R v Shiels

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Shiels [2025] NSWDC 551

Hearing dates: 12 and 15 December 2025

Date of orders: 15 December 2025

Decision date: 15 December 2025

Jurisdiction: Criminal

Before: Haesler SC DCJ

Decision: Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 1 year, 10 months with a non-parole period of 11 months

Catchwords: CRIME — Driving offences — Drive a conveyance — Knowing the conveyance was taken without consent
— Police pursuit — Not stopping — Driving in a manner dangerous to another person or persons
CRIME — Property offences — Carried in a conveyance — Drive a conveyance — Knowing the conveyance was taken without consent
SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Breach of conditional liberty — Record of previous convictions
SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty — ICO not appropriate
SENTENCING — Probation and parole — Offence committed whilst on parole
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Moral culpability — Objective seriousness
SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Election for District Court — Local Court unable to impose custodial sentence because of s 58 Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW)
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Chronic exposure to family violence and drug and alcohol abuse — Institutionalisation — Mental illness — Schizophrenia — Use and abuse of drug and alcohol in youth — NDIS and family support — Suspected untreated learning disorder

Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW)

Cases Cited: Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 (2013) 249 CLR 571
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70; (1988) 166 CLR 59
R v Shiels [2011] NSWSC 1177
R v Shiels [2011] NSWSC 1693

Category: Sentence

Parties: Ronald Wayne Shiels (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)

Representation: Counsel:
A Booker (for the offender)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid (NSW) (for the offender)
A Cabrera solicitor for Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)

File Number(s): 2024/440234; 2025/6565; 2025/157242

JUDGMENT – ex tempore revised

Introduction

1. On 29 August 2011 Barr J found the offender, Ronald Shiels, guilty of the murder of his father: R v Shiels [2011] NSWSC 1693. On 7 October 2011 his Honour sentenced Shiels to 20 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years: R v Shiels [2011] NSWSC 1177. On 30 April 2024, Shiels was released to parole. In November 2024 he was back in custody.

2. There are four counts for sentence today. Although pleas were indicated in the Local Court, they were placed on a formal Indictment that was presented on Friday of last week. The matter commenced then but could not be finalised in the time available.

Charges

3. The four counts related to:

4. An offence of being carried in a conveyance (a Range Rover) on 17 November 2024: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 154A(1)(b);

5. An offence of drive a conveyance knowing the conveyance (a Mitsubishi) was taken without consent of the owner on 25 November 2024: Crimes Act, s 154A(1)(b). It was captured on service station CCTV;

6. A similar offence under the same section when on 26 November 2024 he was driving the same Mitsubishi; and

7. On the same day, driving the same Mitsubishi and being involved in a police pursuit, not stopping when required to do so, and driving the vehicle in a manner dangerous to others: Crimes Act, s 51B(1).

Maximum penalties

4. The conveyance offences each carry maximum penalties of 5 years imprisonment. A police pursuit offence carries a maximum penalty of 3 years imprisonment. Also, before the Court are two summary matters involving driving while never licenced: Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW), s 53(3). He admitted his guilt to those maters in the Local Court.

5. The maximum penalties are important guides to the exercise of the Court’s sentencing jurisdiction but the matters presently before this Court would ordinarily be dealt with in the Local Court. They are before this Court because of the provisions of s 58 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). That section so constrains a magistrate’s jurisdiction when a person has a long non-parole period, that any penalty that could be imposed in that Court would be inadequate. As a consequence, the Director of Public Prosecution exercised their undoubted discretion to proceed to this Court.

6. As the guilty pleas were indicated in the Local Court, each sentence I intend to indicate will be reduced by 25% to reflect the utilitarian value of that guilty plea. I will take care that the process of accumulation not erode that benefit.

Facts for sentence

7. In the early hours of 17 November 2024, a house in southern Wollongong had a window broken. Car keys were taken from the house. Those keys were used to take a Range Rover. Shiels, by his plea of guilty, admits that at some stage he was in that motor vehicle knowing it had been stolen. His DNA was found on the steering wheel. The Range Rover was recovered a few kilometres from where it was taken.

8. Some time on the evening of 24 November 2024 an unknown person entered a residence in a caravan park in southern Wollongong. Again, car keys were stolen. A Mitsubishi vehicle was taken.

9. On 25 November 2024 at 1.25pm, Shiels with a female passenger drove the vehicle into a Caltex Service Station. CCTV records the female passenger hopped out of the vehicle and filled it up with petrol and then they drove off. That is the second count for sentence.

