• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

1. Beau Brian Parker (the offender) is before the court for sentence having pleaded guilty to 14 separate offences, which have been grouped as follows:

Reference Offence Max. Penalty Number Series One – 25 September 2024 Burglary, contrary to s 311 1. CAN 11447/2024 $224,0000 fine, 14 years’ of the Criminal Code 2002 imprisonment or both (ACT) (Code). Series Two – 5 October 2024 first series Burglary, contrary to s 311 $224,0000 fine, 14 years’ 2. CAN 437/2025 of the Code. imprisonment or both Series Three – 5 October 2024 second series Aggravated burglary,

3. $320,000 fine, 20 years’ imprisonment CAN 4872/2025 contrary to s 312 of the or both Code Series Four – 11 October 2024 Theft, contrary to s 308 of $160,000 fine, 4. CAN 11165/2024 the Code 10 years’ imprisonment or both Dishonestly take motor 5. CAN 11166/2024 vehicle without consent, $80,000 fine, contrary to s 318(1) of the 5 years’ imprisonment or both Code Series Five – 27 October 2024 Aggravated burglary,

4. $320,000 fine, 20 years’ CAN 7115/2025 contrary to s 312 of the imprisonment or both Code Series Six – 29 October 2024 CAN 7117/2025 Minor theft, contrary to s $8,000 fine, 6 months’ imprisonment 7. (transfer charge) 321 of the Code or both Take motor vehicle without

5. $80,000 fine, CAN 11045/2024 consent, contrary to s 5 years’ imprisonment or both 318(1) of the Code Series Seven – 27 November 2024 Damage property, contrary $160,000 fine, 10 years’ imprisonment 9. CAN 11868/2024 to s 403(1) of the Code or both Unlawful possession of

6. CAN 11873/2024 $8,000 fine, 6 months’ imprisonment stolen property, contrary to (transfer charge) or both s 324(1) of the Code Trespass, contrary to s 11. 11(1) of the Public Order CAN 7118/2025 (Protection of Persons and $3,300 fine (transfer charge) Property) Act 1971 (ACT) (Public Order Act) Trespass, contrary to s

7. CAN 7119/2025 11(1) of the Public Order $3,300 fine (transfer charge) Act Trespass, contrary to s

8. CAN 7120/2025 11(1) of the Public Order $3,300 fine (transfer charge) Act Trespass, contrary to s

9. CAN 11867/2024 11(1) of the Public Order $3,300 fine (transfer charge) Act

The Court’s task

15. The offender is to be sentenced for the above offending in accordance with the sentencing purposes set out in s 7 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentencing Act), and the mandatory considerations set out in s 33 of the Sentencing Act. They are considered below insofar as they relate to the offender’s circumstances. The principle of individualised justice is also taken into account in sentencing the offender: MT v The Queen [2021] ACTCA 26; 17 ACTLR 26 at [56].

16. The imposition of a term of imprisonment is a sentence of last resort: s 10 of the Sentencing Act. Save for the trespass offences, in all the circumstances, a term of imprisonment for each of the above offences is appropriate.

Consequences of the offending

17. The offending has an additional consequence for an earlier sentence that had been imposed on 31 July 2024 in respect of a theft offence and an aggravated burglary offence. Through the Galambany Circle Sentencing process, Special Magistrate Hopkins imposed a sentence of 1 year and 3 months’ imprisonment, which was backdated to take account of time already spent in custody, with the remainder of the sentence to be served by way of a 12-month good behaviour order (operating until 30 July 2025). All of the above offending occurred within that period, such that the sentence that had been suspended must now be formally cancelled under s 110 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentence Administration Act), even though it has now expired.

18. A discussion of the relevant principles is found in DPP v Rohrlach (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 192 at [9]-[14]. Applying those principles without repeating them here, the remainder of the original sentence will be imposed because of the following: (a) The further offending constituting the breach commenced shortly after the offender had been released from custody, only a couple of months into the good behaviour order and continued for a number of months. (b) The offender had achieved no rehabilitation prior to the breach, although he is not without prospects in that regard. (c) The offences were similar in kind to the offences that were the subject of the sentence that had been suspended. (d) The nature of the breach was serious in that it involved criminal behaviour indicative of a deliberate intention to breach the order and an erosion of the trust reposed in the offender.

19. The combination of those matters means that it is not appropriate to resentence the offender. The suspended portion of the sentence will be imposed. Of the total sentence imposed, the offender had served 93 days (3 months and 2 days). He has 363 days (11 months and 28 days) left to serve.

Facts

20. The sentence proceeded on an agreed statement of facts that was before the court. By way of overview: (a) The burglary and aggravated burglary offences concerned four separate residential properties in the suburbs of Narrabundah, Watson and Lawson in the ACT, over a period of approximately five weeks in 2024. (b) The series 4 and series 6 offences each involved the offender taking vehicles parked in the Gungahlin Leisure Centre (Leisure Centre) carpark. (c) The final series of offending (series 7) involved multiple counts of trespass, damage to property and unlawful possession of stolen property, which occurred over a period of hours on the same day when the offender entered four separate residential dwellings in Wanniassa in a paranoid state, before being arrested by police.

