Director of Public Prosecutions v Bartolo

[2025] VCC 756

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

CR -24-00263

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

DYLAN BARTOLO

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE HIGHAM
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	15 April 2025
DATE OF SENTENCE:	6 June 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Bartolo
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VCC 756

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:	CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords:	Sentence – Two charges of Misconduct in Public Office – Two Vulnerable Complainants – Taking Advantage of Position of Authority - Victorian Police Officer – No Prior Criminal History – Good Prospects of Rehabilitation - Plea of Guilty – Community Corrections Order
Legislation Cited:	Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic)
Sentence:	18 Month Community Corrections Order and a Three Year Community Corrections Order

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Ms E. Washington	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr L. Brown

HIS HONOUR: 

1Dylan Bartolo, you have pleaded guilty to two charges of misconduct in a public office, for each of which the maximum penalty is a term of imprisonment of 10 years. The particulars of the misconduct were that during the course of your employment as a sworn member of Victoria Police you used information and/or knowledge obtained in that office to pursue and engage in a personal intimate relationship with Ms Georgina Mink[1] (Charge 1), and Ms Makayla Dent[2] (Charge 2), both vulnerable members of the community whom you had met during your employment as a Victorian police officer.

[1] A pseudonym.

[2] A pseudonym.

2Exhibit 1 on the plea hearing was a summary of prosecution opening which set out the agreed facts of your offending.  In brief the circumstances were as follows:

3During the period of your offending, you were a probationary constable. You performed various frontline duties at multiple locations in greater Melbourne.

4Charge 1 involved your interactions with Ms Georgina Mink from April 2017 to December 2017 and Charge 2 involved your interactions with Makayla Dent from October 2017 to March 2018. You were the first officer to meet and speak to the victims upon their arrival at the police station, taking their statements. Both victims were distraught upon their arrival. Both your victims were complainants in family violence matters, and Ms Mink had initially reported being the victim of a road rage incident.  This information was disclosed by both women to you in your role as a police officer.

5After the initial interaction you continued to maintain contact with each victim which over time grew to regular and sometimes daily contact. You would message the victims using your private phone, via calls, text messages, Snapchat, and emails, often with a flirtatious undertone. These communications went far beyond what would be expected in your professional capacity as a police officer.  On occasions you arranged to meet with your victims in a personal capacity despite them initially expecting to meet with you in your professional capacity.

6You asked various intrusive questions about your victims’ personal lives, relationships, employment and sexual preferences. They variously disclosed to you further experience of serious family violence, sexual abuse and mental illness. For example, in relation to Ms Mink, you offered to assist after her further disclosures of sexual abuse and family violence, stating that you 'had avenues'. However, these complaints, contrary to your expressions of concern, were not in fact either recorded or actioned by you in any way.

7You shared personal stories and information about your then partner and her mental health issues following the birth of your daughter. You made your victims feel as if you were going above and beyond the call of duty, and they came to feel reliant upon you. You complimented them and made them feel wanted and safe at a time when they struggled with their self-esteem, when they were vulnerable and when they were in need of professional, and crucially, disinterested support.

8One on occasion you gave Ms Mink a 14-page document that could only be described as a love letter. On another occasion you stated you would take Ms Dent out on a date after convincing her to make a third statement when she had initially retracted her earlier statement.

9Regarding both victims, you were the one who drove the interactions towards intimacy. You formed intimate personal relations with both women which included multiple instances of sexual intimacy.  I stress, there is no suggestion that the sexual interactions were not consensual as understood by law.

10Importantly, during this period and in relation to both your victims, you continued to have an investigative role. Despite telling Ms Dent that someone more senior would take over the investigation, this never occurred. At no time did you disclose your ongoing contact with these witnesses to any other investigating officer or record them on the relevant investigation logs. On one occasion, at your instigation and prior to a court date, you discussed how you and Ms Dent should conduct yourselves at court. You told Ms Dent that she would either have to drop her family violence proceedings against her abuser or else would have to pretend not to know you when you appeared at court. This clearly, and beyond doubt, demonstrates your knowledge that what you were doing was wrong. It also provides a clear example of the manner in which your conduct undermined the due administration of justice.

11Following a complaint being made about your conduct you were suspended from duty in April 2019. You were formally interviewed on 1 August 2019 and made 'no comment', as was of course your right. You were not charged with these matters until 17 July 2023 and no sufficient explanation has been provided for this inordinate delay. You resigned from the Police Force in October 2023.

12The matter was committed to the County Court on 21 February 2024 following a contested committal. A plea of guilty was entered on 15 April 2025 after a sentence indication hearing.  On that day I indicated my intention, should you plead guilty, to deal with you by means of a suitably tailored community corrections order and I ordered that you be assessed.

