AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 24 April 2026

R v Bramley-Davis; R v Yek

[2026] NSWDC 124

Assault & violenceTheft & propertyPublic order & justice offences

Citation: [2026] NSWDC 124
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 24 April 2026
Judge(s): Priestley J SC DCJ

Background

Two offenders, referred to in the judgment as TBD and EY, appeared for sentence in relation to multiple property offences committed between September and November 2024. The offending involved a series of targeted attacks on a tobacconist in Tweed Heads, including ram raids using stolen vehicles, attempted arson, and significant property destruction. Both offenders had travelled from Queensland to New South Wales to commit the offences.

TBD and EY were co-offenders on several charges but also each faced additional individual charges. TBD faced further counts including a separate aggravated break and enter (with different co-offenders), possessing petrol with intent to destroy property, and being carried in a conveyance without consent. EY faced an additional charge of attempting to destroy property by fire. Both offenders were also charged with participating in a criminal group and contributing to criminal activity under s 93T of the Crimes Act 1900, brought into the District Court via s 166 certificates to be dealt with on a summary basis.

Both offenders had been in custody since their respective arrest dates in late November 2024. TBD had been on conditional liberty for a Queensland matter at the time of the offending.

  • The objective seriousness of each offence, including the characterisation of "ram raid" offences and whether they constitute serious instances of aggravated break and enter
  • The appropriate sentence for each offender across multiple counts, including co-offending charges and individual charges
  • Whether the ram raid methodology elevated the seriousness of a break and enter offence where the serious indictable offence was damage to property (rather than larceny)
  • The relevance of standard non-parole periods as a "legislative guidepost" even where the offending did not reach the midpoint of seriousness under s 54A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
  • The appropriate treatment of offences brought into the District Court via s 166 certificates, subject to summary jurisdiction limits
  • The role of organised criminal activity, commercial gain, and planning as aggravating factors
  • How to assess the relative culpability of co-offenders who performed different roles within the criminal enterprise

Decision

Count 1 (co-offending, 22 September 2024): The court assessed the aggravated break and enter (ram raid of the tobacconist) as reaching the mid-range of objective seriousness. His Honour rejected TBD's submission that ram raids were no longer particularly serious, noting that driving a car through a door is "plainly self-evidently a far more serious example" of a break and enter offence compared to simply opening an unlocked door. The court emphasised the significant damage caused, the degree of planning (interstate travel to a targeted premises), TBD being armed with a hammer, and the commercial motivation (the offenders received $1,500 shortly after). The court found both offenders equally culpable despite performing different physical roles in the enterprise.

Count 2 (co-offending, 22 October 2024): The second attack on the same tobacconist, approximately one month later, involved an attempted arson of an adjoining pool shop after bollards had been installed to prevent a repeat ram raid. The offenders used jerry cans of petrol and attempted to ignite the premises but were unsuccessful. The court treated the offence as break and enter of the pool shop with intent to damage property by fire, in company. The court rejected the defence argument that the seriousness was lessened because the offenders did not gain access to the tobacconist itself, finding the pool shop was damaged as collateral in pursuit of the primary target. EY had told police there was an offer of $50,000 for this offence.

The court also assessed the individual charges faced by each offender, including EY's attempted arson (s 195(1A)(b)) and both offenders' participation in a criminal group (s 93T). For TBD's additional aggravated break and enter on 23 October 2024, and his possession of petrol with intent and being carried in a conveyance without consent on 1 November 2024, the court considered these as part of a broader pattern of organised criminal activity. TBD's offending while on conditional liberty for a Queensland matter was treated as an aggravating factor common to all his offences.

The court applied standard non-parole periods and maximum sentences as legislative guideposts in determining appropriate sentences, consistent with s 54A of the CSPA, while respecting the jurisdictional limits applicable to the s 166 certificate matters.

Orders Made

  • The full sentencing orders are not reproduced in the truncated portion of the judgment available. Both offenders' sentences commenced from their respective custody dates: EY from 29 November 2024 and TBD from 26 November 2024.

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court held that a "ram raid" remains a serious instance of an aggravated break and enter offence, rejecting the submission that such offending is no longer prevalent enough to warrant significant deterrence or that the damage inherent in a ram raid should not elevate objective seriousness when damage is the relevant serious indictable offence.
  • Where co-offenders performed different physical roles within the same criminal enterprise, equal culpability was assessed on the basis that both were "wholeheartedly committed to the carrying out of the offence."
  • Under s 54A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, standard non-parole periods were applied as a legislative guidepost even where the offending was not assessed at the statutory midpoint of seriousness.
  • Offences brought into the District Court via s 166 certificates remain subject to the jurisdictional limits of summary jurisdiction, though the statutory maximum sentences for those offences remain relevant to assessing the legislature's view of their seriousness.
  • Interstate travel to targeted premises, use of stolen vehicles, and evidence of payment or offers of payment were treated as indicators of planning, commercial motivation, and organised criminal activity, all of which increased the objective seriousness of the offending.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 90, 93T(1), 112(2), 154A(1)(b), 195(1A)(b), 200
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 54A, 166

Cases:
- MAK [2006] NSWCCA 381
- McGeown v R [2014] NSWCCA 314
- Nasrallah [2021] NSWCCA 207
- R v Reilly; R v Smith [2012] NSWCCA 166