Series One – Burglary on 25 September 2024

21. At 3:38pm on 25 September 2024, the offender approached the front door of a residence in Narrabundah in the ACT. The owners of the residence (victims 1 and 2) were not at home at the time.

22. The offender gained access to the property by forcing the rear locked glass sliding door open. He took from the premises jewellery, tools, batteries, Nintendo games, sporting earbuds, a digital camera, car and house keys, toiletries and a suitcase. The total approximate value of the stolen goods was $6,592. Those items were never recovered.

Series Two – Burglary on 5 October 2024

23. Shortly after 8:00pm on 5 October 2024, the offender entered a residence in Watson by smashing the window to the right of the front door before climbing through. The female resident (victim 3) had gone for a walk with her dog and returned home to the smashed window (with droplets of blood located on the window) and the offender walking around inside. She yelled at the offender through the broken window “the police are coming.” Upon hearing this, the offender departed through the rear door of the house and jumped over the back fence. While a number of cabinets and drawers had been opened, no items were identified as having been stolen.

Series Three – Aggravated Burglary on 5 October 2024

24. The aggravated burglary also occurred on 5 October 2024, at around 8:38pm, shortly after the incident in Series 2. Two residents were at their home (victims 4 and 5) with their children in Watson when they heard their back door to the house slam shut and the offender appeared in the living room holding a screwdriver. The offender was met by victims 4 and 5. He ran into the kitchen and grabbed sets of keys which included keys to a Mitsubishi Outlander, a Peugeot and house keys for the residence.

25. Victim 4 (the female victim) confronted the offender and snatched the keys from him. The offender demanded the keys while pointing the screwdriver towards victims 4 and 5. Fearing for her safety, victim 4 handed the offender the keys.

26. He exited the residence, got into the driver’s side door of the Mitsubishi and attempted to start the vehicle. He could not do so as it was connected to its charging station and was in charging mode. The offender demanded that victims 4 and 5 tell him how to start the Mitsubishi, but they did not respond. Following unsuccessful attempts to start the Mitsubishi, the offender exited the vehicle and fled on foot while still in possession of the keys. The offender dropped the keys in a chicken pen located at the rear of the residence.

27. The police subsequently attended the scene and conducted a search for the offender but were unable to locate him. Series Four – Take motor vehicle without consent and theft on 11 October 2024

28. The taking of the motor vehicle without consent and theft occurred between 2:40pm and 3:00pm at the Leisure Centre in Gungahlin. The offender entered the Leisure Centre and took a black backpack owned by victim 6 from the changeroom. The keys to a BYD Atto motor vehicle (the BYD) owned by victim 6 were in the backpack. The offender took the BYD from the Leisure Centre carpark. Inside the BYD was a Makita Impact Driver and battery pack as well as a number of gift cards of varying values, all of which totalled $2,150.

29. At about 5:00pm, police observed the BYD in traffic at the intersection of the Barton Highway and Gundaroo Drive, Giralang. Police unsuccessfully attempted to intercept the vehicle. A short time later, police located the BYD unoccupied on a residential street in Giralang. The offender was located walking on a nearby greenbelt carrying a black backpack. The offender was apprehended by Police. The black backpack was searched by police and was found to contain the Makita Impact driver and 23 gift cards that had been taken from the victim at the Leisure Centre. Victim 6 later identified a number of gift cards that had not been recovered, totalling $500.

Series 5 – Aggravated Burglary on 27 October 2024

30. On 27 October 2024 at about 4:30am, the offender and an unknown accomplice entered a basement carpark via a shared driveway of a unit complex in Lawson in the ACT. The garage door had been secured with a remote garage fob and the occupants of the house (victims 7 and 8) were inside asleep at the time. The offender used a metal pole to pry open the garage door of the victim’s residence, through which the offender and unknown accomplice entered the victim’s residence. A CCTV camera within the residence captured the offender rummaging through a bag at about 4:33am. It is unknown how long the offender and the unknown accomplice spent in the residence.

31. At about 7:45am on 27 October 2024, victim 7 observed a number of notifications on her mobile phone advising her that transactions had been made on her debit card that morning at a Reddy Express petrol station in Hawker in the ACT (Reddy Express Hawker), totalling $341.65.

32. Victim 8 subsequently entered the garage of the residence to retrieve his wallet and observed that the garage roller door had been opened halfway, and the front passenger door of the vehicle parked in the garage was opened. Victim 8 observed a bent piece of metal on the right-hand side of the garage roller door and a small hole in the door. Victim 8 identified several items to be missing from the front centre console of the vehicle that was parked in the garage, including: (a) a brown leather wallet belonging to Victim 8; (b) a work-issued contractor access card; (c) a debit card belonging to Victim 7; (d) sunglasses; (e) Telstra identity card; (f) Telstra rack keys; (g) NBN access card; and (h) a set of keys to the residence, garage, letterbox and bin room.

