• 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

Reference Offence Max. Penalty Number 10 years’ imprisonment, Theft, contrary to s 308 of the CAN 10391/2024 1,000 penalty units, or Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Code). both. Ride/drive motor vehicle without 5 years’ imprisonment, CAN 5358/2025 consent, contrary to s 318(2) of the 500 penalty units, or Code. both. 14 years’ imprisonment, CAN 8368/2025 Burglary, contrary to s 311 of the of 1,400 penalty units, or the Code. both. Ride/drive motor vehicle without Five years’ CAN 8371/2025 consent, contrary to s 318(2) of the imprisonment, 500 Code. penalty units, or both. Three years’ imprisonment, 300 Fail to stop (repeat offender), penalty units, or both, contrary to s 5C of the Road CAN 10385/2025 and disqualification of Transport (Safety and Traffic driver’s licence for a Management) Act 1999 (ACT). minimum period of 12 months. Transferred Offences Trespass, contrary to s 11(1) of the Public Order (Protection of Persons CAN 5357/2025 $3,300 fine. and Property) Act 1971 (ACT) (Public Order Act). Unlawful possession of stolen Six months’ CAN 5359/2025 property, contrary to s 324(1) of the imprisonment, 50 penalty Code. units, or both. Unlawful possession of stolen Six months’ CAN 8369/2025 property, contrary to s 324(1) of the imprisonment, 50 penalty Code. units, or both. Unlawful possession of stolen Six months’ CAN 8370/2025 property, contrary to s 324(1) of the imprisonment, 50 penalty Code. units, or both. Trespass, contrary to s 11(1) of the CAN 8372/2025 $3,300 fine. Public Order Act. Fail to comply with s 60 demand, One year imprisonment, contrary to s 60 of the Road CAN 10384/2025 100 penalty units, or Transport (General) Act 1999 (ACT) both. (General Act).

2. 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].

3. 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.

Facts

4. The sentence proceeded on an agreed statement of facts that was before the court. February 2024

5. At about 6:35pm on Saturday, 3 February 2024, the offender entered a construction site in Denman Prospect in the ACT. No workers were on site at the time. The offender’s presence triggered an alarm, and the site manager was notified. The site manager arrived at the site and observed the offender moving around inside the building. The site manager beeped the horn of his car, which caused the offender to run.

6. Immediately following the trespass, the offender subsequently entered a white Toyota Hilux parked nearby and drove off. The Hilux was located by the site manager on the following day parked at a residence in Coombs and police were notified. Police arrived at the property and observed the vehicle, which had no registration plates, a smashed front right window and damage to the ignition.

7. Police also located plates that had been reported stolen on 18 January 2024 beneath the driver’s seat. A forensic examination of the vehicle was undertaken by police, which matched DNA found in the vehicle to that of the offender.

25 June 2024

8. On 25 June 2024, the offender entered the Kathmandu store in Westfield Woden via the rear entry door, which had been opened by Mr Simon Mulvay (the co-offender). Inside the store, the co-offender distracted the staff, which allowed the offender to take six jackets with a combined value of approximately $3,000, before exiting the store via the rear entry.

June 2025

9. Over the weekend of 20 June 2025 to 23 June 2025, the offender entered an apartment block under construction in Gungahlin and took a set of keys to a white Hino truck. The offender returned to the construction site on 24 June 2025 and took the vehicle to which the keys belonged. The vehicle was fitted with a GPS tracking system, which showed that the vehicle travelled between the construction site in Gungahlin and a residential property in Florey in the early hours of 24 June 2025, before coming to a stop at the Florey shops, where it was located by its owner. Black insulation that had been stripped from copper wiring was located in the back of the vehicle.

10. At about 7:24am on the same day, the offender attended Access Metal Recycling (AMR) in Fyshwick, where he deposited approximately 163 kilograms of insulated copper wire. The offender was paid $537.90 for the copper. The offender also deposited 19 kilograms of copper tube, for which he received a further payment of $195.70. Records obtained from AMR showed that the offender had deposited 1,619 kilograms of copper to the service in 2025, for which he had been paid $6,926.16.

11. Later that day, police attended the residential premises in Florey where the GPS tracking system showed the vehicle had been stopped that morning. While no one answered the door at the property, police did observe a large amount of copper wiring over the side fence. Police returned to the property later that day, but again no one answered the door. However, police did observe that the copper wiring had been removed.

