• 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

Offences to be taken into account

2. The following additional offences are to be taken into account in making a sentence related order pursuant to part 4.4 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT): (a) For series 1, aggravated burglary (CC2022/10094): (i) Aggravated burglary (CC2022/10095) contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) with a maximum penalty of 2000 penalty units, imprisonment for 20 years or both. (ii) Theft (CC2022/10119) contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code with a maximum penalty of 1000 penalty units, imprisonment for 10 years or both. (iii) Aggravated burglary (CC2022/10096) contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) with a maximum penalty of 2000 penalty units, imprisonment for 20 years or both. (iv) Theft (CC2022/10120) contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code with a maximum penalty of 1000 penalty units, imprisonment for 10 years or both. (v) Attempted aggravated burglary (CC2022/10098) contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), by virtue of s 44 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), with a maximum penalty of 2000 penalty units, imprisonment for 20 years or both. (vi) Attempted aggravated burglary (CC2022/10099) contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), by virtue of s 44 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), with a maximum penalty of 2000 penalty units, imprisonment for 20 years or both.at (vii) Aggravated burglary (CC2022/10097) contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) with a maximum penalty of 2000 penalty units, imprisonment for 20 years or both. (viii) Theft (CC2022/10121) contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code with a maximum penalty of 1000 penalty units, imprisonment for 10 years or both (ix) Aggravated burglary (CC2022/10101) contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) with a maximum penalty of 2000 penalty units, imprisonment for 20 years or both. (x) Theft (SCCAN2023/55) contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code with a maximum penalty of 1000 penalty units, imprisonment for 10 years or both (xi) Aggravated burglary (SCCAN2023/56) contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) with a maximum penalty of 2000 penalty units, imprisonment for 20 years or both. (b) For series 3, aggravated burglary (CC2022/10105), aggravated burglary (CC2022/10108), and aggravated burglary (CC2022/10118). (i) Theft (CC2022/10124) contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code with a maximum penalty of 1000 penalty units, imprisonment for 10 years or both (ii) Theft (CC2022/10126) contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code with a maximum penalty of 1000 penalty units, imprisonment for 10 years or both (iii) Theft (CC2022/10127) contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code with a maximum penalty of 1000 penalty units, imprisonment for 10 years or both (c) For series 4: aggravated burglary (CC2022/10112) (i) Theft (CC2022/10128) contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code with a maximum penalty of 1000 penalty units, imprisonment for 10 years or both (ii) Aggravated burglary (CC2022/10114) contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) with a maximum penalty of 2000 penalty units, imprisonment for 20 years or both. (iii) Aggravated burglary (CC2022/10113) contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) with a maximum penalty of 2000 penalty units, imprisonment for 20 years or both. (iv) Attempted aggravated burglary (CC2022/11828), contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), by virtue of s 44 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), with a maximum penalty of 2000 penalty units and 20 years of imprisonment (v) Aggravated burglary (CC2022/10115) contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) with a maximum penalty of 2000 penalty units, imprisonment for 20 years or both. (d) For series 5, aggravated burglary (CC2022/10116) (i) Theft (CC2022/10129) contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code with a maximum penalty of 1000 penalty units, imprisonment for 10 years or both (ii) Aggravated burglary (CC2022/10117) contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) with a maximum penalty of 2000 penalty units, imprisonment for 20 years or both. (iii) Theft (CC2022/10130) contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code with a maximum penalty of 1000 penalty units, imprisonment for 10 years or both (e) For series 6, aggravated burglary (CC2022/11829) (i) Theft (CC2022/11831) contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code with a maximum penalty of 1000 penalty units, imprisonment for 10 years or both (ii) Aggravated burglary (CC2022/11830) contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) with a maximum penalty of 2000 penalty units, imprisonment for 20 years or both. (iii) Theft (CC2022/11832) contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code with a maximum penalty of 1000 penalty units, imprisonment for 10 years or both

3. On 4 July 2025, Mr Weldon participated in a sentencing conversation as part of the ACT Supreme Court Pilot Circle Sentencing List.

4. In DPP v Chatfield [2024] ACTSC 329; 21 ACTLR 240 at [1]-[14], I explained in detail the context and purpose of the Circle Sentencing List. It is unnecessary to repeat that explanation here. The sentencing conversation at the heart of this process required Mr Weldon to directly engage with the Elders Panel and take responsibility for his conduct.

5. After the sentencing conversation the proceedings were adjourned to provide the offender with the opportunity to continue to progress his substantive efforts toward rehabilitation. Unfortunately, the offender was arrested after fresh allegations of family violence were made against him and he was remanded in custody in relation to those offences on 8 December 2025. Counsel for the offender sought to adjourn these proceedings to permit the fresh offences to be committed to this Court and to explore whether there was any possibility of the fresh offences being dealt with as part of these proceedings. Those fresh matters are now listed for trial and after some attempt at negotiation the parties were agreed that these proceedings should not be further delayed.

Agreed facts – Series 1: SCC 40 of 2023

Facts relating to the offence Incident 1: Massage Right – Aggravated burglary (CC2022/10094)

6. At about 12:47am on 28 September 2022, the offender and an unidentified man entered Massage Right at 140 Anketell Street in Greenway by breaking the lock on the door.

7. The offender was wearing a hooded jacket with a drawstring, long pants and gloves with a reflective strip. The unidentified man was wearing a jacket with a fur lined hood, gloves and pants with a FILA logo on the lower left leg.

8. The offender and unidentified man searched the premises, opening the till and breaking the lock on a drawer, before leaving the premises about 9 minutes later. No property was taken from the premises as the till was empty. Facts relating to the additional offences Incident 2: Burrito Bar – Aggravated burglary (CC2022/10095 – to be taken into account) & Theft (CC2022/10119– to be taken into account)

9. At about 1:00am the same day, the offender and the unidentified man entered Burrito Bar located on the corner of Reed Street and Anketell Street in Greenway by forcing the front door open with a crowbar.

10. The offender was wearing a black hooded jacket, black pants and black gloves. The unidentified man was wearing a tan jacket with a fur lined hood, black gloves, black pants with a FILA logo on the lower left leg and a face mask and was limping with his right foot splayed to the side.

11. The offender and unidentified man forced two tills open and stole $250 from each, $500 in total.

Incident 3: Elite Supps – Aggravated burglary (CC2022/10096 – to be taken into account) & Theft (CC2022/10120 – to be taken into account)

12. Between 1.15am and 2:04am on the same day, the offender and the unidentified man attempted to open the front door of Elite Supps located at 205 Anketell Street in Greenway using a crowbar.

13. The offender was wearing a black hooded jacket, black pants, black gloves and striped shoes. The unidentified man was wearing a tan jacket with a fur lined hood, black gloves and black pants.

14. At about 2:04am, the offender and unidentified man entered the premises by shattering a floor-to-ceiling glass panel located at the front of the business.

15. The offender and the unidentified man stole a plastic cash container valued at approximately $20 that contained a $180 cash float and a tin containing about$800 to $1200 cash. A safe was also damaged but not opened.

Incident 4: The Dock – Attempted aggravated burglary (CC2022/10098– to be taken into account)

16. Between about 3:01am and 3:16am the same day, the offender and an unidentified man attempted to force open the front door of The Dock located on the Kingston Foreshore using a crowbar.

17. The offender was wearing a hooded jacket with a drawstring, long pants, gloves with a reflective strip and striped shoes. The unidentified man was wearing a jacket with a fur lined hood, gloves, pants with a FILA logo on the left lower leg and two different coloured shoes. The unidentified man was limping with his right foot splayed to the side.

Incident 5: Magoo’s Café and Bar - Attempted aggravated burglary (CC2022/10099– to be taken into account)

18. Between about 3:07am and 3:08am the same day, the offender and an unidentified man attempted to force open the front door of Magoo's Cafe and Bar located on the Kingston Foreshore.

19. The offender was wearing a hooded jacket and long pants. The unidentified man was wearing a lighter hooded jacket and long pants and was limping.

