DPP v Majok

1. On 30 October 2024, the offender, Abraham Majok, was sentenced on the following charges: (a) Aggravated burglary, committed on 8 April 2023 (CAN 6783/2023). (b) Aggravated robbery, committed on 8 April 2023 (CAN 6782/2023). (c) Aggravated burglary, committed on 14 November 2022 (CAN 130/2024). (d) Theft, committed on 14 November 2022 (CAN 132/2024). (e) Damaging property, committed on 14 November 2022 (CAN 7041/2024).

2. The aggravated burglary offences carried a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $320,000, or both (Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 312). The aggravated robbery offence carried a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $400,000, or both (Criminal Code, s 310). The theft offence carried a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $160,000, or both (Criminal Code, s 308). Finally, the damaging property offence, being a transfer charge, carried a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment, a fine of $8,000, or both (Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 116(3)).

3. The sentencing reasons of Burns AJ are recorded in DPP v Majok [2024] ACTSC 342. The sentences imposed were as follows: (a) Aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery (which occurred on 8 April): an aggregate of three years and five months’ imprisonment, commencing on 6 June 2023 and ending on 5 November 2026. The sentence was suspended after the offender had served one year, four months and 25 days upon entering a two year and one month good behaviour order (GBO) with supervision from 30 October 2024 (the sentence date). (b) Aggravated burglary (which occurred on 14 November): a GBO with supervision from 30 October 2024, ending on 29 October 2026. (c) Theft: a GBO from 30 October 2024, ending on 29 April 2026. (d) Damaging property: a GBO from 30 October 2024, ending on 29 October 2025.

4. The sentence incorporated backdating for one year, four months and 25 days so that the effect was to suspend the sentences from the sentence date of 30 October 2024.

5. A condition of both aggravated burglary GBOs and the robbery GBO was to accept the supervision of ACT Corrective Services and obey all reasonable directions of officers of that service for the period of the GBO or such lesser period deemed appropriate by the supervising officer.

6. On 26 November 2024, the offender failed to accept supervision, thereby breaching the GBOs with such a condition in force. The breach was admitted, and on 28 February 2025, Burns AJ cancelled the offender’s GBOs and resentenced the offender as follows: (a) Aggravated robbery (CAN 6782/2023): two years and three months’ imprisonment commencing on 3 October 2023, suspended on 28 February 2025 upon entering into a GBO with supervision for two years and one month, ending 27 March 2027. (b) Aggravated burglary (CAN 6783/2023): one year and eight months’ imprisonment commencing on 3 July 2025, suspended along with the previous sentence on 28 February 2025 upon entering into a GBO with supervision for two years and one month, ending 27 March 2027. (c) Aggravated burglary (CAN 130/2024): a GBO with supervision for two years from 28 February 2025, ending 27 February 2027.

7. The effect of this was to simply reimpose the same sentences with the same degree of backdating but have them based around the sentence date of 28 February 2025.

Facts

8. In resentencing the offender on the previous occasion, Burns AJ said: Now, there can be no doubt now that you will be aware of the fact that if you breach the terms of the good behaviour order which I am going to impose - so what I am going to do is to reimpose the sentence that I imposed which will involve a fresh good behaviour order. And if you breach the terms of that order, then you should expect to serve that two years in prison. It's as simple as that. If you're not going to pay the price to stay out of prison, you go back to prison.

9. At the conclusion of his reasons, his Honour said: I expect, Mr Robinson [counsel for the offender], that you will make it very clear to your client that any future breach, unless there is some very good explanation, is likely to result in him being returned to custody.

10. Prior to that hearing before Burns AJ, while the offender was in Melbourne, he was the victim of a machete attack which gave rise to significant injuries to his hands which were still being treated at the time Burns AJ dealt with his breach and, although it appears he has made some recovery, are still the subject of treatment today.

11. Unfortunately, the affidavit of a Corrective Services officer establishes breaches of the supervision obligation following the resentence by Burns AJ: (a) On 4 March 2025, the offender reported as directed. (b) On 6 March 2025, he was directed to attend for supervision on 11 March 2025. (c) On 11 March 2025, he phoned half an hour after a scheduled appointment and advised that he was unable to attend. (d) On 13 March 2025, he reported as directed. (e) On 27 March 2025, he reported half an hour after the scheduled appointment. (f) On 31 March 2025, he failed to report and failed to notify of his inability to do so. (g) On 1 April 2025, no contact was able to be made on his nominated contact number. A message was left and a letter was sent by express post. (h) On 3 April 2025, he phoned and confirmed that he had received a voicemail. He was directed to attend on 8 April 2025. (i) On 8 April 2025, he failed to report as directed and failed to notify the service of his inability to do so.

12. Those facts are sufficient to establish a breach of his supervision obligations, however, it is clear that he has remained unengaged from supervision since that time.

13. An intensive correction order (ICO) assessment report was ordered to be prepared on 21 May 2025.

14. On 12 June 2025, the offender was remanded in custody in relation to other allegations. He participated in an interview for the ICO assessment report on 2 July 2025. He was granted bail.

15. Contact was attempted to be made on 8 July 2025. A letter was sent on 10 July 2025 requiring his attendance to facilitate the preparation of the report on 17 July 2025.

16. He failed to attend on 17 July 2025. A further letter was sent on that date, requiring attendance on 22 July 2025.

17. He failed to attend on that date.

18. Attempts to contact him on 23 July 2025 were unsuccessful. As a result, no assessment of his suitability for an ICO could be made. That outcome was very unfortunate, but arose from his continued failure to engage with Corrective Services. Submissions

19. Counsel for the offender frankly said that there was no explanation for the failure to comply with requirements of supervision and that, had there been such evidence, it would have been called in the present proceedings.

20. The position of the prosecution was that the sentences should simply be imposed. The position of the offender was that the unfortunate reality was that the offender was not going to comply with the requirements of supervision and, in those circumstances, he should be resentenced in a way that removed the requirement for supervision as a condition of the GBOs.

Decision

21. The offender is still a young man. He appears to have a difficulty with working out the consequences of his actions or the relentless nature of the criminal justice system. He has engaged in serious offending, but those were, in effect, his first offences. His personal circumstances are outlined in Burns AJ’s original decision at [20]-[36]. There is no explanation for his non-compliance. Nor is there any explanation of what else is going on in his life. In those circumstances, I do not consider it appropriate to simply ignore the breaches and resentence either in the same terms as previously imposed or with adjusted dates.

22. I consider that, unless the offender is required to serve further time in custody as a result of his non-compliance with those GBOs associated with the suspension of the sentences, the effect would be to undermine the integrity of the suspended sentence as a sentencing option.

23. In my view, the appropriate approach involves a resentence but in a manner different to that advanced by either of the parties. In my view, the appropriate course is to resentence the offender in a way that puts a burden on him to establish that release into the community is appropriate, and allows the Sentence Administration Board to address any requirements arising from a failure to comply with the conditions upon which he is released into the community.

24. The course that I will adopt is to resentence the offender and incorporate a non-parole period which expires in approximately one month. It is likely that he will, if he conducts himself appropriately, be released into the community sometime after that. He will then be subject to the requirements of parole and any breaches will be dealt with by the Sentence Administration Board.

25. In relation to the charge of aggravated burglary that was the subject of a GBO only, I will take no further action, leaving that order in place and giving him the benefits and detriments of his conduct throughout the relevant period.

Orders

26. The orders of the Court are: (1) In relation to the breach of the good behaviour order imposed on the charge of aggravated burglary (CAN 130/2024) on 28 February 2025, pursuant to s 108 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), no further action is taken. (2) In relation to the breach of the good behaviour order imposed in relation to CAN 6782/2023 (aggravated robbery) and CAN 6783/2023 (joint commission aggravated burglary) on 28 February 2025, that good behaviour order is cancelled and the offender is resentenced as follows: (a) On the charge of aggravated robbery (CAN 6782/2023), the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for two years and three months, commencing on 19 March 2024 and ending on 18 June 2026. (b) On the charge of aggravated burglary (CAN 6783/2023), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for one year and eight months, commencing on 19 December 2025 and ending on 18 August 2027. (c) The non-parole period commences on 19 March 2024 and ends on 18 September 2025.

I certify that the preceding twenty-six [26] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Justice Mossop. Associate: Date: