R v Wright

Category: Sentence

Parties: Rex (Crown)
Christopher Raymond Wright (Offender)

Representation: Counsel:
C Wheatley (Crown)
D Pace (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Jamieson Criminal Law (Offender)

File Number(s): 2023/00340179

JUDGMENT

1. Christopher Raymond Wright appears for sentence in respect of 7 substantive offences. The offending took place between 1 and 17 October 2023. The offender was arrested and charged on 26 October 2023 and has been in custody since that date.

OFFENCES

2. Over a period of approximately 3 weeks in October 2023 the offender collected sets of keys which did not belong to him at a variety of locations and thereafter, on most instances, stole a motor vehicle using those acquired keys. In some instances he also obtained credit cards which he fraudulently used, and in one instance, he utilised stolen house keys to enter the home of a victim. This spate of criminal offending was not an audition for entry into Fagin’s gang of thieves. It was, regrettably, a repetition of offending of a similar nature which has recurred with regularity throughout the offender’s adult life.

3. The offences charged with respect to the present series of matters are as follows:

4. Sequence 23 is an offence of entering a building with intent to commit a serious indictable offence while having previous convictions contrary to s 115 of the Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty for this offence is 10 years.

5. There are two further offences attached to Sequence 23 on a Form 1. Sequence 2 is an offence of take and drive conveyance without the consent of the owner contrary to s 154A(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900. Sequence 24 is an offence of larceny of a value of less than or equal to $2,000 contrary to s 117 of the Crimes Act 1900. This is the “Canterbury Hospital” offending.

6. Sequence 25 is an offence of entering a dwelling-house with intent to commit a serious indictable offence contrary to s 111 of the Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty for this offence is 10 years. Attached to Sequence 25 on a Form 1 is an offence of take and drive conveyance without the consent of the owner, which is Sequence 6, contrary to s 154A(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900. This is the “North Rocks” offending.

7. Sequence 31 is an offence of aggravated break and enter a dwelling in company and stealing to the value of less than $60,000. This is an offence contrary to s 112(2) of the Crimes Act 1900. This carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment. There is a standard non-parole period of 5 years. This conduct relates to the same victims as the “North Rocks” offending.

8. I note in passing that there was a co-offender in relation to Sequence 6, the taking and driving of a Kia motor vehicle, and Sequence 31, the aggravated break and enter.

9. Sequence 27 is a further offence of entering a building with intent to commit a serious indictable offence while having previous convictions contrary to 115 of the Crimes Act 1900. As already noted, the maximum penalty for this offence is 10 years. A further offence is attached to Sequence 27 on a Form 1. Sequence 28 is an offence of take and drive conveyance without the consent of the owner contrary to s 154A(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900. This is the “Leichardt” offending.

10. Sequence 3 relates to an offence of driving while disqualified from holding a licence during the period of the various offences contrary to s 53(1)(a) of the Road Transport Act 2013. This is before the Court as a related offence pursuant s 166(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. It carries a maximum penalty of 12 months and/or a fine together with an accompanying disqualification for 12 months.

11. Sequences 17 and 20 are each offences of obtaining property by deception contrary to s 192E(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900. Each offence carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

12. At the outset I note that the offender was disqualified from holding a driver’s licence from 18 April 2023 to 17 August 2024. As I will shortly outline, throughout the period of offending which occurred between 1 to 17 October 2023 the offender drove various vehicles whilst subject to that disqualification. This general conduct forms the basis of Sequence 3.

Canterbury Hospital Offending - Sequences 23 with Sequences 2 & 24 attached

13. On 1 October 2023 the offender entered the grounds of Canterbury Hospital and accessed the office in which the Hospital’s fleet vehicles keys were secured. He was observed on CCTV footage getting into a Canterbury Hospital fleet vehicle, a Skoda Fabia, and driving away. This conduct forms the basis of Sequence 23, namely enter premises with intent to commit a serious indictable offence whilst having previous convictions. It also forms the basis of Sequence 24, take and drive a conveyance without consent.

14. On 4 October 2023 the offender was observed attending a BP service station in Yagoona in the Skoda. He filled the vehicle up with $31 worth of petrol and then left the premises without paying. This conduct forms Sequence 24, larceny, which has been placed on a Form 1 and which is attached to the substantive offence of entering Canterbury Hospital (Sequence 23).

15. On 8 October 2023 the vehicle was recovered by police in Dulwich Hill with a number of the offender’s personal items in it. The vehicle was returned to Canterbury Hospital on 17 October 2023 with some minor damage.

North Rocks Offending – Sequence 25 with Sequence 6 attached; Sequence 31

16. The victim Sung Jeon operated a business in North Rocks. He owned a Kia Serato and resided with his wife Fang Chi Chang in Rhodes.

17. On 2 October 2023 the victim was at his business premises and left his Kia in a parking spot near the front of the premises. He left his car and house keys on the ground floor desk inside the front entrance of the business while he went upstairs. The front entrance was closed but unlocked.

18. Around 1-2pm the offender attended the premises and took the keys from the front desk. He then took the Kia Serato and drove away. This conduct forms the basis for Sequence 25, entering premises with the intent to commit a serious indictable offence. It also forms the basis of Sequence 6, take and drive conveyance without consent, which, as I have indicated, is on a Form 1 attached to the primary charge.

19. Around 3:30pm the offender and a co-offender, Sam Mokofisi, attended the victims’ home in Rhodes. They used a fob attached to the stolen house keys to access level 6 of the block of units and then entered the victims’ unit. Ms Chang was in her bedroom sleeping when they entered the unit and she was awakened by their conversation. She got up and came out of the bedroom. The co-offender asked, “What are you doing here?” Ms Chang said: “I thought you were my husband”. The co-offender said: “We came in to check the power. Go back to your room.”

20. The offender took a Nike backpack from the loungeroom before leaving the unit with the co-offender. Ms Chang later noticed other items missing from the home including an Adidas strap bag containing a wallet with bank cards, identification, and cash. This conduct forms the basis of Sequence 31, the aggravated break and enter in company.

21. In the lobby of the block of units the offender and the co-offender also stole some parcels which were near the lift door before leaving the premises.

22. The following day, on 3 October 2023, the house keys were located in the letterbox to the North Rocks business. On 6 October 2023 the vehicle was located near the co-offender’s residence.

Leichardt Offending – Sequence 27 with Sequence 28 attached

23. The victim Ji Young Shin was employed at a warehouse in Leichardt and was the owner of a Toyota Kluger. On 10 October 2023 the victim attended work and parked the vehicle near the front of the warehouse car park. He left his car keys in a backpack in the manager’s office inside the warehouse.

24. Around 12pm the offender attended the warehouse, walked through it to the manager’s office and took the keys from the backpack. He then entered the Toyota Kluger and drove it away. This conduct forms the basis of Sequence 27, enter with intent to commit a serious indictable offence whilst having previous convictions. It also forms the basis of Sequence 28, take and drive conveyance without consent which is again on the Form 1 attached to the substantive offence.

Obtain Property by Deception – Sequences 17 & 20

25. This offending relates to two separate but similar incidents.

26. On 10 October 2023 the victim Catherine Stern attended TAFE at St Leonards. She left her Apple AirPods and a wallet containing her bank cards in her backpack in the corner of a room at the TAFE.

27. Sometime that day Ms Stern received a notification, presumably from a banking app on her phone, indicating that her card had been used at Ashfield BP Service Station. She then checked her bag and noticed that two bank cards and her AirPods were missing.

28. A review of her debit card transactions identified the following unauthorised transactions made by the offender using the stolen card:

29. $51 at BP Ashfield for cigarettes;

30. $95 at Officeworks Five Dock for a gift card;

31. $95 at Coles Express Five Dock for a gift card;

32. $95 at Coles Express Five Dock for a gift card

33. $55.95 at Officeworks Five Dock for a gift card;

34. $54.95 at Coles Express Five Dock for a gift card

35. $61.45 at Coles Express Five Dock for a gift card;

36. $95 at Officeworks Five Dock for a gift card;

37. $5 at Ck’s Five Dock, being a kebab shop.

38. This amounts to a total of $608.35. This conduct forms the basis of Sequence 20, namely, obtaining property by deception.

39. On 17 October 2023 the other victim attended school at Concord High School to sit an exam from around 9:00am-12:30pm. He placed his bag containing his wallet and belongings in a designated area outside the exam hall. Around 5pm that day the victim noticed that $50 in cash and his bank card were missing from his wallet.

40. A review of his debit card transactions identified one unauthorised transaction made by the offender using the stolen card: $95 at a Coles Express. This conduct forms the basis of Sequence 17, namely a further offence of obtain property by deception.

41. As stated above, the offender was arrested and charged with these offences on 26 October 2023. He pleaded Guilty to these offences on 30 October 2024 at his committal.

OBJECTIVE SERIOUSNESS

33. In written submissions the Crown proposed assessments of objective seriousness for each of the offences. In submission on behalf of the offender, Mr Pace of Counsel did not object to or cavil with those assessments.

34. The Crown assessed the objective seriousness of the various offences as follows:

35. Canterbury Hospital offending – lower end;

36. North Rocks offending:

(a) Enter with intent – lower end; (b) Aggravated break and enter – below mid-range;

3. Leichardt offending – lower end;
4. Obtain by deception:

(a) Concord High student – lower end; (b) Stern – lower end, although objectively more serious than the Concord student offending given the quantum;

5. Driving while disqualified – increased by its ongoing nature over the 17-day period

6. In broad terms, I agree with the categorisation by the Crown as to the respective assessments of objective seriousness. Each of them falls within an ongoing criminal episode but the separately charged offences are required to be assessed individually with respect to their objective seriousness.

7. The Crown did not in terms express an assessment of the objective seriousness of the driving whilst disqualified. In my view, given that the charge reflects multiple instances of driving during a period of several weeks, the offending may be viewed as falling above the mid-range for such type of offending.

8. I note in passing that I do not take into account the offender’s criminal history and conditional liberty in assessing objective seriousness, nor do I treat his criminal history as a matter of aggravation (see MacBlane v R [2025] NSWCCA 52).

SUBJECTIVE CIRCUMSTANCES

38. The offender was born on 29 March 1979 and is now 46 years of age. He did not give evidence at the sentence proceedings.

39. Evidence with respect to his subjective circumstances was provided through a Psychological Assessment Report by Mitchell John McLean, psychologist, dated 27 April 2025; a Medico Legal report by Dr Michael Robertson, Associate Professor and Consultant Psychiatrist, dated 23 February 2021; an Apology Letter from the NSW Department of Communities and Justice addressed to the offender dated 9 August 2022; and a Remand Addictions letter of Attendance and associated certificates of completion dated 17 April 2025. The Court has also received an updated Remand Addictions letter of attendance dated 26 May 2025. The Court was also assisted by Sentencing Assessment Reports prepared by Nicola Macdougal, Community Corrections Officer, dated 3 December 2024 and 14 January 2025, and a copy of Mr Wright’s criminal history.

40. I note in passing that Professor Robertson’s report makes reference to and quotes from numerous other documents which are not before this Court.

41. In his clinical interview with Mr McLean and in consultation with Professor Robertson, the offender described difficulties in his early childhood. He was one of five children growing up in Chester Hill. His parents separated when he was 6 years of age. His mother was supportive however struggled with alcohol abuse. His mother eventually remarried a heroin user who “often took his aggression out on Mr Wright”, which I take to mean he was verbally or physically abusive. The offender recalled growing up poor, often going without clothing or food. He did not have a relationship with his biological father until the age of 14.

42. Mr Wright reported attending school at Chester Hill North Public School, Patrician Brothers’ College, Chester Hill High School, and several behavioural schools. Patrician Brother’s College was described as a rugby league “nursery” school. Mr Wright described having been a capable footballer in his youth before his anti-social behaviour began.

43. In his interview with Mr McLean the offender disclosed that from 11-12 years of age he was sexually abused by a teacher at his Catholic school. He reports that he complained of this abuse to his mother at the time who dismissed it. There is no other material before this Court concerning those particular allegations of abuse.

44. Mr Wright attributed this sexual abuse and his difficult family environment to behavioural issues which developed in his early teens. He described being disruptive in class, in part also due to learning difficulties, ultimately resulting in him being suspended and expelled on multiple occasions. He dropped out of school in grade 9, which I presume to be at the age of 14 or 15.

45. Mr Wright reported sexual abuse which he suffered in juvenile detention at the age of 14. This is the subject of the report by Professor Robertson and the Apology Letter. I note in passing that the Defence written submissions incorrectly attribute the Apology Letter to the sexual abuse which took place during his schooling. That does not diminish the force of it.

46. Mr Wright reported that at that age he had a penchant for fare evasion on trains. After accumulating numerous unpaid fines, he was apprehended at 14 and placed overnight in Yasmar Correctional Facility. There he described being placed in a segregation cell, following which a Correctional Facility employee physically and sexually assaulted him. It is not necessary to repeat the details of this assault, but it suffices to say that it was violent and resulted in some injuries.

47. The offender described being subject to other physical assaults by Youth Correctional Facility employees during later incarcerations at Minda.

48. In consultation with Professor Robertson the offender reported symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder including flashbacks to the isolated sexual assault at Yasmar and nightmares on themes of violence, as well as severe hyperarousal with exaggerated irritability, impaired concentration and short-term memory, and more severe anxiety morphing into panic attacks. He described that his propensity for irritability has made him prone to instances of interpersonal and domestic violence.

49. Professor Robertson ultimately assessed the offender as presenting with chronic PTSD comorbid with substance use disorder, together with an underlying personality disorder characterised by antisocial, borderline, and narcissistic traits.

50. Mr Wright reported that he began using cannabis at 13-14 years of age to cope with sexual trauma. At the age of 14 Mr Wright moved in with his father, however frequent clashes resulted in him returning to his mother at the age of 16. He reported one historical suicide attempt in late adolescence which was interrupted by his mother.

51. On leaving school Mr Wright commenced an apprenticeship to become an electrician, however abandoned it after 1 month due to cannabis abuse. He has not been employed since, and instead has turned to crime to cover his costs of living and fund his ongoing drug abuse.

52. Mr Wright reported hope that he could work in the future, but said that he was fearful of obtaining employment due to anxiety in social settings and difficulties communicating with others. He nevertheless reported working as a sweeper in custody which he liked.

53. Mr Wright reported that his cannabis abuse progressed to the use of cocaine, hallucinogens, and amphetamines. Mr Wright began using methylamphetamine in his early 20s and reported that his cannabis and methylamphetamine abuse rapidly increased over time. At the height of his drug use, he reported smoking 1.5g of methylamphetamine daily. Mr McLean, the psychologist, noted that 0.1g is a typical dose of methylamphetamine.

54. Mr Wright reported that he had failed rehabilitation on 3 occasions and last smoked methylamphetamine six months prior to his meeting with Mr McLean, which would have been around November 2024.

55. Mr Wright also reported that he began gambling at the age of 18, and was only ever interested in gambling while affected by methylamphetamine. He denied having a gambling addiction.

56. Mr Wright reported learning that he had a son while in custody who is currently 11 years of age. The birth of his son marked the longest prosocial chapter in his life, being 14 months in the community, and is his greatest motivating factor in rehabilitating. He noted that his son is currently in foster care as a result of the offender’s own custodial status and the mother’s drug problems.

57. At the time of the present offending Mr Wright reports that he was homeless and therefore motivated to steal vehicles in order to have a place to sleep. He was motivated to break into the apartment to acquire funds to purchase methylamphetamine, and noted that his co-offender for the break and enter offence was also a methylamphetamine user. He reported being acutely affected by methylamphetamine at the time of this offending conduct.

58. In his report Mr McLean administered a number of tests to the offender. The first of these tests was the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI) which is a measure of risk and need factors to assist in assessing a risk of general re-offending. Mr Wright’s general risk factors range from his lack of employment history and prosocial network, and the presence of drug problems and pro-criminal attitudes. Specific risks included problem solving deficits, accommodation problems, parenting concerns, and mental health problems. Mr Wright received a total score of 30, placing him at “very high risk of general re-offending*”*.

59. The Remand Addictions Letter of Attendance and Certificates of Completion indicate that while in Custody, Mr Wright has completed the voluntary Remand Addictions Program, a 20-session program covering topics including understanding change, urges and cravings, problem solving, better living, and self-management planning. I note from the more recent documentation that he in fact has attended 23 sessions during the program.

60. Ms Macdougal’s Sentencing Assessment Reports each focused on the offender’s suitability for Balund-a Residential Centre, a residential diversionary program. In her Report of January 2024 Ms Macdougal confirmed that the Centre had advised that Mr Wright was not eligible for the program due to violent behaviour during the referral process and his presentation as a risk to the good order of the centre.

61. The offender has an extensive criminal history stretching back to the age of 12 His early offences included malicious damage, offensive language, and goods in custody for which he received a 6-months recognisance. Over the following year his offending escalated to assault police, attempted break and enter with intent, and stealing, each resulting in further periods of recognisance or probation. This pattern of offending and sentencing continued up to the age of 18.

62. At the age of 18 in 1997 the offender was sentenced to 4-months periodic detention in respect of stealing offences. Mr Wright went on to commit offences of trespassing, stealing, and taking drugs into prison for which he received a fixed term of 4 months in 1998, being his first full-time custodial sentence. The offender went on to commit offences of destroying or damaging property, resist arrest, malicious damage, assault police, assault, and contravene Apprehended Domestic Violence Order for which he received a sentence of 6 months imprisonment in 1999. The offender was sentenced to a further 4 months for escaping custody in 1999.

63. In 2001 the offender was sentenced for driving recklessly or furiously, taking and driving a conveyance without consent, and breaking and entering, to a period of 6 months. On his release in 2002 he drove whilst disqualified from holding a licence and was placed on a s 9 bond. He again drove while disqualified in 2002 and was sentenced to 12-months home detention. In 2004 he was sentenced for larceny, obtaining money by deception, and goods in custody to a further 12 months home detention. In 2007 he was sentenced for breaking and entering with intent to steal, intimidating a police officer, entering enclosed lands, and dealing with suspected proceeds of crime. He was sentenced to a further 2 years imprisonment.

64. In 2009 the offender was sentenced for goods in custody suspected of being stolen and obtain money by deception to a further 3 months, and sentenced for obtaining money by deception and receiving stolen property to a further 6 months. In 2010 the offender was sentenced for resisting an officer in the execution of duty and assault police to a further 3 months. In 2011 the offender was sentenced for dishonestly obtaining property by deception, resisting officer in execution of duty, and possessing identity information to commit an indictable offence to 6 months effective sentence.

65. Further offences of dishonesty, larceny, entering premises to commit serious indictable offences, and resisting police arrest resulted in increasing sentences over the following decade and a half.

66. Ultimately the offender has spent 11 of the last 28 years in the community. His periods in the community have been intermittent, usually of only 1-9 months duration on each occasion. His two longest periods in the community were a period of 20 months from May 2022 to August 2023, and a period of 13 months from July 2014 to August 2015, which I presume is the period following the birth of his son.

67. I note that the offender was subject to two Community Corrections Orders at the time of offending. This is an aggravating factor pursuant to s 21A(j) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OFFENDER

68. In oral submissions Mr Pace of Counsel, on behalf of the offender, identified a number of factors in mitigation pursuant to s 21A(3) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. These included that the offending was largely unsophisticated and unplanned. The offender did not make any attempts to disguise himself and his offending appeared to be largely opportunistic.

69. In relation to the Canterbury Hospital offending, it is noted that the missing fleet vehicle and keys were not noticed for a period of 5 days.

70. In relation to the North Rocks offending, it was noted that the following day, the keys were located in the business’ mailbox, perhaps suggesting some level of remorse of offending or an attempt to minimise the harm caused by the offending. It was further suggested in relation to the take conveyance without consent that the co-offender might in fact be the principal offender given that the vehicle was eventually located near his residence.

71. It was submitted that in accordance with the principles in DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1, the offender’s Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder should reduce his moral culpability and the weight of general deterrence in this matter.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE CROWN

72. As outlined above, the Crown’s proposed assessments of objective seriousness were not objected to by the Offender. I have set them out earlier and indicated my general agreement with those assessments, subject to the driving whilst disqualified offence.

73. In the written submissions the Crown set out more detail in support of those objective assessments.

74. The Crown reminded the Court of the principles derived from the Guideline Judgment of Ponfield v R [1999] NSWCCA 435; (1999) 48 NSWLR 327.

75. The Crown acknowledged the observations of Simpson J in Mapp v R [2010] NSWCCA 269; (2010) 206 A Crim R 297 where Simpson J at [10] expressed the view that Ponfield “now had little utility” and had been “largely overtaken” by s 21A of the Crimes Sentencing Procedure Act 1999.

76. The Crown acknowledged the importance of the principle of totality with respect to the present offending. The Crown also made reference to the necessity of consideration being given to parity, there having been a co-offender involved in the break and enter at the residential premises at Rhodes, and with respect to the two offenders being involved together in the stealing of a motor vehicle, albeit one as driver and the other as passenger.

77. I should note in passing that the submission that the co-offender may have been more principally involved by virtue of the vehicle’s subsequent location near his home carries little weight in the circumstances of the charge which has been preferred. It may be more consistent with the further offence by the co-offender.

COMPARATIVE CASES

78. I acknowledge that comparative cases and Judicial Commission statistics have limited utility in determining a sentence given that individual cases turn on their own specific facts and vary greatly in their subjective and objective circumstances. However, it suffices to say that reference to comparative cases in an overall way can provide some measure of the types of sentences passed in similar matters and act as a touchstone for comparison of a contemplated sentence (see R v Smith [2016] NSWCCA 75 at [73]).

79. In R v Trindall [2024] NSWDC 520 the offender in that matter engaged in similar offending and had similar difficulties with recidivism as Mr Wright in the present matter. Mr Trindall had spent 6 and a half years of the previous 27 in custody, his longest period in the community being 9 months.

80. In December 2022 Trindall was yet again released into the community. In May 2023 he stole a bag from a van and used the credit cards in that bag to defraud several retail outlets. In July 2023 he was released to bail but then entered a home in Western Sydney and stole property including credit cards which he again used to defraud retail outlets. Two charges were preferred of aggravated break and enter with intent to commit the serious indictable offence of larceny, and dishonestly obtaining property by deception to the value of $395.43.

81. Mr Trindall’s subjective material included details as to his background as an Indigenous man who grew up with a deprived background characterised by exposure to alcohol use, drug use and drug supply, domestic violence and police interventions, and sexual abuse whilst in juvenile detention. Mr Trindall also suffered from mental health and substance abuse disorders.

82. At sentence, his Honour Judge Haesler SC noted that fraud offences of this nature “undermine the community*’*s need for trust in [the] cashless finance system,” and identified the seriousness and prevalence of break and enter offences. His Honour ultimately held that the offence fell below the middle of the range of objective seriousness, but noted that general deterrence had elevated significance in break and enter matters and that notwithstanding the offender’s disadvantaged background, institutionalisation, and the cyclical nature of his repeated releases, drug use, crimes, and returns to custody, that community protection had to be kept in mind. His Honour stated that:

“Ultimately, every sentence is about community protection. The longer Trindall is kept in custody, the less chance he has to offend against the community. But he must be released. Sadly, every time he has been released before, he has come back to gaol*.*

Giving weight to the conflicting purposes of punishment is what makes the sentencing exercise so difficult. On one hand, deterrence of others may be of less importance for someone with the psychiatric and other conditions suffered by Trindall. On the other hand, as his repeated re-offending reveals, protection of society is of great importance.”

83. His Honour ultimately came to a view that Mr Trindall’s history did not justify any alternative to a custodial sentence. Trindall’s sentence was entitled to a 25% discount for his early pleas of Guilty and there was a finding of special circumstances. Ultimately the offender was sentenced to indicative terms of 2 years and 7 months with a non-parole period of 1 year and 8 months for the aggravated break and enter; and 1 year and 1 month for the vehicle theft and subsequent fraudulent offending. The aggregate sentence was 3 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 1 year and 9 months.

84. In R v Doolan (No 2) [2023] NSWDC 600 the offender was sentenced for two charges of aggravated break and enter, and a break and enter dwelling and steal, with a related matter of taking and driving a conveyance as a result of the second substantive offence. Mr Doolan was on parole at the time of offending in September 2022. He attempted to enter a person’s garage when he was asked to leave. The owner thereafter noticed that his garage keys were missing and the door partly opened. Later that day the offender entered a home in Helensburgh and took car keys, cigarettes, and a Mercedes Benz vehicle.

85. At sentence, his Honour Judge Haesler SC noted that:

“In both cases, premises were entered. In both cases, the offender*’*s objective was the same; to get car keys so that the car could be taken. In both cases, only the car keys were stolen, a considerable inconvenience of itself. But in the second offence the *offender’*s objective was realised… [This] leads to greater weight being given to community protection and specific deterrence. …

Both offences occurred during the day, but the first offence also involved confrontation with someone who was home at the time. If you break into someone*’s house or enter someone’*s house and there is someone there, things can get out of control. Thankfully Doolan retreated. Thankfully the homeowner was, I suspect, too shocked to do anything.”

86. His Honour ultimately came to the view that the matters fell towards the bottom end of objective seriousness. His Honour also noted that there must be a level of accumulation as, although two persons’ homes were violated, those violations occurred as part of a course of conduct on a single day.

87. The offender’s subjective case included details as to his experiences and treatment in juvenile detention, childhood exposure to domestic violence and drug abuse which significantly included his younger brother’s death at the hands of their mother. The offender was institutionalised.

88. In coming to a determination, his Honour stated that “Doolan continues to offend against the community, justifying his removal from the community. But gaol and juvenile detention has had a profound and negative impact on him.” His Honour noted that longer periods of incarceration were not the answer to Mr Doolan’s problems, however the countervailing factor was the protection of the community.

89. His Honour imposed an indicative sentence of 2 years and 6 months for each offence. The aggregate sentence was 2 years and 11 months with a non-parole period of 1 year and 8 months.

DETERMINATION

90. In determining Mr Wright’s sentence for these offences I bear in mind the principle of parity in relation to his co-offender for Sequences 6 and 31, noting that I do not have access to the co-offender’s subjective circumstances which may result in differing sentences, although I have now received the benefit of the transcript of those proceedings (see WM v R [2020] NSWCCA 96; Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606).

91. In submissions the Crown noted that Mr Wright and his co-offender’s conduct in relation to the break and enter offence is largely the same except for the offender’s role in obtaining the key to enter the unit. In relation to this offence, the co-offender was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 months.

92. It is noted that while Mr Wright stands to be sentenced for a take and drive offence in relation to the theft of the vehicle, his co-offender was convicted of being carried in the conveyance without the consent of the owner. Both offences carry the same maximum penalty of 5 years. In relation to this particular offence, the co-offender was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment.

93. I should note the following differences with Mr Mokofisi. While the principles of parity must of course be considered, it is not insignificant that the co-offender was sentenced for a single substantive offence with respect to entering the premises in the Local Court with a jurisdictional limit of 2 years. With respect to the offence of then travelling in the stolen car, the present offender was charged with the substantive of taking and driving and it has been included on a Form 1 to be taken into account with a different substantive offence. Mr Mokofisi was dealt with in the Local Court for being conveyed in the vehicle and was sentenced to a fixed term of 6 months which was wholly concurrent with the principal offence. I do note principles in relation the application of the parity principle may lead, in some circumstances, to less than an appropriate sentence being imposed in order to avoid a justifiable sentence of grievance. I take those principles into account.

94. I also take into account the guideline principles in Ponfield v R [1999] NSWCCA 435; (1999) 48 NSWLR 327, although as I have noted in line with the comments in Mapp v R [2010] NSWCCA 269; (2010) 206 A Crim R 297, the guidelines in Ponfield overlap with and are now somewhat overtaken by the considerations in s 21A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

95. With respect to the overall offending, the principle of totality must be borne in mind. I remind myself of the description of that principle set out in the oft-quoted judgment of Sir Laurence Street in R v Holder; R v Johnston [1983] 3 NSWLR 245 at 260. The Chief Justice said:

*“*The learned sentencing judge properly recognised that what has been called the principle of totality necessitated some telescoping of the individual terms. The principle of totality is a convenient phrase, descriptive of the significant practical consideration confronting a sentencing judge when sentencing for two or more offences. Not infrequently, a straightforward arithmetical addition of sentences appropriate for each individual offence considered separately will arrive at an ultimate aggregate that exceeds what is called for in the whole of the circumstances. In such a situation the sentencing judge will evaluate, in a broad sense, the overall criminality involved in all of the offences and, having done so, will determine what, if any, downward adjustment is necessary, whether by telescoping or otherwise, in the aggregate sentences in order to achieve an appropriate relativity between the totality of the criminality and the totality of the sentences. The effect of this practical consideration is always to produce an ultimate aggregate which is less than that which would be arrived at by a straightforward adding up of the terms appropriate for the offences if each were viewed alone. In carrying out this process of adjustment, it is both inevitable as well as proper that the ultimate decision be arrived at in the light of the totality of the criminality involved in all of the offences. As has been said more than once in this Court, where the principle of totality comes into effect, it is more often than not of little importance how the ultimate aggregate is made up (that is to say, whether by a series of aggregate terms or by a series of concurrent terms, or by partly one and partly the other). The important factor is the practical significance of the sentencing order.**”

96. There is no doubt that the determination of an appropriate synthesised sentence requires a degree of considered nuance. Some factors aggravate the commission of an offence whilst some mitigate the level of criminal culpability. The observation made by his Honour Judge Haesler SC in Trindall, to which I have referred earlier, can be repeated, with respect, to Mr Wright.

97. As is regrettably so often the case, considerable weight must be afforded to an offender’s background, particularly matters which impact on appropriate childhood development. Circumstances including sexual abuse are not to be ignored. As indicated in the present matter, those historical matters are recognised in the Letter of Apology from the relevant authorities. Such impacts do not diminish over time and should be given full weight. See Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 387; (2013) 249 CLR 571. See also the effects of childhood trauma, such as being the victim of childhood sexual assault, Nasrallah v R [2021] NSWCCA 207.

98. As would be clear from the detail of the offender’s repeated episodes of incarceration, there is real concern with respect to institutionalisation. Unfortunately, the offender was ultimately assessed as unsuitable for consideration of placement in the residential diversionary program offered at Balund-a. His institutionalisation is however a factor which I must give consideration to.

99. I bear in mind the continued necessity for specific deterrence in a recidivist such as Mr Wright. I also bear in mind the need for general deterrence to be adequately reflected in relation to the offending to which he has pleaded Guilty. In determining the weight to be given to general deterrence, I have taken into account the principles in De La Rosa, such as need to be borne in mind, in light of the assessment that has been placed before the Court.

100. With respect to his prospects of rehabilitation, he has been assessed as at a high risk of reoffending. It would be turning a blind eye to his past criminal history to come to a conclusion other that his prospects for rehabilitation being viewed as guarded. In expressing an assessment of his prospects for rehabilitation, I would I assess them as moderate at best.

101. I propose to proceed by way of an aggregate sentence pursuant to s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. As such I am required to provide the indicative sentences which would be applicable in the event of these matters being sentenced separately. In each case the indicative sentence will have been reduced by 25% in recognition of the early pleas of Guilty.

102. The first offence chronologically related to the entering of Canterbury Hospital with intent to commit a serious indictable offence on 1 October 2023, namely larceny, while having previous relevant convictions. The two offences on the Form 1 attaching to this offence were Sequences 2 and 24. Sequence 2 related to the theft of the Skoda motor vehicle, while Sequence 24 related to the “larceny” of the petrol at the service station on 4 October 2023.

103. The day after stealing the Skoda from Canterbury Hospital, which I note was subsequently used on 4 October with respect to the obtaining of petrol, the offender entered the business premises at North Rocks on 2 October 2023. He stole the car and house keys from the front desk of those premises and then stole the Kia Cerato. This offending occurred in conjunction with his co-offender Sam Mokofisi, who was not charged with the entering of the premises. The offender of entering what was defined as a “dwelling house” relates to this particular offending. Attached to that offence on a Form 1 is the charge relating to the taking and driving of a conveyance without the consent of the owner, which is the statutory description for stealing a motor vehicle.

104. There is little difference between this offending and the offending which occurred the day before at Canterbury Hospital. There will be an indicative sentence of 2 years for each of those offence taking into account the matters on the Form 1.

105. The two offenders then went to the home of the victims where they procured entry, together in company, utilising the fob and keys which had been stolen from the premises at North Rocks. This was an aggravated break and enter in company during which they stole various items including a bag containing a wallet, cash, and bank cards amongst other items. This is the offence for which the co-offender was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment. Whilst I note that the jurisdictional maximum in the Local Court was 2 years, the present offender is being prosecuted in the District Court where the maximum is of 20 years imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of 5 years.

106. Notwithstanding the presence of a sleeping resident who came out from the bedroom while the offenders were in her home, the assessment of this matter as being below the mid-range of objective seriousness, together with considerations of parity, militate in favour of a lesser sentence than might otherwise be considered appropriate. I do however take into account the differences in age between the two offenders and also their different subjective histories.

107. There will be an indicative sentence of 2 years with an indicative non-parole period of 18 months for this offence.

108. With respect to the offending at the warehouse in Leichardt on 10 October 2023 (Sequence 27), the opportunistic theft of the keys left in the backpack, and the subsequent theft of the Toyota Kluger which has been placed on a Form 1, this offending was again similar to the Canterbury Hospital and North Rocks offending, and accordingly I determine an indicative sentence of 2 years.

109. With respect to the theft of items from the TAFE student’s bag (Sequence 20), the offence to which a plea has been entered relates to the subsequent use of a credit card involving obtaining goods dishonestly to a total in excess of $600, the indicative sentence will be 9 months.

110. With respect of the theft of items from the school student (Sequence 17) being a single use of the debit card, there will be an indicative sentence of 4 months.

111. With respect to the overall offence of driving whilst disqualified during the period between 1 October and 17 October 2023 (Sequence 3), it is to be noted that this was his fourth offence of driving whilst disqualified in addition to 3 prior offences of driving whilst a licence was cancelled or refused, and an earlier offence of driving whilst unlicenced. His demonstrated contumelious disregard for the restriction imposed on the right to drive must be reflected both with respect to specific deterrence and general deterrence, with a finding that the s 5 threshold is crossed. There will be an indicative sentence of 6 months for this offence.

112. I impose in total an aggregate sentence of 5 years imprisonment. There will be a non-parole period of 3 years. The sentence and non-parole period will be backdated to both commence from 26 October 2023. The non-parole period will expire on 25 October 2026 and the additional term of 2 years will expire on 25 October 2028.

**********