20. The front door was damaged near the lock area.

Incident 6: Chong Co - Aggravated burglary (CC2022/10097– to be taken into account) & Theft (CC2022/10121– to be taken into account)

21. At about 3:30am on the same day, the offender and an unidentified man approached Chong Co located at on the Kingston Foreshore. The unidentified man and offender both attempted to force open the door of Chong Co using tools. The unidentified man then entered the premises by sliding between the door and doorframe. The unidentified man opened the door, and the offender also entered the premises.

22. The offender was wearing a black hooded jacket with a drawstring, black pants and black gloves with a reflective strip and striped shoes. The unidentified man was wearing a tan jacket with a fur lined hood, black gloves, black pants with a FILA logo on the left lower leg, two different coloured shoes and a face mask. The unidentified man was limping.

23. The offender and the unidentified man stole approximately $200-$500 cash and a National Australia Bank credit card. The glass front doors were cracked but repair was covered by insurance.

Incident 7: Walt and Burley - Aggravated burglary (CC2022/10101– to be taken into account) & Theft (SCCAN2023/55– to be taken into account)

24. At about 3:47am the same day, the offender and an unidentified man entered Walt and Burley on the Kingston Foreshore.

25. The offender was wearing a hooded jacket, pants, gloves and striped shoes. The unidentified man was wearing a jacket with a fur lined hood, gloves, pants with a FILA logo on the left lower leg, two different coloured shoes and a face mask. The unidentified man was limping with his right foot splayed to the side.

26. The offender and unidentified man stole a 700mL bottle of Matusalem rum valued at $70 and an Acer Swift 3 laptop computer valued at $1500 before leaving the premises at about 4:02am.

27. The frame of the front door and lock were damaged. The value of the damage to the locks was $500. A window was also damaged.

Incident 8: La Rustica – Aggravated burglary (SCCAN2023/56– to be taken into account)

28. Between about 2:30am and 4:30am the same day, the offender and unidentified man entered La Rustica on the Kingston Foreshore by forcing open the front door. The cool room door was left open and cupboards in the office had been ransacked, however no property was stolen.

Facts relating to Series 2: SCC 317 of 2023

29. The offender was found guilty of all counts in respect of series 2 after a judge alone trial before Berman AJ on 3 May 2024: see DPP v Weldon [2024] ACTSC 133. His Honour described the evidence in detail and made findings of fact based on the evidence before him (see [23]-[71] in Weldon). The parties requested that I include these offences in these sentencing proceedings and that I ought sentence the offender of the basis of the facts as his Honour found them.

Incident 9: Brew and Brew – Aggravated burglary (CC20222/10102) & Theft (CC2022/10122)

30. Acting Justice Berman provided the following outline of the facts in Weldon at [26]-[30]: At about 1am on 2 October 2022, two men entered a café called Brew and Brew in Forrest in the Australian Capital Territory (Brew & Brew Café). They were both wearing hooded jackets. The hood of one of the jackets was fur-lined. I will refer to the man not wearing the jacket with the fur-lined hood as Man A. The prosecution case is that this man was the accused. I will refer to the man wearing the jacket with the fur-lined hood as Man B. Man A and Man B are seen in the footage inside Brew & Brew Café removing a safe from the kitchen, taking a tip jar, and removing them from the premises. It is an agreed fact that the safe contained about $6,500 and the tip jar contained about $1,000. Man A and Man B then return to Brew & Brew Café with a long pole and turn their attention to an ATM inside the premises. I would describe the long pole as a ‘crowbar’ or ‘pry bar’. The men use the pry bar in an attempt to either remove the ATM from the premises or to damage it enough so that they can gain access to the money inside. This takes a long time. They are ultimately unsuccessful, and they eventually leave. The time of their departure is recorded on the CCTV footage as 3:23am. It is important to observe that daylight saving time started at 2am on 2 October 2022 while the two men were in Brew & Brew Café, and so they left Brew & Brew Café about 1 hour and 23 minutes after they arrived. The CCTV footage I was shown of Brew & Brew Café came from 4 cameras. It was monochrome. I was able to make the following observations: (a) The pry bar was about 160cm long. It was straight, coming to a point at one end. At the other end was a thick disc. It appeared to be bent (see the centre photo on page 3 of exhibit 8). (b) Man B was wearing a jacket with a fur-lined hood. He was wearing shoes with 3 stripes on their side with white or light-coloured socks. (c) Man A was wearing shoes with a distinctive pattern on the uppers (the footage is taken from above). On his right hand he wore a glove with a rectangular strip which reflected the light. He was wearing a jacket with an unlined hood. Incident 10: Questacon Atomic Café – Aggravated burglary (CC2022/10103) & Theft (CC2022/10123)

31. Berman AJ provided the following outline of the facts in Weldon at [31]-[37]: At about 4:05am on 2 October 2022, two men entered Questacon Atomic Café in Parkes in the Australian Capital Territory (Atomic Café). This was about 42 minutes after Man A and Man B left the Brew & Brew Café. Whilst in the premises, the men took money from two tills and also stole a safe. I was shown colour CCTV footage from Atomic Café. Having viewed that CCTV footage closely, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the men in Atomic Café were the same men who were in Brew & Brew Café shortly beforehand. I make that finding for the following reasons, in combination: (a) Two men entered Atomic Café relatively soon after Man A and Man B left Brew & Brew Café. (b) One of the men who entered Atomic Café wore a jacket with a fur-lined hood while the other wore a jacket with an unlined hood. (c) The man with the fur-lined hood was wearing shoes with 3 stripes on their sides. (d) That man’s socks were white. (e) There was no discernible difference between the appearance of Man B at Brew & Brew Café and the man with the fur-lined hood at Atomic Café. (f) The other man at Atomic Café was wearing shoes with the same distinctive pattern on their uppers as those worn by Man A at Brew & Brew Café. (g) That man was wearing gloves, with the one on his right hand having a rectangular patch which corresponded with the rectangular reflective patch on the glove worn by Man A at Brew & Brew Café. It did not reflect in the same way as the patch seen in the CCTV footage of Brew & Brew Café, but that is likely due to the different lighting conditions or different cameras. (h) There was no discernible difference between the appearance of Man A at Brew & Brew Café and the man with the unlined hood at Atomic Café. (i) The two men were with each other at both locations. (j) The two men were up to no good on both occasions. I should explain that last observation. It is one thing to contemplate the likelihood of two men dressed remarkably similarly to two other men being out in Canberra in the early hours of a particular day. But adding to the unlikelihood of that happening is that, coincidentally, both pairs of men were engaged in a burglary. I should also explain what I meant about the different lighting conditions in the CCTV footage from the two cafés. It is clear that the illumination was different. This is most apparent from the way in which pinpoints of white light occasionally appeared in the eye of the men in Brew & Brew Café. They looked similar to the ‘red eye’ which appears in some photographs taken of people using a flash, albeit the pinpoint light was white and not red. An example of this can be seen in the left-hand photo on page 2 of exhibit 8. No similar observation can be made in the CCTV footage from the Atomic Café. It is obvious that either different types of light were used to illuminate the areas captured by the CCTV cameras in the two cafés or that the two cafés used cameras with different sensors in them. A good example of how objects can appear differently when photographed under different conditions can be seen on page 1 of exhibit 8, where the same jacket photographed on two different occasions looks vastly different in colour in the two photographs. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Man A and Man B from Brew & Brew Café were the men captured on the CCTV camera at Atomic Café. Agreed facts – Series 3: SCC 318 of 2023 Incident 11: Dumpling Inn – Aggravated burglary (CC2022/10104)

32. About 12:14am on 5 October 2022, the offender and an unidentified man approached the front door to the Dumpling Inn at 5/29 Woolley Street in Dickson.

33. CCTV captured the offender and the unidentified man gain entry to the front door using a crowbar. They searched the business before leaving about 4 minutes later, taking no items.