33. Victim 8 returned inside the residence and upon checking his mobile phone, observed two transactions had been made using his debit card at a Reddy Express in Gungahlin in the ACT (Reddy Express Gungahlin), totalling $200.

34. The victims contacted police to report the incident and later that day police attended Reddy Express Hawker and observed CCTV footage which captured the following: (a) At about 6:47am that morning, the offender arrived at the service station in a red Ford Falcon (the Ford), exited from the front passenger seat of the vehicle and filled the vehicle with fuel, before entering the service station to purchase $58.20 worth of fuel using the debit card belonging to Victim 7. (b) The offender subsequently purchased a $50 Coles Mastercard and two Red Bull cans, totalling $66.70, using the debit card belonging to Victim 7. (c) The offender completed two further transactions at the Reddy Express Hawker, using Victim 7’s debit card to purchase a Vanilla Visa (totalling $105.95), and a $100 Coles Mastercard and a Red Bull can (totalling $110.85), respectively. (d) The offender departed the service station in the front passenger seat of the Ford.

35. On the same day, police subsequently attended the Reddy Express Gungahlin, and observed CCTV footage which captured the following: (a) At about 5:50am that morning, the offender arrived at the service station in the Ford. (b) The offender entered the service station and made two purchases totalling $200 using the debit card belonging to Victim 8.

36. The Telstra Rack keys taken from the vehicle were recovered. They were located on 5 November 2024 during a police search of a Subaru BRZ (the Subaru), which had been reported as stolen and subsequently seized by police on 30 October 2024.

37. On 5 November 2024, the police were advised that the offender had been arrested on the day earlier and that he had admitted to being a passenger in the Subaru.

Series 6 – take motor vehicle without consent and minor theft on 29 October 2024

38. The second offence of taking a motor vehicle without consent occurred on 29 October 2023 in circumstances similar to the first (series four above). The driver of the Subaru (victim 9) had driven the Subaru owned by his partner (victim 10) to the Leisure Centre carpark shortly before 1pm.

39. Victim 9 entered the Leisure Centre and placed his black backpack, containing keys to the Subaru, and clothing and accessories, including a wallet, belonging to Victim 9, on a storage hook within the Leisure Centre changeroom while he utilised the facilities.

40. During this period, the offender entered the Leisure Centre changeroom and removed the backpack belonging to Victim 9, including its contents.

41. Victim 9 immediately reported the backpack as missing to the Leisure Centre reception staff. Victim 9 and the staff member subsequently exited the Leisure Centre and observed the offender leaving the Leisure Centre carpark driving the Subaru. The offender was the sole occupant of the vehicle.

42. The Subaru was subsequently located by police in the driveway of a residence in Palmerston on 30 October 2024, unoccupied and with the registration plates removed. The backpack and its contents belonging to Victim 9 were not recovered.

The offender’s arrest

43. On 4 November 2024, police attended a residence in Narrabundah in the ACT for an unrelated matter, where the offender was arrested. He appears to have been granted bail on 22 November 2024.

Series 7 – multiple trespasses, damage property, unlawful possession of stolen property on 27 November 2024 CC 2025/7118 – Trespass

44. The first of the four trespass offences occurred at about 3:00pm on 27 November 2024. The occupant of a residential unit in Wanniassa (victim 11) heard the offender yelling at the front door. She then saw him pull the screen door at the front entrance with enough force to open it and he entered the property without permission from victim 11. The offender displayed paranoid behaviour once inside the residence, pacing the living room while stating to victim 11 that he had to call his mother as people were trying to kill him. The offender then took a mobile phone belonging to victim 11 that had been resting on the couch. When victim 11 asked him to return the mobile phone, the offender stated that he did not have her phone, at which point victim 11 grabbed the phone from the offender.

45. The offender subsequently entered into the garage of the unit through a closed wooden door at the front of the residence. At that point, victim 11 sent a text message to her niece and requested that police attend and then closed the wooden door and locked it to prevent the offender from entering again.

46. The offender later emerged from the garage of the unit carrying a walking stick. He attempted to re-enter the residence through the front door but was unable to do so.

CC 2024/11867 – Trespass & CC 2024/11868 – Damage Property

47. Upon leaving victim 11’s unit, the offender proceeded to force entry into the garage of the neighbouring residence in Wanniassa through the wooden garage door, causing the wooden frame to crack and the door handle to come off. At about 5:05pm on 27 November 2024, the resident of that unit (victim 12)returned to the property and discovered the damage caused to the door, which he subsequently reported to police.

CC 2024/71194 – Trespass

48. The offender subsequently attended a third unit in the complex in Wanniassa. He forced entry into the garage and remained in the garage for a period of time, opening drawers to a work bench located inside the garage. The offender subsequently exited the garage, leaving behind the walking stick he had removed from victim 11’s garage.

49. At about 3:35pm on that day, the resident of the third unit (victim 13), returned to the property to discover the offender had gained entry to her garage and disturbed the garden beneath her window. Victim 13 reported the incident to the police.

