• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

The court’s task

3. The offender is to be sentenced for the above offending in accordance with the regime set out in Part IB of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). The overarching requirement of that regime is that the court impose a sentence which is of ‘a severity appropriate in all the circumstances’: s 16A(1) of the Crimes Act. The mandatory considerations to which the court must have regard in sentencing the offender are set out in s 16A(2) of the Crimes Act, and they are considered below insofar as they relate to the offender’s circumstances.

4. In all the circumstances, I consider a term of imprisonment to be the only appropriate sentence for each of the above offences, however a recognizance order in respect of each of those offences is also appropriate.

Consequence of the offending

5. The offences for which the offender is to be sentenced occurred during a period in which the offender was on conditional liberty by way of a 12-month good behaviour order imposed by the ACT Magistrates Court on 26 May 2023. The relevant principles informing the court’s discretion in imposing a penalty for the breach are discussed in R v Beniamini (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 32 at [52]. In applying those principles, I acknowledge that the offender had served a significant portion of the good behaviour order at the time of this offending, which occurred only three weeks prior to completion of that order. As both parties submitted, those circumstances make it appropriate to note the breach and take no further action. However, the breach remains relevant as an aggravating feature of these offences.

Facts

6. The sentence proceeded on an agreed statement of facts that was before the court.

7. In the early hours of 5 May 2024, the offender, in company with three co-offenders, Wayne Blundell, Bradley Booth and James Taylor, used a utility vehicle to enter the Belconnen Naval Transmitting Station (BNTS) in Lawson in the ACT, through a pre-existing hole in the wire fence surrounding the site.

8. The BNTS site is listed in the Commonwealth Heritage list and was decommissioned in 2005.

9. The offenders entered the BNTS with the intention of stealing copper wire contained within the buildings on the site.

10. At approximately 4:17am, the co-offenders used the vehicle to reverse through the garage door of the Main Transmission Building Garage Workshop building (Workshop building), before using two power-saws and a prybar to expose cables beneath the workshop floor. Those cables were then connected to the vehicle with rope, and the vehicle was repeatedly driven in and out of the workshop in an effort to remove the cables from the floor.

11. The offender was located and arrested by police that attended the site as an emergency following a call from security.

Damage resulting from the offence (s 16A(2)(e) of the Crimes Act)

12. Extensive damage was caused to the walls, floors and underflooring cabling of the Workshop building, with the total value of the restoration works being $20,760.16. In addition to the monetary cost in repairing the damage, I accept the prosecution’s submission that those restoration works also impact the heritage value of the site.

Nature and circumstances of the offences (s 16A(2)(a) of the Crimes Act)

13. The facts of the offence are set out above. A consideration of the nature and circumstances of the offences includes evaluating the objective seriousness of the offence, which is guided by a number of general principles set out in cases such as R v Kilic [2016] HCA 48; 259 CLR 256 at [19]; Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120 at [27]; Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 at [31]; R v Miller [2019] ACTCA 25; 279 A Crim R 232 at [37], cited in R v Lindsay [2020] ACTCA 25 at [32]; and Laipato v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 35 at [156].

14. The matters informing the objective seriousness of these offences were set out by Baker J at [53]-[54] of the sentencing remarks for two of the co-offenders, Mr Blundell and Mr Booth; DPP v Blundell; DPP v Booth [2025] ACTSC 16. Those matters are reproduced here for the benefit of the offender as well as for ease of reading: (a) The premises is heritage-listed and was decommissioned at the time of the offending. (b) The premises were neither residential nor commercial premises, and the likelihood of people being present at the premises at the time of the offending was small. (c) Entry into the site was gained by a pre-existing hole in the offence rather than by force. (d) Damage was occasioned to the premises by the use of a vehicle. (e) Whilst the offending was unsophisticated, there was a degree of organisation and pre-meditation as evinced by the use tools that the co-offenders brought to the premises.

15. I agree with the view expressed by Baker J at [55] of Blundell that the cost of the rectification work required, being $20,760.16, is significant. Accordingly, I accept the prosecution’s submission that the offender’s conduct falls within the mid-range of objective seriousness for both offences.

Guilty Plea (s 16A(2)(g) of the Crimes Act)

16. It is appropriate to apply a 25% discount in respect of each of the offences because the offender entered guilty pleas to each offence at the earliest opportunity in the ACT Magistrates Court. There was clear utilitarian value in avoiding the cost and delay of a trial and bringing finality to the proceedings at this early stage.

Character, antecedents, age, means and physical or mental condition of the offender (s 16A(2)(m) of the Crimes Act)

17. The offender is a 31-year-old male. His background was before the court through a Drug and Alcohol Sentencing List Suitability Assessment report. That report notes the offender is the eldest of four children and that he experienced a stable and affluent upbringing with his mother and stepfather.

