Director of Public Prosecutions v Antonic

[2023] VCC 2162

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Revised
(Not) Restricted
Suitable for Publication

Case No. CR-22–01280; CR-22-01327

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

MIKI ANTONIC

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE HOLDING
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	23 August 2023
DATE OF SENTENCE:	7 September 2023
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Antonic
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VCC 2162

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject: - CRIMINAL LAW -

Catchwords: Plea of guilty – damaging property – make threat to kill – attempted aggravated burglary – offences committed while on bail – young offender – complex psychological history - Verdins principles – rehabilitation – community protection.

Legislation Cited:      Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) - Bail Act 1977 (Vic) – Mental Health Act 2014 (Vic) – Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic).

Cases Cited:R v Verdins [2007] 16 VR 240

Sentence:                  Total effective sentence of 28 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 21 months.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Ms S. Coulson	Abbey Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms M. Bowler	Bowler & Co

HIS HONOUR:

1Miki Antonic, you have pleaded guilty before me on 23 August 2023 to the following charges identified on indictment NC2215827:

· Charge 1; damaging property contrary to s 197(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). The maximum penalty for this offence is 10 years' imprisonment.

· Charge 2; make threat to kill contrary to s 20 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). The maximum penalty for this offence is 10 years' imprisonment.

· Charge 3; attempted aggravated burglary relating to a second incident contrary to ss321M and 77 Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). The maximum penalty for this offence is 20 years' imprisonment.

· Charge 4; make threat to kill contrary to s 20 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), again involving a second incident. The maximum penalty for this offence is 10 years' imprisonment.

2You have also pleaded guilty to the following summary offences that have been uplifted and agreed to be heard in this court:

· Refuse to state your name and address to a police officer contrary to s 456AA(3)(a) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). The maximum penalty for this offence is 5 penalty units.

· Commit indictable offence whilst on bail (two charges) pursuant to s 30B of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic).

· Contravene conduct condition of bail pursuant to s 30A (1) of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic), those bail offences having maximum penalties of three months' imprisonment each.

3Your offending is set out in detail in the summary of prosecution opening dated 4 April 2023,[1] however I will briefly set out the circumstances of your offending in these reasons.

[1]  Exhibit A.

Circumstances of your offending

4The complainant in this matter, Mr Bobroff, was 66 years old and resided in the Dandenong area.

First incident

5At 11.57 on Tuesday 19 October 2021, you were walking east on a street in Dandenong while Mr Bobroff was taking his rubbish bins out at the front of his property. You approached Mr Bobroff and threatened to kill him while armed with a kitchen knife. This conduct constitutes Charge 2 – make threat to kill.

6Mr Bobroff went inside his premises and locked the front security door. You then approached the front door and used a knife to stab multiple holes in it. You then grabbed a chair from Mr Bobroff’s front yard and threw it at the front window of the premises. This conduct constitutes Charge 1 – damage to property.

7A neighbour, Hani Jama, saw you throw the chair at the front door and yell something about 'stabbing something'.

8You left the premises and continued to walk east along the street, and Mr Bobroff called Triple 0 and gave the police a description of you.

9The two police officers in the vicinity travelling west along the street observed you walking east on the footpath. One of the officers advised you to stop, then you responded with words to the effect of 'Oh shit, the knife is in my pocket'. You were subsequently placed under arrest and searched by the officers who located the knife in your front right pocket.

10When asked to provide police with your name and address you said, 'I’m not telling you, you will find out eventually, you’re a detective'. Your refusal to provide police with these details constitutes Summary Charge 3 – refuse to state name and address to police as requested (CR-22-01327).

11You were then transported to Dandenong Police Station where police attempted to interview you. Despite your fluency in English, you refused to respond and instead replied to the interviewers in Serbian.

12The indictable offences described above were committed whilst you were on bail, and this constitutes one of the summary offences of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail.

Second incident

13At approximately 10.40 on 31 January 2022, Mr Bobroff was sitting in the loungeroom of his home when he heard a male voice yell out the words. 'Open the door'. The security door was closed and locked, but Mr Bobroff could see you through its mesh and observed you holding a shiny metal object which was later revealed to be a nail file.

