AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 25 September 2025

R v Fabian; R v Cameron

[2025] NSWDC 461

Assault & violenceTheft & property
CRIME SENTENCE EACH COMMITTED OTHER OFFENCES AS WELL AGGREGATE SENTENCES FOR EACH.

Citation: R v Fabian; R v Cameron [2025] NSWDC 461
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 25 September 2025
Judge(s): Neilson DCJ

Background

Charlie Fabian and Jacob Cameron, both aged 22, appeared together for sentencing in respect of offences arising from a home invasion at Warrawee on 9 May 2022. On that occasion, the two men and two associates attended a residential address late at night. While their co-offenders entered the home and located car keys, Fabian and Cameron confronted the homeowner in the street and assaulted him, causing actual bodily harm.

The joint criminal enterprise was directed at stealing the homeowner's car. The vehicle was briefly started but the co-offenders could not engage the drive gear and ultimately fled the scene. Beyond the Warrawee offences, each man had committed additional offences of his own.

Fabian faced further charges including being knowingly carried in a stolen vehicle at Ryde in May 2024, shoplifting at a North Rocks shopping centre, and using a stolen credit card. Cameron faced his own distinct additional offences. Both entered early guilty pleas and asked the court to take further matters into account on Form 1 documents (a procedural mechanism under which additional offences are acknowledged and considered at sentencing without separate charges being laid).

  • What aggregate sentences were appropriate for each offender, taking into account joint and individual offending?
  • How should the 25 per cent discount for early guilty pleas be applied to the indicative sentences?
  • Whether special circumstances existed for each offender, justifying a reduction in the statutory ratio between the non-parole period and the head sentence
  • How to reflect the parity principle, given both offenders shared responsibility for the Warrawee offences equally

Decision

For the Warrawee offences, Neilson DCJ found that both offenders bore equal criminal responsibility under joint enterprise principles. After applying the 25 per cent discount for early guilty pleas, the indicative sentences were 12 months for the assault causing actual bodily harm (Sequence 2) and 18 months for the aggravated breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny (Sequence 1), for each offender.

For Fabian's individual offending, including being knowingly carried in a stolen vehicle and further matters on his Form 1, the judge arrived at an indicative sentence of 12 months after applying the plea discount. The three indicative sentences totalled 42 months, or three and a half years. Applying the principle of totality, which requires the court to ensure that the combined sentence reflects the overall criminality without being crushing, Neilson DCJ imposed an aggregate sentence of two years and six months imprisonment on Fabian, with a non-parole period of 15 months. Special circumstances were found, primarily because Fabian had not previously served a custodial sentence as an adult and was at an important stage of rehabilitation.

Cameron's individual additional offending was treated similarly, with three indicative sentences also totalling 42 months. The judge imposed an aggregate sentence of two years imprisonment on Cameron. Special circumstances were established having regard to Cameron's age, his role as a parent to a four-year-old daughter, and the fact he had not previously served a custodial sentence. By the date of sentence, Cameron had already served 15 months and 12 days in custody. The non-parole period was set to expire on the day of sentencing, making Cameron immediately eligible for parole release. A separate charge of failing to comply with a digital evidence access order was disposed of by way of a conviction under section 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, with no further penalty.

Orders Made

Fabian:
- Aggregate sentence of two years and six months imprisonment
- Non-parole period of 15 months
- Indicative sentences: Sequence 2 (assault, actual bodily harm) 12 months; Sequence 1 (aggravated break and enter) 18 months; individual additional offence 12 months
- Form 1 matters taken into account

Cameron:
- Aggregate sentence of two years imprisonment
- Non-parole period of 15 months and 12 days, commencing 14 June 2024 and expiring 25 September 2025 (the day of sentence)
- Balance of sentence: eight months and 18 days, expiring 13 June 2026
- Special circumstances found; eligible for parole release on the day of sentence
- Indicative sentences: Sequence 2 (assault) 12 months; Sequence 1 (aggravated break and enter) 18 months; Sequence 14 (knowingly carried in stolen vehicle) 12 months
- Sequence 8 (failure to comply with digital evidence access order): conviction recorded under s 10A, no further penalty
- Form 1 matters taken into account

Key Takeaways

  • Under joint enterprise principles, each participant in a criminal enterprise is equally liable for the acts of co-offenders carried out in furtherance of that enterprise, even where the precise individual act cannot be attributed to a specific person.
  • A 25 per cent discount on indicative sentences is available where an offender enters an early guilty plea, and the District Court applied this reduction consistently across all head sentences before determining the aggregate.
  • The totality principle required the court to assess whether the cumulative effect of individual indicative sentences was proportionate to the overall criminality, leading to aggregate sentences substantially lower than the arithmetic sum of those individual terms.
  • Special circumstances can justify departing from the standard non-parole to head sentence ratio, and the District Court identified youth, parental responsibility, and the absence of prior custodial experience as relevant factors for both offenders.
  • Where an offender has already served a period in pre-sentence custody that meets or exceeds the intended non-parole period, the court can set the non-parole period to expire on the day of sentence, resulting in immediate parole eligibility.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 111(2), 154A(1)(b)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 10A
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 166
- Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW), s 76O(1)(a)

Cases:
- Bugmy v R (2013) 302 ALR 192