34. The offender is wearing a hooded jacket with centre zip, pants with small logo near left pocket, striped patterned shoes, Scream mask and gloves with reflective logo and wrist straps. The unidentified man is wearing a jacket with a centre zip and buttons and shoes with two dark lines down the tongue. He is wearing black gloves and the pinky finger on the right-hand glove does not move with the rest of his fingers.

Incident 12: Oporto Dickson – Aggravated burglary (CC2022/10105) & Theft (CC2022/10124 – to be taken into account)

35. About 12:26am the same morning, CCTV captured the offender and an unidentified man gain access to the rear office of Oporto Dickson at 4/71 Woolley Street in Dickson before attempting to remove a safe from the floor. The offender and the unidentified man are both seen holding a crowbar. The offender takes a bottle of Coca Cola from the shelves. About 5 minutes after entering, the offender and the unidentified man leave taking no other items.

36. The accused is wearing a black hooded jacket with centre zip, black pants with small logo near left pocket, striped patterned Nike branded shoes, black and white Scream mask and gloves with reflective logo and wrist straps. The unidentified man is wearing a black jacket with centre zip and button, black pants, black gloves and lighter coloured shoes with two dark lines down tongue. The pinky finger on the right-hand glove is protruding outwards.

Incident 13: Zambrero Dickson – Aggravated burglary (CC2022/10107)

37. Two days before the Dickson burglaries, on 3 October 2022, an unknown person or persons broke into Zambrero Dickson through the front door. CCTV captured two people steal a safe containing approximately $460 cash.

38. About 12.32am on 5 October 2022, the offender gained entry to Zambrero Dickson at 3/81-71 Woolley Street in Dickson, followed shortly after by an unidentified man.

39. The offender is wearing a black hooded jacket with centre zip and button, black pants, striped patterned Nike branded shoes, black and white Scream mask and gloves with reflective logo and wrist straps. The unidentified man is wearing a black jacket with centre zip and button, black pants, black gloves and lighter coloured shoes with two dark lines down tongue. The pinky finger of the unidentified man's right-hand glove is seen in CCTV footage and does not move in line with the other fingers when holding the crowbar.

40. The unidentified man attempted to gain access to the larger safe in the back of the restaurant using a crowbar. The two men searched behind the counter and then leave less than 5 minutes after entering the business. Nothing was missing and the door was locked but had not yet been repaired since a break-in on 3 October 2022.

Incident 14: Dominos Dickson – Aggravated burglary (CC2022/10106)

41. About 12:50am the same morning, CCTV captured the offender and an unidentified man inside Dominos Dickson on Cape Street in Dickson. The offender searched the business while the unidentified man attempted to gain access to a safe using a crowbar.

42. The offender is wearing a black hooded jacket with centre zip, black pants, striped patterned Nike branded shoes, black and white Scream mask and gloves with reflective logo and wrist straps. The unidentified man is wearing a black hooded jacket with tear in left elbow, black pants and black gloves. Incident 15: Sharetea Dickson – Aggravated burglary (CC2022/10110)

43. About 4.57am on the same morning, the offender and an unidentified man forced entry to the side doors of Sharetea Dickson at 8 Cape Street in Dickson.

44. The offender and the unidentified man search the business. About six minutes after entering the accused and unidentified man leave the business taking no items.

45. The offender is wearing a black hooded jacket with centre zip, black pants with small logo near left pocket, striped patterned Nike branded shoes, black and white Scream mask and gloves with reflective logo and wrist straps. The unidentified man is wearing a hooded jacket with centre zip and button, gloves and lighter coloured shoes with two dark lines down tongue. The pinky finger of the right-hand glove does not move in line with the man's other fingers.

Incident 16: Flavours of Jiangnan Dickson – Aggravated burglary (SCCAN2023/57 – to be taken into account)

46. About 5:09am on the same morning, CCTV captured the offender and an unidentified man approach the front door to Flavours of Jiangnan Dickson at 6/8 Cape Street, Dickson. The two men force entry through the doors. About 14 minutes later, the offender and the unidentified man leave from the direction of the front door.

47. The offender is wearing a black hooded jacket, striped patterned Nike branded shoes, black pants and black gloves. The unidentified man is wearing a hooded jacket with centre zip and button, gloves and lighter coloured shoes with two dark lines down tongue.

Incident 17: Deji Asian Supermarket – Aggravated burglary (CC2022/10108) & Theft (CC2022/10126 – to be taken into account)

48. About 5:39am on the same morning, CCTV captured the offender and two unidentified men enter Deji Asian Supermarket at 15 Woolley Street in Dickson by forcing entry to the back wooden door.

49. The offender and one of the men took cigarettes valued between $1000 and$1500. The other unidentified man took about $350 in cash from the till. Damage to the lock on the door cost $100 to repair.

50. The offender is wearing a black hooded jacket with centre zip, black pants with small logo near left pocket, striped patterned Nike branded shoes, black and white Scream mask and gloves with reflective logo and wrist straps. The unidentified man is wearing a black hooded jacket with centre zip, black pants, black gloves and lighter coloured shoes with two dark lines down tongue. Incident 18: Taj Agra Indian Restaurant – Aggravated burglary (CC2022/10118) & Theft (CC2022/10127 – to be taken into account)

51. At about 8.45pm on 4 October 2022 Taj Agra Indian restaurant at 35 Woolley Street in Dickson stopped trading and was locked up. About 9am on 5 October 2022, staff returned and found the front door prised open and the business had been searched. This business does not have CCTV footage.

52. The restaurant owner Hawar Siddiq identified that about $175 in cash had been stolen. The cost to repair the door was $330.29.

Incident 19: Noodle Choice Dickson – Aggravated burglary (CC2022/10109)

53. About 9pm on 4 October 2022, Noodle Choice at 2/30-34 Antill Street in Dickson closed for the night and was locked up. About 10.45am on 5 October 2022, the owner returned and found the front door prised open and the business having been searched. Nothing was identified as taken. This business does not have CCTV.

Agreed facts – Series 4: SCC 319 of 2023 Incident 20: Belconnen Library – Aggravated burglary (CC2022/10112) & Theft (CC2022/10128 – to be taken into account)

54. About 10.48pm on 7 October 2022 CCTV captured the offender and an unidentified man inside the Belconnen Library at 12 Chandler Street in Belconnen. The offender and the unidentified man searched the library. They leave about 2 minutes after entering, with the unidentified man pushing a small grey digital safe containing other branch keys on a trolley.

55. The safe was valued at approximately $100. An office door was also damaged during the break in.

56. The offender is wearing a black hooded jacket with centre zip, black pants, black gloves with reflective logo and striped patterned shoes. The unidentified man is wearing a black hooded jacket with centre zip, black pants and black gloves.

Incident 21: Oporto Belconnen – Aggravated burglary (CC2022/10114 – to be taken into account)

57. About 1.07 am the following morning, the offender and an unidentified man used a tool to force entry to Oporto at 108 Emu Bank in Belconnen through the drive-through window. The offender climbed through the window with the help of the other man and then allowed access to the other man through the front doors.

58. Both men searched the business and gain access to the tills but do not take anything. About 4 minutes after entering both men leave through the front doors.

59. The offender is wearing a black hooded jacket with centre zip, black pants, black gloves with reflective logo and wrist straps and striped patterned Nike shoes. The unidentified man is wearing a black hooded jacket with centre zip and a tear in the left elbow, black pants, black gloves and dark shoes with three stripes on the side and a wave patterned sole.

60. Franchisee Lin Liu identified damage to the restaurant's drive through windows, a failing cabinet and cash drawer. The cost of these repairs was about $2299.

Incident 22: Woolworths Metro – Aggravated burglary (CC2022/10113 – to be taken into account)

61. About 1.22am on 8 October 2022, CCTV captured the offender enter Woolworths Metro at 1/6 Grazier Lane in Belconnen through a service window.

62. The offender prised open a till before letting in an unidentified man through the front doors. They entered the self-service checkout area and open two of the machines, a security staff member finds them inside the store at which point both immediately leave. They are inside the shop for about 1 and a half minutes.