12. On 25 June 2025, police executed a search warrant at the property, seizing the mobile phone of a female occupant of the home. Police accessed the phone, finding a text message conversation between that individual and the offender with details in relation to the stolen copper.

July 2025

13. On 14 July 2025, police executed a search warrant of a property in Whitlam and spoke to a female occupant at home at the time. In executing the warrant, police seized a CCTV hard drive, which was found to contain footage of the offender coming and going from the property.

14. Police observed CCTV footage showing the offender arriving at the property earlier that day in a Peugeot. The offender exited that vehicle and unloaded copper wire from the vehicle into the garage. A short time later, the vehicle is observed leaving the property, with the female occupant of the property driving and the offender in the passenger seat. The vehicle later returns to the property with the offender driving. The offender leaves the vehicle and enters the property, before later returning with a laundry basket filled with copper, which he placed in the vehicle. The offender is observed leaving the property in the Peugeot once more.

15. Later that day, a silver Peugeot failed to stop for police in Fyshwick.

16. On 29 July 2025, police made a request pursuant to s 60 of the General Act to the female occupant of the Whitlam property to identify the driver of the Peugeot. That individual identified the offender as the driver.

17. At about 10:26pm on 30 July 2025, the offender drove a Volkswagen Golf to a property in Bonner. The Volkswagen had been stolen from Dickson on 5 July 2025. CCTV footage captured by cameras at the property showed the offender exiting the vehicle and entering the property.

18. Police attended the property a short time later and spoke to a male occupant of the home who advised the police that the offender was not there. Police observed an individual jump the rear fence of the property into an adjoining property. The offender was arrested by police shortly afterwards and was found to be in possession of a set of keys to the Volkswagen Golf.

19. On 31 July 2025, police asked the offender to provide information about the identity of the driver of the Peugeot who failed to stop for police on 14 July 2025. The offender declined to respond.

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

20. The consideration of the nature and circumstances of the offences includes an assessment of the objective seriousness of each offence, as guided by the general principles set out in R v Kilic [2016] HCA 48; 259 CLR 256 at [19]; Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120 at [27]; Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 at [31]; R v Miller [2019] ACTCA 25; 279 A Crim R 232 at [22] and [37]; and Laipato v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 35 at [156].

Burglary

21. Applying the relevant considerations set out in DPP v Clissold [2023] ACTSC 250 at [33], I consider the objective seriousness of the burglary offence to fall toward the lower end of seriousness for offences of this type. The offending, which was motivated by the offender’s desire to obtain funds for drugs, was committed at a construction site at a time when no one was present. While there was a degree of premeditation and planning as evinced by the text message conversation with the female occupant of the Florey property, the offending was unsophisticated and easily detected. Theft

22. The factors informing the objective seriousness of an offence of theft were discussed by Taylor J in DPP v Monaghan [2024] ACTSC 183 at [18]. This offending is also borne from the offender’s desire to fund his drug addiction. While the actions of the co-offender suggest some planning, I accept the offender’s submission that the conduct in this case was an opportunistic and brazen act of shoplifting. It is relevant to consider the offender’s role in the conduct and here, he played the primary role.

23. The value of the stolen goods was $3,000, which was significant, however that property was not of sentimental or utilitarian value. Accordingly, I consider this conduct to again fall within the lower range of objective seriousness.

Drive vehicle without consent

24. R v Massey (No 3) [2021] ACTSC 156 at [29] contains the type of features that may inform the objective seriousness of each of the offences of driving a motor vehicle without consent.

25. In respect of the offence relating to the stolen Toyota Hilux, I accept that the offender was the driver of the vehicle.

26. However, little is known about the manner of the offender’s driving, or the length of time or distance that the offender had driven the vehicle since it had been stolen. It is also unclear whether the vehicle was returned to the owner. The ignition and front right window of the vehicle were both damaged. I have accepted the prosecution’s submission that it may be inferred beyond reasonable doubt that the vehicle was driven to the construction site, where the trespass offence was committed, which is an aggravating feature. Overall, and having regard to the wide range of conduct that comes within this offence, the offender’s actions nevertheless fall in the lower range of seriousness.

27. In respect of the offence relating to the Volkswagen Golf, there is again no evidence about the manner in which the vehicle was driven, nor the length of time or distance it had been driven. There is also no evidence of any damage caused to the vehicle or that it was used in the commission of other offences. I accept the parties’ joint position that this offending falls at the low end of the range for offences of this type.

