DPP v Landon [2025] ACTSC 200

The offending

2. The offending occurred on or about 6 June 2023. The offender was staying as a guest at the home of the victim. The offender took the keys for the victim’s VW Golf and gave these to Mr Mathew Longmore, who is a co-offender.

3. At about 12:30pm on 6 June, Mr Longmore and another offender, Mr Saleh Majeed, attended at a residence in Florey. They stole the VW Golf from the backyard of this residence. In doing so, a knife was swung in the proximity of the occupant of the residence such that Mr Longmore and Mr Majeed engaged in an act of robbery for the purpose of the theft of the vehicle. The details of this are set out in the sentencing remarks relating to these two offenders: DPP v Longmore [2024] ACTSC 278 (DPP v Longmore) at [13]-[25]; DPP v Majeed [2024] ACTSC 281 (DPP v Majeed) at [2]-[11]. This includes that the vehicle was ultimately recovered, although it was in a damaged state. The vehicle was said to be valued at $10,000.00, although this is only an estimate. Nonetheless, as observed in DPP v Longmore (at [29]) and DPP v Majeed (at [8]), the victim experienced inconvenience, frustration, and distress from his vehicle being stolen.

4. Ms Landon is not criminally responsible for the robbery, but is criminally responsible for the taking of the victim’s vehicle key, and for then aiding and abetting the theft of the vehicle by providing that key, and, I infer, the location of the vehicle, to the co-offenders. Amongst the co-offenders, Ms Landon was the only one who knew where the vehicle was stored, and it can be inferred from the facts that Ms Landon informed the other offenders as to its location. The agreed facts provide in respect to Ms Landon’s role that she engaged in a message communication with Mr Longmore in which Mr Longmore encouraged her to get the key.

5. The message communications otherwise establish that in the lead up to the offending, Ms Landon was aggrieved by apparent behaviour of the victim that she found hurtful. It was immediately after this that Ms Landon stole the key and aided and abetted the theft of the vehicle. Immediately after the offending, Ms Landon engaged in further message communications with Mr Longmore. She also engaged in exchanges with the victim during which she said: Just so you know, I didn’t steal your car, but I know who did… and I never wanted to hurt you [victim’s name], but you fuckin [sic] really hurt me.

6. The victim subsequently asked for his vehicle to be returned, and Ms Landon sought the return of items from the victim, saying “you’ve got til [sic] midnight otherwise I’ll make sure it’s [the vehicle] burnt to a crisp”.

7. The message exchanges show the offender’s conduct to have been motivated by spite, with the offender exhibiting immaturity and a degree of maliciousness. The victim will have experienced particular distress from the offending being of this nature.

8. The offender’s role was critical in the theft of the vehicle. While the co-offenders had significant roles, including it would seem providing a degree of encouragement to engage in the theft of the keys, the co-offenders could not have engaged in their offending without Ms Landon’s conduct. The keys were deceptively taken from the victim’s home by a person he trusted as a house guest. Ms Landon took advantage of that trust, and facilitated the theft of an item of significant value to the victim. She facilitated this being a planned and premeditated theft of a vehicle, albeit not with an expectation that a weapon would be involved. I accept though, as submitted on Ms Landon’s behalf, that she was not a “manipulative or dominant aider and abettor” (GAS v The Queen [2004] HCA 22; 217 CLR 198 at 209 [23]) in the sense that criminal responsibility for the varying roles of offenders is understood.

9. The distinction in the roles of the various offenders also limits the role of parity in the sentencing exercise. For completeness, I observe that the starting point for Mr Longmore’s offence of aggravated robbery was two years imprisonment, and the starting point for Mr Majeed’s aggravated robbery offence was three years imprisonment.

Pleas of guilty

10. In respect to the aid/abet theft charge, a plea of guilty was entered in the Supreme Court after the trial had been listed. The plea of guilty arose out of a criminal case conference. I assess the appropriate reduction to be in the range of 15 per cent.

11. As to the theft charge, a plea of guilty was entered in the Magistrates Court, although not at the earliest stage and after an initial plea of not guilty. I assess the appropriate reduction to be in the range of 20 per cent.

Subjective circumstances

12. The offender is now 29 years of age and was aged 27 years at the time of the offending.

13. An attempt was made by ACT Corrective Services to prepare an intensive correction order (ICO) assessment report for the offender. This was not able to be achieved due to the offender, on her report, experiencing health difficulties and residing interstate. Nonetheless, I do not consider such a sentencing order was capable of being appropriate for the offender. This is because she does not require the ‘intensive correction’ that such an order contemplates.

14. Ms Landon has essentially no criminal history. She committed a previous offence, of a dissimilar nature to the offending here, in 2019 in Queensland. She was not convicted, and a good behaviour order for 12 months was imposed. There has been no further offending, or any apparent breach of that order, including no offending since the index offences in June 2023.

15. The absence of a completed ICO assessment report does limit the extent to which the subjective circumstances of Ms Landon are known to this Court. However, material provided at sentence includes information as to challenging physical and mental health conditions that Ms Landon is experiencing. She is actively engaged in treatment in respect to such concerns, including with counselling.

16. A character reference was also provided on her behalf. This reference speaks of Ms Landon’s profound commitment to personal growth and expresses that Ms Landon has exhibited genuine remorse for her actions. The reference speaks of her positive qualities as a loving and supportive mother.

17. In submissions at the sentence hearing, the Court was also informed that Ms Landon intends to reside interstate in the future. This is her current living circumstance and one which has enabled her to disengage from the negative associates she was involved with at the time of the offending.

Consideration

18. The offending by Ms Landon was serious, and particularly warrants deterrent sentences. No penalty other than imprisonment is appropriate given the circumstances and motivation for the thefts. While the prosecution did not press that imprisonment was warranted for the theft of the keys, and on behalf of Ms Landon it was submitted that it was open to the Court to find that penalties other than imprisonment are available in respect to both offences, I do not agree. The critical role that Ms Landon played requires accountability, denunciation, and deterrence. This includes in respect to the theft of the keys. While this was an item of low value in and of itself, the motivation for the theft aggravates the seriousness.

19. However, Ms Landon has essentially no previous criminal history, at least of concern in terms of a predilection to offending behaviour. The offending that occurred on this occasion was in the nature of very poor judgment by Ms Landon, and behaviour that, with deterrence reflected in the sentence, is very unlikely to be repeated.

20. This deterrence can be achieved through the imposition of a fully suspended term of imprisonment. Ms Landon will have the prospect of fulltime imprisonment if she was to engage again in offending behaviour. Such an order also recognises her compelling subjective circumstances, with the prosecution accepting that these circumstances were such that it was open to the Court to consider a sentence that did not involve fulltime imprisonment.

21. The orders to be imposed also require a significant degree of concurrency in accordance with the totality principle, with there being an inextricable link between the theft of the keys and the aiding and abetting in the theft of the vehicle.

Orders

22. For those reasons, the following orders are made: (1) On the charge of aid/abet theft (SCCAN 2024/63) 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 14 May 2025 and end on 13 March 2026. (2) On the charge of theft (SCCAN 2025/346) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 2 months imprisonment, reduced from 75 days on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 14 February 2026 and end on 13 April 2026. (3) The total period of imprisonment of 11 months, commencing on 14 May 2025 and ending on 13 April 2026, is to be fully suspended. (4) Natalia Landon is required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender’s good behaviour obligations pursuant to s 85 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for a period of 18 months, from 14 May 2025 to 13 November 2026. I certify that the preceding twenty-two [22] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Acting Justice Christensen Associate: Date: