AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 27 March 2026

R v Achadjian

[2026] NSWDC 78

Fraud & dishonestyTheft & property

Citation: [2026] NSWDC 78
Court: District Court of New South Wales (Criminal)
Date: 27 March 2026
Judge(s): Montgomery DCJ

Background

The offender, aged 35 at the time of the offending and 37 at sentencing, pleaded guilty to 15 counts of break, enter and steal contrary to s 112(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900, each carrying a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. In addition, 37 further offences were taken into account on a Form 1 basis under s 32 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 — 36 of which were also break, enter and steal offences, along with a single offence of dishonestly obtaining property by deception under s 192E(1)(a).

The offending occurred over a concentrated 37-day period between 9 June 2024 and 16 July 2024. The offender's modus operandi was consistent throughout: he broke into commercial premises — restaurants, cafés, barber shops, boutiques and similar businesses — in the late hours of the night or early morning, using screwdrivers to jemmy open doors, wearing black gloves, and stealing cash from registers and safes. The offending was deliberately structured to avoid any interaction with people, and there was no violence in any of the offences or in the offender's criminal history. The motivation for the offending was to fund a drug habit.

Critically, at the time of the subject offending, the offender was on restrictive bail in connection with earlier offending — 26 break-and-enter offences and one dealing in stolen goods offence committed between July 2022 and February 2023. He had been sentenced in the Local Court in January 2025 to 5 years imprisonment (with a 3-year non-parole period) for that earlier offending, with the sentence backdated to commence on 1 September 2023. The offender had been continuously incarcerated since his arrest on 16 July 2024, but the entirety of that custody had already been credited to the Local Court sentence. Accordingly, no time in custody was solely referable to the index offending before the District Court.

  • Appropriate aggregate sentence: What was the appropriate aggregate sentence of imprisonment for the 15 primary offences, taking into account the 37 Form 1 matters?
  • Backdating and concurrency: To what date should the sentence be backdated, given the offender was already serving a Local Court sentence for related offending? Should the new sentence be substantially cumulative upon, or partially concurrent with, the existing sentence?
  • Totality principle: How should the Court apply the totality principle to ensure the overall effective sentence was just and appropriate, having regard to both the existing Local Court sentence and the new sentence?
  • Special circumstances: Was there a basis for a finding of special circumstances warranting variation of the statutory ratio between non-parole and parole periods?
  • Discount for early guilty plea: Application of the 25% discount under ss 25D and 21A(3)(k) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
  • Aggravating and mitigating factors: Assessment of relevant sentencing considerations, including that the offences were committed while on bail (an aggravating factor) and the offender's rehabilitation efforts, including engagement with the Drug Court Compulsory Drug Treatment program (mitigating factors).

Decision

Montgomery DCJ confirmed that, by agreement between the parties, the s 5 threshold under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 had been crossed, meaning the only appropriate sentence was full-time imprisonment. The Court proceeded to impose an aggregate sentence.

In assessing aggravating factors, the Court gave significant weight to the fact that the offending was committed while the offender was on conditional liberty — specifically, restrictive bail for earlier offending of a very similar nature. The sheer volume of the offending (52 offences in total across the primary counts and Form 1 matters, committed over just 37 days) and the fact that these were deliberate, planned property offences also weighed heavily. Against this, the Court acknowledged important mitigating factors: the early guilty plea attracting the 25% discount, the absence of any violence in the offending or the offender's history, and the offender's positive engagement with the Drug Court Compulsory Drug Treatment program, which was indicative of genuine rehabilitation prospects.

On the question of backdating, the Court navigated a significant practical complexity. The offender had been in continuous custody since 16 July 2024 (over 600 days by the sentencing date), but all of that time had been credited toward the Local Court sentence. The Crown accepted that 16 July 2024 was the earliest possible backdating date but argued the sentence should be substantially cumulative on the Local Court non-parole period, with only minimal backdating. The defence did not seek to "bank" any pre-sentence custody prior to the offender's arrest on 16 July 2024 but sought some degree of concurrency recognising that the offender had been in custody simultaneously for both sets of offending. The Court exercised its discretion on this issue, mindful of the totality principle — that the overall effective sentence imposed across both matters needed to be just and proportionate to the totality of the offending, without being crushing.

The Court made a finding of special circumstances, adjusting the non-parole period to allow for a longer period of supervised parole. This finding was supported by the offender's drug dependency (which motivated the offending), his engagement with drug treatment programs, the need for extended supervision to support rehabilitation upon release, and the fact that the offender would be serving this sentence in addition to the existing Local Court sentence.

Orders Made

  • The offender was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment for the 15 counts of break, enter and steal, with the 37 Form 1 matters taken into account.
  • A 25% discount was applied for the early guilty plea.
  • A finding of special circumstances was made, and the statutory ratio between non-parole and parole periods was adjusted accordingly, providing for a longer parole period.
  • The Court exercised its discretion to backdate the commencement of the sentence, with partial concurrency with the existing Local Court sentence.
  • The specific quantum of the aggregate sentence, the non-parole period, and the precise backdating date are contained in the full judgment (the truncated text provided does not include the final sentencing orders).

Key Takeaways

  • Where pre-sentence custody has already been credited to another sentence, the District Court must exercise discretion as to backdating and concurrency, balancing the totality principle against the need to adequately punish distinct offending and reflect its seriousness.

  • The interplay between Local Court and District Court sentences required careful consideration of how to structure the new sentence, including the degree of cumulation or concurrency, to achieve a just overall result, with the Crown's and defence's respective positions on this point significantly shaping the sentencing exercise.

  • Committing offences while on restrictive bail for earlier, similar offending was treated as a weighty aggravating consideration, consistent with s 21A(2)(j) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

  • Despite the volume and repetitiveness of the offending, genuine engagement with the Drug Court Compulsory Drug Treatment program was recognised as a meaningful mitigating factor, and this engagement supported the finding of special circumstances to extend the parole period.

  • The offender's consistent operational mode (targeting commercial premises at night to avoid contact with any person, with no history of violence) was relevant to the sentencing assessment, though the Court held that this did not diminish the seriousness of the large-scale, persistent offending pattern.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 112(1)(a); 192E(1)(a)
- Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW), s 106W(1)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 5; 21A; 25D; 32; 44; 53A

Cases:
- BAP v R [2