63. The offender is wearing a black hooded jacket with centre zip, black pants, black gloves with a reflective logo and striped patterned Nike shoes. The unidentified man is wearing a black hooded jacket with a centre zip and a tear in the left elbow, black pants, black gloves and dark shoes with three stripes on the side.

Incident 23: Lighthouse Pub – Attempted aggravated burglary (CC2022/11828 – to be taken into account)

64. About 1.33am on 8 October 2022, the offender and an unidentified man attempted to force entry to the front door of Lighthouse Pub at 80 Emu Bank in Belconnen. About one minute later, an employee enters the dining room and the two men stop attempting to enter and leave.

65. The offender was wearing a hooded jacket, pants and gloves. The unidentified man was wearing a hooded jacket, pants and gloves.

66. The repairs to the front door cost $370. Incident 24: Stella’s by the Lake – Aggravated burglary (CC2022/10115– to be taken into account)

67. About 3:04am on the same morning, CCTV captured the offender and an unidentified man enter Stella's by the Lake at 1 Beissel Street in Belconnen. The offender and the unidentified man searched the business but did not take anything. The two men left about 2 minutes after entering.

68. The accused is wearing a black hooded jacket with centre zip, black pants, black gloves with reflective logo and striped patterned Nike shoes. The unidentified man is wearing a black hooded jacket with centre zip, black pants, black gloves and dark shoes with three stripes on the side.

Agreed facts – Series 5: SCC 320 of 2023 Incident 25: KFC Fyshwick – Aggravated burglary (CC2022/10116) & Theft (CC2022/10129 – to be taken into account)

69. About 12.19am on 10 October 2022, CCTV captured a wagon pulling up to KFC at 188- 205 Canberra Avenue in Fyshwick. At about 12:20am, the offender and an unidentified man forced entry through the front door using a crowbar and searched the business, taking about $1850 from the safe. About 7 minutes after entering the offender and the unidentified man leave the business.

70. The offender is wearing a black hooded jacket with centre zip, black pants, black gloves with reflective logo and striped patterned shoes. The unidentified man is wearing a black hooded jacket with a centre zip and buttons, black coloured pants and dark shoes with three stripes on the side and a waved patterned sole.

Incident 26: Metro Petrol Station – Aggravated burglary (CC2022/10117 – to be taken into account) & Theft (CC2022/10130 – to be taken into account)

71. About 3.30am on 10 October 2022, CCTV captured a white and grey Subaru Outback with silver roof racks and a small light bar on the front bumper enter the driveway of 41 Whyalla Street in Fyshwick. About 3.32am the offender and an unidentified man exit the driveway and walk in the direction of Metro Petroleum.

72. The offender was wearing a black hooded jacket with centre zip, black pants, black gloves with reflective logo and striped patterned shoes. The unidentified man was wearing a black hooded jacket with centre zip and buttons and a small tear in the left elbow, black coloured pants and dark shoes with three stripes on the side and wave patterned sole.

73. About 3.45am, the offender and the unidentified man forced entry to the front doors of Metro Petroleum at 51 Whyalla Street in Fyshwick. They searched the register area taking two draws containing about $10,000 worth of tobacco pouches and cigarettes and a till containing about $3,000. Damage to the front door was estimated to cost $7000. About 1 minute after entry the two men leave the store.

74. About 3.45am, the offender and the unidentified man return to 41 Whyalla Street, carrying two drawers and a till between them.

Agreed facts – Series 6: SCC 321 of 2023. Incident 27: FishCo Fish Markets – Aggravated burglary (CC2022/11829) & Theft (CC2022/11831 – to be taken into account)

75. At about 12:00am on 14 October 2022, the offender and an unidentified man forced entry to the front doors of FishCo Fish Market at 19 Dalby Street in Fyshwick.

76. The offender is wearing a black hooded jacket with centre zip, black pants, black gloves and striped Nike patterned shoes. The unidentified man is wearing a black hooded jacket with centre zip and buttons, blue pants with red logo down the right leg and dark shoes with three stripes on side and a weave patterned sole.

77. CCTV then captured the two men force entry to multiple safes under the counter. About three minutes after entering the store the two accused and unidentified man leave.

78. Inside the safes were staff pay packets containing $2380 cash. The cost to replace the two damaged safes was $562.14 plus installation.

Incident 28: Hala Poultry Fyshwick – Aggravated burglary (CC2022/11830 – to be taken into account) & Theft (CC2022/11832 – to be taken into account)

79. About 12.15am on the same morning, CCTV captured the offender and an unidentified man inside Halal Poultry at 39 Mildura Street in Fyshwick.

80. The offender is wearing a black hooded jacket with centre zip, black pants with logo near left pocket, gloves with wrist straps and striped Nike patterned shoes. The unidentified man is wearing a black hooded jacket with centre zip and buttons, pants and dark shoes with three stripes on side and a wave patterned sole.

81. The offender forced open the tills and takes the cash. The amount stolen from the tills and the office was about $2000. About three minutes after entering the two men leave the business.

82. The next day, the shop director arrived to find the office drawers broken, and at the front door glass cracked.

Nature and circumstances of the offending

83. I consider the nature and circumstances of the offending by identifying the features of the conduct engaged in by the offender. The offences carry substantial maximum penalties which provide a ‘yardstick’.

84. In R v Elphick [2021] ACTSC 9 Murrell CJ set out factors relevant to assessment of the objective seriousness of an offence of aggravated burglary at [113] as follows: (a) The time at which the offence was committed and whether it was likely that members of the public would witness it. (b) For offences of aggravated burglary, whether only one or both circumstances of aggravation were present (in company and in possession of an offensive weapon) and, if the offender was in company, the number of co-offenders with whom he was in company. (c) Whether the offence occurred at commercial or residential premises. Generally, the invasion of residential property is more serious as involves an invasion of the sanctity of the home. A related consideration is whether the entry was to a garage or the residential house. (d) The means of entry. Entry via a partially open door is less objectively serious than forced entry, particularly if the force causes damage. (e) The degree of planning. Most of the offences involved minimal planning, but those involving the use of previously stolen garage remote devices to access premises and the use of implements to gain entry involved a greater degree of planning. (f) Whether the victim was vulnerable. (g) Whether any force, threat or gratuitous conduct was associated with the offence.

85. The extent of damage and goods stolen varied across the burglaries and thefts. A degree of force, sometimes effected with a crowbar, was used to effect entry to the commercial premises.

86. The offences were committed ‘in company’ though the exact forensic and specific role of each co-offender is unclear. On any view the conduct was deliberate and sustained. It was not especially sophisticated; reflected in the lack of ‘success’ as a result of some of the conduct, noting in several instances no items were stolen after the offenders entered the premises.

87. During incident 1, 5, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 19, 21, 22, 23 and 24 there was no known goods and/or cash stolen. However, damage to the premises was nonetheless occasioned.

88. Across incident 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 17, 18, 20, 25, 26, 27 and 28, the value of the items stolen varied in value from a safe worth $100, up to higher valued items such as $6,000 in cash and $10,000 worth of cigarettes.

89. Incidences 21 and 26 involved repair costs incurred by the businesses that were not insignificant ($2,229 for Oporto Belconnen and $7,000 front door of Metro Petrol station).

90. Incidences 9 and 27 involved theft of staff wages, and a tip jar (respectively). The cost to these businesses of the conduct was in the thousands.

91. During incident 22 a staff member was present though they were not harmed nor overtly threatened.

92. Plainly the offending was repetitive in nature and involved numerous commercial businesses. The conduct, I am satisfied, required some planning. The offending comprehends a significant degree of criminality because of the significant number of offences which occurred over a period and the undoubted inconvenience and cost involved to the victims.

Subjective circumstances

93. Several reports comprehensively canvassed the offender’s subjective background and circumstances. They included a pre-sentence report and intensive correction order assessment report (ICOAR) dated 7 February 2026, a supplementary ICOAR dated 23 June 2025, and another dated 10 July 2026, as well as a report by Ms Vannessa Edwige dated 27 June 2024. From that material the offender’s subjective circumstances can be summarised as follows.

