione) per Dawson and Gaudron JJ. This approach to parity has been applied by this Court in many cases, including Singh v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 17 at [74], Rubino v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 22 at [26]–[27] and Le Clair v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 19 at [48] (Le Clair).

79. Sentencing remarks from the co-offender’s sentence demonstrate that the principles in Bugmy applied and the co-offender’s moral culpability was reduced further because the magistrate was satisfied that the offender was in a position of power over the co-offender. The prosecution did not rely upon that finding as a circumstance which aggravated the offender’s role and I make it clear that I have not given any weight to that finding. The prosecution submitted that the sentence imposed on the co-offender was the result of an extension of significant leniency.

80. Ms Chatfield’s criminal history was described by the sentencing magistrate as “significant” and included an offence of arson, though did not contain any previous convictions for aggravated burglary

81. The portion of the offending from 9 November 2023 captured on CCTV footage revealed both the offender and co-offender to be active participants in the criminal conduct.

Determination

82. The offender’s reduced moral culpability moderates to a degree the weight to be afforded to general deterrence and punishment. That said, there are countervailing considerations which include specific deterrence, protection of the community and recognition of harm which in this case are compelling considerations. The victims in this matter were subjected to unprovoked, violent conduct perpetrated in company. The offender must be held accountable for his part of the commission of the offences and be deterred from offending in the future.

83. It was sensibly accepted on the offender’s behalf that a period of imprisonment was the only appropriate outcome for the offending. The prosecution conceded that a degree of concurrency may be warranted as between the attempted burglary offence and the assault occasioning actual bodily harm offences.

84. The offender, a relatively young man, is not entirely without prospects for rehabilitation. It is the community’s interest that any prospect for reform be promoted. He has had success in the past revealed by his successful completion of some programs and his ongoing engagement with Yeddung Mura. He has demonstrated interest in engagement with support services designed to assist him to manage his addiction issues and to strengthen his cultural connectivity. He has demonstrated that he can make meaningful use of his time in custody reflected in the numerous certificates he has attained. Ultimately I am of the view that he does have real promise but unfortunately he struggles to realise it when he is in the community, as the pull of past associates and past behaviours becomes too strong.

85. Notwithstanding the industry he has proved himself capable of in custody, the pathway to rehabilitation will be challenging for the offender in light of his demonstrated inability to respond positively to freedom in the community, together with his entrenched history of substance abuse and his history of trauma which remains largely unaddressed. The reality is that the offender, now an adult, must make a deliberate and sustained choice to turn away from the lifestyle which I fear has become entirely normal for him and from a young age.

86. The offender’s rehabilitation will be best promoted by engagement in support services which specialise in First Nations people; the offender has enjoyed some success in the past with this kind of specialist assistance. The offender’s engagement with the criminal justice system has resulted in cultural disconnection, a substantial degree of institutionalisation and exacerbation of his unaddressed mental health conditions. His desire for meaningful employment and for stability in his life is encouraging. His ability to identify the negative aspects of his adult life which stem from the poor choices he has made since a very young man suggests insight and a desire for real reform.

87. As I have already noted, the offender’s parole was cancelled on 30 November 2023, the effect of which was an end date of the sentence of 23 January 2024. That sentence (the existing sentence) commenced on 3 May 2021. The offender spent 7 days in custody solely in relation to these offences prior to the cancellation of his parole.

88. I am sentencing the offender for multiple offences. I must determine the just and appropriate sentence in each case and then consider questions of concurrence or cumulation. I will be required to re-set a non-parole period by reference to the total period of imprisonment the offender is liable to serve.

89. There is no justification for any substantial concurrency between the existing sentence and the sentence I am to impose (the primary sentence). The offending was entirely separate and the suggestion of a discount for multiple offences is to be avoided.

90. The starting point for count 1 (CC2023/11664), attempted aggravated burglary is 20 months of imprisonment reduced to 18 months of imprisonment in recognition of the plea of guilty.

91. The starting point for count 2 (CC2023/11666) assault occasioning actual bodily harm is 18 months of imprisonment reduced to 16 months and 6 days of imprisonment in recognition of the plea of guilty.

92. The starting point for count 3 (CC2023/11668) assault occasioning actual bodily harm is 12 months of imprisonment reduced to 10 months and 24 days of imprisonment in recognition of the plea of guilty.

