R v Hookey

Parties: William Hookey (Offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Rex)

Representation: Counsel:
Ms E Moretti (Crown)
Mr A Benzano (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Rex)
Proctor Law (Offender)

File Number(s): 2024/00172759

Publication restriction: Nil.

Judgment

1. HIS HONOUR: William Hookey stands for sentence as a consequence of pleading guilty to a number of charges. In respect of Sequence 5 and Sequence 2 he is to be sentenced. In respect of Sequence 6, I am to take that into account on a Form 1.

2. The offences occurred on 9 May 2024. The offender was born in February 2006. He is currently 20 years old. At the time of the offences now in question, he was 18 years old.

Sequence 5

3. The first offences happened in the suburb of Warrawee. In Warrawee Avenue, Warrawee, lives Mr Kezhen Chen with his wife and two young children. They reside in a double storey house in that avenue. At around 11pm on Wednesday, 8 May 2024 while the rest of his family were asleep in bed, Mr Chen walked around his house to lock the doors from the inside and to ensure that each door was locked. He then went to his study at around midnight.

4. At about 12.35am, the offender and a co‑accused can be seen on closed‑circuit television (‘CCTV’) in the garden area of Mr Chen’s property near the house. They are seen walking around the side and front of the property, appearing to look for ways in which to enter the house.

5. About that time, Mr Chen received a notification on his telephone that a package had been delivered to his front door. That notification appears to have been activated by the movement of the offender and his co‑accused outside. Mr Chen looked at his phone application connected to the doorbell camera and saw one of the accused standing on his front porch. He opened his front door and saw two men running up the left side of his house. He then closed the door and locked it and returned to his study. He then heard a noise from outside his house. The current offender is shown on the CCTV at 12.36am, walking around one side of the property. At that stage, Mr Chen can be seen inside his property at his desk.

6. He then went out to his front door and ran from the front door to the top of the street, where he saw two co‑accused, Fabian and Cameron, both of whom I have already sentenced. When he ran towards those two men to chase them away, he was punched by one of the men up to 20 times, and was also threatened with being stabbed.

7. It is common ground between the parties that neither this offender, nor the first person I referred to as a co-offender, had anything to do with the assault upon Mr Chen.

8. While Mr Chen was being assaulted, the offender and the co-offender, to whom I shall merely refer as CH, went through the front door, which had been left ajar by Mr Chen when he went outside to chase Fabian and Cameron. The entering of the house via the front door, which had been left ajar, is the subject of Sequence 5, entering a dwellinghouse with intent to steal.

9. The offender and CH are depicted inside the house going through a cabinet located in the foyer near the front door. Either the offender or CH took the keys to Mr Chen’s Fiat Abarth from inside the house. That motor vehicle bore the registration number 7EE. The offender and CH then left the house together.

10. Mr Chen returned to his home after he had been assaulted by Fabian and Cameron. He shut the door. His wife had been woken up, and she saw that he was covered in blood. She called the police. Mr Chen then heard a car start and he thought it was the sound of the Fiat Abarth vehicle being turned on. It was parked on his driveway. He then ran outside the house and saw this offender and another male inside the Fiat. The offender was in the driver’s seat, but he had been unable to get the car to start. Although the engine had been switched on, it may have been he could not get it into gear. The agreed facts are somewhat opaque. The offender and the co-offender then got out of the Fiat and moved away from it. The yellow Abarth was purchased in 2019 for $45,000. At the time of the offence, it was valued between $24,900 and $30,600.

Sequence 6 (on the Form 1 in relation to Sequence 5)

11. The attempted theft of the car is Sequence 6, which is the matter I am to take into account on the Form 1.

12. After getting out of the car, one of the offenders picked up a piece of sandstone and threw it in Mr Chen’s direction. It did not hit Mr Chen but hit his Porche vehicle registration number OO1992, and that was also parked on the driveway. The piece of sandstone damaged the parts of the vehicle. Repair of the vehicle cost $10,000. The offender and a co-accused, who I assume was CH, ran up the driveway towards the road and drove away with the others in a Ford Territory.

