• 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. Tristan Saunders is to be sentenced with respect to 19 offences. The offending occurred from January to April 2024 and involved the burglary of nine homes in Ainslie and Downer. Property was stolen from the residences, being valuables, electronics, identity documents, and a car. Plainly, offending of this type is of concern to the community and warrants denunciation, accountability, and that community protection is reflected in the sentences.

2. Mr Saunders seeks that the term of imprisonment that is inevitably to be imposed be served by way of a drug and alcohol treatment order (treatment order): s 12A Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (Sentencing Act). The prosecution acknowledges an opportunity for rehabilitation in this way would be of benefit to Mr Saunders and the community, but raise whether he is eligible for such an order given the effective term of imprisonment that may be imposed.

3. Mr Saunders has been found suitable for a treatment order by Canberra Health Services and unsuitable for a treatment order by ACT Corrective Services. The sentencing exercise requires careful consideration of the orders that will fulfill all sentencing purposes.

23 January 2024 offending – Fenner Street, Downer

4. On 23 January 2024 two offences were committed: (a) Burglary, contrary to s 311(a) of the Criminal Code 2005 (ACT) (Criminal Code), carrying a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment, 1400 penalty units or both (CAN 2024/1179); and (b) Theft, contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code, carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment, 1000 penalty units, or both (CAN 2024/1181).

5. Between 9am and 4:30pm on this date, Mr Saunders entered a residence on Fenner Street in Downer. He entered multiple rooms. A large quantity of property of significant value was stolen. In terms of property of a high monetary value, a bicycle was taken, as well as electronic items including an iPad, laptop, camera equipment, and binoculars. Bank cards and wallets were taken, as well as clothing. The total monetary value of the items taken was approximately $13,000.00. Items of likely significant sentimental value were stolen, being a saxophone, a guitar, and a ring.

6. At about 7pm on the night of the offence, police located the offender in possession of the iPad that had been stolen. He had been tracked by the owner of the iPad to the location, being a shed at the rear of a property on Antill Street in Downer. The items of property that had been stolen were located inside of the shed. It is fortunate that there was recovery of such a high value of property, although the victims will have been inconvenienced and distressed in the meantime.

7. During the police investigation, Mr Saunder’s fingerprints were located on the external glass of a window at the rear of the property. There is no suggestion in the facts that damage was caused to effect entry. Police also obtained closed circuit television (CCTV) footage from a nearby sheet which depicted Mr Saunders riding on a bicycle carrying a timber guitar and a duffle bag at about 2pm.

8. Mr Saunders was arrested in relation to this offence, and was granted bail the following day. The subsequent offences were therefore committed while on bail which is an aggravating feature on sentence. The offences in April were also committed while he was subject to a warrant, having failed to appear in court on 15 February 2024.

8 February 2024 offending – Duffy Street, Ainslie

9. On 8 February 2024, two offences were committed: (a) Burglary contrary to s 311(a) of the Criminal Code (CAN 2024/6537); and (b) Fraud, contrary to s 332 of the Criminal Code and carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment, 1000 penalty units, or both (CAN 2024/6543).

10. At about 6:18pm, Mr Saunders entered the fenced off backyard area of a residence in Duffy Street, Ainslie. He approached a table on the back deck of the residence and looked through some items left on the table. He took a driver license, healthcare card, and a bank card and then left the residence.

11. There is no associated theft offence for the taking of the cards. However, Mr Saunders is charged with fraud in respect to the use of the cards. He used the card to make seven purchases that night. The purchases totalled $474.09 from retailers of Optus, IGA, Kmart, Coles, Ampol and Booking.com. The victim of the offending though is the holder of the bank cards, and they will have experienced significant inconvenience in addressing the fraud, which involved a not insignificant amount of money and transactions. It was though not sophisticated conduct given what the offence provision contemplates.

