R v Fabian; R v Cameron

Case •

[2025] NSWDC 461

•

25 September 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Fabian; R v Cameron [2025] NSWDC 461
Hearing dates: 23, 25 September 2025
Date of orders: 25 September 2025
Decision date: 25 September 2025
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision:

In respect of Fabian, see pars [64] – [66].

In respect of Cameron, see pars [97] – [99].

Catchwords:

CRIME – SENTENCE – Two young men, each involved in one offence together – Each committed other offences as well – Aggregate sentences for each.

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900, ss 111(2), 154A(1)(b)

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 10A

Criminal Procedure Act 1986, s 166

Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002, s 76O(1)(a)

Cases Cited:

Bugmy v R (2013) 302 ALR 192

Texts Cited:

Nil.

Category:Sentence
Parties: Crown – R (NSW)
Offenders – Charlie Fabian; Jacob Cameron
Representation:

Counsel:
Crown – Mr Cameron, L. (Solicitor)
Offender (Fabian) – Mr Rajalingham, R.
Offender (Cameron) – Mr Pickering, T.

Solicitors:
Crown – Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)
Offender (Fabian) – Sydney Criminal Defence and Traffic Lawyers
Offender (Cameron) – MJ Woods & Co
File Number(s): 2024/00220230; 2024/00220252
Publication restriction: Nil.

Judgment

  1. HIS HONOUR: Charlie Fabian and Jacob Cameron appear for sentence today. Fabian is currently in prison at the John Morony Correctional Centre near Windsor. Cameron is currently in prison at the Clarence Correctional Centre near Grafton.

  2. Their cases are not the same, but they were involved in the same offending at Warrawee in a way that I shall soon describe. I wish that Cameron take notice of what I say about the facts of Warrawee in Fabian’s case because the facts concerning Cameron at Warrawee are the same as those for Fabian. However, their cases are otherwise different, and the outcome of each case will be different.

  3. Fabian is currently 22 years old, and so, for that matter, is Cameron. The first offending for each of these two young men occurred at Warrawee on 9 May 2022. In each case the first offence with which I shall deal is known as Sequence 2. The second offence is known as Sequence 1. Each of the offenders asks me to take into account on a Form 1, further offending. The further offending in Fabian’s case is known as Sequence 12 but as far as Cameron’s offending, it is known as Sequence 10.

Warrawee Offences – sequences 1 and 2

  1. The victims of the offences at Warrawee were essentially Mr Kezhen Chen, who resides in Warrawee Avenue, Warrawee, along with his wife and two young children. At about 11pm, Wednesday, 8 May 2024, Mr Chen secured all the entry doors to his residence. The other members of his family were asleep by that time. Mr Chen was still sitting in his study around midnight. At about 12.30am, Fabian, Cameron and other offenders, namely, William Hookey and a juvenile, whom I shall describe merely as CH, turned up at Mr Chen’s house.

  2. Mr Chen had a Smart front doorbell installed, which was connected to an application on his mobile phone. About 12.35am, CH pressed a button on the front doorbell device which notified Mr Chen that a package had arrived. Mr Chen’s mobile phone depicted by way of a video camera on the front door, CH standing on the front porch wearing a black hooded jumper with the hood pulled over his head, and wearing a black facemask. Mr Chen then opened his front door and observed CH and William Hookey running up the left side of his house up a set of stairs leading towards the street.

  3. Mr Chen then closed and locked his front door and momentarily returned to his study before hearing further noise, the noise of a gate closing at the side of his house. He became increasingly concerned about further noises and about what he had earlier seen. He then left his house via the front door and ran up his driveway to Warrawee Street to investigate. In doing that he left his front door slightly ajar.

  4. When he reached the street level, Mr Chen saw the two offenders before me standing directly across the road from his house adjacent to a parked Ford Territory motor vehicle. Mr Chen’s momentum in running up the driveway brought him into relatively close proximity to the two offenders. Mr Chen then slowed down because he had fear about what was occurring. He said “what’s going on” to both of the offenders. He was then assaulted by both Fabian and Cameron.

  5. The available evidence does not establish which of the two men described by Mr Chen was the offender. Each offender is criminally responsible for the actions of the other, so that if the assault was initiated by Cameron, Fabian is liable for it, and vice versa.

  6. One of the offenders punched Mr Chen in the head and face with both his fists. The other offender commenced punching Chen from behind connecting with the back of his head. Each of the men punched Chen multiple times. After being punched in the face multiple times by one of them, Mr Chen felt blood on his face. He was then pushed to the ground by one of the men causing him pain in his hip and elbow.

  7. As a result of the assault Mr Chen had a haematoma to the area above his left eye with an accompanying overlying cut, which was two centimetres in length, that was bleeding. There was also a superficial abrasion over the left elbow and bruising to the left hip. It is agreed that there was no wounding involved, merely some actual bodily harm.

  8. When Mr Chen had left his house to run up the driveway, William Hookey and CH entered the premises via the front door. They rummaged through a cabinet located in the front foyer of the house and found a set of car keys to Mr Chen’s vehicle, a yellow Abarth registered number 7EE which was parked on the driveway outside the front of the house. Hookey and CH left the house again by way of the front door, taking the car keys with them.

  9. Each of the current offenders is criminally responsible for that conduct by reason of their being involved in a joint criminal enterprise which appears to have had the purpose of taking possession of Mr Chen’s car.

  10. After having been pushed to the ground on Warrawee Avenue, Mr Chen regained his feet and ran back towards his house. By that stage Hookey and CH had left the house. Mr Chen continued down the driveway and ran inside slamming the front door behind him. His wife, who had been woken by this stage, observed blood running down Mr Chen’s face. She called the police.

  11. Mr Chen then heard the yellow Abarth vehicle being started on the front driveway and ran outside. He saw Hookey and CH sitting in the vehicle. William Hookey was in the driver’s seat. Although he had managed to start the vehicle, he had been unable to successfully place the car into drive and cause it to go forward. When Chen approached the car Hookey and CH left it and ran up to Warrawee Avenue where they joined the two offenders before me. They then left in the Ford Territory which had been parked on Warrawee Avenue.

  12. Sequence 2 is the assault upon Mr Chen causing actual bodily harm.

  13. Sequence 1 is the aggravated entering a dwelling house with intent to commit larceny. The circumstance of aggravation is that they knew that there were people inside the house. The maximum penalty for Sequence 1 is imprisonment for 14 years.

  14. On the Forms 1 to which I have earlier referred each offender asks me to take into account the attempt to drive a conveyance taken without the consent of its owner. The maximum penalty for that offence is imprisonment for five years.

Fabian

Ryde Offending – Sequence 14

  1. The next offending as far as Fabian is concerned occurred at Ryde on 25 May 2024. At about 2.20am on 25 May 2024 there was a break and enter offence at Irvine Crescent, Ryde. The residents at that address were Sheng Hong Li and Yun Fan. They were asleep at the time of the breaking and entering.

  2. Whoever broke and entered, stole a wallet containing Yun Fan’s credit card and car keys. The car keys were to a white Mazda registered number DCN 23U. That vehicle was valued at $16,000. At some time between 2.20am and 3.50am Fabian allowed himself to be carried in the stolen white Mazda knowing that the Mazda had been taken without the consent of the owner. That is an offence known as Sequence 14, an offence contrary to s 154A(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty for that offence is imprisonment for five years.

Larceny – Form 1 Offence – Sequence 5

  1. On a Form 1 Fabian asks me to take into account a further offence. That offence was using Yun Fan’s stolen credit card at a 7-Eleven service station on Blaxland Road at Ryde to make purchases totalling $191.38. The purchases were an energy drink, sausage rolls, an Optus recharge voucher or two, and a packet of cigarettes. That offence is known as dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception. The maximum penalty for that offence is imprisonment for ten years.

  2. Using intelligence, the police were notified that the stolen white Mazda had been sighted, parked outside 557 Victoria Road at Ryde. Police attended that address and observed Fabian and two other persons standing near the white Mazda. The offender ran away by jumping over a fence into a neighbouring property but in the process of doing that, he lost one of his shoes which was seized by police, no doubt in order to identify the offender through his DNA being present in or on the shoe. They also located Yun Fan’s stolen credit card on the ground near the stolen white Mazda. In the Mazda they found a balaclava and Corrective Services release paperwork in Fabian’s name. His DNA profile was found on the balaclava.

North Rocks Offending – Sequence 6

  1. The next offending occurred at North Rocks on 30 May 2024.

  2. At about 4.45pm on that day, Fabian walked into the TK Maxx store at North Rocks Shopping Centre. The offender removed 12 items of clothing from the store’s racks and then turned and left the store without paying for the items. The 12 items of clothing had a value of $519.88.

  3. Fabian’s conduct had been witnessed by a security guard who followed him on foot into the shopping centre’s car park. When Fabian noted that he was about to be confronted by the security guard he dropped the items of clothing on the ground and ran away, he decamped. The offence committed by him is known as Sequence 6, and is the offence of larceny for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for five years.

Bellevue Hill Offending – Sequence 18

  1. The next offending occurred at Bellevue Hill on 6 June 2024.

  2. At an address in Cranbrook Road at Bellevue Hill lived Ms Ging An. She lived there with her husband, two young children and her parents. Ms An was the owner of a blue 2015 Bentley SUV which had been purchased by her for $500,000. Also on the driveway was a Lamborghini car. The Lamborghini was owned by Ms An’s husband.

  3. In the early hours of Wednesday, 6 June 2024, the blue Bentley was parked on the driveway of Ms An’s home in Cranbrook Road. The vehicle was unlocked, and the keys were left inside the vehicle. She went to bed around 1am leaving this attractive package on the driveway, an invitation for anyone to steal it. At about 1.30am, Fabian and a co-offender, Thomas McGuinness, and a third person were captured on CCTV footage as they entered the front gate of the premises. They took the Bentley from the driveway and drove it away. This offence is known as Sequence 18, the offence of taking and driving a conveyance without the consent of the owner. The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for five years.

  4. This vehicle was subsequently recorded as travelling west on the WestConnex toll road at 1.48am. At 3.20pm on the same day, the offender was recorded speaking to an associate on the telephone. Fabian was still with Thomas McGuinness at the time of making the telephone call. The offender told his friend that he had “got a Bentley.” Further bragging about what had been taken is recorded in the agreed facts. At about 4.45pm on 7 June 2024, the Bentley was recorded being driven on Ladbury Avenue at Penrith.

  5. On 19 June 2024, the Bentley was located in an underground car park on Kitchener Parade at Blacktown. The vehicle’s numberplates had been removed. Forensic examination of the vehicle returned no positive results. There was no evidence that the Bentley was damaged.

West Ryde Offending – Sequence 16 (Form 1 – Sequence 17)

  1. The next offending committed by Fabian occurred at West Ryde on 8 June 2024.

  2. At a property on The Strand at Gladesville live Ms Rumiko Takai and Mr Andrew Rallings with their children. They owned a red Mazda 3 registered number CZH 62X. At about 2.40pm on Saturday, 8 June 2024, Ms Takai was in her living room with her son and Mr Rallings was in the rear garden of the property near the pool. The red Mazda 3 was parked in the garage. The external garage door was open. The keys to the Mazda 3 had been left inside the vehicle. About that time Fabian had been walking southwest along The Strand on the opposite side of the street to Ms Takai’s house. Fabian was in company with Kain Barron‑Logan.

  3. Closed-circuit television from a neighbouring property recorded images of the offender suddenly crossing the road and entering the garage at the property in question on The Strand and then reversing the red Mazda 3 out onto the street. Ms Takai heard the offender starting the Mazda 3 and ran towards the garage. She saw the offender reversing the car from her garage and then tried to give chase, but she did so unsuccessfully.

  4. The CCTV footage from the neighbouring property showed Ms Takai running to the front of the property and out onto the street, however, Fabian drove the vehicle away. Ms Takai immediately reported the theft of her vehicle to the police. After driving away from Ms Takai’s premises, the offender collected both Barron‑Logan and Thomas McGuinness. Barron‑Logan was still on The Strand but whence the offender collected Thomas McGuinness is unknown.

  5. The offence known as Sequence 16 is the aggravated entering the dwelling house with intent to commit larceny, the circumstance of aggravation being that he knew that there were persons therein. That is an offence under s 111(2) of the Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty for that offence is 14 years.

  6. On a Form 1 in connection with Sequence 16, Fabian asks me to take into account the offence known as Sequence 17, taking and driving a conveyance without the consent of the owner. Again, the maximum penalty for that offence is imprisonment for five years.

Police Pursuit – Sequence 9

  1. Further offending occurred whilst the offender was driving the red Mazda 3 after taking it from the house in The Strand at Gladesville. From The Strand at Gladesville, Fabian drove the vehicle to the intersection of Kissing Point Road and Rippon Avenue at Dundas Valley. That is about 12 kilometres away from the property at which the vehicle had been garaged. Kissing Point Road is comprised of three lanes travelling in each direction with signposted speed limits varying the speed between 60kph and 70kph.

  2. At around 3.40pm, police using a LIDAR device recorded the offender driving a stolen red Mazda 3 along Kissing Point Road at a speed of 112kph in a 60kph zone. The offender was driving in a north-easterly direction. Police followed the vehicle being driven by the offender initiating warning lights and sirens, however the offender did not stop as the police wanted him to do. They initiated a police pursuit. The exact manoeuvring of the vehicle during the pursuit is detailed in the agreed facts. Suffice it to say that at one stage the offender was driving at a speed of 143kph in a 70kph zone. He was crossing between lanes 1 and 2 and 3. He reached the intersection of Kissing Point Road and Sturt Street and at that intersection there was a red light for traffic on Kissing Point Road. Nevertheless, the offender drove through the red light at a speed of 118kph, when the posted speed limit was 70kph. Driving through a red traffic light is extremely dangerous.

  3. After the Sturt Street intersection, the offender accelerated again and was driving at 159kph in a 70kph zone. The agreed facts continue thus:

“As Kissing Point Road at the intersection with Brothers Street, the roadway reduces from three lanes to two lanes. The offender drove through the intersection with Brothers Street at a speed of 160kph in a 70kph zone. The offender moved quickly up behind another civilian vehicle in lane 1, slowing to a speed of 129 kilometres per hour and then merged from lane 1 to lane 2 and back again without indicating, so as to pass the other vehicle. At the intersection with Quarry Road, the offender attempted to negotiate a 90 degree, lefthand turn at a speed of 100kph (in a 70kph zone), however the front wheels of the Mazda 3 lost traction and the offender understeered on to the incorrect side of Quarry Road colliding with another civilian’s vehicle (a silver Honda Accord, containing a single occupant, being the driver.”

I should add that, mercifully for Fabian, that driver was uninjured.

  1. As the police in pursuit of the offender neared the site of the collision, the offender got out of the driver’s door and the two passengers also alighted from separate passenger’s doors and the three men ran away, each in a different direction. The offender managed to avoid being arrested at that time. However, his DNA was recovered from the airbag in the Mazda sedan. The police pursuit covered a distance of around two kilometres and lasted approximately one minute.

  2. The participation in the police pursuit is the crime known as sequence 9. The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for three years. The offender, that is Fabian, was arrested on 14 June 2024 at his residence at Melrose Park. The agreed facts detail certain items which were found by the police at the time of the offender’s arrest which implicated him in some of the crimes that I have already described.

Consideration

  1. Fortunately, there is little disagreement between counsel as to the seriousness of each of these offences. I intend to impose an aggregate sentence. I shall, in describing each offence, give a figure for the offence but then apply a discount of 25% because it is agreed between the Crown and Fabian that he pleaded guilty at the earliest available opportunity and is therefore entitled to a discount of 25% for each of the crimes which he has admitted.

  2. The first offence is Sequence 2, the assault occasioning actual bodily harm on Mr Chen. Each of the Crown and the offender agrees that this is below the midrange of objective seriousness for a crime of this nature. The maximum penalty is imprisonment for seven years. The damage to Mr Chen’s body would have been fleeting. The pain would have been even more fleeting. Doing the best I can, I start with a head sentence of 16 months imprisonment, which I reduce to 12 months because of the early guilty plea.

  3. Sequence 1, the aggravated breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit larceny, carries a maximum penalty of 14 years, as I said. The difference between Sequence 2 and Sequence 1 reflects the law’s importance given to one’s home, one’s dwelling or, as is commonly referred to in the community, one’s castle. The Crown submitted this offence was below midrange and the offender submitted that it was the lower end of the total range. I start with a head sentence of 24 months imprisonment which is reduced to 18 months imprisonment. In doing that, I take into account Sequence 12 on the Form 1.

  4. The next crime is Sequence 14, allowing himself to be carried in a stolen car, the white Mazda, valued at $16,000, stolen from the victim, knowing it had been stolen. He had been carried in it for about 3.5 kilometres. This is really at the bottom of the range. I start with a head sentence of 12 months and reduce that by 25% to arrive at nine months. In doing that, I take into account the matter on the Form 1, namely the Sequence 5 offence.

  5. Sequence 6 is the larceny at North Rocks. This clearly is well below the midrange of objective seriousness for any crime of larceny, and the goods taken were $519.88, but they could all have been collected by the security guard and returned to the shop, albeit the shop may have had to sell them as “soiled.” I start with a head sentence of 12 months, which I reduce to nine months for the early guilty plea.

  1. The next offence was the offence at Bellevue Hill, known as Sequence 18, the taking and driving of a conveyance without the consent of the owner. The Crown has submitted that this is a midrange offence. The Crown’s submission is this:

“In the circumstances, it is submitted that the offence is in the mid‑range of objective seriousness, given:

(a) the vehicle’s value;

(b) the offender’s boasting about having committed the offence;

(c) the not insignificant period of time the vehicle had been taken for;

(d) the removal of the vehicle’s licence plates;

(e) the fact that the offence was committed in company.”

