R v Mindelis - [2025] ACTSC 482

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…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Mindelis

Details

AGLC: R v Mindelis [2025] ACTSC 482
Case: [2025] ACTSC 482
Decision Date: 29 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mindelis, appealed against his conviction and sentence in the Supreme Court of South Australia for various criminal offences. The respondent, the Crown, prosecuted Mindelis for entering an airside area without permission, taking a motor vehicle without authority, endangering the safety of a Commonwealth aerodrome, damaging property, and driving without a licence. The appeal was heard in the South Australian Court of Appeal.

The court was required to consider whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of the appellant's previous criminal conduct and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The appellant argued that the trial judge failed to apply the principles set out in Bugmy v R and Verdins v R when considering his sentence. The Crown contended that the trial judge had correctly exercised his discretion in admitting the evidence and imposing the sentence.

The court found that the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence of the appellant's previous criminal conduct. However, this error did not affect the outcome of the trial. The court also found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, as the trial judge had considered all relevant factors, including the appellant's previous criminal conduct, when imposing the sentence. The court held that the trial judge had correctly exercised his discretion in imposing the sentence.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's conviction and sentence were upheld. The orders made by the court are detailed in the judgment at [110].

Orders

Orders of the court

See [110].

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.