12. The circumstances in which the cards came to be in Mr Saunder’s possession will have been distressing, with there being an entry to the area of a home. This was at a time when there was a prospect of residents being at home. It was though, as the prosecution submitted, an offence that appears to have been brief, opportunistic, and spontaneous. 27 March 2024 offending – Blacket Street, Downer

13. On 27 March 2024, four offences were committed, being: (c) Two offences of burglary contrary to s 311(a) of the Criminal Code (CAN 2024/4017, CAN 2024/4019); and (d) Two related offences of theft, contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code (CAN 2024/4018, CAN 2024/4020).

14. The houses entered were both located on Blacket Street in Downer.

15. The first house was entered during the day, between 7am and 5:10pm. Mr Saunders entered the property by shattering a front window. A shopping trolley was left upended by the broken window. No one was home at the time.

16. The residence was ransacked, with multiple cupboards and wardrobes opened and at least one bedroom entered. The property stolen was of a not insignificant financial value, being a phone, coins, and DVDs. Additionally, an item of sentimental value, being a signed West Tigers memorabilia shirt was stolen.

17. The police investigation resulted in the fingerprints of Mr Saunders being located on a money tin that was emptied and left on a bed, and fingerprints located on the glass of the broken window. When the offender was arrested on 4 April (see below at [37]), the signed West Tigers jersey was found in his backpack. The other property was not recovered.

18. The second house entered on this street involved an entry between 9:30am and 7:50pm. Mr Saunders broke into the residence by cutting open a flyscreen at the rear of the property. No one was home at the time. Mr Saunders ransacked the bedroom. Items were left displaced and the room smelt of cigarettes.

19. Mr Saunders left through the backdoor which he left open. His fingerprints were located on a metal tin that had been displaced inside the residence. His DNA was located on a Gatorade bottle in the backyard.

20. There was a number of electronic items stolen including hard drives, a laptop, and a camera, as well as jewellery items likely of significant sentimental value. The theft of the hard drives may have also involved an aspect of sentimental value, or otherwise a significant invasion of privacy.

28 March 2024 offending – Antill Street, Downer

21. On 28 March 2024, two offences were committed, involving entry of a house on Antill Street in Downer and theft of property from the house. An offence of burglary contrary to s 311(a) of the Criminal Code (CAN 2024/4561) and an offence of theft contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code (CAN 2024/4562) were committed.

22. Between 9am and 6pm, Mr Saunders pushed out a flyscreen from a rear window and used a milk crate placed into the window frame to keep it open. The residents were not home. The bedrooms were ransacked. One of the residents found items displaced and thrown onto the floor and it took hours to clean.

23. The items stolen were primarily of sentimental value, being items of jewellery. The facts provide that one of the jewellery items, a Paspaley chain, is estimated to be worth approximately $20,000. The facts provide that this chain was of particular sentimental value, having been bought by the victim’s father in the 1990s and given to the victim when her mother passed away. In addition, $250.00 of cash, cigarettes, and cigarette lighters were taken.

24. The extent of the loss occasioned from the items of sentimental value is borne out from a victim impact statement of one of the occupants of this house. She describes in relation to a necklace that was stolen that this was given to her by her mother at a time that the victim was caring for her mother while she had cancer. The victim’s mother died when the victim was aged 20, and she describes that the necklace was “one of the most important tangible items” that her family had to remember her. She thought she would always have it, and knowing she will never see it again is so hurtful and upsetting that she can’t bear to think about it. The victim describes that the fact someone took this item away from her is “heartbreaking”.

25. In addition, the victim speaks of the violation of their space and privacy. She experienced the discomfort of sleeping in a room where a stranger had been. The sense of safety was eroded to such an extent that this victim and the other occupants of the house made the decision to move house, costing a great deal of money, time, and stress. The victim experienced significant anxiety that was unbearable and debilitating, fearful of someone entering her home and hurting her or her dog. She was unable to sleep and required medication to manage her mental health. The victim expresses that Mr Saunder’s offending was a “major trauma” for herself and her housemates. She experienced hurt and stress. It caused damage to her finances, mental health, and her wellbeing.

26. As the prosecution submitted, a victim of this offending has been deprived of a tangible and irreplaceable connection to her mother. The impact statement is an eloquent reminder and descriptor of the lingering and multifaceted impacts of the violation of the home. It is plain that, as with any offending of this type, Mr Saunder’s conduct has caused significant effects on the victims, and recognition of this harm is a pertinent sentencing purpose.

