//
[2025] ACTSC 503
General information, not legal advice.
Supreme Court of the ACT
2025-10-31
Kelly AJ
Original judgment source is linked above.
Zoe will write a short plain-English brief of this judgment and email it to you: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.
General information, not legal advice.
Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.
Source: the ACT Courts (www.courts.act.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: DPP v Maher (No 2) Citation: [2025] ACTSC 503 Hearing Date: 24 October 2025 Decision Date: 31 October 2025 Before: Kelly AJ Decision: See [14] Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – theft – judge alone trial – unauthorised use of credit cards – offending in question occurred over period of two months – where offender and complainant co-habiting – where complainant in position of significant reliance and vulnerability – egregious breach of trust – little remorse or insight expressed – significant alcohol and drug problem – some criminal history – stable employment and accommodation – family support – good behaviour order – reparation order – community service order Cases Cited: DPP v Maher [2025] ACTSC 339 Parties: ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Jonathan James Maher (Offender) Representation: Counsel S McFarland DPP) E Chen (Offender) Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Legal Aid ACT (Offender) File Number: SCC 398 of 2024 KELLY AJ: Introduction
Jonathan James Maher, you have been convicted of 28 counts of theft after a trial by judge alone. You were originally charged with 208 offences. During the trial, after it became apparent that the prosecution would be unable to prove the remaining charges on the indictment, the prosecution entered nolle prosequis in respect of five charges and effectively conceded that verdicts of not guilty should be entered with respect to the balance of the charges on the indictment.
Accordingly, you are now to be sentenced on the basis of 28 separate transactions that occurred over roughly a two-month period between 29 January 2018 and 22 March 2018. The facts surrounding these offences were extensively canvassed during the trial and I have set out the relevant facts in my judgment, DPP v Maher [2025] ACTSC 339, delivered on 1 August 2025.
I do not intend to repeat those facts today except to remark that at the time of committing each of these offences, you were entrusted by the victim, to manage his financial affairs after he was rendered a quadriplegic as a consequence of an accident in September 2017. The victim, who was, at the relevant time, an inpatient at the Prince of Wales Hospital in Sydney, placed a significant amount of trust in you. Your breach of his trust was both egregious and a significant aggravating feature of your offending.
The victim cannot move his body from the shoulders to the toes and cannot use his hands to write or type and he is, therefore, almost wholly reliant on others to carry out most daily tasks. You were his best friend. Your betrayal of him has had a devastating impact on him emotionally and mentally. Most of the money stolen by you was used on gambling, alcohol and marijuana. The total amount stolen was $6,400.
Taking all of the circumstances into account, I accept the prosecution's submission that your offending should be characterised as in the middle of the range of objective seriousness for this type of offending. You have demonstrated very little remorse or insight as to the effect of your offending on your friend. That much is clear from the comments made in the presentence report and the intensive correction order assessment report tendered upon sentencing.
It is also obvious that you have had a significant alcohol and drug problem for a number of years. For this reason, the Correctional Services Department do not regard you as a suitable candidate for an intensive correction order. In that report, the reporting officer observed that you lacked candour about your alcohol and drug use and your obvious ongoing dependence on both. It seems that you're still in denial, Mr Maher.
Turning now to your personal circumstances. You are now 57 years old. You do not come to court as a first offender. Your criminal history includes mostly drug-related offences, failing to produce information when requested, and contravention of other orders. Nevertheless, you have always complied satisfactorily with previous court orders that have been made.
At the present time, you are in stable accommodation and employment and I note that you have significant family support. That much is evident from the statement of your sister, Kylie Lissom. Her statement to the Court has shed the most light on how this whole sorry state of affairs has come about. Your referees and employer speak well of you. In particular, your current employer says you are a highly valued member of the team.
In sentencing you, I take into account that for offending of this nature, namely fraud involving a breach of trust, the sentence the Court imposes must emphasise the need for general deterrence as well as holding you, the offender, accountable for your actions and recognising the emotional and mental harm which has undoubtedly been caused to the victim.
For the reasons canvassed by both the prosecutor and in the presentence reports, I agree that it is not appropriate in your case to make an intensive correction order. I do consider that the necessary sentencing objectives can best be met by the imposition of a custodial sentence. However, there is, in my view, a proper basis, given all of the circumstances, including your current personal circumstances, and including the fact that you are unlikely to reoffend in this way, to wholly suspend the sentence of imprisonment to be imposed.
You are in a position to make reparation for the stolen amount of $6,400 and I will therefore include that as a condition of the good behaviour order which I intend to impose. I am also satisfied that it is appropriate to order that you complete 60 hours of community service. Both of those conditions are to be fulfilled within two years from the date of the sentence.
Now, let me tell you why. Although the departmental presentence reporter said community service is not an option for you, or not suitable because of your ongoing drug and alcohol addition, I do note that in the past you have satisfactorily complied with a community service order. It is also a fact, if I accept your employer's reference, that you are a good worker and capable of doing work. It is, in my view, appropriate therefore that you make some sort of reparation to the community as a whole for your offending. It cannot make much difference to the victim, but I do believe it will more adequately reflect the consequences of your offending and ensure as well that you are gainfully employed on the weekends when you are required to do community service instead of gambling and drinking, as is your habit.
If I was empowered to impose one overall sentence in respect of all 28 charges for which you have been convicted, I would have imposed a sentence of 12 months. However, because I am required to impose individual sentences, I have structured the sentence as follows.
Orders
I certify that the preceding fourteen [14] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Acting Justice Kelly. Associate: Date:
DPP
Maher