//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2026] ACTSC 262
Supreme Court of the ACT
2026-07-27
McWilliam J
Original judgment source is linked above.
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 Rohrlach (No 3) Citation: [2026] ACTSC 262 Hearing Date: 27 July 2026 Decision Date: 27 July 2026 Before: McWilliam J Decision: Good behaviour order cancelled; suspended sentence of 8 months and 1 day imposed, with non-parole period reset. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – breach of good behaviour order while offender serving suspended sentence – where offender had already been resentenced for a previous breach – where breach conduct was a series of further offending resulting in terms of imprisonment being imposed – primary sentence imposed and non-parole period reset Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 86, 110 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 71 (2), 66 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 28(2)(a) Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT), s 5C Cases Cited: Dawson v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 9 Director of Public Prosecutions v Rohrlach [2023] ACTSC 166 DPP v Rohrlach (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 192 Power v The Queen [1974] HCA 26; 131 CLR 623
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions Bradley Wayne Rohrlach (Offender) Representation: Counsel M Wall (ACT DPP) R Mackenzie (Offender) Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Legal Aid (Offender) File Number: SCC 275 of 2022 McWILLIAM J:
Bradley Wayne Rohrlach (offender) is before the court again because he is in breach of a good behaviour order (GBO). Such order was initially imposed by the court on 5 July 2023 as part of a suspended sentence of 8 months and 1 day (primary sentence): see Director of Public Prosecutions v Rohrlach [2023] ACTSC 166 (Rohrlach). It was then effectively re-imposed upon a previous breach on 9 May 2025: see DPP v Rohrlach (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 192.
The catalyst for the offender coming before the Court a third time was a series of offending in the Magistrates Court for which he was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 14 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 months. That sentence commenced on 12 September 2025 and will conclude on 11 November 2026. Subject to any further orders made in the Supreme Court pursuant to the breach, the non-parole period expired on 11 April 2026. The Court was informed there is a hearing before the Sentence Administration Board towards the end of August 2026 in respect of an application for parole.
For reasons that follow, I have decided to cancel the suspended sentence and impose the original term of imprisonment.
Primary sentence
The offences that were the subject of the primary sentence, and the facts giving rise to them, were discussed in Rohrlach and knowledge of that judgment is assumed in these reasons. The offender was sentenced upon pleading guilty to two counts of an act of endangering health, by choking, suffocating or strangling another person, contrary to s 28(2)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act).
The sentence was suspended immediately upon its imposition on 5 July 2023, with the offender entering into a GBO for the remainder of the sentence (5 July 2023 to 4 March 2024). The GBO included a specific condition that the offender attend any rehabilitation or intervention program and be subject to such supervision through Corrective Services that was considered appropriate.
As has been noted before in relation to the offender, one of the core conditions of a GBO is that the offender must not commit an offence against a territory law that is punishable by imprisonment: see s 86 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) (CSA Act). The further offending constituting the first breach
On 17 January 2024, the offender failed to stop a motor vehicle for police, which is an offence created by s 5C of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT). On 4 November 2024, he was convicted and sentenced for that offence in the Magistrates Court, which resulted in a $600 fine.
The further offending constituting the second breach
Reasons why the sentence will be imposed
The court’s task is governed by s 110 of the CSA Act and the applicable principles were set out in detail in Rohrlach (No 2) at [7]-[16] and [26]. With a view to economy of the reasoning here, those principles will be simply incorporated by reference.
The nature of the conduct constituting the breach was serious because it involved further offending. Such offending was not isolated. It occurred over 4 separate occasions. Some of the fresh offending is of a similar nature to the sentence that has been breached.
The offending itself started 2 months into the resentenced GBO. The offender confirmed that very little rehabilitation had been achieved during that time, for reasons partly outside his control. The offender does still have rehabilitative prospects but given the consequences of the latest series of offending, such rehabilitation is largely tied to the offender obtaining parole in the coming months and the imposition of the suspended sentence is not likely to have a disproportionate result in that regard.
The offender has of course received warnings about the consequences of breaches of this nature, through the sentence previously imposed in Rohrlach (No 2).
The parties were agreed that proper application of the principles means that imposition of the primary sentence is now appropriate. Pre-sentence Custody
The offender has spent 86 days in presentence custody referrable to this offending, which I will direct be taken into account by way of backdating.
The sentence will also be backdated by one further day to take into account the previous day that the offender spent in custody referable to his original offending.
Resetting the non-parole period
The non-parole period previously set in the Magistrates Court must therefore be reset, taking account of the primary sentence that will now be imposed: s 66 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentencing Act).
The overarching purpose behind setting a non-parole period was articulated in Power v The Queen [1974] HCA 26; 131 CLR 623 at [629] as follows: [T]o provide for mitigation of the punishment of the prisoner in favour of his rehabilitation through conditional freedom, when appropriate, once the prisoner has served the minimum time that a judge determines justice requires that he must serve having regard to all the circumstances of his offence. Totality Considerations as between the existing sentence and the imposed primary sentence
As submitted by the legal representatives for the parties, totality and concurrency considerations also apply to the sentence that will now be imposed as well as the setting of non-parole periods (as to which, see Dawson v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 9 at [37]). Of significance here, the offender has been in custody since 12 September 2025, including spending a further period of time in custody while awaiting this hearing when he has been eligible for parole. A degree of partial concurrency with the existing sentence is therefore appropriate pursuant to s 71(2) of the Sentencing Act and I will direct accordingly.
In determining what justice requires, the Court also considers the historical features informing the offender’s subjective circumstances (see Rohrlach at [39]-[44]) and the offender’s family circumstances as well as his criminal history. Denunciation, punishment and general and specific deterrence all continue to feature in working out what justice requires in terms of a non-parole period for this particular offender in light of the totality of the offending that is now the subject of a sentence of full-time custody. Again, it is unnecessary to dwell on those matters here as these have been set out in the earlier decisions.
I have decided that it remains appropriate to endeavour to facilitate the offender’s rehabilitation. He has been assessed as suitable for an intake by a residential rehabilitation service provider and is currently awaiting a commencement date, which largely depends upon the offender being granted parole. I remain of the view that this offender requires assistance with drug rehabilitation and the latest bout of offending only serves to confirm that view. Accordingly, a longer period under supervision is appropriate. Orders
For those reasons, the orders of the Court are: (1) Pursuant to s 110(2) of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), the good behaviour order in respect of Bradley Wayne Rohrlach is cancelled and the offender’s total effective sentence of 8 months and 1 day is imposed in accordance with Orders 2 and 3. (2) For the offence of CC2022/7408, the sentence of imprisonment for 7 months and 1 days is imposed, backdated pursuant to ss 63(1) and 71(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), to commence on 1 May 2026 and conclude on 1 December 2026. (3) For the offence of CC2022/271, the sentence of imprisonment for 6 months and 4 days is imposed, backdated pursuant to ss 63(1) and 71(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), to commence on 29 June 2026 and conclude on 1 January 2027. (4) Pursuant to s 66 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), a non-parole period of 11 months and 2 weeks is set, backdated to commence on 12 September 2025 and to conclude on 25 August 2026.
I certify that the preceding twenty-one [21] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Justice McWilliam. Associate: Date:
DPP
Rohrlach (No 3)