CC 2025/7120 – Trespass

50. The final trespass occurred at a fourth unit in the complex at Wanniassa at about 3:15pm. The occupant (victim 14) was inside of her unit when she heard the offender calling for help from within her living room. Victim 14 entered her living room to find the offender inside. He requested help from victim 14, stating that another male had been chasing him with a knife.

51. The offender requested to use victim 14’s mobile phone but was unable to do so when handed it by Victim 14. Victim 14 then dialled a phone number provided to her by the offender, but that call did not connect. The offender asked if victim 14 could drive him to hospital. Victim 14 responded to the effect that she was unable to do so. The offender then exited the unit.

CC 2024/11873 – unlawful possession

52. At about 3:30pm on the same day, police responded to a request for assistance in Wanniassa in relation to the offender’s actions.

53. Following information received by a member of the public at about 3:45pm, police located a black backpack belonging to the offender on the ground near the Erindale Vikings Club in Wanniassa. Upon searching the backpack, police identified stolen items (two National Australia Bank debit cards and a Latitude Gem Card in the name of another person (victim 15)), as well as a bank card in the name of the offender, a screwdriver and a chisel.

Nature and circumstances of the offence (s 33(1)(a) of the Sentencing Act)

54. Consideration of the nature and circumstances of the offences requires that the court evaluate the objective seriousness of the offence, using the maximum penalty for each offence (set out in the table above) as a yardstick: Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 at [31].

55. The assessment is wholly by reference to the nature of the offending, rather than any subjective features personal to the offender: Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120 at [27]. The sentence which the court imposes must be proportional to the objective seriousness of the offence: R v Miller [2019] ACTCA 25; 279 A Crim R 232 at [37], cited in R v Lindsay [2020] ACTCA 25 at [32].

Burglaries, including aggravated burglaries

56. It need hardly be said that burglaries are serious offences. The maximum penalties of 14 years for the offence simpliciter and 20 years for the aggravated offence reflect that. The collective adverse impact of these common offences on personal safety is palpable in the community, with locks and security screens on doors and CCTV cameras in houses. People are trying to make themselves feel safe and protect their belongings from intruders.

57. In relation to each of the burglary offences, following DPP v Clissold [2023] ACTSC 250 at [33] and the cases there-cited, I have taken into account as being relevant: (a) The nature of the premises that were burgled. (b) Whether damage, not separately charged, was caused to the premises. (c) Whether the occupants of the premises were present at the time the burglaries were committed. (d) The motivation for the burglaries. (e) Whether the burglaries were pre-meditated, planned or organised, and their level of sophistication.

58. The two burglaries were of similar degrees of seriousness, both being residential properties (and thus objectively more serious conduct than commercial premises) and involving a single incursion of each premises. In the first, the occupants were not home at the time and there was no damage reported, but it is a rolled-up charge, with $6,592 worth of goods stolen and not recovered, including a gold ring of sentimental value. In the second, the occupant returned home while the burglary was in progress, her intervention effectively scaring off the offender, and there was damage to the property (not separately charged). With those distinguishing features, they are each otherwise fairly typical examples of the offence.

59. The aggravated burglaries each involved the occupants being home at the time. For the first, the circumstances of aggravation involved the use of a screwdriver. While it was a low-level weapon in terms of its ability to cause harm, the weapon was brandished by the offender to the victims in the process of him demanding the car keys, and the interaction with the occupants itself makes this a more serious example of the offence. There was no damage caused and this offence appears to have been spontaneous, arising out of the offender seeking the means to quickly get away from the area (having been told that the police were coming).

60. For the second, the circumstances of aggravation included the offender being in company, although they did not confront the occupants. The garage roller-door was damaged (not separately charged). Due to the involvement of the second person with the getaway car stationed nearby, there was a higher degree of sophistication involved in this burglary although the targeting of the property itself was not pre-meditated. The offender did not know any of the victims and the motivation appears to have been entirely random in the pursuit of personal gain (namely to fund drug use).

61. These were each common examples of the aggravated offence. Theft and minor theft

62. Applying R v Rosewarne [2021] ACTSC 217 at [120] and other authorities cited in DPP v Kristiansen [2025] ACTSC 536 at [143], the following considerations inform the objective seriousness of these offences: (a) The motive for the thefts. (b) The extent and value of the property taken. (c) Where the thefts occurred. (d) Whether the stolen items were of sentimental value or utilitarian value, such that they would be difficult or inconvenient to replace. (e) The degree of planning or premeditation.

63. For the theft and minor theft, the motivation was opportunistic, and the extent and value of the property taken was modest. There does not appear to have been sentimental value attached to the items that were taken. However, there was obviously a degree of inconvenience caused in replacing the items. There was a degree of planning or meditation insofar as the same modus operandi was used for each theft. Overall, this offending falls at the low end of the hypothetical spectrum of conduct.