  1. The fact that a vehicle is stolen in company is a frequent occurrence when vehicles are stolen. The only thing, in my view, which may appear to have said that this was a midrange offence was the value of the motorcar. The important thing, however, is that it was not damaged. The countervailing fact, of course, is that the owner of the vehicle left it parked on the driveway as a gift to anyone walking past who was lacking a means of transportation. Foolishness, unfortunately, might amount to contributory negligence in civil law but contributory negligence does not apply in crime.

  2. The fact that the appellant may have bragged about it is just part of human nature. Importantly, in my view, is the fact that the vehicle was not damaged and was not used for any criminal purpose, such as committing some other offence. I start with a head sentence of 18 months imprisonment, which I reduce to 12 months because of the offender’s early guilty plea.

  3. The next offence is known as Sequence 16, the aggravated enter a dwellinghouse with intent to commit larceny, the circumstance of aggravation being that he knew that there were persons within the dwelling. Again, the law attempts to protect a person’s home, a person’s castle. I start with a head sentence of 24 months imprisonment which I reduce to 18 months imprisonment for the early guilty plea. In making that finding, I take into account the matter on the Form 1, taking and driving a conveyance without the consent of its owners.

  4. As far as the police pursuit was concerned, Sequence 9, it was a very dangerous activity. Fortunately, there was no injury to any person. Surprisingly, in my view, the maximum penalty is only three years imprisonment. The Crown submitted that this was in the low to midrange and the offender submitted that it was below the midrange of objective seriousness. Again, the period of time that the pursuit persisted was short and the distance was not particularly lengthy. I agree that it is below the midrange but not significantly below the midrange. I start with a head sentence of 16 months imprisonment which I reduce to 12 months imprisonment because of the offender’s early plea of guilty.

  5. The total of the indicative sentences which I have allowed is a period of imprisonment of 90 months, or seven and a half years. However, as I said, I am imposing an aggregate sentence to avoid having, for example, to point out that certain offences are so closely related that they should be mainly or wholly concurrent.

  6. Doing the best I can, I have determined that the aggregate sentence should be imprisonment for four years. Applying the statutory non­parole period, the non­parole period should be three years. However, when I go on to talk about the offender’s personal circumstances, which I shall very shortly do, I reach the view that there are special circumstances and that the non­parole period should be two years.

s166 Offence – Sequence 10

  1. There is one further offence which I have not discussed, but I am required to deal with under a certificate pursuant to s 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. The offence is known as H175060002, sequence 10, a never licenced person driving a motor vehicle, as has been submitted by the offender’s counsel. I shall deal with the matter under s 10A, recording a conviction only with no other penalty.

Personal Circumstances

  1. As I said at the outset, Fabian is 22 years old. He has an extensive history as a juvenile offender which I completely ignore. I cannot, however, ignore the facts that led to that offending. Fabian was interviewed for the purpose of these proceedings by Ms Kris North, a forensic psychologist. She assessed him on 11 August 2025 by audio visual link over a one and a half hour period. In connection with other proceedings, the offender was interviewed by Professor Mark Walterfang, a neuropsychiatrist, on 13 September 2024.

  2. The summary of Fabian’s case made by Ms North is this:

“In summary, my assessment of Mr Fabian revealed a socially impoverished upbringing and his early exposure to significant violence and drug use. He experienced further trauma during his adolescence when he was assaulted in juvenile custody and identified this led to an escalation in his drug use. Mr Fabian has been caught in a cycle of drug use and offending since this time and had spent a considerable portion of his 22 years in custody. Concerns were thus raised by the assessment in relation to the risk of institutionalisation should Mr Fabian receive an extended sentence. It is my opinion his risk of reoffending could be reduced, however, should he engage in appropriate treatment to address his comorbid trauma and substance use issues. And it was noted Mr Fabian was motivated to engage in such treatment.

With regard to his offences, Mr Fabian had accepted responsibility for his behaviour and expressed remorse for the offences. He recognised the impact of his drug use on his offending behaviour and had achieved abstinence since entering custody with the assistance of Buvidal treatment. Mr Fabrian also presented as ready to address the unresolved trauma issues from his childhood and adolescence, and displayed insight into his need to address his trauma and substance use issues concurrently.”