14Mr Bobroff heard you say, ‘You called the police on me six months ago. I’m going to kill you' before you began to bang on the door and continue to tell him that you would kill him. This constitutes Charge 4 – making a threat to kill.

15Mr Bobroff closed the main wooden door to the home but could still observe you through a window. You then picked up a chair and a clothes hanger and used them to hit the window multiple times. You subsequently picked up a garden pot and threw it at the window, causing it to crack.

16Mr Bobroff then heard you say words to the effect of, 'I will come around the back fence and come inside the back. If I get in, I will kill you'. Mr Bobroff then ran to the back of the property to lock the back door and pull the security roller shutters down. The offending of you attempting to enter this property constitutes the charge of attempted aggravated burglary.

17The neighbour earlier referred to heard you yelling out and making the abovementioned threats to kill and also heard a banging noise, 'like something was broken'.

18This incident was captured on CCTV footage that was recorded from the adjacent property, the Eastern Medical Centre.

19Mr Bobroff called Triple 0 and two police officers attended his address. Upon arrival they located you outside the property and you attempted to flee at this point. One of the officers reported that you had thrown a nail file in your possession on the ground prior to attempting to run away.

20You were again arrested and transported to Dandenong Police Station and participated in a record of interview with police. You were cooperative with police and this time made full admissions to the offending during the interview. These admissions are noted in the prosecution summary and include the following:

·        'I just said I was gonna (sic) go in there and I said to him, I remember last time, he called the cops on me. You were a snitch so then I'm gonna finish the job here now'[2]

·        'I did damage some property. Tried to get in through the window 'cause he locked the door on me'.[3]

·        'I just wanted to get in the house'.[4]

·        'I tried to open the door but it was locked'.[5]

·        'So I was still – like, I was trying to go through the window … so that’s when the property damage …'.[6]

·        You were asked, 'How did you try to get through the window?'  'The vase – you know that vase that got broke'.[7]

·        You were asked, 'You threw it?'  'Yep … the window just smashed'.[8]

·        You commented in relation to your intention, [my intention was] 'to try to break the window and get in'.[9]

·        When you were told that the complainant said that you had threatened to kill him, you said, 'Maybe that’s what I was – gonna happen if I – if I got in. I was maybe gonna beat the shit out of him for being a dog, yeah'.[10]

·        'I know where he lives, there’s always next time'.[11]

[2] Record of Interview P 66, QA 49.

[3] Ibid QA 57.

[4] Ibid QA 58.

[5] Ibid, QA 62.

[6] Ibid, QA 70 and 71.

[7] Ibid, QA 72.

[8] Ibid, QA 79.

[9] Ibid, QA 83.

[10] Ibid, QA 130.

[11] Ibid, QA 131.

21You also admitted to police that you were in possession of a nail file at the time of the offence, and that you threw it to the ground when you saw police arrive at Mr Bobroff’s home.

22As a result of this incident, a Personal Safety Intervention Order was issued against you with Mr Bobroff listed as the protected person on the order.

23At the time of this offending you were still on bail, with bail conditions requiring you to abide by a curfew between the hours of 10 pm and 6 am, and also to refrain from coming within 20 metres of Mr Bobroff’s property. Your commission of these offences while subject to this bail constitutes Summary Charge 4 (another charge of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail) and Summary Charge 5, being the commission of breaching bail conditions.

Objective Gravity of the Offending

24Mr Antonic, there are a number of troubling features of your conduct that render your behaviour serious criminal conduct. I was told during the plea hearing by your counsel that you were told by an associate who had made a suggestion to you that there some sort of grievance with Mr Bobroff. It was not suggested that this was in any way mitigatory. People are entitled to feel safe in the vicinity of their own home. You did not know Mr Bobroff and your threats towards him and attempts to enter his property and cause damage to his property can only be regarded as very serious.

25In your first encounter with Mr Bobroff, not only did you make a threat to kill him, but you made that threat while you were holding a knife. The circumstances of committing criminal damage by stabbing holes in the front security door is like something out of a horror movie and must have been terrifying for the victim.

26As mentioned above, your initial offending against the victim was while you were on bail. Despite initially being charged with the offending committed in October 2021 and being re-bailed, you again attended at Mr Bobroff’s premises in January 2022 and threatened him a second time. You threatened Mr Bobroff for reporting you to the police even though Mr Bobroff was perfectly entitled to report your criminal conduct.

27You are charged with attempted aggravated burglary because you were unsuccessful in entering Mr Bobroff’s property. This offence is regarded as very serious as indicated by the maximum penalty of 20 years' imprisonment, and this is a relatively serious instance of this offence.  Your attempted entry into the premises was with the intent to assault Mr Bobroff in circumstances where you wanted to seek vengeance. When interviewed by police you showed no remorse and suggested there was 'always next time'.

28Mr Bobroff has chosen not to provide a victim impact statement, but I have no trouble inferring he would have been deeply troubled and scared by your offending. I was informed by the prosecution that the damage you caused cost him in the vicinity of $900 in repairs.

Personal circumstances

29I turn to your background and personal history.

30You were born in July 2002. In some of the documentation I think it refers to 2001, and you were approximately 19 years old at the time of your offending.

31Your counsel has tendered a number of psychological and neuropsychological reports on your behalf,[12] a NDIS plan dated 7 July 2022, and an ‘Insight Behaviour Support Assessment’ dated 3 November 2022. In addition, a letter from the Registrar of the Thomas Embling Hospital where you have served some of the time in custody was also tendered.

[12] Report of Dr Staios dated 22 November 2022 (Exhibit 3); Further letter from Dr Staios (undated); Report of Warren Simmons dated 9 December 2021; Behaviour Support Assessment dated 3 November 2022 by psychologist Teresa – Maria Villella.

32On the morning of your plea hearing the Court received directly from Forensicare a Mental Health and Response Service (MHARS) letter dated 23 August 2023, and ‘Discharge Summary’ and a ‘Mental Health Act Assessment Order (MHA101 Assessment order).[13]  This material was provided to both the prosecution and defence and both parties agreed that the material should be tendered. After the plea hearing your cousin emailed further documentation that both parties indicated by email should be taken into account and that material has also been tendered in agreement by the parties.

[13] The MAHRS Letter was tendered as Defence Exhibit 2 and the Discharge Summary (comprising 9 pages) and Mental Health Assessment Order was tendered as the one exhibit on behalf of the prosecution, Exhibit C.

33This morning before delivering this sentence, the Court received an updated letter – sorry, I will refer to that material later on but going back to the material that was sent by your cousin, this information included a letter from Mr Ailoba dated 25 August 2023. The letter confirms an agency named ‘Kind and Care Supports’ have been engaged with you for approximately three years and upon your release will continue to provide supported independent housing support. You will have an address in which you can reside with support. The other material sent by your cousin in all significant respects replicated the ‘Discharge Summary’ material that had been sent by Forensicare.

34The information relating to your background as set out in the reports tendered by the defence is contradictory. For example, in the report prepared by psychologist, Mr Simmons, dated 9 December 2021 you stated that you were born in Belgrade Yugoslavia, and that you came to Australia aged 10 with your family settling in Gippsland.  You told him you had two older brothers and two older sisters as well as two younger sisters and a younger brother. You stated you were close to both of your parents when growing up, however your father died when you were aged 10 in circumstances where he was a soldier and died during conflict. The report of Mr Simmons, as stated above, is dated 9 December 2021 and is addressed to your solicitors.

35A clinical neuropsychologist, Mr Staios, was engaged by your solicitors to provide a more recent report. Mr Staios in his report dated 22 November 2022, refers to having been provided with source material that included a psychological assessment of you from 2009 but makes no reference to Mr Simmons' report dated 9 December 2021.

