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

1. Bradley Hodge is to be sentenced with respect to eight offences, committed in five series. The offending involves property offences, being property damage, burglary, theft and driving a stolen motor vehicle.

2. Mr Hodge accepts that a term of imprisonment is to be imposed. He seeks an opportunity to be sentenced to a drug and alcohol treatment order (treatment order): s 12A Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentencing Act). The prosecution opposes a treatment order being imposed.

3. As will become apparent, a treatment order is neither an appropriate nor suitable order for Mr Hodge as the complexity of his therapeutic needs are unable to be met through such an order. In any event, the totality of the sentences to be imposed is such that he is not eligible for a treatment order. Rather, the genuine motivation to rehabilitate that he now demonstrates will be supported by a lengthy period of community supervision on parole.

Series one offending: 8 June 2022

4. The first offence the subject of the sentencing exercise is one of damage property contrary to s 403(1) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code) (CAN 2024/7131). This offence carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment, 1000 penalty units, or both.

5. On Wednesday 8 June 2022, the owner of a Nissan Pulsar left his vehicle parked at a location in Hume while he was at work. At around 2pm that day, he was contacted by a colleague who reported that he had interrupted an unknown male breaking into the Pulsar. The owner, who is the victim of the offending, returned to his vehicle. The side quarter panel window and the trim surrounding the ignition barrel of the vehicle were damaged. The total value of the damage incurred was approximately $200.00.

6. Police were informed and forensic investigations conducted on the vehicle. Blood stains on and around the steering wheel were examined and subsequent testing confirmed Mr Hodge as a contributor to the forensic samples.

7. That is, Mr Hodge is criminally responsible for the damage caused to the vehicle. The mechanism by which he caused that damage is not clear on the facts, but it is known that it was damage caused to two areas of the vehicle, causing a minimal amount of financial loss. Nonetheless, the victim will have been inconvenienced from the damage caused, did experience financial implications, and it was likely distressing to have had damage caused to his vehicle in this way. The seriousness of this type of offence is reflected in the applicable maximum penalty, albeit it is a relatively less serious example of the offence.

8. Nonetheless, I am satisfied that no penalty other than imprisonment is warranted. A strongly deterrent sentence is required. This is particularly so as the offence occurred on the same day that Mr Hodge had been released from custody after serving a six month term of imprisonment imposed by the Magistrates Court.

Series two offending: 26 March 2024

9. The next series of offending occurred some nineteen months later. On 26 March 2024, Mr Hodge entered a residence in Chisholm and stole multiple firearms, ammunition, cash, and other items.

10. The offending in this series involves two charges, being burglary contrary to s 311 of the Criminal Code and carrying a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment, 1400 penalty units, or both (CAN 2024/4368) and theft, contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code and carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment, 1000 penalty units, or both (CAN 2024/4369).

11. The residence entered in Chisholm had been left by the occupants by about 6:45am when they went to work. The front door was locked, and the back door had been left slightly ajar to allow their dogs to have access to the backyard.

12. At about 1pm, the occupants, being the victims of the offending, returned. The front door was open, and jewellery boxes were strewn across the floor of the bedroom. The victims then ascertained that the following items were stolen: - A firearm safe; - Two firearms; - 1000 rounds of ammunition; - $50,500.00 in cash; - Three rural fire service medallions; - A Chinese Buddha of approximately 20 centimetres; and - An old, green-coloured detonator

13. The total value of the property stolen was $55,000.00.

14. One of the victims observed that his closed circuit television (CCTV) server, which was contained in a cupboard, had been unplugged from the power socket. The system had been shut down at about 8:45am on that day.

15. Police attended and conducted investigations. The CCTV footage that was available showed the offender entering the backyard of the residence and canvassing the area. He looked straight at the camera, showing his face, and enabling the offender to be identified as Mr Hodge. He was wearing long clothing, and white socks on both hands.

16. Police reviewed CCTV footage from neighbouring residences and Mr Hodge was observed to be walking along the street outside of the victim’s residence. Police investigations determined that Mr Hodge was the next door neighbour of the victims.

17. On 27 March 2024, one of the victims had a conversation with Mr Hodge. Mr Hodge said words to the effect of “I can get your guns back but not your money”.

18. There are serious aspects to this offending. It involved a level of planning given the attire being worn, and, I infer, a decision by the offender to enter the home of his neighbours after they had left the house. Mr Hodge informed a psychologist (see below at [52]) that he was aware that his neighbour had guns.

19. To enter the house of a neighbour introduces to the offending an aspect of significantly breaching the trust of a fellow community member. There was though no damage caused by the entry. The conduct inside of the house involved a level of sophistication, and conduct of deception, in disabling the CCTV system, although Mr Hodge informed the psychologist that he felt he was in a psychosis at the time of this offending and he could not recall turning off the CCTV. His invasion of the victim’s privacy included entry to a bedroom.

20. The property stolen was, in total, of a high financial value. The items stolen include items of sentimental value, as well as items of a nature, being the firearms, that warrant strongly deterrent sentences from theft of such items. I accept the submission made by the prosecution that there is an inherent danger in unauthorised persons having access to dangerous weapons as a result of the offending. None of the property was recovered, despite the victim seemingly making an enquiry as to the return of items.

21. The victims have expressed the significant effect of them in a victim impact statement, described as being a “devastating impact on every aspect” of their life. They live in constant fear, with the fact that the offending arose from a neighbouring occupant causing particular concern. It is described that their “sense of security and peace of mind has been shattered”. The emotional toll from the offending has had physical consequences, as well as causing isolation and a difficulty to trust others. The cash stolen was the life savings of the younger adult living in the house, and caused him a precarious financial situation that undermined his plans for the future. The theft of the firearms, without them having been recovered, has caused fear to the victims from the thought that they are in the possession of persons who engage in offending behaviour.

Series three offending: 13 April 2024

22. On Saturday 13 April 2024 at around 9pm, Mr Hodge and an unknown male attended at an address in Conder. Both males threatened the residents with a firearm and demanded that they open the front door. No shots were fired, nor was the residence entered.

23. The residents described the firearm as having a long arm, similar to the ones stolen from the residence in Chisholm. During the incident, Mr Hodge dropped his mobile phone and wallet, which contained identification cards. Police seized these items, enabling Mr Hodge to be identified in this offending. In addition, police executed a search warrant at Mr Hodge’s residence in Chisholm on 14 April 2025. Police located clothing items that matched the clothing items worn by Mr Hodge during the entry to his neighbour’s house in Chisholm.

24. The offending at the Conder address involves a charge of attempted aggravated burglary, contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code, carrying a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment, 2000 penalty units, or both (CAN 2024/7528).

25. The attempted burglary is aggravated by the possession of an offensive weapon, being a rifle. This accounts for the increased maximum penalty, with the form of weapon being a rifle a serious example of this aggravating circumstance. The offending is particularised as involving an intention to commit an offence involving damage, although the facts are limited and do not reveal the intent beyond the particular in the charge.

26. Even with limited facts, it can be assessed that this was a serious offence. An attempt to enter the house, by two persons, while armed with a firearm is highly concerning conduct. It inevitably caused significant alarm and distress to the residents of the home. There was a serious risk to the occupants of the residence, with it fortunate that it was only an attempted entry. It seems it was also fortunate that it was not a significantly determined attempt, given no shots were fired, and there is no suggestion of an attempt to enter beyond the threat and demand made. There is also an absence of sophistication given the offender dropped his identification material. I accept the submission on behalf of Mr Hodge that it appears to have been an attempted entry of short duration. Nonetheless, it remains a serious offence that warrants deterrence, and plainly no penalty other than imprisonment is warranted. Series four offending: 14 April 2024

27. The fourth series of offending occurred the following day. An indictable offence of driving a stolen motor vehicle without consent, contrary to s 318(2) of the Criminal Code and carrying a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment, 500 penalty units, or both (CAN 2024/4370) was committed.

28. At the time of driving the stolen motor vehicle, Mr Hodge was driving without a license. His license had been cancelled on 5 March 2024 due to incurred demerit points. He is charged, by way of a summary charge transferred for sentence, with an offence of driving while license cancelled as a repeat offender, contrary to s 32(3)(a) of the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT) (CAN 2024/4372). This offence carries a maximum penalty of 1 year imprisonment, 100 penalty units, or both. An automatic minimum license disqualification period of 24 months applies. He is a repeat offender, having been convicted on 9 September 2021 for an offence of driving while disqualified, contrary to s 32(1)(a) of the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT) (CAN 2021/8192).