Sequence 2

13. The next offending occurred later that morning at Galston.

14. A Mr Alexanda Van Dyke lives in Arcadia Road in Galston. About 9.30pm, he went outside his home and checked that the vehicles parked in his driveway were locked. He then returned to his house placed both sets of car keys in the top draw of the kitchen dresser. He retired to bed around 11pm. His wife and 18-month-old daughter were also asleep by that time.

15. At some stage, between 1am and 2am, the offender and a co-accused broke into Mr Van Dyke’s home through a back sliding door and a garage door, and took a handbag containing Mr Van Dyke’s wife’s wallet and the keys to their Mercedes Benz, registration number AMG GLC 43

16. The offender and the co-accused also then took the Mercedes Benz that was parked in the garage. The Mercedes was valued at $69,000. It contained a pram, obviously used for moving the young baby around. The pram was valued at $1,200.

17. At 2.06am, the co-accused Cameron is depicted on CCTV footage filling up the stolen Mercedes with petrol at a service station at Dundas. At about 2.45am, police patrolling the Hunters Hill area observed the Mercedes on Church Road being driven at high speed. They activated their police warning lights and sirens, but the vehicle did not stop. A police pursuit was initiated, but later terminated because of the manner in which the stolen Mercedes was being driven. The actual police pursuit was over a distance of no more than 1 kilometre.

18. At about 4.20am, Mr Van Dyke was woken up by the police knocking at his front door and advising him that his Mercedes Benz had been stolen and involved in a police pursuit. Mr Van Dyke saw that the door to the Ford Ranger was open and that the car had been rummaged through. He also noted that the kitchen drawers and cupboards were open, and appeared to have been rummaged through, and that his wife’s bag containing her wallet, glasses, AirPods, their passports, and keys to the Mercedes were missing. He noticed that the back sliding door was open and that the garage door was ajar. The key to the Ford Ranger vehicle that he owned was missing. The car had not been stolen.

19. The offender was arrested on 9 May 2024 about 3.30pm. He was wearing certain clothing which I do not need to mention, which helped identify him.

20. At 11.16pm, on 9 May 2024, the co-accused Cameron sent a text message to a contact of his and asked that contact whether he wanted to buy a Mercedes Benz. The vehicle was recovered on 15 May 2024, and returned to Mr Van Dyke. However, it was so badly damaged that it was written off by the vehicle’s insurer. The total value of property lost is, on my calculation, $71,950.

Time in Custody

21. The offender was in custody from the time of his arrest on 9 May 2024, until his being granted conditional bail by Smith SC DCJ on 13 August 2025. That was a period of 462 days in custody, referrable solely to the current offending.

22. His bail was revoked by Smith SC DCJ because of a breach of the residence condition of bail. That led to the offender’s being arrested again on 2 October 2025.

23. He is currently in custody at Bathurst Correctional Centre and appears before me today by CCTV.

24. All told, the offender has been in custody for 749 days. The sentence to be passed upon him will need to be backdated until 26 June 2024. Eventually the Crown and defence agreed on that date.

Criminal History & Aggravating Factors

25. The offender has no criminal history as an adult. He has been dealt with by the Children’s Court on a number of occasions, but I ignore the reasons why he was dealt with by the Local Court. However, I am permitted to point out that at the time the offender committed the offences for which he stands for sentence, he was subject to an order of the Children’s Court to be of good behaviour, and that, of course, is an aggravating factor in the commission of offences such as the present.

26. Unfortunately, the offences such as breaking, entering and stealing are common. Unfortunately, they are also offences which most members of the law-abiding community detest. People should be able to feel safe living in their houses and feel safe that their property will not be stolen or damaged whilst it is within the family home. It is for that reason that the criminal law imposes serious penalties for offences such as breaking, entering and stealing.

