//
[2025] ACTSC 413
General information, not legal advice.
Supreme Court of the ACT
2025-09-11
Mossop J
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 Offe (No 7) Citation: [2025] ACTSC 413 Hearing Date: 10 September 2025 Decision Date: 11 September 2025 Before: Mossop J Decision: (1) On charge CAN 3821/2022, the offender is convicted and fined $1,000, and allowed 6 months to pay. (2) On charge SC CAN 182/2022, the offender is convicted and fined $1,000, and allowed 6 months to pay. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – driving at or near police (two counts) – where offending arose out of a series of unfortunate events – where offender driving at walking pace at public protest – where offender had no intention to cause any physical harm to police – where offending contributed to by misapprehension of police intentions and offender’s susceptibility to influence by others – low seriousness – s 10 threshold not passed – impact of criminal process on offender and time spent in custody significant – however, non-conviction not appropriate – fine with time to pay imposed CRIMINAL LAW – PROTESTS – Police – where offending occurred at a large political protest outside Parliament House – where, unlike in other cases, offending was not intended as part of the protest – where protesting is an important aspect of representative democracy Legislation Cited: Confiscation of Criminal Assets Act 2003 (ACT) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 10, 17, 34(2) Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 29A Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) Cases Cited: DPP v Reed [2023] ACTSC 310; 383 FLR 41 DPP v Shillingsworth [2024] ACTSC 40 Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions Andrew Paul Offe (Offender) Representation: Counsel M Howe (DPP) Self-represented (Offender) Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Self-represented (Offender) File Numbers: SCC 191 of 2022 SCC 192 of 2022 MOSSOP J: Introduction
On day 13 of a trial in which he represented himself, Andrew Paul Offe was found guilty by a jury of two counts of driving at or near a police officer contrary to s 29A of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT).
In each case, the charge on the indictment alleged that, on 12 February 2022 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory, Mr Offe drove a motor vehicle near or at a police officer who was exercising a function given to him as a police officer, and Mr Offe knew or was reckless about whether that officer was a police officer, and intended to or was reckless about risking the safety of that officer.
In relation to Count 1, the officer in question was Detective Inspector Marcus Boorman. In relation to Count 2, the officer was Sergeant Kenneth Williams.
Facts
The offending occurred during a large political protest outside Parliament House in Canberra. Thousands of people had gathered at Regatta Point on the northern side of Lake Burley Griffin and were proceeding southwards across Commonwealth Avenue towards Parliament House. Some of those people headed towards Parliament House by going up the Commonwealth Avenue up ramp towards Parliament Drive and then proceeding to the Authorised Assembly Area on the lawn in front of Parliament House. Others went via Old Parliament House and the grassed area known as Federation Mall.
Mr Offe owned a distinctive truck with the numberplate ZEUS 1. He had travelled from Queensland along with others who were concerned about the manner in which the Australian Government had addressed the covid-19 pandemic. He had stayed at the camping area at Exhibition Park (also known as EPIC) on the north side of Canberra. His truck had the words “no more mandates”, “no more!” and “freedom” across the bonnet and side panels.
On 12 February 2022, he travelled in convoy with two other trucks from EPIC to Parliament House. The two other trucks were to form the stage from which speakers would address the crowd at the Authorised Assembly Area outside Parliament House. The convoy of trucks was escorted by police. When it reached the intersection between Commonwealth Avenue and Queen Victoria Terrace, the trucks were directed to turn left. That was so that they could be taken past Old Parliament House and make their way up the road beside Federation Mall to the Authorised Assembly Area.
At the point where the two leading trucks turned left, Mr Offe was greeted by a YouTube content creator called Simeon Boikov, who was known as Aussie Cossack. Mr Offe recognised him and stopped to talk to him. The two trucks in front waited for him, hoping that Mr Offe would follow, but they were unable to make contact with him to get him to do so. Although the drivers of the trucks in front had instructed Mr Offe to follow and thought that he understood the plan, Mr Offe did not follow them. Encouraged by Aussie Cossack and the passenger who was in his vehicle, he instead did a U-turn and proceeded to drive up the Commonwealth Avenue up ramp which leads to Parliament Drive. This involved him driving at walking pace amongst the thousands of other people who were travelling up the up ramp on foot to get to Parliament House. He drove past several police officers who made no attempt to stop him, notwithstanding that the road was closed.
