//
[2026] NSWDC 78
General information, not legal advice.
District Court of NSW
2026-03-27
Montgomery DCJ
Original judgment source is linked above.
Zoe will write a short plain-English brief of this judgment and email it to you: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.
General information, not legal advice.
Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.
Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Achadjian [2026] NSWDC 78
Hearing dates: 27 February 2026
Date of orders: 27 March 2026
Decision date: 27 March 2026
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Montgomery DCJ
Decision: (1) The offender is convicted of Counts 1 – 15;
(2) The offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment comprising a total term of 6 years and 2 months, with a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months;
(3) The sentence is taken to have commenced on 16 September 2024 and expires on 15 November 2030;
(4) The offender will be eligible for consideration for release to parole on 15 March 2028;
(5) Pursuant to s 106W(1) Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999, the offender is referred to the Drug Court
Catchwords: SENTENCING — 15 Break, enter and steal offences — 37 Form 1 matters — Stealing from commercial premises with deliberate operational mode to avoid interaction with any person — Motivation to fund drug habit — Early guilty plea, 25% discount — Mitigating factors — Rehabilitation — Positive engagement with Drug Court Compulsory Drug Treatment program — Aggravating factors — Breach of conditional liberty — Offences committed while on bail — Relevant factors on sentence — Multiple offences — Aggregate sentences — Totality — Offender serving existing sentence with related or unrelated offences — Adjustment of non-parole period — Finding of special circumstances
SENTENCING — Backdating — Offender arrested also for related offending and serving existing sentence for related or unrelated offending
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900, ss 112(1)(a); 192E(1)(a)
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999, s 106W(1)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, ss 5; 21A; 25D; 32; 44; 53A
Cases Cited: BAP v R [2024] NSWCCA 206
Callaghan v R [2006] NSWCCA 58
Crane v R [2024] NSWCCA 87
Farrell v R [2020] NSWCCA 195
Huynh v R [2024]
Murray v R [2024] NSWCCA 107
Paterson v R [2021] NSWCCA 273
Postiglione v the Queen 189 CLR 295 (1997); [1997] HCA 26
R v Clifford [2008] NSWCCA 190
R v Harris (2007) 170 1 A Crim R 267
R v Hill [2021] NSWDC 333
R v MAK; R v MSK [2006] NSWCCA 381
R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242
R v Polkinghorne [2021] NSWDC 155
R v Ponfield (1999) 48 NSW LR 327; [1999] NSWCCA 435
Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247
Veen v The Queen (no. 2) 1988 164 CLR 465
Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Ghevont Achadjian (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
Crown: Ms van der Velde (Solicitor Advocate)
Offender: Mr Pace
Solicitors:
Crown: Office of The Director of Public Prosecutions
Offender: Macken and Company
File Number(s): 2024/0026157
Following entering pleas of guilty the offender is to be sentenced for 15 Counts of break, enter and steal against s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty for each offence is 14 years imprisonment. There is no standard non-parole period. In addition, pursuant to s 32 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, the prosecutor has filed documents specifying 37 other offences with which the offender has been charged, but not convicted, and the offender has admitted the additional charges and asks that they be taken into account (“Form 1 matters”). 36 of the Form 1 matters are also break enter and steal offences against s 112(1)(a) and a single offence, sequence number H83924489/72, is the offence of dishonestly obtaining property by deception against s 192E(1)(a) Crimes Act, the maximum penalty for that offence is 10 years imprisonment.
In the Agreed Facts below, each of the primary offences is given a Count number and each of the Form 1 matters is listed by its Sequence number aside the Count to which it is attached.
It is common ground that the offender is entitled to a 25% discount for his early guilty plea, entered on 11 September 2025: ss 25D(2)(a); 21A(3)(k) CSP Act; MFI-1 at [15].
Before coming to the Agreed Facts, there are some circumstances which are common ground and which assist in considerations toward sentencing. Those circumstances are:
(a) It is common ground that having considered all available alternatives, the s 5 CSP Act threshold is crossed and the only appropriate ultimate, aggregate sentence is full-time incarceration: MFI-2 at [5]. (b) The whole of the subject offending occurred over 37 days, between 9 June 2024 and 16 July 2024. (c) The whole of the offending was characterised by a deliberate operational mode of breaking into premises for the purposes of stealing cash in the late hours of night or of early morning so as to avoid interaction with any person. (d) There is not in the subject offending or in the offender’s antecedent history any offence of violence. (e) On 24 January 2025 the offender was sentenced in the Local Court of NSW to a term of 5 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years in relation to 26 break and enter offences and 1 deal with stolen goods offence, which were committed between 23 July 2022 and 6 February 2023. (f) That sentence commenced on 1 September 2023; the non-parole period expires on 31 August 2026 and the parole period expires on 31 August 2028. (g) The Local Court Judge backdated the commencement of that sentence to 1 September 2023 – a period of 1 year, 4 months and 23 days. (h) In consequence of the earlier offending committed between 23 July 2022 and 6 February 2023 for which the Local Court Judge imposed that earlier sentence:
(i) the offender was on remand (bail refused) for 8 months and 14 days between 18 February 2023 and 1 November 2023; (ii) between 2 November 2023 and 15 July 2024 the offender was on restrictive bail (iii) and in consequence of offending 23 July 2022 to 6 February 2023 and the offending the subject of this sentence, on 16 July 2024 the offender was arrested and remained bail refused; (iv) the offender has remained incarcerated since 16 July 2024, a period of 613 days (1 year, 8 months and 5 days) but backdating of the Local Court sentence means he was given the benefit of the whole of his time incarcerated since 16 July 2024 in that sentence; and (v) accordingly, the offender has spent no time in custody solely referable to the index offending.
(i) The parties agree that the Court should exercise its discretion in relation to backdating the commencement of this sentence. The Crown acknowledges that the Court might be persuaded of some effective concurrency with the period served "whilst the offender was bail refused, resulting in a larger backdating than purely referable to his offending, may be appropriate": MFI-1 at [6]. (j) In further written submissions following the hearing, the defence clarified that it did not seek that the court "bank" any pre-sentence custody prior to the offender's arrest on 16 July 2024: MFI-3. This clarified the appropriate defence acknowledgement that no part of the bail refused periods preceding the offending the subject of this sentence was contemplated in the defence submission for the exercise of discretion to backdate the commencement of the sentence. The Crown further submission clarified (MFI-1 at [6]) to acknowledge that the earliest date to which this sentence could be backdated for commencement is 16 July 2024. The Crown opposes fully backdating the commencement to that date and put that in the exercise of discretion, the sentence for the current matter should be substantially cumulative on the non-parole period of the Local Court sentence "by providing only a minimal back-date": MFI-4.
The parties provided a statement of agreed facts as follows:
The offender is Ghevont Achadjian, born 5 September 1988. He was aged 35 at the time of the offences and he is presently agreed 37.
On 12 June 2024, the offender picked up a silver Honda Accord, bearing NSW Registration DE62BD ("the Honda") from a car dealership owned by his employer's father-in-law, for the purpose of commuting to and from work. The offender used the Honda between 12 June 2024 and 15 July 2024.