Consideration and Objective Seriousness

27. The Sequence 5 offence is an offence contrary to s 111(2) of the Crimes Act 1900, it carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. There is no standard non-parole period.

28. The Sequence 2 offence of aggravated, breaking and entering and committing a serious indictable offence is an offence contrary to s 112(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 and carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment. There was a standard non-parole period of five years imprisonment which I would have to consider imposing if this crime were in the mid-range of objective seriousness and if the offender pleaded not guilty but was found guilty of it after a trial.

29. The matter on the Form 1 is an offence contrary to s 154A(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 and itself carries a term of imprisonment of five years. The offence can shortly be described as attempting to take and drive a conveyance.

30. It is accepted by the Crown that the offender pleaded guilty at the earliest available opportunity and is accordingly entitled to a 25% discount of each sentence to be passed upon him for the utilitarian value of his plea of guilty, pursuant to the statutory regime now in place.

31. Offences under ss 111 and 112 of the Crimes Act 1900 cover a broad spectrum of criminal conduct which renders the exercise of classifying the relative gravity of an offence under those sections a particularly difficult one. That was observed by R S Hulme J in R v Meatuai [2016] NSWCCA 42 at [28] - [29]. It was also observed by N Adams J in Saraya v R [2021] NSWCCA 139 at [51]. The seriousness of a serious indictable offence is an appropriate matter to consider on sentence. The Crown accepts that the offence of larceny falls at the very bottom of the range of the maximum penalties which brings an offence within ss 111 and 112 of the Crimes Act 1900. One can break and enter with intent, for example, to commit murder or cause grievous bodily harm, or to carry out a serious sexual assault. Those are much more serious crimes than merely larceny, that is, stealing.

32. Relevant factors can be the type of premises entered, the nature and the value of the property taken and whether there is substantial damage to, or ransacking of, the contents of the premises which have been broken into and entered. It is much more serious to break into somebody’s house than it is to break into a shop or a factory, or some workplace where nobody lives. However, there is no evidence, in the present case, of any substantial damage to the houses in question, or any evidence of any ransacking of the houses, or a substantial interference with the contents of the premises.

33. As far as the offending at Warrawee is concerned, the period of entry was quite brief, there was no damage, there was no ransacking and the only offence committed was larceny. The Crown has conceded that the offending was opportunistic and unsophisticated, it is well below the mid-range of objective seriousness.

34. The offending at Galston was, again, an offence against a dwellinghouse in which there were people asleep. Although doors were opened, there is no evidence of any damage occasioned by the breaking and entering. The offender and his co-offender proceeded to rummage through the kitchen drawers and cupboards and the Ford Ranger vehicle, but there is no evidence of any ransacking or other damaged property. There was clearly stealing and I have described what was stolen and the value of what was stolen. Unfortunately, the stealing of a car appears to be almost automatic these days, the keys are generally left in an open place in the house. The offenders take the keys and then drive off in the vehicle that belonged to the residents of the house. As I say, it is common but insupportable. This offending was more serious than that at Warrawee but, again, below, in my view, the mid-range of objective seriousness.

35. The Form 1 offence is an offence of attempting to take and drive a conveyance. Again, there is no evidence of any damage to the Fiat Abarth itself. In Tukuafu v R [2024] NSWCCA 84, Huggett J with whom Ward P and Chen J agreed said this:

“130 Taking a further offence on a Form 1 document into account for one or more of these purposes is permissible and may result in an increase in the penalty or sentence ultimately imposed. Where the further offence is relatively minor in its seriousness, it may add little to nothing to the otherwise appropriate sentence. Where the criminality involved in the further offence is significant or substantial, subject to proportionality, its effect on the sentence imposed may be “substantial”.”

After the last statement, her Honour relied upon the Attorney General’s Application at [18] of that judgment.

