R v Mindelis

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Mindelis
Citation:	[2025] ACTSC 482
Hearing Date:	14 October 2025, 29 October 2025
Decision Date:	29 October 2025
Before:	Taylor J
Decision:	See [110].
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Burglary – Theft – Enter airside area without permission – Take motor without authority – Endanger safety of Commonwealth aerodrome – Damage property – Drive unlicenced – Bugmy principles – Verdins principles
Legislation Cited:	Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005 (Cth) s 3.17(2) Crimes (Aviation) Act 1991 (Cth) s 27(1) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) pt 1B, ss 16A, 17A, 19 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 309, Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 308, 311(1), 403(1) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 10, 33, 36 Mental Health Act 2015 (ACT) Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT) s 31(1)
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 Ngata v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 18 Verdins v The Queen [2007] VSCA 102
Parties:	Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Mikhaylo Mindelis ( Offender)
Representation:	Counsel L Fomiatti ( Crown) R Brandon-Baker ( Offender)
Solicitors Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) ACT Legal Aid ( Offender)
File Number:	SCC 108 of 2025 SCC 109 of 2025

TAYLOR J:

Introduction

The offender Mikhaylo Mindelis is to be sentenced for the following offences:
(a)CC2023/11182: Burglary – intent to steal, contrary to s 311(1) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The offence carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment of 14 years and/or 1400 penalty units.
(b)CC2025/2491: Theft, contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code. The offence carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment of 10 years and/or 1000 penalty units.
(c)CC2023/11986: Enter airside area without permission, contrary to s 3.17(2) of the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005 (Cth). The offence carries a maximum penalty of 50 penalty units.
(d)CC2023/11987: Take motor without authority, contrary to s 318(1) of the Criminal Code. The offence carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment of 5 years and/or 500 penalty units.
(e)CC2023/11985: Endanger safety of Commonwealth aerodrome, contrary to s 27(1) of the Crimes (Aviation) Act1991 (Cth). The offence carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment of 14 years and/or 840 penalty units.
(f)CC2025/1871: Damage property, contrary to s 403(1) the Criminal Code. The offence carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment of 10 years and/or 1000 penalty units.
(g)CC2025/2493: Drive unlicenced, contrary to s 31(1) of the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT). The offence carries a maximum penalty of 20 penalty units.
(h)CC2025/2492: Damage property, contrary to s 403(1) of the Criminal Code. The offence carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment of 10 years and/or 1000 penalty units.
The offender pleaded guilty to CC2023/11182, CC2025/2491, CC2023/11987, CC2023/11985, CC2025/1871, CC2025/2492 in the Magistrates Court on 28 April 2025. On that occasion CC2023/11986 and CC2025/2493 were transferred to this Court as back-up or related offences.

Agreed facts

A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In the evening of 28 October 2023, Mikhaylo Mindelis (offender) burgled Provincial Plants and Landscapes at Pialligo, ACT, stealing a number of items.
In the early morning of 29 October 2023, the offender entered the airside area of Canberra Airport without permission by climbing over the perimeter fence. After entering the airport, he stole a van used by Virgin Australia and drove it within the airport, including across the runway, endangering the safety of the airport and its users. He drove the van through the Canberra Airport perimeter fence on three occasions, causing damage to both the fence and the van. After exiting the airport, he drove the van to Harrison, ACT, in circumstances where his licence was expired.

B. OFFENDING AT PROVINCIAL PLANTS AND LANDSCAPES, 28 OCTOBER 2023

Provincial Plants and Landscapes is the trading name of Provincial Investment Holdings Pty Ltd.

Burglary (CC2023/11182)

At around 7.50pm on 28 October 2023, the offender attended the location of Provincial Plants and Landscapes at 364 Fairbairn Ave, Pialligo in the Australian Capital Territory (Provincial Plants). The business was closed at the time and no one was present. The offender did not have permission to enter the premises.
The back fence of Provincial Plants was damaged prior to the offender's arrival and the offender entered through this damaged fence. He then entered the Provincial Plants office and commenced searching for items to steal. He continued searching the premises until around 8.30pm.

Theft (CC2025/2491)

Between 7.50pm and 8.30pm on 28 October 2023, the offender collected the following items from the Provincial Plants office:
(a)Two smart phones owned by Provincial lnvestment Holdings Pty Ltd;
(b)Keys to a Mazda BT-50 owned by Provincial Investment Holdings Pty Ltd;
(c)$300 cash owned by Provincial Investment Holdings Pty Ltd;
(d)A pair of gumboots owned by Provincial Investment Holdings Pty Ltd; and
(e)A black hoodie owned by Molly Devine.
At around 8.30pm, the offender departed Provincial Plants with the items, intending to permanently deprive their owners of them.
At the time he left the premises, the offender intended to return later that night to steal the Mazda BT-50 to which the keys he had stolen belonged. The offender did not in fact return.

C. OFFENDING AT CANBERRA AIRPORT, 29 OCTOBER 2023

Background

Canberra Airport, which is operated by Capital Airport Group, is a major Australian airport and a core regulated airport pursuant to Airports Act 1996 (Cth). Canberra Airport is utilised by commercial airlines including Qantas, Qantas Link, Virgin Airlines, Fiji Airlines, Rex, Jetstar, Link and Pelican Airways. Significant numbers of charter and privately owned aircraft also fly in and out of the airport.
Royal Australian Air Force 34 Squadron, which provides air transport for the Prime Minister, Governor General and other dignitaries, is based at Fairbairn and flies in and out of Canberra Airport. A large number of other Australian military aircraft also use the airport.
Canberra Airport is a 24-hour airport. While the terminal ordinarily operates from 5am to midnight only, the airport remains operational at other times. Aircraft may use the airport outside terminal opening hours for various reasons, including diversions from another airport, medical emergencies, or Australian Defence Force operational reasons.
The airside area of Canberra Airport (the runway, taxiways and surrounding area) is enclosed by a cyclone wire perimeter fence, approximately 3 metres high, topped with three strings of barbed wire. There are signs attached to the perimeter fence at regular intervals which clearly state that trespassing is prohibited and that it is an offence to enter without authorisation.
Canberra Airport has specific rules regulating driving inside the airport. To be allowed to drive within the airport, a person must hold an Aviation Security Identification Card or be an authorised person (such as a police officer). In addition, the person also requires an Approved Driving Authority (ADA) issued by Canberra Airport. There are a number of categories of ADAs, being 1, 2, 2A, 3A and 4. To be issued an ADA, the person is required to pass a written exam, complete supervised driving hours and complete a driving assessment, both day and night.
The highest level of ADA, requiring the most training, is category 4, which is required to drive across the runway or taxiways. A holder of a category 4 ADA crossing the runway or a taxiway is required to be in continual contact with the air traffic control operator and can only cross when the operator gives clearance.
All vehicles being driven in the airport at night are required to have their headlights and taillights illuminated and an emergency amber beacon light operating.

Unauthorised entry into airside area of airport (CC2023/11986)

At a time between 2.31am and 4.00am on 29 October 2023, the offender climbed over the Canberra Airport perimeter fence adjacent to Car Park One at Brindabella Business Park, entering the Canberra Airport airside area. In the course of doing so, he broke the three strings of barbed wire which top the fence. Signs prohibiting unauthorised access were affixed to the fence close to where the offender climbed over it.
At the time the offender entered the airside area, he was in possession of a piece of timber approximately 115 centimetres long and 9 centimetres wide. He continued to brandish this timber while on foot in the airside area.
The offender did not have permission to enter the airside area.

Taking of van (CC2023/11987)

At 4.00am on 29 October 2023, while in the airside area of Canberra Airport, the offender approached an unattended white Hyundai iLoad TQ-V van with Virgin branding and ACT registration YJl-70C owned by Fleet Plus Pty Ltd and leased to Virgin Australia (the van) parked near the terminal building. As required by airport rules, the van was unlocked and the keys were in it.
The offender accessed the van, loaded the piece of timber he was carrying into it and drove away, intending to drive the van out of the airport.
The offender did not have permission to drive or take the van.

Endangering safety of Canberra Airport (CC2023/11985)

After taking the van at about 4.00am, the offender initially drove it alongside the terminal building. He then changed direction and drove across the taxiway and runway before arriving at Gate 47, on the other side of the airport near Fairbairn, at around 4.10am. Finding the gate locked, the offender drove the van through the airport perimeter fence, exiting the airport.
The offender then drove the van around Fairbairn. Unable to find a road out of Fairbairn, the offender drove the van through the airport perimeter fence a second time, at a different location, re-entering the airport at around 4.20am.
After re-entering the airport, the offender again drove the van across the airport, arriving at the area adjacent to Fairbairn Avenue, Pialligo. He then drove the van up a grassed hill, through the perimeter fence and out onto Fairbairn Avenue, Pialligo, exiting the airport for a second time at around 4.30am.
In total, the offender drove the van inside the airport for around 20 minutes.
The offender did not hold an ADA and had received no training in safe driving of a motor vehicle in the airport. By driving inside the airport without having been trained in how to do so safely, the offender endangered airport infrastructure including landing lights, airport markers, windsocks, weather instrumentation, communication relays and runway signs. Damage to any of these would have endangered the safety of passengers and crew of aircraft using the airport.
The headlights of the van were off for some of the period the offender was driving the van inside the airport. The amber beacon was off for the entire period the offender was driving the van inside the airport. By driving inside the airport at night without the headlights or amber beacon light illuminated, the offender risked colliding with a person, vehicle or structure. In addition, by making the van less visible, the offender created a risk that another vehicle or aircraft would collide with the van. In these ways, the offender endangered the safety of the airport and staff of the airport and also endangered the safety of passengers and crew of aircraft which may have been using the airport.
The offender was at no time in contact with the air traffic control operator. By driving across the taxiway and runway without approval from the air traffic control operator, the offender endangered the safety of passengers and crew of aircraft which may have been using the taxiway or runway. A collision between an aircraft and the van carried the risk of serious injury or death to the offender as well as the passengers and crew of the aircraft.
Ensuring only authorised persons have access to the airside airport is an important way in which the safety of users of the airport is ensured. When the offender entered the airport on foot, he broke the three strings of barbed wire which top the perimeter fence. Without the barbed wire, the fence would be significantly easier for an unauthorised person to scale.
In addition, on each of the three occasions the offender drove the van through the perimeter fence, the offender damaged the fence by detaching the wire mesh from the retaining wire at the base of the fence and bending the wire mesh. This damage meant that any person would easily be able to gain access to the airside area of the airport through the damaged sections of fence.
By making easier access to the airside area by unauthorised persons, the offender caused a risk to the safety of any person who might enter without authorisation and to other users of the airport. This risk remained until police began guarding the damaged sections of fence hours after the incident.
The offender was aware of the substantial risks involved in damaging the perimeter fence and driving the van in the airport in the manner he did, and there was nothing in the circumstances to justify the offender taking these risks.

Damage property - Canberra Airport perimeter fencing (CC225/1871)

As a result of his unauthorised entry into the airport and driving of the van through the fence on multiple occasions, the offender caused damage to the Canberra Airport perimeter fence, owned by Capital Airport Group.
The offender first caused damage to the Canberra Airport perimeter fence by climbing over it, breaking the three strings of barbed wire which topped the fence. The offender then caused further damage to the fence by deliberately driving the van through it on three occasions. On each occasion the wire mesh broken off from bottom retaining wire or the retaining wire was snapped, and the wire mesh was bent out of shape, meaning the wire mesh was no longer securely connected to the frame of the fence.
The total cost for repairs to the perimeter fence was $10,411.50.

Drive unlicenced (CC2025/2493)

After exiting the airport the first time in the van, the offender drove on roads in Fairbairn between approximately 4.10am and 4.20am.
Following his departure in the van from Canberra Airport the second time at approximately 4.30am, the offender drove away from the airport. He passed a police vehicle near the War Memorial but had no interaction with it. The offender then drove the van to Harrison, where he parked it on the street at around 5.15am.
The offender did not hold a valid licence at this time. The offender had previously held a provisional Victorian licence; however, this had expired. The offender had never held a licence in any other jurisdiction.

Damage property- Van (CC2025/2492)

Through his actions driving the van between 4.00am and approximately 5.15am on 29 October 2023, the offender directly caused significant damage to the van. This included by driving it through the Canberra Airport perimeter fence on three occasions, leaving broken off portions of the van at each location.
The van was recovered by police on 31 October 2023 from the location where the offender parked it in Harrison. At this point the van was badly damaged, including damage to the side panels, front bumper, headlights, grille, bonnet, windscreen, roof, undercarriage and driver's seat and floor.
As a result of the damage caused by the offender, the van was written off by the insurer. The market value of the van at the time was $23,200.
Virgin Australia was paid out an amount of $21,200 under its insurance policy over the van.

D. SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT

After arriving in Harrison at around 5.15am on 29 October 2023, the offender locked the van, hid the keys, and proceeded away on foot.
On 13 November 2023, the offender voluntarily presented himself to city police station, where he participated in a record of interview and made full admissions.

The sentencing task

The offender is to be sentenced for Commonwealth offences (CC2023/11986 and CC2023/11985) (‘the Commonwealth offences’) and Territory offences (CC2023/11182, CC2025/2491, CC2023/11987, CC2025/1871, CC2025/2493, CC2025/ 2492) (‘the ACT offences’). Accordingly, the offender must be dealt with in accordance with part 1B of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) for the Commonwealth offences and the sentence imposed must be of appropriate severity in all the circumstances. The offender must also be dealt with according to the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) for the ACT offences which sets out the purposes of sentencing at s 7.
Pursuant to s 16A(2) of the Crimes Act 1914 and s 33 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 I turn to consider the following matters.

Nature and circumstances of the offending

The penalty which applies to an offence is an indication of the seriousness of it. Some of these offences attract substantial periods of imprisonment which reflects the gravity of the conduct engaged in by the offender and the risk to safety he presented. Identifying the features of an offence informs an assessment of its objective seriousness. A consideration of where the offence sits on the spectrum of offending conduct is an important consideration.

The Commonwealth offences

The conduct which made out the offence of ‘entry without permission to an airside area’ (CC2023/11986) involved the offender entering onto the runway and the taxiway in circumstances where his presence was entirely unauthorised. The offender went on to commit further offences.
The conduct relied upon for the offence of ‘endangering safety Commonwealth aerodrome’ (CC2023/11985) was the act of driving within the airport precinct including across the runway and taxiway without authorisation and in circumstances where there were no safety measures in place to take account of his presence in those areas, such as monitoring by air traffic control or beacon lighting. The conduct involved a high degree of risk given the airport was operating at the time. This was an example of the offence at the mid-range of the offending spectrum.

The ACT offences

The prosecution accepted that each of the ACT offences were “typical” examples of the offence.
The burglary offence (CC2023/ 11182) was committed at a commercial premises, no person was present at the time of the offence, there was no indication of planning or pre-meditation, and no significant damage or vandalism was caused by the offender. The prosecution conceded that this was not an especially serious example of the offence.
The theft offence (CC2025/2491) saw the offender take keys to a vehicle, two items of clothing, two smart phones and three hundred dollars cash. The total value of the items was unknown. The theft of the phones and the car keys would have caused inconvenience to the corporate owner.
The take motor vehicle without consent offence (CC2023/11987) was an opportunistic act that similarly would have caused inconvenience. The damage caused to the vehicle is the subject of a separate charge. The vehicle was used by the offender to commit further offences.
The damage property offence (CC2023/1871) involved damage to the perimeter fence of the airport and was substantial requiting repairs to the value of $10,411.50. Until the fence could be repaired it was necessary for the area to be secured by police attendance. The damage property offence (CC2023/2492) saw the vehicle totally written off by the insurer. The vehicle was valued at $23,200. Each offence involved substantial damage and resulted in significant inconvenience.
The offender drove the vehicle whilst he was unlicenced (CC2025/2493). The maximum penalty for the offence is 20 penalty units. The offender’s driving of the vehicle facilitated the commission of further offences.

Procedural history and time in custody

It is useful to briefly set out the procedural history of these matters. After the commission of the offences now for sentence the offender was granted bail in the ACT Magistrates Court on 14 November 2023.
On 22 November 2023 he committed a further offence in the ACT and on the same day, further offences in New South Wales (NSW). He was apprehended in NSW on that day and was subsequently imprisoned in NSW for 20 months. Upon becoming eligible for parole on 21 October 2024 the offender was extradited from NSW and brought to the ACT where an order was made to determine whether he required immediate treatment or care because of mental impairment pursuant to s 309 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) and the offender was taken to The Canberra Hospital. The offender was refused bail after he was returned to the ACT Magistrates Court upon the completion of the mental impairment assessment.
The offender has been in continuous custody since 22 November 2023. He was convicted and sentenced in the ACT Magistrates Court on 1 August 2025 to “the rising of the Court” for the offence of take motor vehicle without consent committed on 22 November 2023 which accounts for one day of the period he has been in custody in the ACT for these offences. Accordingly, the sentence I impose will be backdated to commence on 22 October 2024.

Guilty pleas and assistance to authorities

The offender entered pleas of guilty to the Commonwealth and the ACT offences in the Magistrates Court at the earliest opportunity. The pleas had significant utilitarian value and were of benefit to the court and the community. I accept that the pleas reflect the offender’s remorse, his willingness to accept responsibility and facilitate justice. It is appropriate that the sentence I impose on the offender be reduced by 25 per cent in recognition of the utilitarian value.
The Crown conceded that the offender should also be afforded an additional reduction in recognition of his substantial co-operation and assistance to law enforcement authorities which included handing himself in to investigators and making full admissions in a lengthy police interview: s 16A (2)(h) Crimes Act 1914 and s 36 Crimes (Sentencing) Act. Accordingly, I consider it appropriate to reduce the sentence imposed by a further 5 per cent.

Criminal history

Prior to the commission of the offences in October 2023 the offender did not have any criminal history in the ACT. His criminal history in NSW is limited to a driving offence in 2017 and the offences he committed on 22 November 2023. A criminal history from Victoria reflects three family violence related offences arising from an incident in 2022 which the offender disclosed to the PSR author.

Subjective circumstances

Pre-sentence report (PSR)

A pre-sentence report contained the following information.
The offender was born in Ukraine and moved to Australia with his family when he was four years old. He has three siblings from his parent’s relationship and two half-siblings from his father’s previous relationship. His parents separated when he was approximately five to six years old and the offender reported that his father spent much of his childhood incarcerated. He reported that his father was violent toward his mother. [Redacted].
The offender told the report author that his older sister had a severe disability and was cared for by his mother. His mother would take her frustrations out on the offender by physically and verbally abusing him. He stated that his mother would display preferential treatment towards his siblings. The offender’s father died in 2007 and he reported having limited contact with him prior to his death. He maintains a relationship with his mother but claimed his siblings still receive preferential treatment.
The offender has a six-year-old son, although has not had much contact with him. He commenced a relationship with the mother of his son when he was 25 and she was 18. She became pregnant shortly after the relationship began. [Redacted]. He disclosed to the report author that he was abusive towards his partner throughout their two-year relationship. He expressed a desire to formally obtain contact with his son. [Redacted]. He told the report author it was his intention to remain single.
Prior to his remand the offender was residing in Ainslie Village with the support of the St Vincent De Paul Society. He has been accepted into the Justice Housing Program but reported wanting to return to Melbourne to be closer to his family. He stated that he planned to reside with his mother for a period before returning to a former residence he shared with a housemate. His brother was contacted and confirmed that the offender was welcome to reside with his mother on the basis that he abided by the household rules.
The offender completed year 8 at school. He was expelled in year 9 from two schools for truancy, anti-social behaviour and consuming alcohol on school grounds. He reported working as a bricklayer and kitchen hand. His longest period of employment was for 18 months in the fast-food industry as a teenager. He reported that his cannabis use would impact his motivation to continue employment. He is currently employed as a kitchen hand at the Alexander Maconchie Centre (AMC), which the report author described as a trusted work position.
Prior to his incarceration the offender was the recipient of jobseeker payments. He reported long-term financial difficulties and disclosed a debt of $9000 that he has accrued from traffic fines.
The offender first consumed alcohol and began using cannabis when he was 14 years old and by age 20 his cannabis use became problematic and reportedly affected all aspects of his life. He told the report author that he commenced using methamphetamine at 25 and quickly became addicted. He reported that a methamphetamine induced psychosis underpinned his offending conduct and that he would be willing to cease use of all illicit substances. He returned a negative urinalysis result in May 2025. The offender has not commenced any drug treatment programs but stated he would be willing to engage in any program he was required to complete.
The offender reported suffering from PTSD associated with childhood trauma. He saw a psychologist for much of his schooling. He sought treatment from a psychologist for a six-month period when he was in a relationship with the mother of his child. While incarcerated in NSW the offender was diagnosed with schizophrenia and is receiving monthly injections. A letter from Canberra Health Services dated 6 June 2025 confirmed this diagnosis.
The offender accepted the statement of facts and acknowledged that his offending was serious. He attributed his offending conduct to his poor mental health and drug impairment.
Th author of the report assessed the offender at being at a high risk of re-offending and required a high level of supervision. The report author noted the offender’s unaddressed drug and alcohol issues, traumatic childhood and mental health diagnosis. The author considered that the offender did demonstrate insight into his offending, but indicated a desire to cease mental health medications in the future.

Psychologist report of Ms North

Ms North recorded the offender’s difficult childhood including his exposure to family violence and [redacted]. Ms North set out the offender’s history of self-harming ideation arising from his childhood trauma which had effectively resulted in a ‘prisoner at risk’ categorisation in January and October 2024. As outlined above Ms North recorded the offender’s history of illicit substance and alcohol abuse.
Ms North accepted that whilst the level of the offender’s drug use in the lead up to the offending was not entirely clear his history of substance use contributed to a decline in his mental health. She concluded that the offender was experiencing active symptoms of psychosis at the time of the offending including paranoia and persecutory delusions that he was going to be killed and that he needed to escape from people who were following him. Upon realising the wrongfulness of his conduct the offender presented himself to police.
Ms North concluded:
Of relevance, my assessment and review of collateral medical records revealed Mr Mindelis had been experiencing symptoms of psychosis at the time of his index offences (October 2023) and he was subsequently diagnosed with schizophrenia when in custody. It was my opinion his symptoms had been exacerbated by his use of methamphetamines in the months preceding the offences, however as Mr Mindelis continued to experience paranoia and persecutory delusions for months subsequent to entering custody (and in the absence of drug use) it was my opinion he presented with a genuine psychotic illness as opposed to a substance induced condition.
Ms North noted that the offender was recorded as displaying minimal insight into his mental health issues while incarcerated in NSW and tended to present as guarded and suspicious. The offender was placed on a psychiatric treatment order (PTO) after he was transferred to the AMC on 23 October 2024. The offender described his mood as having gradually improved since that time though he questioned the need for antipsychotic medication citing adverse effects such as weight gain and low energy, stating “I am not psychotic”. Ms North suggested that observations made of the offender that he continued to be “guarded” and “suspicious” with mental health professionals in the ACT could also be explained by the difficulties he reported experiencing with antipsychotic medication such as making him tired and causing him difficulty with processing information.
Ms North recorded that in her assessment of him the offender was reluctant to answer questions despite being informed by her of the purpose of her assessment. She considered that his presentation to her was consistent with ongoing paranoia. As the assessment progressed, the offender became more co-operative.
Overall Ms North concluded that despite limited insight into his mental health condition the offender was “motivated to engage with mental health services in the community upon his release from custody and stated he would comply with his treatment recommendations should he be discharged”.
Ms North confirmed that offender’s diagnosis of schizophrenia and stimulant use disorder (amphetamine type substance, in sustained remission in a controlled environment). Ms North was unable to make a clear assessment as to whether the offender would satisfy the criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
Ms North recommended that the offender engage in ongoing assessment and treatment for his mental illness including:
(a)Engaging with a psychiatrist;
(b)continuing to take his prescribe medications and complying with any other treatments recommended by psychiatrists;
(c)engaging in psychoeducation on the nature of his diagnosis;
(d)exploring further a potential diagnosis of PTSD;
(e)engaging with a case worker upon release from custody;
(f)applying for a psychiatric treatment order; and
(g)engaging in substance abuse treatment.

Responsibility, remorse and rehabilitation
Bugmy and Verdins considerations

Assessing the offender’s responsibility, moral culpability or ‘blameworthiness’ for the offending conduct requires careful consideration of his subjective circumstances. Where his criminal conduct might be explained or was underpinned by factors beyond his control, his culpability may be moderated.
The offender experienced a disadvantaged childhood which included [redacted] and early exposure to violence as well as drug and alcohol use. The offender’s disadvantaged childhood experience must be given “full weight” though may not have the same (mitigatory) relevance for all purposes of sentencing: Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37. Whilst I accept that a strict causal connection between a disadvantaged childhood and offending conduct is not necessary to justify a reduction in moral culpability, in this instance the offender’s childhood experience explains his offending conduct to a limited degree. His use of illicit substances may have arisen because of his exposure to drug use at an early age and the use of such substances has some correlation with the deterioration (by exacerbating his symptoms) of his mental health. It can be accepted that the offender’s use of illicit substances is not the cause of his mental health condition, the symptomology of which persisted in the absence of drug use and when he was under medical supervision and treatment. The operation of the offender’s mental health condition is of greater significance to a consideration of his moral culpability.
Ms North recorded the paranoia and delusion experienced by the offender at the time of the offending and concluded that the offender’s diagnosis of schizophrenia contributed to his offending conduct including by impairing “his judgment and decision-making capability at the time of the offences in addition to reducing his impulse control”. The prosecution did not contest Ms North’s conclusions with respect to the influence of his of schizophrenia diagnosis at the time of the offending conduct nor that the offender was not diagnosed with schizophrenia until after his remand in custody in NSW in November 2023.
I am satisfied that there was direct or ‘real’ connection between the offender’s mental impairment and his offending conduct. There was no contest that the principles enunciated in Verdins v The Queen [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269 were enlivened. As the Court of Appeal acknowledged in Ngata v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 18, “Verdins recognised that a person suffering a mental impairment is entitled to have that taken into account as a relevant sentencing consideration, even though it falls short of amounting to a defence or allowing access to specific sentencing orders relying on the presence of a mental impairment”.
The connection between the offending and the offender’s mental condition substantially reduces his moral culpability such that general deterrence, punishment and denunciation should be moderated to a considerable degree. The prosecution resisted significant moderation of general deterrence with respect to the Commonwealth offences because the potential for the offending to have resulted in grave consequences “necessitate the public (whether mentally ill or not) being deterred”. I accept that general deterrence is not entirely extinguished as a sentencing consideration but in my view the offender’s mental health condition was a feature of his offending conduct to such an extent that considerable moderation of general deterrence for each offence is warranted.
Remorse is a factor that influences a consideration of an offender’s prospect of rehabilitation. I have previously observed that a genuinely remorseful offender is more likely to have insight into their conduct and consequently some desire for reform. Rehabilitation, if it can be achieved, is the best way to ensure community safety and is in the offender’s and the community’s interest.
In his letter to the Court the offender unequivocally expressed remorse for the conduct he engaged in consistent with observations recorded in the PSR and the psychological report. Those expressions are also consistent with the full admissions he made to investigating police shortly after the commission of the offences and with his early pleas of guilty.
The offender’s mental health has stabilised considerably in the almost two years that he has now been in custody. His apprehension about the adverse effects of anti-psychotic medication is reflective of limited insight into the seriousness of his mental health condition and its contribution to his offending behaviour. This is a particular concern in light of the extent to which I am satisfied his mental health condition contributed to the commission of the offences.
The offender’s limited insight is also a concern in circumstances where the use of illicit substances precipitated a deterioration in his mental health condition. A failure to entirely grasp the seriousness of his condition in turn effects his appreciation of the need for him to remain vigilant with medication and the potential for illicit substance use to adversely affect his capacity to manage his symptoms. These are considerations which influence an assessment of his prospect for rehabilitation, the need for specific deterrence and the need to protect the community.
The offender has been entirely compliant with the medication regime prescribed for him while he has been in custody at the AMC and he has consistently affirmed his willingness to abide by court orders including with respect to treatment and mental health care and drug rehabilitation for as long as he is required. His claim to have maintained abstinence from illicit substance use whilst in custody is supported by the stability in the presentation of his mental health condition and the results of urinalysis.
The offender’s categorisation by the author of the PSR as being a “high risk” of reoffending appeared closely connected to his attitude to managing his mental health condition and his expression of reluctance to cease cannabis use entirely. I am satisfied that if the offender were to remain compliant and receptive to mental health treatment his risk of reoffending would dramatically improve. I note here that even though the offender has identified drug and alcohol use as a problem for much of his adult life, he does not have a significant criminal history. To the extent that those issues have persisted they have not resulted in the offender’s consistent engagement in the criminal justice system. This supports my view that with appropriate management and support in the community the offender’s risk can be substantially reduced and he can fulfill his real potential for rehabilitation.

Sentencing practice

I was not provided with any comparable outcomes by either party. Apart from the most serious Commonwealth offence the prosecution accepted that the offences were all “typical” examples. With respect to that serious Commonwealth offence the prosecutor submitted that any comparable outcomes were of limited assistance given the unique circumstances of this matter.

Determination

Notwithstanding the finding I have made with respect to the offender’s moral culpability and the moderating effect on general deterrence, punishment and denunciation, specific deterrence is a purpose which must carry significant weight. The relationship between the offender’s drug use and exacerbation of his symptoms cannot be ignored. Accordingly, the offender must be deterred from drug use in circumstances where he now has a certain diagnosis of schizophrenia. Relatedly, protection of the community and rehabilitation must also carry significant weight. The period the offender has spent in custody since November 2023 is his first experience of a custodial environment. I am satisfied that this has had some deterrent effect upon the offender consistent with the willingness and motivation he has expressed to comply with court orders upon his release.
Counsel for the offender sensibly conceded that the only appropriate outcome for the offending was a period of imprisonment: s 10 Crimes Sentencing Act 2005;s17A Crimes Act 1914. The Crown appropriately conceded that the offending was a single course of criminal conduct engaged in by the offender, the consequence of which was legal and factual overlap between the offences and a warrant for considerable concurrency. Of course, I must determine the appropriate sentence for each offence and then consider issues of concurrency or accumulation. In coming to consider the just and appropriate outcome in light of the overall criminality of the conduct and the principle of totality I take into account that the offender has been in custody since November 2023.

On 20 October 2025 the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) made a PTO for the offender. The order has effect for 6 months from that day unless revoked. The PTO dictates that the offender “must comply with any determination made by the Chief Psychiatrist or delegate under the Mental Health Act 2015 (ACT).” The making of the PTO is underpinned by a finding that the offender “has a mental illness that seriously impairs (whether temporarily or permanently) his mental functioning in areas including thought and perception which is characterised by the presence of symptoms including delusions and hallucinations”.
The making of the order, as well as the material before me, supports the conclusion that there is a risk that upon his release from custody the offender will disengage from treatment for his mental illness. His time in custody has proved the success of consistent treatment which has resulted in stabilisation of his symptoms. I agree with the Crown submission that the sentence imposed must address that risk and provide for ongoing treatment and monitoring; this is in the interest of the offender and the community.
Sensibly, the Crown did not oppose a sentencing outcome that would see the offender released from custody at the time he is sentenced. In my view such an outcome fulfills the purposes of sentencing and takes into account the considerable period the offender has now spent in custody. The offender has no ties to the ACT and consequently no social or family network that could support him. It is unsurprising then that it is his wish to return to live in Victoria where he does have some family support. The Crown conceded that the offender has no capacity to pay a fine.
The effect upon the ACAT PTO of his relocation interstate is not entirely clear. It is unnecessary to resolve for the purposes of the finalisation of the sentence. I am satisfied that the conditions imposed upon the offender arising from the sentence I impose should require him to comply with any order made to support treatment of his mental illness and to comply with any directions given to him by a probation officer with respect to his mental illness. This will be sufficient to ensure that the offender is closely monitored to support compliance with conditions intended to support his mental wellbeing and to protect the community, whether he is in the ACT or in Victoria.
The parties agreed that the offender would benefit from a straightforward regime of supervision to support his successful transition to the community. The approach which would give effect to clarity in my view is one which would see some of the ACT offences dealt with by the imposition of a partially suspended sentence on condition that the offender be of good behaviour. The effect of the outcome on the Commonwealth offence is that the offender will be required to submit to a supervision regime on probation for a substantial period upon his release. Some of the sentences imposed on the ACT offences will have expired at the time of sentencing by virtue of backdating to take account of pre-sentence custody.
Of course, I bear in mind the provisions which govern commencement dates for Commonwealth offences and the interaction of sentences imposed on Commonwealth offences and ACT offences: s 19(1)-(4) Crimes Act 1914.
The starting point for the charge of burglary (CC2023/11182) is 20 months of imprisonment reduced to 1 year and 2 months of imprisonment for the plea of guilty.
The starting point for the charge of theft (CC2025/ 2491) is 12 months of imprisonment reduced to 8 months and 11 days of imprisonment for the plea of guilty.
The starting point for the charge of damage property (CC2025/1871) is 12 months of imprisonment reduced to 8 months and 11 days for the plea of guilty.
The starting point for the charge of damage property (CC2025/2492) is 12 months of imprisonment reduced to 8 months and 11 days of imprisonment for the plea of guilty.
The starting point for the charge of take motor vehicle without consent (CC2023/11987) is 8 months of imprisonment reduced to 5 months and 18 days of imprisonment for the plea of guilty.
The starting point for the charge of endanger safety of Commonwealth aerodrome (CC2023/11985) is 3 years of imprisonment reduced to 2 years, 1 month and 5 days for the plea of guilty.
The sentence will be structured to permit the offender’s release today. The offender will be required to accept a regime of supervision designed to support close management of his mental illness in the community and to ensure that there are consequences for any non-compliance. After hearing from his counsel, I am satisfied that there are arrangements in place to assist the offender to access immediate support in the community including with respect to accommodation and reporting to probation so that supervision can commence and his desire to return to Victoria can be considered.

Orders

I make the following orders:
(a)On the charge of burglary (CC2023/11182), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 1 year and 2 months of imprisonment, commencing on 22 October 2024 and ending on 21 December 2025. The sentence is to be suspended today, pursuant to s 12 (2) of the Crimes Sentencing Act, on condition that the offender enter into an undertaking to be of good behaviour until 25 October 2027.
(b)On the charge of theft (CC2025/ 2491), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 8 months and 11 days of imprisonment, commencing on 22 October 2024 and ending on 2 July 2025.
(c)On the charge of damage property (CC2025/1871), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 8 months and 11 days of imprisonment, commencing on 22 October 2024 and ending on 2 July 2025.
(d)On the charge of damage property (CC2025/2492), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 8 months and 11 days of imprisonment, commencing on 22 October 2024 and ending on 2 July 2025.
(e)On the charge take motor vehicle without consent (CC2023/11987), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 5 months and 18 days of imprisonment, commencing on 22 October 2024 and ending on 8 April 2025.
(f)On the charge of drive unlicenced (CC2025/2493), the offender is convicted and required to enter into an undertaking to be of good behaviour for a period of 7 days from today.
(g)On the charge of endanger safety of Commonwealth aerodrome (CC2023/11985), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 2 years, 1 month and 5 days of imprisonment, commencing on 21 September 2025 and ending on 25 October 2027 with a recognizance release order pursuant to s 20(1)(b) of Crimes Act 1914, permitting his release today with security of $250, without surety, and on the condition that he be of good behaviour until 25 October 2026 and comply with the following conditions:
(i)He is to be subject to the supervision of a probation officer appointed in accordance with the order;
(ii)He must obey all reasonable directions of the probation officer;
(iii)He must not travel interstate or overseas without the written permission of the probation officer;
(iv)He must undertake psychiatric treatment and drug and alcohol treatment as the probation officer reasonably directs; and
(v)He must comply with any forensic mental health order or any psychiatric treatment order in force.
(h)On the charge of enter airside without permission (CC2023/11986), the offender is convicted and without passing sentence, pursuant to s 20 (1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1914, released on recognizance with security of $250, without surety and on the condition that he be of good behaviour until 29 October 2026.
(i)The total period of imprisonment imposed is 3 years. In accordance with these orders, the offender is to be released today, 29 October 2025.

I certify that the preceding One-Hundred and Ten [110] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Justice Taylor

Associate: N Dwyer

Date: 30.10.2025

[2025] ACTSC 482

29 October 2025