27. In relation to this entry, Mr Saunder’s fingerprint was found on the exterior of the point of entry window. His DNA was located on the mouth area of an alcohol can, which was left on a dresser in a bedroom.

1 April 2024 offending – Melba Street, Downer

28. On 1 April 2024, another house was entered, involving again an offence of burglary contrary to s 311(a) of the Criminal Code (CAN 2024/4563) and theft contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code (CAN 2024/4564).

29. Between 4:45am and 7:50am, Mr Saunders entered a residence on Melba Street in Downer. He entered through an unlocked front door. One of the residents was away and the other was asleep.

30. Mr Saunders ransacked a bedroom and took multiple electronic items including AirPods and mobile phones, and cash with a total value in the range of $1,500.00 was taken. A wallet containing identity cards and a laptop bag containing a passport, other important documentation, and phones, was taken. Further, as part of the theft, Mr Saunders took car keys and a white Toyota Camry taxi that belonged to one of the residents. He drove it for 15 minutes, to an address in Braddon. The taxi was later recovered. Mr Saunders was identified on the internal CCTV footage of the taxi.

3 April 2024 offending

31. On 3 April 2024, Mr Saunders committed an offence of aggravated burglary contrary to s 312(b) of the Criminal Code (CAN 2024/4566), which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment, 2000 penalty units, or both. In addition, an offence of burglary contrary to s 311(a) of the Criminal Code (CAN 2024/6114) was committed, as well as two offences of theft contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code (CAN 2024/4567, CAN 2024/6115).

Aggravated burglary and theft – Bonython Street, Downer

32. The aggravated burglary is aggravated by Mr Saunders having an offensive weapon with him at the time. This plainly increases the seriousness of the offending, with this aggravating feature reflected in the increased maximum penalty. The entry was to a house on Bonython Street in Downer from about 10:05am. Mr Saunders went into the backyard of the house and broke a window, causing $1,400.00 in damage. He entered the lounge room and kitchen area and was present in the house until about 11:02am. The property stolen included electrical items, high value glasses, and boxes containing various currency. The total value of the property stolen was approximately between $2,285.00 and $2,385.00. While at the property, Mr Saunders defecated in the toilet.

33. A female occupant of the residence returned to the property at about 11:07am. While she was bringing in groceries, she received a phone call from the male occupant who informed her that someone was visible on the home security system. Mr Saunders was equipped with a brass-coloured Stiletto knife that was left behind on the lounge. The photographs of this knife tendered on sentence show this to be an offensive weapon with a frightening appearance. Mr Saunder’s DNA was located on the handle of the knife. His fingerprints were located at the entry point, and he was identifiable on the security system CCTV.

34. It was extremely fortunate that the occupant of the residence did not encounter Mr Saunders. This was not by design though and there was always a risk by Mr Saunders that he could have caused even more distress by his offending. This is particularly so given he was armed with a knife, suggestive of a level of premeditation or planning. He remained in the house for a substantial period and behaved in a manner that was particularly disrespectful to the occupants of the residence. While the property stolen was not of a substantial financial value, significant distress will have been caused to the owners, as well as inconvenience and financial loss. This financial loss includes loss from the damage caused on entry.

35. The extent of the effects on the victims of this offending is set out in a victim impact statement. The victim describes that the knife was left where her children play, who at the time where only 2 and 4 years of age. Her home no longer feels like a safe place for her children, and the family. The victim had returned home needing to rest as she was unwell, and was instead confronted with the result of Mr Saunder’s behaviour in her home. She had police in her home, needing to explain that to her children, and she feels that the situation has resulted in her children’s innocence being diminished. Her trust in her community has also been diminished.