36Mr Staios updated his assessment in a further report dated 23 May 2023.[14]

[14] It was also confirmed by email to the parties, after the plea that the report of Mr Staios, dated 23 May 2023, (which was referred to during the plea), was not formally tendered, although the other two reports from Mr Staios were tendered. The parties indicated by email that the report of 23 May 2023 could be tendered administratively by agreement.

37You told Mr Staios that you were born in Victoria and raised in Moe. You were the middle of a sibship of three and you were exposed to significant violence from your father throughout early childhood. Your parents separated in 2005 in the context of domestic violence, and you have not had any contact with your father since 2014 when, according to your date of birth, you would have been approximately 12 years old.

38A further (undated letter) from Mr Staios has been tendered on your behalf that indicates that Mr Staios after having provided his initial reports to your solicitors, he had an opportunity to review the report of Mr Simmons. In the letter Mr Staios states:

'…there appears to be several inconsistencies with regard to Mr Antonic’s early development, family history, and substance use. In general, Mr Antonic appears to be an unreliable historian.

I note that Mr Antonic is currently a patient at Thomas Embling Hospital, on a Secure Treatment Order under the Mental Health Act 2014 (Vic). He has a working diagnosis of psychotic illness. He has presented with paranoia, grandiose delusional ideation including being in the Australian Defence Force, verbal, and physical aggression.

Mr Antonic does not agree with this diagnosis and does not believe he has a mental illness. Since admission to Thomas Embling Hospital, I note that he has been prescribed regular oral antipsychotic medication (olanzapine). He is currently concordant with treatment. However, he has indicated that he will not continue treatment in the community.

While the beginning of his admission was mostly settled, recently his mental state has deteriorated. There have been several verbal and physical altercations with peers and staff, and he has required seclusion due to the risk of interpersonal violence. He continues to voice paranoid and grandiose ideas.'

39During your plea hearing it became apparent that your counsel, Ms Kelly, did not seek to rely upon particular features of your background as mitigatory. She did however clarify that you were born in Australia and were therefore not at risk of being deported should you receive a sentence of more than 12 months' imprisonment.

40During the plea hearing I stood the case down so that Ms Kelly could have an opportunity to review the material provided by Forensicare referred to above. Upon resuming the hearing Ms Kelly informed the court that she had been through that material with you. It was not submitted that the material provided by Forensicare was in any way inaccurate, or that I should not have regard to that material.

41The material from Forensicare is of particular significance. The MHA101 Assessment Order states that as of 22 August 2023 you are subject to an Inpatient Assessment Order (IAO) pursuant to the provisions of the Mental Health Act 2014 (Vic). The order states the opinion of a Registrar in Psychiatry in the following terms:

'Miki is a patient with psychiatric mental health not otherwise specified. He has very poor insight into his mental health.  He is at high risk of not taking his medications and deterioration in mental health resulting in interpersonal violence.  Therefore, he needs assertive treatments and assessment. There is no less restrictive means available to assess him.'  

42The letter from MHARS explains that as a consequence of this assessment the IAO would come into effect in the event of that order being extant when you are released from serving a period of imprisonment. It states that should that occur you would be transferred from Ravenhall Correctional Centre to the Dandenong Hospital Emergency Department. If you require police escort, you would be taken to the Emergency Department of Sunshine Hospital. Upon arrival at the Emergency Department, a consultant psychiatrist will assess you. If you meet the criteria under the Mental Health Act 2014 (Vic) for compulsory treatment you would be admitted to an Acute Mental Health Inpatient Unit. If the consultant psychiatrist does not agree that you need compulsory treatment, the IAO would be revoked, and you may be offered voluntary inpatient treatment or alternatively treatment within the community.

43This morning before delivering this sentence the court received an updated letter from Forensicare and another Inpatient Assessment Order (dated 6 September 2023) that confirms the position is unchanged.[15]  I will tender that letter and the assessment as part of the materials.

[15] Exhibits E & F.

44The discharge notes from Forensicare contain both troubling and encouraging entries. There are references to you concealing manufactured sharp implements in your cell in March of this year and making threats to stab and kill correction officers. On the other hand, there is an entry that you were informed in August this year of the arrangements to be placed on an IAO if released and that you understood the process. Under the heading: 'Imp' (impression) - the entry reads – 'Remains stable and compliant with treatment.'

45Your counsel has not relied upon any specific diagnosis of a mental health issue that engages any of the principles stated in the well-known case of Verdins[16], however it is clear from the material that you do have significant mental health issues and, to some extent, cognitive deficits. Part of the discharge notes state:

'Prior to this incarceration he was listed as having an intellectual disability and was in receipt of NDIS support for this, however, a CMI diagnosis from 2018, when he was approximately 15 years old, of delusional disorder. His full list of CMI diagnoses include, "Conduct disorder unspecified; developmental; disorder scholastic skills; unspecified nonorganic psychosis; delusional disorder; disorder of intellectual development; ADHD; mania with psychotic symptoms; adjustment disorders…".

Mr Antonic has a history of involvement with mental health services dating back to 2014, however all previous contact has been with CAMHS and Youth Services. This includes 11 inpatient admissions, most have been brief (1-4 days). The most recent of these was to Monash from 9 to 10 November in 2018.

The notes indicate a diagnosis of ADHD and mild intellectual disability, though it is unclear if this has been formally tested. He has admitted to drug and alcohol use in the past with inconsistent reporting.'  

[16] R v Verdins [2007] 16 VR 240.

46Your counsel emphasised that you do have NDIS support and upon eventual release from custody you can reside at an address in Cranbourne West that is supported accommodation. As I understand it, this means you would have a NDIS worker assisting you with day to day living arrangements. As to the effectiveness of such arrangements addressing the risk factors relating to your offending, the evidence was not clear.

47Your counsel indicated that you were residing in supported accommodation through NDIS at the time you committed this offending. It was also the situation that the 'INSIGHT Behaviour Support Assessment' contained some of the same type of misleading background information that you provided to Mr Simmons, such as being born overseas. It also stated that your mother passed away in December 2021.

48During your plea hearing evidence was called from your cousin Ms Shadwell who gave evidence that both she and your brother were prepared to offer you family support. She gave evidence that your family members were very concerned for your welfare and that for considerable periods of time leading up to this offending, they had lost contact with you.  They had as a result hired a private investigator to try and locate you. It was only after you were placed in custody that they became aware of your whereabouts.

49Ms Shadwell indicated that she and your brother had visited you in custody and wanted to assist you in complying with your mental health treatment upon your release. She gave evidence that while you did not a have good relationship with your mother, your mother was still alive. She had no knowledge of you experiencing any domestic violence in your background. She stated that NDIS has been involved with you and had been offering you support for a number of years.

50She indicated that she has very limited knowledge of the circumstances in which you become violent.  When I read to her part of the discharge notes relating to you keeping weapons in your cell and threatening officers, her evidence was that she had never seen you be threatening and had no knowledge of such a history. Your cousin made it plain that after they discovered you were in custody, the COVID pandemic caused restrictions in your family being able to visit you.

Prior Criminal History

51Your criminal history records numerous appearances in the Children’s Court between the years of 2017 and 2019 where you were dealt with for such offences as criminal damage, unlawful assault, assault with a weapon, recklessly causing injury, threat to kill, committing offences while on bail, and breaching probation and youth supervision orders.

52It was not in dispute that you have outstanding offences listed to proceed as a plea in the Magistrates’ Court. I was told during the plea hearing that at the time you committed the first incident before me you were on bail in respect of charges of unlawful assault, criminal damage, and assault with a weapon. These charges are not prior convictions and cannot be considered in terms of aggravating the offending that I am considering. Similarly, you are not to be sentenced in respect of any misbehaviour while in custody, however those circumstances can be taken into consideration in relation to your prospects of rehabilitation. It is also relevant to the type of sentence that may be available to me. For example, your counsel conceded that based upon the material before me that you are not likely to comply with the obligations of a community correction order.

53Your counsel submitted that in all the circumstances a sentence of imprisonment that did not exceed the period you have already served on remand should be imposed. Particular reliance was placed upon the following factors in mitigation:

1)    You were only 19 years of age when you committed these offences;

2)    your plea of guilty has had significant utilitarian benefit. That benefit was enhanced given your plea of guilty was in the time of the pandemic. It relieved the backlog of cases in this court, and you have also suffered additional burdens of imprisonment given restricted courses available to you in custody and restrictions in your family being able to visit you. It was also submitted that your plea indicates you have accepted responsibility for your conduct and 'insofar as you are capable' is indictive of remorse;

3)     that you have significant supports in place, through the NDIS, and the support of your cousin and brother, and through what is likely to be compulsory mental health treatment.

54In relation to your mental health issues, it was submitted that the report of Dr Staios indicates that in 2015 you were stable and your deterioration into criminal behaviour was in the context of unexplained withdrawal of supports.[17]  It is not clear from the material placed before me exactly what was withdrawn from your support in 2015 as your cousin has given evidence that the NDIS plan has been in place for a number of years.

[17] See Exhibit 1, paragraph 11(c)(n); Dr Staios report 23 May 2023.

55The prosecution do not take issue with the fact that your youth and your early plea of guilty are significant factors in mitigation, and I accept that that is the case. They concede that while you are now aged 21, you were 19 years old when you offended and 'principles of rehabilitation have particular prominence.'

56The prosecution however place emphasis on the seriousness of your offending and the sentencing consideration of protection of the community. They point out that should you receive a sentence of imprisonment in respect of Charge 2 (the first instance of threat to kill) you are to be sentenced as a serious violent offender in respect of Charge 4 (second instance of the charge of threat to kill). The court must in those circumstances regard protection of the community as the primary sentencing purpose.[18]  The prosecution conceded that they did not seek a sentence that was disproportionate to the objective gravity of the offending, however it was submitted that the seriousness of the offending warranted a head sentence and non-parole period.

[18] Section 6D of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic).

57The prosecution conceded during your plea hearing that your psychiatric and mental health issues, as well as your cognitive deficits, were relevant in moderating the principles of general deterrence as you are not an appropriate vehicle in all respects in relation to that principle. I accept that that is the correct application of sentencing principles in relation to you and in relation to your mental health issues.

58Although your counsel did not rely upon any aspect of the well-known case of Verdins on your behalf, the prosecution in their written submissions conceded that your personal attributes fit within the description of a 'serious mental disorder or abnormality or impaired mental functioning’ as contemplated in that case. While I am not persuaded that I can find on the evidence that there was a causal nexus between your intellectual disability and mental health issues and the offending, I am satisfied that other sentencing considerations referred to in that decision have application. It is apparent that your mental health issues have made your imprisonment more burdensome, and I take into account principle 5 in the well–known case of Verdins that has application to you. It is apparent that you have had to be restrained while appearing before me in your plea hearing and that the evidence confirms that whilst you have been in custody you have been suffering persecutory delusions at times. The material also suggests that at times you have had to have been placed in isolation in relation to mental health issues.

Analysis

59Mr Antonic, it is not in dispute between the parties that your offending is of sufficient seriousness to warrant a period of imprisonment. The practical reality is that you have already served a significant period of pre-sentence detention in custody, however I am not persuaded given all the circumstances of your offending that a sentence that is no longer than the time you have already spent in custody adequately addresses all of the sentencing considerations.

60I must also take account of the principle of totality. I am of the view that the circumstances of the separate offences warrant a degree of cumulation of the sentence in respect of the different charges. I must be mindful to not lose sight that the total sentence imposed upon you must be a just sentence when looked at in terms of the totality of your offending.

61It is apparent from the plea material presented that your prospects of rehabilitation appear at this stage to be very much related to your willingness to accept professional treatment in relation to your mental health issues.