29. The offending in this series occurred on Sunday 14 April 2024. This was just over five weeks since the suspension of the license, suggesting a complete disregard for compliance with licensing requirements and warranting no penalty other than imprisonment for this offence. I accept though the submission on Mr Hodge’s behalf that it is possible it was a reckless disregard given the notification as to the suspension occurred via post.

30. At around 7:30am on the day of the offending, police attended at an address in Kaleen in response to a burglary reported at the location. The victim informed police that between 2:00am and 3:00am, an unknown person stole her 2013 Kia Sportage from her residence.

31. At around 5:30pm, this vehicle was driven into the carpark of the Westfield in Belconnen. Mr Hodge was later identified from CCTV footage as the driver, and an unknown female passenger was also in the vehicle.

32. Mr Hodge drove the vehicle towards the boom gate at the Dan Murphy’s exit before stopping. Shortly after, the female passenger attempted to lift the arm of the boom gate. She was unsuccessful and returned to the vehicle. Mr Hodge drove them through the boom gate, snapping its arm off of the hinge.

33. The period of the driving that Mr Hodge is criminally responsible for was evidently short, but it was driving that may have caused damage to the victim’s vehicle. It was deliberate conduct without any regard for the property of the victim, who was inevitably inconvenienced, likely distressed, and may have had financial consequences from the offending. Any offending of this type is of such a level of seriousness, warranting deterrence and denunciation, that it is unlikely that any penalty other than imprisonment could ever be appropriate. That is the case here, even with it being a short period of driving. The offending also has the aggravating feature of involving a level of deliberate collision, putting a passenger at risk.

Series five offending: 15 April 2024

34. The following day, Mr Hodge committed an offence of taking a motor vehicle without consent contrary to s 318(1) of the Criminal Code, which carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment, 500 penalty units, or both (CAN 2024/6786). In addition, a summary charge of damage property contrary to s 116(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (CAN 2024/6787) arises in this series. This offence carries a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment, 50 penalty units, or both.

35. On the evening of Saturday 14 April 2024, a victim parked her Ford Falcon in the rear of her garage at her residence in Isabella Plains. Her daughter, a young person, parked her Mazda 6 directly behind the Ford Falcon, blocking it in.

36. At around 5:40am, the victim and her daughter were asleep in their residence. The victim’s son, also a young person, was awake in his bedroom, which connects to the garage. He heard a noise coming from the backyard and the garage. He saw a male wearing all black clothing and a ski mask just outside of the garage. This male was later identified as Mr Hodge.

37. Mr Hodge ran down the driveway and entered the passenger side of a car driven by an unknown male. The car drove off at speed. Police were contacted.

38. The son stood at the front door of the house holding a baseball bat in his hands. Less than a minute later, Mr Hodge and the unknown male drove up the street again and parked in front of the residence. Mr Hodge got out of the car, ran up the driveway towards the garage. The son yelled words to the effect of “what the fuck do you think you’re doing?”.

39. Mr Hodge entered the garage and went to the front of the Mazda 6. He pushed it down the driveway. It rolled backwards down the driveway and collided with the front of the adjacent neighbour’s residence.

40. Paint damage was sustained to the front left-hand wheel arch and left hand rear bumper. Panel and paint damage was sustained to the rear right hand bumper and the rear left hand wheel arch, causing misalignment from the connecting panels. Mr Hodge’s fingerprints were found on the bonnet of this vehicle.

41. Mr Hodge then entered the Ford Falcon and used the key to start the car. He reversed out of the driveway and onto the street at speed. The unknown male in the other car followed closely behind. The victim’s vehicle was not recovered.

42. The lack of recovery of the vehicle will clearly have resulted in significant financial loss and inconvenience to the victim. The manner in which the vehicle was taken would have likely been very frightening for the victim, and caused considerable alarm. The manner in which the vehicle was taken was determined, and brazen. It involved a level of planning and concerning targeting of the victim (see below at [45]). This was a serious example of an offence of taking a motor vehicle.

43. As to the damage caused to the other vehicle, this was not insignificant and will have had financial implications. It was to multiple areas of the vehicle, and the damage was caused with a high level of reckless disregard for the property of the victim. This was objectively a more serious example of property damage than that involved in the series one damage to the vehicle, but the applicable maximum penalty in this series is lower.

