R v Boney [2025] NSWDC 397

Citation: [2025] NSWDC 397
Court: District Court of New South Wales (Criminal)
Date: 19 August 2025
Judge(s): Bourke SC DCJ

Background

Mr Stanley Boney, the offender, was tried and convicted by jury of one count of aggravated break, enter and steal under s 112(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The aggravating circumstance was that the offender knew a person was present inside the building at the time of the offence. The offence carries a maximum penalty of 20 years' imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of five years for a mid-range offence.

The offence occurred on 10 May 2023 at a commercial laundry premises (the Busy Bubbles Laundry) at Kingswood. CCTV footage captured the offender loitering behind the premises for approximately an hour before a delivery driver, Ms Danielle Barnier, arrived. After she entered the premises and went into a bathroom, the offender entered through the rear door, stole her backpack, briefly exited, then re-entered, passed the bathroom door, and stole two mobile phones from a workshop room before leaving again. Ms Barnier later recovered the backpack but not the phones or two debit cards that had been inside it.

Following conviction after a short trial in August 2025, the matter proceeded quickly to a sentencing hearing at the offender's request. The key sentencing questions concerned the objective seriousness of the offence, the relevance of the offender's claimed mental health and cognitive conditions, and the appropriate weight to give to his background of disadvantage.

Legal Issues

What was the objective seriousness of the aggravated break, enter and steal offence?
Whether the offender's criminal history constituted an aggravating factor demonstrating a "continuing attitude of disobedience to the law"
What weight should be given to the offender's claimed mental health conditions, cognitive impairment, and possible acquired brain injury — particularly where a psychiatrist's report raised possibilities but contained no firm diagnoses?
Whether the principles in Bugmy v The Queen regarding background deprivation applied to reduce the offender's moral culpability
Whether the offender's commission of the offence while on bail was an aggravating factor
What was the appropriate sentence, including the non-parole period?

Decision

Objective seriousness: His Honour assessed the offence as below the mid-range and towards (but not in) the lower range of objective seriousness. Several factors supported this assessment: the premises were commercial rather than residential (reducing the sense of invasion); the offence was essentially opportunistic and amateurish, with the offender allowing himself to be recorded on CCTV; the stolen property was at the lower end of value; there was no ransacking, vandalism, or damage; and the entire episode lasted approximately one minute. The Court noted that the offender's knowledge that a person was inside was an element of the offence itself and therefore did not separately increase the objective seriousness, though the risk of confrontation was acknowledged. His Honour also noted the recent Court of Criminal Appeal decision in MacBlane v R [2025] NSWCCA 52, which held that the earlier guideline decision in R v Ponfield is now of limited utility as it has been largely overtaken by statute.

Mental health and cognitive issues: The offender's subjective case relied heavily on a psychiatric report by Dr Richard Furst. However, his Honour found that this report, which was based largely on the offender's self-report, raised only possibilities of schizophrenia, acquired brain injury, and cognitive impairment — without making definitive diagnoses of any of these conditions. Dr Furst had expressly stated that there was no indication the offender was unaware of his actions or their wrongfulness. The Court rejected the submission that the offender was "not fully aware of the consequences of his actions because of his disability," and likewise rejected the characterisation that Dr Furst had described diagnosed conditions of low intellectual functioning, acquired brain injury, or schizophrenia. His Honour accepted that the offender likely suffers from a personality disorder with antisocial features and drug addiction issues, and was prepared to accept the possibility of some cognitive or intellectual impairment, but was not satisfied that these conditions had been established on the evidence.

Background deprivation and Bugmy principles: The Court accepted that the offender had a background of deprivation, including being raised mainly by his grandmother, experiencing learning difficulties and behavioural issues at school, reported childhood sexual abuse, and long-standing substance abuse from approximately age 13. His Honour applied the principles from Bugmy v The Queen, accepting that this background of disadvantage reduced the offender's moral culpability to "some degree." However, the Court was careful to note the limitations of the evidence, particularly regarding the claimed sexual abuse, which was accepted only as part of the offender's reported history and in the absence of Crown challenge.

Commission while on bail and prior record: The Court found the offence was committed while the offender was on bail — an aggravating factor in the overall sentencing exercise, though not one that increases the objective seriousness of the offence itself. As to the offender's fairly extensive criminal history (including similar offences and prior terms of imprisonment), the Crown submitted this demonstrated a continuing attitude of disobedience. His Honour declined to find this aggravating factor proven beyond reasonable doubt, given his conclusions about the offender's reduced moral culpability, but noted the criminal history did not assist any claim to leniency.

Orders Made

The offender was sentenced to a term of imprisonment (the specific sentence imposed was contained in the truncated portion of the judgment and is not available from the text provided).
The sentence was structured by reference to a non-parole period, with the Court having regard to the maximum penalty and standard non-parole period as guideposts.

Note: Because the decision text was truncated, the precise sentence and orders cannot be confirmed from the available material.

Key Takeaways

Psychiatric evidence based largely on self-report, raising only possibilities of conditions without firm diagnoses, was found to carry limited weight at sentencing. The District Court scrutinised the distinction between a diagnosed condition and a mere possibility flagged by an expert for further investigation, noting the absence of comprehensive supporting records such as Justice Health records, psychometric testing, and school records.
In assessing objective seriousness, the District Court held that the guideline decision in R v Ponfield regarding break, enter and steal offences is now of "limited utility," having been largely overtaken by statutory developments. His Honour looked primarily to the statutory framework and more recent appellate authority, including MacBlane v R [2025] NSWCCA 52.
Where knowledge of a person being present is an element of the aggravated offence under s 112(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), treating that same knowledge as a separate aggravating factor would amount to impermissible double-counting. The District Court confirmed this principle while still acknowledging the inherent risk of confrontation.
Background deprivation under Bugmy principles remained a relevant mitigating factor, even where the evidence was imperfect, provided the factual basis was established on the balance of probabilities. The District Court held, however, that the degree of reduction in moral culpability depended on the strength of the evidence supporting the claimed disadvantage.
Commission of an offence while on bail was treated as a significant aggravating factor in the overall sentencing exercise, notwithstanding that the District Court declined to find the offender's prior criminal history amounted to a "continuing attitude of disobedience."

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 112(2)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases:
- Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571
- DPP v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
- MacBlane v R [2025] NSWCCA 52
- R v Ponfield (1999) 48 NSWLR 327