Take/Drive/Ride vehicle without consent

64. The 5-year maximum penalty indicates that the legislature also views this offence relatively seriously. Applying R v Massey (No 3) [2021] ACTSC 156 at [29], the following considerations inform the objective seriousness of the offence: (a) the period of driving and the length of distance driven; (b) whether the vehicle was used in the commission of another offence; (c) whether the offender was the driver and not only the passenger; (d) the manner of driving, unless subject to a separate charge; (e) whether the vehicle was damaged; and (f) whether the vehicle was returned to the owner.

65. Here, the offender’s direct taking of each vehicle is more serious than if he was a passenger. However, the vehicles were not damaged, and each vehicle was located and recovered, the first within hours, and the second, the following day. Trespass

66. The offending conduct was significant, because the trespass was to residential homes and, for a number of the offences, involved an interaction with the occupants. While the conduct was fear-inducing, it was not motivated by any conscious intent to harm or steal (it was instead the product of a drug-induced psychosis as evidenced by the offender’s subsequent admission to the Adult Mental Health Unit following a court order made under s 309 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) on 28 November 2024).

Damage property

67. I have applied the considerations relevant to the objective seriousness of the offence discussed in Rosewarne at [120], being: (a) the motive for the damage; for example, whether damage was malicious or occurred to facilitate a burglary; and (b) the extent or value of the damage.

68. Here, the damage was to facilitate a trespass, but it involved a single wooden frame. There was no evidence as to the cost of the repairs. This offence is at the low end of the range of conduct.

Unlawful possession of stolen goods

69. This offence is also at the low end of the range of conduct falling within the offence, having regard to the nature of the property (monetary and personal value, or difficulty to replace) and the length of time over which the property was possessed unlawfully.

Victim impact statements (s 33(1)(f) of the Sentencing Act)

70. No victim impact statements were before the court. There were however, at least 15 separate victims in the above offending. While the court does not speculate as to the specific impact on any victim, it does not ignore both that there were victims impacted and that this type of conduct has an indirect societal impact in terms of community safety. No one wants a burglar or a drug-crazed stranger entering their house. As submitted by the prosecution, judicial notice may be taken of some degree of psychological impact on the victims, as well as the expense and inconvenience in repairing or replacing items to restore normality. Pleas of guilty (ss 33(1)(j) and 35 of the Sentencing Act)

71. The offender pleaded guilty to the offences at various times. In respect of the offences for which sentences of imprisonment are under consideration (that is, excluding the trespass offences), this enlivens discretionary considerations under s 35(3) of the Sentencing Act: Cranfield v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 3 at [37]-[38]. Utilitarian value is a primary consideration: Monfries v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 46; 19 ACTLR 99 at [47] and R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103 at [49].

72. I have had regard to the matters specified in s 35(2) of the Sentencing Act. The timing of the pleas were helpfully set out in a table provided by the prosecution. The penalty that would otherwise have been imposed but for the guilty plea must be explicitly stated: s 37(2)(a) of the Sentencing Act. Here, it is appropriate to apply the following discounts: (a) 25% for the aggravated burglary offences, because the pleas were entered early, without any initial not guilty plea. (b) 20% for the burglary, theft, dishonestly take motor vehicle without consent, damage to property theft and minor theft offences, because those pleas were entered well into the court proceedings, with a prosecution brief having been prepared and, in some cases, negotiations which resulted in rolled up charges. However, no trial had yet been set for any of the offences.

Subjective circumstances of the offender (s 33(1)(m) of the Sentencing Act)

73. The offender’s subjective circumstances are to be gleaned from the reports that were before the court and the other material in the prosecution’s and the offender’s respective tender bundles. The work of the legal representatives in assimilating and analysing that material in informative written submissions is appreciated and I accept those submissions. The offender is a 42-year-old Aboriginal man. He has had a severely disadvantaged family background which is reflected in a problematic schooling history, although he did manage to complete formal education to year eleven. In my view, the disadvantage is also affected in his difficulties in a custodial environment, where he has been the subject of a number of disciplinary measures while in custody.

74. There was no issue that the Bugmy factors were enlivened, including the Henry factors arising from early alcohol and drug consumption. I accept on the evidence that on the balance of probabilities, the offender now has a severe substance use disorder and requires residential rehabilitative treatment as a minimum. The offender regrettably also has a history of gambling, which appears to have arisen from the need to fund his drug addiction. The drug addiction was plainly a substantial contributing factor to the offending here (ss 33(1)(p) and 33(1)(v) of the Sentencing Act). It is promising that while in custody, he has managed to abstain from drug use, which is significant given (regrettably) the current notorious availability of illicit substances in custody.

75. He is also on medication for other disorders associated with mental health. He has the benefit of an NDIS package which includes access to assistance with daily living, behavioural support coordination and psychosocial recovery coaches. These matters are relevant to considerations under s 33(1)(r) of the Sentencing Act as to the particular hardship that a person with disabilities faces in a custodial environment.

76. The offender also has positive relationships with his half siblings and frequent contact with his older sister. The offender is also fortunate to have maintained a long friendship with someone he has known since he was ten years old, who is a prosocial influence in his life.