Arrest

44. Later in the morning of 15 April 2024, police attended at Mr Hodge’s residence in Chisholm, and he was arrested. The clothing that Mr Hodge was wearing matched that being worn by the driver at Westfield Belconnen. Police observed him to be under the influence of an intoxicating substance.

45. During the interaction at Mr Hodge’s residence, one of Mr Hodge’s daughters spoke with police and said that her father had told her that he had attended at the residence in Isabella Plains (series five offending) as he disliked the family. The son at that home was the ex-boyfriend of another of Mr Hodge’s daughters. Mr Hodge told his daughter that he knew how they parked their cars, and he made admissions to the offending.

Time in custody

46. Following his arrest, Mr Hodge’s bail was refused. He has been remanded in custody solely in respect to these charges since that time. The sentence will be backdated by 332 days to reflect this period in presentence custody: s 63 Sentencing Act.

Pleas of guilty

47. In relation to any reduction arising from the utilitarian value of the pleas of guilty, different considerations arise with respect to the charges: (a) A plea of guilty was entered to the series one charge and to charge CAN 2024/6787 in the fifth series at the first mention of the matter in the Magistrates Court. A full reduction of 25 per cent recognising the significant utilitarian value is warranted; and (b) Pleas of guilty were entered to all of the other charges at a mention stage in the Magistrates Court. This was after an initial plea of not guilty and a brief of evidence being required. I consider that a reduction in the order of 20 per cent reflects the extent of utilitarian value.

48. However, the prosecution, in the written submissions, submitted that in relation to charges CAN 2024/4368, CAN 2024/4369 (series two) and CAN 2024/4372 (series four), the Court may find there was an overwhelmingly strong case against the offender having regard to the high-quality CCTV that captures the offender engaging in these offences. At the sentence hearing, the prosecution further made the submission as to there also being an overwhelmingly strong case in relation to the series three offending.

49. It was submitted that s 35 of the Sentencing Act is of application, that is, relevantly: … (3) The court may impose a lesser penalty (including a shorter nonparole period) on the offender than it would otherwise have imposed if the offender had not pleaded guilty to the offence. (4) However, in deciding any lesser penalty, the court must not make any significant reduction for the fact that the offender pleaded guilty if, based on established facts, the court considers that the prosecution’s case for the offence was overwhelmingly strong. (5) For subsection (2) (b), the earlier in the proceeding that the guilty plea is made, or indication is given that it will be made, the lesser the penalty the court may impose. (6) A lesser penalty imposed under this section must not be unreasonably disproportionate to the nature and circumstances of the offence. (7) In this section: available documents, in relation to the offence, means any of the following: (a) any written statements or admissions made for use as evidence at a trial that would have been admissible as evidence at the trial for the offence; (b) depositions taken at any committal proceeding for the offence; (c) any written statements or admissions used as evidence in any committal proceeding for the offence; (d) any other relevant written documents. defence means— (a) the offender; or (b) any lawyer representing the offender. established facts means facts established by— (a) evidence given at the trial; or (b) available documents; or (c) admissions by the offender; or (d) submissions made by the prosecution or defence.

50. The prosecution submitted that, accordingly, the Court must not make any significant reduction for the plea of guilty for the charges where there is an overwhelmingly strong case. It was submitted that a reduction in the order of 15 to 20 per cent would remain a reasonable reduction.

51. On behalf of the offender, submissions were made that focused on the definitions of ‘available documents’ and ‘established facts’ in s 35 of the Sentencing Act, and, as I understood the submission, the application of these definitions to the offender’s decision as to when to plead guilty. I do not understand these definitions to be concerned with this. Rather, they inform the meaning of ‘based on established facts’ for the purposes of the Court’s determination pursuant to s 35(4) of the Sentencing Act. Here, that involves the CCTV images for the series two offences and evidence of the identification material in the series three offence, but no material was adduced on sentence, including CCTV images, that could amount to established facts for the series four offence.

52. In such circumstances, I do not consider that the prosecution’s case for charge CAN 2024/4372 (series four) was overwhelmingly strong. As to the series two charges, I accept that the CCTV images were of a high quality such that the offender was in an apparently outside side area of the residence. However, this does not assist as to the other elements of the charge, and I am not persuaded that the prosecution’s case was “so great as to render opposition useless”: R v Newby [2022] ACTCA 20; 367 FLR 122 at [31]. As to the identification evidence relating to series three, this again does not reveal the basis for ‘useless opposition’ to the case in respect to other elements of the charge. That is, based on established facts, I do not consider that the prosecution’s case for any of the offences was overwhelmingly strong.

