AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 25 June 2026

R v Danielle SUTO

[2026] NSWDC 214

Assault & violenceTheft & property
OBJECTIVE SERIOUSNESS VIOLENT CONDUCT OF CO DEPRIVED BACKGROUND MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES SIGNIFICANT REMORSE PROSPECTS OF REHABILITATION

Citation: R v Danielle SUTO [2026] NSWDC 214
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 25 June 2026
Judge: Newlinds SC DCJ

Background

The offender pleaded guilty to one count of entering a dwelling in company with intent to steal, contrary to s 111(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. In March 2025, she attended the victim's home as an invited guest, then contacted two co-offenders and assisted them in gaining entry while she distracted the victim. She left before the co-offenders confronted the victim.

After the offender departed, the co-offenders (who were armed with baseball bats and a taser) demanded money from the victim. When he refused, they beat him with the bats, used the taser on him, obtained a knife from the kitchen, and slashed him across the back of his leg. The offender was not alleged to have known the co-offenders were armed or intended violence; her participation was limited to facilitating the theft.

The offender had been in pre-sentence custody since 28 May 2025, a total of 394 days (1 year and 29 days) at the time of sentence. Her prior criminal history consisted only of a Conditional Release Order without conviction for drug supply and possessing a knife in public.

  • What weight, if any, should the co-offenders' subsequent violence carry in sentencing the offender, given she bore no criminal responsibility for it?
  • What was the appropriate assessment of objective seriousness for the break-and-enter offence?
  • How should the offender's deprived upbringing, mental health issues, drug addiction, remorse, and rehabilitation prospects affect the sentence?
  • Whether special circumstances existed justifying a reduced non-parole period, and whether an Intensive Corrections Order was appropriate.

Decision

Objective seriousness and the role of co-offender violence

Newlinds SC DCJ assessed the objective seriousness of the offending at slightly above the mid-range for offences of this type. The offence involved a significant breach of trust (the victim had invited the offender into his home), occurred in the early hours of the morning, and involved some degree of pre-planning, though it was characterised as unsophisticated. The co-offenders' subsequent violent assault was not treated as part of the offender's criminality, because the offence itself contained no element of violence and the offender was not aware weapons would be used. However, the impact of that violence on the victim remained relevant to the factual setting and to sentencing, as it was a direct, if unforeseen, consequence of the offender's conduct.

Aggravating and mitigating statutory factors

The offence was committed in the victim's home (s 21A(2)(eb) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999), a factor the court weighed carefully to avoid double-counting given it had already been taken into account in assessing objective seriousness and breach of trust. The offender was also on conditional liberty at the time (s 21A(2)(j)), which did not operate as a true aggravating factor on the facts but disentitled her to the leniency ordinarily available to first-time offenders.

Subjective case

The court found the offender had a strong subjective case. Her upbringing was characterised as deprived within the meaning identified in Bugmy v R (2013) 249 CLR 571, involving exposure to domestic violence, parental drug use and imprisonment, family separation, and her own methamphetamine addiction commencing at age 15. These circumstances were treated as partially explaining the offending and as grounds for leniency. The court also noted significant genuine remorse, cooperation with authorities, strong prospects of rehabilitation (supported by steps taken while in custody, including vocational training and engagement with the EQUIPS program), and mental health conditions that would make custody harder to bear.

Sentence and special circumstances

A head sentence of 3 years before discount was assessed as appropriate. After a 25% reduction for the early guilty plea, the head sentence became 2 years and 3 months. The court declined to impose an Intensive Corrections Order. However, it found special circumstances justifying a substantially reduced non-parole period, so that the offender became immediately eligible for parole upon sentence. The reasons for the reduction were that this was the offender's first period of full-time custody, her mental health conditions would make imprisonment more burdensome, and a longer period on parole would better support rehabilitation and reduce the risk of reoffending.

Orders Made

  • The offender is sentenced to 2 years and 3 months imprisonment, commencing 28 May 2025 and expiring 27 August 2027.
  • The minimum period to be served before parole eligibility is 1 year and 29 days, commencing 28 May 2025 and expiring 25 June 2026 (the date of sentence).
  • The offender is entitled to be released on parole forthwith.
  • Two breaches of Conditional Release Orders were found proved; no further action was taken on those matters.

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court confirmed that a co-offender's subsequent violent conduct, for which the offender bears no criminal responsibility, remains part of the factual setting for sentencing purposes, particularly in relation to its impact on the victim, even where the offence itself contains no element of violence.
  • A deprived childhood of the kind described in Bugmy v R (2013) 249 CLR 571, involving parental imprisonment, domestic violence, and drug exposure from an early age, continues to operate as a recognised basis for leniency at sentencing in the District Court.
  • Being on a Conditional Release Order at the time of offending does not automatically operate as an aggravating factor, but it may displace the leniency ordinarily available to a first-time offender.
  • Special circumstances justifying a reduced non-parole period can arise where an offender is serving their first term of full-time custody, has a mental health condition that amplifies the hardship of imprisonment, and has strong rehabilitation prospects that a longer parole period would better support.
  • Under s 25D(2)(a) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, a plea entered at the first opportunity attracts a 25% discount for utilitarian value, regardless of other sentencing considerations.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 111(2)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 3A, 21A, 25D

Cases
- BB v R [2017] NSWCCA 189
- Bugmy v R (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
- R v Hayes (1984) 1 NSWLR 740
- R v Maher [2004] NSWCCA 177