Director of Public Prosecutions v Carney
[2025] VCC 1259
•31 July 2025
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-25-00513
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| OAKLEE CARNEY |
---
JUDGE: | His Honour Judge Rozen | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 7 July 2025 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 31 July 2025 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Carney | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2025] VCC 1259 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Prohibited person possess firearm – Possess loaded firearm public place – Dangerous driving whilst pursued by police – Recklessly expose emergency worker to risk by driving – Driving offences – Objective gravity-low-mid-range – Mental health – Trauma – Criminal history – Guilty plea – Youth – Moral culpability – Low IQ analysis - Rehabilitation – General and specific deterrence – Denunciation – Community protection – Rehabilitation prospects-fair – Verdins principles.
Legislation Cited: Firearms Act 1996 (Vic); Crimes Act 1958 (Vic); Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic); Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic).
Cases Cited:Berichon v The Queen (2013) 40 VR 490; R v Mills [1998] 4 VR 235; Azzopardi v The Queen [2011] VSCA 372; R v ST [2025] VSC 227; Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102.
Sentence: Total Effective Sentence – 2 years and 11 months' imprisonment – Fined $500 - Non-parole period one year and eight months' – S 6AAA – 4 years' imprisonment – Non-parole period 2 years and 9 months' imprisonment.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Ms G Suhren | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Ms T McWilliam | Adrian Paull Criminal Lawyers |
HIS HONOUR:
1Oaklee Carney, you have pleaded guilty to the following offences:
(a) One charge of being a prohibited person possessing a firearm, contrary to section 5(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 (Vic) (‘Firearms Act’), which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment;
(b) One charge of possession of a loaded firearm in a public place, contrary to section 130(1)(a) of the Firearms Act, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment;
(c) One charge of dangerous driving whilst being pursued by police, contrary to section 319AAA(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) (‘Crimes Act’), which carries a maximum penalty of 3 years’ imprisonment; and
(d) One charge of recklessly exposing an emergency worker to risk by driving contrary to section 317AE(1) of the Crimes Act, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.
2You have also pleaded guilty to the following related summary offences:
(a) One charge of driving a motor vehicle whilst disqualified, contrary to section 30(1) of the Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic) (‘RSA’), which carries a maximum penalty of 240 penalty units or 2 years’ imprisonment;
(b) One charge of driving a motor vehicle with more than the prescribed concentration of drugs contrary to section 49(1)(bb) of the RSA, which carries a maximum penalty of a fine of not more than 60 penalty units; and
(c) One charge of dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime, contrary to section 195 of the Crimes Act, which carries a maximum penalty of 2 years’ imprisonment.
3You are to be sentenced on the basis of the Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea dated 9 June 2025, which I note is an agreed document.[1]
[1] Exhibit P1.
Circumstances of Offending
4Shortly after 5.38am on 5 April 2024, Sergeant Anthony Quirke, driving a marked police vehicle, observed a Mercedes sedan with the registration ‘D3MI’ travelling south on Byron Street in Williamstown North. The Mercedes vehicle, which you were driving, was suspected to be stolen (Summary Charge 31: Deal with property suspected to be proceeds of crime).
5The Mercedes sped south along Byron Street towards Kororoit Creek road. At the Kororoit Creek Road intersection, the Mercedes stopped due to through traffic and appeared to stall. Sergeant Quirke stopped about five metres behind the vehicle.
6Sergeant Quirke pulled around the Mercedes, stopping at a 45-degree angle across the front of it. The Mercedes then reversed and accelerated forward ramming Sergeant Quirke’s marked police vehicle. No police member was injured during the ramming. This impacted the front-right of the Mercedes, and the front-left of the police vehicle. The Mercedes then fled from the scene (Charge 4: Recklessly exposing an emergency worker to risk by driving).
7A short time later, Senior Constable Brendan Williams observed the same Mercedes travelling Geelong-bound on the Princes Freeway, near the Duncans Road exit. S/C Williams covertly followed the vehicle until the police airwing was overhead, observing the vehicle while it was driven through the Geelong area. The prosecution played part of the airwing footage at the plea hearing.
8At 7:41am on 5 April 2024, Leading Senior Constable Stephen Harper received information from the police air wing that the Mercedes was travelling slowly south along South Valley Road, Highton. L/S/C Harper accelerated south along South Valley Road towards Colac Road, where he observed the Mercedes.
9L/S/C Harper activated the red and blue lights on his marked police vehicle and attempted to manoeuvre the police vehicle in front of the Mercedes. The vehicle failed to stop and continued driving fast on Colac Road. L/S/C Harper continued to pursue the vehicle.
10Whilst pursuing the Mercedes vehicle, L/S/C Harper had his in-car ANPR video camera recording. The in-car video, which was also played in court, depicts the stolen vehicle driving erratically, failing to stop at red traffic signals and driving into oncoming traffic. It can then be seen failing to complete a right-hand turn at the intersection of Roslyn Road and Scenic Road, Highton and crashing into a keep left sign (Charge 3: Drive dangerously whilst pursued by police).
11You were the sole occupant of the vehicle. You got out of the car and ran towards the driveway of 2 Scenic Road, Highton. You attempted to jump the fence but were pulled from the fence by police members and arrested.
12Upon arrest, you were wearing a dark camouflage balaclava, gloves, an orange fluorescent tradie jumper and black track pants. Detective Senior Constable Emma Hocking seized an Apple iPhone located in the vicinity of your arrest.
13The Mercedes was searched and one loaded pump action .22 rifle was located on the rear seat (Charge 2: Possess loaded firearm in a public place). Later testing of the firearm confirmed it was capable of being discharged.
14At the time of this offending, you were disqualified from driving a motor vehicle. You had been disqualified for a period of 12 months from 11 October 2023 (Summary Charge 18: Drive whilst disqualified).
15You tested positive for methylamphetamine (Summary Charge 23: Drive with more than the prescribed concentration of drugs, namely methylamphetamine).
Arrest and Interview
16Upon arrest, your clothing was seized for the purpose of gunshot residue (‘GSR’) testing. Your hands were also bagged to allow for GSR testing. Particles on your hands, pants, gloves and balaclava were found to have GSR. The prosecution ultimately conceded that the court is unable to conclude to the criminal standard that you had fired a gun during the evening based on this evidence. I have therefore disregarded this aspect of the factual summary other than as part of the factual context.
17You were interviewed on 5 April 2024 at Geelong Police Station and gave a no comment record of interview.
Phone analysis
18Detective Senior Constable Sophie Templeton accessed the Apple iPhone that was seized, using a pin code based on your date of birth.
19The following recorded videos were observed on the phone:
(a) At 4.10am on 5 April 2024, you took a video of yourself in the passenger seat of a Lexus motor vehicle with a face covering, wearing a grey hooded jumper and nursing a firearm bag ‘Onko’ brand between your legs. You opened the bag and produced a rifle. You said, “what’s that” as you produced the firearm from the bag before pulling down the face covering exposing your face. The video depicts another male driving the vehicle (Charge 1: Prohibited person possess firearm). It is accepted by the prosecution that it cannot be said whether the firearm depicted in this video is different to the firearm later seized from the Mercedes vehicle. The prosecution did not contend that the firearm depicted in this video was loaded at the time.
(b) At 4.42am on 5 April 2024, you recorded a video of yourself walking around the front yard of a residential property. In the video, you stated:
(i)“Fucken dead set dogs, there should be a fucken deadest G6E turbo there, but someone has deadest thinks they can come and take it” – the video then pans to where vehicle was parked, with you stating “Oh they have smashed the window, fucken putrid ey”;
(ii)“You know what we say to that, strapped and loaded and ready to go get it back”; the video than pans back to rifle bag;
(c) At 5.00am on 5 April 2024, you recorded another video of yourself walking down a drive of a residential address, with a firearm bag over your shoulder. You said “If this is not red hot, I don’t know what is”. The video pans back to firearm bag and you said “I wonder what’s in there”.