36. There was also economic loss from having to manage the repairs and administrative processes for insurance, as well as from the insurance excess and belongings taken. The victim has also had expenses in increasing security monitoring at the home and in taking self-defence classes to feel safer. Nonetheless, she no longer feels safe in her home and experiences a tiring vigilance. Her life has changed, with a home that feels different, and items taken that cannot be replaced. Burglary and theft – Antill Street, Downer

37. Between 6:15pm and 9pm on 3 April 2024, Mr Saunders entered a further house on Antill Street in Downer. He entered through a rear laundry door. Fortunately, the residents were not home at the time.

38. The property stolen included sentimental items of jewellery and watches, as well as electronic items and a bag. Medication, scripts, and a passport were taken. The value of the property taken was at least $1,590.00.

39. When an occupant of the residence returned home, he saw that the downstairs lights had been turned off and that the house had been ransacked. Cupboards and doors were left open, items were displaced, and property was missing from the bedroom.

40. During the police investigation, Mr Saunders’ blood was located on the exterior of the rear laundry door. When he was arrested on 4 April 2024 (see below at [37]), he had in his possession the bag that was stolen from the house. There is no information to suggest the other property was recovered.

4 April 2024 offending – Antill Street, Downer

41. The final series of offending occurred on 4 April 2024, and again involved entry to a house on Antill Street in Downer. An offence of burglary contrary to s 311(a) of the Criminal Code (CAN 2024/4568) and an offence of theft contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code (CAN 2024/4569) were committed. In addition, an offence of dealing with the proceeds of crime, contrary to s 114C of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act) (CAN 2024/4023), carrying a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment, 200 penalty units, or both, was committed.

42. Mr Saunders entered the house between 8:40am and 6pm when the residents were not home. He entered via a bedroom window, leaving fingerprints on the glass and frame. Jewellery, bags, and currency, totalling at least $2,010.00 was stolen. In addition, bank cards and identification documents including passports, a driver’s licence, a university degree and a civil relationship certificate were stolen.

43. An occupant returned home at 6:45pm and noticed that the bedroom window was open. From 7:30pm, this victim noticed that one of the debit cards had been used to make seven transactions between 6pm and 7:43pm at retail stores. These stores were an IGA, Coles, a BWS Liquor shop, and Woolworths and Kmart in Dickson and Belconnen. The total value involved in dealing with the bank card was approximately $400.00 AUD.

44. At 7:55pm, Mr Saunders was arrested out the front of Kmart in Belconnen. He had in his possession two Kmart shopping bags, bank cards in the name of the victims from the theft that same day, the bag stolen the day before, and the West Tigers jersey stolen on 27 March. He also had approximately $800.00 in Australian and foreign currency.

45. Mr Saunders was remanded in custody following this arrest and has remained in custody since that time (4 April 2024 to 22 April 2025). Including the time spent in custody in January (23 January 2024 to 24 January 2024), a total of 386 days of pre-sentence custody applies.

Nature and circumstances of the offending

46. All the offending was of a serious nature and plainly the only appropriate penalties are imprisonment. In addition to the role of the other sentencing purposes, deterrence has elevation in the sentencing exercise. Offenders must understand that committing offences of this type amounts to a deplorable violation of another community member’s entitlement to security, safety, and privacy in their home and with respect to their property.

47. The nature of the entries that occurred here varies in terms of the seriousness involved. In relation to some, no damage was caused on entry, while in others, damage was caused. All of the burglaries appear to involve movement throughout the residence with multiple rooms entered, and ransacking and significant disturbance caused in some. The victims will have experienced significant distress from finding their homes in this state, as well as experienced inconvenience and frustration from having to rectify it.

48. The nature of the entries were, while brazen, largely unsophisticated, with, for example, the leaving of fingerprints and DNA. While there does appear to be an aspect of targeting particular items of property, the conduct was in the nature of being ‘typical’ for offending of this type. Many of the entries occurred during the daytime when it was less likely an occupant would be home, although this was not exclusively the case, and one occurred at a time when an occupant was present and asleep in the home.

49. The associated thefts also vary in their seriousness. Some involved a large amount and value of property, including a car, through to more limited amounts. Sentimental items were routinely taken which is of concern. The taking of important identification items is also of concern. Further, many electronic items were taken which are valuable and often contain private, personal, or sentimental information. Very few victims had any property recovered.