13Exhibit 19 was a victim impact statement from Ms Mink in which she speaks of her abiding and deep sense of shame and embarrassment and regret, and the toll that the case has had on her.  She writes:

‘The uncertainty, the waiting and the fear of revisiting everything has been exhausting, making me question myself, my decision and even my ability to move forward. When I was experiencing family violence, I spoke to Dylan about it but when I realised my relationship with Dylan was wrong, going to the police never even crossed my mind. The trust and faith I had in the system were already broken because of him.’

14Exhibit 2 was a victim impact statement from Ms Dent.  She writes of:

‘The feeling of being used and ashamed has been overwhelming at times, making it difficult for me to form healthy relationships or even look at myself in the mirror.’

15Now, whilst of course the victim impact statements must not be permitted to overwhelm the sentencing process, there can be no doubt of the significant and traumatic impact of your offending upon those two victims.

Personal circumstances

16You were born in September 1992 to parents of Maltese heritage, one of a sibship of two. You are now 32 years of age and were 24 and 25 at the time of this offending. You grew up in Ardeer and were raised in the Catholic faith. Both your parents have careers in the disability sector. You and your sister both volunteered from a young age in the organisations and endeavours in which your parents were employed. On your plea I was provided with documents of your various volunteer work in the community - Exhibits 9,10,11 and 14DB. They clearly paint a picture of an engaged and apparently public-spirited young man.

17Your childhood was unremarkable. You attended local Catholic schools and graduated from the Australian Catholic University in 2014 with a degree in primary education and you immediately took up a post as a primary school teacher.

18In 2016 you started employment with VicPol, graduating from the Police Academy in November of that year and began duties at Melton police station. In January 2017 your daughter was born to you and your then fiancée. Sadly, shortly thereafter your fiancé experienced depression leading to her admission into an acute unit. Until she regained her good health you were juggling full-time care for your daughter, visiting your partner in hospital as well as your professional obligations. I accept this was a very challenging time for you. After securing more time off work you moved in with your parents who provided much needed assistance. You and your former partner now share parenting of your daughter. I note that this time of crisis in your personal life coincide with the offending period.

19You currently live with your current fiancé, her two children and, when she is in your care, your daughter. You met your fiancée some six years ago and she has her own thriving career.

20Since your resignation from VicPol, you have worked as an investigator for Greyhound Racing Victoria, and with your partner you have set up a process serving business.  I am told you wish to pursue obtaining a private investigator’s licence.  You clearly demonstrate an admirable work ethic and have continued to set goals for yourself and your family’s future. You appear to be a man whose faith means much to them. I was not told during the plea how you reconciled that faith with the predatory sexual pursuit that underpins these charges.

21Of this offending you told the assessing Corrections officer that you were:

‘Motivated by a sense of excitement with being involved by the victims. He found a sense of commonality with victim Ms [Mink] due to her experience working in mental health and his experience with his former partner experiencing mental health conditions. He felt a sense of attention with his interactions with victim [Dent].’

22Concernedly, when questioned on the ethics of his actions, he reported that he had checked with the supervisor in Vic Pol at the time and he, being you:

'did not think that what they were doing was criminal'.

23What is perhaps absent in that brief assessment is any indication of a candid self-reflection on your part, or insight into what lay behind your offending.  I also cannot conceive that any responsible supervising VicPol officer, even in 2017, would have sanctioned your behaviour.

Objective Gravity

24Mr Bartolo, every functioning democracy has, as part of its social contract with its citizens, law enforcement agencies which exercise powers of surveillance, search, entry, detention, arrest, on behalf of the community. In that social contract the citizens surrender part of their rights to law enforcement agencies and accept proportionate restrictions upon their liberties. They do so in the confident belief that those who are sworn officers of law enforcement agencies will act in accordance with their office.

25VicPol is one such law enforcement agency.  A sworn officer of VicPol has powers invested in them which allow them access to areas where others are not permitted, access not merely to physical places but also to personal details. In the exercise of their duties, officers may gain knowledge, amongst other things, of a citizen’s family dynamics, mental health, relationship history, their vulnerabilities and personal struggles.

26An officer’s position is ripe for misuse and abuse.  Due exercise of the office demands a firm understanding of, and adherence to, the separation of personal interest from professional interests. The advancement of personal interests in the office undermines the administration of justice and is an offence against the community at large.

27Both complainants came to you in your professional capacity. Both were particularly vulnerable having been exposed to threats and use of family violence. Both placed their trust in you and looked for refuge and assistance.  They were not seeking an intimate connection.Your communications and interactions were persistent, and they were improper. Your professional obligations towards both these women were, quite simply, abandoned.

28There is another aspect of considerable concern.  Respectful and healthy intimate relationships must always start from a position of mutuality and equality. The pursuit of an intimate relationship by a sworn officer with a member of the public who is a victim of crime or a victim of family violence, and who has come into contact with that officer in the course of the exercise of that officer’s duty, must put into question those very features of equality and mutuality.

29The victim impact statements both make plain the lasting sense of exploitation and disadvantage in your victims, their sense that their consent, whilst I emphasise freely given in a legal sense, was somehow compromised.

30What is plain is that you drove and manipulated your contact with both complainants. I am quite satisfied that you knowingly and criminally abandoned professional boundaries in pursuit of your own sexual interests and desires. You took advantage of your position and your victims' vulnerability. Your intimate relations with these vulnerable women were as a direct result of your position of authority as a police officer. Your actions were not compatible with the proper discharge of the responsibilities of a sworn officer.

31By your pleas of guilty you admit that your interactions amounted to misconduct that derogated from, and was incompatible with, the public office that you held, and further, that you accept that the misconduct was serious in nature and merited criminal punishment.

32Mr Bartolo, the sentencing process is not about revenge; it is not about retribution. In sentencing you, I must have regard to a range of different factors. I must consider the need to protect the community from you, I must give effect to principles of both general and specific deterrence, I must deter others from behaving as you did, and I must deter you from any repeat of such behaviour. I must express the community’s denunciation of your conduct, I must take into account the effect that your crimes have had upon your victims, and I must have regard to both current sentencing practices and the maximum penalties for the kind of offence that you have committed. I should also promote, if possible, your rehabilitation.  In short, the task is to try and balance your personal circumstances with the circumstances of your offending as I find them to be.  It is also the duty of the court to impose no longer a sentence than is necessary in all the circumstances. 

33General deterrence is the primary sentencing purpose in this case. The community would expect that those whose emergencies or vulnerabilities lead them into contact with police officers are not liable to be being pursued in the intimate world. A clear message needs to be sent to the community at large, and I find a clear message needs to be sent to VicPol members in particular. Such behaviour constitutes a gross breach of the trust that the community has placed in you, and those who come before the courts for such offending can expect to lose their liberty. Denunciation must also have a prominent role. There is also a need for specific deterrence, although I accept somewhat moderated in your case.

34I have had regard to all the matters urged upon me by your counsel.

35I have particular regard to your plea of guilty. Although not an early plea, entered at the conclusion of a sentence indication hearing, it must be recognised for bringing with it the utilitarian benefit of saving the community the time and expense of a trial, and in particular saving your victims from the trauma of giving evidence. I note that it was agreed by counsel, in the course of the sentence indication hearing, that both victims would have had to give evidence in open court. So having regard to that matter I accept that your plea brings particular value.

36Your plea was not relied upon as an indication of your remorse by your counsel, and in my view correctly so.

37I have regard to the delay in this matter between your formal record of interview in 2019 and being charged in 2023.  No acceptable explanation has been provided to the court for the delay, and I do accept that therefore this matter and its uncertainty has been hanging over you.

38I have regard to your prospects for rehabilitation which, provided you engage in meaningful treatment, may be viewed in the best possible light.

39You demonstrate a strong work ethic, you have gained meaningful employment, you have the support of your current co-workers and manager (Exhibits 11 to 13).

40You are now in a new long-term relationship, and you co-parent your daughter as well as your partner's children and you have strong familial support (Exhibits 14 and 15)

41I give what weight I can to the personal crises with which you were dealing at the time of this offending.  It was not suggested that this was in any way either a cause, let alone an excuse, for the offending

42I accept that you were at all times a probationary officer and were relatively young.

43In the course of the plea hearings, I was informed that there was nothing in the Victorian Police manual that sought to forbid nor to suggest that sexual contact with complainants was not to be pursued.  However, I was told that a prohibition now does find a place in the VicPol's manual, but under the heading of conflict of interests.

44I accept you are unlikely to offend again. However, I believe you lack insight into the causes of your offending. You require therapeutic intervention, and that therapeutic intervention is best provided in the community.

45I am thus satisfied that all relevant sentencing purposes can be addressed by a disposition that does not require you to lose your liberty, as I indicated after the sentence indication hearing.

46If you would be so good as to stand up, Mr Bartolo.

Sentence

47On Charge 1 you are convicted, and placed upon a community corrections order of 18 months' duration.  The conditions will be 75 hours of unpaid community work and that you be supervised.

48On Charge 2 you are convicted and sentenced to a community corrections order of three years' duration and there will be conditions of 175 hours community work and a condition of mental health treatment as well as a condition of supervision.

49I am going to direct that 20 hours of the treatment can be counted against the community work. 

50Those two orders will run concurrently.  I am going to sign those orders.

51Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), this Court states that but for the your plea of guilty, a total effective sentence of 16 months imprisonment would have been imposed.

52Hopefully, the culture in Victoria Police has changed.  Hopefully, no officer would even contemplate embarking upon a sexual relationship, or an intimate relationship, with any member of the public, any complainant whom they encounter in the course of their duties.  I would be grateful if those words are carried outside of this courtroom.  It is 2025, not 1985.

53HIS HONOUR:  Thank you very much, I will stand down.  Good afternoon to you all.

‑ ‑ ‑