93. The starting point for CC2023/11661, drive stolen motor vehicle without consent is 8 months of imprisonment reduced to 6 months of imprisonment in recognition of the plea of guilty.

94. The starting point for CC2023/11662 unlawful possession of stolen property is 2 months of imprisonment reduced to 1 months and 15 days of imprisonment in recognition of the plea of guilty.

95. The starting point for CC2023/11669 drive while licence suspended (repeat offender) is 6 months of imprisonment reduced to 4 months and 15 days of imprisonment in recognition of the plea of guilty.

96. In coming to consider the non-parole period I bear in mind that it reflects the minimum period which justice demands the offender be incarcerated. Those matters which influence the sentence to be imposed, similarly influence the appropriate period for which the offender is not eligible for release. Rehabilitation can be a significant and influential factor, but it is not the only factor. Ms Edwige acknowledged that which the offender’s criminal history would suggest, namely, that there is a real need for him to be meaningfully supported in the community over a lengthy period if he is to have any chance of rehabilitation. A substantial period of parole supervision is necessary to promote the offender’s successful transition to the community and to ensure that he be closely scrutinised and held accountable for any conduct which might breach parole and risk community safety. It is with those considerations in mind that I have determined the appropriate non-parole period.

Orders

97. I make the following orders: (1) On count 1 (CC2023/11664), attempted aggravated burglary, the offender is convicted and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment to start on 16 January 2024 and end on 15 July 2025. (2) On count 2 (CC2023/11666), assault occasioning actual bodily harm the offender is convicted and sentenced to 16 months and 6 days of imprisonment to start on 10 February 2025 and end on 15 June 2026. (3) On count 3 (CC2023/11668), assault occasioning actual bodily harm, the offender is convicted and sentenced to 10 months and 24 days of imprisonment to start on 23 October 2025 and end on 15 September 2026 (4) On CC2023/11661, drive stolen motor vehicle without consent, the offender is convicted and sentenced to 6 months of imprisonment to start on 16 June 2026 and end on 15 December 2026. (5) On CC2023/11662, unlawful possession of stolen property, the offender is convicted and sentenced to 1 month and 15 days of imprisonment to start on 1 November 2026 and end on 15 December 2026. (6) On CC2023/11669, drive while licence suspended (repeat offender), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 4 months and 15 days to start on 31 October 2026 and end on 14 March 2027. (7) This is a total period of imprisonment of 3 years and 1 month and 27 days of imprisonment (the primary sentence). Taken together with the existing sentence this is a total period of imprisonment of 5 years and 10 months and 12 days of imprisonment. (8) The non-parole period will commence on 3 May 2021 and will expire on 12 November 2024. (9) I recommend that the parole authorities consider those recommendations contained in the report of Ms Edwige and direct that the recommendations contained in her report be provided to the SAB for their consideration and implementation when the offender is released on parole. (10) I note the offender, arising from the conviction imposed on 2023/11669, is automatically disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence for 2 months.

I certify that the preceding ninety-seven [97] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Justice Taylor Associate: N. Dwyer Date: 1/12/2026 ANNEXURE A – COMPARABLE CASES 1. In DPP v Chatfield [2024] ACTSC 329 the offender entered the house at night in a balaclava armed with three knives and attacked his ex-partner’s friend, causing multiple injuries to his hands, arms and cheek. He also punched his ex-partner. The offender was 30 years old, came from a background of significant disadvantage and trauma, had diagnoses of schizophrenia and bi-polar disorder, entrenched issues with drug addiction, and an extensive criminal history that disentitled him to leniency. The offender pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court and received a sentence of 2 years, 7 months, and 14 days of imprisonment reduced from 3 years, 6 months for the charge of intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm; 2 years, 3 months imprisonment reduced from 3 years for the aggravated burglary charge and 1 year, 6 months imprisonment reduced from 2 years for the assault occasioning actual bodily harm charge. 2. In DPP v Manns (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 405 the offender and co-offender forced their way into a residential premises. The co-offender discharged a firearm through the door, grazing the victim’s leg. The offender was enlisted into the enterprise to collect money. He was 25 years old by time of sentence. The offender had a stable upbringing but fell in with the wrong crowd. He had a history of drug use and diagnoses of autism spectrum disorder, PTSD, Anxiety, OCD and Tourette’s Syndrome. The offender received a sentence of 2 years, 7 months and 20 days imprisonment reduced from 3 years for the charge of aggravated burglary and 1 year, 9 months and 3 days imprisonment reduced from 2 years for the charge of recklessly inflicted actual bodily harm. 3. In Smith v The Queen [2023] ACTCA 26 the offender entered a residence with a co-offender. The offender picked up a knife from the kitchen bench. They cornered the occupants, stole a phone, cut the CCTV cable, and demanded money for a perceived debt. The offender held the knife to the throat of an occupant. The offender poured petrol on one victim and his dog, then lit a lighter, the victim kicked him in the stomach and ran away. The offender was 31 years old at the time of the offending. His record was less than that of his co-offender, but he was still denied leniency. He had a background of disadvantage, mental health vulnerabilities, and issues with substance abuse. He received about a 5 per cent discount for his plea and was sentenced to 3 years, 9 months, reduced from 4 years for the aggravated burglary charge and 4 years, 3 months for the charge of attempt to intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm. The sentence was later unsuccessfully appealed on grounds that it was manifestly excessive. 4. In DPP v Mena [2023] ACTSC 80; DPP v Parlov [2023] ACTSC 147; DPP v Roberts (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 146 Three co-offenders entered a residential premises by co-offender Parlov banging on the door in the early hours of the morning until it was opened, following an earlier disagreement. Once in the residence, co-offender Mena, who was masked, shot one of the occupants in the stomach. 5. Co-offender Mena’s criminal history was poor, and he was subject to a suspended sentence at the time of the offending. He had a deprived background, complex mental health conditions and a high risk of reoffending. He was sentenced to 3 years and 3 months imprisonment. Co-offender Parlov was remorseless and had a significant criminal history, but demonstrated significant commitment to drug rehabilitation and successfully completed a Griffiths remand. He was sentenced to 2 years, 6 months and 3 days- taking into account but not including 272 days of pre-sentence custody- suspended for 2 years 6 months and 3 days. Co-offender Roberts was 25 years old at time of sentence and had a longstanding methamphetamine problem, ADHD and very guarded prospects of rehabilitation. He was sentenced to 3 years and 3 months imprisonment. 6. In R v Hanrahan [2020] ACTSC 10 the 21-year-old offender entered a residence at 5am with four other co-offenders. They demanded money due to a drug dispute. There was a minor scuffle before they decamped. The offender was remorseful and had distanced himself from his anti-social relationships. His history was minor and included a good behaviour order for a driving matter. He was sentenced to 18 months of imprisonment reduced from 2 years, to be immediately suspended on entry into a 2-year Good Behaviour Order with 200 hours community service for the aggravated burglary. 7. In R v Saipani (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 228 the offender went with two co-offenders to a unit to extract money for a debt. His co-offenders were armed with two knives, a taser/baton and a strobe torch. The offender was not aware of this. They knocked on the door, activated the strobe torch and barged in. The co-offenders struck an occupant in the head with the taser/baton. The offender was apologetic and not directly involved in the assaults. The offender was 25 years old at the time of the offence, had a limited criminal history and an unstable upbringing. The offender was sentenced to 2 years, 4 months of imprisonment for the aggravated burglary. 8. In R v Salcedo; R v Stretton (No 3) [2018] ACTSC 305 the co-offenders forced their way into a residence and threatened a child with a sawn-off shotgun. They shot at an occupant, hitting the child. They struggled with the occupant and shot him in the bicep. Co-offender Salcedo was 19 at the time of the offending and had issues with methylamphetamine. His criminal history did not assist him. Co-offender Stretton was 21 at the time of the offending and had a significant substance abuse issue and significant criminal record. Both received sentences of 7 years imprisonment for the aggravated burglary, 4 years imprisonment for the charge of intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm and 4 years imprisonment for the charge of recklessly inflicting actual bodily harm. 9. In R v Chevalier [2018] ACTSC 236 the offender attended a residence with a co-offender. He was armed with a knife, his co-offender with a sledge hammer. The intention was to rob the occupant of drugs and/or money. The offender scuffled with the victim, punching him in the mouth, cutting his hand with the knife, and stabbing him in the back as he ran away. The offenders criminal history denied him leniency. He had schizophrenia and was medicated for a brain tumour. The offender was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment for the charge of intentionally grievous bodily harm, 4 months of imprisonment for the assault occasioning actual bodily harm and 12 months imprisonment for the charge of inflicting actual bodily harm.