However, the fact that a truck was travelling up the up ramp was reported to the senior officers in charge of police at Parliament House. Faced with a large crowd of demonstrators, the police at Parliament House were understandably anxious about a truck coming up towards Parliament House. About half an hour earlier, another truck had travelled up the up ramp, but had followed police directions to turn right at the intersection between Commonwealth Avenue and Parliament Drive so as to be able to depart the area where the protest was occurring.
Subjective circumstances
Mr Offe is a single man who is now 40 years old. He was brought up in the Flinders Ranges of South Australia. He has had “dyslexia and stuff” for the majority of his life. He has had learning difficulties. He suffers from anxiety. The proceedings have been pending against him for three and a half years.
His mother died in tragic circumstances while the proceedings against him were pending. His father is alive. He receives support from his brother, with whom he was living at the time of the offending and who assisted him during the course of the proceedings.
In 2009, he suffered an unprovoked assault and, on a separate occasion in that year, a whiplash injury. In 2010, he suffered a tyre explosion and blast injury. That resulted in him suffering a highly comminuted proximal ulnar and olecranon fracture in his right arm, as well as nerve damage, for which he had to undergo multiple surgeries and other treatment up until 2021. As at 2022, he was diagnosed with chronic fatigue.
A medical report from 2022 disclosed that he remained vulnerable to the neurocognitive consequences of the types of injuries that he had suffered because he was born with an enlarged cisterna magna (a space in his brain) that rendered his brainstem more susceptible to rotational forces when exposed to injuries of that nature. The medical report also indicated that he has a history of dyslexia and other problems with information processing. Both his dyslexia and difficulties with information processing were evident during the trial.
As a consequence of his dyslexia and medical conditions, he has had limited employment. He has done some physical work and has been involved with his parents’ home businesses. It is obviously difficult to maintain and retain employment with dyslexia. He is in receipt of a disability pension.
He was involved in legal proceedings arising out of the whiplash injury and the tyre explosion. Those proceedings went on for 10 years. He received a payout as a result of those proceedings, but much of that amount was used up in legal fees. The balance of the payout, as well as a loan from his parents, allowed him to buy the truck involved in the offending. His intention was to create a business with it which he could manage notwithstanding his health issues, including his chronic fatigue. He intended to use it for chauffeuring, school formals and birthday parties. In his evidence, he described this kind of work as consistent with his Christian beliefs that you should “treat others how you’d like them to treat you”.
The business was in its early stages. From October 2021, he had attended some events in order to demonstrate the utility of the truck as an attraction and raise its profile. He also obtained sponsorship in the form of the car audio system that had been put into the vehicle. The vehicle was also involved in the shooting of a movie, but that was interrupted as a result of the vehicle being seized following the incident at Parliament House.
Criminal history
Mr Offe has no criminal history.
The prosecution accepted that, apart from the present offences, he was a person of positive good character. I also accept that to be the case. It is consistent with my impression of Mr Offe during the course of the trial.
Time in custody
Consideration
Driving at or near police is a serious offence. It carries a very substantial maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment. The offence provision is designed to deter the conduct of persons who may use the threat to the safety of police officers in order to escape from, or otherwise threaten, such officers.
As I have indicated, the objective circumstances of this case are at the low end of objective seriousness for this offence.
The offending occurred in the context of a public protest involving large numbers of ordinary people outside the national Parliament, an obvious focus of political protest in a democracy. In DPP v Reed [2023] ACTSC 310; 383 FLR 41 at [32], I explained the importance of such protests in a representative democracy as follows: Public protest articulating dissatisfaction with government action or inaction is an accepted component of representative and responsible government. Those who are powerful or well-connected do not need to protest publicly in order to express their displeasure at government action or inaction. They may do so through private representations, public statements or through direct or indirect financial means of influence. However, those without such power or connections must use other means. Amongst a variety of means of influencing government is public protest. Public protest is effective because it creates a spectacle to which society pays attention.
