//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2026] ACTSC 176
Supreme Court of the ACT
2026-05-29
Kelly AJ
Original judgment source is linked above.
Source: the ACT Courts (www.courts.act.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: DPP v Whitfield (No 2) Citation: [2026] ACTSC 176 Hearing Date: 5 May 2026 Decision Date: 29 May 2026 Before: Kelly AJ Decision: (1) On the charge of aggravated burglary contrary to s 312(b) of the Criminal Code 2002 (CAN 6757/2024), you are convicted and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment, commencing on 30 June 2024 and expiring on 29 June 2028. (2) On the charge of aggravated robbery contrary to s 310(b) of the Criminal Code 2002 (CAN 6756/2024), you are convicted and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment, commencing on 30 June 2024 and expiring on 29 June 2028. Both sentences will be served wholly concurrently with each other. (3) I impose a non-parole period of two years and three months which will expire on 29 September this year (2026). Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Aggravated burglary – Aggravated robbery – Where the offender does not remember the offending – mental health conditions – Where the offender was found guilty following a Judge-alone trial – Criminal history Legislation Cited: Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 310(b), 312(b) Cases Cited: DPP v Whitfield [2025] ACTSC 425 Parties: ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Andrew Whitfield (Offender) Representation: Counsel M Lucero (DPP) S Jerome (Offender) Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions J Silk (Offender) File Number: SCC 417 of 2024 KELLY AJ: Introduction
Andrew Whitfield, you are to be sentenced for one count of aggravated burglary contrary to s 312(b) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (CAN 6757/2024), and one count of aggravated robbery contrary to s 310(b) of the Criminal Code 2002 (CAN 6756/2024), both committed on 30 June 2024 at the Old Canberra Inn in Lyneham.
The maximum penalty for aggravated burglary is 20 years’ imprisonment, 2,000 penalty units, or both. The maximum penalty for aggravated robbery is 25 years’ imprisonment, 2,500 penalty units, or both.
After a judge-alone trial, you were found guilty of both offences on 18 September 2025.
The facts of the offending were canvassed extensively in my judgement of DPP v Whitfield [2025] ACTSC 425 handed down on 18 September 2025 and it is not necessary to repeat them in any detail now.
Suffice to say, you entered the Old Canberra Inn after closing time and forced three staff members at knife point to take you to the staff room, where you forced them to hand over a sum of approximately $25,707.
The victims were understandably very frightened and shocked by your brazen behaviour at the time. One victim, who I will refer to as UF, in particular has been profoundly affected by your crime and now requires extensive therapeutic assistance due to the trauma.
To my mind, your offending on that night amounts to a very serious crime which strikes at the heart of the community’s sense of safety, order and well-being. For this reason alone, the sentence I impose today must send the message that violent crimes committed against workers going about their ordinary business will not be tolerated. There is a need for this sentence to reflect both general and specific deterrence.
The amount of cash stolen is significant for a small business and I note that the money was never recovered. Aside from the loss suffered by the business following the burglary, there are likely to be longer term effects, such as an increase in insurance premiums and the time and effort required to restore a sense of safety and well-being among staff. The victim impact statement of UF is illustrative of that need.
While no victim impact statement was provided by the other two victims, I had the opportunity to observe them when they gave evidence at your trial. I am satisfied that they too experienced shock, stress and alarm, and that the effects of your offending on them are likely to have been ongoing.
Subjective circumstances
You have a lengthy history of offending for dishonesty and violence, most notably seven prior convictions for aggravated robbery, two attempted aggravated robbery offences, three convictions for aggravated burglary and an attempted aggravated burglary, as well as crimes of theft, taking motor vehicles without consent and other offences of violence.
However, I note that, prior to the current offending, you remained out of trouble for an extended period of time and this is to your credit.
At your sentence hearing, Ms Jerome informed me that there was a period of six years where you worked full-time. During this period, you got married, had a child and bought a house. At one stage you even started to run your own cleaning business which was very successful. However, your first relationship broke down and then your second relationship did as well. This, along with a chronic back injury you were battling, were a trigger for you and led you to continue to consume alcohol and abuse pain medication.
It is clear from your history that, following previous interactions with the criminal justice system, you were diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and conduct disorder and that, at times, you have been treated with antipsychotic medication under a patient treatment order. In a more recent assessment prepared by Mr Matt Visser, a psychologist, dated 7 April 2026, Mr Visser considered that it is likely that you still have some form of psychotic disorder such as schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. The most likely scenario, in his opinion, is that you are vulnerable to psychotic illness which has been substantially exacerbated by your prolonged and high-level drug use. You claim to have no memory of your offending behaviour on the night which is consistent with the abuse of some form of drug or other, whether it be alcohol, Valium or benzodiazepines. Mr Visser said that you told him you were taking up to 50 Valium tablets per day in the lead up to your offending, which is extreme.
I am not able to find one way or another whether your mental health conditions are exacerbated or caused by intoxicating substances, except to say that, based on the opinion of Mr Visser and your previous history, that it is likely this is the case. If that is so, the extent to which your moral culpability is reduced by reason of your mental health condition must be moderated in recognition of the fact that your voluntary consumption of intoxicating substances might well have exacerbated it.
I consider that it is significant that since being taken into custody and starting back again on antipsychotic medication you have not experienced any psychotic symptoms.
I consider that it is important that when you are released ACT Corrective Services monitor and supervise you to ensure that any required medication is taken by you when you are back in the community.
Remorse
It is difficult to assess with any accuracy the level of remorse you have expressed for your offending. On the one hand, you pleaded not guilty and continued to deny any responsibility for the offences as recently as the interview with the author of the pre-sentence report dated 18 November 2025. However, since then you have had an extensive assessment by Mr Visser on 20 March 2026 in which you told him that you were drinking very heavily the week before the offence and consuming 50 Valium tablets per day, so you are unable to recall anything relating to the offending behaviour. More recently on 29 April 2026, you wrote a letter to the court in which you express much more insight and remorse for the fear and distress which you caused to the three staff, even though you still claimed to have no memory of the night of the offending. I accept that your letter to the court is genuine.
The author of the pre-sentence report expresses the view that you pose a medium to high risk of reoffending despite having the current support of your family and your partner. That assessment is consistent with the psychologist’s more recent report, which noted that you will need to engage in consistent treatment for your mental illness for a period of at least 12 months to break the substance abuse cycle you seem to have got yourself into.
On the positive side, I note that the period you engaged in the treatment at the Canberra Recovery Service in 2025 appears to have been successful. The report from Ms Peckover dated 3 December 2025 is glowing.
Time in custody
Orders
I certify that the preceding twenty-one [21] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Acting Justice Kelly. Associate: Date: 29 May 2026
DPP
Whitfield (No 2)