//
[2026] ACTSC 28
General information, not legal advice.
Supreme Court of the ACT
2026-02-13
Mossop J, Burns 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 Majok (No 3) Citation: [2026] ACTSC 28 Hearing Date: 13 February 2026 Decision Date: 13 February 2026 Before: Mossop J Decision: (1) On each of the breaches of the good behaviour orders on charges CAN 130/2024, CAN 132/2024 and CAN 7041/2024 arising from the convictions on CAN 6237/2025 and CAN 6238/2025, pursuant to s 108(2)(a) of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), the court takes no further action. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – breaches of good behaviour orders – history of breaches – where breaches a result of drink-driving and driving while licence suspended convictions – where sentencing magistrate would have taken into account that offender was on conditional liberty – where sentencing magistrate maintained structure of sentence with short non-parole period, so that Sentence Administration Board is to make judgment as to suitability for release – no relevant sentencing purpose would be advanced by taking action in that context – court takes no further action Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), s 108(2) Cases Cited: DPP v Majok [2024] ACTSC 342 DPP v Majok (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 360 Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions Abraham Herjok Majok (Offender) Representation: Counsel E Bayliss (DPP) J Maher (Offender) Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Fortify Legal (Offender) File Numbers: SCC 215 of 2024 SCC 216 of 2024 MOSSOP J:
Abraham Majok is before the court to be dealt with for breaches of three good behaviour orders (GBOs). The breaches of the GBOs arise from further offending, namely drink-driving and driving while his licence was suspended.
In order to understand the task of the court in relation to the present breaches, it is necessary to understand a rather complex history of offending and sentencing. In my view, once that history is understood, the appropriate outcome is that no further action should be taken in relation to the breaches of the GBOs. That is consistent with the position adopted by both parties.
However, it is necessary to articulate that history in order to explain the outcome.
On 30 October 2024, the offender 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); and (e) damaging property, committed on 14 November 2022 (CAN 7041/2024).
Note that the final three charges (CAN 130/2024, CAN 132/2024 and CAN 7041/2024) are those that remain relevant at the present time.
The sentencing reasons of Burns AJ are recorded in DPP v Majok [2024] ACTSC 342. The sentences imposed were as follows: (a) the aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery which occurred on 8 April 2023 resulted in an aggregate sentence of three years and five months’ imprisonment, suspended after the offender had served one year, four months and 25 days’ imprisonment upon entering into a two year and one month GBO with supervision; (b) the aggravated burglary which occurred on 14 November 2022 (CAN 130/2024) resulted in a GBO with supervision; (c) the theft (CAN 132/2024) resulted in a GBO; and (d) the damaging property (CAN 7041/2024) resulted in a GBO.
As a result of a failure to comply with supervision, on 28 February 2025, Burns AJ cancelled the GBOs and resentenced the offender on the aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary that occurred on 8 April 2023 and the aggravated burglary that occurred on 14 November 2022 (CAN 130/2024). The effect of the resentence was to reimpose sentences of the same length but change the dates upon which they operated.
The proceedings then came back before me in August 2025 because of a further failure to comply with the requirements of supervision: see DPP v Majok (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 360. In relation to the aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary offences that occurred on 8 April 2023, I resentenced the offender so as to impose the suspended term of imprisonment but set a non-parole period which expired a month after I imposed that sentence, leaving it to the Sentence Administration Board to determine whether the offender should be released.
As a consequence, the offender was imprisoned until 18 August 2027 but had a non-parole period which expired on 18 September 2025.
He was then sentenced in October 2025 in the ACT Magistrates Court for offences committed on 12 June 2025, that is, shortly prior to me resentencing him. The charges were level 4 drink-driving (CAN 6237/2025) for which, relevantly, he was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment and a licence disqualification and drive while licence suspended (CAN 6238/2025) for which he received a fine and licence disqualification. The sentence of imprisonment was made cumulative as to 2 months on the sentences already in existence, giving an end date for his imprisonment of 18 October 2027. The non-parole period was reset at the same date as previously, namely 18 September 2025.
Those convictions put the offender in breach of the GBOs on charges CAN 130/2024, CAN 132/2024 and CAN 7041/2024. The options for dealing with those breaches are set out in s 108(2) of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT). The offender is currently imprisoned on the sentences that I imposed in August last year. When the magistrate sentenced the offender in relation to the most recent offending, it is likely that regard was had to the fact that the offender was on conditional liberty at the time of that offending. The structure of the sentence that I imposed, and which was maintained by the sentencing magistrate’s sentence, was to imprison the offender but give him a short non-parole period so as to put the burden on him to demonstrate his suitability for release on parole and allow the Sentence Administration Board to make that judgment. As at 20 January 2026, the offender’s application for parole was refused by the Sentence Administration Board. Unless released on parole, his sentence will continue until 18 October 2027. In that context, no relevant sentencing purpose would be advanced by taking any action in relation to the breaches of the GBOs on charges CAN 130/2024, CAN 132/2024 and CAN 7041/2024 because the purposes of sentencing are being adequately met by the sentences imposed upon the offender pursuant to his existing sentences of imprisonment and the remaining periods of the GBOs on charges CAN 130/2024, CAN 132/2024 and CAN 7041/2024.
The order of the Court is: (1) On each of the breaches of the good behaviour orders on charges CAN 130/2024, CAN 132/2024 and CAN 7041/2024 arising from the convictions on CAN 6237/2025 and CAN 6238/2025, pursuant to s 108(2)(a) of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), the court takes no further action.
I certify that the preceding twelve [12] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of his Honour Justice Mossop. Associate: Date:
DPP
Majok