While in cases such as Reed and DPP v Shillingsworth [2024] ACTSC 40 the court has had to address circumstances where the offending was intended as part of the protest, this case is different. So far as Mr Offe was concerned, the disobeying of police was not an act designed to enhance the attention given to the protest. It was an unfortunate consequence of his failure to follow the other trucks to the Authorised Assembly Area, his misunderstanding that they would be diverted from that area, and his susceptibility to influence by others.
So far as the purposes of sentencing are concerned, I do not consider that specific deterrence plays any significant role. Mr Offe is a person of positive good character and is unlikely to reoffend. For that reason, rehabilitation is not a significant sentencing consideration. Being subjected to the criminal process has been a burden for him, more so because of the anxiety from which he suffers. General deterrence would ordinarily be a significant sentencing consideration, but Mr Offe’s personal circumstances and the circumstances in which the offending occurred make him a less suitable vehicle for that as a sentencing purpose. The criminal process, including the sentence that will be imposed, will have the effect of holding Mr Offe accountable for his actions. The victims of the offending, Detective Inspector Boorman and Sergeant Williams, did not suffer any physical harm as a result of the offending. They inevitably suffered some incremental harm from being, once again, put in a position of conflict where there was some risk to their safety. As with all offending directed to police who are just doing their job, denunciation must play a role in sentencing.
Orders
I certify that the preceding forty-six [46] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of his Honour Justice Mossop. Associate: Date:
DPP
Offe
When Mr Offe was approaching the intersection between Commonwealth Avenue and Parliament Drive, he was stopped by Sergeant Williams, who signalled him to stop and then stood in front of Mr Offe’s vehicle until other officers arrived. Detective Inspector Boorman arrived and had a conversation with Aussie Cossack, who was travelling on the outside of the vehicle as it progressed up the up ramp. Detective Inspector Boorman was aware of the identity of Aussie Cossack as a result of police intelligence provided to him at an earlier stage. He was not aware that Mr Offe had only met Aussie Cossack shortly beforehand.
The discussion between Detective Inspector Boorman and Aussie Cossack did not give Detective Inspector Boorman the assurance that he wanted that the truck would turn right when it reached the intersection with Parliament Drive. Therefore, Detective Inspector Boorman stepped up and spoke directly to Mr Offe. Detective Inspector Boorman told Mr Offe that, when he reached the top of the up ramp, he was to turn right and he was not to turn left. Having done so, Detective Inspector Boorman got down from the truck and instructed police to clear a path for the truck to continue up to the intersection. This action was met by cheers from the crowd. Aussie Cossack continued to ride on the truck on the running board outside the driver’s door.
As Mr Offe drove to the intersection, Detective Inspector Boorman clearly indicated, by pointing his left arm, that Mr Offe was to turn to the right on Parliament Drive. Instead of doing so, Mr Offe turned his vehicle to the left and drove towards Detective Inspector Boorman and Sergeant Williams, who had also placed himself in the path of the vehicle. It is this conduct which constituted each of the offences.
The officers then placed their hands on the front of the vehicle and walked backwards as the vehicle edged forwards. Mr Offe continued forwards despite the clear indications that the police wished him not to drive forward. He did so in the hope of being able to continue to the Authorised Assembly Area or the front of Parliament House. His decision to act contrary to the direction given by Detective Inspector Boorman was influenced by the loud and enthusiastic support given for the presence and progress of the truck by the crowd around it. Mr Offe was also influenced to attempt to turn towards rather than away from Parliament House by Aussie Cossack and his passenger.
The verdicts of the jury indicated that they accepted that Mr Offe was reckless, in the sense required by the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), about risking both police officers’ safety when he drove at or near them, notwithstanding that he was driving slowly and not intending to cause any harm to any of the officers.