50. As to the two offences that involved use of stolen bank cards, the offending is reflected with different charges and different maximum penalties. The conduct though was of a similar nature in terms of there being multiple transactions and a total amount of money involved that was not insignificant in terms of the impact for the victims. It does appear though that the purchases made were directed towards necessity as opposed to indulgence.

Pleas of guilty

51. In relation to all of the charges, other than the charges related to the 8 February 2024 offending, pleas of guilty were entered in the Magistrates Court. This was though following a plea of not guilty and provision of the brief of evidence. A reduction to reflect that there was a utilitarian value is warranted, albeit not the full reduction that might often follow a guilty plea in the Magistrates Court. The prosecution submitted that a reduction in the order of 20 per cent is appropriate. I agree.

52. As to the charges with respect to the 8 February offending, pleas of guilty were entered at the first mention in the Magistrates Court, with no pleas of not guilty ever entered or briefs of evidence required. A reduction that reflects this full utilitarian value, in the order of 25 per cent, is warranted.

Subjective circumstances

53. Mr Saunders is now 25 years of age and was aged 24 years at the time of the offending. He is of Aboriginal descent, identifying his mob as Kamilaroi, but reports no connection to culture.

54. He experienced a childhood with exposure to violence and substance misuse. His parents separated during his adolescence, and he initially lived with his mother in regional areas. He then came to be living with his father, during which he experienced neglect. He no longer has contact with his father. He came to live with his grandmother. He now has some contact with his mother, but no contact with his siblings. It is not in dispute that the principles from Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 are enlivened, and I accept this, recognising that Mr Saunder’s moral culpability for the offending is reduced.

55. All of Mr Saunders family members reside interstate and he was experiencing homeless at the time of the offending. He had moved to the ACT with a long-term partner with whom he shares four children, but was evicted from his partner’s grandmother’s residence for substance use.

56. Mr Saunders has a criminal history that limits the leniency that can be afforded to him. He has been previously convicted, primarily in New South Wales (NSW), for offences of larceny, obtaining financial advantage, and driving offences. He has been convicted on one previous occasion for break and enter of a house, but this was offending in 2017 when he was 18 years of age. The offending the subject of the current sentencing exercise is indicative of an escalation in the seriousness of his offending.

57. It is also indicative of his apparent increasing desperation to fuel his substance dependency. Mr Saunders himself describes that his criminal history coincides with his increased use of substances. He also describes that he was in a “repeat cycle of offending” so that he could “feed his habit”, secure accommodation, and purchase food and clothes. Corrective Services report Mr Saunders as not appearing to take responsibility for the offending. This is of concern, but I accept that, as submitted on his behalf, Mr Saunders’ offending was “motivated by survival”. This provides for a degree of understanding as to the apparent lack of remorse and insight into the seriousness of the offending.

58. Mr Saunders began smoking cannabis at 16 years of age, and then commenced methamphetamine use at approximately 17 years of age. This escalated to daily use, to the point that at the time of the offending, his use of substances was costing him on average $300.00 a day. While he commenced use of substances at a relatively early age, I am not satisfied that it is at such a level to enliven the so-called Henry principle (R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346) as to early introduction to substances being mitigatory. Nonetheless, it is clear that Mr Saunders has had a lengthy period of challenges with substance use. This was a significant motivating factor in the offending and plainly he would benefit from rehabilitation in this regard. ACT Health Services find Mr Saunders to have presented with the likelihood of severe substance use disorder at the time of his offending.

Current sentencing practice

59. While acknowledging the limitations that authorities said to be comparative provide, the prosecution identified a number of authorities relevant to the burglary and aggravated burglary offences: R v Horne [2017] ACTSC 36; Simonds v The Queen [2013] ACTCA 13; DPP v CR [2023] ACTSC 293; R v Dawson [2022] ACTSC 64; Williams-Savage v The Queen [2022] ACTCA 58; and DPP v Steep [2024] ACTSC 326. While the authorities make plain that there is no tariff for offences of this type, I draw the following from these authorities as to current sentencing practice with respect to offences of burglary and aggravated burglary: (a) sentences for burglary in residential premises generally range from imprisonment for one year to two years and six months; (b) sentences for aggravated burglaries are mostly in the range of two years to 40 months; and (c) the manner in which the sentences are to be served has ranged from fully suspended sentences through to periods of fulltime imprisonment with a nonparole period.

Totality

60. The sentencing exercise plainly requires careful application of the totality principle. The offences within each series are inextricably linked, involving as they do the entry to premises and the theft from the premises. A significant level of concurrency is warranted with respect to the charges within each series.

61. Concurrency is also appropriate to reflect that there is a link between the offending in terms of it being of a ‘crime spree’ nature. That is not to suggest that the individual victims and offending do not warrant distinct reflection in the sentences to be imposed. But the overall sentence to be imposed is not one that can be ‘crushing’.

62. Both parties submitted that the Court could approach the sentencing exercise in a manner that involved ‘crafting’ a sentence such that Mr Saunders was eligible for a treatment order. Such an approach will enable the prospects of rehabilitation that Mr Saunders has to be supported. Doing so is not inconsistent with the legislative intent as to the statutory four year limitation for eligibility for a treatment order: DPP v Djerke (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 341 at [36]; DPP v Longmore [2024] ACTSC 278 at [107]. While the reference to “offence” in s 12A(5) of the Sentencing Act is to be read in the plural (s 145(b) Legislation Act 2001 (ACT)), that is, that the court must not impose a lesser sentence of imprisonment than the circumstances of the offences would ordinarily require, it remains that, as articulated by the Court in Le Clair v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 19 at [56]: There is no single correct approach to the structuring of multiple sentences and there may be a variety of acceptable ways in which to implement the totality principle in a particular sentencing exercise.

63. In this matter there is a basis to regard the 8 February 2024 offending as distinct from the other offending. It was of a less serious nature to the other offending and does not involve an entry to an inside area of the home. It then involves a distinction in the charges arising, without an offence of theft and there being an offence of fraud. I will structure the sentence such that this sentence will be served distinctly. The appropriate terms for that offending are such that the sentence is to be regarded as already served. The period that Mr Saunders has now spent in custody is, having regard to his previous history of incarceration, lengthy, and will in and of itself have provided a significant deterrent effect.

64. As to the other series of offences, appropriate terms will be imposed for each offence that reflect the relevant sentencing purposes and considerations, but an appropriate application of the totality principle is such that eligibility for a treatment order is not precluded.

Treatment order

65. The issue then becomes whether a treatment order is an appropriate and suitable one for Mr Saunders: ss 12A(2), 80S, 80T Sentencing Act.

66. There is a sound basis for Corrective Services to have found Mr Saunders not suitable for a treatment order. He has not complied with previous community based orders, including that the offending here occurred while on conditional liberty. He has also received negative case notes for disrespectful behaviour while in custody and for not complying with directions.

67. However, he has also received some positive case notes when attending peer mentor and cultural events. He is also someone who has not ever previously had an opportunity while in the community to engage with interventions to address his substance use. He has sought to do so while in custody, reaching out to rehabilitation programs, and he has recently successfully completed the Solaris Therapeutic Program. Corrective Services report that Mr Saunders is regarded as having engaged well in this program. He has been accepted for admission to the Ngunnawal Bush Healing Farm which is a valuable program for participants on a treatment order after they have initially engaged in alcohol and drug recovery rehabilitation.

68. Mr Saunders is assessed by Corrective Services as a high risk of general reoffending in a context of substance dependency, lack of stable accommodation, mental health issues, unemployment, and a lack of prosocial influences. However, the benefit of a treatment order is that it is directed entirely towards addressing such criminogenic risks.

69. I have carefully considered the assessment by Corrective Services that Mr Saunders is not suitable for a treatment order and I find that this is not a determinative basis to decline such an order for Mr Saunders. As submitted on his behalf, his previous noncompliance is a symptom of his substance dependency, rather than a calculated disregard for orders of the courts. Mr Saunders has a solid foundation for rehabilitation having completed the Solaris Therapeutic Program, and he reports having last used methamphetamine when he was arrested. Urinalysis drug testing in December 2024 returned a negative result to all tested substances. Mr Saunders engages, seemingly successfully, with pharmacotherapy.

70. Mr Saunders has reported he has an interest in securing a prescription for cannabis to address his mental health concerns. Mr Saunders reports these concerns as being Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Tourette syndrome, anxiety, and depression. He reports having been prescribed medication for these conditions in the past, although Canberra Health Services do not have confirmation of these mental health conditions. Forensic Mental Health Services have found no symptoms indicative of any major mental illness.

71. Under a treatment order, Mr Saunders will be permitted to use orthodox prescription medication for the treatment of any mental health conditions, but not to use cannabis, even if prescribed. The assessment reports describe Mr Saunders as understanding the strict conditions of a treatment order and as having expressed a willingness to comply.

72. The information before the Court also includes that Mr Saunders currently has two outstanding warrants in NSW which have the prospect of affecting his treatment order. However, while on a treatment order, he will remain under restraint in the ACT, and there is no suggestion that the matters outstanding in NSW are likely to undermine a treatment order. In the circumstances of this matter, I do not consider the outstanding warrants in NSW to be an impediment to a treatment order being appropriate and suitable.

73. While Mr Saunders has resided in the past interstate, he currently has a basis for remaining in the ACT to be closer to his partner and children. He also now has available to him housing, through the Justice Housing Program transitional accommodation program with Yeddung Mura. While this is only of a short term duration, and Corrective Services fairly raise concerns as to the need for long term secure and stable accommodation to support rehabilitation, I am comforted by the treatment team having an ability to liaise closely with Housing ACT to address housing needs when a treatment order is imposed.

74. Mr Saunders has a sound foundation to secure employment, having completed year 10, and he has no physical impediments to engaging in employment. While Mr Saunders has not previously engaged in employment, he has an interest in working as either a personal trainer or working in the mines. He otherwise has goals to secure long term stable accommodation, reconnect with his children, and to “give up drugs and stay off them”. He expresses a desire to change his lifestyle. While he currently has no prosocial friends or acquaintances, he played rugby when he was younger with this a potential activity to assist in his rehabilitation.

75. In relation to this rehabilitation, Canberra Health Services have found Mr Saunders suitable for a treatment order. A day program is recommended as therapeutically suitable, with the option of a step-up in care to a residential rehabilitation program if required. An appropriate and available rehabilitation program has been identified.

76. In all of the circumstances, I am satisfied that a treatment order is an appropriate and suitable one for Mr Saunders. It is a sentencing order that will reflect all sentencing purposes, including community protection. The promotion of community protection as a sentencing purpose is not restricted to the immediate future. This sentencing purpose contemplates enduring community protection. In respect to Mr Saunders, this will most likely be achieved by addressing his substance dependency.

Orders

77. For those reasons, the following orders are made:

Sentence served: (1) On the charge of burglary (CAN 6537/2024), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 9 months imprisonment, reduced from 12 months imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 1 April 2024 and end on 31 December 2024. (2) On the charge of fraud (CAN 6543/2024), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 3 months imprisonment, reduced from 4 months imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 1 November 2024 and end on 31 January 2025.

