Director of Public Prosecutions v Austin

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

Case No. CR-24-02236

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

RHIANNA AUSTIN

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE HAWKINS
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	20 August 2025
DATE OF SENTENCE:	20 August 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v AUSTIN
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VCC 1192

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE
Catchwords: Theft – aggravated offence of driving recklessly exposing an emergency worker to risk by driving – damaging an emergency service vehicle – dangerous driving while pursued by police – failing to stop after an accident – theft of motor vehicle – unlicensed driving – contravening a bail condition – refusing to provide a blood sample
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) ss 5, 5(2H), 16(3D), 87P, 89(3), 89(4)(c).
Cases Cited:Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; R v Verdins & Ors [2007] VSCA 102.
Sentence: Total effective sentence across indictment Q10396065 and related summary offences of 2 years and 8 months’ imprisonment and a fine of $500.00, with a minimum of 1 year and 9 months’ to be served before becoming eligible for parole. Pursuant to s 18 of the Sentencing Act 1991, the period of 166 days of pre-sentence detention is hereby declared as having already been served in respect of CR-24-02236. S 6AAA: Total effective sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment, with a minimum of 3 years’ imprisonment to be served before becoming eligible for parole.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Ms Gabrielle Fitzgibbon	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms Stephanie Gillahan	Law and Advocacy Centre for Women

HER HONOUR:

Rhianna Austin, you were arraigned on 28 May of this year before me, and you entered a plea of guilty to:
·        Two counts of theft, for which the maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment;
·        The aggravated offence of recklessly exposing an emergency service worker to risk by driving, for which the maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment;
·        One count of damaging an emergency services vehicle, for which the maximum penalty is 5 years’ imprisonment;
·        One count of dangerous driving while being pursued by police for which the maximum penalty is 3 years’ imprisonment; and
·        One count of theft of a motor vehicle, for which the maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment.
You consent to the jurisdiction of this Court and have pleaded guilty to the following related summary offences:
·        Summary Charge 4 – Failing to stop after an accident. As it is your second offence, the maximum penalty for that offence is 10 penalty units or not less than 14 days and not more than 1 months’ imprisonment;
·        Summary Charge 9 - Unlicenced driving. The maximum penalty for that offence is 60 penalty units or 6 months’ imprisonment;
·        Summary Charge 10 - Contravening a conduct condition of bail. The maximum penalty for that offence is 30 penalty units or 3 months’ imprisonment; and
·        Summary Charge 14 - Refusing to provide a blood sample. As this is your second offence, the maximum penalty for that offence is 120 penalty units and/or 12 months’ imprisonment.
You have admitted your prior criminal history.[1]
[1] Criminal Record of Rhianna Austin (20 February 2025).

Circumstances of Offending

The circumstances of your offending are set out in the Further Amended Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea dated 15 August 2025,[2] the accuracy of which you accepted through your Counsel.
[2] Further Amended Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea dated 15 August 2025.
You committed these offences in Greensborough on 20 February 2024 and in Shepparton and Mooroopna on 21 February 2024. You were not licenced to drive a motor vehicle at the time (Summary charge 9 – unlicenced driving).
You were also subject to a separate bail undertaking which included conditions to not drive a motor vehicle, to commence a detox program and attend Windana, and to live in Richmond (Summary charge 10 – Contravene a conduct condition of bail).
Charge 6 - Theft of Holden Calais - 20-21 February 2024
On Tuesday 20 February 2024, the victim parked his 2011 black Holden Calais sedan in front of his workplace, a Martial Arts Academy, in Greensborough.
The victim left his keys on a table inside his workplace. You entered the building, took the victim’s keys and drove away in his vehicle and continued to drive the vehicle the following day.
Charge 1 – Theft from Kmart in Shepparton - 21 February 2024
On Wednesday 21 February 2024 you and your co-offender, Ms Ayen Akot, went to Kmart in Shepparton.
You left the store in the stolen Holden Calais without paying for items including makeup, jewellery and clothing with a total value of $822.75.
Charge 2 – Theft from First Choice Liquor in Shepparton - 21 February 2024
Later the same day, you and Ms Akot attended at First Choice Liquor in Shepparton, where you left the store in the same Holden Calais without attempting to pay for various bottles of spirits worth a total of $870.00. That comprises Charge 2 of theft.
Police pursuit
Around noon on the same day the stolen Holden Calais was seen driving erratically in the Shepparton area.
A witness observed the vehicle swerve into the lane of oncoming traffic on the Peter Ross Edwards causeway. Another witness observed the vehicle to swerve onto the wrong side of the road and drive against oncoming traffic, before swerving back into its correct lane. The driving of the Holden Calias caused the witness to take evasive action to avoid collision. It is not known who was driving the vehicle at this point in time.
The Holden continued to drive towards McDonald’s in Mooroopna and parked in a disabled car park at the front of the restaurant.
Police observed you sitting in the driver’s seat of the vehicle, and Ms Akot seated in the front passenger seat.
Police parked their vehicle directly behind the stolen Calais you were in and activated the lights and sirens. They placed a vehicle immobilising device under the rear passenger tyre of the Calais.
You responded by quickly driving forward over the parking blocks and deliberately reversing the Calais into the police vehicle. This comprises Charge 4 – damage emergency services vehicle. In the process, you also collided into the rear of a grey Mitsubishi Lancer which was parked directly behind the Calais. A 97-year-old man was sitting in the front passenger seat of the Lancer at the time.
You then drove the Calais forward, before intentionally reversing back into the police vehicle, which is the continuing part of Charge 4, and you collided for a second time with the Lancer, causing damage to the rear side panel of that vehicle.
You then drove towards the police officer, causing him to take evasive action to avoid being struck by the Calais. This sequence constitutes Charge 3 - Aggravated offence of recklessly exposing an emergency worker to risk by driving.
You proceeded to drive away from the McDonald’s car park at a fast rate of speed, before colliding with a 2020 silver Mazda CX-5 parked in the McDonalds car park, causing damage its rear panel.
You drove the Calais from the collision scene despite it being clear that you were the driver involved in a collision resulting in damage to two vehicles and you failed to stop and exchange personal details. This comprises Summary Charge 4 - Failing to stop after an accident involving damage.
Charge 5 – Dangerous driving while being pursued by police - 21 February 2024
Shortly after the McDonald’s incident you were observed travelling at approximately 60 km/h with a deflated tyre towards Shepparton on the Peter Ross Edwards causeway.
Police activated their lights and sirens and began to pursue the Calais being driven by you. You made no attempt to stop the vehicle and continued driving. Due to the deflated tyre, the Calais was driving on its rim.
You drove along High Street in Shepparton, which is a busy main road, before turning onto Maude Street in the CBD of Shepparton. You made no attempt to stop, despite the fact that there were a number of people in close proximity to your vehicle.
Police pursued you as you drove the stolen car through Shepparton.
Ms Akot got out of the Calais as it was moving and was arrested by police.
You continued driving with number of police vehicles with lights and sirens activated travelling directly behind you. You were driving at approximately 25km/h in a reckless and erratic manner, swerving across the road, failing to indicate when turning and failing to stop at stop signs.
A further vehicle immobilising device was placed under the front tyres of the Calais, but it did not stop you driving. You continued driving with all four tyres deflated before coming to a stop, when you collided with a 2016 Jeep Cherokee that was driving through the roundabout, resulting in minor damage to its rear quarter panel.
The prosecution alleges that your driving was dangerous because you were driving with a deflated rear passenger tyre, swerving across the roadway, failing to indicate when turning and failing to obey stop signals.
Eight police officers were involved in your pursuit.
You were arrested and taken to the Goulburn Valley Base Hospital for treatment.
While you were at the hospital, a treating nurse attempted to obtain a blood sample from you, which you refused to provide, and that constitutes Summary Charge 14 – Refusing to provide a blood sample.

