AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 15 July 2026

R v Hookey

[2026] NSWDC 358

Theft & propertyPublic order & justice offences
CRIME SENTENCE BUGMY PRINCIPLES APPLIED PARITY, 2 CO ACCUSED PREVIOUSLY SENTENCED TIME SERVED TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT

Citation: R v Hookey [2026] NSWDC 358
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 15 July 2026
Judge(s): Neilson DCJ

Background

The offender, an 18-year-old First Nations man of Wiradjuri and Bundjalung heritage, pleaded guilty to two principal charges and a Form 1 offence arising from a series of break-and-enter incidents on 9 May 2024. The offences involved two separate residential properties, one in Warrawee and one in Galston, both occupied by families including young children at the time of the offending.

At Warrawee, the offender and a co-offender entered the home of a family through a front door left ajar and stole car keys. The offender was later found in the driver's seat of the stolen vehicle but was unable to drive it away. At Galston, the offender and a co-offender broke into another home and stole car keys and a Mercedes Benz, which was subsequently involved in a police pursuit and written off by the insurer. Two co-accused, Fabian and Cameron, had been separately sentenced for their roles in the same events; the court was required to take those sentences into account for parity purposes.

The offender had been in custody for 749 days by the time of sentencing, having been arrested on 9 May 2024, later granted conditional bail, and then re-arrested after a bail breach. The sentence was backdated to 26 June 2024.

Legal Issues

  • What was the appropriate objective seriousness of the offences, particularly in light of the broad spectrum of conduct covered by ss 111(2) and 112(2) of the Crimes Act 1900?
  • How should the Bugmy principles concerning the offender's deprived background, cognitive impairments, and personal history be applied in the sentencing exercise?
  • What discount applied for the guilty plea entered at the earliest available opportunity?
  • How should the aggregate sentence be structured to account for time already served, parity with co-accused, and the matter on the Form 1?

Decision

Objective seriousness of the offences:

The court found both offences fell below the mid-range of objective seriousness (at [33]-[34]). The Warrawee entry was brief, opportunistic, and unsophisticated, with no damage or ransacking, and larceny as the only completed offence (at [33]). The Galston offending was more serious, involving a dwellinghouse occupied by sleeping occupants and the taking of a vehicle valued at $69,000, but it too fell below the mid-range, with no evidence of property damage caused by the breaking and entering itself (at [34]). The court noted that larceny sits at the lowest end of the range of serious indictable offences capable of triggering liability under ss 111 and 112, distinguishing it from scenarios involving violence or sexual offending (at [31]).

Bugmy principles:

The court applied the principles from R v Bugmy [2013] HCA 37 at length. The offender was assessed as a young man with mental health impairment within the meaning of s 4 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment (Forensic Provisions) Act 2020, diagnosed with ADHD, a developmental language disorder, and a very low-average IQ (at [44]). Expert reports documented a history of trauma including a serious assault at age 14 and an assault by a police officer (at [41]). Following the death of the man he regarded as his father, the offender experienced a marked decline in functioning and became involved in antisocial activity (at [42]). The court concluded that continued imprisonment would not benefit the offender or the community and that structured community support through organisations including Just Reinvest NSW offered a more productive path (at [48]-[51]).

Plea discount:

The Crown accepted that the offender pleaded guilty at the earliest available opportunity, entitling him to a 25% reduction on each sentence under the applicable statutory regime (at [30]).

Aggregate sentence and parity:

Starting from head sentences of 24 months for Sequence 5 and 28 months for Sequence 2, the court applied the 25% plea discount to arrive at 18 months and 21 months respectively, with an unadjusted combined total of 39 months (at [52]-[54]). Taking into account time already served, parity with co-accused Fabian and Cameron, the Form 1 matter, and the offender's personal circumstances, the court imposed an aggregate sentence of two years and six months with a non-parole period of two years (at [55]-[57]). The court noted that the longer-than-initially-contemplated term would ensure ongoing supervision by Community Corrections upon the offender's release (at [55]).

Orders Made

  • The offender was convicted on each of the three offences to which he pleaded guilty.
  • An aggregate sentence of two years and six months was imposed, comprising:
  • A non-parole period of two years, commencing 26 June 2024 and expiring 25 June 2026.
  • A further period of six months imprisonment, commencing 26 June 2026 and expiring 25 December 2026.
  • The offender is eligible for release on parole at the expiration of the non-parole period.
  • The Form 1 offence (Sequence 6) was taken into account in the sentence for Sequence 5.
  • Indicative sentences within the aggregate: Sequence 5 and Form 1 matter: 18 months; Sequence 2: 21 months (with an indicative non-parole period of 15 months).

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court confirmed that sentencing under ss 111(2) and 112(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 involves a wide spectrum of conduct, and that where the underlying serious indictable offence is mere larceny, the objective seriousness of the offence may properly be assessed well below the mid-range, particularly where there is no ransacking, damage, or violence by the offender personally (at [31]-[34]).
  • Applying R v Bugmy [2013] HCA 37, the court treated the offender's cognitive impairments, traumatic history, and Indigenous background as factors calling for a merciful approach to sentencing, reflecting the High Court's recognition that profound disadvantage does not diminish with repeated incarceration (at [48], [51]).
  • A guilty plea entered at the earliest available opportunity attracted the full 25% statutory discount, reducing each individual head sentence before the court turned to the construction of the aggregate term (at [30], [52]-[54]).
  • Where co-accused have been sentenced for overlapping offending, parity requires the sentencing court to account for those earlier sentences in fixing the appropriate aggregate, even where the current offender's role and personal circumstances differ (at [37]).
  • Aggregate sentencing in cases involving multiple offences and substantial pre-sentence custody requires careful calibration: here, the court backdated the sentence and structured the non-parole period to ensure the offender would transition to community supervision with appropriate support mechanisms in place (at [24], [55]-[57]).

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 , ss 111(2), 112(2), 154A(1)(a)
- Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment (Forensic Provisions) Act 2020 , s 4

Cases
- Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Procedure Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146; [2002] NSWCCA 518 at [39], [42]-[43] (“Attorney General’s Application”)
- R v Bugmy [2013] HCA 37
- R v Fabian; R v Cameron [2025] NSWDC 461
- R v Meatuai [2016] NSWCCA 42 at [28]-[29]
- Saraya v R [2021] NSWCCA 139 at [51]
- Tukuafu v R [2024] NSWCCA 84 at [130]