//
[2025] ACTSC 312
General information, not legal advice.
Supreme Court of the ACT
2025-06-27
Christensen AJ
Original judgment source is linked above.
Zoe will write a short plain-English summary of this judgment and email it to you for free: 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 Massey Citation: [2025] ACTSC 312 Hearing Date: 6 June 2025 Decision Date: 27 June 2025 Before: Christensen AJ Decision: See [45] Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Drive motor vehicle without consent – aggravated dangerous driving – repeat offender – offending occurred while on parole – moderate reduction for relatively early pleas of guilty – offender meets criteria for stimulant use disorder in sustained remission – offender found unsuitable for drug and alcohol treatment order – difficulty in complying with order – treatment order not forcibly pressed – high risk of general reoffending – prospects of rehabilitation – Bugmy and Verdins principles enlivened – failure of village – moral culpability reduced – risk of institutionalisation – community protection – full time imprisonment – nonparole period Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 80U, 120 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 318 Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT) s 7 Cases Cited: Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 Calatzis v Jones [2024] ACTSC 42; 21 ACTLR 59 DPP v Allred [2023] ACTSC 184 DPP v Clarke (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 261 DPP v Coulter [2024] ACTSC 262 DPP v Holder (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 167 DPP v Vincent (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 379 DPP v Woods [2023] ACTSC 380 KQE v DPP [2024] ACTCA 7 R v Crawford (a pseudonym) [2022] ACTSC 166 R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346 R v Massey (No 1) [2020] ACTSC 256 R v Massey (No 3) [2021] ACTSC 156 R v Massey (No 4) [2021] ACTSC 211 R v Seymour [2021] ACTSC 152 R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103 Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions Jordan Matthew Henry Massey (Offender) Representation: Counsel J Churchill (DPP) K Lee (Offender) Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Bevan & Co Lawyers & Conveyancers (Offender) File Number: SCC 340 of 2024 CHRISTENSEN AJ:
Introduction
Jordan Massey is to be sentenced with respect to two occasions of driving offences as follows: - Two offences of drive motor vehicle without consent contrary to s 318(2) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), carrying a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment, 500 penalty units, or both; and - Two offences of aggravated dangerous driving as a repeat offender contrary to s 7(1) of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT), carrying a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment, 500 penalty units, or both. An automatic licence disqualification of 12 months, or longer, applies.
Mr Massey had sought that he be sentenced to a drug and alcohol treatment order (treatment order). Assessments were undertaken for that purpose, as well as Mr Massey having himself engaged a forensic psychologist to provide an opinion as to his prospects of compliance with such an order. This is in circumstances where Mr Massey has previously had an opportunity for a treatment order (see R v Massey (No 3) [2021] ACTSC 156 (R v Massey (No 3)), one which was cancelled shortly after its imposition (R v Massey (No 4) [2021] ACTSC 211).
Based on the information available to the Court by the time of the current sentencing hearing, a treatment order was not forcibly pressed. There was an acknowledgment that it would be difficult for Mr Massey to comply with such an onerous community based order. Nonetheless, he remains committed to rehabilitation and a sentence order that supports this, to the extent it can when stern sentences are warranted for serious offending by a recidivist offender, are to be considered.
22 August 2023 offending
On 22 August 2023, a silver 2013 Mercedes-Benz ML350 bearing ACT registration plates was stolen from an address in Moncrieff. Police were informed.
That day at about 6:55am, the offender was observed by a community member driving the Mercedes. It had Western Australian registration plates affixed. At about 7:23am, police arrived at a location in Coombs and were provided with video recordings which showed the offender interacting with the vehicle and as the driver of the vehicle (CAN 2023/8479). 28 August 2023 offending
Between 9:30pm on Saturday 26 August 2023 and 6:45am on Sunday 27 August 2023, a black Dodge Ram 1500 utility bearing New South Wales registration plates was stolen from an address in Gungahlin.
On 28 August 2023 at about 8:30am an unmarked police vehicle was patrolling in an attempt to locate the stolen Dodge Ram. The vehicle was seen reversing out of a garage on Schneider Lane and exiting onto Jimmy Little Circuit in Moncrieff. Police drove past the Dodge Ram on Jimmy Little Circuit, and they identified Mr Massey as the driver (CAN 2023/8472). The front plate affixed to the vehicle was an ACT number plate.
The police pulled partially in front of the Dodge Ram and observed Mr Massey to mouth the word “fuck”. He accelerated around the police vehicle and drove the Dodge Ram across a green belt and onto Horse Park Drive, Gungahlin. The rear registration plate affixed to the vehicle was an ACT one, but different to the front plate. Police observed the vehicle driving amongst heavy peak hour traffic.
The Dodge Ram was later sighted driving south bound on Mirrabel Drive, Ngunnawal, towards Gungahlin. It was overtaking cars on the incorrect side of the road whilst still amongst heavy traffic. Police lost sight of the vehicle a short time later (CAN 2023/8474).
At about 10:30am the same day, police observed the Dodge Ram as it travelled along Canberra Avenue west bound from Queanbeyan. It was sighted multiple times along the Monaro Highway and Lanyon Drive. Police lost sight of the Dodge Ram as it travelled along Mugga Lane, Symonston.
At about 11:20am, police driving an unmarked vehicle observed the Dodge Ram driving west bound from Damala Street, Waramanga, onto Namatjira Drive, Weston Creek. It was observed as it continued along Kambah Pool Road. Police lights were activated. It conducted a U-turn against unbroken lines and travelled back in a northwest direction, heading towards Hindmarsh Drive.
A police officer, wearing plain clothes and accoutrements, went to the green belt adjacent to Namitjira Drive and exited their vehicle in order to deploy a tyre deflation device. Another police officer, wearing police uniform and accoutrements, parked their marked police vehicle beside the unmarked police vehicle. That officer also exited their vehicle in an attempt to deploy a tyre deflation device. A short time later, those police observed the Dodge Ram travelling towards their location. The Dodge Ram crossed onto the wrong side of the road, off the road and onto the green belt and drove towards the police officers who were on foot. The officers moved behind their vehicles. A tyre deflation device was successfully used, causing the front passenger side tyre of the Dodge Ram to deflate.
Assessment of the offending
The first driving of a stolen motor vehicle was seemingly of a short duration and distance, and it was clear that Mr Massey had knowledge that the vehicle was stolen. He was observed to be affixing the incorrect number plate to the vehicle, indicative of a blatant intention to drive the stolen vehicle without being detected. There are though no aggravating features such as passengers being present in the vehicle or concerning driving behaviour. Nonetheless, any driving of a stolen vehicle is to be denounced and warrants a deterrent sentence. A vehicle is of significant value to the owner and financial loss and inconvenience is caused by persons who drive stolen motor vehicles.
The second driving of a stolen motor vehicle offence will have caused similar loss and inconvenience to the owner, and is of particular concern here given the level of mistreatment of the vehicle from the manner in which it was driven. While recovered, damage was caused to the vehicle’s tyres from that driving. The driving involved dangerous driving, although this is separately charged.
As to the aggravated dangerous driving, the first occasion of this was at a time when there was heavy traffic. There was acceleration around a police vehicle, driving on a green belt, and overtaking cars on the incorrect side of the road. It was submitted that there was nothing contrary to law by the driving on the incorrect side of the road given this was not done contrary to the line markings on the particular road. It may be so that this aspect was not strictly unlawful conduct, but it will still have been alarming to the other traffic users as it was not typical driving behaviour in such a location or at such a time. It was done in the circumstance of Mr Massey avoiding police, having failed to stop, with this aspect accounting for the increased maximum penalty. The driving does not appear to have been for a lengthy duration, but it involved driving on multiple roads in multiple suburbs.
As to the second period and charge of driving, this is a more serious example of aggravated dangerous driving. The duration and period of time was not short. It was at a time of day when there was a heavy flow of traffic. Footage from the police vehicles was played at the sentence proceeding showing the pursuit. Mr Massey had again failed to stop for police, and the charge further particularises that his driving put at risk the safety of vulnerable road users. The driving included swerving to avoid deployed tyre deflation devices.
The footage shows what would have been alarming driving behaviour for other road users and the police. It was through suburban areas with other road users having to take evasive action to avoid the pursuit. Mr Massey has driven against line markings, on the wrong side of the road, and on a green belt.
It was determined driving to avoid police. The footage shows the manner in which the police were driven towards, but, as submitted on the offender’s behalf, he is not charged, nor to be sentenced for this specific offence. Nonetheless, I take it into account as an aspect of the manner of dangerous driving, in the sense that it demonstrates the high risk that the offender put police officers, and other community members, in by his driving.
Pleas of guilty
Mr Massey pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court at a mention six days in advance of a hearing. That is, the pleas of guilty followed initial pleas of not guilty, the provision of a brief of evidence, and the listing of a hearing. There were negotiations which led to the pleas of guilty. The pleas were entered in advance of that hearing, reducing the inconvenience to witnesses and the Court.
The matters were then committed for sentence in the Supreme Court for the purpose of assessment for a drug and alcohol treatment order. Mr Massey was assessed as suitable by Canberra Health Services and not suitable by Community Corrections having regard to his history of noncompliance with previous court orders. In the event a treatment order was not ordered, Mr Massey did not seek that the sentence be remitted to the Magistrates Court (s 80U Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentencing Act)), and accordingly, the matter has proceeded to sentence in the Supreme Court.
In terms of the utilitarian value of the pleas of guilty in all of these circumstances, I assess the appropriate reduction to be at least 15 per cent. This reflects what I consider to still be a relatively early plea of guilty, being one entered well in advance of a hearing, but also being one that followed negotiations: R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103 at [56].
I note that on behalf of Mr Massey it was submitted that a discount of at least 10 per cent would be appropriate, with reference to the observations of Mossop J in Calatzis v Jones [2024] ACTSC 42; 21 ACTLR 59 (Calatzis v Jones) at [35] and [43] as to the usual discount for a plea of guilty entered in the Supreme Court one week before trial.
While I do not disagree with the observations made by his Honour in Calatzis v Jones, that matter was concerned with an appeal against a sentence proceeding in the Magistrates Court. Here, the Court is considering the appropriate reduction where there was a plea of guilty following negotiations in the Magistrates Court and the matter was committed for sentence in the Supreme Court. The utilitarian value involved with a plea of guilty in advance of a hearing in the Magistrates Court is distinguishable from a plea of guilty entered in advance of a trial in the Supreme Court. I maintain my view that a reduction in the order of at least 15 per cent is appropriate in the circumstances of this matter.
Subjective circumstances
Mr Massey is now 25 years of age. He was aged 23 years at the time of the offending. It was submitted on his behalf that weight should be given to his young age. I am not persuaded that his biological age readily enlivens ‘youthful offender’ principles, although I do accept that the history of his adulthood suggests that he is yet to present as a mature and responsible adult. I accept that the promotion of rehabilitation still has prominence in the sentencing exercise.
This history of Mr Massey’s adulthood, and indeed childhood, is borne out in the assessments undertaken for the purposes of a treatment order, a forensic psychological assessment dated 12 May 2025, and previous sentence decisions of this court. From this material it can be readily concluded that the principles of Bugmy (Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571) and Henry (R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346) are enlivened. Information as to the basis for this can be found in R v Massey (No 1) [2020] ACTSC 256 at [63] – [71] and R v Massey (No 3) at [42] and is unnecessary to repeat. Suffice to say that Mr Massey did not experience a positive and supportive upbringing and in many respects, the substance dependency and offending behaviour he exhibits was almost inevitable from the circumstances of his childhood. What Mr Massey was raised to understand was a world of violence, substance misuse, neglect, abandonment, insecure housing, inadequate formal education opportunities, and the challenges of parental incarceration and mental ill health.
Also informative as to how Mr Massey now presents is what the forensic psychologist opines. That is, that Mr Massey meets the criteria for stimulant use disorder in sustained remission in a controlled environment and that he meets the criteria for complex post-traumatic stress disorder. The forensic psychologist further opines that there is a possibility that Mr Massey presents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder but that further assessment with psychiatric review is required. He is assessed by the forensic psychologist as most likely having a “high/moderate” risk of reoffending due to a lack of protective factors. His criminogenic rehabilitation relies heavily on abstinence from illicit substances. ACT Corrective Services assess Mr Massey as being a high risk of general reoffending.
Mr Massey described to the forensic psychologist that the offending occurred after he had been engaged in a day program and was “straight”. He then experienced a traumatic incident and came to use substances. He was “getting cars to get drugs and then avoiding the cops. [He] just wanted to pump the music loud and forget about what has happened [throughout his life]”. He is reported as acknowledging the harm he has caused to the owners of the vehicle and expresses that he would offer them “a big apology”.
Despite all of his challenges, Mr Massey also presents with an inner strength and resilience that assists him to strive for a better life for himself. He expresses an understanding of the impacts of his offending behaviour and is described by Corrective Services as displaying some empathy towards the victims, and insight into the risks of his behaviour. He expressed a commitment to engage in a treatment order. He has a desire to engage in psychological support, and to create a family in which what occurred to him as a child is not repeated. He has goals to work as an electrician or in IT, to engage in team sports, and to avoid past anti-social acquaintances. He is engaging successfully with pharmacotherapy, with urinalysis testing in custody since September 2024 returning negative results for substances. He has previously engaged in aspects of alcohol and drug rehabilitation programs that he has found to be of assistance.
Criminal history and conditional liberty
Mr Massey has an extensive criminal history. This includes for previous offences of aggravated dangerous driving, ride/drive motor vehicle without consent, other driving offending, property offending and a violence offence. He has been previously imprisoned, and had opportunities for a treatment order, parole, and suspended sentences.
At the time of the offending, Mr Massey was on parole for offences of aggravated dangerous driving, ride/drive motor vehicle without consent, drive whilst disqualified, and joint commission theft. This is an aggravating factor on sentence, and I take this into account: KQE v DPP [2024] ACTCA 7 at [40]. I am cautious to limit the extent to which I do so in circumstances where Mr Massey has since had this parole rescinded and has served the remainder of the term of imprisonment for those offences (see below at [36]). The totality principle is of application in the entirety of the sentencing exercise, including with respect to the entire period in custody and with respect to the licence disqualification period. Nonethless, it remains relevant that his being on parole at the time of the offending is informative as to his prospects of compliance with a community based order. Mr Massey is described by Corrective Services as having initially complied satisfactorily with the previous parole order, but that this compliance was not maintained.
Time in custody
From the time of his arrest on 28 August 2023, Mr Massey has been in custody. However, he was a sentenced prisoner following cancellation of parole from 29 August 2023 until 19 October 2024. With respect to these offences, a period of 251 days applies as presentence custody (28 August 2023; 20 October 2024 – 27 June 2025).
It is additionally relevant to consider this entire period in custody in consideration of the totality of the sentence and the deterrent effect that the extended period in custody since the offending will have had on the offender. There is also a risk, as submitted on Mr Massey’s behalf, of institutionalisation of a younger man, from an extended period in custody. The forensic psychologist describes this as arising from Mr Massey having spent only some two years and eight months throughout his adulthood in the community, and that while not yet institutionalised, he has not developed adaptive coping strategies. I have taken the full period of custody into account in considering the eligibility for parole. Current sentencing practice
Both parties assisted with authorities relied upon as to current sentencing practice with respect to the dangerous driving offending, while acknowledging the limitations that such authorities provide. I have considered the authorities provided: DPP v Coulter [2024] ACTSC 262; DPP v Clarke (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 261; DPP v Holder (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 167; R v Crawford (a pseudonym) [2022] ACTSC 166; DPP v Allred [2023] ACTSC 184; and R v Seymour [2021] ACTSC 152.
I draw from these authorities that periods of imprisonment in the range of 8 to 18 months imprisonment have been imposed for aggravated driving of stolen motor vehicles where behaviour including high speeds, driving on the wrong side of the road, and failing to stop for police are features of the offending. However, each of the other authorities involved the imposition of sentences for offending beyond the aggravated dangerous driving offending, as well as there being a wide range of conduct in the manner of driving, emphasising the caution necessary in placing weight on authorities said to be comparative.