53. Nonetheless, even if I am wrong as to this, the reduction for the plea of guilty that I consider appropriate is not, as the prosecution conceded, a significant reduction.

Subjective circumstances

54. Mr Hodge’s subjective circumstances are available from assessment reports that were prepared for consideration of a treatment order, as well as a psychological report dated 12 February 2025.

55. Mr Hodge is now 38 years of age. He was aged 34 years at the time of the series one offending and aged 36 years at the time of the remaining offending. He is an Aboriginal man from Wiradjuri Country. He is developing a connection to Country.

56. Mr Hodge is the eldest of eight children, and has had limited contact with either of his parents and his siblings. He experienced a childhood of profound disadvantage and deprivation that, in circumstances of the prosecution accepting that the principles of Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 (Bugmy) are enlivened, are unnecessary to set out. Suffice to say that I accept, on the information available to the Court, that such principles are enlivened. The impacts of his childhood are enduring, and reduce his moral culpability for his offending. Indeed, Mr Hodge himself explains how and why the Bugmy principles are relevant in his description to ACT Health Services that an experience during his childhood “broke [him], and [he] lost all morals”. He turned to alcohol and drugs as a coping mechanism.

57. Within the context of his childhood, he was exposed to substance use, and he commenced alcohol use from 12 years of age. He continued heavy use of alcohol until he was 18 years, and began using methamphetamine. Throughout this time, he used cannabis, and later used heroin for a period. He stopped heroin upon commencing a pharmacotherapy program in 2020. Methamphetamine remains a problematic substance for him. He is described as having a likelihood of a severe substance use disorder, and the psychologist opines that he also has a substance induced psychotic disorder.

58. I find that the Henry principle (R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346) as to early addiction is relevant, although the application of this forms part of the overall subjective presentation of Mr Hodge, which is one of reduced moral culpability from an application of Bugmy, resulting substance dependency, as well as mental health challenges.

59. As to Mr Hodge’s mental health, it was not pressed that any of the limbs from R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269 are applicable. It was submitted that his mental health forms part of the compelling subjective circumstances that arise and that the role of general deterrence is reduced. I accept this. The psychologist opines that Mr Hodge falls within a range of being intellectually disabled, consistent with his history of neglect. He is described as presenting with significant illnesses that impair his general ability to think clearly, make calm and rational decisions, and consider the consequences of his actions. He is found to have a high risk of future violent offending, with the cessation of drug abuse being the most important factor in decreasing his risk.

60. Positively, Mr Hodge has attempted to address his drug dependencies with rehabilitation services and programs. While in custody, he has engaged with SMART Recovery and as a Peer Mentor. He has completed the Thrive Program. He has sought to engage with Yeddung Mura upon his release from custody. He has developed a solid relapse prevention plan. He attended Oolong House in 2022 for a period of three weeks, and he has been previously enrolled in the Ngunnawal Bush Healing Farm. He has had previous engagement with Directions Health Services Canberra for drug and alcohol counselling.

61. Mr Hodge reports his substance use as reduced significantly since his relationship with his partner began 18 months ago, however, he lapsed prior to the offences the subject of sentence. He has been tested for substance use while in custody, and in December 2024 his testing was negative for illicit substances. Otherwise, while in custody, he has received multiple disciplinary actions, however, the extent to which this is informative as to his likely conduct in the community is limited given the distinction in these environments.

62. Further reflective of positive subjective circumstances, Mr Hodge has developed a caring and supportive relationship with his current partner. His partner has provided a letter to the Court in which she speaks of his positive growth, his capability to be an “amazing father and partner”, and her commitment to supporting him. Mr Hodge credits his partner as being a motivation to change his anti-social behaviour. His partner is also undertaking a journey of rehabilitation. Mr Hodge has a son, and is a stepfather, and his children are described as also providing a strong motivation for him to rehabilitate.

63. He has, despite leaving school at 14 years of age, obtained a year 10 certificate and is a qualified mechanic. He has worked in this field, as well as a removalist. While incarceration, mental health challenges, and drug use have impacted on his employment history, Mr Hodge plainly does have a capability to engage in employment and be a productive member of the community and someone who can support his family.