  1. Ms North’s report tells me that the offender was born in Sydney as the youngest of three children. His parents separated when he was aged six after his mother stabbed his father in the back. The offender told Ms North that his mother had spent time in a mental health unit subsequent to that incident and had been diagnosed with either schizophrenia or a bipolar disorder. She has been medicated for psychosis since that time.

  2. Fabian resided with his father after his parent’s separation until he was ten years old. During that four year period, he described having to steal clothing and food because of neglect. He rarely attended school during that period. His father was a heavy drug user, and the offender was exposed to his father’s drug use and saw domestic violence being practiced by his father on his subsequent partner. At the age of ten, Fabian was returned to his mother’s care, and he found that more stable from time to time until late in primary school. He has had no contact with his father since the age of ten.

  3. Unfortunately, the offender commenced using cannabis and MDMA and methamphetamine from the ages of 11 or 12. Each of those drugs is addictive. An 11 year old or a 12 year old could not possibly understand what an addiction could do to him or her. No doubt the 11 or 12 year old boy could understand pleasure and obtaining a “high” but not to realise what using the drug would do over the long term. Clearly the offender has become addicted to illicit drugs, and he can hardly be blamed for it. His father was the example that he followed, an example that he was inured to. He cannot be held to be responsible for his subsequent addiction.

  4. The history obtained by Ms North goes on to tell me that he started using Xanax at the age of 14 and heroin at the age of 15. He identified his main drugs of choice as being cannabis and methamphetamine. He had been using methamphetamine on a daily basis during his offending up until going into custody. It is of moment and positive moment that the offender has, in custody, gone on to the Buvidal treatment which may give him some chance of escaping his addiction. However, he did give Professor Walterfang a history of being able to smoke a certain drug in gaol from time to time. But, as I understand it, his going on to the Buvidal program is more recent than that. Illicit drugs are easier to obtain in the community than in gaol. A longer period of parole will certainly increase the amount of supervision, to try to keep him abstinent from illicit drugs when he returns to the community.

  5. The offender commenced a relationship with Bethany. They have been partners for ten years. They have three children, sons aged five and four and a daughter aged two. They live with Bethany at her mother’s home, and the offender has kept up daily contact with them since he has been in custody. Having the responsibility of a partner and children is a big responsibility that may assist the offender in overcoming problems which have made his personal circumstances even worse, which result from a certain assault when he was in juvenile detention at the age of 15, after he commenced his relationship with Bethany.

  6. Both Professor Walterfang and Ms North diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder. Whether it is solely from an assault in juvenile detention or because of a number of traumatic events over the years to which the offender has been exposed is an interesting question, but is of little concern because it has been longstanding. There are also, of course, the diagnoses of substance abuse disorders because of the offender’s use of illicit drugs, but that is unsurprising given the circumstances. This is truly a case where Bugmy principles certainly apply. And I have taken those into account in determining the sentence which is to be passed.

  7. As I said, I have determined that the non­parole period should be two years.

  8. Any further reasons Mr Rajalingham?

RAJALINGHAM: No, your Honour. Please the Court.

Sentence

  1. HIS HONOUR: Fabian, in respect of each of the offences to which you have pleaded guilty, you are convicted. I am imposing an aggregate sentence. I sentence you to a non­parole period of two years commencing on 14 June 2024 and expiring on 13 June 2026. I impose a further period of imprisonment of two years to commence upon the expiration of the non­parole period and expiring on 13 June 2028. The total sentence is, therefore, four years comprising the non­parole period and the balance of the sentence. I have found special circumstances. You are eligible to be considered for release to parole at the expiration of the non­parole period. I have taken into account the matters on the three Forms 1.

  2. In respect of charge H175060002, Sequence 10, I record a conviction under s 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, with no other penalty.

  3. In respect of the aggregate sentence, the indicative sentences are:

  1. Sequence 2, 12 months.

  2. Sequence 1, with the Form 1, 18 months.

  3. Sequence 14, with a Form 1, nine months.

  4. Sequence 6, nine months.

  5. Sequence 18, 12 months.

  6. Sequence 16, with a Form 1, 18 months.

  7. Sequence 9, 12 months.

Cameron

  1. As I said initially Cameron is currently 22 years of age. As I pointed out in discussing Fabian’s offences, this offender committed the same offences at Warrawee. The offence are known as Sequence 2 and Sequence 1 and in Cameron’s case, Sequence 10 (rather than Sequence 12 as it was known in Fabian’s case).

Galston Offending – Sequence 14

  1. The further offending of Cameron occurred at Galston on 9 May 2024. Between 12.40am and 2am on that day, William Hookey and another person committed a break and enter offence at Arcadia Road, Galston. The offence was committed whilst the residents were sleeping inside. They were a couple and a young child. The persons responsible for the offence took a handbag containing a wallet and car keys and left the premises in a vehicle owned by the residents. That was a white Mercedes, registered number AVD 200. That car was valued at $69,000.

  2. Between about 2.06am and 4.20am Cameron allowed himself to be carried in the stolen white Mercedes knowing that it had been taken without the consent of the owner. That is the crime known in Cameron’s case as Sequence 14, being knowingly carried in a stolen conveyance, an offence punishable by five years imprisonment.

  3. The vehicle in which he was travelling as a passenger was driven to a BP Service Station at Dundas at 2.06am. The offender was captured on closed‑circuit television stealing $50 worth of petrol by pumping it into the car and not making any attempt to pay for it. That is one of the matters on a Form 1, the offence of larceny and the goods to the value of $50.

  4. The journey in the stolen car continued when the driver of the vehicle engaged in a police pursuit. Police were patrolling the Hunters Hill area when they observed the white Mercedes on Church Road being driven at a high speed. Police activated their warning lights and sirens but the vehicle failed to stop. A police pursuit was initiated on Church Street, heading west on to Ryde Road, Hunters Hill. Police followed the vehicle for about a kilometre and observed it being driven at a speed of 80kph in a 60kph zone. The police terminated the pursuit because of the manner of the driving of the person at the wheel of the stolen car.

  5. The offender was then carried further in the vehicle to a BP Service Station at Silverwater which was reached at 4.18am. Again, Cameron was captured on closed-circuit television stealing petrol, on this occasion, to the value of $109.30, pumping it into the car but making no attempt to pay for it.

  6. William Hookey was arrested in relation to his offending at 3.30pm on the same day, 9 May 2024, having been identified by police in closed‑circuit television footage obtained from one of the service stations.

  7. On 14 June 2024, police attended Cameron’s residence at West Ryde and arrested him in respect of the offences I have just described. They executed a search warrant and seized a blue Nautica hooded jumper consistent with that worn by the offender at the BP service stations at Dundas and Silverwater, as captured on closed-circuit television footage. The offender was conveyed to Parramatta Police Station and entered into custody. He declined, as he was entitled to do so, to participate in an electronically recorded interview.

s166 Offence – Sequence 8

  1. Police served a digital access order on the offender in relation to his mobile phone. The offender refused to comply with the order which is an offence under s 76AO(1)(a) of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002. The offender asks me to deal with him for that offence under a certificate under s 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986.

Criminal History

  1. The offender has a large number of matters which were dealt with in the Children’s Court. I ignore them as the law requires me to do.

  2. However, he has certain offending as an adult. On 5 April 2022 at the age of 18 he committed the crime of common assault. For that he was fined $2,500.

  3. On 6 March 2022, again at the age of 18, he committed a second offence of common assault. For that he was given a Community Correction Order for a period of two years commencing on 7 June 2023 and concluding on 6 June 2025.

  4. On 31 October 2022, he committed two offences of stalking or intimidation with intention to cause fear of physical or the like harm. For those offences he was placed on a Conditional Release Order for a period of 12 months.

  5. On 10 February 2023, the offender committed larceny for which he was fined $750 and placed on a Community Correction Order for a period of 12 months, commencing on 26 July 2023 and expiring on 25 July 2024.

  6. On 15 February 2023, he committed an offence of possessing a prohibited drug for which he was fined $500.

  7. On 3 December 2023, he committed three offences, one was possession or use of a prohibited weapon without a permit, another was custody of a knife in a public place, and there was a second charge of custody of a knife in a public place. In respect of each of those offences a fine of $300 was imposed.

  8. On 24 December 2023, at the age of 20 he contravened a prohibition or restriction in an ADVO. For that offence he only appeared in the Downing Centre Local Court after he had been arrested for the offences before me and he was sentenced to imprisonment for five months, commencing on 15 June 2024 and concluding on 14 November 2024. One will recall that he had been arrested on 14 June 2024, this was an appearance before the Downing Centre Local Court on 2 October 2024.

  9. As a result of the same offending and in the same circumstances, he was called up for a breach of the Community Correction Order and the Conditional Release Order, and again sentenced to imprisonment for five months commencing on 15 June 2024 and expiring 14 November 2024, when the reason that he was in custody was because of the offences which I have described.

Personal Circumstances

  1. This is a somewhat unusual case in that there is very little about the offender’s personal circumstances before me other than what is contained in a Sentencing Assessment Report. That tells me that before he was arrested, the offender resided with his mother and his four year old daughter in the West Ryde area. On his release from custody, he intends to return to live with his mother and his daughter.

