• 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

Agreed Facts CH/2025/1347, CH2025/1348, CH2025/1349, CH2025/1350 and CH2025/1351

7. Sometime between 8:00pm on Monday 2 June 2025 and 6:00am on Tuesday 3 June 2025, a 2014 white Jeep Grand Cherokee bearing NSW registration plates 'CWM 762' ('the white Jeep'), was stolen from the owner’s residence in Narrabundah in the ACT.

Ride Motor Vehicle Without Consent (CH2025/1347)

8. About 2:15am on Saturday 7 June 2025, the white Jeep, with four male occupants was driven to the Peto Fyshwick store, located at 1 Barrier Street, Fyshwick in ACT. One of the occupants in the vehicle was the offender. At the time, the offender was wearing a black hooded jacket with grey panels on the side; black Adidas tracksuit pants with a white logo on the left leg, and three white stripes along the side of each leg; and a pair of black and white Nike Air Max Dn's shoes. The offender and three other unknown males exited the white Jeep and approached the entrance of the Peto store. The offender was wearing the hood of his jacket over his head - and it was drawn tightly over his face. Joint Commission Aggravated Burglary (CH2025/1348)

9. The offender and one of the other males ('Male 2') forced open the sliding doors of the Peto store and entered the premises, followed by the other two males. The offender and three males searched behind the counters of the store but found that all the cash registers were empty. The offender removed the empty drawer from a cash register and put in it the white Jeep. The offender and Male 2 continued to search the store for a little longer before all four males left the location in the white Jeep.

Joint Commission Aggravated Burglary (CH2025/1349}

10. About 2:21am on the same date, the white Jeep arrived at the Bunnings Fyshwick store, located on the corner of Collie Street and Newcastle Street, Fyshwick in the ACT. The offender and the other three males exited the vehicle and approached the entrance of the store. Male 2 used a large blunt instrument to break through the glass doors of the store. The offender then entered the airlock area and forced open the second set of doors.

11. The offender entered the Bunnings store followed by the other males (ie 'Male 3' and 'Male 4'). The offender approached the nearest counter and inspected the cash registers which were empty. The four males then quickly departed the location in the white Jeep.

Joint Commission Aggravated Burglary (CH2025/1350)

12. About 4:00am on the same date, the white Jeep arrived at the Thone Coombs restaurant, located at 9/1 Fairhall Street, Coombs in the ACT. The offender and the three other males exited the white Jeep and approached the restaurant. Male 2 used the blunt instrument to break through the glass side-door. The offender and Male 3 then entered and searched the restaurant for a short time before all four males departed the location in the white Jeep.

13. Police later obtained and viewed CCTV footage from the above three locations. The CCTV footage depicted the offender and the other three unknown males entering and leaving the three premises. Investigation

14. On Monday 9 June 2025, Police had an interaction with the offender for an unrelated matter, which was captured on Body Worn Camera (BWC). Police noted that the appearance of the offender matched the appearance of one of the males depicted in the CCTV footage. Police also noted that the offender was wearing a jacket and shoes that matched those worn by the male in the CCTV footage. On Friday 25 July 2025, Police had another interaction with the offender for another unrelated matter, which was also captured on BWC. The offender was again wearing the same shoes which matched those worn by one of the males in the CCTV footage.

15. About 10:35am on Tuesday 26 August 2025, Police executed a search warrant at the offender's house at 28 Kneebone Street, Bonython in the ACT. The offender was present at the time. During the execution of the search warrant, Police conducted a Record of Interview with the offender.

16. During the search, Police located a black and grey hooded jumper and a pair of black and white Nike Air Max Dn's shoes in the offender's bedroom - which matched the clothing used by the offender on the CCTV footage. When asked about this clothing, the offender told Police that they belonged to him - but he denied any knowledge of the offending that had taken place on 7 June 2025.

Fail To Comply with a Magistrate's Order under section 3LA of the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914 (CH2025/1351)

17. Police also located a white iPhone in the offender's bedroom which the offender confirmed belonged to him. Police asked the offender to assist them in accessing the data stored on this mobile phone. However, the offender refused to do so.

18. Police issued the offender with an order, pursuant to section 3LA of the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914 - which required him to provide Police with assistance in accessing the data stored on his mobile phone. Police explained the order to the offender - as well as the associated penalties for not complying with it. Police gave the offender a reasonable period of time to comply with the order. However, the offender chose not to comply with this order.