Trespass

28. The trespass offences were each typical examples of this type of offending.

29. The trespass on 3 February 2024 occurred at a construction site in the early evening on a Saturday. The purpose of the trespass was to commit further offences and while the exact length of time that the offender spent at the site is unknown, the offender only left the site after being confronted by the site manager. I therefore accept the prosecution’s submission that the trespass was not momentary.

30. The trespass on 30 July 2025 occurred at a residential premises. This was a momentary trespass in which there was no interaction with the occupant of the premises, although it was committed for the purpose of avoiding police apprehension.

Unlawful possession of stolen property

31. Applying the relevant considerations set out in DPP v Anderson [2026] ACTSC 101, I consider the offences relating to the possession of the car keys and stolen licence plates to be less serious examples of this type of offence. Conversely, I accept the prosecution’s submission that the offence relating to the possession of the copper cabling to be a serious example of the offence, having regard to the quantity of the copper cabling in the offender’s possession and its value, as well as the length of time the charge encompasses, being 82 days. In respect of the latter, I accept that this effectively means this conduct is a rolled-up charge, which increases its objective seriousness.

Fail to stop and fail to comply with s 60 demand

32. Again, these were each typical examples of each offence, at the lower end of the range for offending of this kind. In respect of the offence under s 60 of the General Act, while I accept the prosecution’s submission that a relevant sentencing consideration for offences of this type is the need for general deterrence, in this case, the offender had already been identified as the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time, and has been charged with, and pleaded guilty to, the fail to stop offence. Therefore, caution must be exercised in sentencing the offender so as not to effectively punish him twice for the same offence.

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

33. A victim impact statement from the manager at the Gungahlin construction site was before the court. The statement detailed the impact that the offences had on the project, as well as the victim personally. The offences caused disruptions to the progress of the project and resulted in lost time, damage and replacement costs. The offences also affected the victim personally. The stress and consequent ongoing unease in the victim have eroded his sense of security and confidence in carrying out his role as a site manager. Plea of guilty (ss 33(1)(j) and 35 of the Sentencing Act)

34. The offender pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court following the preparation of briefs of evidence. Save for the trespass offences which cannot involve any sentence of imprisonment, the offender is entitled to a discretionary discount. Having considered the matters in s 35(2) of the Sentencing Act (set out above and below), a discount of 20% is appropriate, because there was considerable utilitarian value in the pleas.

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

35. The offender’s subjective circumstances are before the court through three reports. The offender is a 52-year-old male. Drawing from the Drug and Alcohol Sentencing List Suitability Assessment Report, the offender experienced a generally stable and broadly supportive upbringing in a middle-class family. However, his mother engaged in excessive alcohol consumption during his teenage years. The offender also described a challenging period in his late adolescence following the separation of his parents, which created a sense of diminished direction and personal uncertainty for the offender. The offender’s mother died in 2010, and he has only limited contact with his father and siblings.

36. The offender completed formal education to the end of Year 12 and maintained employment in various industries until approximately 15 years ago. He has been unemployed since that time and has relied on Centrelink benefits as his primary source of income when out of custody. Positively, the offender reports current employment in a position of significant trust and responsibility within the AMC.

37. The offender reported first using methamphetamine at the age of 35 or 36, which progressed to daily inhalation and intravenous use of one gram by the age of 38 or 39. The offender also reports a problematic gambling addiction, which is intimately connected to his drug use. While the offender denies any drug use in custody, he acknowledges that he finds it difficult to resist his addictions when out in the community, which is why he has expressed a desire for a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order (Treatment Order), and the wrap-around support that comes with it.

38. The offender has a 10-year-old daughter, with whom he maintains regular contact and shares a close and positive relationship. The offender cites his desire to be a good dad and to be present for his daughter as his primary motivation to beat his drug addiction and escape the criminal justice system. Criminal antecedents of the offender (s 33(1)(m) of the Sentencing Act)

39. The offender has a long history of like offending, which disentitles him from leniency. It is accepted that the offender’s biggest criminogenic factor is his current drug use, which gives added significance to the need to support the offender to overcome his addiction and live pro-socially in the community.