36. Here, the matter on the Form 1, in my view, adds little to the offending.

37. I have also been referred to my decision in R v Fabian; R v Cameron [2025] NSWDC 461 a judgment given on 25 September 2025 in which I sentenced both the offenders Fabian and Cameron*.* I must take into account the penalties imposed on those offenders, because they were part of some of the offences which this offender committed.

38. The most significant case that arises in this sentencing exercise is R v Bugmy [2013] HCA 37 (‘Bugmy’). Mr William Hookey has had an unhappy life, thus far, and everybody in this Court hopes that things change for the better for him.

Medical Evidence

39. There are two significant medical reports before me, one is from Dr Amanda White, a neuropsychologist and bears the date 2 May 2023. The other is from Ms Sarah Connaughton, who prepared a report on 22 September 2023. At that time the offender was 17 years old. She described the offender as a 17-year-old Wiradjuri man. Shen then said this:

“He lived in Toongabbie with his maternal great Aunt Christine whom he called “mum” and siblings (two older, two younger).

He lived with Christine since the age of two. His great uncle, whom he called “dad”, James, passed away August 2020 following a diagnosis of cancer a year earlier. William’s grandfather Keith passed away on 17 March 2021. William had no contact with his biological mother and his biological father was unknown. His maternal grandmother was also Christine. William had multiple, half and stepsiblings. He was closest with his sister Samantha.

William was removed from his biological mother at five months old due to neglect. There were unconfirmed accounts of William being exposed in utero to opiates and alcohol.

William had a history of aggression and attentional issues since the age of seven. Behavioural issues continued into high school and sanctions including suspension. He was previously enrolled in a behavioural school. William was reportedly bullied in high school. He told Justice Health NSW psychiatrist Dr Parsons he only attended school on sports days and could not recall when he last went to school. Ms Tate noted William completed Year 8 at Pendle Hill High School. William received literacy, numeracy and maths support throughout his schooling.

Ms White who recently completed neuropsychological assessment noted that William was functionally illiterate.”

40. Ms Connaughton then talked about various clinical testing that the offender had undergone. He had been diagnosed in the past with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, commonly known as ADHD. He is also diagnosed with a developmental language disorder.

41. She also describes a number of injuries. Those injuries include a head injury after being “king hit” when he was 14 years old, and an assault by a policeman for which there is much evidence before me. It is unfortunate that he should have fallen victim to a person who ought to have upheld the law, but rather broke it instead.

42. Ms Connaughton went on to point out that following the death of the man he called his father, the offender had an observable decline in functioning. Up until the time of his father’s death, he was playing sport and indeed playing rugby league as a representative for, of all places, Manly, when he lived at Toongabbie, but following the death of his father he ceased playing that sport. He also had reduced appetite, lost weight and ran away from home, and became involved in antisocial activities.

43. Ms Connaughton pointed out that at the time she examined the offender he was dismissive about having any mental health concerns and said that he had no problems with his mood, nor any worries or ruminating thoughts and that he had no current thoughts of self-harm. However, it is clear that the offender himself may have been minimising the effect of his various life experiences upon him. After conducting a mental state examination, Ms Connaughton said that, objectively, the offender’s mood was assessed as irritable. He demonstrated little insight and she thought his judgment was chronically impaired because of his cognitive deficits, which were not things that he brought about.

44. She expressed the view that the offender was a young man with a mental health impairment as defined in s 4 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment (Forensic Provisions) Act 2020. She again pointed out that the offender has been diagnosed as having a very low-average IQ, and a developmental language disorder.

45. Dr White carried out her neuropsychological assessment on 3 April 2023 over a period of two and a half hours. Under the heading “Relevant Background”, Dr White wrote this:

“According to available records, Mr Hookey was born and raised in Greater Western Sydney. There are unconfirmed reports that his mother may have consumed substances throughout pregnancy with Mr Hookey. He was removed from his parents’ care from a young age. He was reportedly adopted by his great maternal aunty at age 12 and has aunty and has resided with her and his great uncle since then. His great uncle passed away from cancer about four years ago. Reports suggest that Mr Hookey shared a close relationship with his great uncle and that there was a noticeable decline in his behaviour afterward. There are also reports of possible family members having intellectual delay and learning difficulties, but these appear to be unconfirmed.