62I am not persuaded by the evidence and the material placed before me that you will voluntarily be compliant with treatment and accept the help that others intend to offer you. It appears that others have tried to assist you in similar ways in the past. That is not to say that this attitude is fixed. Certainly, the evidence suggests you have become more willing to accept treatment and assistance more recently.

63It is difficult for me to determine, at this point in time, your prospects of successful rehabilitation. Nevertheless, you are still very young, and this is your first period of adult imprisonment.

64I have found this a difficult sentencing exercise as some of the sentencing considerations might be said to pull in different directions. The purposes of sentencing include denunciation of the offending conduct, just punishment, deterrence both specific and general, and fostering rehabilitation, and protection of the community. Trying as best I can to balance these considerations and considering all of the material placed before me and the submissions of the parties, I have determined that you should be sentenced as follows:

65On Charge 3 of attempted aggravated burglary, you are convicted and sentenced to 22 months’ imprisonment. This is the base sentence.

66On Charge 1 of criminal damage to the window, you are convicted and sentenced to one months' imprisonment.

67On Charge 2, the first threat to kill charge, you are convicted and sentenced to five months’ imprisonment.

68On Charge 4, the second threat to kill charge, you are convicted and sentenced to seven months' imprisonment.

69On the summary offence of failing to provide your name and address, you are convicted and discharged.

70On the three summary offences, comprising two charges of committing indictable offences while on bail and one charge of contravening a condition of bail, you are convicted and sentenced to an aggregate sentence of two months’ imprisonment.

71I further order that two months of the sentence imposed on Charge 2 (the first threat to kill charge) is to be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed upon Charge 3 and all other sentences imposed this day. I also order that three months of the sentence imposed upon Charge 4 (the second threat to kill charge) is to be served cumulatively upon Charge 3 and all other sentences imposed this day. I order that one month of the aggregate sentence on the bail offences be served cumulatively upon Charge 3 and all other sentences imposed this day. That makes a total effective sentence of 28 months' imprisonment.

72I order that you serve a minimum of 21 months' imprisonment before being eligible for parole.

73Pursuant to s18(4) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) I declare that a period of 612 days that you have been in custody be reckoned as time already served under the sentence passed today, and I direct that this be entered into the records of the Court.

74Pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) I declare that had you not pleaded guilty to these offences I would have sentenced you to a total effective sentence of three years and three months' imprisonment.

75It will be for the Parole Board to determine whether you should be released under parole in circumstances where there may be an interim assessment order in place. While it may appear to me that a grant of parole while subject to an interim assessment order pursuant to the Mental Health Act 2014 (Vic) is likely to assuage some of the risks of your non-compliance with parole, that is a decision for the Parole Board, not me.

76I am hopeful from the entries in the discharge notes that you more recently expressed a willingness to accept professional treatment, can assist you to remain mentally well and allow you to try and lead a more stable and law-abiding lifestyle.

77Can I confirm with the parties whether they have understood the sentences imposed and the cumulation?

78MS BOWLER:  Yes. Yes, Your Honour.

79MS COULSON:  Thank you, Your Honour.

80HIS HONOUR:  Can I confirm there is no other orders required?

81MS COULSON:  Yes, Your Honour, there should be a draft disposal order which is sought just in relation to the nail file.

82HIS HONOUR:  There's no opposition to that?

83MS BOWLER:  Of course not, Your Honour.

84HIS HONOUR:  I will make that draft disposal order in the terms as lodged with the Court. That just relates to what is described as nail clippers that I imagine is the nail file.

85MS COULSON:  Yes, Your Honour.

86HIS HONOUR:  Do you need any time on the link to explain the situation?

87MS BOWLER:  Yes, please, if Your Honour will allow me.

88HIS HONOUR:  Yes. Mr Antonic, thank you for sitting there quietly during the long sentence and I apologise to you for the delay in having to go off the Bench.

89OFFENDER:  That's all right.

90HIS HONOUR:  I am going to allow your counsel to have a bit of time just to explain then orders to you.

91OFFENDER:  Yep.

92HIS HONOUR:  We will adjourn the court.

93MS BOWLER:  Thank you very much, Your Honour.

– – –