AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 9 October 2025

R v Bertram

[2025] NSWDC 475

Assault & violenceTheft & property
CRIME SENTENCE DISPOSE OF STOLEN PROPERTY DEMAND PROPERTY WITH MENACES IN COMPANY LARCENY

Citation: R v Bertram [2025] NSWDC 475
Court: District Court of NSW
Date: 9 October 2025
Judge: Bourke SC DCJ

Background

The offender, Shane Bertram, was sentenced in the District Court on three offences arising from events in late September 2023. Two of the offences related to an early-morning incident near Kingswood railway station, where Bertram and two unknown males approached two brothers at a bus stop. The group demanded property from one of the brothers, and Bertram personally took the victim's mobile phone and demanded the passcode. One of the other males removed two rings from the victim's hand.

The third offence arose later the same day. Bertram advertised the stolen mobile phone on Facebook Marketplace under his own name and sold it to an unsuspecting buyer for $720 in cash, misrepresenting the phone's model and concealing that it was stolen.

Bertram pleaded guilty to all three charges at an early stage. He had a prior criminal history, and the court noted he had continued offending after the events charged, including assaulting a law officer while in custody in April 2025.

  • The appropriate objective seriousness of each of the three offences
  • Whether a 25% discount for early guilty pleas was warranted
  • The extent to which sentences for the three offences should be served concurrently or with some degree of accumulation
  • Whether the aggregate sentence should be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order (ICO) in the community, rather than full-time imprisonment
  • Whether the court should apply s 11 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (which permits the court to decline to impose a sentence in certain circumstances)

Decision

Bourke SC DCJ assessed all three offences as falling below the mid-range of objective seriousness, with the demand with menaces and larceny offences towards (but not in) the lower range, and the disposing of stolen property offence towards the low range. The demand with menaces offence was treated as the most serious. The judge noted the absence of direct violence and any significant planning, while also recognising that the presence of three males, the late-night isolated location, and the implicit menace elevated the seriousness of the confrontation.

A 25% discount was applied to each sentence in recognition of the utility of the early guilty pleas. The individual sentences (after discount) were: 15 months for disposing of stolen property, 30 months for demand with menaces in company, and 12 months for larceny. Because the demand with menaces and larceny offences arose from the same incident, the court found very limited accumulation was appropriate between those two. A moderate degree of accumulation was applied for the disposal of stolen property offence, as it involved separate criminality and a separate victim.

The court rejected the submission that an ICO should be imposed. The judge was not satisfied that community safety would be better served by an ICO, given the offender's criminal history, his continued offending after the index offences, and his likely inability to comply with ICO conditions. Section 11 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 was also declined for the same reasons.

Orders Made

  • Aggregate head sentence of three years' imprisonment
  • Non-parole period of two years and one month
  • Both the head sentence and non-parole period dated from 10 April 2025
  • Head sentence to expire 9 April 2028; non-parole period to expire 9 May 2027

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court treated the demand with menaces in company offence (maximum 14 years) as the most serious of the three, placing it below the mid-range given the absence of direct violence and lack of planning, but noting that the presence of multiple offenders in an isolated location at night increased the victim's vulnerability.
  • A 25% discount for early guilty pleas was applied across all three charges, consistent with the utility of those pleas under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
  • Where multiple offences arise from the same incident and share common features, the sentencing court found very limited accumulation appropriate between those charges, while applying moderate accumulation for a separate offence involving a distinct act and a different victim.
  • Continued offending after the index offences, including an assault on a law officer while in custody, weighed significantly against the imposition of an ICO and the application of s 11 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
  • An offender's past deprivation and background, as addressed in Bugmy v The Queen, formed part of the sentencing consideration, though the judgment does not elaborate on this at length in the excerpted text.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 99(2), 117, 188(1)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 11

Cases:
- Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 294 CLR 571
- DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194