Count 1: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 Monkey King Thai, Pennant Hills - $8000 cash
Sequence 2: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (Form 1) Kolachi Pakistani Restaurant, Pennant Hills - $1085 cash
Sequence 3: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (Form 1) Your Flower Boutique, Minchinbury - $300 cash
Sequence 4: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (Form 1) Hair at Studio 21, Minchinbury - $1000 cash
Count 2**: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 Goodfellas Barber, Minchinbury - $3000 cash**
Sequence 6: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (Form 1) Lakeside Cafe, Norwest - $400 cash
Sequence 9: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (Form 1) Italian Wine Cellars, Drummoyne - $300 worth of items / cash
Sequence 10: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (Form 1) Mr H Café, Balmain - $500 cash
Count 3**: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900** L'uomo Barber Shop, Drummoyne - $1700 cash
Sequence 12: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (Form 1) Spaghetti Eddy's, Emu Plains - $600 cash
Sequence 56: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (Form 1) Anglicare Op Shop, Rouse Hill - $2900 safe / cash
Sequence 15: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (Form 1) Pittwater Thai Kitchen, Mona Vale - $600 cash
Count 4**: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 Little L Burgers, Mona Vale - $2000 cash**
Count 5**: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 Monkey King Thai, North Narrabeen - $3000 cash**
S****equence 18: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (Form 1) P Nut Asian Kitchen, Dee Why - $1930 cash / items
Count 6**: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900** Philliez**, Minchinbury - $3000 cash**
Sequence 22: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (Form 1) Goodfellas Pizzeria, Northmead - $1000 cash
Count 7**: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 The Meat & Wine Co, Parramatta - $6211 cash**
Sequence 25: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (Form 1) Sushi Culture, Box Hill - $300 cash
Sequence 27: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (Form 1) Super Chick, Rouse Hill - $200 cash
Sequence 28: Break & enter destroy property < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (Form 1) Asuka Japanese Kitchen, Rouse Hill - Damaged a safe ($800)
Sequence 29: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (Form 1) Jazz Pizza, Chullora - $600 cash
Count 8**: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 Red Pepper, Chullora - $4500 cash**
Sequence 31: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (Form 1) Qube Kaffeine and Kitchen, North Parramatta - $500 cash
Sequence 32: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (Form 1) The Lot, North Parramatta - $1000 cash
Sequence 33: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (Form 1) Oliver Brown, The Ponds - $2800 cash
Sequence 34: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (Form 1) ProfessioNAIL**, The Ponds - $200 cash**
Count 9**: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 Frangos, Marsden Park - $5000 cash**
Sequence 38: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (Form 1) Yurica Japanese Kitchen, Macquarie Park - $1170 cash
Count 10**: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900** Zambrero**, Marsden Park - $2000 cash**
Sequence 41: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (Form 1) The Cutting Room, Grantham Farm - $1100 cash
Sequence 42: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (Form 1) Phogerlicious**, Grantham Farm - $300 cash**
Sequence 43: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (Form 1) Blend Café, Grantham Farm - $270 cash
Sequence 44: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (Form 1) 2135 Vibe, Strathfield - Apple Macbook ($5000)
Sequence 46: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (Form 1) Sushi Sapporo, Westmead - $3500 cash
Count 11**: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900** Kumiho**, Parramatta - $5200 cash**
Count 12**: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 500 Degrees, Parramatta - $9000 cash**
Sequence 49: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (Form 1) 500 Degrees, Parramatta - $900 cash
Sequence 57: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (Form 1) Good Feeling Thai, Oran Park - $50 cash
Sequence 72: Dishonestly obtain property by deception, s 192E(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (Form 1)
Sequence 50: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (Form 1) Soul Burger, Parramatta - $800 cash
Sequence 58: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (Form 1) Gami Chicken & Beer, Campbelltown - $1000 cash
Count 13**: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 The Taste Italian Grill, Campbelltown - $10,500 cash**
Sequence 61: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (Form 1) Shisha Mart, Greenacre - $600 cash
Sequence 62: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (Form 1) Thai Niramat Massage and Spa, Lidcombe - $2280 cash
Sequence 63: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (Form 1) PappaRich**, Campbelltown - $1000 cash**
Sequence 64: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (Form 1) Hyde Thai, Campbelltown - $300 cash
Count 14**: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900** Yogurberry**, Castle Hill - $3000 cash**
Sequence 68: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (Form 1) Ooshman**, Baulkham Hills - $1000 cash**
Sequence 69**: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (Form 1) The Local Trade, Kellyville Village - $350 cash**
Count 15**: Break & enter building steal value < $60,000, s 112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900** MakiMoto**, Kellyville Village - $3916 cash**
Arrest
Vehicle Search - Honda
Break and enter is not purely a crime against property. It is a crime against people. The subject offending inherently caused detriment to the businesses and those who own or run them. Not all property is insured and courts recognise that insurance excesses are paid, no-claims bonuses are lost and premiums are elevated in consequence of this type of offending: R v Clifford [2008] NSWCCA 190 per Price J (as his Honour then was) [at 64] (Allsopp P, James JJ agreeing).
Only for the Sequence 61 offending on Form 1 to be taken into account when sentencing for Count 13, was there contact with a person. The offender entered the store at 12:13 am, but the owner walked in from the rear where he had been sleeping. In keeping with his mode of operation to avoid violence or harm to individuals, the offender immediately ran from the scene with the $600 cash he had taken from the register.
The Sequence 72 offending against s 192E(1)(a) involved using a ‘500 Degrees Steakhouse’ Company Card stolen from the restaurant of that name to spend the modest total of $291.46 at Bunnings and Supercheap Auto.
The offender’s primary submission on sentence is:
"… when instinctively synthesising all relevant matters including the objective seriousness of the offences, his compelling subjective case and those matters relevant under section 21A(3) [CSP Act], that a finding [of] special circumstance should be made. It is conceded that the only appropriate sentence is a full-time custodial sentence however … this is a matter, having regard to the presentence custody served to date and consideration of totality principle with these and other matters for which [he] is serving another sentence, that any term of imprisonment he receives is one… which we will permit him to remain eligible for the Compulsory Drug Treatment Program at Parklea Correctional Facility."
The offender admits that all 15 principal offences are objectively serious and that the 32 Form 1 matters individually represent a not insignificant crime wave: MFI-2 at [9].
In my opinion, each of the principal Counts and the Form 1 matters, but less so the Sequence 72 matter, were opportunistic. In relation to the Sequence 72 Form 1 matter, I agree with the Crown submission that the amount of money involved for offending of that type was modest.
The defence submission makes a cumulative submission addressing overall offending, that the "objective seriousness across all matters is properly characterised as falling just below the mid-range of objective seriousness and at the bottom end of the low range for some of the individual offences". The Crown has indicated an objective seriousness assessment in relation to each offence. I will, as is required at law assess objective seriousness for each Count separately. Each Count was a separate criminal event. I will do so also in relation to the Form 1 matters, for the purposes of completeness.