94. The offender is a 49-year-old Wiradjuri man born on country in Cowra, NSW. He is one of five children. He was raised primarily by his grandparents due to his father working away from the family and his mother’s alcoholism and untreated significant mental health issues. The relationship between his parents involved alcohol misuse and domestic violence. The offender’s mother died in 2025.

95. The offender’s grandfather was a respected Elder. The offender described him as a positive role model and a tribal man, with strong connection to country, culture and community.

96. The offender was placed in foster care at age 11 years after his grandfather passed away and he suffered physical abuse at the hands of his mother. His schooling was consequently disrupted. The offender was given his first drink of alcohol when he was six years old. He began drinking alcohol in earnest at 14 years of age, commenced marijuana use when he was 16 years of age and began using heroin at 21 years of age. The offender identified that his substance use became problematic quickly.

97. [redacted]

98. The offender has four children from a relationship which has now spanned 30 years. Together they have 10 grandchildren.

99. The offender’s eldest daughter died in 2017 in tragic and traumatic circumstances. [redacted]. The offender relapsed and began using heroin after this having achieved sobriety for a significant period.

100. Amongst his history of poly-substance use, the offender reported both abstinence and increased usage according to stressful periods of his life. The offender has been engaged with Bivudal treatment since 2021 and more recently had attended Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotic Anonymous meetings weekly and had a sponsor to assist him. In February 2025 urinalysis returned negative results.

101. The offender reported that he had grappled with his addictions and substance misuse by attending rehabilitation facilities over the years with mixed success. The offender has been employed in various position over his life in carpentry and construction as well as eight years in the forestry industry. The offender has volunteered with Yeddung Mura Aboriginal Corporation since 2019 assisting with art programs and yarning circles.

102. Ms Edwidge diagnosed the offender with complex post-traumatic stress disorder, substance use disorder (opioid use disorder in sustained remission on maintenance therapy); and prolonged grief disorder. The offender has also recently been diagnosed with heart disease.

103. Ms Edwige recorded that adverse childhood experiences such as those the offender has experienced including early exposure to alcohol misuse and family violence and child sexual abuse can severely affect a child’s social and emotional well-being. She noted the offender’s deep resentment about his disconnection from family and culture in the years he was in out of home care because of his mother’s inability to care for him.

104. Ms Edwige concluded that the offender has experienced complex developmental trauma arising from his “profound history of adverse childhood experiences”. She noted that he has prolonged and complex grief “that has persisted to a clinically significant degree” since the death of his daughter and which contributes to his depressive symptomology. The offender continues to experience distressing flash backs and intrusive thoughts about his daughter’s death which Ms Edwige considered is causing him psychological harm requiring therapeutic intervention.

105. At the sentencing conversation with the Elders panel the offender demonstrated significant insight into the challenges which have led him to engage in the criminal justice system. It was obvious to the Elders that grief, especially in relation to the death of his daughter, has had a profound and severe effect on the offender. The offender lives with a deep sense of responsibility for her death and experiences intense distress and emotional pain arising from her loss and the circumstances of her death. He had participated more recently in grief counselling which he found to be greatly beneficial. The offender and his long-term partner have each struggled with the effect of the loss of their child and their relationship has been challenged by it.

106. The offender presented before the Elders panel as motivated and committed to his rehabilitation. His work in the community, particularly his contribution to education with his significant artistic talent, was commended by the panel members. The offender presented the panel with several educational pamphlets that he had designed for clients of Yeddung Mura and he reported that he was closely connected to men group. He had enrolled in educational courses through Yeddung Mura and had served as a mentor to younger clients.

107. The offender expressed becoming weary of the effects of substance addiction in his life and a desire for sustained reform so that he could be present in the lives of his children and in his community. Whilst he acknowledged that his sobriety was not easy, the offender was able to identify the worth and value that he obtained through his work in the community and his connection with others facing similar challenges to him.

108. Such was the offender’s insight and commitment to reform that the prosecution was initially supportive of an adjournment of the proceedings after the sentencing conversation with the Elders for the offender to continue his efforts to demonstrate his strong prospects of rehabilitation. Unfortunately for the offender and the community, he was unable to maintain his strong record of bail compliance, and he was returned to custody for fresh offending on 8 December 2026.

109. The offender commenced the SOLARIS therapeutic program in custody on 24 February 2026, though “self-exited” from the program on 30 June 2026 approximately 13 weeks prior to graduation. Urinalysis conducted upon the offender’s re-entry to custody confirmed the presence of opiates and Buvidal. In July 2026, the Ngunnawal Bush Healing Farm (NBHF) confirmed the offender’s suitability for their program.

110. The updated ICOAR completed in July 2026 concluded that the offender was suitable for a community service work condition and an intensive correction order (ICO). The author noted that whilst he presented with “notable risk factors and a history of non-compliance these factors are largely dynamic and potentially responsive to structured intervention. His current engagement in treatment and expressed motivation support his potential suitability for community-based engagement”.

Responsibility, remorse and rehabilitation

111. The offender disclosed to Ms Edwige that after he was found guilty for the Series 2 offences he decided to plead guilty to the remaining offences because “it was carrying on too long”.

112. The offender reported that he was “sorry for the losses and disruption that had been experienced by the businesses that had been targeted”. He expressed empathy for the businesses and their owners, reflecting on his own experience of being a victim of burglary. He expressed similar sentiment to the Elders panel at the sentencing conversation.

113. The offender maintained to the report authors that he has a strong desire to continue to engage with supports that will enhance his wellbeing and his capacity for sobriety. The offender readily identified that his drug use has had a severe impact on his psychological health and has had a direct correlation with his offending history.

114. The offender consistently reported that connection to culture, kinship (family), and country positively sustain him. The offender is rightly proud of his Wiradjuri family history and presented as genuinely seeking to be a positive figure in his children and grandchildren’s lives. Ms Edwige reiterated that the offender’s connection to culture and community are positive factors which can actively promote his rehabilitation. This is consistent with the progress the offender made when he was closely engaged with community supports from which he derived pride, satisfaction and meaning. Ms Edwige also acknowledged his personal motivation for reform and his family support.

115. The services who have supported the offender in the community confirmed his overwhelmingly positive participation.

116. Plainly the offender’s prospects of rehabilitation are closely connected to his capacity for sobriety. He has demonstrated that when he is abstinent he has the capacity to make a significant and positive contribution to our community in a meaningful and powerful way, in particular through his art. His drug use is undoubtedly influenced by the cumulative effect of the trauma he has experienced as a child and as an adult.

117. Having heard directly from the offender in the sentencing conversation, consistent with observations made by report authors, I am satisfied that the offender has demonstrated remorse.

118. I accept the unchallenged conclusion of Ms Edwige that the offender’s (largely untreated) mental health impairments which arise from his adverse childhood experiences significantly affected his decision-making, judgement, behaviour and emotional regulation at the time of the offending and over the course of his life. The offender’s drug use as an adult which was clearly a driver for the offending is tightly intertwined with his profoundly disadvantaged childhood.

119. The prosecution accepted that giving “full weight” to the offender’s disadvantaged childhood experience should see a substantial reduction in his moral culpability: Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 at [44].

120. The offender has promise for reform. To realise that promise he will require significant and consistent support. Ms Edwige recommended the following: (a) That the offender be referred to a culturally responsive trauma informed psychologist to address his trauma and grief to provide the offender with skills to assist manage his trauma and grief symptomatology, (b) That the offender continue to access weekly Narcotics and Alcoholic Annonymous meetings; and (c) That the offender remain on the Buvidal Treatment Program until medically supervised to cease.

Pleas of guilty

121. With respect to series 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 the offender pleaded guilty on 13 November 2024 after criminal case conference. Trial dates were vacated.

122. Considering that three separate trials were necessary for all the offending to be dealt with, it is unsurprising that the prosecution readily conceded that the utilitarian value of the offender’s pleas of guilty was significant notwithstanding that they came after criminal case conference.