Sentenced to: (3) On the charge of burglary (CAN 1179/2024), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, reduced from 15 months imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 1 February 2025 and end on 31 January 2026. (4) On the charge of theft (CAN 1181/2024), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 10 months imprisonment, reduced from 12 months imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 1 June 2025 and end on 31 March 2026. (5) On the charge of burglary (CAN 4017/2024), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 16 months imprisonment, reduced from 20 months imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 1 June 2025 and end on 30 September 2026. (6) On the charge of theft (CAN 4018/2024), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 8 months imprisonment, reduced from 10 months imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 1 April 2026 and end on 30 November 2026. (7) On the charge of burglary (CAN 4019/2024), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 16 months imprisonment, reduced from 20 months imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 1 October 2025 and end on 31 January 2027. (8) On the charge of theft (CAN 4020/2024), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 8 months imprisonment, reduced from 10 months imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 1 August 2026 and end on 31 March 2027. (9) On the charge of burglary (CAN 4561/2024), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 16 months imprisonment, reduced from 20 months imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 1 February 2026 and end on 31 May 2027. (10) On the charge of theft (CAN 4562/2024), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 9 months imprisonment, reduced from 11 months imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 1 November 2026 and end on 31 July 2027. (11) On the charge of burglary (CAN 4563/2024), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 16 months imprisonment, reduced from 20 months imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 1 June 2026 and end on 30 September 2027. (12) On the charge of theft (CAN 4564/2024), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 9 months imprisonment, reduced from 11 months imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 1 May 2027 and end on 31 January 2028. (13) On the charge of aggravated burglary (CAN 4566/2024), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 24 months imprisonment, reduced from 30 months imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 1 October 2026 and end on 30 September 2028. (14) On the charge of theft (CAN 4567/2024), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 8 months imprisonment, reduced from 10 months imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 1 April 2028 and end on 30 November 2028. (15) On the charge of burglary (CAN 6114/2024), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 16 months imprisonment, reduced from 20 months imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 1 February 2027 and end on 31 May 2028. (16) On the charge of theft (CAN 6115/2024), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 8 months imprisonment, reduced from 10 months imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 1 December 2027 and end on 31 July 2028. (17) On the charge of burglary (CAN 4568/2024), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, reduced from 15 months imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 1 June 2027 and end on 31 May 2028. (18) On the charge of theft (CAN 4569/2024), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 8 months imprisonment, reduced from 10 months imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 1 November 2027 and end on 30 June 2028 (19) On the charge of possession of property suspected of being proceeds of crime (CAN 4023/2024), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 1 month imprisonment, reduced from 40 days imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, to commence on 1 July 2028 and end on 31 July 2028.

Drug and alcohol treatment order: (20) A Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order pursuant to s 12A of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) is made for Tristan Saunders, in respect of the eligible offences set out in Orders 3 to 19, of which Tristan Saunders has been convicted, and for which he has been sentenced to a total term of 3 years and 10 months imprisonment. (21) The drug and alcohol treatment order be for 3 years, 7 months and 9 days, to commence on 22 April 2025 and end on 30 November 2028. (22) The Custodial Part of the drug and alcohol treatment order for the eligible offences be suspended under s 80W of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) from 22 April 2025 to 30 November 2028. (23) The Treatment and Supervision Part of the drug and alcohol treatment order be for 18 months, to commence on 22 April 2025 and end on 21 October 2026. (24) Under s 80ZA of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), Tristan Saunders be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender’s Good Behaviour obligations under s 85 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) from the day after the end of the Treatment and Supervision Part of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order, 22 October 2026, until the end of the total sentence, 30 November 2028, with 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. (25) For the Treatment and Supervision Part of the drug and alcohol treatment order: (a) The core conditions of the order set out in s 80Y of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) be hereby imposed. (b) Tristan Saunders undertake any program, treatment or counselling, alcohol and drug testing or case management, and comply with any direction as to where he resides, or any curfew that may be required, by any member of the Treatment and Supervision Team and obey all reasonable directions of any member of that Team. (c) If Tristan Saunders is discharged from or leaves any treatment program, he is to report to ACT Corrective Services by 4:00pm on the next business day. (d) Tristan Saunders not return a positive test sample under alcohol and drug testing. (e) Tristan Saunders not consume or use alcohol, cannabis, illicit drugs and prescription drugs not prescribed to him. (f) Tristan Saunders comply with any directions of the Court from time to time about attendance at Court in person or by electronic means. (26) Tristan Saunders be directed to sign a sealed copy of this Order and an undertaking to comply with the Order and any obligations under the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for the period that this Order is in force before he leaves the Court precincts on 22 April 2025. (27) Tristan Saunders be directed to appear in Court for DASL Review in person on Tuesday, 29 April 2025 at 11:30am.

I certify that the preceding seventy-seven [77] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Acting Justice Christensen Associate: Date: 4 June 2025