  2. Cameron’s mother described their relationship as being a supportive one. She did not condone her son’s behaviour. However, according to the same report Cameron appears to be motivated by his continuing parental responsibility to his daughter.

  3. He has a history of casual employment as a bricklayer when in the community and has been working in that field for five years. That work is readily available in the community, it is hard work, but it is generally well remunerated.

  4. A significant factor in the offender’s background may be the fact that his father had a serious illness which led to his death in 2018 when the offender may have only been 15 or 16 years old.

  5. Cameron told the maker of the Sentencing Assessment Report that he has a history of drug use, including cannabis, methylamphetamine and heroin, as well as alcohol use. That usage commenced at the age of 16 and may have been precipitated by his father’s illness and death which led to at least an escalation if not initiation of his drug and alcohol use. The offender admitted that his substance use frequently played a part in his offending behaviour. At least he has that insight. He admitted that prior to committing offences, he met up with friends who used illicit substances. He used those substances with them, and that led to his being involved in offending.

  6. Importantly, the offender expressed a willingness to engage in interventions to address his offending behaviour and specifically agreed he would be willing and able to attend drug and alcohol counselling, and the EQIPS Aggression Program. Unfortunately, the Community Corrections officer assessed the offender’s risk of reoffending as being medium to high and Community Corrections devised a program which might assist the offender from reoffending. That plan includes the EQUIPS Aggression Program, referral to a General Practitioner for a Mental Health Assessment and Treatment Plan, and engagement in drug and alcohol counselling to address substance use. The same can be achieved by a direction from Probation and Parole Service if the offender is released from custody.

  7. The offender has now spent 15 months and 12 days in custody.

Consideration

  1. For the Sequence 2 and Sequence 1 offences, together with the Sequence 10 on the Form 1 being the same offences committed by Fabian, I intend to make the same disposition.

  2. Again, this offender is entitled to a 25% discount on the sentence properly passed upon him because of the early guilty plea. In essence, that means an indicative sentence after the discount of 12 months imprisonment for Sequence 2, and 18 months imprisonment for Sequence 1, taking into account the matter on the Form 1.

  1. For the Sequence 14 offence, of knowingly being carried in a stolen conveyance, taking into account the two charges of larceny on the Form 1, being sequences 12 and 13, I start with a head sentence of 16 months imprisonment and I reduce that to 12 months because of the offender’s plea of guilty. The three indicative sentences are therefore 12 months, 18 months and 12 months, which gives a total of 42 months, or three years and six months.

  2. I have reached the view that the appropriate aggregate sentence is two years imprisonment. Applying the statutory ratio between the non-parole period and the head sentence, the non-parole period should be 18 months. However, here there are special circumstances. Cameron is still a young man, he is 22 years old, he has a daughter to look after, and that is important both for him personally and important for the community. Furthermore, he has not served any other custodial sentence either as juvenile or an adult and clearly this period of incarceration would have been extremely challenging for him. I initially thought that with a finding of special circumstances the non-parole period should be 14 months, but I now know that he has served 15 months and 12 days imprisonment. I intend to impose a non-parole period of 15 months and 12 days such that the offender is entitled to be released on parole today.

  3. As far as the offence to be dealt with on the s 166 certificate is concerned, I intend to impose a conviction pursuant to s 10A, but no other penalty.

Sentence

  1. Jake Cameron, in respect of each of the offences to which you have pleaded guilty you are convicted. I sentence you to imprisonment. I set a non-parole period of 15 months and 12 days commencing on 14 June 2024 and expiring on 25 September 2025, that is, today. I impose a further period of imprisonment of eight months and 18 days to commence upon the expiration of the non-parole period and expiring on 13 June 2026. The total sentence is therefore two years, comprising the non-parole period and the balance of the sentence. I have found special circumstances. You are eligible to be considered for release to parole at the expiration of the non-parole period, that is, today. I have taken into account the matter on the two Forms 1.

  2. The indicative sentences are for:

  1. Sequence 2 - 12 months.

  2. Sequence 1 - 18 months.

  3. Sequence 14 - 12 months.

  1. On the charge that you failed to comply with a digital evidence access order direction being H315911797, Sequence 8 - I record a conviction pursuant to s 10A, but impose no other penalty.

  2. Any other orders sought?

PICKERING: No, your Honour.

**********

Decision last updated: 12 November 2025

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

1

Statutory Material Cited

4

The Queen v Williams [2014] ACTCA 30