19. About 11:50am that day, Police arrested the offender and transported him to the ACT Regional Watch House. The offender was ultimately charged in relation to this matter.

20. At no time did the owner of the white Jeep give anyone permission to take it. At no time had Pet-O Fyshwick, Bunnings Group Limited or Bishup Abichandani, the owner of Tbone Coombs, given permission for anyone to enter their premises outside of operating hours; or to damage, or take, any property belonging to them.

Nature and Circumstances of the offending

Ride Motor Vehicle Without Consent (CH2025/1347)

21. There is limited information before me about the circumstances of this offence. I cannot determine on the material before me how the offender came to ride in the vehicle, who was driving the vehicle or who was responsible for taking the vehicle. I do not know whether the vehicle was returned to or insured by the owner. Undoubtedly, the offence caused the owner some inconvenience.

Joint Commission Aggravated Burglary (CH2025/1348, 49, and 50) – Pet-O Fyshwick, Bunnings Fyshwick and Tbone Coombs

22. There are common features to each offence of aggravated burglary. Damage was occasioned to the premises to facilitate access by the offenders though the offending did not involve wanton vandalism.

23. No one was present at any of the premises at the time they were burgled, the offending occurred in the early hours of the morning outside business hours. The offending was not protracted. The offenders were unsuccessful in realising any significant financial gain and in one instanced removed an empty till. The offending was unsophisticated and while some planning was involved it was not to a high degree.

24. In each case, the offender acted in company with three others. Each offender appeared to have participated equally across the offences in which the offender was actively involved.

Fail To Comply with a s 3LA order (CH2025/1351)

25. This was an unremarkable example of the offence.

Subjective Circumstances

26. In DPP v Kaye (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTSC 169, paragraphs [117] – [143] the offender’s subjective case was canvassed. The offender’s background remains today as it was then and for the most part, his subjective circumstances have not significantly altered – though he has now spent an extended period in detention.

27. The following material was prepared in relation to these offences: (a) A pre-sentence report (PSR) from Children Youth and Families (CYF) dated 25 February 2026, and PSR from ACT Community Corrections dated 7 April 2026. (b) A psychological assessment of the offender by Ms Morris, dated 23 February 2026. (c) A letter authored by the offender, read aloud in court on 6 March 2026 and tendered. Prospects of Rehabilitation and Remorse

28. The PSR dated 7 April 2026 detailed that the offender has a close relationship with his father but otherwise has experienced a dysfunctional family environment characterised by parental substance abuse and mental ill health. The offender reported that his childhood always involved drug and alcohol abuse by his parents. He also reported that his mother’s long history of mental ill-health and substance abuse had a significant effect upon the family generally and specifically upon his relationship with her.

29. The offender was born and raised in Canberra and ordinarily resides with his parents and his two elder brothers. The offender reported attending school until year 6, before his attendance worsened in high school. He experienced multiple suspensions and expulsions from schooling.

30. The CYF PSR recorded a long history of involvement by offender’s family with child protection authorities and with police.

31. The offender has not attended any form of education in the community since 2021 and expressed that he does not wish to reengage with education upon his return to the community. From early May 2025 until June 2025 when the offender was in the community he was in paid employment. The offender told the author of the reports that he enjoyed employment but he “got back on the drugs” and did not attend his scheduled shifts. He acknowledged this was or decision-making on his part.

32. The offender regularly interacts with anti-social peers, adults and young people, who themselves have experienced the youth and/or criminal justice system. The offender has a long history of drug dependency. He reported polysubstance use including regular use of alcohol, nicotine, cannabis, methamphetamines, amphetamines and ketamine. The offender was assessed as using substances at a high level. During his period of detention for his previous offences, he declined drug and alcohol counselling.

33. The offender acknowledged that his offending was related to his drug and alcohol use and informed the authors that he was breaking into premises to obtain money to fund his use of illicit substances. The offender recognised that his use of drugs and alcohol is a problem for him and indicated a willingness to engage in counselling. The offender requested that his release into the community be accompanied by a condition which required him to engage in your analysis in order that he be held accountable for his use of illicit substances. The offender informed the author of the February 2026 report that he would participate in drug and alcohol rehabilitation day program but would not be willing to participate in residential rehabilitation.

34. The offender has received five behaviour breaches while on remand for verbal abuse, property damage and physical aggression. At times he demonstrated poor emotional regulation. On the other hand, the offender was recorded to have displayed high levels of motivation with respect to his physical fitness and he engaged well with most education programs particularly art, woodwork and hospitality.

35. In February 2025 the offender attempted suicide whilst on remand. On 10 February 2026 Justice Health records confirmed that the offender had been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and was not taking any prescribed medication. The offender declined to engage with mental health services or therapeutic supports.

36. The offender expressed remorse for his offending PSR material and to Ms Morris. He acknowledged the harm his conduct had caused to others. The April 2026 report author observed: [The offender] appears to be influenced by poor emotional regulation, limited tolerance for routine, and thrill-seeking behaviour. These factors have historically undermined his ability to follow directions and adhere to supervision requirements without close oversight. Protective factors include a supportive family environment, particularly the involvement of his father, engagement in vocational training while in custody, and interest in employment and fitness. [The offender] has also acknowledged the need for substance use treatment and has indicated willingness to engage in your analysis and programs or counselling as required.

37. The CYS February 2026 PSR concluded that the offender was as a moderate risk for reoffending in a custodial environment and a high risk of reoffending in the community. Peer relations and substance abuse were identified as areas of significant concern. The absence of appropriate leisure and recreational activities was identified as an area of risk for the offender.

38. The offender was assessed as unsuitable for community service work.

39. Ms Morris observed that the PSR material failed to consider the effect of the custodial environment on the offender. She noted that the custodial environment is likely to exacerbate anxiety which provides some explanation for the disciplinary action that the offender has been subject to whilst on remand.

40. Ms Morris concluded that the offender met the diagnostic criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Ms Morris also confirmed the offender’s ADHD diagnosis which (in addition to his PTSD) remains untreated.

41. Ms Morris noted that the offender has maintained two long term close friendships which are prosocial and provide some positive influence for the offender.

42. The offender expressed remorse and regret for his offending and demonstrated victim empathy. The offender was unable to identify any meaningful interventions which would assist him and was adamant that his own accommodation and a job “was all he needed” to reduce his risk of reoffending in the community. Ms Morris acknowledged that the offender’s trauma is unresolved and his ADHD is not properly medicated both of which put him at “considerable risk” of relapse in the community.

43. Ms Morris conceded that an assessment of the offender which put him at a low/moderate risk of reoffending, was “likely” entirely dependent on the offender’s abstinence from substance use. Ms Morris acknowledged that this in turn relied on the offender’s ability to find stable and safe accommodation and achieve a pro-social routine including activities and peers.

44. Ms Morris recommended that the offender reside separate from his family for the following reasons: (a) His parents are known to use substances and his effort to abstain would be made significantly more challenging for him in those circumstances. (b) The offender experiences his mother’s physical and psychological conditions as confronting, which compounds his trauma from his negative childhood experiences that in turn provides reason for him to use illicit substances as a coping strategy. (c) The family home is a place where he has access to his antisocial influences including peers.

45. The offender’s apology letter outlined that he “understands the consequences of (his) actions up until now” and explained that he wants to improve for his family, community and for himself. The offender stated that he has goals to commence employment, save money and purchase his own house and vehicle.

46. Whilst in custody, the offender has completed certificates in business administration, foundational work skills, automotive, and carpentry.

47. I accept that the offender’s efforts to achieve qualifications in custody attribute positively towards the offender’s prospects of rehabilitation. The offender has expressed some aspiration for employment as a youth worker, traffic controller or in vehicle sales. The CYF report from February 2026 described his engagement in education whilst in detention as follows: While [the offender] has experienced challenges this term, he continues to demonstrate strengths in practical learning, creativity and physical development. His achievements in woodwork and art, his progress in yoga and his commitment to fitness reflect a young person who is building capability and balance across multiple areas of his development.

48. The April 2026 PSR noted that supervision of the offender would target the following areas of ‘dynamic risk’ for the offender: (a) Substance use. (b) Leisure and recreation. (c) Anti-social peers; and (d) Employment.

Bugmy considerations

49. As I observed when I sentenced the offender in May 2025 (DPP v Kaye (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTSC 169) the offender has had a childhood marked by disadvantage. This factor must be given “full weight”: Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571. The material demonstrated that over time there has been numerous concerns raised about the offender from his childhood circumstances with child protection authorities. Those circumstances included early exposure to high levels of drug and alcohol use by his parents. The offender’s use of drugs and alcohol from a young age is hardly surprising. The offender’s use of drugs and alcohol is a driver of his offending conduc.t The offender is a person who will necessarily “have fewer emotional resources to guide his (or her) behavioural decisions” than a person who had a “normal” or “advantaged” upbringing: R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2 per Simpson J (with whom Bathurst CJ and Adamson J agreed at [69]).

50. I am satisfied that the offender’s moral culpability should be reduced.

51. The offender has expressed remorse and accepted responsibility. He is a young man without many tools with which his childhood experience should have equipped him. He does not appear to be especially immature, though has certainly demonstrated his capacity for poor decision making particularly when under the influence of illicit substances which have featured strongly in his offending history.

52. Some of his conduct on remand does reflect a capacity for effort and commitment particularly his progress in woodwork and physical fitness. The offender appears to have some insight into the challenges which face him and has identified the need to change his environment and his social networks.

53. I accept that his desire for reform is genuine. His reliance on ‘willpower’ as a strategy to assist him upon his return to the community as recorded by Ms Morris is, I think, a reflection of age and life experience. ‘Willpower’ was not a strategy which has been successful for him in the past, though his insistence that he be subject to a requirement to submit to urinalysis demonstrates his preparedness to be held accountable and that is to his credit.

54. The offender’s prospect of rehabilitation is significantly undermined by his history of non-compliance and reoffending, his untreated trauma and associated substance abuse as well as his anti-social associations. Added to which is the influence of his home environment. The offender is at a stage of development where he is seeking independence, but he has limited options to be able to achieve it given his current lack of employment and his immediate need to rely on his family for accommodation and to an extent emotional support, at least from his father.

55. Ultimately, I am persuaded that with consistent, appropriate and meaningful support the offender is capable of rehabilitation. Given his age, this is clearly something in his and the community’s interest. A prospect of rehabilitation will only be realised if the offender is released under a regime of intensive support and accountability.

Criminal History

56. The offender has a criminal history which contains entries for theft related offences, possession of weapons, the use of motor vehicles without consent and damage property. This disentitles the offender to significant leniency.

Conditional Liberty

57. The offender was subject to conditional liberty at the time of the offending, namely suspended sentence orders that I imposed in May 2025.

58. By his conduct, the young person has betrayed the opportunity to remain in the community, that I provided him. This is an aggravating feature, relevant to the determination of the appropriate punishment for an offence. I bear in mind that I must approach this feature of the offending with care to avoid double punishment.

Time in detention

59. The offender has been remanded in custody since 26 August 2025. This period of pre-sentence custody will be taken into account in the sentence I impose upon him.

Pleas of Guilty

60. The offender entered pleas of guilty to these offences in the Children’s Court, on 15 September 2025. The timing of his pleas had significant utilitarian value and it is appropriate to reduce the sentence imposed upon him by 25 percent. Sentencing Practice

61. I bear in mind the limitations of comparable outcomes and that the consistency pursued is in the application of principle. I have had regard to the following matters: Queen v RM [2013] ACTSC 289 DPP v D’Alessandro (No 2) [2025] DPP v Malibe [2024] ACTSC 43 DPP v Tucker-Quinn (a pseudonym) [2026] ACTSC 45.

Parity

62. The co-offenders in this offending have not been identified by the offender or police.

Breach matters and s 38 Crimes (Sentencing) Act

63. The facts and circumstances of the offending which was the subject of the sentences I imposed upon him in May 2025 are set out at paragraphs [8] – [35] in DPP v Kaye (a pseudonym) [2025] ACTSC 169. I am satisfied that the offender is in breach of the sentence orders I made on 25 May 2025. There are several factors relevant to the question of whether a suspend sentence should be imposed or the subject of a re-sentence in the face of a breach: see R v Kelly (No 2) [2021] ACTSC 253 at [15].

64. The offender re-offended only weeks after the suspended sentence orders were imposed.

65. Pursuant to s 110 Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) where there is a breach of the GBO I must cancel the GBO and either impose the suspended sentence or resentence the offender.

66. The prosecutor conceded that this was a matter where s 38 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (CSA) may appropriately be applied. The section provides: (1) … in relation to an adult offender if, at the time of sentencing— (a) The adult offender is serving a sentence that was imposed on the person as a young offender (the previous sentence); and (b) the court is imposing a sentence that would be likely to bring the offender into contact with other adult offenders. (2) The court— (a) must, in deciding the term of the sentence, consider any remaining period during which the previous sentence would remain in force if not discharged under paragraph; and, (b) may, if appropriate, discharge the previous sentence.