Education records indicate Mr Hookey attended Toongabbie West Public School (2011-2017). He was placed in a reading recovery program from Year 1 and received learning support from Years 2 to 6. He participated in the MultiLit literacy program. Years 3 to 6 he also received classroom support and behavioural monitoring. He received extra assistance to support his transition to secondary school. He attended Pendle Hill High School. He was placed in support class secondary to behavioural concerns, including swearing, truancy, insolence, trouble responding to rules and authority, and task avoidance. He received intensive reading program assistance with learning supports. Records indicate Mr Hookey regularly refused such supports.

While detained by Youth Justice he attended Putland School, where ongoing issues were identified with his literacy, general academic performance, and attention. He was enrolled in the NESA Year 10 Life School course in 2021.”

46. Dr White then went on to comment about the assessments that had been made about Mr Hookey. Dr White took this history of substance misuse:

“Mr Hookey endorsed significant history of substance use. He said that he commenced using alcohol at age 13 years. He said this was only on ‘special occasions’ and denied more regular use. He reported that he started smoking crystal meth or methamphetamine (ice) daily from the age of 15 or so. He said it would make him ‘more angry’ and that he would ‘just do [act]’ and not think about his behaviour or its consequences. He said his ice use worsened after the death of his “dad” ... around 2018 and coincided with an increase in antisocial behaviour and interaction with the police. He admitted to using drugs to cope with challenges such as grief and said that once using he would often associate with the ‘wrong people’, make a mistake such as missing his curfew and then once he made one error, he said that he would ‘keep going’ and ‘go on the run’ and that those around him knew he was ‘going all the way’, until he got arrested by police. He said sometimes he took ‘friends’ or associates with him on the run but he said he was the primary instigator of same. He denied any intravenous drug use. He also endorsed recreational cocaine use. He said he smoked tobacco. He reported previously seeing a drug and alcohol caseworker but could not remember he had found this helpful.”

47. At the time that Dr White interviewed the offender he had been detained in a Youth Justice Centre for ten months. In her opinion, Dr White expressed this:

“In conclusion, Mr Hookey presents with significant weakness in his verbal and language abilities and for everyday educative, and treatment purposes he is effectively illiterate requiring external support with same. His clinical presentation, history and results on formal testing are consistent with his reported diagnosis of significant attentional disturbance and diagnosis of ADHD. He also experiences deficits in his high order functioning, including planning and organisational skills and impulsivity, which may be a reflection of his ADHD or a combination of this as well as substance use history and disrupted early development. While some contribution of possible head injury cannot be excluded, based on available evidence this is not considered to be a major contributing factor to his presentation. He does not have a mood disorder or a mental illness. However, he presents with significant behavioural challenges and shows poor ability to inhibit impulses and to apply consequential thinking in the real world, which is like exacerbated by substance use, consistent with his self-report. He would likely meet criteria for a substance use disorder (amphetamines) in early remission in a controlled environment. There is unsubstantiated reports of his mother using alcohol during her pregnancy with Mr Hookey, raising the question of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, which can be excluded based on current assessment. Additionally, Mr Hookey reportedly showed some hearing impairment on screening which may warrant further investigation. It is unclear based on current reports to what extent this may be impacting him.