Objective Gravity
20Charges 1 and 2 attract maximum penalties of 10 years’ imprisonment. This is an indication of the seriousness with which parliament views firearm-related offences.
21It is necessary to consider the charges separately as they charge different conduct at different times albeit during the course of one episode of offending.
22Charge 1 is concerned with possession of a firearm by a person who for one of a number of reasons is a ‘prohibited person’.[2]
[2] Firearms Act 1996 (Vic) s 3(1).
23As the Court of Appeal has explained the objective seriousness of the offence in a particular case will depend in part on whether the possession is associated with some ongoing criminal activity such as drug trafficking or violent offending. The second and more serious category is where the evidence establishes that the possession is for the purpose of some criminal activity.[3]
[3] Berichon v The Queen (2013) 40 VR 490, 7 [26] (‘Berichon’).
24Your case falls into the first, less serious, category. As the recording you made shows, you were in possession of a rifle which was in a firearm bag. You were showing off and seem to say that you will use the gun to retrieve some property. I cannot be satisfied to the criminal standard that the possession was associated with a particular criminal intent.
25Charge 2 relates to the loaded weapon found in the back of the Mercedes that you were driving. I am unable to determine whether this was the same or a different weapon to the one the subject of charge 1. The charge is concerned with where the weapon was possessed rather than the status of the possessor. For obvious reasons, the law wishes to dissuade people from having loaded firearms in public places (including motor vehicles). What makes this offending particularly concerning is the state of mind in which you were in at the time.
26Once again, I cannot conclude to the criminal standard that you had the firearm in your car for a particular criminal purpose although you clearly had no lawful purpose to have a loaded firearm in your possession. The offending therefore also falls into the first and less serious category identified in Berichon.
27Turning to the driving offences, and starting with charge 3, your driving as depicted on the police video recording was very dangerous. You went through at least one red light, drove at excessive speeds and drove on the wrong side of the road into oncoming traffic. You must have been aware that you were being pursued by police. This is a mid-range example of this offence.
28You were a disqualified driver at the time and had methylamphetamine in your blood.
29The offence of recklessly exposing an emergency worker to risk by driving is a serious criminal offence as the maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment demonstrates. In your case, I accept that the exposure to risk concerning Seargent Quirke was relatively low. He was in his vehicle at the time and you collided with the vehicle at quite a slow speed. This is a lower level example of this offence.
30In relation to the summary offence of dealing with property suspected to be the proceeds of crime, there is no information before the court about how you came to be driving the Mercedes. I accept that it was a valuable car.
Personal Circumstances
31Your lawyers arranged for you to be assessed for the purposes of the plea by a neuropsychologist, Dr Treeby and a psychologist, Ms Courtney Steffens. The reports prepared by Dr Treeby and Ms Steffens are before the court[4] and have informed this description of your personal circumstances.
[4] Neuropsychological Report written by Dr Matt Treeby dated 11 October 2021 ('Exhibit D2'); Psychological Report written by Courtney Steffens dated 23 June 2025 ('Exhibit D1').
32You were 23 years old at the time of the offending and are now aged 25.
33You have good, supportive relationships with your mother and sister. You have received weekly visits from them whilst in custody. You have also received visits from your former partner, and the son you share together, Tyler.
34You intend to live with your sister, who you consider to be a positive social influence, upon your eventual release from custody.
35You do not have a relationship with your father, who was imprisoned some years ago for sexual offences committed against your family.
36From early adolescence you gravitated towards anti-social, older peers. Your mother told Ms Steffens that you either rely on girlfriends or peers who are ‘not really his friend’. This means you have been exposed early to drug use and antisocial behaviour in the context of these relationships
37You left school at age 14 and have reported early substance use in adolescence. You have previously been employed as a roof tiler.
38You have completed a significant number of courses whilst in custody. You have completed all courses available to prisoners on remand and have completed one of the eight week courses twice as you found it beneficial.
39One of the many courses you have completed whilst in custody, is a Certificate 3 in Engineering and Boiler Making.
40Throughout your childhood, you endured traumatic events.
41In particular, when you were 17, you witnessed the death of a close friend who was hit by a four-wheel drive which left the scene. You developed Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (‘PTSD’) from this experience which escalated your substance abuse.
42In her report, Ms Steffens diagnoses you with Major Depressive Disorder and PTSD. Ms Steffens notes a history of neurocognitive vulnerabilities and adverse childhood experiences pre-disposing you to the development of these conditions
43Ms Steffens finds that these disorders would have been present and impacting at the time of the conduct giving rise to the current charges.
44You have reported multiple suicide attempts which have contributed to medical complications. A particularly severe incident was where you attempted suicide by hanging in January 2021 after the end of a relationship and loss of housing. You were found by your mother who performed CPR for 12 minutes until an ambulance arrived. You were on life-support for 10 days and had to re-learn to walk and talk. Dr Treeby finds that this resulted in a hypoxic brain injury and you have reported that this incident has affected your memory.
45In early 2024 prior to the present offending, you became severely depressed and highly suicidal after the breakdown of another relationship. On one occasion, you again attempted suicide by hanging, and your mother again provided CPR.
46You have a history of polysubstance addiction, particularly, alcohol and methamphetamine. You are currently on the methadone program in custody. You have reported that this has been beneficial and intend to continue this treatment after your eventual release from custody.
Criminal history
47You have a relevant prior criminal history dating back to 2017 when as a 17 year old, you faced the Geelong Children’s Court charged with aggravated carjacking and intentionally causing injury.
48You have admitted your relevant driving priors dating back to 2018, including the aggravated offence of recklessly exposing an emergency worker to risk by driving for which you were sentenced in March 2022 to 8 months’ imprisonment as the base sentence for a total effective sentence of 10 months’ imprisonment in combination with a CCO. You have contravened CCOs and have been imprisoned several times.
49This is the first time you are to be sentenced in this court and the current charges represent a very concerning escalation in what was already a significant history of offending.
50You do not, however, have a history of firearms offences. I will return to the relevance of this for sentencing.
Matters in mitigation
Guilty Pleas
51The most important mitigating matter is that you have pleaded guilty to the charges. Your pleas represent an acceptance of responsibility for your offending and some degree of remorse.
52The prosecution accepts that you offered to plead guilty at an early stage. Although the matter was listed for a contested committal hearing, that hearing did not proceed. A number of charges were withdrawn as part of the settlement of the case.
53Your plea has a significant utilitarian value. It saves court time and spares witnesses the anxiety and inconvenience of giving evidence at your trial.
54You are entitled to a significant sentencing discount to reflect your early pleas of guilty.
Youth
55As noted you are a young man albeit that you are not a ‘young offender’. You are now 25 and were 23 when the offences were committed. You have your entire life ahead of you.
56Youth is more than a merely chronological matter in sentencing. Ms Steffens observes that your ‘psychosocial maturity was already at a lower baseline compared to same-age peers due to [your] neurocognitive vulnerabilities’.[5]
[5] Exhibit D1 (n 4) 14 [112].
57In accordance with established judicial authority,[6] in sentencing a young offender a court should promote the offender’s rehabilitation to the extent possible having regard to other sentencing considerations. However, where the offending is particularly serious, the need to give effect to general deterrence may limit the extent to which this can be done.[7]
[6] R v Mills [1998] 4 VR 235.
[7] Azzopardi v The Queen [2011] VSCA 372 (‘Azzopardi’).
58I have taken into account your relative youth in setting both the head sentence and the non-parole period. I accept that there was a degree of impulsiveness associated with your offending and that much of your conduct on the night in question reflected your immaturity.[8]
[8] Cf. R v ST [2025] VSC 227, 31 [125].
Moral culpability
59Your counsel submitted in writing that, in light of your limited intellectual functioning, you are ‘not an appropriate vehicle for general deterrence’.[9] In her oral submissions, Ms McWilliam modified this position to some extent ultimately submitting that general deterrence should be moderated to some extent in your case.
[9] Exhibit D2 (n 4) 7 [45].
60The evidence before the court is that you have a full scale IQ of 82. Dr Treeby assessed you as falling into the Borderline to Low Average category of intellectual ability.[10] This is somewhat higher than the accepted cut-off for an intellectual disability which is a FSIQ of 70. In such cases, it is clear that moral culpability will be reduced.[11]
[10] Ibid 9 [55].
[11] Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120.
61Dr Treeby opined that, although you made a reasonably good cognitive recovery over time, you still present with some areas of cognitive impairment. In particular, you may ‘struggle to problem solve and apply logical reasoning when confronted with difficult situations or challenging interpersonal circumstances’.[12]
[12] Exhibit D2 (n 4) 12 [72].
62Ms Steffens reached similar conclusions.[13] On the question of whether your mental health conditions caused your offending, Ms Steffens considers that they did not. However, she opined that they are relevant ‘for understanding the impact of stressors at the time of the offending upon [your] functioning, emotion regulation and decision-making capacity’.[14]
[13] Exhibit D1 (n 4) 11 [95].
[14] Ibid 10 [92].
63I accept that your moral culpability is reduced to a modest extent by a combination of your deprived childhood[15] and your mental health conditions.
[15] Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571.
Rehabilitation prospects/Risk of Re-offending
64However, as is often the case these matters are also relevant to the court’s assessment of your risk of offending in the future. Both the experts assess you as a moderate to high risk of reoffending.[16] The risk factors for recidivism are your history of violence, substance use problems, personality traits and reduced ability to cope with stress. I accept Dr Treeby’s opinion that the risk may be reduced if your mental health and substance use problems are addressed. Stable accommodation will also be important.
[16] Exhibit D1 (n 4) 13 [104]; Exhibit D2 (n 4) 14 [81].
65Family support is always an important consideration in any assessment of rehabilitation prospects. The court has received letters of support from your sister Ms Chynna-rose Leamer and Ms Sophie Higham your ex-partner and the mother of your seven year old Son Tyler.
66Your sister is prepared to have you live with her on your release and refers to your remorse for your offending. She says you show signs of ‘real change’.
67Ms Higham refers to the strong support system available to you. She believes that the sone you share provides you with motivation to change and has seen genuine change in your attitude and mindset in recent times.
68On balance I assess your prospects of rehabilitation as fair. You have ongoing family support and you have demonstrated that you are willing to maximise your future employment prospects by completing a number of courses in custody.
Submissions
69Both the prosecution and your counsel submitted that the only appropriate sentence is a head sentence and a non-parole period. I accept this.
70In comprehensive and helpful written submissions, your counsel Ms McWilliam submitted that the principle of general deterrence should be moderated having regard to your relative youth and immaturity as well as on account of your childhood trauma.[17]
[17] Defence Submissions on Plea dated 3 July 2025, 10 [62] (‘Defence Submissions’).
71Ms McWilliam also submitted that Verdins limbs 5 and 6 are enlivened in your case based on the report of Ms Steffens.[18]
[18] Ibid 7 [41]-[44].
72I accept that limb 5 is applicable. Ms Steffens opines that ‘as a result of his conditions, imprisonment would likely weigh more heavily upon Mr Carney than someone without his conditions’.[19] I have moderated the sentence accordingly.
[19] Exhibit D1 (n 4) 14 [112].
73The position with limb 6 is less clear. Ms Steffens considers that ‘the volatile nature of the prison environment can exacerbate the symptom profile as well as increasing the risk of entrenched symptoms’.[20] This falls short of the requirement that there be a ‘serious risk of imprisonment having a significant adverse effect on the offender’s mental health’.[21] I do not accept that limb 6 is enlivened.
[20] Ibid 14 [113] (emphasis added).
[21] R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102, 10 [32].
Consideration
74Yours was a very concerning criminal spree that lasted several hours on 5 April 2024. You endangered the safety of one police officer who was merely doing his job as well as numerous road users. It is fortunate that no one was hurt by your conduct.
75The principal sentencing considerations are general deterrence, denunciation and community protection. It is also necessary to deter you from further offending especially in relation to driving in light of your prior history.
76As noted earlier, you have a concerning criminal history for one so young particularly in relation to driving offences. Your historical conduct, including breaching four CCOs, has demonstrated a concerning lack of respect for the law. The current offending represented a very worrying escalation in your offending bringing you before the County Court for the first time.
77As discussed earlier the two firearms offences fall into the less serious category as identified by the Court of Appeal in Berichon. In that case, the Court stated that, in such a case and in the absence of a criminal history of firearms offending, sentences of less than two years will generally be appropriate.[22]
[22] Berichon (n 3) 9 [31].
78The seriousness of your offending must be considered in light of your troubled personal history, your mental health challenges and your relative youth. Each of these must be reflected in the sentence imposed.
79As the community is best protected by your rehabilitation, I have sought to maximise your prospects in the setting of the non-parole period to provide for a period of supervision once you are released.
80The overall sentence must reflect the criminality as a whole with appropriate orders for concurrency and cumulation in accordance with the principle of totality. There is a presumption of concurrency under the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) (‘Sentencing Act’).[23] However, the sentence imposed in relation to charge 4 must be served cumulatively on the other sentences unless otherwise directed.[24]
[23] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 16(1) (‘Sentencing Act’).
[24] Ibid s 16(3D).
Orders
81Having regard to the maximum penalties specified and all relevant sentencing considerations discussed earlier, the court makes the following orders:
(a) On Charge 1 – being a prohibited person possessing a firearm, you are convicted and sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment;
(b) On Charge 2 – possession of a loaded firearm in a public place, you are convicted and sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment;
(c) On Charge 3 – dangerous driving whilst being pursued by police, you are convicted and sentenced to 9 months’ imprisonment;
(d) On Charge 4 – recklessly exposing an emergency worker to risk by driving you are convicted and sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment;
(e) On related summary charge 18 – driving a motor vehicle whilst disqualified, you are convicted and sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment;
(f) On related summary charge 23 – driving a motor vehicle with more than the prescribed concentration of drugs you are fined $500; and
(g) On related summary charge 31 – dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime, you are convicted and sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment
82The sentence imposed in respect of charge 2 is the base sentence. Four months of the sentence on charge 1; three months of the sentence on charge 3; 6 months of the sentence on charge 4 and 1 month of the sentence on summary charge 31 are to be served cumulatively on the base sentence and on each other. The remaining sentences are to be served wholly concurrently.
83The total effective sentence is therefore 2 years and 11 months’ imprisonment plus a fine of $500.
84You will be eligible for parole after you have served one year and 8 months in custody.
85Pursuant to section 18 of the Sentencing Act, the period of 482 days is to be recognised as time served in respect of the sentences imposed today.
86Pursuant to section 6AAA of the Sentencing Act, but for your pleas of guilty, the head sentence would have been 4 years’ imprisonment and the non-parole period would have been 2 years and 9 months’.
87As this is a subsequent offence against section 49(1)(bb) of the Road Safety Act, I cancel your driving licences and disqualify you from obtaining a licence for the minimum period of 12 months.[25]
[25] Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic) s 50(1E)(b).
88In light of that order, I have not found it necessary to make a further order under section 28 of the Road Safety Act although one was sought by the prosecution.
89Finally, I make the disposal and forfeiture orders sought noting they are not opposed.
0
8
0