Nature & Gravity of Offending

At the time of your offending, Ms Austin, you were on bail which included a condition that you not drive a motor vehicle. This fact aggravates your offending, but I note that you do fall to be sentenced for a separate summary offence in relation to contravening a conduct condition of bail.
The theft charges are unsophisticated lower-level examples of theft. However, Charge 6 is aggravated by the damage you caused to the motor vehicle you stole.
Your most serious offending was the aggravated offence of exposing an emergency worker to risk by driving. It is a serious offence to assault police officers in the execution of their duty, which ordinarily requires a significant element of deterrence in the sentence to be imposed. It is incumbent on the Court to recognise that police officers are performing an essential public duty, which ought be reflected through the sentence to be imposed upon you.
This offence occurred in the context of previous uncharged acts which involved a police pursuit through Shepparton. Your actions were a clear attempt to escape arrest by police. I have viewed the footage from the McDonald’s carpark. Your vehicle was moving slowly and not directly at the officers concerned, and you appeared to make some effort to avoid making contact with the police officer or their car. This is not a case where you deliberately rammed a police car, rather, you were attempting to escape from the position where your car was parked. I note that any risk of exposing police to harm is sufficient to make out this offence. Here, the officers were placed at some risk, but not at the high risk that is sometimes the case with these sorts of circumstances. However, there were also several civilians nearby. Your offending in the McDonald’s carpark is of lower order than many more serious examples of this offence of aggravated offence of recklessly exposing an emergency worker to risk by driving. Objectively, in all the circumstances, the gravity of your offending in relation to this charge is mid-range.
The marked police car was parked directly behind your vehicle to prevent the Calais being driven away. You engaged in this offending in an effort to avoid arrest. A police officer was seated in the vehicle. Whilst the collision was of brief moment, it damaged not only the police car, but civilian vehicles. The gravity of your offending in damaging an emergency service vehicle is mid-range.
After escaping police in the McDonald’s carpark, you initially drove away at high speed and were pursued by multiple police vehicles with lights and sirens activated. You drove erratically, failing to indicate when turning and to stop at stop signs. You refused to stop and continued driving at low speeds despite your tyres being deflated. You persistently avoided apprehension and drove through the Shepparton CBD for around 15 minutes, placing members of the public nearby at risk. You did not stop until you collided with a further civilian vehicle.
Objectively, your offending in relation to the Charge of dangerous driving while pursued by police falls towards the low-mid range of this offence.
The related summary offences are at the lower end of objective gravity.
Victim Impact Statement/s
No victims made impact statements in these proceedings.
Personal Circumstances

Ms Austin, the following materials were tendered on your behalf – I will refer to aspects of them in my reasons, but I have regard to all of the matters which were raised by their authors:
·        Psychiatric Report of Associate Professor Rajan Darjee, dated 9 July 2025;
·        Neuropsychological Report of Dr Rachel O’Meara dated 13 February 2025;
·        Letter of Witt Gorrie, Project Coordinator/Senior Social Worker at Beyond Bricks & Bars Project - Flat Out Inc., dated 9 July 2025;
·        Email from Justice Health dated 8 November 2025;
·        Letter of Kerstin Hinrichsen, A/Assistant Commissioner, Sentence Management Division dated 6 November 2024; and
·        Memorandum from the Melbourne Assessment Prison, dated 19 June 2025.

Ms Austin, you are a proud Yorta Yorta and Gunditjmara woman. You were born in Melbourne and raised on the Cummeragunja Mission near Shepparton. You are now aged 33.
You were assigned male at birth and were known as Graeme Austin. You now identify as female and are called “Rhianna”.
You and your six siblings were largely raised by your grandmother as your mother struggled with her own addiction issues. Your grandmother also faced struggles. This meant that you and your siblings were often neglected and experienced corporal punishment and came to the attention of Child Protection Services.
By the age of 9, you effectively assumed care for your siblings. You experienced repeated serious and frequent sexual abuse from men in your community throughout your adolescence and teenage years.
Although your childhood was marked by this neglect and abuse, you do have some fond memories as a young child at the Mission fishing, camping and hunting with the other approximately 200 children in the community.
You attended various schools in the area, but did not enjoy school much and experienced bullying from others. By the age of 16, you left school.
You later completed TAFE studies in Aboriginal art, hairdressing, and hospitality.
You left home at the age of 15 and came to Melbourne. You found some support from others but have been largely homeless since that time. After 12 years on the Office of Housing Priority Homelessness waitlist you secured a public housing unit in late 2023. However, after a series of violent incidents, this unit was relinquished.
Your relationship with your family significantly deteriorated when you came out as transgender when you were 18.
Your only work history has been a period of sex work, which frequently exposed you to further physical and sexual violence.
Ms Austin, you were exposed to widespread drug and alcohol abuse, both within your immediate family, and more broadly across the Mission from a young age. You commenced drinking alcohol at age 9 and smoking cannabis at 10. You also engaged in intermittent inhalant abuse before progressing to benzodiazepine abuse at age 16 and you started using heroin and amphetamines from the age of 20. Substance abuse was normalised amongst all of your family and peers.
Your attempts at drug rehabilitation over the years have been thwarted by your poor mental health, leading to an unfortunate vicious cycle of relapse and offending. “Mainstream” drug rehabilitation appears not to be sufficient to manage your considerable complex needs that you face. Unfortunately, dual diagnosis services are unwilling to take you directly from custody, which thwarts your attempts at rehabilitation.
You are currently prescribed methadone in custody.
Mental health and cognitive impairment
Ms Austin, you have struggled with significant mental health issues from a young age. You are currently prescribed various antidepressant and antipsychotic medications.
Your mental health steadily declined in the lead up to this offending. You presented at St Vincent’s Hospital seeking assistance with your mental health on some 19 occasions, and were admitted on 3 occasions, between late November 2023 and this offending in February 2024. Your mental health showed significant deterioration whilst you have been on remand for these matters. Mental health professionals who attempted to conduct assessments with you observed evident psychotic symptoms. Your legal representatives and support worker, Witt Gorrie, raised serious concerns about your health with Corrections in October 2024 and you were subsequently classified with the highest psychiatric priority and transferred to the Melbourne Assessment Prison.
On 8 November 2024, you were assessed by Associate Professor Darjee who noted that you were clearly unfit to plead and stand trial, you were acutely and floridly psychotic and required urgent treatment and mental health support. He considered you to be pervasively and severely unwell.
On 14 January 2025, you were reassessed by Dr Darjee who assessed you as fit, but stated “her mental state is still quite fragile”.
On 24 January 2025, you were reassessed by Dr Rachel O’Meara who noted that “her presentation was highly suspicious for persistent acute symptoms of psychosis”.
Your poor mental health has resulted in you lacking any real stability in prison because you have been subject to frequent moves and have spent very lengthy periods in solitary confinement.
Having assessed you for a third time on 7 July 2025, Associate Professor Darjee considered the diagnostic picture (in relation to your psychosis) unclear but noted that “Whatever the underlying aetiology, it seems clear that she has suffered from psychosis, perhaps fluctuating in intensity, since 2023 and into 2024.”
It is clear from the psychiatric material tendered on your behalf that you have been diagnosed with Complex PTSD and Borderline Personality Disorder and also have avoidant and paranoid personality traits with a history of self-harm and suicide attempts.

Associate Professor Darjee wrote about your condition:[3]
“Although CPTSD and borderline personality disorder overlap, they are not the same. Meeting criteria for both CPTSD and borderline personality disorder is indicative of the chronic and severe psychological dysfunction that she suffers due to her extremely disadvantaged, traumatic, adverse, abusive and unstable upbringing. Another significant contributor to her CPTSD and her personality dysfunction is her gender dysphoria and experiences of bullying, ostracization, and sexual harassment and assault due to being transgender. This has significantly contributed to her identity difficulties and her fragile sense of self. Her CPTSD and severe personality disorder mean she is very vulnerable to decompensating under even minor levels of stress and she is severely limited in her ability to function in terms of having stable relationships, being able to work, having stable living circumstances, and coping with day-to-day problems and difficulties. Indeed, her inability to survive and maintain any stability in the community is shown by how little time she has stayed out of prison as an adult.”
[3] Associate Professor Rajan Darjee, Forensic Psychiatric Report (9 July 2025) 61.
You have previously been assessed as having a Borderline Full Scale IQ score of 73. Dr Rachel O’Meara, Neuropsychologist, was unable to complete a comprehensive assessment of cognitive functioning due to severe fluctuations in your level of alertness and attention. Despite these limitations she concluded that:[4]
“Cognitive testing administered provide clear evidence of a cognitive and psychosocial disability resulting from permanent conditions (as detailed above) that will substantially impact on her capacity to complete normal activities of daily living. While it was not possible to obtain a clear understanding of her level of everyday functioning during the current assessment due to the limitations outlined above, both the current assessment and provided documentation indicated severe difficulty maintaining attention (e.g., even to be able to participate in a conversation), as well as periods of homelessness and relatively rapid reoffending when released into the community.”
[4] Dr Rachel O’Meara, Neuropsychological Report (13 February 2025) 16.
Physical health

You are prescribed hormone replacement therapy as gender affirming care.
You also have asthma, high cholesterol and during your time on remand have had an open wound requiring regular medical attention.