Mr Offe did not appreciate how concerned the police would be at his conduct in the circumstances that the police faced. The police, on the other hand, did not appreciate Mr Offe’s intentions, the circumstances in which he had failed to follow the police escort and the other trucks to the Authorised Assembly Area, and the lack of any relationship between him and Aussie Cossack. They were understandably concerned that a very large unauthorised vehicle was failing to comply with police directions and was heading towards the forecourt of Parliament House. It was in those circumstances that the decision was taken by the officer in charge to smash the window of the vehicle, capsicum spray the driver and stop the vehicle from proceeding any further. That is what occurred.
It is only necessary to record two additional facts relating to what subsequently happened. First, having had the window of his vehicle smashed next to his head and having been capsicum sprayed, upon exiting the vehicle Mr Offe made sure that the brakes were on, and he pulled the chain outside the truck that had the effect of ensuring that the truck could not move in a way that would risk anyone’s safety. Second, he approached police on a number of occasions later in the day seeking to be able to move the truck — and on the third such occasion, police arrested him. Objective seriousness
The offending is at the low end of the range of objective seriousness for this very serious offence. The legislature has, by the enactment of s 29A, recognised the seriousness of people driving at or near police officers so as to avoid apprehension, avoid roadblocks or otherwise intimidate police.
The purpose of driving at or near police is usually to compel the police, because of a risk to their safety, to get out of the way and allow the offender to achieve the offender’s goal. It can be said that that was the same purpose in the present case. Mr Offe wished to get his truck to the front of Parliament House or the Authorised Assembly Area where the other trucks had gone. He ended up less than 100 m away from where they were. By driving at or near Detective Inspector Boorman and Sergeant Williams, he intended to have them allow him to proceed in the direction in which he wished to go. The jury’s verdicts indicate that they accepted that he was aware of a substantial risk that he was risking their safety.
Having said that, the risk to the officers’ safety was low because he was driving slowly and the police had the opportunity to move backwards or out of his way. Further, the conduct took place over a short period of time. It was never Mr Offe’s intention to cause any actual physical harm. For these reasons, his conduct is at the low end of the range of objective seriousness for this offence.
Mr Offe travelled to attend the demonstration in Canberra because of his experience of his grandmother’s death during the covid-19 pandemic while she was in a nursing home, in circumstances where her family was not allowed to visit her before she died. He was also influenced by the experience of his sister-in-law, who was affected by the requirement for covid-19 vaccinations.
So far as the day in question was concerned, as I have outlined earlier in these reasons, the circumstances leading up to the offending were unfortunate. He lost touch with the two other vehicles that he was travelling in convoy with when interrupted by Aussie Cossack. He does not appear to have appreciated the arrangements that were in place to allow the vehicles to get to the Authorised Assembly Area, and he was under a misapprehension that the two trucks in front had been diverted away from their intended goal of the grassed area outside Parliament House when they were required to turn left from Commonwealth Avenue onto Queen Victoria Terrace, and then onto Langton Crescent and King George Terrace. In fact, the opposite was true. Police were directing the trucks to Parliament House in a manner which ensured the safety of the thousands of pedestrians also going there. The misapprehension contributed to his decision to travel up the Commonwealth Avenue up ramp, which put him in a position where he would inevitably be directed away from his intended goal by the police.
In making the decision to turn left rather than right onto Parliament Drive — and in doing so, driving at or near Detective Inspector Boorman and Sergeant Williams — Mr Offe did not appreciate the gravity of his conduct or how seriously it would be taken by police. He had never been to a demonstration of this type, had never been to the location before, and had failed to appreciate the level of anxiety present amongst police officers in relation to the demonstration as a whole.
As he was driving forward, even though he was doing so while police were standing in front of the vehicle, he proceeded slowly, conscious of the need to avoid injury to any person. As I have indicated earlier, the jury verdicts are consistent with him having recognised that there was a substantial risk that he was risking the officers’ safety, but he was doing so in a manner that attempted to not cause physical harm to anyone at the same time as achieving his goal of getting to his destination (the Authorised Assembly Area or the front of Parliament House).