64. To support his rehabilitation, Mr Hodge seeks to engage in a residential rehabilitation program, after which he wishes to engage again with the Ngunnawal Bush Healing Farm, a program that he has again been accepted into. He has available to him, after any residential program, the option to reside with his partner and stepchildren in the ACT. This residence has been found suitable in an assessment by ACT Corrective Services, although I note that it is the neighbouring property to the victim from the series two offending, and this raises a concern as to victim safety: s 12A(2)(b)(ii) Sentencing Act.

65. It is to Mr Hodge’s credit that he seeks to engage with the program support that can best serve his needs. The psychologist describes that Mr Hodge’s impairments are significant and compromise his ability to source and maintain stable independent living. It is apparent that Mr Hodge has insight into his challenges, and he has been proactive in seeking support. This includes that he has sought to be assessed for entry to the interstate Oolong House residential rehabilitation program, and he has been accepted. Oolong House describe Mr Hodge as having expressed great excitement for the opportunity of a placement with their program.

66. A challenge that arises in identifying the best program support for Mr Hodge are the significant mental health challenges as noted above at [56]. Mr Hodge reports having been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and borderline personality disorder. Health Services report diagnoses of anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, borderline personally disorder, and schizophrenia. He receives medication and treatment for mental health. Health Services report that the records note inconsistent medication adherence when in the community, although they highlight that Mr Hodge has a history of seeking help when feeling unwell. He is voluntarily engaging with custodial mental health services, with good results. He engages with mental health services when in the community. At the time of assessment for a treatment order, there was no evidence of major mental illness.

67. Mr Hodge’s condition of schizophrenia is described by Health Services as being complicated by illicit substance use. However, his mental state is described as improving when adhering to his medication regime, with records indicating he is stable and at baseline when medicated.

68. Mr Hodge presented to the treatment order assessors as highly motivated to be sentenced to a treatment order, with an expectation that the strictness of the order would be beneficial to him and his recovery. This insight is to his credit, and reflects positively on his insight as to his rehabilitation needs. He has insight that his experiences of incarceration and negative associates have limited his opportunities for growth.

69. Reflective of these positive prospects of engaging in rehabilitation, Health Services initially found Mr Hodge suitable for a treatment order, provided appropriate program support was available. His suitability was pending confirmation of treatment becoming available at Arcadia House, with this program considered the most suitable of the programs available under a treatment order. However, after comprehensive consideration, Arcadia House assessed Mr Hodge as not suitable for their program. While Mr Hodge’s willingness to engage in treatment was acknowledged, it was recommended by Arcadia House that a program that specialises in dual-diagnosis (mental health and alcohol and drug dependency) treatment with on-site psychiatric care was more suitable. Having regard to this, and that other treatment providers are not suitable in the circumstances, Health Services concluded that Mr Hodge was unsuitable for a treatment order.

70. As will become apparent, Mr Hodge is not in any event eligible for a treatment order (see below at [82]). It has been relevant though to consider the detailed assessments by Health Services and Corrective Services in considering the most appropriate sentencing order.

Remorse and insight

71. Mr Hodge’s gains in insight also relate to his offending behaviour, and the remorse that he has in this regard. He demonstrates a depth of insight and remorse, without minimising his own responsibility for his conduct.

72. Mr Hodge expressed his remorse and insight to the assessors for the treatment order, to the psychologist, and in a letter he prepared for the Court. He expressed that his offending occurred in context of drug use and poor mental health. He expressed that he wished that he “could turn back time”. He is described as articulating concern for a victim and his family, as well as all that have been affected by his offences. He is willing to engage in restorative justice.

73. Mr Hodge described to Health Services that “I was unwell at the time, in a drug induced psychosis”. Health records confirm this from the hospital admission that occurred following his arrest. Mr Hodge further expressed that: But I’m not using that as an excuse, and I take full responsibility for my actions. I know now that it should never have happened and it’s scary looking back on it. I remember being very violent and I could have hurt someone really badly. I had a firearm and that scares the shit out of me. What an idiot, it was very stupid, and I regret it all. I put other lives at risk and that’s not fair on others. I’ll never take another car again. …

74. Mr Hodge says that “I hate this life, and I don’t want to live life like this”. He says that “I’m eager to change and turn my life around to be the best person I can be for my partner and family”. He has goals to complete rehabilitation, maintain abstinence, be crime free, and to work and become a productive member of society. Health Services report that Mr Hodge presents as future focused towards engaging with treatment, finding employment upon release, and expressed a desire to change his life, finding: He conveyed motivation to engage in treatment, and openly explored what options might be available to him if granted a [treatment order], self-identifying that a residential rehabilitation would be the best fit for him due to his “long history of drug use”. Criminal history and breach

75. This long history of drug use has led to Mr Hodge having a significant criminal history. It is one that limits the leniency that can be afforded. Mr Hodge has been previously, repeatedly, convicted of offences the subject of this sentencing exercise. This includes in both the ACT and in New South Wales (NSW) and involves offences of motor vehicle offending, theft, burglary, property damage, and otherwise involves offences of robbery, arson, and dishonesty and drug offences.

76. Mr Hodge has been previously sentenced in the ACT Supreme Court, with the available reported decisions being R v Hodge [2015] ACTSC 214, R v Hodge [2017] ACTSC 373, and R v Hodge [2019] ACTSC 15. I have had regard to these as informative as to Mr Hodge’s background. They suggest a long history of a cycle of substance use, offending behaviour, and incarceration. They also suggest that Mr Hodge’s current stated intentions and motivations for rehabilitation are stronger, and more genuinely held, than they have been in the past.

77. Mr Hodge has been previously afforded opportunities for community based supervision, which he has breached, and has previously been imprisoned, which has not deterred him from returning to offending behaviour. Corrective Services describe Mr Hodge as having varied compliance history, with several occasions of breach actions due to various forms of non-compliance. Corrective Services observe that Mr Hodge has in the past been described as having an overall compliance with community based orders that “has been unsatisfactory, predominantly due to drug use, failing to accept supervision, refusal to follow reasonable directions and further offending”. Corrective Services further observe that this criminal history does appear to coincide with Mr Hodge’s disclosed substance use.

78. With reference to this criminal history, and history of non-compliance with community based orders, Corrective Services assess Mr Hodge as not suitable for a treatment order.

79. At the time of all of the offending other than the series one offence, Mr Hodge was subject to conditional liberty. On 24 January 2024 he was sentenced in the Magistrates Court to a term of six months imprisonment, suspended after serving 10 days imprisonment, with a good behaviour order for 12 months. This was for an offence of ride/drive a stolen motor vehicle committed in April 2023 (CAN 2023/5938). On the same date, 24 January 2024, a non-conviction order, with a six month good behaviour order, for an offence of driving with a prescribed drug in his oral fluid on 5 January 2024 (CAN 2024/395) was imposed.

80. That he was on conditional liberty at the time of the offending is an aggravating factor on sentence. The prosecution submitted with respect to the suspended term that imposition was appropriate. I agree. The original offence was serious, and Mr Hodge has breached the suspended term with offending of the same nature, within some four months of the community based opportunity being afforded to him. As to the breach of the good behaviour order, I accept the prosecution submission that it is appropriate to take no further action given the minor nature of the original offending, and in consideration of the totality of the sentence to be imposed.

Consideration

81. It is clear in relation to all offences that no penalty other than imprisonment is appropriate. It is also clear that the totality principle has application in the sentencing exercise, having regard to most of the offences occurring within a short time span, but also involving distinct victims and offending.

82. It was submitted on behalf of Mr Hodge that it was within the Court’s discretion to find it appropriate to sentence him to a period of less than four years imprisonment. The prosecution submitted that the totality of the sentences “must not necessarily” exceed the maximum limit that would enliven eligibility for a treatment order, that is, four years imprisonment: s 12A(1)(b)(ii) Sentencing Act. I am not persuaded that such eligibility is available, even if a treatment order was appropriate and suitable for Mr Hodge. These were all serious offences, some of particular seriousness. There is no leniency available to Mr Hodge on account of his criminal history. Some of the offending occurred while he was on conditional liberty. Sentencing purposes of specific deterrence, accountability, recognising the harm done to the victims and community, and denunciation, warrant stern sentences.

83. Nonetheless, in an application of the totality principle, the overall sentence will be structured so as to avoid a crushing term. This is particularly relevant given the genuine motivation to rehabilitate that Mr Hodge now demonstrates.