18. At the age of 17, the offender sustained a significant back injury while playing semi-professional rugby league for the Canberra Raiders, which ended his aspirations of pursuing a professional sporting career. The offender began using cannabis to manage his injury, and his use quickly developed into habitual consumption. At around this time, the offender also began to use methamphetamine, which escalated to daily use.

19. The offender reports experiencing instability in his late adolescence and twenties, characterised by a period of transient accommodation and interactions with the justice system, after being asked to leave the family home due to his drug-use and associated behaviours. Understandably, the drug-use has resulted in a strained relationship with his mother and siblings.

20. The offender has two sons aged eight and three, with whom he has limited contact. The offender has expressed a desire to reconnect with his children and to regain custody of his eldest son, citing that as a significant contributor to his motivation for change.

21. The offender withdrew from formal education in year 11. Since then, he has undertaken apprenticeships in tiling and plastering but discontinued both due to his ongoing substance use. The offender has been unemployed since 2023 and currently relies on Centrelink benefits as his primary source of income.

22. The offender has a history of like offending in the ACT, which disentitles him from leniency. As stated above, the offender was also on conditional liberty at the time of the offending. I have taken this into account in determining the length of the individual sentences and the manner of the sentence to be imposed.

Rehabilitation (s 16A(2)(n) of the Crimes Act)

23. The offender’s prospects of rehabilitation are guarded. The offender has previously completed the Solaris program while in custody in 2023. The offender was admitted to the Karralika Families residential rehabilitation program in 2025 however he regrettably left that program after four months, in the hope of finding employment. That appears to be a common pattern for those struggling with addiction and why having the insight and motivation to persevere with rehabilitation is so important if the offender is to have any chance of managing what is properly regarded as a vicious disease. The offender’s present motivation to overcome his addiction appears genuine and driven largely by his desire to reconnect with his children and his mother, as well as to generally live a more pro-social lifestyle in the community.

24. Fortunately for him, he has been afforded a further opportunity at rehabilitation, through Canberra Recovery Services (CRS), with admission into that program being available today, 2 June 2026.

Pre-sentence custody

25. As at the date of sentence (25 May 2026), the offender had spent 3 days in custody directly referable to the offending. This time will be taken into account by way of backdating. Totality

26. The approach to principles of concurrency and accumulation has been set out in Dawson v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 9 at [37] (and the cases there-cited). The offences in this case arose out of the same criminal enterprise, and therefore, it is appropriate that the sentences to be imposed for each of the offences have a significant degree of concurrency.

Parity

27. Parity principles require that like cases be treated alike, seeking to avoid unjustified disparity in sentences imposed on co-offenders. The application of these principles is guided by consideration of the objective and subjective differences between co-offenders, which may justify the imposition of different sentences: Thompson v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 2 at [24] and [26].

28. There is no evidence before the court that any of the co-offenders had a considerably greater, or lesser, role in the offences. I therefore accept that the offender’s role was equal to that of the co-offenders and that he should be sentenced accordingly.

29. The sentences imposed on Mr Blundell and Mr Booth, are set out at [87] of Blundell. A short summary of each of those sentences follows. Mr Taylor was recently sentenced on 29 May 2026 in a manner similar to the those offenders and to the ultimate outcome here.

Mr Blundell

30. A total head sentence of one year and seven months was imposed.

31. On the charge of aggravated burglary in company, Mr Blundell was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 18 months after a 25% discount for a guilty plea, with a recognizance release order (RRO) permitting his release immediately with security of $250, without surety, and on the condition that he be of good behaviour for a period of 18 months.

32. On the charge of property damage by joint commission, Mr Blundell was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for one year, one month and 14 days after a 25% discount for a guilty plea, with an RRO permitting his release immediately with security of $250, without surety, and on the condition that he be of good behaviour for a period of one year, one month and 14 days. Mr Booth

33. In recognition of the greater need for deterrence and protection of the community and the lengthy criminal history, the sentence for this offender was of longer duration. A total head sentence of two years and 14 days was imposed, which in addition to the subject offences, included a period of imprisonment for driving while disqualified as a repeat offender.

34. On the charge of aggravated burglary in company, Mr Booth was sentenced to imprisonment for one year, 10 months and 14 days after a 25% discount for a guilty plea, with an RRO permitting his release immediately with security of $250, without surety, and on the condition that he be of good behaviour for a period of one year, 10 months and 14 days.