Conditional liberty

40. On 14 May 2025, the offender was arrested and granted bail in relation to an offence of minor theft. Thus, the offender was in the community subject to conditional liberty for the offences committed in June and July 2025. Whilst this does not increase the objective seriousness of the offender’s conduct, it is an aggravating feature of those offences.

Financial circumstances of offender (s 33(1)(n) of the Sentencing Act)

41. As stated above, the offender has been unemployed for the past 15 years and has relied on Centrelink benefits as his primary source of income in this period. I have taken this into account in determining the appropriate sentence for each of the trespass offences as he is unlikely to be able to pay a fine.

Remorse (s 33(1)(w) of the Sentencing Act)

42. I accept that the offender has shown genuine remorse and shame for his offending during the Treatment Order assessment process, taking responsibility for his conduct and acknowledging the impact it has had upon the victims.

43. During the hearing, the offender indicated a willingness to participate in restorative justice. He is an eligible offender and there is an eligible victim: ss 17 and 19 of the Crimes (Restorative Justice) Act 2004 (ACT). The offender received legal advice about the process during the hearing, before agreeing to take part in restorative justice.

44. For the benefit of the victim, restorative justice is victim focussed. It enables the victim to have a greater voice in the justice system, and the victim can address the offender through a variety of mediums, whether that be letter, video or meeting the offender face-to-face. Although the victim may have had no interest in interacting with the offender prior to him being sentenced, with the passage of time, it may assist him to move forward and to heal. The victim’s grievance and the psychological consequences are understandable. Allowing the offender to make amends may turn a negative life event into one that is empowering and increase personal deterrence for this offender.

45. Whether or not the victim chooses to participate, a referral will be made, and the court takes the offender’s willingness to engage into account. Current sentencing practice (s 33(1)(za) of the Sentencing Act)

46. I have taken into account the cases referred to in the parties’ submissions and derived particular assistance in that regard from Massey (No 3) and my recent decision in DPP v Kristiansen [2025] ACTSC 536, as well as DPP v Parker [2025] ACTSC 146 (and the cases there-cited).

Pre-sentence custody

47. As at the date of making the orders, the offender has spent 281 days in custody directly referable to this offending, which will be taken into account by way of backdating.

Parity

48. As discussed with parties subsequently to the hearing, there was a co-offender in relation to the theft of the jackets from the Kathmandu store. However, his role was significantly less than that of the offender and he was charged with a different offence of lesser objective seriousness, namely aiding and abetting theft. The co-offender was sentenced to a two-year good behaviour order with supervision and 50 hours of community service after a contested hearing. Because the conduct here is more serious, it does warrant a term of imprisonment, acknowledging such a sentence is one of last resort.

Totality

49. Totality considerations have been taken into account by there being a substantial degree of concurrency for offences properly to be viewed as the one course of conduct. In addition, adjustments have been made to the structure between individual sentences as part of stepping back and considering the overall length of the sentence and the nature of the offending, while also keeping in mind that the manner of the sentence to be imposed requires treatment for a period of sufficient duration to be effective.

Disposition

50. The total period of the sentence to be imposed is between one and four years. I have determined that disposition by way of a Treatment Order pursuant to s 12A of the Sentencing Act is the appropriate outcome because: (a) Having regard to the relevant sentencing purposes (s 12A(2)(b)(i)), 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. (b) Dealing with the other s 12A(2) requirements: (i) I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that although the offender has achieved abstinence while in custody, he 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 expressly 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. (ii) The offender intends to live in the ACT for the term of his sentence. Following the period of residential rehabilitation, the offender intends to live in the community with family. The offender is also currently on the Justice Housing program waitlist. (iii) 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. (iv) There is no concern about a victim’s safety or welfare here.

51. The offender has been accepted into the residential rehabilitation program at Canberra Recovery Services, with an indicative admission date of 9 June 2026 and the imposition of this sentence has been timed to coincide with that entry date.

52. 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.

Orders

53. The orders of the Court are as follows: (1) Pursuant to s 24 of the Crimes (Restorative Justice) Act, the CAN 8368/2025 offence is referred for restorative justice.

