AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 21 August 2026

R v Randall

[2026] NSWDC 305

Assault & violenceTheft & property
A PROGRAM AS QUASI

Citation: R v Randall [2026] NSWDC 305
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 21 August 2026
Judge(s): Newlinds SC DCJ

Background

On 11 February 2024, a 90-year-old man was home alone at his Maclean residence when the offender broke in by cutting through mesh doors. The offender stole numerous items including cash, bank cards, a chequebook, a watch, a mobile phone, an army service medal, the victim's Lexus motor vehicle (valued at approximately $65,000), and other personal belongings. The victim slept through the entire incident.

The offender was arrested on 16 February 2024 and pleaded guilty at Grafton Local Court on 4 February 2025. The sentencing was complicated by overlapping periods of pre-sentence custody arising from both these offences and separate unrelated matters, as well as the offender's participation in the Balund-a residential rehabilitation program.

The offender had a lengthy criminal history, having spent approximately five of the previous fifteen years in custody, and a background of substance abuse and mental health conditions.

  • What was the appropriate objective seriousness of the break and enter offence and the take and drive offence, having regard to the multiple statutory aggravating factors?
  • How should pre-sentence custody be calculated where it overlaps with custody attributable to other offences and an aggregate sentence previously imposed?
  • Whether time spent in the Balund-a residential rehabilitation program constituted "quasi-custody" warranting a further reduction in sentence, and if so, to what extent?
  • Whether special circumstances existed to justify reducing the non-parole period below the statutory default?
  • What aggregate sentence was appropriate applying totality principles and a 25% discount for early guilty pleas?

Decision

Objective seriousness: Both the Crown and the offender characterised the break and enter (Sequence 1) as being at the lower end of the range and the take and drive (Sequence 2) as mid-range. Newlinds SC DCJ rejected those characterisations as too generous to the offender. The court found both offences fell in the middle of the range, describing the conduct as "disgraceful and quite a serious example of this type of offending." The judge identified a multitude of statutory aggravating factors under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW): the victim was 90 years old and living alone (vulnerable victim); the offender had a history of similar offending; limited property damage was caused; the premises were likely occupied at the time; the stolen items (including the army service medal) had sentimental value well beyond their market value; and the offending was committed for financial gain.

Pre-sentence custody calculation: The offender spent more than 21 months in custody in total between February 2024 and sentencing, but a significant portion of that time was attributable to other offences and had already been accounted for in a sentence imposed in August 2024. After careful analysis, the Crown accepted that approximately 11 months and 3 days was solely referable to the current offending.

Quasi-custody and the Balund-a program: The offender spent 6 months and 9 days in the Balund-a residential rehabilitation program as a condition of bail under section 11 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The court accepted that time spent in a residential rehabilitation program can constitute quasi-custody. However, Newlinds SC DCJ noted that the program was undertaken for the offender's own benefit and was something he ought to have done in any event, and that there was a real risk of double-counting if the full period were credited. The court allowed a further 3 months over and above the custody solely referable to these offences, backdating the sentence by 15 months in total, noting that this was generous and resolved any doubt in the offender's favour.

Special circumstances and totality: The court found special circumstances existed, primarily because of the offender's significant need for long-term drug addiction treatment. Under the totality principle, the three sequences were treated as part of one criminal episode, and an aggregate sentence was imposed with a substantial degree of concurrency. The non-parole period was reduced to 3 years (rather than the default of three-quarters of the head sentence of 5 years), reflecting the special circumstances finding. The court described the rehabilitation prospects as "guarded" but did not foreclose the possibility of rehabilitation.

Orders Made

  • Aggregate term of imprisonment of 5 years imposed (after 25% discount for early guilty pleas), commencing 22 May 2025 and expiring 21 May 2030.
  • Minimum period to be served before eligibility for parole: 3 years, commencing 22 May 2025 and expiring 21 May 2028.

Key Takeaways

  • Time spent in a residential rehabilitation program as a condition of bail can constitute quasi-custody and may reduce the sentence ultimately imposed, but courts will not automatically apply the full period: the extent of any reduction depends on the risk of double-counting and the nature of the program.
  • Where pre-sentence custody spans multiple matters and overlapping sentences, courts will undertake a careful attribution analysis to identify only the period solely referable to the offences being sentenced, and will err in favour of the offender where the calculation is genuinely unclear.
  • A multitude of concurrent aggravating factors, including a vulnerable elderly victim living alone, prior similar offending, property of sentimental value, and offending for financial gain, can elevate an offence to the mid-range of objective seriousness even where individual features might otherwise suggest a lower categorisation.
  • Under the Bugmy principles, a background of substance abuse and mental health conditions remains relevant to the offender's subjective case, but the District Court confirmed this must be weighed realistically against a lengthy criminal history when assessing prospects of rehabilitation.
  • The sentencing court's characterisation of objective seriousness is not necessarily bounded by concessions made by the parties: Newlinds SC DCJ declined to adopt a more favourable characterisation advanced jointly by Crown and defence, finding it understated the gravity of the conduct.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 112(2); 154A(1)(a)
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) s 166
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 11; 21A

Cases
- Bugmy v The Queen (2013) HCA 37; 249 CLR 571
- Harris v R [2021] NSWCCA 322
- Newton v R [2014] NSWCCA 41
- R v Hayes (1984 ) 1 NSWLR 740
- R v Ponfield; R v Scott; R v Ryan; R v Johnson (1999) 48 NSWLR 327
- R v YZ [2025] NSWCCA 165
- Whereat v Rex [2026] NSWCCA 73