Mr Hookey’s substance (ice) use appears to significantly impact his psychosocial functioning and behaviour and, according to his account, coincides with his offending history. There appears to be quite a clear pattern when he is released into the community; he likely experiences a heightened anxiety, loss of sense of control over his environment, no clear routine or structure in his day‑to‑day life, feelings of being overwhelmed coupled with his cognitive challenges and lack of insight into this emotional struggles and inability to manage same. He finds it difficult to adhere to rules and restrictions, he is easily influenced by his impulses and acts on same, such as missing his curfew when he is having fun. His limited problem solving and a lack of consequential thinking appear to limit him from altering his behaviour in the absence of any external supports or structures which result in him being returned to Youth Justice. He finds living in the community extremely challenging without considerable external supports and presents as an institutionalised young man.”

Having now spent more than two years in custody one must consider whether that also now is an appropriate way of describing Mr Hookey, now, an institutionalised young man.

48. The considerations which I have just raised all went to the various principles that can be discerned in R v Bugmy and indicate that leaving Mr Hookey in gaol will do no one any good, neither Mr Hookey, nor the community at large, nor any person in lawful authority.

Rehabilitation

49. There are a number of people who are prepared to care for him, to assist him. For example, there is before me a letter from Sadini Handunnetti of Just Reinvest NSW, a group that is involved in empowering First Nations communities. That person and the organisation she represents will do their best to assist Mr Hookey when he rejoins the community to provide cultural programs, fitness based activities, youth leadership initiatives and correct supports, such as obtaining access to the Centrelink Disability Support Pension or the NDIS, or perhaps both, to help Mr Hookey take a positive role in our community. There was also reference to Just Reinvest NSW introducing the offender to the program known as “The Glen For Men” where he is currently waitlisted for a bed emplacement. That form of assistance may be more appropriate for him than other forms of rehabilitation. That is something that he will need to discuss with Just Reinvest NSW, and with his extended family members and with Community Corrections.

50. They point out, and it is clear, that Mr Hookey is a proud Wiradjuri and Bundjalung man, I assume his mother was a Wiradjuri and his father was a Bundjalung man, and taking a place amongst members of the Aboriginal community by law abiding may probably be the best way for Mr Hookey to get ahead in life.

51. The Bugmy principles clearly indicate that, in approaching this sentencing exercise, I should act mercifully and not create problems which may lead to further problems.

Sentence Considerations

52. In respect of the Sequence 5 offence, the offence at Warrawee, I start with a head sentence of two years’ imprisonment. I reduce that by 25% for the offender’s plea of guilty at the earliest available opportunity, which reduces the sentence to 18 months imprisonment.

53. In fixing a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment for the Sequence 5 offence I have taken into account the matter on the Form 1, the Sequence 6 offence.

54. For the Sequence 2 offence, I start with a head sentence of 28 months’ imprisonment, which I reduce to 21 months for the offender’s pleas of guilty at the earliest available opportunity.

55. The total of 21 months and 18 months is 39 months, but I intend to impose an aggregate sentence. I have come to the view that the appropriate aggregate sentence is two years and six months. That was longer than I initially thought I ought impose, but the simple fact is that the offender has been in custody for more than two years and it is clear that he will be assisted for some time in the community by Community Corrections, which might be able to help him reorder his life in the community with the assistance of the others to whom I have referred.

Sentence

56. William Hookey, I have finished the paperwork now. I am now going to formally announce the sentence. On each of the three offences to which you have you have pleaded guilty, you are convicted.

57. I sentence you to a non-parole period of two years, commencing on 26 June 2024 and expiring on 25 June 2026. I impose a further period of imprisonment of six months, commencing upon the expiration of the non-parole period and expiring on 25 December 2026, which is next Christmas Day. The total sentence is therefore two years and six months, comprising the non-parole period and the balance of the sentence. You are eligible to be released on parole at the expiration of the non‑parole period. I have taken into account the matter on the Form 1 in respect of Sequence 5.

58. The indicative sentences for that aggregate sentence are:

59. For Sequence 5 and the matter on the Form 1 - one year and six months.

60. For Sequence 2 - one year and nine months, with a non-parole period of one year and three months.

61. Any other orders sought?

MORETTI: No, your Honour.

BENZANO: No, your Honour.

**********