123. With respect to series 1 and series 3 – 6 a 20% reduction is appropriate in light of the significant utilitarian value of the offender’s pleas of guilty.

Criminal history

124. The offender has a significant criminal history with similar offences. The offender has served multiple terms of full-time imprisonment accounting for a substantial period of his adult life. The offender’s criminal history disentitles him to leniency.

Time in custody

125. The offender has spent 371 days in pre-sentence custody in relation to these offences which will be reflected in the sentence I impose.

Current sentencing practise

126. The prosecution tendered a table of comparative sentences (Annexure A). I have had regard to those outcomes.

Totality

127. The offender must be sentenced for multiple offences. In O’Brien v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 47 at [26], the Court of Appeal summarised the relevant principles in relation to the fixing of sentences for multiple offences, stating in part: When sentencing for multiple offences, the sentencing judge must fix an appropriate sentence for each offence and then consider questions of accumulation or concurrence, as well as totality: Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 at 623–624.

128. There is a need to avoid a perception that the offender has received a ‘discount’ for engaging in numerous criminal acts. The Court of Appeal observed in R v Carberry; R v Deng; Carberry v The King [2023] ACTCA 32 at [92]: There is no single correct approach to the structuring of multiple sentences, and the totality principle can be implemented in a variety of acceptable ways: Le Clair v The Queen; Achanfuo-Yeboah v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 19, at [56]. In determining questions of accumulation or concurrence, his Honour was required to look at the totality of the criminal behaviour and consider whether the aggregate is “just and appropriate” for all the offences: Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59. A sentence should not be ‘crushing’ in that it induces a sense of hopelessness and destroys prospects of rehabilitation, or too severe as a result or accumulation (noting the severity of a sentence may increase at a greater rate than the increase in its length): R v MAK, R v MSK [2006] NSWCCA 381; 167 A Crim R 159 at [16]- [17]. Against these considerations, a sentence should not lead to a perception that there is no difference between a person who commits one or two offences and a person who commits six or seven offences, or that an offender is being offered a discount for multiple offending: O’Brien v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 47 at [26]. Making two counts wholly concurrent may reveal error in that to do so fails to take account of the differences in the conduct which were the subject of punishment on each count: Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; 194 CLR 610 at [49].

129. These observations are pertinent given I am to sentence the offender for a substantial number of like offences. The requirement to take other offences into account when sentencing the offender for some of the charges elevates the criminality involved and will result in a more severe sentence in relation to those offences. Whilst there are multiple offences, the offending occurred over a relatively short period between 28 September 2022 and 14 October 2022. Series 2 occurred within days of Series 1. Series 3 captures offences which occurred on 3, 4 and 5 October 2022. Series 4, 5 and 6 occurred on 7, 10 and 14 October 2022 respectively.

130. Section 33(1)(c) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act requires consideration of whether the offences form part of a course of conduct consisting of a series of criminal acts of the same or similar character. The Court of Appeal in R v White [2023] ACTCA 35 explained at [58]: Section 33(1)(c) recognises the “course of conduct” or “one transaction” principle, described by Owen JA in Royer v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 139 at [22]: At its heart, the one transaction principle recognises that, where there is an interrelationship between the legal and factual elements of two or more offences with which an offender has been charged, care needs to be taken so that the offender is not punished twice (or more often) for what is essentially the same criminality. The interrelationship may be legal, in the sense that it arises from the elements of the crimes. It may also be factual, because of a temporal or geographical link or the presence of other circumstances compelling the conclusion that the crimes arise out of substantially the same act, omission or occurrences.

131. In White the Court endorsed R v Jarrold [2010] NSWCCA 69 at [56] per Howie J (the other members of the Court agreeing) when his Honour observed that the course of conduct principle does not automatically require concurrency of sentences: …[S]entences are not to be made concurrent simply because of the similarity of the conduct or because it may be seen as part of the one course of criminal conduct: see generally R v XX [2009] NSWCCA 115. The question to be asked is, can the sentence for one offence encompass the criminality of all the offences?

132. In White the Court determined that substantial concurrency between offences described as a “spree” (offending which occurred over 3 days) combined with leniency applied to the length of some of the sentences, failed to adequately recognise that the conduct effected separate victims resulting in a sentence which was “manifestly inadequate.”

133. In Nguyen v The Queen [2016] HCA 17; 256 CLR 656, Gageler, Nettle and Gordon JJ explained at [64]: Ultimately the object of the sentencing exercise is to impose individual sentences that, so far as possible, accurately reflect the gravity of each offence while at the same time rendering a total effective sentence which, so far as possible, accurately reflects the totality of criminality comprised in the totality of offences. That is an exercise which involves a significant measure of discretionary moderation and accumulation of individual sentences according to the particular circumstances of each case. Up to a point, therefore, it is something about which sentencing judges might take different views of which neither could be said to be wrong. Generally speaking, however, the imposition of less severe individual sentences may call for a greater degree of accumulation in· order to reflect total criminality whereas more severe individual sentences may necessitate a greater degree of concurrency.

134. Bearing in mind that guidance and those principles, in my view the offences which occurred as part of the same series should be entirely concurrent. There must be a degree of cumulation (though series 2 will be entirely cumulative on series 1) as between each series in recognition of the separate nature of the conduct. The prosecutor accepted that a substantial degree of concurrency will be required overall, to avoid a ‘crushing’ sentence.

Determination

135. The only just and appropriate outcome for the offending is a sentence of imprisonment. The offending was an extensive criminal enterprise which effected numerous businesses in our community. A reduction in the offender’s moral culpability moderates the weight of punishment, denunciation and general deterrence to a substantial degree. The offender’s disadvantaged childhood experience, which explains his offending and has resulted in significant and complex untreated trauma, is at the same time a basis for caution with respect to his prospect of rehabilitation. Additionally, while ever the offender’s psychological challenges remain unaddressed (noting as I have that they are intertwined with his substance misuse) he will be at risk of re-offending.

136. Accordingly, a consideration of the effect of the offender’s disadvantaged background and his criminal history reveals that the sentence imposed must also reflect the need to protect of the community and deter the offender from such conduct in the future.

137. The end result will be a period of imprisonment for longer than 4 years. I remain of the view that the imposition of concurrent sentences which result in a total period of imprisonment longer than 4 years necessarily rules out an ICO because of s 11(3) Crimes (Sentencing) Act; Warne v The Queen [2022] ACTCA 35; The Queen v Low [2022] ACTCA 59. The kind of ‘intensive’ support offered to the offender under an ICO is precisely what is required to give effect to his promise of rehabilitation.

138. The prosecution accepted that a lengthy period of parole supervision was in the offender’s interest (and in the community’s interest) and that this was a matter where there was justification for non-parole period outside the ‘usual’ range. It would greatly benefit the offender to be supported upon his release to engage with dedicated First Nations support services in the community. The progress the offender was able to make in the community whilst on bail demonstrates that this is critical to promote his rehabilitation, which will in turn enhance community safety. The need for a structured regime of support and the conclusion in the material that the offender is capable of engaging in such a regime, as well as consideration of the factors which influence the setting of a non-parole period (as to which see R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9 [92] – [104]) in my view warrants the imposition of a non-parole period outside the ‘usual’ range.

139. For Series 1 (SCC 40 of 2023): (a) The starting point for aggravated burglary (CC2022/10094) is 3 years of imprisonment reduced to 2 years, 4 months and 24 days.