35. On the charge of property damage by joint commission, Mr Booth was sentenced to imprisonment for one year, four months and 14 days after a 25% discount for a guilty plea, with an RRO permitting his release immediately with security of $250, without surety, and on the condition that he be of good behaviour for a period of one year, four months and 14 days.

Reparation order

36. The Crown sought an order for reparation pursuant to s 21B of the Crimes Act in the amount of $20,760.16 to be paid to the Commonwealth. I do not consider it appropriate to make a reparation order in the circumstances. The offender has been unemployed since 2023 and relies on Centrelink payments as his primary source of income. Guided by the reasons of Baker J at [86] of Blundell, I accept the offender’s submissions that the making of such an order would place the offender under further significant financial strain and potentially adversely affect his rehabilitation.

Disposition

37. Sentences of imprisonment are a last resort but are required to be imposed here because each offence must give effect to the need for general deterrence, both on the offender and for other offenders: ss 16A(2)(j) and (ja) of the Crimes Act. Any sentence of imprisonment should never exceed the minimum that is necessary to accomplish relevant sentencing objectives: Thorn v Laidlaw [2005] ACTCA 49 at [30].

38. The offender has a criminal history that has been precipitated and perpetuated by illicit substance misuse, with the apparent motive of the subject offences being to fuel his drug addiction.

39. The court is acutely concerned with the outcome that will best protect the community. I echo the sentiment of Baker J that rehabilitation is likely to be the most durable guarantor of community protection; Blundell at [78] citing Hogan v Hinch [2011] HCA 4; 243 CLR 506 at [32]. If there is no intervention targeting his drug use, the offender will be at a high risk of re-engaging in criminal conduct.

40. The offender was initially found eligible for a drug and alcohol treatment order (DATO) and was progressed to the suitability stage of the assessment. There is an unresolved question as to whether a drug and alcohol treatment order (DATO) pursuant to Part 5.4A of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) is an available sentence for a Commonwealth offence. However, it is unnecessary to deal with the issue in the present case because the offender was found unsuitable for a DATO by corrective services due to a lack of engagement with the service and in any event, the offender subsequently withdrew his consent for that treatment option.

41. Similarly, an Intensive Corrections Order Assessment is not available because the necessary report could not be prepared for the offender, again due to his lack of engagement.

42. While the offender has engaged with rehabilitation service providers in the past, he has been unable to overcome his addiction and remain abstinent from drugs. The offender has expressed a renewed motivation to extinguish drugs from his life, driven by his desire to reconnect with his family and live a pro-social life in the community. As outlined above, the offender has been accepted into the CRS residential rehabilitation program, the successful completion of which may be the catalyst for the offender to change the trajectory of his life.

43. In accordance with the principles of parity, it is appropriate to allow the offender an opportunity to serve the remainder of his terms of imprisonment in the community by way of an RRO. That form of sentence will best facilitate the offender’s rehabilitation, and a condition will be imposed to support his admission into, and completion of, the CRS residential rehabilitation program.

44. I would say to the offender that getting off drugs has proven to be very difficult for him in the past. He knows the journey he has chosen is not the easy option, but committing and staying the course is so critically important if he is to restore his family connections and reduce his interactions with the criminal justice system in the longer term.

Orders

45. The orders of the Court are: (1) For CAN 5062/2024, aggravated burglary in company, contrary to s 132.5(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, the offender is convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for two years, reduced to 18 months on account of his guilty plea, backdated to commence on 30 May 2026 and conclude on 29 November 2027. (2) For CAN 6877/2025, damage Commonwealth property by joint commission, contrary to ss 11.2A and 132.8A of the Criminal Code, the offender is convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 18 months reduced to 1 year, 1 month and 15 days on account of his guilty plea, to commence on 15 November 2026 and conclude on 29 December 2027. (3) The total effective term of imprisonment is 1 year and 7 months. (4) Pursuant to s 20(1B) of the Crimes Act, the offender is to be released on recognizance from 2 June 2026 pursuant to s 19AC of the Crimes Act, upon giving surety in the sum of $500 (without security) and upon conditions, that the offender: (a) be of good behaviour for the balance of the term of the sentence; (b) be subject to the supervision of a probation officer appointed in accordance with the order (the Director-General of Justice and Community Safety Directorate or their delegate); (c) obey all reasonable directions of the supervising probation officer; (d) refrain from travelling interstate or overseas without the written permission of the supervising probation officer; (e) travel to CRS directly and complete that residential rehabilitation program, or undertake such other treatment or rehabilitation programs that the supervising probation officer reasonably directs; and (f) report to ACT Community Corrections within two working days of release from CRS unless otherwise agreed in writing with the supervising probation officer. I certify that the preceding forty-five [45] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Justice McWilliam.

Associate: Date: