R v Burnard

Case [2025] NSWDC 398


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Burnard [2025] NSWDC 398
Hearing dates: 2 October 2025
Date of orders: 2 October 2025
Decision date: 02 October 2025
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Newlinds SC DCJ
Decision:

(1)   For Counts 1, 2, 3, and 4, taking into account the matter on the Form 1 and after deducting 25% for the early pleas of guilty, I sentence the Offender to an aggregate term of 7 years, commencing on 6 December 2024 and expiring on 5 December 2031.

(2)   The Offender will first be eligible for parole after serving 4.5 years imprisonment, being 5 June 2029.

Catchwords:

CRIME — Firearms offences — Enter dwelling with the intent to steal firearms in company — Offender already subject to firearms prohibition order — Aggregate sentence of imprisonment — Deprived childhood — Special circumstances found for longer period on parole — Prospects of rehabilitation tied to remaining drug-free

Legislation Cited:

Crime (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 5

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 111(2); s 154D(1)

Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) s 74(1); s 74(3)

Cases Cited:

Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571

Chandab v R [2021] NSWCCA 186

R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346

R v Krstic [2005] NSWCCA 391

R v Najem [2008] NSWCCA 32

Category:Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Matthew Burnard (Offender)
Representation:

Counsel:
S Wilkin (Solicitor) (Crown)
R Hussey (Offender)

Solicitors:
ODPP (Crown)
Rice More & Gibson (Offender)
File Number(s): 2024/236077
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT; ex tempore (Revised)

Overview

  1. As at June 2024, Matthew Burnard (“the Offender”) was 30 years old. He was on conditional liberty, being a period of parole for earlier offending. He was also subject to a firearms prohibition order issued pursuant to the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW).

  2. He had experienced a difficult childhood, having witnessed his father assault his mother, and having been himself seriously assaulted by his father, when he was about 10, where his father punched him and broke his nose.

  3. Moreover, as a teenager, the Offender was involved in a sexual relationship with a female teacher when he was about 15 years old and she was 42 years old. This undoubtedly caused him profound, albeit delayed, trauma.

  4. He had a long history of being treated for various mental health disorders, had in the past been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, and had been assessed as meeting the criteria for diagnosis of schizophrenic disorder – bipolar type – although these diagnoses have since been revised, he has a history of paranoia and has a current diagnosis of stimulant use disorder – amphetamine type substance – which is in sustained remission in a controlled environment.

  5. On top of all of that, he had a long history of struggling with alcohol and drug use as an adult. His primary drug of choice since 2016 being methamphetamines.

  6. He has a substantial criminal record, with many convictions over the years for offences ranging from larceny, breaching AVOs, stealing motor vehicles, aggravated break and entry, stealing a dog, destroying…

Continue reading R v Burnard

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Burnard [2025] NSWDC 398
Case
[2025] NSWDC 398
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Burnard, the offender was convicted on four counts related to firearms offences, including entering a dwelling with the intent to steal firearms while in the company of others, despite already being subject to a firearms prohibition order. The case was heard and determined in the relevant Australian court. The primary legal issues the court had to address were the appropriate aggregate sentence of imprisonment and the timing of parole eligibility, considering the offender's deprived childhood and prospects of rehabilitation.

The court first considered the aggregate sentence of imprisonment, taking into account the early pleas of guilty, which resulted in a 25% reduction of the sentence. The court also factored in the offender's deprived childhood as a mitigating factor. However, the seriousness of the crimes, coupled with the offender's disregard for the existing firearms prohibition order, weighed heavily in favour of a substantial custodial sentence. The court determined that an aggregate sentence of 7 years was appropriate, with the sentence to commence on 6 December 2024 and expire on 5 December 2031.

The court then deliberated on the parole eligibility, noting the offender's deprived childhood and the importance of rehabilitation, particularly if it was tied to the offender remaining drug-free. The court concluded that the offender should first be eligible for parole after serving 4.5 years of imprisonment, which would be on 5 June 2029. This decision balanced the need for punishment and deterrence with the potential for the offender's rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) For Counts 1, 2, 3, and 4, taking into account the matter on the Form 1 and after deducting 25% for the early pleas of guilty, I sentence the Offender to an aggregate term of 7 years, commencing on 6 December 2024 and expiring on 5 December 2031.

(2) The Offender will first be eligible for parole after serving 4.5 years imprisonment, being 5 June 2029.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.