Sentencing Considerations

Plea of Guilty

You were initially deemed unfit to plead and offered to plead guilty shortly after you were deemed fit.
I accept that your plea is one made at the earliest opportunity and therefore has significant utilitarian value.
Criminal History
You have a lengthy criminal history in Victoria and New South Wales, largely comprised of low-level dishonesty offences. You were, however, sentenced in 2018 in the County Court to a 4-year sentence of imprisonment for offences including carjacking, aggravated burglary and failing to stop on police direction after an accident. You were not granted parole. You do not have relevant priors for exposing emergency workers to risk. You have spent the majority of your adult life since your first remand in 2012 in custody.
Non - Participation in Koori Court
You initially elected to have this matter heard in the Koori Court in Shepparton. I accept that the conditions involved in your transport to Shepparton made your attendance on that day impossible for you to manage at the time. Through your Counsel in Court today you have apologised to the Elders who attended to participate in your sentencing conversation that day. I do take into account that you are an Aboriginal person as part of this overall sentencing synthesis.
Moral culpability
Bugmy[5] Principles
[5]Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571.
It is well documented[6] that your childhood was marred by multiple features of significant deprivation. They are:
(a)   Early exposure to neglect and experiences of family violence;
(b)   Early exposure to alcohol and drug use (and then the commencement of the use of those substances);
(c)   Experience of gender dysphoria, commencing as a young child;
(d)   Sexual assault; and
(e)   Early school cessation followed by leaving the family home and homelessness.
[6] Associate Professor Rajan Darjee, Forensic Psychiatric Report (9 July 2025); Dr Rachel O’Meara, Neuropsychological Report (13 February 2025).
On the evidence before the Court, I am satisfied of the relevant nexus to be drawn between the diagnoses of CPTSD and severe personality disorder and your traumatic childhood. I give full weight for the effects of your profound childhood deprivation in the sentencing synthesis in both the general and specific way described by the High Court in Bugmy’s case.[7] Those effects do not diminish over time. It has undoubtedly impacted upon you and your development and the choices you have made in respect of drug taking and offending. Your traumatic childhood continues to have a very profound effect on your functioning.
Verdins’ Principles[8]
[7]Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571, 40-44.
[8] R v Verdins & Ors [2007] VSCA 102.
Associate Professor Darjee concludes that there is a clear connection between your mental illness and your offending.[9]
[9] Associate Professor Rajan Darjee, Forensic Psychiatric Report (9 July 2025) 66.
Limb 1 of Verdins has application (in combination with the application of Bugmy) to reduce your moral culpability for this offending.
As you were clearly living with severe complex mental health issues at the time of this offending, and continue to do so, your ability to form a rational judgment has been compromised.[10] Accordingly, general and specific deterrence will be moderated in accordance with Limbs 3 and 4 of Verdins.
[10] Ibid, 62.
Experience of custody
Limb 5 also has some application because in your case custody weighs more heavily upon you than it does for someone who lives without your complex set of interacting mental and physical health issues.
There is clear evidence that imprisonment has caused you a significant deterioration in your mental health during your incarceration over the past year, and in the opinion of Associate Professor Darjee, it poses a significant risk that your mental health will continue to deteriorate, even despite the treatment and support which is available in custody.[11] Limb 6 is also enlivened in your case.
[11] Ibid, 71.
Furthermore, your experience of custody is more burdensome due to your history of sexual abuse, in and out of prison, your status as a transgender woman, and due to your Aboriginality, and your inability to attend funerals of persons important to you, and to engage in Sorry Business.[12] The real consequence of your vulnerabilities is that you have spent much of your time in custody isolated from other prisoners, making the experience far worse for you.
[12] Mr Witt Gorrie, Flat Out Inc – Beyond Bricks and Bars Expert Report (9 July 2025).
The prosecution accept that the cases of Verdins and Bugmy have significant application to reduce your moral culpability for this offending.
Prospects Of Rehabilitation
The combined effect of your childhood deprivation and mental health issues make it difficult for you to live in the community without significant support. Mainstream services are simply not adequately equipped to deal with your complex presentation. In custody you have experienced a significant decline in your mental health, and whilst psychiatric intervention has seen you reclassified to the highest level of psychiatric care, your access to rehabilitation in the custodial environment is diminished.
Recent attempts at residential rehabilitation have been unsuccessful, given your complex needs. Nor has there been an opportunity to access appropriate and necessary services for you when in custody. Without significant support upon your release, including stable accommodation and steps to appropriately address, in a culturally safe way, your mental health and substance dependencies, I am not optimistic about your prospects of rehabilitation. At best those prospects must be viewed as “guarded”. To assist you upon your release, steps are being taken to apply for NDIS support.
Current Sentencing Practices
General deterrence is generally considered to take priority where public safety is put at risk and offences are committed against members of the Police Force.
However, in your case I have moderated the need to emphasise both general and specific deterrence because of your significantly reduced moral culpability. Nonetheless, I must take into consideration other sentencing factors, such as the need to provide just punishment and also to protect the community.
Totality
You have been sentenced, Ms Austin, in the Magistrates’ Court for various matters since the time of this offending. Those sentences have declared significant periods of pre-sentence detention. You have spent most of the past 18 months in custody and the offending for which you have been sentenced is largely of a similar nature to that which is before me. Had all matters been capable of a global sentence, there is no doubt that significant concurrency would have been afforded to you. I take those matters into account generally to give effect to the principle of totality in your case.
Cumulation and concurrency
Unique and powerful matters in mitigation operate in your case, and those factors also operate to displace the s 16(3D) requirement that a term of imprisonment for Charges 3 and 4 must be served cumulatively.[13]
[13] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 16(3D).
Whilst each offence which is the subject of this plea involves separate and distinct criminality and culpability, I will moderate the degree of concurrency I accord you to avoid the risk of double punishment, and to achieve a just sentence.
None of the current charges are part of the standard sentencing scheme.
Mandatory custodial order
Charge 3 is a Category 2 offence and accordingly the Court must impose a custodial order unless an exception applies.[14] Whilst there may be strong arguments in your case that such an exception does apply, given your circumstances, this point is not pressed. Instead, your Counsel submits that, overall, a straight sentence ought be imposed.
[14] Ibid, s 5(2H).
Comparative cases
The prosecution has provided several cases which provide some guidance in relation to the sentencing considerations that apply for the offence of recklessly exposing an emergency service worker to risk whilst driving. They are not relied on as comparative cases but are instructive in this regard.
Conclusion
In sentencing you, Ms Austin, I must have regard to a range of matters,[15] such as the seriousness of your offending, your culpability for it and your personal circumstances. I must balance the interests of the community in denouncing criminal conduct with the interests the community clearly has in seeking to ensure, as far as possible, that offenders are rehabilitated and are reintegrated into society. I must impose a sentence which is proportionate to the gravity of the offences, considering the circumstances. The sentence must be no more than is necessary to satisfy those various objectives of sentencing.
[15] Ibid, s 5.
Ms Austin, because of your significant mental health issues, cognitive impairment and experience of childhood deprivation, your moral culpability for this otherwise serious offending is reduced. The principles of general deterrence and denunciation will carry less weight than they would have otherwise in the sentencing process. Specific deterrence will have some application in the formulation of sentence in light of your significant criminal history but will be moderated. Given your serious offending, and the risk that you pose to the community when you are driving, significant weight must still be attached to the principle of community protection. In the absence of significant supports, sadly this purpose will be served by imprisonment in the short term in your case.
Orders affecting driver’s licence
I am required to disqualify you from driving for a minimum of 24 months, and I will impose a disqualification for the various driving offences which require an order, an aggregate period of disqualification of a total amount of 24 months.[16]
[16] See ibid, s 87P for charge 3; see ibid, 89(3) for charge 5; see ibid, s 89(4)(c) for charge 6.
Sentence
I will now turn to the sentence I will impose for each of these offences.

Charge	Offence	Max Penalty	Sentence	Commencement/ Cumulation
1	Theft	10 years	3m	1m
2	Theft	10 years	3m	Con
3	Agg reckless cause emergency worker to risk by driving	10 years	21 m	Base
4	Damaging emergency service vehicle	5 years	3m	1m
5	Dangerous driving whilst pursued by police	3 years	9 m	6m
6	Theft of motor vehicle	10 years	6 m	2m
SC 4	Failing to stop after an accident	14 days to < 1 month imp	SC4 &9 AIMP 2M	1m
SC 9	Unlicenced driving	6 months imp
SC 10	Contravene a conduct condition of bail	3 months imp	$500
SC 14	Refuse to provide blood sample	12m imp	1m	Con
Total Effective Sentence: Non-Parole Period:		2 y 8 m; $500 1y 9 m
Pre-sentence Detention Declared:		166 days
Section 6AAA Statement:		5 years with a NPP of 3 years’ imprisonment
Other Relevant Orders: Disqualified from driving for 24 months in the State of Victoria from today’s date. OTH Order - NOTE: First Nations transgender woman with complex psychiatric conditions. Care should be taken with her custody management.

[2025] VCC 1192

20 August 2025