67. Relevantly, s 133H of the CSA provides: (1) This section applies (instead of section 10 (3)) if a court sentences a young offender to imprisonment and the young offender is under 21 years old when the sentence is imposed. (2) The sentence must be served by full-time detention at a detention place unless the young offender is— (a) released from full-time detention under this Act or another territory law; or (b) transferred to a correctional centre under the Children and Young People Act 2008 (ACT) (CYP Act).

68. Arising from the timing of the commission of the offences, the offender is to be sentenced as a young offender and an adult. I have no information before me as to any view the director-general might take with respect to the transfer of the offender pursuant to s 111 of the CYP Act. That section permits the director-general to direct that the offender (being under 21 years old) be transferred to a correctional centre which would bring the offender into contact with other adult offenders.

69. The offender conceded that the only appropriate outcome for the breach matters is the imposition of the suspended periods of imprisonment. It was also conceded that the only appropriate outcome for the further offences was a period of imprisonment. As it stands the offender, though on remand, remains subject to the suspended sentence orders such that he is ‘serving’ a sentence imposed on him as a young person for the purposes of s 38.

70. The offender has been in custody since 5 August 2024 save for the short period he spent in the community before re-offending. The total period on remand and in detention is substantial. The sentence imposed upon him in May 2025 was 2 years and 7 months of imprisonment.

71. The offender is to be sentenced to periods of imprisonment for the further offending. I am satisfied that this is a sentence likely to bring the offender into contact with other adult offenders. The suspended sentence orders remain in force for less than 12 months. In those circumstances the prosecutor supported the discharge of the previous sentence imposed on the offender as a young person in May 2025 pursuant to s 38(2)(b). In my view this is the appropriate course and I will so order.

Determination

72. The offender is to be sentenced as a young offender for four of the five offences before this Court. The failure to comply offence with s 3LA is a Commonwealth offence to which Pt IB of the Crimes Act 1914 applies. Though the offender is not a young offender for the purposes of the sentence imposed on that offence he is still a young man, and his youth is still a factor that should be given weight in the sentencing exercise. In DPP v Malibe [2024] ACTSC 43 (Malibe) at [1]-[2], Berman AJ observed what life experience demonstrates; there is no “bright line of maturity” bestowed upon a person when they reach 18 years of age.

73. It is useful to recall the observation of the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal in KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51; 182 A Crim R 571 at [23]: The law recognises the potential for the cognitive, emotional and/or psychological immaturity of a young person to contribute to their breach of the law. Accordingly, allowance will be made for an offender’s youth and not just their biological age. (R v Hearne (2001) 124 A Crim R 451; [2001] NSWCCA 37 at [25]). The weight to be given to the fact of the offender’s youth does not vary depending upon the seriousness of the offence (Hearne at [24]). Where the immaturity of the offender is a significant factor in the commission of the offence, the criminality involved will be less than if the same offence was committed by an adult. (Hearne at [25]; MS2 v The Queen (2005) 158 A Crim R 93; [2005] NSWCCA 397 at [61]).

74. The sentence I impose on the Commonwealth offence must be of severity appropriate in all the circumstances: s 16A(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). I have taken into account those matters that are known and relevant pursuant to s 16A(2) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).

75. When sentencing a young offender, I must consider the purpose of promoting rehabilitation and may give more weight to that purpose than to any of the other purpose set out in s 7 of the Crimes Sentencing Act: s 133C CSA. I must have particular regard to the common law principle of individualised justice.

76. I have already referred to the young offender’s culpability for the offence having regard to his maturity, as well as his state of development and his past and present family circumstances. A sentence of imprisonment imposed on a young offender must be for the shortest appropriate term and I must consider making a combination sentence consisting of— (a) the sentence of imprisonment; and (b) a good behaviour order with a supervision condition

77. The reduction of his moral culpability moderates to a substantial degree the weight to be attached to punishment, denunciation and general deterrence. There is a need to recognise the harm occasioned to the victims by the offender’s conduct.

78. The nature of the offender’s conduct admits some of his immaturity and additionally reflects the absence of positive role models in his short life. Additionally, he carries childhood trauma which is untreated which is clearly connected to his misuse of illicit substances. Because of his youth I am satisfied that he can be steered toward positive change despite some of the patterns he has established in his childhood and adolescence.