Whilst the offender does not make submissions that his moral culpability significantly affects assessment of the objective seriousness of his offending, because his submissions focus centrally on the report of registered Forensic Psychologist, Dr Dornan dated 23 December 2025, it is appropriate that I consider the question of moral culpability in relation to assessment of objective seriousness as well as in the offender’s subjective case.
In BAP v R [2024] NSWCCA 206 (“BAP”) at [77] and [78] the Court quoted from and applied the relevant principles for the consideration of mental impairment in the assessment of “objective seriousness” and in the assessment of “moral culpability” of the offender. At [77] the Court quoted the remarks of Beech-Jones CJ at CL (as his Honour then was) at [29] in Paterson v R [2021] NSWCCA 273 (“Paterson”) which explained that “objective seriousness” of an offence and the “moral culpability” of the offender are separate but related concepts. The former involves an objective assessment of the seriousness of the offending which includes consideration of matters causally related to it. The latter is concerned with the offender's moral blameworthiness for the offence, which assessment can involve a consideration of a wider set of subjective factors affecting the offender than the assessment of his/her mental impairment in the assessment of objective seriousness. In Paterson at [30], his Honour quoted with approval what was stated by Johnson J in Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247 at [112], which, in my view, is of assistance here. Johnson J described the matters that can bear upon an assessment of objective seriousness as follows:
“In sentencing for an offence (whether or not a standard non-parole period offence), a court should make an assessment of the objective gravity of the offence applying general law principles, so that all factors which bear upon the seriousness of the offence should be taken into account (unless excluded by statute). Factors such as motive, provocation or non-exculpatory duress may be taken into account in this way. Regard may be had to factors personal to the offender that are causally connected with or materially contributed to the commission of the offences, including (if it be the case) a mental disorder or mental impairment. It was recognised at common law that motive or emotional stress which accounts for criminal conduct is always material to the consideration of an appropriate sentence: Neal v The Queen (1982) 149 CLR 305; [1982] HCA 55 at 324–325 (Brennan J). Motive for the commission of an offence is an important factor on sentence: Cheung v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1; [2001] HCA 67 at 55–56 [171]–[172] (Callinan J).”
The offender gave clear and frank responses to questions in cross-examination. He impressed me as a person of intelligence who is presently committed to completion of the CDTCC program he has the privilege of undertaking (see Subjective Considerations below) toward turning his life away from the criminality accompanying his substance abuse of the last decade; and returning to his worthwhile personal and working life which preceded. I realise this last sentence is in part directed to consideration of the offender’s subjective case; but, for the purposes of assessment of objective seriousness, I note that the offender had the capacity to appreciate the criminality of his break and enter offences to fund his substance abuse. Dr Dornan came to the same assessment of him (at [10]) when he observed "[h]is affect was appropriate in both range and expression…. There was no evidence of any psychomotor agitation, tremulousness, hypervigilance, pressured speech, or other form of psychopathology". Both during Dr Dornan's consultation for the purposes of producing his report and the oral evidence of the offender, he was sober.
The offender openly concedes his offending was to fund his drug use. He was homeless because after completing six months rehabilitation at Odyssey House, he "… wasn't in a good head space" and "was only focused on drugs": Dr Dornan at [58]. He targeted commercial premises rather than homes because he had convinced himself that it was not as bad as stealing from individuals or breaking into their residences. I accept Dr Dornan's observation that this preference suggests that the offender was exercising some level of moral reasoning: at [59]. That his motivation was to avoid contact of humans, avoid violence and not to commit the personal affronting and threatening experience of breaking and entering by invading homes, is in my opinion, a mode of operation and motivation to some degree mitigating his moral culpability in the assessment of the objective seriousness of his offending.
During consideration of the offender’s subjective case, I will in more detail go to his severe polysubstance dependence and vulnerability for substance abuse arising from his undiagnosed Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and depressive symptoms. For the purposes of objective seriousness, I do not find that the offender’s mental state and, obviously, not his substance abuse, mitigate assessment of objective seriousness.
Dr Dornan's following summary statement (at [62]) meets with the evidence:
"… in my opinion, Mr Achadjian’s offending behaviour reflects acquisitive crime directly driven by severe substance dependence, consistent with his long-term cocaine and methamphetamine use patterns. His offences lack the violence, sophistication, or predatory characteristics that would suggest entrenched criminality independent of substance use. The temporal relationship between leaving rehabilitation and commencing the offending spree demonstrated the causal connection between untreated addiction and criminal behaviour. Mr Achadjian targeting of commercial rather than residential premises, while still undeniably criminal, suggests some preservation of some moral boundaries and lower risk of escalation to more serious interpersonal violence".
[note: the rehabilitation referred to was Odyssey House residential]
For clarity, the "causal connection" of which Dr Dornan wrote is between untreated addiction and criminal behaviour and that is not a causation by which objective seriousness of the offending is mitigated.
For all of the principal Counts, stealing for a value not exceeding $60,000 was the serious indictable offence, being an element of s 112(1)(a). Separately, each offence could have been dealt with in the Local Court but for the matters having proceeded on indictment in this Court: s 260 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), Schedule 1, Part 2, cl 8.
With the assistance of R v Ponfield (1999) 48 NSW LR 327; [1999] NSWCCA 435, I make the following further observations in relation to my assessment of objective seriousness of each Count:
(a) absence of aggravating factors, some of which are set out in Ponfield at [48], does not mitigate a crime; (b) s 112 Crimes Act, break and enter and commit a serious indictable offence is an offence which contemplates the full range of felonies of which stealing is one of the less serious types; (c) an aggravating factor is that the offending was committed whilst the offender was at conditional liberty, he being on bail for the offences the subject of the Local Court Judge’s earlier sentence – sequence H93295454; (d) the offending was opportunistic and did not display sophisticated professional planning, or organisation although the offender did employ experienced execution; (e) a normally aggravating feature, to be balanced against prospects of returning to a law abiding lifestyle is that from approximately age 27 years, commencing 2016, the offender’s antecedent criminal record reflects offending commonly associated with a drug habit, including possession and goods in personal custody suspected of being stolen offences as well as in 2019, break and enter offending and possess housebreaking instruments in 2022. Then he was convicted of the matters for which he was sentenced by the Local Court Judge on 24 January 2025, which are of like offending; (f) the offending was not committed in homes, nor in the premises of the elderly sick, vulnerable or disabled but reflected a mode of operation to avoid contact with humans; (g) no violence or use of weapons was associated with the offending; (h) no gratuitous vandalism or damage to property (other than as is to be assumed consequent of the specific break and enter) was involved; (i) there is a multiplicity of offending and I do have regard to the criminality involved in each event of offending; (j) the value of the property stolen ranged from minor to relatively modest and was predominantly small (see for instance, R v Polkinghorne [2021] NSWDC 155) reflecting the lack of sophistication or planning, and even for those offences of greatest value stolen – the value was modest for offending of this type; (k) each offence occurred when it was not likely that the premises would be occupied; and (l) no actual trauma was suffered by any victim, nor was there threat of force.
| Offence description | Relevant circumstances | Assessment of objective seriousness ("OS") | Form 1 offences | | Count 1 Victim: Monkey King Thai, Pennant Hills | • 10:06pm, offender jemmied open the front door of a commercial premises. • Wore gloves at the time he entered and within premises. • Used two screwdrivers to force open the cash register and safe. Not insignificant amount stolen – $8000 cash. | Below mid-range. | H83924489/2 Victim: Kolachi Pakistani Restaurant, Pennant Hills • 1:33am, offender broke into the premises by jemmying open the front door with a screwdriver. • Wore gloves at the time he entered and within premises. • Forced open cash register using screwdriver. • Moderate amount stolen $1085 cash. OS: toward low range | | Count 2 Victim Goodfellas Barber, Minchinbury | • 4:42am, attended commercial precinct with a number of retail stores (sequences 3 and 4) • Jemmied open the front door using two screwdrivers. Wore gloves. • Inside premises for several minutes. • Stole moderate amount – $3000 cash. | Well below mid-range. | H83924489/3 Victim: Your Flower Boutique, Minchinbury • 4:48am, forced open front door using the same two screwdrivers (see sequence 5). Some damage. • Stole small amount – $300 cash from the register. • OS: Low range. H83924489/4 Victim: Hair at Studio 21, Minchinbury • 4:52am, offender jemmied open the front door using two screwdrivers. Wore gloves. • Stole moderate amount – $1000 cash. • OS: Low-range. H83924489/6 Victim: Lakeside Café, Norwest • Forced open the door using two screwdrivers. • Stole small amount – $400 cash from register. • OS: Low-range. | | Count 3 Victim: L'uomo Barber Shop, Drummoyne | • 2:26am, offender broke in by unknown means through the front door. • Forced open cash register and safe. Stole moderate amount – $1700 cash. | Well below mid-range. | H83924489/8 Victim: Beauty Trends Studio, Bella Vista • 12:28am, broke in by unknown means. • Stole $642 worth of items (hair straightener and beauty products). • OS: Low-range. H83924489/9 Victim: Italian Wine Cellars, Drummoyne • 10:27pm, used two screwdrivers to jemmy open the door while wearing gloves. • Stole $230 cash and four bottles of wine in a box. • OS: Low-range. H83924489/10 Victim: Mr H Café, Balmain • 10:52pm. • Broke in by unknown means, while wearing gloves. • Stole $500 cash from register. • OS: Low-range. | | Count 4 Victim: Little L Burgers, Mona Vale | • 10:20pm, broke in by unknown means. • Took cash from register and forced open the safe using two screwdrivers. Some damage. Stole moderate amount – $2000 cash. | Toward low range. | H83924489/15 Victim: Pittwater Thai Kitchen, Mona Vale • 10:00pm, broke in through the front door by unknown means. • Forced open safe and register. • Stole small amount – $600 cash. • OS: Low-range. | | Victim: Monkey King Thai, North Narrabeen | • 11:09pm, broke in by jemmying open the front door using two screwdrivers. • Put on black gloves as he entered the premises. • Remained inside for 20 minutes and moved through in different areas. Stole moderate amount – $3000 cash from register and safe he broke into. | Well below mid-range. | Victim: P Nut Asian Kitchen, Dee Why • 2:39am, forced open front door with two screwdrivers. • Put on black gloves as he entered the premises. • Stole laptop ($900), Apple iPad ($600) and $430 cash. • OS: Well below mid-range. Victim: Anglicare Op Shop, Rouse Hill • 12:16am, jemmied open the front door using two screwdrivers. • Put on black gloves. Searched around cash register. • Stole moderate amount – a safe valued at $900 which contained $2000 cash. • OS: Toward low range. | | Victim: Philliez, Minchinbury | • 4:29am, broke in by unknown means but was carrying a screwdriver. Stole moderate amount – $3000 cash. | Well below mid-range. | Victim: Goodfellas Pizzeria, Northmead • 11:55pm, jemmied open the front door using two screwdrivers. Wore gloves. • Stole $1000 cash. • OS: low-range. | | Victim: The Meat & Wine Co, Parramatta | • 2:45am, broke in by unknown means but was carrying a screwdriver. • Entered with one black glove on and placed another glove on when he approached the cash register. Stole not insignificant amount – $6211 from the cash register and safe. | Below mid-range. | Victim: Sushi Culture, Box Hill • 12:40am, broke in by unknown means through main shopping centre. Stole $300 cash. • OS: Low-range. Victim: Super Chick, Rouse Hill • 4:28am, jemmied open the door using two screwdrivers. • Entered with one glove on, put a second glove on inside. • Exited and re-entered and forced open the door a second time with screwdrivers. • Inside store for about 10 minutes. • Stole small amount – $200 cash. • OS: Low-range. Victim: Asuka Japanese Kitchen, Rouse Hill • 5:00am, broke in by forcing open front door with two screwdrivers. • Put on one glove when he was behind counter. • Unsuccessfully gained access to safe, $800 worth of damage. OS: Low-range. | | Victim: Red Pepper, Chullora | • 11:53pm, broke in by unknown means. • Entered with one black glove on and placed another glove on when he got inside. • Remained inside for several minutes. Stole moderate amount – $4500 cash. | Below mid-range. | Victim: Jazz Pizza, Chullora • 11:45pm, broke in by unknown means. • Entered wearing one black glove, put a second glove on when he entered. • Stole $600 cash from register. • OS: Low-range. Victim: Qube Kaffeine and Kitchen, North Parramatta • 2:24am, jemmied open the front door using two screwdrivers. • Entered wearing one black glove, put a second glove on when he entered. • Remained inside for several minutes. • Stole $500 cash. • OS: Low-range. Victim: The Lot, North Parramatta • 2:29am, broke in by unknown means. • Stole moderate amount – $1000 cash from register. • OS: Low-range. | | Victim: Frangos, Marsden Park | • 3:04am, broke in by using two screwdrivers • Wearing one glove on his hand as he broke in. Stole $5000 cash from register. | Below mid-range. | Victim: Oliver Brown, The Ponds • 2:09am, forced entry into store by unknown means. • Stole $300 cash from register and $2500 cash from a safe. Not insignificant amount. • OS: Well below mid-range. Victim: ProfessioNAIL The Ponds • 2:30am, broke in by using short crowbar and screwdriver. • Put gloves on both hands and searched around cash register. • Stole $200 cash. • OS: Low-range. | | Victim: Zambrero, Marsden Park | • 3:46am, used two screwdrivers to jemmy open the door. • Remained inside for about two minutes. Left carrying safe containing $2000 cash. | Toward low-range. | Victim: Yurica Japanese Kitchen, Macquarie Park • 10:53pm, broke in by unknown means. • Entered the store with one glove on, put a second glove on once inside. • Stole $1170 cash from the register. • OS: Low-range. Victim: Phogerlicious, Grantham Farm • 11:07pm, broke in by unknown means and forced entry. • Stole $300 cash from register. • OS: Low-range. Victim: Blend Café, Grantham Farm • 11:19pm, broke in by using two screwdrivers. Placed glove on his hand. • Stole $270 cash from the register. • OS: Low-range. | | Victim: Kumiho, Parramatta | • 12:27am, forced open the door using two screwdrivers. • Put a glove on his right hand. Stole not insignificant amount – $1200 from register and $4000 from the safe. | Below mid-range. | Victim: The Cutting Room, Grantham Farm • 11:07pm, jemmied open door by using two screwdrivers. • Stole $1100 cash from the register. • OS: Low-range. Victim: 2135 Vibe, Strathfield • 3:33am, used two screwdrivers to open front door. • Forced cash register open (no cash). • Stole Apple laptop valued at $5000. Property later recovered. • OS: Low-range. Victim: Sushi Sapporo, Westmead • 11:40pm, broke in by unknown means. • Put glove on hand as walked behind counter. • Stole moderate amount – $3500 cash from register. • OS: Well below mid-range. | | Victim: 500 Degrees Steakhouse, Parramatta | • 4:10am, broke in by unknown means. • Put a dark glove on his right hand as entered premises. Stole larger amount – $9000 cash. | Around mid-range. | Victim: 500 Degrees Steakhouse, Parramatta • 2:07am, broke into same premises, second occasion on the following day. • Forced entry using two screwdrivers. • Stole $900 cash. • OS: Below mid-range. Victim: Soul Burger, Parramatta • 10pm, broke in by unknown means. • Stole $800 cash. • OS: Low range. Victim: Good Feeling Thai, Oran Park • 11:03pm, broke in by using two screwdrivers to force open the door. Wearing black glove on right hand. • Stole small amount – $50 cash. • OS: Low-range. Victim: 500 Degrees Steakhouse, Parramatta • 1:29pm, used 500 Degrees Steakhouse Company Card. • Bought $99 worth of tools from Bunnings and $192.46 worth of goods from Supercheap Auto. • OS: Low-range. | | Victim: The Taste Italian Grill, Campbelltown | • 2:28am, broke in by unknown means. Stole large amount – $3500 from register and $7000 from safe. | Around mid-range. | Victim: Gami Chicken & Beer, Campbelltown • 2:28am, broke in by unknown means. • Stole $1000 cash. • OS: Low-range. Victim: Shisha Mart, Greenacre • 12:13am, broke in by unknown means, causing damage to the door. Store owner in rear of shop. Stole $600 cash. • OS: Low-range. Victim: Thai Niramat, Lidcombe • 12:26am, used two screwdrivers to force the door open. • Stole $2280, left while carrying a small bag. • OS: Toward low-range. Victim: Papparich, Campbelltown • 1:05am, used two screwdrivers to force the door open. • Stole $1000 cash from two cash registers. • Broke into a small safe and took a company credit card. • OS: Toward low-range. Victim: Hyde Thai Restaurant, Campbelltown • 1:56am, broke in by unknown means. Stole $300 cash. • OS: Low-range. | | Victim: Yogurberry, Castle Hill | • 1:56am, broke in through the front door by unknown means. Stole moderate amount – $3000 cash from the register. | Well below mid-range. | Victim: Spaghetti Eddy's, Emu Plains • 2:57am, jemmied open front door with two unknown tools. • Wearing one black glove on left hand. • Stole $600 from cash register. • OS: Low-range. | | Victim: MakiMoto, Kellyville Village | • 2:30am, broke in by unknown means. Stole $2973 cash from safe, $793 from cash register and $150 from a tip jar. | Below mid-range. | Victim: Ooshman, Baulkham Hills • 2:00am, broke in by unknown means. Stole $1000 cash from inside the store. • OS: Low-range. Victim: The Local Trade, Kellyville • 2:26am, broke in by unknown means. Stole $350 cash. OS: Low-range. |
Pursuant to a Compulsory Drug Treatment Order made on 6 May 2025, during the incarceration of the offender pursuant to the sentence imposed by the Local Court Judge on 24 January 2025, the offender has attended a Compulsory Drug Treatment Correctional Centre (CDTCC) intensive treatment program addressing his drug dependence and criminal conduct. He has satisfactorily completed Stage 1 of the program including nil detection of drug use and is currently unable to progress to Stage 2 while awaiting the outcome of this sentence: Exhibit 1 – CDTCC letter dated 16 January 2026.
The parties proceed without a SAR. I am satisfied to proceed on the available evidence. By letter 5 February 2026, the CDTCC wrote that an administrative error has occurred, the result of which was that a SAR report was not available for the hearing. Neither party sought that the matter be adjourned and the matter proceeded with the benefit of the expert opinion evidence of Dr Dornan, forensic psychologist, dated 23 December 2025 and CDTCC reports.
The offender gave oral evidence and was cross-examined on some aspects of what he told Dr Dornan. From the offender’s evidence and Dr Dornan’s report, I glean the following ([ ] reference to paragraphs in Dr Dornan’s report):
(a) Dr Dornan wrongly recorded the offender having said he intravenously administered MDMA. The offender only ever smoked MDMA; (b) the offender gave evidence that he is a changed person, wanting to complete the further stages in the CDTCC program. With its support, he plans to reintegrate into the community, He stated that when further through the program he would start to be given leave into the community and be provided with a routine, an ankle bracelet and his "… intention is not to switch over for, to parole, for outside parole. I want to stay on the program till my actual parole finishes because you have the option to change over to outside parole but I want to be held accountable, do my urines. I just want to change this vicious cycle of getting back into addiction. I've been in jail… [f]ive times in the last three years and it’s just becoming a vicious cycle which I am trying to break (T 15.41-16.6); (c) the offender also said: “… [y]ou need to be stable in order to leave jail. Unlike other jails, when your earliest release date’s up, you're just left out into the street, where this place has an actual structure. And if you ever need to, if you ever lapse or anything happens, you can come back to the jail and you ask them for help or you call them up. The officers or one of the caseworkers will actually come and pick you up and bring you back to the program just to make sure you're safe" and that he had observed that to happen with another inmate (T 16.27-35); (d) where Dr Dornan recorded the offender having stated that he was doing incarceration easily, on the offender’s evidence, that is in the context of the offender complying with commitment to the CDTCC program at Parklea Correctional Centre and his appreciation of the opportunity to remain abstinent and achieve rehabilitation for reintegration into the community; (e) the offender plans to resume work as a plumber and to maintain the close relations which he has restored during the CDTCC program with his sister and parents when released into the community. This evidence is to be viewed on a historical background of 15 years regular employment as a plumber and lifetime good family relations prior to his abuse of substances changing his lifestyle, commencing approximately 8 years before his index offences; (f) Dr Dornan fairly and accurately summarised the offender’s antecedent criminal history (at [14]) observing that it “commenced at age 17 with traffic offences and progressed to serious traffic offending including driving whilst disqualified throughout his twenties. From age 27 years, his offending escalated to include property crimes, drug possession and dishonesty offences. I would observe that offending to be commonly associated and acknowledged in this case to be so, with substance abuse habit. Between 2016 and 2022 he received multiple custodial sentences for break and enter offences, receiving stolen property and possessing housebreaking instruments, before in 2025 being sentenced by the learned magistrate to an aggregate five-year imprisonment term with a three-year non-parole period for 27 break and enter offences”; (g) the offender was born on 5 September 1988 and was 35 years of age at the time of the subject offending; (h) he was raised in a loving and supportive family, being the middle of three children and his parents remain together; (i) strict parenting assisted him in appropriate behaviour whilst at school and he completed his HSC but underperformed due to what Dr Dornan observed to be his ADHD (then undiagnosed); (j) from about age 16, in his first employment, he was introduced to cocaine and as he got older he became more driven by his drug use which worsened as he turned to drugs even more as an adaptive coping strategy for his grief at the passing of his grandmother; (k) the offender has a particular vulnerability to substance use because of his undiagnosed ADHD (at [26]); (l) after completing apprenticeship training and TAFE trade study toward a plumber qualification, whilst working, he dropped out impulsively before obtaining his licensing qualification, feeling he “was just done", which Dr Dornan identified as highly consistent with ADHD presentation (at [30]); (m) following his apprenticeship discontinuation at age 21, the offender maintained regular employment as a plumber for approximately 15 years before escalation of his substance use and consequent intoxication led him to decide "that was it”, which Dr Dornan observed to be impulsive decision-making, consistent with ADHD (at [31 - 32]). (n) Dr Dornan observed that the offender’s historical ability to maintain relatively stable employment for approximately 15 years demonstrates his significant vocational capacity when substance use is controlled and that his ceasing work without misconduct in the workplace problems, emphasises that addressing his substance dependence and obtaining appropriate ADHD assessment and treatment "… would substantially improve his vocational rehabilitation prospects" (at [33]); (o) The offender assesses his participation in the CDTCC program as the first time in his correctional history that he is motivated to actually make changes in his life, he having been able to detoxify from drug use, achieve abstinence and become stable; (p) the offender's plans to maintain his abstinent and positive trajectory, on release live with his parents in the short term and in the opinion of Dr Dornan, his "… relatively benign experience of custody, combined with his current positive engagement with the CDTCC therapeutic program, suggests he possesses adequate institutional adaptation capacity and genuine motivation for behavioural change… The CDTCC placement represents an optimal setting for addressing his substance dependence and developing relapse prevention strategies prior to community reintegration" (at [38]); (q) Dr Dornan opined that "… stability of his family relationships represents a significant protective factor differentiating him from many individuals in forensic settings who typically present with extensive family dysfunction and absence of prosocial support networks" (at [40]); (r) the offender’s relatively focused substance use pattern, whilst severe, suggests more targeted treatment interventions compared to individuals with extensive polysubstance dependence across multiple drug classes (at [50]); (s) after acknowledging his fall back into drug use after residential rehabilitation at William Booth House in early adulthood and after having attended Odyssey House, the offender said that he had too much time on his hands and was not ready to change but now has a plan to engage with family and work and maintain the assistance of the CDTCC program which is "… the best thing that has ever happened to me"; (t) the offender has enrolled in a range of courses in preparation for more intensive interventions and in addition to treatment, he has taken advantage of programs, stating that he wanted "to give myself the best chance of succeeding" when he returns to the community (at [51 - 52]) including, when in the community attending Narcotics Anonymous, engaging support services and recognising that his past gambling linked his substance use (at [53]); (u) Dr Dornan assessed the offender to express genuine insight into why the CDTCC drug rehabilitation program was effective for him and to demonstrate appropriate understanding of treatment readiness as central to positive outcomes (at [54]) as well as expressing regret and remorse for the impact his offending had on store owners and their businesses and that he felt ashamed (at [60]) and recognise the negative impact that his offending had on his family (at [61]), "[h]is acknowledgement of responsibility through guilty pleas and demonstration of genuine remorse represented positive indicators for rehabilitation prospects" (at [62]); (v) Dr Dornan diagnosed: Severe Polysubstance Dependence, ADHD and Major Depressive Disorder (mild); (w) Dr Dornan opined that the offenders undiagnosed ADHD impaired his judgement, impulse control, as well as his consequential thinking at the time of the offending but that overall, his pattern of offending lacked violence or sophistication, "suggesting substance-dependent rather than entrenched criminality." (at [81 - 82]); (x) Dr Dornan observed that without intervention, the offender faces the risk of relapse upon release due to unmanaged ADHD symptoms, untreated depression, established substance dependence patterns and gambling disorder; however, he "demonstrates exceptional current treatment engagement, genuine remorse, and sophisticated insight into motivation as determining treatment success. Stable family relationships provide pro-social support for him, typically unavailable to most forensic clients. Mr Achadjian’s CDTCC participation shows concrete behaviour change beyond verbal assurances. The absence of violence, domestic abuse, or trauma history creates favourable prognostic profile. Mr Achadjian’s 15-year employment history demonstrates vocational capacity when substance-free. His ADHD diagnosis and treatment, continued addiction counselling, gambling intervention, psychological support for depression, vocational rehabilitation in plumbing, and sustained family engagement represent evidence-based pathway toward desistance and community reintegration” (at [84]); (y) Dr Dornan assessed that without continuing intervention and support, the offender’s risk of recidivism remains moderate-to-high but will be substantially reduced with comprehensive treatment adherence (at [85.13]); and (z) Dr Dornan assessed the offender to not experience special hardship in prison on account of any mental health or cognitive impairment (at [85.6]).
"I have found him to be an engaging participant who has demonstrated positive change as he has progressed in the program. He is a respected member of the CDTCC community and is often seen to be a positive role model for other participants. Over the time of his incarceration, I have observed demonstrated growth in his physical well-being…, spiritual well-being…, and social well-being…. Mr Achadjian has been insightful in pastoral conversations and has a focus on rebuilding his life to be pro-social. I have observed him trying to create the foundations for a more stable life. I have observed him to take every opportunity given to him at the CDTCC to rebuild his life."
On 24 January 2025, the offender was sentenced in the Local Court for numerous events of like offending as the index offences. His mode of operation in that earlier offending, was very like in character to the present offending, noticeably break and enter of commercial premises when it would be unlikely that any person would be present and in the absence of gratuitous damage or vandalism, weapon or violence. That offending, like the present offending was opportunistic and in order to acquire funds to support his substance abuse.
There are strong protective features in favour of rehabilitation, including that until approximately a decade ago, his offending was not particularly serious and that his abuse of substances cost him for approximately a decade, substantial incarceration, and he knows that he damaged his relationships with family and hurt family, his intimate relationships and forwent his ongoing successful long-term employment as a plumber. Against this he now has, through the CDTCC program re-established support of his family and his want to continue gainful employment. In short, he realises that compliance with abstinence, treatment and direction, he can re-establish the life he once had and that was not so long ago. But to maintain that, he must not fall back into his habits of substance abuse and gambling. I am mindful that he has been assessed and given by his evidence an impression of himself whilst in the controlled environment of the CDTCC.
Prior criminal offending is not an objective circumstance for the purpose of application of the proportionality principle and does not determine the upper boundary of a proportionate sentence: R v Clifford, supra at [47].