77. Prior to being taken into custody, the offender was able to work in the hospitality sector, although he currently has no ability to pay any fine and I have taken that into account in considering the appropriate sentence for the trespass offences. The offender has also been engaged in paid employment within the custodial setting and had been found suitable for positions involving trust within the bakery and as a peer listener. They are all matters to the offender’s credit, and they inform the possibilities in how to improve this offender’s prospects of successful reintegration into society.

Criminal antecedents of the offender (s 33(1)(m) of the Sentencing Act)

78. The offender has a lengthy criminal history of like offending across New South Wales, Victoria and the ACT which disentitles him from leniency. It is consistent with someone for whom Bugmy related factors operate and points to a need for intervention to attempt to assist the offender to reinvent himself.

79. The offender was also on conditional liberty at the time of the offending, which is an aggravating feature. It is one of the matters that has contributed to the length of the individual sentences, the structure of the sentence overall with totality considerations in mind, and ultimately the manner of the sentence to be imposed.

80. The offender’s parole order was cancelled in March 2023 for non-compliance. He was assessed as not suitable for an Intensive Correction Order in October 2025, due in part to concerns about the offender’s response to previous court orders. Remorse (s 33(1)(w) of the Sentencing Act)

81. The offender is not entirely without remorse. He accepted a referral for restorative justice and that may be taken into consideration even where the victims choose not to participate in the process. He has also expressed remorse and acknowledged the immediate and longer-term impact of his offending on the victims. The best demonstration of remorse might be yet to come, if the offender uses the shame and the time in custody for reflection to motivate him to live a more pro-social life outside of a prison setting.

Current sentencing practice (s 33(1)(za) of the Sentencing Act)

82. The prosecution diligently provided a table of cases for sentences with comparable features. They included cases such as DPP v Massey [2025] ACTSC 50; DPP v Steep [2024] ACTSC 326; R v Dawson [2022] ACTSC 64; R v Williams-Savage [2021] ACTSC 271. Those cases were a sufficient sample to ensure consistency in sentencing practice, accepting that the objective in having regard to the current practice is not to bind the sentencing court to achieve numerical equivalence with similar sentences imposed in the same jurisdiction: see Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520 at [48].

Pre-sentence custody

83. As at the date the sentencing hearing commenced (21 April 2026), the offender had spent 536 days in pre-sentence custody directly referable to the offending. As at the date of sentence (18 May 2026) he has spent 563 days in custody, which will be taken into account by way of backdating.

Totality

84. The approach to principles of concurrency and accumulation has been set out in Dawson v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 9 at [37] (and the cases there-cited). I have given effect to those considerations in the following ways: (a) Those offences within a series may be viewed as offending involving a course of conduct (s 33(1)(c) of the Sentencing Act) and warranting a substantial degree of concurrency. (b) Further, due to the similarities in conduct of a number of the offences in different series, those offences were amenable to a degree of concurrency because they could each properly comprehend the criminality involved. (c) Total concurrency was not imposed for any of the individual sentences, to recognise the fact of different offending and different victims. (d) Where concurrency within a series has been disturbed, it arose from an endeavour to sentence offences of greater gravity first and adjust the concurrency for offences of less objective seriousness. (e) Notwithstanding the different periods of offending, there is some concurrency between the suspended sentence that has now been imposed and the further term of imprisonment imposed, to take account of the reality that the longer the sentence, the heavier its burden.

Disposition

85. A sentence of imprisonment should never exceed the minimum that is necessary to accomplish relevant sentencing objectives: Thorn v Laidlaw [2005] ACTCA 49 at [30]. The time that the offender has already spent in full-time custody referrable to the offending has achieved the objectives of personal deterrence, punishment and denunciation, as well as recognising the considerable harm and impact visited upon the victims.

86. I have already discussed the lack of availability of an ICO and the inappropriateness of a fine.

87. The offender has been found suitable for a drug and alcohol treatment order. Applying the reasoning in DPP v Elliott [2026] ACTSC 144 at [69]-[91], although the total effective sentence of the fresh offending for which the offender is being sentenced is 4 years, 7 months and 17 days, by reason of the time spent in custody, the total period of sentences for offences that have not been fully served is within the 4 year maximum period required for a treatment order to be available under s 12A of the Sentencing Act.

88. Dealing with the s 80T requirements, I have considered the drug and alcohol treatment assessment for the offender that was before the court. The offender was found suitable for a treatment order, and I accept that recommendation as to suitability.

89. Dealing with s 12A(2) requirements, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the offender is still dependent on alcohol or a controlled drug and that the offender’s dependency substantially contributed to his offending. The burglary and theft offences were to fund the offender’s drug use and are the type of offending that the offender is at high risk of committing again if there is no intervention targeting drug use.

90. The offender intends to live in the ACT for the term of the sentence except as might be directed by the court. He will first commence in residential accommodation through the CRS rehabilitation program. Following completion of that program, he will have access to transitional accommodation while Justice Housing or ACT Housing is arranged after that. Although there is a degree of uncertainty about this, it is not an unusual path, and I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that he will not be released to homelessness following completion of the anticipated residential rehabilitation program.

91. Addressing the relevant sentencing considerations, the offender has spent a lengthy period of time already in custody. I do not consider that any further period of full-time custody is necessary to give effect to sentencing purposes such as denunciation, punishment and specific deterrence (to the limited extent that it applies here).

92. A treatment order for this offender would be consistent with the objects of the treatment order (s 80O of the Sentencing Act), namely to facilitate rehabilitation, reduce drug dependency and its associated health risks, assist with reintegration and promote community safety. Part of rehabilitation includes supported reintegration into the community. After such a long period of time in custody, the gradual transition to community under supervision, assisted by a residential drug rehabilitation program, is strongly in the interests of promoting community safety.

93. The offender has consented to the treatment order, having been given a clear explanation of what it involves. There is a place in residential rehabilitation available immediately. In my view, he is a person who would benefit from the targeted intervention, support, supervision and gradual reintegration that the treatment order regime provides. I was not aware of any concerns relating to the safety or welfare of any victim: s 12A(2)(b)(ii) of the Sentencing Act. Taking all these matters together, I consider the order to be appropriate.

94. It is not necessary to set a non-parole period because the making of a treatment order means that the sentence becomes an “excluded sentence of imprisonment” under s 64 of the Sentencing Act.

95. I would say to the offender that he has taken a number of encouraging steps while in custody. Whether he can build on that and reinvent himself to succeed in society will be up to him. It is critical that he give this opportunity his full attention and use the resources of the justice system available through a treatment order to raise himself up.

Orders

96. The orders of the Court are: Breach of good behaviour order (1) Pursuant to s 110 of the Sentencing Act, the good behaviour order imposed in respect of the offences the subject of charges CAN 9458/2023 and CAN 2435/2023 imposed on 31 July 2024 is cancelled and the remaining 11 months and 28 days of the custodial sentence of 1 year and 3 months is imposed, backdated to commence on 1 November 2024 and conclude on 28 October 2025.

Series 1 (2) For CAN 11447/2024, burglary contrary to s 311 of the Code, the offender is convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 1 year and 2 months, reduced to 11 months and 6 days on account of his guilty plea, backdated to commence on 12 June 2025 and conclude on 17 May 2026.

Series 2 (3) For CAN 437/2025, burglary contrary to s 311 of the Code, the offender is convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 1 year and 2 months, reduced to 11 months and 6 days on account of his guilty plea, backdated to commence on 1 February 2026 and conclude on 6 January 2027.

Series 3 (4) For CAN 4872/2025, aggravated burglary contrary to s 312 of the Code, the offender is convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 1 year and 8 months, reduced to 1 year and 3 months on account of his guilty plea, to commence on 1 September 2026 and conclude on 30 November 2027.

Series 5 (5) For CAN 7115/2025, aggravated burglary contrary to s 312 of the Code, the offender is convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 1 year and 4 months, reduced to 1 year on account of his guilty plea, to commence on 1 June 2027 and conclude on 31 May 2028.

Series 4 (6) For CAN 11165/2024, theft contrary to s 318(1) of the Code, the offender is convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 8 months reduced to 6 months and 12 days on account of his guilty plea, to commence on 1 March 2028 and conclude on 12 September 2028. (7) For CAN 11166/2024, dishonestly take motor vehicle without consent contrary to s 318(1) of the Code, the offender is convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 1 year and 2 months, reduced to 11 months and 6 days on account of his guilty plea, to commence on 1 August 2028 and conclude on 6 July 2029.

Series 6 (8) For CAN 11045/2024, dishonestly take motor vehicle without consent contrary to s 321 of the Code, the offender is convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 1 year and 2 months, reduced to 11 months and 6 days on account of his guilty plea, to commence on 18 November 2028 and conclude on 23 October 2029. (9) For CAN 7117/2025, minor theft contrary to s 308 of the Code, the offender is convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 months, reduced to 2 months and 12 days on account of his guilty plea, to commence on 11 September 2029 and conclude on 22 November 2029.