84. As to how that sentence is to be served, there can be no doubt that Mr Hodge presents as an offender who would benefit from trying a different approach, such as what an opportunity on a treatment order would provide. But the seriousness of his offending, and the complexity of assistance he requires, are such that a treatment order is not the available, appropriate, or suitable mechanism to support his rehabilitation.

85. On behalf of Mr Hodge, it was submitted that in the alternative to a treatment order, the Court consider a deferred sentencing order: ch 8 Sentencing Act. I am not satisfied that such an order could appropriately reflect community protection in the court orders. Such an order would also raise the complication that it was sought that any such order contemplate Mr Hodge attending at a rehabilitation centre in NSW. This would have the potential to frustrate the sentencing exercise, and ultimately limit the ability for the Court to reflect all sentencing purposes. Accordingly, I am not satisfied a deferred sentencing order is appropriate.

86. The best option to reflect the sentencing purposes, which include promotion of rehabilitation and community protection, is to set a nonparole period that recognises his prospects in those regards, and that contemplates the ability to access services available interstate. Health Services also recommend, that in the absence of a sentence involving a treatment order, Mr Hodge have the ability to engage with the Solaris Therapeutic Program while in custody. It is further noted that he would likely benefit from anger management and emotional regulation programs if on offer from the AMC.

87. I consider it appropriate to promote Mr Hodge’s prospects of rehabilitation, as well as reflect his reduced moral culpability for the offending and compelling subjective circumstances, by applying a lenient eligibility date for parole. Leniency in the parole period will reflect the factors already mentioned, as well as not dissuade Mr Hodge from remaining committed to his rehabilitation intentions. It will also ensure a longer period of community supervision upon his release, reflecting the sentencing purpose of community protection. Further to this, I will, as submitted as appropriate by both parties, include a recommendation for Mr Hodge to engage in substance dependency rehabilitation, extending this to enable consideration to be given to an appropriate interstate program provider.

Orders

88. For those reasons, the following orders are made: (1) On the charge of damage property (CAN 2024/7131), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 3 months imprisonment, reduced from 4 months imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 15 April 2024 and end on 14 July 2024. (2) On the charge of burglary (CAN 2024/4368), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 20 months imprisonment, reduced from 24 months imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 15 July 2024 and end on 14 March 2026. (3) On the charge of theft (CAN 2024/4369), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 10 months imprisonment, reduced from 12 months imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 15 July 2025 and end on 14 May 2026. (4) On the charge of attempt aggravated burglary (CAN 2024/7528), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 20 months imprisonment, reduced from 24 months imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 15 August 2025 and end on 14 April 2027. (5) On the charge of drive stolen motor vehicle without consent (CAN 2024/4370), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 8 months imprisonment, reduced from 10 months imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 15 October 2026 and end on 14 June 2027. (6) On the charge of drive while license cancelled (repeat offender) (CAN 2024/4372), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 2 months imprisonment, reduced from 75 days imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 15 May 2027 and end on 14 July 2027. A 24 month driving disqualification period applies for this offence. (7) On the charge of take motor vehicle without consent (CAN 2024/6786), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 20 months imprisonment, reduced from 24 months imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 15 December 2026 and end on 14 August 2028. (8) On the charge of damage property (CAN 2024/6787), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 3 months imprisonment, reduced from 4 months imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 15 June 2028 and end on 14 September 2028. (9) In relation to CAN 2023/5938, the breach of good behaviour order is proved, the suspended sentence and good behaviour order made 24 January 2024 is cancelled, and the sentence of 6 months, adjusted to 5 months and 18 days taking into account time spent in custody in relation to this offence, is imposed to commence on 15 June 2028 and end on 2 December 2028. (10) In relation to CAN 2023/395, the breach of good behaviour order is proved and no further action is taken. (11) The total period of imprisonment of 4 years, 7 months, and 18 days, will commence on 15 April 2024 and end on 2 December 2028. (12) A nonparole period is imposed to commence on 15 April 2024 and end on 14 February 2026. (13) It is recommended to the Sentence Administration Board under s 120(1)(a) of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) that: When released on parole, Bradley James Hodge be required as a condition of the parole to undertake a substantial period of supervised or mandated residential drug rehabilitation, if a program is available to him, and that he is to engage with mental health supports, either in the Australian Capital Territory or interstate.

I certify that the preceding eighty-eight [88] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Acting Justice Christensen Associate: Date: 12 May 2025