10. That evening about 7.10pm police driving in southern Wollongong saw the Mitsubishi. They confirmed it was stolen and made a U-turn to follow it. The police activated warning lights and then a siren. The police car accelerated to approach the Mitsubishi. A police pursuit was “called in”. Shiels was driving the Mitsubishi. It then travelled at speeds of up to 115 kilometres per hour in a 60 kilometre zone. It failed to slow when it approached stop signs, travelled at 60 in a 50 zone. It made the dangerous U‑turns, including going into a cul-de-sac and then coming back towards the pursuing police vehicle. The speeds got to a 100 in a 50 zone. The pursuit continued through areas which I know well and are quiet suburban streets or feeder roads.

11. This pursuit was terminated when the Mitsubishi went through a red light at an intersection between a suburban street and a main road. Sometime later the vehicle was seen heading south. Police deployed road spikes. The Mitsubishi went over those road spikes. The facts say they were “successfully deployed” but the vehicle continued on. It was then seen going through a red light, narrowly missing another vehicle. The Mitsubishi was located not far away, outside Shiels’ home. He ran through the home and then exited over the back.

12. Shiels was eventually arrested at his home at 8.30pm on 26 November. On arrest he said, “what am I the best driver in the South Coast? Got away from you’se though didn’t I that’s what you think? Laid spikes down and still got away”.

13. His admissions, DNA and other evidence led inevitably to his accepting responsibility and entering pleas of guilty.

Objective seriousness

14. An assessment of objective seriousness is an important aspect of any sentencing exercise. It is only one of the parameters that must be considered.

15. He used two other people’s motor vehicles. One vehicle was only used for a very short period, and it was later recovered near Shellharbour Hospital and not far from where the offender lived. The other vehicle must have suffered tire damage from the road spikes but there is no evidence it was substantially damaged. And both would have been returned to their owners. But unless are you lucky enough to own a home, a motor vehicle is generally the most expensive and valuable possession a person can own and to lose that car means, not just financial loss, but loss of ability to move freely about the community.

16. Not all vehicles are insured, and even if they are, the use of vehicles such as this, causes higher premiums passed on to the community. To have your vehicle used in this would cause distress to the owner and community. Community cohesion is one reason we have criminal laws. If people are to live as a community, we have to be able to trust each other.

17. That same level of trust also applies to those who use our roads. Shiels has never been licenced. No one knows if he is a competent driver or not. What he thinks is not the test, he chose to drive motor vehicles despite never being licenced to do so.

18. During the police pursuit whatever the rights or wrongs of police practice and procedure, his obligation as a citizen was to pull over and stop and cop what was coming to him; not accelerate, not drive through suburban streets at speed, not put himself, the police and other road users, at risk. To ignore police directions, the siren and the lights, shows a high degree of moral culpability, especially when one considers that he drove for some period around suburban streets before that pursuit was terminated. He must have put others at risk.

19. In relation to Counts 2, 3 and 4 the facts obviously require consideration of a custodial sentence. The threshold has been crossed: C**rimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, s 5.

20. So far as the first count is concerned his counsel, Mr Booker, submitted that a custodial sentence was not warranted. If it had been an isolated incident I would have agreed with that submission but given the pattern of offending and given that custodial sentences are to be imposed for all of the others, I find that it does cross the threshold in the circumstances of this case. Primarily because of the aggravating feature, that each of these offences were committed while subject to parole. To get parole Shiels had to promise to be of good behaviour – he was not of good behaviour.

Case for the offender

21. Ronald Shiels’ background is sad but uncontroversial. It is summarised in the report of Mr Kilkeary: Exhibit 1. And in the decisions of Justice Barr. In R v Sheils [2011] NSWSC 1177 at pars [20] to [22] his Honour found several mitigating features justifying his conclusion that Shiels had reasonable prospects not to reoffend and reasonable prospects of rehabilitation. They included; his youth, not a bad criminal record, genuine remorse and family support. He had at the time been placed on an indefinite regime of anti-psychotic drugs. He had complied with that medication regime. And, there was no suggestion that he had misbehaved between his arrest and sentence.

22. After his release to parole Shiels in 2024 responded well to supervision. However, after about six months there was a significant decline in his stability. This coincided with the re-emergence of risk factors such as failing to attend reviews or engage in programs and, it would appear, illicit drug use. This decline culminated in the offences now for sentence.

23. Mr Kilkeary details a history of childhood exposure to alcohol and drugs and significant disruption. Shiels took up the use and abuse of alcohol and illicit drugs before he was old enough to make rational choices. This problem was co-existent with, and compounded by, the early onset of a schizophrenic illness, which at times involved episodes of paranoia and the hearing of voices. Mr Kilkeary concluded that Shiels may also have an undiagnosed and untreated learning disorder. He noted the significant harm to him caused by chronic exposure to family violence and then years of institutionalisation.

24. Shiels’ NDIS provider notes that on release he will have a number of support services available to him including, hopefully, transitional support accommodation: Exhibit 2. The author says that Shiels has spoken to her about achieving goals and how he wants to make major changes once he is healthy mentally and has a stable living environment. He accepts that he will be subject to a Community Treatment Order on release and he will need to engage with the Community Mental Health Team.

25. Shiels has family support, who are here today. And that is always a positive.

26. Mr Kilkeary notes that Shiels is enthusiastic about the support that may be available through his NDIS provider. He wants to live independent of his family. He told Mr Kilkeary he had relapsed into illicit drug use and then offending.

27. Mr Kilkeary, in his report, sets out in summary well documented evidence that prisons can erode an inmate’s sense of hope and self at the time making their reintegration into the community difficult.

Synthesis

28. I accept that after a long period in custody with his underlying mental health and other problems, that the same rules, so far as moral culpability, do not apply to the extent they would to persons without his multiple disadvantages, but he has to learn the consequences of not obeying the direction of parole officers, of breaching the law and breaking his promises to the State Parole Authority. That is why he is back in custody because he broke those promises by the commission of further offences.

29. At the same time, judges do not ignore the lived experience of gaol. Nor do Judges ignore the socialising impact of a decade more in gaol. Judges do not underestimate how difficult it is to reintegrate, particularly, for a person who has never really lived a normal life in the community. Often it is a case of steps forward and steps back and hopefully more steps forward.

30. Shiels’ next parole review date is on 27 January 2026. Community Corrections note that a stronger mitigation plan will need to be implemented before his next release to parole; to allow him opportunities to reintegrate safely back into the community. This plan could include a formal direction he engages in community based or residential drug treatment and other programs. It is set out in Exhibit A, Tab 12. That decision will ultimately be for the State Parole Authority.

31. A mental illness and an offender’s deprived background can impact on their moral culpability. Those matters have to be considered. They do not diminish over time: Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 (2013) 249 CLR 571 at [40]; Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194 at [177].

32. I am required to impose appropriate sentences for each offence and then structure the sentence such that the overall sentence is just and appropriate to the totality of his crimes. I will attempt to do so: Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70; (1988) 166 CLR 59 at [62]-[63].

33. The evidence relating to Shiels’ need to engage with the NDIS and Community Corrections, and take up the programs that hopefully will be made available to him, the need to maintain his motivation to change his behaviour and learn positive lessons from his period in custody, and his need for help adjusting to normal community life, all provide a basis for a finding of special circumstances.

34. A submission was made that an Intensive Correction Order could best meet the purposes of sentencing. The matter was discussed before we had to adjourn last Friday. I accept the solicitor for the DPP’s submission that given the short period he had spent on parole, the length of his parole period and the nature of the breaches, despite the supervision being offered by Community Corrections, community safety concerns are paramount. I cannot be satisfied that anything other than a full-time custodial sentence should be imposed. That said, the sentence can be structured in a way that the State Parole Authority can, in the exercise of their discretion, release the offender with conditions including supervision, in the community as soon as they think appropriate. Noting, they will not make a parole order unless satisfied that it is in the interests of the safety of the community: (NSW), s 135.

Orders

36. In relation to the two driving never licenced offences, I deal with each matter by way of a conviction, but no further penalty would be expedient. They are dealt with pursuant to s 10A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act*.* There are no licence disqualifications on those matters and it is inexpedient to impose a fine.

37. I indicate the following sentence. Each take into account the guilty plea:

38. Count 1, carried in conveyance, Windang, 17 November – a sentence of 3 months imprisonment.

39. Count 2, drive conveyance, 25 November, the Caltex incident – 9 months imprisonment.

40. Count 3, the Lake Heights offence– 9 months imprisonment.

41. Count 4, the police pursuit – 1 year and 2 months imprisonment. There will be a driving disqualification of 1 year and 6 months.

42. That driving disqualification will be suspended while Shiels is in custody. If you hop behind the wheel of a motor vehicle Mr Shiels you can expect your parole will be breached. There are ways and means of getting a driver’s licence and I hope the opportunity is offered to you so at some stage you can drive legally. But if you drive without a licence, you could breach your parole. Do you understand that?

43. The aggregate sentence in this matter is one of 1 year and 10 months. The sentence will commence on 26 November 2024; there will be a non‑parole period of 11 months reflecting a significant finding of special circumstances

44. This means that his release to parole date on this sentence is 25 October 2025. The total sentence expires on 25 September 2026.

45. What that means is that your non-parole period for this sentence has expired. It will be up to the State Parole Authority at your next review date on 27 January to determine whether you are to be released and on what conditions you are to be released but that is their decision not mine. Do you understand?

46. OFFENDER: Thank you.

**********