Series 7 (10) For CAN 11868/2024, damage property contrary to s 321 of the Code, the offender is convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 3 months, reduced to 2 months and 12 days on account of his guilty plea, to commence on 6 November 2029 and conclude on 17 January 2030. (11) For CAN 11873/2024, unlawful possession of stolen property, the offender is convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 2 months, reduced to 1 month and 18 days on account of his guilty plea, to commence on 11 December 2029 and conclude on 28 January 2030. (12) For CAN 7118/2025, trespass, contrary to s 11(1) of the Public Order Act, the offender is convicted and sentenced to a good behaviour order for a period of 12 months with the conditions specified in Schedule A to these orders, to commence on 18 May 2026 and conclude on 17 May 2027. (13) For CAN 7119/2025, trespass contrary to s 11(1) of the Public Order Act the offender is convicted and sentenced to a good behaviour order for a period of 12 months with the conditions specified in Schedule A to these orders, to commence on 18 May 2026 and conclude on 17 May 2027. (14) For CAN 7120/2025, trespass contrary to s 11(1) of the Public Order Act, the offender is convicted and sentenced to a good behaviour order for a period of 12 months with the conditions specified in Schedule A to these orders, to commence on 18 May 2026 and conclude on 17 May 2027. (15) For CAN 11867/2024, trespass contrary to s 11(1) of the Public Order Act, the offender is convicted and sentenced to a good behaviour order for a period of 12 months with the conditions specified in Schedule A to these orders, to commence on 18 May 2026 and conclude on 17 May 2027. (16) The total effective sentence for the offending, excluding that for which the offender was already sentenced on 31 July 2024, is 4 years, 7 months and 17 days, commencing on 12 June 2025 and concluding on 28 January 2030.

Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order (1) A Treatment Order under s 12A of the Sentencing Act is made for Beau Brian Parker in respect of the eligible offences of: (a) CAN 437/2025: Burglary (b) CAN 4872/2025: Aggravated Burglary (c) CAN 7115/2025: Aggravated Burglary (d) CAN 11165/2024: Theft (e) CAN 11166/2024: Dishonestly Take Motor Vehicle without Consent (f) CAN 11045/2024: Dishonestly Take Motor Vehicle without Consent (g) CAN 7117/2025: Minor Theft (h) CAN 11868/2024: Damage Property (i) CAN 11873/2024: Unlawful Possession (2) The convictions and sentences imposed for the said eligible offences, for which the offender has been sentenced to a total period of imprisonment for three years, eleven months and 28 days, are hereby incorporated into the Treatment Order in the Custodial Part of the Order. (3) A treatment order is made in respect of Beau Parker for three years, eleven months and 28 days from today, 18 May 2026 to 28 January 2030. (4) The Treatment and Supervision Part of the Treatment Order is for two years, from today, 18 May 2026 until 17 May 2028. (5) The Custodial Part of the Treatment Order for the eligible offences will be suspended under s 80W of the Sentencing Act from today, 18 May 2026 until 28 January 2030. (6) Under s 80ZA of the Sentencing Act, the offender is required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender’s Good Behaviour obligations under s 85 of the Sentence Administration Act from the day after the end of the Treatment and Supervision Part of the Treatment Order, 18 May 2028, until the end of the total sentence that is the subject of the Treatment Order, 28 January 2030. (7) A probation condition is imposed that the offender accept supervision by the Commissioner of ACT Corrective Services or their delegate for the period of the undertaking or such lesser period as the person supervising him considers appropriate and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him including as to alcohol and drug testing, counselling and treatment. (8) For the Treatment and Supervision Part of the Treatment Order: (a) The core conditions of the Order set out in s 80Y of the Sentencing Act are hereby imposed. (b) Mr Parker is to travel to Canberra Recovery Service (CRS) on 18 May 2026 and admit himself to the residential rehabilitation program at that facility by 12:00pm. (c) Mr Parker is directed to complete the drug rehabilitation residential program at CRS or any other program of intervention, treatment or counselling he is directed to complete, including urinalysis or case management that may be required by any member of the Treatment and Supervision Team. (d) Mr Parker is to obey all reasonable directions of any person in charge of the program and all the rules of the program and the facility, which may include directions about where he resides, with whom he associates and his attendance from time to time. (e) Following completion of the residential program at CRS or any equivalent residential program, Mr Parker is not to leave his approved place of residence between any curfew hours directed by the Treatment and Supervision team, other than for a medical emergency, and he is to present himself to the front door of the residence if required by an officer of ACT Policing. (f) Should Mr Parker leave or be discharged from any residential or day program before completing it, he is to report to ACT Corrective Services by 4:00pm on the next business day with a view to having his Treatment Order reviewed. (g) Mr Parker is not to consume or use alcohol, cannabis, illicit drugs, or prescription drugs not prescribed to him. (h) Mr Parker is to comply with any directions of the court from time to time about attendance at court in person or by electronic means. (9) Pursuant to s 12A(6) of the Sentencing Act, I direct that written notice of the order, together with a copy of these orders, be given to the offender.

Schedule A – conditions attached to good behaviour orders imposed (a) The core conditions specified in ss 85 and 86 of the Sentence Administration Act. (b) Pursuant to s 13(4)(c) of the Sentencing Act, a rehabilitation program condition in accordance with any directions given in accordance with s 100 of the Sentence Administration Act. (c) Pursuant to s 13(4)(d) of the Sentencing Act and s 95 of the Sentence Administration Act, a probation condition that the offender submit to the supervision of the Director-General responsible for administering the sentence or their delegate for as long as deemed necessary, including to comply with any directions targeted at supporting the offender’s abstention from controlled substances, such as urinalysis.

I certify that the preceding ninety-six [96] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Justice McWilliam.

Associate: Date: