Director of Public Prosecutions v Paterson (No 2)
[2025] ACTSC 366
•15 August 2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | DPP v Paterson (No 2) |
Citation: | [2025] ACTSC 366 |
Hearing Date: | 15 August 2025 |
Decision Date: | 15 August 2025 |
Before: | Mossop J |
Decision: | See [50] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated burglary and theft in apartment building – property of substantial value – offender has history of drug use and appalling history of driving offences, demonstrating disregard for the law – offender old enough to know better – considerable progress toward rehabilitation – significant custodial penalties nevertheless warranted CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – present offending put offender in breach of good behaviour orders – breaches not dealt with in Magistrates Court due to prosecution oversight – offender has failed to take the opportunity for rehabilitation offered – good behaviour order cancelled CRIMINAL LAW – THEFT AND BURGLARY – Where s 308 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) is unlimited as to the value of goods stolen – where this tends to put downward pressure on the assessment of the seriousness of the offending – necessary to consider the value and nature of the stolen property – increased amount of large apartment blocks increases the prominence of general and specific deterrence of theft and burglary targeting such buildings |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), s 108 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 308, 312 Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act 1971 (Cth) |
Cases Cited: | R v BC [2019] ACTSC 233 R v Booth [2016] ACTSC 365 R v Catanzariti [2020] ACTSC 326 R v Horan [2020] ACTSC 189 R v Tracey [2020] ACTSC 28 |
Parties: | Director of Public Prosecutions Craig Alistair James Paterson ( Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel EG Priestly ( DPP) S Baker-Goldsmith ( Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ACT Legal Aid ( Offender) | |
File Number: | SCC 171 of 2024 |
MOSSOP J:
Introduction
The offender, Craig Paterson, has pleaded guilty to the following offences:
(a)Joint commission aggravated burglary (CAN 2142/2024).
(b)Joint commission theft (SC CAN 135/2024).
The maximum penalty for the offence of joint commission aggravated burglary contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) is 20 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $320,000, or both.
The maximum penalty for the offence of joint commission theft contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code is 10 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $160,000, or both.
Facts
The facts were agreed and set out in a statement of facts which was tendered as part of the prosecution tender bundle.
At 4:43am on 25 September 2023, two men riding bicycles arrived at an apartment block on Ipima St, Braddon. The two men started looking through the letterboxes located at the entrance to the building.
One man was wearing glasses, a black hooded jumper with the words “I ride sideways”, and dark jeans. This was the offender.
A co-offender was wearing a two‑tone blue and orange jacket with a grey hooded jumper underneath and black tracksuit pants.
The offender obtained a key and fob pass to one of the units from the letterbox for that unit.
Using the fob pass obtained from the letterbox, at 4:51am, the offender and co-offender entered the underground car park of the apartment block riding bicycles.
At approximately 5:09am, the offender and the co-offender used a lift in the underground car park to gain access to the level on which the relevant unit was located.
One hour and 10 minutes later, at 6:19am, the offender exited the underground car park via the basement roller door riding a bicycle. The co-offender followed, driving a red Toyota Camry.
Around 10pm on 26 September 2023, the owner of the relevant unit returned to the apartment block. Upon arrival, she noticed that her locked letterbox had been forced open and her spare key and fob were missing.
Upon arrival to her unit, she noticed a number of items were missing, including:
(a)jewellery to the value of $45,278;
(b)musical instruments and related items to the value of $6,235;
(c)a bicycle and associated items to the value of $2,919;
(d)electronics to the value of $1,430; and
(e)miscellaneous items to the value of $1,723.
She also discovered that her mother’s red Toyota Camry, which was usually parked in the underground basement, was missing.
On 28 September 2023, police conducted a traffic stop on the Toyota Camry that had been stolen. Two named persons, not including the offender, were in the vehicle.
On 30 November 2023, police obtained a search warrant to search the premises at the offender’s residence in Monash. During the execution of the search warrant, the offender made some admissions relevant to his identification as one of the offenders.
A person alleged to be the co-offender has pleaded not guilty and will stand trial shortly.
Victim impact
A victim impact statement was tendered as part of the prosecution tender bundle. The victim was the owner of the premises burgled and the property stolen. That statement refers to the family‑based sentimental value of the jewellery that was stolen, particularly as it relates to her mother, who was sick in hospital at the time. The statement refers to the victim feeling physically unsafe and highly vulnerable as a result of the offending. Impacts of this sort are within the range of what might be expected from offending of this nature.
It also records that, when the car was recovered by police, it was contaminated with methamphetamine or other illicit drugs and there were bags of drugs and other items associated with drug dealing found within it.
Objective seriousness
The burglary was aggravated because it occurred in company rather than through use of a weapon. It did not involve any breaking, other than of the letterbox, because of the theft of the fob and the key. It involved burglary on residential premises in the early hours of the morning. Although the resident was not present, she may well have been. This is a mid-range offence.
So far as the theft is concerned, it involved theft of numerous items of substantial value from residential premises. The offence under s 308 of the Criminal Code is unlimited as to the value of goods stolen. This tends to put downward pressure on the assessment of where offending sits within the range of offences contemplated by the provision. However, given the value and nature of the property stolen, this is a mid-range offence.
Subjective circumstances
The offender is a 59 year old man. He was born in New Zealand. His childhood was free from violence or substance abuse. He moved to Sydney at the age of 21 and became an Australian citizen. He has two daughters from previous relationships, one aged in her teens and one aged in her 30s.
He completed Year 12 at school. He worked in some aspect of IT. He owned a pub in Canberra between 2004 and 2009. He was last employed in IT in 2013. He is a recipient of Centrelink jobseeker payments and has applied for a disability support pension. He lives in public housing. He does casual work for cash including car and bicycle repairs and maintenance.
Prior to 2004, he would occasionally use speed. Once he owned the pub, he became a user of methamphetamine. He has had problematic methamphetamine use since the breakdown a relationship nine years ago. He claimed that he has abstained from methamphetamine since February 2024. He completed the Karralika Matrix program (a day program addressing alcohol and drug use) in May 2025.
He claimed to have limited recollection of the offending because of his heavy methamphetamine use at the time. He is assessed as having a medium risk of reoffending.
Two reference letters identified that he has benefited from completing the Karralika Matrix program and that he is making better life choices as a result. A letter from the offender himself indicates that he has remained drug free for the past 18 months and has re-established a work from home business. While I give that letter some weight, it is difficult to assess the robustness of the sentiments therein expressed in circumstances where what may assist an offender in his circumstances is well-known and the contents of the letter have not been tested or reflected in conduct beyond the completion of the Karralika Matrix program.
Criminal History
The offender has an extensive criminal history. It is, however, very much focused on driving offences. It includes multiple offences of unlicensed, unregistered or disqualified driving, drink-driving, and driving with a prescribed drug in his oral fluid. There are also the offences presently the subject of the breach proceedings. There was a period between 2011 and 2016 when he did not offend.
The disregard that the offender has for laws relating to driving is illustrated by the fact that, since 2017, the offender has been sentenced on eight occasions to periods of full‑time detention for disqualified driving and on five occasions to periods of full‑time detention in relation to driving with a prescribed drug in his oral fluid. His criminal history also indicates multiple occasions on which the offender has been the subject of breach action arising from subsequent offending during a period of good behaviour orders, either in force on their own or associated with the suspension of a sentence of imprisonment.
Plea of guilty
The offender entered pleas of guilty 15 months after the commencement of the proceedings. This occurred when they were in the Supreme Court and after a criminal case conference. Because of the utilitarian value of the pleas of guilty, the sentences to be imposed on the substantive offences will be reduced by between 15 and 20 percent.
Time in custody
The total amount of pre‑sentence custody that has not been taken into account in other sentences is agreed by the parties to be 162 days.
Comparable cases
Counsel for the prosecution provided a table of comparative cases. She pointed out that many such cases are dealt with within the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court and hence do not appear in published decisions. The cases and the starting points for sentences of burglary and theft disclosed were:
(a)R v Horan [2020] ACTSC 189: burglary (24 months) with an associated charge of property damage (with a starting point of six months); theft (12 months);
(b)R v Catanzariti [2020] ACTSC 326: aggravated burglary (24 months); theft (12 months);
(c)R v Tracey [2020] ACTSC 28: aggravated burglary (48 months); theft (12 months);
(d)R v BC [2019] ACTSC 233: aggravated burglary (18 months); theft (10 months and 21 days); and
(e)R v Booth [2016] ACTSC 365: burglary (12 months); theft (16 months).
In relation to these cases, it is worth noting that the offender in Tracey had a substantial criminal history in NSW, Victoria and Queensland, and in BC, the aggravated burglary was only to the car park of the block of apartments.
Consideration
The offender is old enough to know better. He has a history of disregard for the law. He has been a long-term methamphetamine user. The criminal offending in the present case was associated with that methamphetamine use. He has made considerable progress towards rehabilitation in the period between the offending and today. It is not clear how robust that progress is, but there is at least some hope that the rehabilitation may be long‑lasting and that, at his age, he will be able to stay free of methamphetamine use.
It is first appropriate to deal with the consequences of his breach of earlier good behaviour orders as a result of the present offending and then turn to the sentences for the present offending.
Breaches of good behaviour orders
The offending in September 2023 puts the offender in breach of a number of good behaviour orders to which he was subject at the time.
On 26 April 2022, the offender committed a trespass offence under the Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act 1971 (Cth) (CAN 587/2023), as well as the offence of theft by joint commission (CAN 3989/2022). This related to the offender and one other person trespassing on a building site between 3am and 4am and stealing a bag containing 32 assorted items, power tools, and a number of radios. They had entered the construction site through a gap in the wire mesh. In relation to the trespass offence, the offender received a good behaviour order which ran from May 2023 until May 2024. In relation to the joint commission theft, he received a good behaviour order in the same terms.
I infer that the lenient approach taken to the offending was on the basis that, although the offender has an appalling history of driving while disqualified or unlicensed, he did not have a solid history of property offending recorded on his criminal history.
Under s 108 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), the court has a variety of options available to address a breach of a good behaviour order, ranging from taking no action to cancelling the order and resentencing the offender. In my view, the appropriate course is to cancel the good behaviour order on the theft charge and resentence the offender, and to take no action on the trespass charge. The sentences imposed by the magistrate reflected leniency in the hope that offending of that nature was an aberration and would not occur again. That plainly has not been the case. The offender has failed to take the opportunity given to him. That is unsurprising given his methamphetamine use during the relevant period.
So far as the theft is concerned, both general and specific deterrence are important sentencing considerations. Building sites are often targeted for theft, particularly by drug users who need to convert stolen property so as to allow them to support their habit. I consider that the s 10 threshold is passed and that a sentence of 90 days’ imprisonment is the appropriate starting point. The plea was entered on the day of the hearing. In those circumstances, a reduction of 10 percent on account of the plea of guilty is appropriate. That means that a sentence of 81 days’ imprisonment is appropriate.
Counsel for the prosecution pointed out that the good behaviour orders the subject of the breach proceedings were also breached by some driving offences which were addressed by a magistrate on 5 June 2024. On that occasion, breaches of four other good behaviour orders were addressed and it appears that it was only as a result of an oversight on the part of the prosecution that the breach of the present good behaviour orders constituted by those driving offences did not result in the present breach charges being dealt with. On the charges that were dealt with, the magistrate imposed sentences which involved some accumulation and some concurrency. Each was a driving related charge. Having regard to the structure of the sentences imposed, which only involved modest amounts of concurrency between charges on related subject‑matters, I do not consider that there would be any injustice to the offender by having the separate charge of theft wholly cumulative upon those other sentences. As a consequence, it is not necessary to make any downward adjustment now on the sentence than is otherwise appropriate to take into account the fact that it might have been dealt with earlier.
The present offending
In relation to the present offending, each of the purposes of sentencing are relevant. Plainly there is a long-term community interest in the rehabilitation of the offender.
However, for somebody with his criminal history, and for this type of offending, general and specific deterrence are very prominent sentencing considerations. As more and more people are required to live in large apartment blocks, the need to deter drug users who consider them to be soft targets becomes more significant. Often, offending is limited to the more vulnerable basement area, but in this case, the burglary extended to an individual apartment and then resulted in the theft of items of substantial monetary and personal value. The unfortunately routine nature of such offending, so far as the courts are concerned, can give rise to unduly lenient sentences. However, the routine nature of such offending ought to emphasise the need for deterrence as an object of sentencing.
I accept that the offender has made significant self-motivated steps towards rehabilitation, including the completion of the Karralika Matrix program. He appears to be taking steps to rehabilitate himself and get free of methamphetamine which is, for him, a significant criminogenic factor.
However, notwithstanding those steps, the importance of general deterrence, denunciation of the conduct and recognition of harm done to the victim and the community warrant significant custodial penalties for the offending.
In my view, the appropriate starting point is a sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment for each of the offences. In each case, the sentence will be reduced to 25 months’ imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty, a reduction of 17 percent. The sentence for theft will be imposed first and the burglary sentence will be cumulative as to 14 months upon that sentence. This gives an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 39 months, or three years and three months. The sentences will be backdated to take into account the agreed pre-sentence custody that has not already been taken into account in the sentence imposed by the magistrate for the breach offending. Given the separate nature of the breach offending, there is no basis for introducing any concurrency between the separate sentences.
Combining the sentences for the breach and current offences gives a total sentence of three years, five months and 20 days (41 months and 20 days).
I do not accept the submission that the proceedings should be adjourned so as to allow an intensive correction order assessment report to be prepared. Assuming the offender to be suitable for an intensive correction order, I do not consider that this would be an appropriate disposition having regard to the gravity of the offending and the history of the offender’s disregard for his legal obligations, albeit in the context of his history of driving offences.
Further, I do not consider that a partially‑suspended sentence is appropriate. It is more appropriate to deal with the matter by way of a non‑parole period. That will allow an assessment of his conduct and prospects to be conducted in order to assess his suitability for release. As will be apparent, I consider that a sentence which did not require him to serve any additional time beyond that which he has already spent in custody would be inadequate to meet the purposes of sentencing.
The non-parole period will be 21 months. It is set at the bottom of the usual range because of the evidence of the offender’s progress towards, and motivation for, rehabilitation, and the fact that, given his age, his enthusiasm for engaging in criminal activities in the future is likely to be on the decline.
Orders
The orders of the Court are:
(1)In relation to the sentences on counts CAN 587/2023 and CAN 3989/2022 imposed upon the offender on 15 May 2023:
(a)On charge CAN 587/2023 (trespass), no further action is taken in relation to the breach.
(b)On charge CAN 3989/2022 (theft), the good behaviour order is cancelled and the offender resentenced as follows: the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 81 days, commencing on 6 March 2025 and ending on 25 May 2025.
(2)On count SC CAN 135/2024 (theft), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 25 months, commencing on 26 May 2025 and ending on 25 June 2027.
(3)On count CAN 2142/2024 (aggravated burglary), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 25 months, commencing on 26 July 2026 and ending on 25 August 2028.
(4)The non-parole period is 21 months, which commences on 6 March 2025 and ends on 5 December 2026.
| I certify that the preceding fifty [50] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of his Honour Justice Mossop. Associate: Date: |
**************
Amendments
29 October 2025 On page 1, in the “Case Title” portion, insert “(No 2)” at the end.
0
5
3