140. For series 3 (SCC 318 of 2023): (a) The starting point for aggravated burglary (CC2022/10104) is 18 months of imprisonment reduced to 14 months and 12 days of imprisonment. (b) The starting point for aggravated burglary (CC2022/10105) is 24 months of imprisonment reduced to 1 year 7 months 6 days of imprisonment (c) The starting point for aggravated burglary (CC2022/10107) is 18 months of imprisonment reduced to 14 months and 12 days of imprisonment (d) The starting point for aggravated burglary (CC2022/10106) is 18 months of imprisonment reduced to 14 months and 12 days of imprisonment (e) The starting point for aggravated burglary (CC2022/10110) is 18 months of imprisonment reduced to 14 months and 12 days of imprisonment (f) The starting point for aggravated burglary (SCCAN2023/57) is 18 months of imprisonment reduced to 14 months and 12 days of imprisonment (g) The starting point for aggravated burglary (CC2022/10108) is 24 months of imprisonment reduced to 1 year 7 months 6 days of imprisonment (h) The starting point for aggravated burglary (CC2022/10118) is 24 months of imprisonment reduced to 1 year 7 months 6 days of imprisonment (i) The starting point for aggravated burglary (CC2022/10109) is 18 months of imprisonment reduced to 14 months and 12 days of imprisonment

141. For series 4 (SCC 319 of 2023): (a) The starting point for aggravated burglary (CC2022/10112) is 28 months of imprisonment reduced to 1 year 10 months 12 days of imprisonment

142. For series 5 (SCC 320 of 2023) (a) The starting point for aggravated burglary (CC2022/10116) is 24 months of imprisonment reduced to 1 year 7 months 6 days of imprisonment

143. For Series 6 (SCC 321 of 2023) (a) The starting point for aggravated burglary (CC2022/11829) is 24 months of imprisonment reduced to 1 year 7 months 6 days of imprisonment

Orders

144. For those reasons I make the following orders: (1) Series 1 (SCC 40 of 2023): a. For the charge of aggravated burglary (CC2022/10094), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 2 years 4 months 24 days of imprisonment, commencing from 1 September 2025 and ending on 24 January 2028. (2) Series 2 (SCC 317 of 2023): b. For the charge of aggravated burglary (CC2022/10102) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 18 months of imprisonment, commencing from 24 January 2028 and ending on 23 July 2029. c. For the charge of theft (CC2022/10122), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 12 months of imprisonment, commencing from 24 January 2028 and ending on 23 January 2029. d. For the charge of aggravated burglary (CC2022/10103) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 18 months of imprisonment, commencing from 24 January 2028 and ending on 23 July 2029. e. For the charge of theft (CC2022/10123), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 12 months of imprisonment, commencing from 24 January 2028 and ending on 23 January 2029. (3) Series 3: (SCC 318 of 2023) f. For the charge of aggravated burglary (CC2022/10104) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 14 months and 12 days of imprisonment, commencing from 12 May 2029 and ending on 23 July 2030. g. For the charge of aggravated burglary (CC2022/10105) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 1 year 7 months 6 days commencing from 18 December 2028 and ending on 23 July 2030 h. For the charge of aggravated burglary (CC2022/10106) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 14 months and 12 days of imprisonment, commencing from 12 May 2029 and ending on 23 July 2030. i. For the charge of aggravated burglary (CC2022/10110) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 14 months and 12 days of imprisonment, commencing from 12 May 2029 and ending on 23 July 2030. j. For the charge of aggravated burglary (SCCAN2023/57) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 14 months and 12 days of imprisonment, commencing from 12 May 2029 and ending on 23 July 2030. k. For the charge of aggravated burglary (CC2022/10108) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 1 year 7 months 6 days of imprisonment, commencing from 18 December 2028 and ending on 23 July 2030. l. For the charge of aggravated burglary (CC2022/10118) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 1 year 7 months 6 days of imprisonment, commencing from 18 December 2028 and ending on 23 July 2030. m. For the charge of aggravated burglary (CC2022/10109) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 14 months and 12 days of imprisonment, commencing from 12 May 2029 and ending on 23 July 2030. (4) Series 4: (SCC 319 of 2023) n. For the charge of aggravated burglary (CC2022/10112) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 1 year 10 months 12 days of imprisonment, commencing from 11 September 2029 and ending on 22 July 2031 (5) Series 5: SCC 320 of 2023 o. For the charge of aggravated burglary (CC2022/10116) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 1 year 7 months 6 days of imprisonment commencing from 16 June 2030 and ending on 21 January 2032 (6) Series 6: SCC 321 of 2023 p. For the charge of aggravated burglary (CC2022/11829) the offender is convicted and sentenced to 1 year 7 months 6 days of imprisonment, commencing on 16 February 2031 and ending on 21 September 2032 (7) The total sentence imposed is 7 years and 21 days of imprisonment. (8) The non-parole period will start on 1 September 2025 and end on 1 December 2028. (9) Pursuant to s 67 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act, I recommend to the Sentence Administration Board (SAB) that the recommendations made in the report provided by Ms Edwige be given effect in any grant of parole and for that purpose direct that a copy of the report be provided to the SAB.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and forty-four [144] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Justice Taylor Associate: O Williams Date: 9 September 2026 Annexure A: Comparative sentence table Citation Objective Features Subjective Features Sentence R v Hall (No 2) A few hours later, the offender was armed with a Criminal History • Attempted burglary (2020) ACTSC 63 tomahawk and kicked down the door of a Liquorland Significant criminal history, mostly to do (SCCAN2020/24) – 10 months store in Chisholm. At the time there was one other with driving motor vehicles. imprisonment 1 December 2020 person present, they removed an empty cash register • Dishonestly drive or ride in a drawer and took 4 bottles of alcohol. Subjective Features motor vehicle without consent Elkaim J Half an hour later, the offender drove to Farmers Offender is of Aboriginal descent, had (CC2019/1909) – 3 months Daughter Café in Yarralumla, kicked the glass door a negative upbringing, his father was imprisonment so it broke, and stole $400 from the register. abusive, has a 4 year old daughter who • Aggravated burglary with intent to is in the care of CYPS, began drinking steal (CC2019/1911) – 12 months The offender stole a Hyundai Sante Fe in Farrer, the and using illicit substances from imprisonment offender and a colleague who was following in the around 14 years of age, offender was • Theft (CC2019/1912) – 2 stolen i30 passed a BMW X5 outside an address in excluded from school during year 10 months imprisonment O’Malley. The offender entered the BMW, which the and has problems with literacy and • Burglary with intent to owner saw, a scuffle subsequently occurred and the numeracy, also experiences mental steal (SCCAN2020/25) – offender swung at the owner with the tomahawk health problems. 12 months imprisonment causing lacerations to forearm and armpit. The • Theft (CC2019/1914) – 2 offender drove away. Rehabilitation months imprisonment On a later date, the offender stole a Holden He has been assessed as having a high • Dishonestly take motor vehicle Commodore. risk of general re-offending. He is still without consent (CC2019/3846) – 2 Objective Seriousness a young man and prospects of months imprisonment The attack involving the tomahawk was assessed as rehabilitation must be taken into • Attempt to take motor vehicle above medium severity. The balance of the offences account. Thus far he has failed to was assessed as falling below the medium objective without consent severity. rehabilitate himself, despite being (SCCAN2019/3760) – 2 months Plea given the opportunity to do so. imprisonment 20% discount. Nevertheless, prospects of • Assault occasioning actual bodily rehabilitation cannot be written off. harm (SCCAN2019/3761) – 19 [22] months imprisonment • Dishonestly drive a motor vehicle without consent (CC2019/3848) – 2 months imprisonment

Aggregate sentence: 3 years and 5 months imprisonment. • Non-Parole Period: 22 months. R v McCurley (2020) Charges: Criminal History • Aggravated burglary – 2 years, 9 ACTSC 140 • 5 x counts of aggravated burglary; Offender has an extremely extensive months imprisonment • 1 x count burglary; criminal history including convictions for • Aggravated burglary – 2 years, 4 13 March 2020 • 2 x counts of attempted aggravated burglary by burglary, theft, taking and driving motor months imprisonment joint commission; vehicles without consent and other • Theft – 6 months imprisonment Burns J driving offences. • 3 x counts of theft including one by joint • Aggravated burglary – 2 years, 4 commission; months imprisonment Subjective Features • 2 x counts of riding in a motor vehicle without • Attempted aggravated burglary – 2 Previous compliance with community-consent; years, 4 months imprisonment based orders has been poor, reported a • 1 x count of driving a motor vehicle without • Aggravated burglary – 2 years, 4 traumatic and chaotic upbringing, consent; months imprisonment parents separated as a child, left school • 1 x count of taking a motor vehicle without • Theft – 9 months imprisonment prior to completing year 9, history of consent; • Aggravated burglary – 2 years polysubstance abuse commencing at 10 • 2 x counts of causing damage to property by imprisonment years of age, ongoing use of heroin and fire by joint commission; • Theft – 6 months imprisonment methamphetamine, significant history of • 1 x count of damaging property by joint • Attempted aggravated burglary – 19 mental health issues, diagnosed with commission; and months imprisonment schizophrenia, depression at PTSD. • 1 x count of damaging property. Facts Risk of Reoffending • Riding in a motor vehicle without Between 15 – 18 March 2019 the offender gained entry Assessed as a high risk of general re- consent – 4 months imprisonment to a secure maintenance shed at Goodwin Village offending. • Burglary – 16 months imprisonment Aged Care in Monash by forcing open an external key • Damaging property by fire – 15 months safe. The offender used a Toyota HiAce Van belonging Rehabilitation imprisonment to the facility. (OS – lower range) Prospects for rehabilitation considered • Riding in a motor vehicle without as guarded. consent – 4 months imprisonment Between 12:15-2:50am on 19 March 2019 the offender • Damaging property by fire – 15 months an unidentified male gained entry to the Monash Day imprisonment Club, a building within the Goodwin Village Aged Care. • Damage property – 9 months The offender and other male stole two Apple iPads, imprisonment two Nokia phones and vehicle keys. • Damage property – 9 months imprisonment Between 4:30pm 16 March 2019 and 9:10am 23 March • Driving a motor vehicle without 2019, the offender was the passenger in a stolen consent – 5 months imprisonment Volkswagen Polo, that was taken from an underground • Taking a motor vehicle without consent carpark in Phillip. – 6 months imprisonment

At approximately 3:05am on 23 March 2019, the Aggregate Sentence: 6 years, 3 months offender and another male attempted to gain entry to a imprisonment café in Lyneham, damage was caused to the back door Non-Parole Period: 3 years, 4 months. entrance. At approximately 3:05am on 23 March 2019, the offender and another person reversed the stolen Volkswagen at speed, into the front door of the Lyneham Post Office. The vehicle drove forward and reversed into the door again which caused substantial damage. Both men then exited the car, entered the post office, they searched under and around the counter area. They picked up a parcel and computer tower and left.

At approximately 3:07am on 23 March 2019, the offenders attempted to gain entry to the Lyneham Newsagency, using a motor vehicle as a battering ram. The doorframe was damaged, and the door came off its railings.

At approximately 3:30am on 23 March 2019, the Volkswagen was driven into the Aquarius Car Wash in Mitchell. The offenders exited the vehicle, approached the gate, the car was then reversed into the front of the security gate, the offenders attached a strap to the car and gate, drove the car forward, however the straps did not hold and came apart. The offenders then used a sledgehammer to attempt to break through the door, 10 minutes they attempted to enter using a shovel and socket wrench. Five minutes later they returned and attempted to gain entry using a shovel and sledgehammer, they gained entry searched for a number of seconds and left without taking anything.

Around 4:25am on 23 March 2019, the offender and co-offender used the Volkswagen to ram the door of Floorworld in Fyshwick. The warehouse was then ransacked, and a number of items were stolen.

At approximately 4:36am, the Volkswagen drove into the gate of Pickles Auctions in Fyshwick. The vehicle was driven into gate, striking it, then vehicle was then reversed before driving at the gate at speed. The offenders exited the vehicle and were looking into vehicles, at one point one of the offenders smashed the glass door to a shed, and then ransacked the shed.

Between 8:15 – 8:25am on 23 March 2019, the offenders set fire to the Volkswagen.

At approximately 1:31am on 24 March 2019, the offender was a passenger in Jaguar Land Rover which collided with the roller door of an underground carpark to a residential apartment complex. The vehicle was unlawfully taken during a burglary at a caryard. The offenders then set fire to the Jaguar.

At approximately 11:21pm on 26 March 2019, the offenders entered an underground carpark in Phillip, gained entry to a vehicle and drove it out of the carpark. When the vehicle was later located, it was observed that the ignition had been tampered with, enabling it to be started without the key.

At approximately 7.23am on 28 March 2019, this vehicle was used to ram a garage door at a unit complex in Curtin, ACT, causing significant damage which was quoted at $9,237.

Plea 20% discount. R v Ayling (2019) Charges Criminal History Burglary – 18 months imprisonment ACTSC 229 • Burglary Has 3 significant matters on his adult Theft – 12 months imprisonment • Theft criminal history [28]. Aggravate burglary – 22 months 20 August 2019 • Aggravated burglary (additional offence of theft to imprisonment be taken into account) Subjective Features Murrell CJ Offender is Aboriginal, his parents Aggregate Sentence: 37 months / 3 years, Facts separated before he was born, reported a 1 month imprisonment At about 4:43am on 16 January 2021, the offender chaotic upbringing, with frequent approached the front door of the United Service relocations, witnessed domestic Non-Parole Period: 18 months, 14 days Station Fyshwick, carrying a steel pole. The offender violence, substance abuse and lack of used the police to punch six holes in the glass door. He supervision, long history of then kicked at the door until the glass shattered. The polysubstance abuse. offender piled numerous cigarette packets into a tub, and then ran carrying the tub, a minute later he Risk of Reoffending returned and put more in the tub. As he was leaving, he Assessed as medium risk of reoffending. picked up a milk crate containing other items. A total of 214 packets of cigarette were stolen at a value of about $5,486.60.

At about 7:30pm on 18 October 2018, the offender filled a car with fuel to the value of $50 at the Coles Express Service Station in Curtin. He drove away without paying. At about 10:30pm on 8 December 2018, the offender and another man approached the loading dock at the Calwell Shopping Centre. They later approached the locked glass sliding doors and used their bodyweight to force the doors open. They then repeatedly slammed their bodies against the roller doors of the BWS Liquor Store within the Centre, causing damage. The offender then used a hammer to smash two of the store’s glass windows, entered the store, forced two tills out of their settings and took them.

Plea 25% R v Hodge (2017) Charges Criminal History Burglary – 18 months ACTS 373 • Dishonestly riding in a motor vehicle without the The offender has an unfortunately poor criminal imprisonment Burglary – 18 owner’s consent history as an adult particularly in relation to robbery, months imprisonment Theft 25 July 2017 • 3 x counts aggravated burglary burglary and driving or riding in vehicles without – 1 month imprisonment • Minor theft consent [14] Burglary – 18 months Mossop J imprisonment Dishonestly riding a vehicle without the owners consent – 3 months imprisonment Facts Subjective Features On 15 March 2017 the offender drove in a motor Parents separated as a child, exposed to alcohol and Aggregate Sentence: 2 years, 5 vehicle which was driven by his sister. The vehicle had substance abuse, physical and mental months’ imprisonment been stolen on 8 March 2017 from Turner. At the time abuse/violence by mothers that he rode with his sister he knew that the vehicle had been stolen.

The three aggravated burglaries all occurred on the morning of 18 March 2017. The first was a burglary of the post office located at Bentham Street in Yarralumla. The offender travelled there with his sister Ms Campbell and her boyfriend Rodney John Wray. About 3:05 am Mr Wray forced entry into the premises by using a chisel to fracture the glass in the door. The men entered the premises. The offender failed to find any items to steal and left the premises.

At about 3:20 am the trio attended the Shell service-station in Curtin. Mr Wray affected entry into the premises using a chisel to crack the glass of the premises and kicking the remaining glass out. The two men entered the premises. While on the premises the offender removed a quantity of “Oak” flavoured-milk, The men exited the premises.

At 3:25 am the trio attended Sassy Hair, Brierly Street, Weston. The men forced entry and entered the premises. Once inside the men removed items including “Hairfunk” branded hair-straighteners and “Keune” brand liquid-hair products. They then exited the premises.

Plea 25% discount