79. The effect on the offender of incarceration at this stage in his life is likely to hinder rather than enhance his capacity for rehabilitation. This includes the risk that the custodial environment will harden his willingness to reflect on the anti-social attitudes his offending has revealed. The offender has indicated willingness to engage in drug and alcohol counselling and to be subject to urinalysis. It is appropriate for the sentence I impose to harness that willingness; the offender having spent after a considerable period on remand in relation to these offences and a considerable period overall in detention since August 2024. Specific deterrence has been achieved to some extent.

80. The offending on 7 June 2025 was a course of conduct; the offences occurring in short succession. The prosecutor accepted that the Commonwealth offence was a less serious example of the offence. I am satisfied that a significant degree of concurrency is warranted and that it is appropriate to impose partially suspended sentences. This was an outcome supported by the prosecution.

81. The starting point for the offence of (CH2025/1347) ride motor vehicle without consent the offender is sentenced to 5 months of imprisonment reduced to 3 months and 23 days of imprisonment in recognition of the guilty plea.

82. The starting point for the offence of (CH2025/1348) joint commission aggravated burglary the offender is sentenced to 12 months, reduced to 9 months of imprisonment in recognition of the guilty plea.

83. The starting point for the offence of (CH2025/1349) joint commission aggravated burglary the offender is sentenced to 12 months, reduced to 9 months of imprisonment in recognition of the guilty plea.

84. The starting point for the offence of (CH2025/1350) joint commission aggravated burglary the offender is sentenced to 12 months of imprisonment reduced to 9 months of imprisonment in recognition of the guilty plea.

85. The starting point for the offence of (CH2025/1351) fail to comply with a magistrate’s order the offender is sentenced to 3 months of imprisonment reduced to 2 months and 7 days of imprisonment in recognition of the guilty plea. The sentence does not exceed 6 months. Accordingly, a recognizance release order is not required: s 19AC (3) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). Orders

86. For those reasons I make the following orders: (1) The sentence imposed on 1 May 2025 on the charge of aggravated robbery (CH2024/325) is discharged. (2) The sentence imposed on 1 May 2025 on the charge of aggravated robbery (CH2024/388) is discharged. (3) The sentence imposed on 1 May 2025 on the charge of make demand accompanied by threat (CH2024/1099) is discharged. (4) The sentence imposed 1 May 2025 on the charge of ride/drive motor vehicle without consent (CH2024/392) is discharged. (5) The sentence imposed on 1 May 2025 on the charge of joint commission minor theft (CH2024/703) is discharged. (6) The sentence imposed on 1 May 2025 on the charge of aggravated burglary (CH2025/171) is discharged. (7) The sentence imposed on 1 May 2025 on the charge of ride motor vehicle without consent (CH2025/172) is discharged. (8) For the offence of ride motor vehicle without consent (CH2025/1347) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 3 months and 23 days of imprisonment, to start on 26 August 2025 and end on 18 December 2025. (9) For the offence of joint commission aggravated burglary (CH2025/1348) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 9 months of imprisonment to start on 18 November 2025 and end on 17 August 2026. (10) For the offence of joint commission aggravated burglary (CH2025/1349) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 9 months of imprisonment to start on 17 February 2026 and end on 16 November 2026. (11) For the offence of joint commission aggravated burglary (CH2025/1350), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 9 months of imprisonment to start on 16 June 2026 and end on 15 March 2027 (12) For the offence of fail to comply with a magistrate’s order (CH2025/1351) contrary to s 3LA(6) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 2 months and 7 days of imprisonment to start on 26 August 2025 and end on 1 November 2025. (13) The total sentence imposed is 1 year 6 months and 18 days of imprisonment commencing on 26 August 2025 and expiring on 15 March 2027. I direct that the sentences imposed on CH2025/1348, 1349 and 1359 be suspended on 1 May 2026 on condition that the offender enter into a good behaviour order and comply with the core conditions until 15 March 2027 together with the following conditions: (i) Accept the supervision of ACTCS and comply with all reasonable directions including any direction for urinalysis. (ii) Undertake and complete any vocational program, treatment, counselling or assessment as directed by ACTCS.

I certify that the preceding eighty-six [86] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for sentence of her Honour Justice Taylor Associate: O Williams Date: 28 April 2026