Counsel for the Director did not submit that the s 10 threshold had been reached. I agree. Having regard to Mr Offe’s health difficulties and his residence in Queensland, I do not consider that a requirement to perform community service is appropriate.
Mr Offe submitted that I should give consideration to disposing of the matter without conviction pursuant to s 17 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT). So far as the matters in ss 17(3) and (4) are concerned, the position is as follows: (a) The offender’s character, antecedents, age, health and mental condition: These are referred to earlier in these reasons. (b) The seriousness of the offence: The offending is a minor example of a very serious offence which carries a maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment. (c) Any extenuating circumstances: I have referred earlier to the unfortunate series of events that led to Mr Offe proceeding up the Commonwealth Avenue up ramp, but note that those circumstances by themselves are not significantly extenuating in relation to the decision made in the moment to drive towards the two officers. (d) Anything else the court considers relevant: I have also considered the personal circumstances of Mr Offe as described above and the context in which the offending occurred, namely a large peaceful protest outside Parliament House. I have also taken into account that recording a conviction may have consequences for him in relation to work and travel, although no specific evidence of non-discretionary consequences of a conviction was put before the court.
Notwithstanding that there are factors which favour the making of an order under s 17, I do not consider that a non-conviction order would be appropriate. That is because of the seriousness of the offence, as reflected in the maximum penalty set by the legislature. The circumstances are not sufficient to warrant a non-conviction order even where the offending is at the low end of the range of objective seriousness for this offence.
Unusually, Mr Offe indicated that the imposition of a fine would be less burdensome on him than the imposition of a good behaviour order. That was because of his anxiety about the existence of the good behaviour order and the need for compliance would tend to have a greater effect upon him than it would on most offenders. Taking into account the low objective seriousness of the offence, the circumstances which led up to the offending, the time that Mr Offe has spent in custody following his arrest, his personal circumstances and his good character, I consider that the matter can be appropriately dealt with by way of a fine. In this case, on each count, Mr Offe will be fined $1,000 with six months to pay.
Two final points.
The first relates to the conduct of Detective Inspector Boorman and Sergeant Williams. The conduct of both officers on the day was mature, pragmatic and calm in a volatile environment. That conduct reflects well on both of them. The efforts of Sergeant Williams in calmly but firmly stopping the truck as it came up the up ramp, and then waiting in front of it in the midst of a potentially volatile crowd until other officers arrived, reflected a temperament and courage suited to the appropriate management of such a situation. Similarly, Detective Inspector Boorman dealt with the situation with a degree of pragmatic diplomacy consistent with maintaining a working relationship with the protesters which respected their entitlement to protest and aimed to achieve a fair and safe outcome for all involved. The conduct of the two officers reflects well on the Australian Federal Police.
The second relates to the operation of the Confiscation of Criminal Assets Act 2003 (ACT) (COCA Act). Section 34(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act provides: In deciding how an offender should be sentenced for an offence, a court must not reduce the severity of a sentence it would otherwise have imposed because of an automatic forfeiture of property, a forfeiture order, or a penalty order under the Confiscation of Criminal Assets Act 2003.
I have been informed that proceedings have been brought under the COCA Act in relation to the truck. I have complied with the requirement in s 34(2) to not reduce the severity of the sentences that I will impose because of an automatic forfeiture of the property that may occur as a result of Mr Offe’s conviction for what the COCA Act describes as a “serious offence”. Having now heard evidence not only from police but also from Mr Offe and other witnesses about the circumstances on the day, how the offending came to occur and Mr Offe’s personal circumstances, I record my opinion that the forfeiture of the truck would be an unfortunate consequence of the discretionary decision by the Director to bring the COCA proceedings and the operation of the COCA Act. There is now much more evidence available as to the circumstances in which the offence was committed, how the offending came to occur and Mr Offe’s personal circumstances than was available at the time when the Director chose to commence those proceedings.