The offender’s subjective case includes the consistent expert opinion evidence of forensic psychologist Dr Dorman, CDTCC psychologist Ms Yun, and CDTCC Chaplain Yip which establishes, on the balance of probabilities, that his underlying substance abuse and gambling habits have been the inspiration for his offending in that his offending was to support those expenses. The significance of this is that Dr Dornan opines and the CDTCC evidence supports, that those inspirational factors are treatable. The ultimate consequence is to observe, for the purposes of design of sentence, that whilst his present risk of recidivism, based on his history of offending and substance abuse and gambling is medium-high, with ongoing intervention and treatment that risk of recidivism is likely to be substantially lowered. He is presently receiving excellent treatment and redirection. The offender realises that he is receiving that excellent support and wants to continue with it.
The offender is heartfelt remorseful for the harm which he did to the owners of the businesses and has forgone his earlier self-view that by offending against businesses he was not hurting personal victims.
The offender’s antecedent history disentitles him to leniency but, given the expert opinion evidence, supports the approach that, with appropriate treatment and support, the chance of that antecedent criminality continuing should be reduced; the offender’s criminal history is not illuminating or an evidentiary basis for finding a manifestation of what will be a continuing disobedience of the law warranting the imposition of condign punishment to shift him and the other offenders from committing like offences. Prior offending cannot be given such weight as to lead to the position of a penalty which is disproportionate to the gravity of the instant offending. The offender’s prior like offending occurred over a period of about a decade during which this otherwise worthwhile working and family directed citizen lived a life without serious offending. This means that the instant offending is not part of a solidly manifested and continuing attitude of disobedience of law: (no. 2) 1988 164 CLR 465 at 477-478; [2006] NSWCCA 242 at [18 - 34].
(a) In R v Clifford, the offender was sentenced for one count against s 113(1), 5 counts against s 112(1) and 1 count against s 154AA of the Crimes Act. 14 offences on Form 1 were taken into consideration. 12 of those matters were offences of break, enter and steal contrary to s 112(1), the remaining matters being an offence of break and enter with intent contrary to s 113(1) and an offence of attempt break, enter and steal contrary to s 112(1). Striking differences between Clifford’s offending and the offending of Mr Achadjian are that Clifford performed sophisticated and planned robberies in which he would access Telstra roadside phone line pits and sever telephone lines to disable alarm systems and otherwise disable alarm systems, he gratuitously ransacked and damaged property beyond that which is assumed inherent to the offending (in the present case). Like the present case, his motivation was to obtain money to support his drug habit. His subjective case included claimed abstinence but was not as strong as Mr Achadjian’s commitment to rehabilitation through the CDTCC program. Clifford's prior offending of this type extended over a longer period than the opportunistic multiple offences over fairly contained periods of offending by Achadjian. The overall term (after concurrency/accumulation and fixed terms) was 6 years with a non-parole period of 3 years and 9 months. (b) In R v Polkinghorne, the aggregate term of imprisonment was 5 years and 9 months with a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months but the offending involved far greater sophistication of criminality than that employed by Mr Achadjian and was for vastly greater sums. Again, the offender was motivated by want to support his drug habit but having broken into a pharmacy and stealing a modest amount of cash but a substantial quantity of drugs, he commenced breaking into and stealing from jewellery stores. He would enter through the ceilings, smash cabinets and cause substantial damage to the property as well. His thefts included jewellery of $80,499, $68,952, $250,000, $170,000 and $250,000 on top of repairs to those premises in the sums of $80,000, $38,000 and $10,000. A modest amount of the stolen jewellery was recovered by police.
I bear in mind that sentences should be increased for any Count attached to which and to be taken into account on the Form 1 are offences which are serious in their own right: R v Clifford, supra at [70].
Sentence must ensure adequate punishment and, importantly, general and specific deterrence, denouncing the offending conduct at the same time promoting the offender’s engagement with rehabilitation. In my opinion, after taking into account the 25% discount of sentence according to his early pleas of guilty and in relation to each Count having taken into consideration the Form 1 matters attached, appropriate indicative sentences are:
Count 1 (incorporating Form 1 - Sequence 2): 11 months imprisonment
Count 2 (taking into account Form 1 Sequence 3, 4, 6): 9 months imprisonment
Count 3 (taking into account Form 1 - Sequences 8, 9, 10): 9 months imprisonment
Count 4 (taking into account Form 1 - Sequence 15): 8 months imprisonment
Count 5 (taking into account Form 1 - Sequences 18, 56): 10 months imprisonment
Count 6 (taking into account Form 1 - Sequence 22): 8 months imprisonment
Count 7 (taking into account Form 1 - Sequence 25, 27, 28): 10 months imprisonment
Count 8 (taking into account Form 1 - Sequence 29, 31, 32): 10 months imprisonment
Count 9 (taking into account Form 1 - Sequence 33, 34): 11 months and 2 weeks imprisonment
Count 10 (taking into account Form 1 - Sequence 38, 42, 43): 8 months and 2 weeks imprisonment
Count 11 (taking into account Form 1 - Sequence 41, 44, 46): 2 years and 6 months imprisonment
Count 12 (taking into account Form 1 - Sequence 49, 50, 57, 72): 2 years and 9 months imprisonment
Count 13 (taking into account Form 1 - Sequence 58, 61, 62, 63, 74): 3 years and 3 months imprisonment
Count 14 (taking into account Form 1 - Sequence 12): 8 months and 2 weeks imprisonment
Count 15 (taking into account Form 1 - Sequence 68, 69): 9 months and 2 weeks imprisonment
An increase in the number of offences will commonly demonstrate a need for greater weight to be given to many if not all of the purposes of sentencing and for the effective sentence to be longer than if only one offence had been committed. Making sentences wholly concurrent means that the second and subsequent effectively constitute no punishment and sends a message to members of the criminal community who choose to live by breaking and entering and stealing or the like, that once they have committed one or a few offences, they can continue offending with virtual impunity so far as sentences are concerned. For these reasons, considerations of general and personal deterrence demand that courts signal to would-be offenders, that they can expect punishment for each of their offences. It is not generally an adequate reason for complete concurrency of sentences that a group of the offences such as break, enter and steal may be of the same type or committed as part of one criminal spree: R v Harris (2007) 170 1 A Crim R 267; R v Clifford, supra at [80].
I have considered the document contained within the Crown Sentence Summary (Exhibit A) setting out the facts of the offences, the subject of the 24 January 2025 sentence in the Local Court. Nothing is available to me of the reasons of the Local Court Judge exercising their discretion to back date the commencement of that sentence to 1 September 2023. Nothing is available to me to know why all of those offences and all of these subject offences were not before a single Court for sentence simultaneously. The only bail refused period in part attributable to the subject offending commenced on the arrest on 16 July 2024 and lasted until sentence on 24 January 2025 for the prior offending (for which he was also arrested) (MFI-3).
While bearing in mind that each offence involved a different victim, the offences presently for sentence strongly comprehend the common criminality of his ADHD associated substance abuse which was conducted in a spree of offending lasting about five weeks. It is appropriate to proceed pursuant to s 53A CSP Act to an aggregate sentence. It is necessary to ensure that the aggregation of all of the sentences is a just and appropriate measure of the total criminality involved: Postiglione v the Queen 189 CLR 295 (1997); [1997] HCA 26.
