AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 27 May 2025

R v Wright

[2025] NSWDC 537

Fraud & dishonestyTheft & property
SENTENCING DISHONESTY OFFENCES DISHONESTLY OBTAIN PROPERTY PROPERTY OFFENCES ENTER DWELLING CIRCUMSTANCES OF AGGRAVATION

Citation: R v Wright [2025] NSWDC 537
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 27 May 2025
Judge: Sutherland SC DCJ

Background

Over approximately three weeks in October 2023, the offender carried out a series of thefts, vehicle takings, and break-and-enter offences across Sydney. His method was largely opportunistic: he located unattended keys at business premises, hospitals, and warehouses, then used them to steal motor vehicles and, in one case, to enter a victim's home.

The most serious episode involved entering a residential unit in Rhodes while the occupant, Ms Chang, was asleep inside. The offender and a co-offender gained access using stolen house keys, confronted Ms Chang when she woke, and stole property from the unit. The offender also used stolen bank cards on multiple occasions to purchase goods, and drove throughout the offending period while subject to a licence disqualification.

The offender was arrested on 26 October 2023 and had been in continuous custody since that date. He appeared for sentence on seven substantive offences, with additional matters placed on a Form 1 (a procedural mechanism that allows related charges to be taken into account at sentencing without attracting separate penalties).

  • What aggregate sentence was appropriate across seven substantive offences of varying gravity, including a standard non-parole period offence?
  • How should the court apply the principle from Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571, which recognises that a deprived background may reduce moral culpability even for an offender with an extensive criminal record?
  • How should parity be achieved between the offender and his co-offender, Sam Mokofisi, who was sentenced separately?
  • What weight should be given to the offender's plea of guilty, his criminal history, and specific and general deterrence in setting the non-parole period?
  • Was the totality principle (avoiding a crushing aggregate sentence) satisfied when imposing a single aggregate term under s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)?

Decision

Sutherland SC DCJ assessed each offence individually before arriving at an aggregate sentence. The aggravated break-and-enter in company at the Rhodes unit (Sequence 31), carrying a maximum of 20 years and a standard non-parole period of five years, was treated as the most serious offence. His Honour assessed it as falling below the mid-range of objective seriousness, noting the presence of a sleeping resident and the confrontation that occurred, but also reflecting parity considerations with the co-offender and the differences in age and subjective background between them. An indicative sentence of two years with an indicative non-parole period of 18 months was set for that offence.

The entering and vehicle-taking offences at Canterbury Hospital, North Rocks, and Leichhardt were treated as broadly similar in character, each attracting indicative sentences of two years. The fraud offences involving misuse of stolen bank cards attracted shorter indicative terms of four and nine months respectively, reflecting the relatively modest sums involved. The driving while disqualified offence, though minor in isolation, was treated seriously given it was the offender's fourth such conviction, with his Honour finding that both specific and general deterrence required a custodial term of six months.

On Bugmy considerations, the court acknowledged the offender's significantly deprived background. His Honour accepted that those circumstances reduced his moral culpability, but also noted that the principle does not operate to diminish the weight given to deterrence indefinitely, particularly for an offender with such an entrenched pattern of similar offending throughout his adult life.

Applying the totality principle to avoid an oppressively cumulative result, the court imposed an aggregate sentence of five years with a non-parole period of three years. The sentence was backdated to 26 October 2023, the date of arrest.

Orders Made

  • Aggregate sentence of 5 years imprisonment imposed.
  • Non-parole period of 3 years.
  • Both the sentence and non-parole period backdated to commence 26 October 2023.
  • Non-parole period to expire 25 October 2026; additional term of 2 years to expire 25 October 2028.
  • Driving disqualification imposed in connection with Sequence 3 (driving while disqualified).

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court confirmed that Bugmy considerations remain available even where an offender has an extensive criminal history, though the principle does not automatically reduce the emphasis on deterrence for repeat offenders whose conduct is entrenched.
  • Where multiple offences are sentenced together, the totality principle requires the court to step back and ensure the aggregate term is not crushing, even when individual indicative sentences would, if cumulated, produce a much longer result.
  • Parity with a co-offender is a relevant consideration in fixing both the indicative sentence for a shared offence and the overall aggregate, with the court required to account for differences in age and subjective circumstances between co-offenders.
  • A standard non-parole period for an offence (here, five years for aggravated break-and-enter in company under s 112(2) of the Crimes Act 1900) does not operate as a fixed minimum but rather as a legislative benchmark, and a sentence below that standard non-parole period may be appropriate where the offence falls below the mid-range of objective seriousness.
  • Repeated disqualified driving, even as a standalone lesser offence, will attract a custodial term where an offender has demonstrated a consistent disregard for licence restrictions, with both specific and general deterrence carrying significant weight.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 111, 112, 115, 117, 154A, 192E
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 21A
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) s 166
- Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW) s 53

Cases
- Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 387; (2013) 249 CLR 571
- DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1
- Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606
- MacBlane v R [2025] NSWCCA 52
- Mapp v R [2010] NSWCCA 269; (2010) 206 A Crim R 297
- Nasrallah v R [2021] NSWCCA 207
- Ponfield v R [1999] NSWCCA 435; (1999) 48 NSWLR 327
- R v Doolan (No 2) [2023] NSWDC 600
- R v Holder; R v Johnston [1983] 3 NSWLR 245
- R v Smith [2016] NSWCCA 75
- R v Trindall [2024] NSWDC 520
- WM v R [2020] NSWCCA 96