The prosecution also provided the authorities of DPP v Vincent (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 379 (DPP v Vincent (No 2)) and DPP v Woods [2023] ACTSC 380 (DPP v Woods) as to the drive motor vehicle without consent offences. I do not find these to be of assistance given the driving of the stolen motor vehicle by Mr Vincent was aggravated by its purpose to commit offences of burglary and theft (DPP v Vincent (No 2) at [32]) and Mr Woods was sentenced only in relation to riding in the stolen vehicle (DPP v Woods at [1]).
Consideration
Mr Massey’s driving conduct was serious. It is offending that is of significant concern to the Canberra community, being that it puts other community members and police at risk, and, here, involved the driving of stolen motor vehicles engaged in police pursuits. This form of offending warrants just and adequate punishment, denunciation, deterrence, and accountability in the sentences to be imposed. It is clear that the only appropriate penalty for each offence is one of imprisonment. Further, in my view, the only appropriate mechanism of release is parole, rather than a suspended sentence, to provide a sentence with sufficient specific deterrence.
These examples of aggravated dangerous driving of stolen motor vehicles have particular features of seriousness given the number of other road users exposed to the dangerous driving. The offending inherently involved a complete disrespect and disregard for other community members. However, in that regard particularly, Mr Massey’s moral culpability is lessened. This is not to say that the harm and impact to the community is lessened, but that Mr Massey, being someone whose childhood did little to provide him with a solid foundation for success as an adult, lacks the capacity to avoid resorting to substances and offending behaviour. The experience of the courts shows that a person who has not been raised in the environment of a supportive ‘village’ is limited in their capacity to respect the broader community in which they come to live as an adult. If it takes a village to raise a child, then the village responsible for raising Mr Massey has failed him.
This being so does not detract from the seriousness of the offending or the need for condign punishment. Indeed, it elevates the role of community protection in the sentencing exercise. The offending behaviour on this occasion, with Mr Massey’s history of apparent callous disregard for other community members, leaves little scope for leniency in the sentence. Community protection is of primary importance. This is to be achieved through sentences of imprisonment with a parole eligibility that has regard to all relevant sentencing considerations.
Those considerations include that in my view, Mr Massey’s prospects of rehabilitation must be regarded at this stage as guarded. He is demonstrating a growth in maturity and insight into the benefit of moving away from offending behaviour and a desire to do so, but he requires significant support and assistance to achieve this. It is to be hoped that the necessary supports will be available to him in the custodial environment, and thereafter during supervision once in the community.
Orders
I certify that the preceding forty-five [45] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Acting Justice Christensen. Associate: Date: 23 July 2025
DPP
Massey [2025] ACTSC 312
A short time later, the Dodge Ram was observed on Darwinia Terrace, Rivett. Police engaged in a pursuit, with lights activated, with the Dodge Ram, as it travelled along Darwinia Terrace, before it turned onto Hindmarsh Drive, Duffy.
The Dodge Ram later came to a stop on the green belt adjacent to the roadway (CAN 2023/11805). The offender exited the vehicle and ran away, followed by police. He was detained and arrested approximately 100 metres from the Dodge Ram.
The Dodge Ram was searched and a jumper with a design and markings similar to that observed by the driver of the Mercedes Benz on 22 August 2023 was located.
All of the driving was done in a circumstance of Mr Massey being a repeat offender for this type of offence. While this accounts for the maximum penalty, it also emphasises the need for strongly deterrent sentences.
However, the forensic psychologist, in a valuable opinion as to what is needed to best support Mr Massey’s rehabilitation, finds he is unlikely to successfully complete a rehabilitation program in the near future given his historical functioning. The forensic psychologist opines that Mr Massey first requires a psychiatric review, psychological intervention, and substance use intervention. It is concluded by the forensic psychologist that a treatment order is unlikely to be an intervention that can be achieved at this stage, and that coordinated substance use rehabilitation, and psychiatric assessment is necessary for Mr Massey. It follows that a treatment order cannot be regarded as a suitable or appropriate sentence outcome.