Sentencing the offender for the instant multiple offences also requires consideration that he is already serving the substantial sentence earlier imposed in the Local Court for like offending and it is necessary to maintain an appropriate relationship between the totality of the criminality involved and the totality of the sentences imposed. The outcome is that the sentence to be now imposed will obviously be of increased severity, given the sentence he is currently serving, because severity of sentence is not simply the product of an arithmetic linear relationship. Further, under the totality principle, I recognise that an extremely long total sentence may be crushing upon him in the sense that it risks introducing a feeling of hopelessness and risks destroying or damaging his present commitment to an expectation of rehabilitation and reform. Yet I am mindful that the sentence must not indicate some kind of discount for multiple offending: [2006] NSWCCA 381 at [15 - 18].
(a) a copy of the report of Dr Thomas Dornan dated 23 December 2025 be provided to Justice Health, Corrective Services and the Drug Court; (b) the offender be assessed for formal ADHD diagnosis and pharmacological management; (c) the offender receive sustained addiction treatment with relapse prevention; (d) the offender receive gambling disorder intervention; (e) the offender be assisted in achieving stable accommodation; (f) the offender be assisted in vocational re-establishment; (g) the offender be assisted in obtaining a Mental Health plan engaging his regular General Practitioner and comply with psychological support and interventions; (h) the offender maintain association, so far as it is available to him, with the CDTCC and enrol in the Pathways Drug and Alcohol Program, Getting Smart Program and Breaking Free from Problem Gambling programs as well as the EQUIPS Addiction program; (i) the offender be referred to a psychiatrist; and (j) the offender be referred to a forensic psychiatrist.
R
Achadjian [2026] NSWDC 78
(1999) 48 NSW LR 327
(1982) 149 CLR 305
(2001) 209 CLR 1
It is plainly in the interests of the community that the offender have the opportunity to achieve his rehabilitation and reintegration into the community as a law-abiding and working citizen.
It is in the balance then to appreciate that although there are a great number of offences, they were opportunistic and not of sophisticated planning. They involved relatively modest sums reflective of his drug funding purpose. In the interests of community safety, I again observe that there is no history of violence to persons and his mode of operation did not include malice or vandalism in relation to property, save for that which is inherent of breaking into premises, cash registers and safes. I do recognise the dishonesty of the Sequence 72 offence when he used a credit card, stolen at a break-in, to make purchases of modest monetary value. I remain mindful that the offender’s antecedent criminal history, includes that he relapsed into his gambling and substance abuse following discharge from Odyssey House. Ultimately, there was potential in the Sequence 61 offence, for trauma to a person either psychological or physical. That the future risk of recidivism is likely to remain at medium to high without structured supports, but can be substantially reduced through appropriate management, psychological and supervisory, justifies a sentence providing a practical opportunity for that to occur during rehabilitation: Crane v R [2024] NSWCCA 87 at [94]. This is a special circumstance for which I will adjust the s 44 CSP Act non-parole/parole ratio.
The evidence well establishes that the offender’s present CDTCC incarceration and program is giving him the opportunity to turn his behaviour around.
Dr Dornan's opinion is consistent with a cautious assessment of the prospects of rehabilitation because of the risk that the offender might relapse into substance abuse and re-engage with this type of criminal conduct. And the evidence is strongly supportive of favourable prospects of rehabilitation given the assessments from Ms Yun and Chaplain Yip of the offender’s commitment to compliance with the CDTTC program and his future rehabilitation and prospects of reintegration into the community.
The offender’s remorse and insight into his offending fit with his displayed course of rehabilitation and his want to rehabilitate, and also support the need for a sentence designed to facilitate his rehabilitation.
In my opinion, having regard to his vulnerability to the fundamental instigators of his offending being substance abuse and gambling, contributed to by his then undiagnosed ADHD, the offender is entitled to some degree of mitigation of sentence on account of lessened moral culpability. That mental health based vulnerability, makes him less than an ideal example for general deterrence and to some degree negates the requirement of specific deterrence. The Crown concedes that the offending occurred in the context of his illicit drug use linked to his poorly controlled mental health, impaired decision-making and consequential reasoning (MFI-1 [20]) and that it is open to the court to make a finding of special circumstances, on the basis of his subjective features.
Ultimately, the principle of proportionality requires that the sentence should not exceed what is appropriate to the gravity of the subject Counts, having regard to the objective circumstances.
I have considered comparative cases including R v Clifford [2008] NSWCCA 190; R v Polkinghorne [2021] NSWDC 155 and R v Hill [2021] NSWDC 333. In each case, the offender received a 25% discount for early plea. I have also considered JIRS statistics of sentences in the Local Court of New South Wales and in this Court. No two cases are the same and individual justice is required. In the Local Court 47.4% of sentences for a principal offence against s 112(1)(a) are not full-time incarceration, and 25.8% of sentences for the principal offence where the offender had previously served custody for like offending are not full-time incarceration. Aggregate sentences of full-time incarceration are 32.8% not more than 12 months; 87.2% are for 2 years or less.
The principle of totality requires the taking into account of that sentence which the offender is presently serving. This would be so even if sentence had been imposed for offences which were not connected and roughly contemporaneous with the present offending: Murray v R [2024] NSWCCA 107. It does not have to be, for instance, that all of the like offences for which the Local Court Judge sentenced the offender and all of the offences presently for sentence be tried by a single Court. In any event, in my opinion, the whole of that offending is part of a connected or roughly contemporaneous, serious series of offences. The total of 79 offences (Counts and Form 1 matters) share the mode of operation of out of hours, commercial property, acquisitive crime to fund a drug habit with absence of violence, threat, trauma to person (other than as is inherent to the victims of this type of offending) or gratuitous damage of property (other than is inherent to break and enter offending). Dr Dornan was not briefed with the facts of the offences before the Local Court Judge. That said, his opinion and the CDTCC documentation infers that his opinion is very likely applicable to that offending. The Local Court Judge did not have the advantage of that evidence.
The parties acknowledge that it is appropriate that I consider backdating the sentence. I recognise that backdating the offender’s sentence in circumstances where he is in custody serving a sentence earlier imposed in the Local Court, which non-parole period terminates 31 August 2026 and which head term terminates 31 August 2028, involves a broad scope of discretion: Farrell v R [2020] NSWCCA 195 at [89] and [112]; Callaghan v R [2006] NSWCCA 58 at [21 - 24]. There is no clear rule which will govern all cases, and I exercise my discretion according to the specific circumstances of sentence for the instant offending set out in this judgement.
The discretion is not to be exercised purely arithmetically, but according to principle: Huynh v R [2024] NSWCCA 61 at [26 - 27]. In my opinion, it is appropriate to backdate the sentence to on 16 September 2024, and to do so whilst recognising the resulting concurrence with sentence ordered 24 January 2025, because of the important consideration of totality.
Bearing in mind the total punishment of the present sentence in the context of the offender, according to the earlier sentence, serving a term of imprisonment commencing 1 September 2023; in my opinion the appropriate sentence is imprisonment for a term of 6 years and 2 months, with a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months.