February 2024 offending (2) For CAN 5358/2025, drive motor vehicle without consent, the offender is convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 11 months, reduced to eight months and 24 days on account of his guilty plea, to commence on 1 September 2025 and conclude on 24 May 2026. (3) For CAN 5359/2025, unlawful possession of stolen property, the offender is convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for two months and 18 days, reduced to two months on account of his guilty plea, to commence on 9 April 2026 and conclude on 8 June 2026. (4) For CAN 5357/2025, trespass, the offender is convicted and a good behaviour order is imposed for a period of six months, commencing on 9 June 2026 and concluding on 8 December 2026, with core conditions only.

June 2024 offence (5) For CAN 10391/2024, theft, the offender is convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 10 months, reduced to eight months on account of his guilty plea, to commence on 9 June 2026 and conclude on 8 February 2027. June 2025 offending (6) For CAN 8368/2025, burglary, the offender is convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for one year, reduced to nine months and 18 days on account of his guilty plea, to commence on 1 January 2027 and conclude on 18 October 2027. (7) For CAN 8369/2025, unlawful possession of stolen property, the offender is convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for three months, reduced to two months and 12 days on account of his guilty plea, to commence on 1 October 2027 and conclude on 12 December 2027.

July 2025 offending (8) For CAN 8371/2025, the second offence of drive motor vehicle without consent, the offender is convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 1 year, reduced to 9 months 18 days on account of his guilty plea, to commence on 1 December 2027 and conclude on 18 September 2028. (9) For CAN 8370/2025, unlawful possession of stolen property, the offender is convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for three months, reduced to two months and 12 days on account of his guilty plea, to commence on 1 August 2028 and conclude on 12 October 2028. (10) For CAN 10385/2025, fail to stop (repeat offender) the offender is convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for one month and 21 days, reduced to one month and 10 days on account of his guilty plea, to commence on 1 October 2028 and conclude on 10 November 2028. (11) For CAN 10384/2025, fail to comply with a s 60 demand, the offender is convicted and a good behaviour order is imposed for a period of six months, commencing on 9 June 2026 and concluding on 8 December 2026, with core conditions only. (12) For CAN 10385/2025 and CAN 10384/2025 the automatic licence disqualification periods of 12 months and three months respectively are confirmed and are to be made entirely concurrent. (13) For CAN 8372/2025, trespass, the offender is convicted and no further penalty is imposed. (14) The total effective term of imprisonment is three years, two months and 10 days, commencing on 1 September 2025 and concluding on 10 November 2028.

Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order (15) A Treatment Order under s 12A of the Sentencing Act is made for Darren Douglas Powell in respect of the following eligible offences: (a) CAN 10391/2024, theft; (b) CAN 8368/2025, burglary; (c) CAN 8369/2025, unlawful possession of stolen property; (d) CAN 8371/2025, the second offence of drive motor vehicle without consent; (e) CAN 8370/2025, unlawful possession of stolen property; and (f) CAN 10385/2025, fail to stop (repeat offender). (16) The convictions and sentences imposed for the said eligible offences are hereby incorporated into the Treatment Order in the Custodial Part of the Order. (17) The Treatment Order is for two years, five months and two days from today, 9 June 2026 to conclude on 10 November 2028. (18) The Treatment and Supervision Part of the Treatment Order is for one year and 10 months from today, 9 June 2026 to 8 April 2028. (19) The Custodial Part of the Treatment Order for the eligible offences will be suspended under s 80W of the Sentencing Act from today, 9 June 2026, until 10 November 2028. (20) Under s 80ZA of the Sentencing Act, Darren Douglas Powell is required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender’s Good Behaviour obligations from the day after the end of the Treatment and Supervision Part of the Treatment Order, 9 April 2028, until the end of the total sentence, 10 November 2028, with the following conditions: (a) The core conditions under s 85 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT); (b) A probation condition that he accept supervision by the Commissioner of ACT Corrective Services or his 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. (21) 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 Powell is to travel to Canberra Recovery Services on 9 June 2026 and admit himself to the residential drug rehabilitation program at that facility by 1:00pm. (c) Mr Powell is directed to complete the said program 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 Powell 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, Mr Powell 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 Powell leave or be discharged from the 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 Powell is not to consume or use alcohol, cannabis, illicit drugs or prescription drugs not prescribed to him. (h) Mr Powell is to comply with any directions of the court from time to time about attendance at court in person or by electronic means. (22) The offender is directed to attend court for DASL review in person or via AVL on 19 June 2026 at 12:30pm.

I certify that the preceding fifty-three [53] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Justice McWilliam.

Associate: Date: