Director of Public Prosecutions v Eydems
[2025] VCC 1721
•21 November 2025
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-24-01401
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| JOSEPH EYDEMS |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE DOYLE | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 13 October 2025 and 7 November 2025 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 21 November 2025 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Eydems | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2025] VCC 1721 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence
Catchwords: Guilty plea – Burglary – Theft - Theft of three firearms - Prohibited person possessing a firearm – Indictment contained two other co-offenders - Acquired brain injury - Modest reduction of general deterrence – Bugmy enlivened - Verdins not satisfied – Totality.
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic); Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
Cases Cited:Burke v The King [2023] VSCA 233; Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571; R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269.
Sentence: Total effective sentence of four years and three months’ imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of two years and 10 months.
6 AAA: Five years and five months with a minimum non-parole period of four years.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Ms S. Thomas | Solicitor for Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Ms M. Greener | Hofman Carroll Criminal Law |
HIS HONOUR:
1Joseph Eydems, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of burglary, one charge of theft, one charge of theft of firearms (a rolled-up charge relating to three firearms) and one charge of prohibited person possessing a firearm. By reason of your prior convictions, you are a prohibited person. The maximum penalties are as follows:
(a) burglary – 10 years' imprisonment;
(b) theft – 10 years' imprisonment;
(c) theft of a firearm – 15 years' imprisonment;
(d) prohibited person possessing a firearm – 10 years' imprisonment.
2The indictment in this matter contained charges against two other offenders, Timothy Paul and Diesel Handley. I sentenced them some time ago now. The charges against them were quite different to the charges for which you are to be sentenced. Perhaps Paul was the most analogous. He faced an offence of possessing a trafficable quantity of firearms, and I will return to that. Mr Handley pleaded to a reckless injury which was a separate incident.
3You were 29 years old at the time of these offences. You were living at Dunn Street, Warragul, with your partner, Tanisha Rose, and others.
4In relation to the burglary and theft charges, there was a co-offender Joshua Gilbert, who later made a statement in relation to these matters and would have been a witness in the trial against you. In fact, he gave evidence on a 198B hearing before these matters resolved. He was sentenced by Judge Dempsey to a Community Correction Order. I have read Judge Dempsey's sentencing remarks. He received a substantial sentencing discount for cooperation. Mr Gilbert was a drug user, and he was known to you.
5There was a further offender involved named Michael Smith, who lived in Warragul, whom you knew as well.
6Around midnight on 26 October 2022, Gilbert committed a burglary on his grandmother's house. At that address, he knew that his uncle, John Richardson, had stored three firearms and 5 kilograms of silver bullion in a safe. The silver bullion was worth approximately $5,000.
7On the afternoon of 26 October 2022, Gilbert met an associate who supplied him with gloves and a beanie to commit the burglary which was motivated to obtain money to purchase drugs. He drove to Dunn Street, Warragul and contacted you by phone. You came out to him and gave him methylamphetamine to use. He then left in his vehicle.
8A phone download of your phone shows contact between you and Gilbert on Snapchat, including a message from him at 6.13 pm where he said, 'I'm almost back down your way'.
9Gilbert sent a message to his grandmother, Louise Ryan, who lived in the burgled premises, at about 8.28 pm, asking if she was in the Warragul area. He then drove to her address at 2 Amber Court, Drouin. He told a neighbour he was looking for his grandmother. Ryan arrived home at around this time and drove into her garage, which is attached to the house with access via a connecting door.
10Mr Gilbert spoke to Ryan at her property for about 10 minutes and he saw Richardson's firearms safe in the garage.
11He called you and he said he knew where to get guns but would need help moving the safe. You agreed to help when you were needed.
12Some hours later, Gilbert drove back to his grandmother's home and parked nearby.
13The download of your phone shows that you and Gilbert were communicating using Snapchat. The communication included messages and voice calls, including the following:
(a) a message from Gilbert's phone, read by you, which read 'Gunns have $500';
(b) Gilbert attempted to call you on Snapchat at 9:00 pm; and
(c) A further message at 9.45 pm from Gilbert's phone, read by you at 9.46 pm, which read 'my nans house (she doesn't know)'.
14The prosecution case, which I accept, is that these messages were about obtaining firearms and the burglary at Ryan's home.
15At approximately 10.35 pm, you read messages sent from Gilbert's phone which said, 'on my way', and then 'I'm here'.
16When Gilbert arrived at 2 Amber Court, Drouin, he put on the gloves and the beanie that he had collected earlier. He took two screwdrivers and a torch and entered the garden at 2 Amber Court, Drouin, by jumping the fence from a vacant block.
17He removed the lock with the screwdrivers and entered the garage. He knew his grandmother was asleep inside the house.
18He tried to pry the safe off the wall using a crowbar stored in the shed. He was not successful, so he left the garage and climbed back over the fence. He contacted you for help.
19You and Michael Smith attended. You told your partner, Tanisha Rose, that you and Smith were 'giving Josh a hand to get rid of some guns'. You and Gilbert then both entered the property by jumping the fence from the vacant block. You were wearing a beanie and gloves. Smith remained in the BMW vehicle.
20Gilbert entered the garage and used crowbars to remove the safe. The prosecution does not allege you entered the garage. Your involvement in the burglary and theft is based on complicity pursuant to an agreement, arrangement or understanding.
21Once Gilbert had removed the safe from the wall, he left the garage. The safe was lifted over a fence into the vacant block at 24 Walker Court, Drouin with you helping. You both then left the premises by jumping the fence.
22Smith kept a lookout while you and Gilbert were in the premises.
23The firearm safe was loaded onto the rear tray of Gilbert's Nissan Patrol Ute. The entry into the premises and the theft is the subject of Charges 1, 2 and 3, the burglary, the theft of the silver bullion, and the theft of the firearms.
24You left in the BMW, with Smith and Gilbert leaving in the Nissan. You headed along Buln Buln Road in the direction of Drouin East, with Gilbert following with the safe on the rear tray of his vehicle. At the time the safe was removed, it contained:
(a) $5,000 of silver bullion, made up of five bars;
(b) Enfield MK3 303 rifle, with an attached bayonet – that was an antique rifle;
(c) Sturm Ruger .300 Winchester;
(d) Stirling Model 14 .22 Rimfire.
It is those three firearms that are the basis of a rolled-up charge of theft of firearms.
25There were further Snapchat communications between you and Gilbert.
26You and Gilbert disposed of the safe and then drove towards Mulgrave. You told Gilbert you would meet someone in Mulgrave who would purchase the firearms, and you would split the proceeds.
27You contacted Timothy Paul, the co-offender, on 26 October on various occasions and on 27 October between 2.09 am and 2.18 am.
28These phone calls related to the sale of the stolen firearms.
29Shortly after 2:30 am, you, Mr Gilbert and Mr Smith arrived at the Blythe Place Mulgrave address and entered the shed. There you introduced Mr Gilbert and Mr Smith to Mr Paul, and they carried the firearms into the shed. Paul picked up one of the firearms and handled it.
30He then messaged a contact known as 'Pops' and asked if he could 'can you come past mine?' Shortly after, this man arrived at Blythe Place and negotiated a price of $3,500 for the Enfield rifle. He left approximately five minutes later, leaving his details. He was a collector.
31This address was where the other offender Diesel Handley lived and at 3.25 am, police arrived to conduct a bail check in relation to Mr Handley. Mr Smith and Mr Gilbert packed up the firearms and left via the side door of the shed and then over the fence.
32When police arrived, they saw the black BMW sedan which belonged to you.
33Paul later sent another message to another contact which said, 'don't go to mine' and 'cops are there'.
34You ran away with Paul, Smith and Gilbert for about 300 metres before Paul turned back towards the Mulgrave address. You later returned to your vehicle and Smith remained with the firearms at a nearby construction site.
35Gilbert made his way back to Blythe Place, but no one was there, and he began walking along the road. Paul picked him up and then they went back to the shed. Paul became aggressive towards Gilbert and asked if he had taken anything from the house.
36You and Smith returned to the shed whereby this time Paul and Mr Handley were accusing Gilbert of stealing. Paul and Handley assaulted Gilbert, and they pleaded guilty to recklessly causing injury in relation to Mr Gilbert.
37Later, you and Mr Smith took Mr Gilbert to the Dandenong Hospital and dropped him out the front at 6.45 am. He had a large laceration to the left side of the back of his head which was bleeding, and he had a laceration inside his upper lip.
38Mr Richardson, the owner of the guns and the silver bullion and Mr Gilbert's uncle, later became aware that Gilbert was in hospital, and he went to the Dandenong Hospital and questioned Gilbert about the thefts and where the guns were. Gilbert told Richardson you had been involved. As I said earlier, he later made a statement, and he would have given this evidence at a trial.
39You retained possession of the firearms, and you later sold two of them to a man named Nick Ward. That sale was witnessed by your partner Tanisha who later made a statement to the police as well. She gave evidence at a 198B hearing and resiled from her statement, but she was cross-examined by the prosecutor and in the end, I was satisfied that what she said in the statement was accurate, which is consistent with your ultimate plea of guilty. The stock and the bolt of the Enfield firearm were recovered by police after the firearm was used in an incident in Warragul on 23 June 2023. Mr Ward, to whom you sold the guns, was charged with offences arising out of that incident. The other firearms are yet to be located and presumably remain in the community.
40On 20 November 2022, you contacted a man named Grant Fraser, the general manager of a company which operates a business, 'EziCash'. You sent him an email from your email address enquiring about selling 1 kilogram of silver bullion. You were told you had to attend the store in person which eventually you did on 23 November, and you traded a single bar of the silver bullion for $990 in cash.
41You produced an identification and your driver's licence. That bar was one of the five stolen in the burglary. I do not understand the others to have been recovered.
42The others were interviewed before you. You were not interviewed about these offences until 22 March 2023, by which time you were serving a sentence for other offences. You told police you did not know anything about the offending in this matter.
Guilty plea
43You pleaded guilty in this matter at almost the last opportunity, on the day the matter was listed for a jury empanelment and after some witnesses had been cross‑examined on 198B applications. The lateness of the plea limits its utilitarian value, but the trial would have taken at least another week of the Court's time, and therefore you did save the Court, the prosecution and the police the use of the resources required for a trial. You also spared the witnesses the experience of having to give evidence in front a of a jury, particularly Mr Gilbert. It would have been a difficult situation for him, giving evidence in a proceeding such as this although he did have to give evidence on the 198B hearing. There is therefore utilitarian value in your plea which I have taken into account, and you must receive a discount in sentencing for your plea, although it was very late. I am not satisfied your guilty plea indicates any real remorse for the offending in this case. Rather it seems to me to have reflected the strength of the prosecution case.
Gravity
44There are obviously several serious aspects of this offending.
45You were complicit in a planned home burglary where the property targeted included firearms which you intended to sell. The silver bullion stolen was also valuable. A residential burglary and theft are always serious offences. They involve a violation of the occupants right to security in their home including security of their property, which in this case was stored in a safe so it took some considerable effort to pry that safe off the wall and organisation, although I do not overrate the sophistication of the offence.
46The purpose of the theft and the possession of the guns was to facilitate their distribution into the community for profit. The offence of theft of a firearm carries an increased maximum penalty compared to an ordinary theft. This reflects the seriousness of that offence based on the connection between stolen firearms and the illegal market for guns. Firearms pose inherent danger to the community via their use in serious criminal offences. The risks to the community from illegal sale of guns are obvious and are illustrated by the use of a gun you disposed of in an incident in Warragul. Disturbingly, the other two firearms remain in the community.
47In the case of Burke v The King[1] the Court of Appeal said, ‘of particular concern in relation to the theft of firearms is the fact that these thefts can increase the illegitimate flow of firearms in the community and lead to very serious criminal activity'. They described in that case a sentence of 18 months on the charge of theft of firearms as modest, being 10 per cent of the maximum penalty for that offence, bearing in mind that the offending in that case involved the theft of three firearms now circulating in the community. There are obvious parallels between the description of the theft of firearm in that case and this case.
[1][2023] VSCA 233 (25 September 2023)
48Although your possession of the firearms was for a criminal purpose, namely their distribution for profit, so too was the theft of the firearms and there is overlapping criminality therefore between the burglary and theft of a firearm and the prohibited person charge, and I need to be careful to avoid double punishment.
49Possession of a firearm by a prohibited person for a criminal purpose is a serious offence and your status as a prohibited person in possession must be reflected by some cumulation. I have not taken that status into account as an aggravating feature of the theft of firearms which involved possession of those firearms but as I have observed common to both offences is that the possession was for the purpose of selling the firearms for profit.
50You were on bail for serious driving offences at the time you committed this offending. You had been arraigned, and you pleaded guilty before Judge Lauritsen in early October 2022, and the matter had been adjourned and listed for plea at the County Court in February 2023. The fact that you were on bail is an aggravating factor and further, pursuant to the Sentencing Act, the ordinary presumption of concurrency of sentences is reversed, and sentences are to be cumulative unless otherwise ordered.
51You have a lengthy and relevant criminal history for all types of offences including drug offences, dishonesty offences and contravening community correction orders. You have received previous and subsequent prison sentences.
52Judge Lauritsen sentenced you to 13 months' imprisonment on 13 February 2023, most of which was covered by pre-sentence detention. Those offences were committed in 2020. In March 2023, you received a sentence of four months combined with a Community Correction Order of 12 months for driving offences, dishonesty offences and an offence of possessing an imitation firearm.
53On 26 August 2025, you were sentenced in the Latrobe Valley Magistrates' Court for offending that occurred, on my reading of the consolidation sheet, largely in 2024 and 2025. You were sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment combined with a 12-month community correction order. The consolidation sheet from the Magistrates' Court lists the offenses for which you were sentenced. Those offences included an offence against Mr Gilbert because he had become a witness against you in this proceeding. All the offences occurred while you had these matters pending and you were on bail for these matters from 20 August 2024 when you were committed for trial. You had previously been on summons. For that Magistrates' Court sentence, pre-sentence detention of 224 days was reckoned as time served on the sentence imposed, and you were due for release on that sentence early next year.
54Your counsel, Ms Greener, submitted that the totality principle applies to the time you have served in prison in the years since these offences were committed. You have no pre-sentence detention available for this offence because you were charged on summons and then bailed at the committal. You remained on bail until I remanded you in custody after you pleaded guilty. All the time you have been in custody has been credited to other sentences.
55In my opinion, the totality principle has limited application to the sentences you have served since this offending. The offences for which you have been sentenced subsequently are entirely separate events. For example, the offences for which Judge Lauritsen sentenced you occurred in 2020, over two years prior to these offences and you were on bail for those matters when you committed the offences in this case. The offending in 2024 and 2025 also involved events which took place when you had these matters pending. And as I have said now twice, you were on bail from 20 August 2024.
56Of course, I do not ignore the periods you have spent in prison in formulating the sentence for these matters and although some moderation of the sentences is appropriate the totality principle is of limited significance as it relates to your subsequent sentences. That said, I intend to impose a prison sentence that will run concurrent with the balance of the Magistrates' Court sentence that you are presently serving, and I do so in recognition of the totality principle.
57Whilst you are not to be punished again for your criminal history, it is relevant to the assessment of your moral culpability. You are an experienced offender. You knew what you were doing and the consequences of your criminal activity.
58Your criminal history is also relevant to the assessment of your prospects of rehabilitation, which I find to be poor to guarded at best. Furthermore, because of your lengthy criminal history and the gravity of these offences, specific deterrence, that is the need to send a message to you that continued offending will result in significant punishment, must be given emphasis in sentencing, and community protection must also be given emphasis having regard to your constant offending including offending whilst on bail.
Personal Circumstances
59You are 32 years old. You are a First Nations man through your father. You were born and raised in Warragul. Your parents separated when you were 12 years old. You were looked after by your mother.
60You describe an upbringing characterised by instability, family violence and parental substance abuse. You describe your father as an alcoholic who was physically and emotionally violent towards the family. You gave these details to Mr Mackinnon, the forensic psychologist who provided a report which was tendered as an exhibit on the plea.
61You were the middle child of six children. You have two younger full sisters and three older half siblings. One of your half-brothers passed away in 2023 when you were in custody.
62Your mother is now in her late sixties, and she is ill with kidney disease. Your father, also in his sixties, lives in Leongatha. He previously worked as a diesel mechanic.
63You have been in a long-term relationship with your partner, Tanisha, since you were 18 years old. You have three children with her, aged eight, seven and six. They are currently in kinship care under the supervision of Rumbalara, which is a First Nations family support program. The children live with Tanisha's aunt in Wallan. You are a presence in their lives and you speak with them regularly and you express a desire to reunite with your family when you are released. Perhaps that is a motivating factor for you to try and live a life that is free of offending and periods of imprisonment.
64Before your most recent remand in custody, you were living in privately rented accommodation in Warragul.
65By way of education, you completed most of Year 12 at Warragul Secondary College. You then commenced a Certificate II in Civil Construction but you were involved in a serious motor vehicle accident in 2012, which I accept on all the evidence resulted in an acquired brain injury.
66Since the motor vehicle accident, your employment has been intermittent. You have mainly worked in concreting.
67You have been supported by the NDIS, and you have been receiving a Disability Support Pension. I have been provided with documents in relation to your NDIS support. When you are ultimately released from the sentence I impose, it appears you will have support through the NDIS.
68In the motor vehicle accident, you sustained a broken collarbone, scarring to your face and your ear, and you had metal rods inserted into your arm. You have also suffered from polycystic kidney disease and asthma and you describe multiple concussions from several assaults including hospitalisation from an assault in 20210. You also describe being stabbed in the leg in 2024 which led to four weeks of hospitalisation.
69You have a long history of using drugs. You first used cannabis when you were 14 years old, and by the age of 17, you were using amphetamine and cocaine. You progressed to using methamphetamine and MDMA. You say that at the time of this offending, you were using up to 3.5 grams of methamphetamine and 5 grams of cannabis daily. I note you were able to supply Mr Gilbert with drugs before the burglary.
70You have apparently attempted to rehabilitate on several occasions, including a seven-month stint at Odyssey House in 2021 and a further placement in 2023. I have been told you are currently prescribed Mirtazapine for depression, and you receive Sublocade injections for your drug dependence.
Psychological evidence
71You were assessed by Mr Ian Mackinnon. He diagnosed you with a substance abuse disorder and a mixed depressive and anxiety disorder. He said the combination of these disorders impaired your capacity to exercise sound judgment by consequential thinking and control your impulses and in that way, he offered an opinion that those psychological states contributed to the offending. He also said your exposure to domestic violence and your father's alcohol problems were central to your development in your formative years and have contributed to your depression and anxiety.
72Mr Mackinnon says these difficulties have been compounded by the acquired brain injury. He described your substance use as a form of self-medication for psychological distress.
73There was some dispute in this matter about whether you suffer from an acquired brain injury, because Mr Martin Jackson who provided a neuropsychological report for a previous criminal matter, said that you failed to give sufficient effort to the testing and therefore your profile was invalid and he could not conclude that you do have an ABI.
74In more recent times, I have been provided with a report from a neuropsychologist, Ian Stuart, which was written in 2017 which does confirm the motor vehicle accident in 2012, and that you do suffer from an acquired brain injury.
75Based on the instability in your childhood and the opinion of Mr Mackinnon, your counsel, Ms Greener, submitted that the principles in the High Court case of Bugmy[2] apply.
[2]Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571.
76I am not sure that it matters what label I give to this and perhaps your deprivation does not equate with the sort of deprivation described in Bugmy, but I am satisfied that the instability and the violence in your childhood, and your father's alcoholism contributed to your development, and it occurred within your formative years.
77I am satisfied it has been a contributing factor to your ongoing drug use and criminality, and that I should assess your moral culpability as lower than someone who has not had that background.
78Ms Greener also submitted that principles 1, 3 and 5 of Verdins[3] are enlivened. Principle 1 is that your moral culpability is reduced by your psychological state.
[3]R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269.
79I am not satisfied that there is a proper evidentiary foundation here to conclude that there is a realistic connection between any of your psychological conditions and the quite deliberate planned offending motivated by profit in this case. In my opinion, it is also difficult to disentangle your prolific drug use from the offending in this matter, and I am not satisfied that your psychological conditions or your acquired brain injury, in the circumstances of this case and given the evidence in front of me, reduces your moral culpability.
80I am also not satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to find that the burden of your imprisonment is increased by reason of your psychological states compared to someone without your psychological issues, but I am satisfied, given your ABI and the other factors described, that I should allow for a modest reduction of general deterrence in this case.
81That said, this offending involved substantial criminality. Your moral culpability is high and given the nature of the offending, the need for general deterrence remains significant notwithstanding some moderation having regard to your ABI and other psychological issues. As I have already observed, specific deterrence and community protection are important, and so too are just punishment and denunciation. I must also though seek to facilitate your rehabilitation as best I can, and I will do that through the non-parole period which I will fix in this matter.
Totality
82The totality principle applies across the charges for which I must sentence you. The totality principle requires that the overall sentence must be just and proportionate to the total criminality of your offending. In these circumstances, that will require significant concurrency between the charges but keeping in mind that the ordinary principle of concurrency is reversed because you were on bail at the time of these offences, and that is a matter that I cannot ignore in deciding the appropriate periods of cumulation in this matter.
83The non-parole period is the minimum period justice requires you to serve before being eligible for release. The non-parole period mitigates punishment in favour of rehabilitation, but it must be consistent with the objective gravity of the offending. In fixing the non-parole period I have had regard to the fact that you have been in custody for substantial periods since this offending and the need to attempt to facilitate your rehabilitation and ultimate reintegration into the community.
Charges
84The sentences that I impose in this matter are as follows:
85For the offence of burglary, you are convicted and sentenced to a period of imprisonment of two years.
86For the offence of theft of the silver bullion, you are convicted and sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 14 months.
87For the offence of theft of firearms, the rolled up charge, you are convicted and sentenced to a period of imprisonment of two and a half years or 30 months.
88For the offence of being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm, you are convicted and sentenced to a period of imprisonment of two years.
89I am not imposing any cumulation on the burglary. I have decided to impose cumulation on the theft of firearms. The period of cumulation on Charge 2 is nine months on the base sentence. In relation to the prohibited person offence, which I have not taken into account as an aggravating factor for the firearm theft, I impose a period of cumulation of 12 months on the base sentence and on the period for Charge 2 as well. This makes a total effective sentence of four years and three months.
90I fix a minimum non-parole period of two years and 10 months in this matter.
91The sentence that I have imposed is concurrent with the sentence you are presently undergoing.
92I indicate that but for your plea of guilty, I would have imposed a sentence of five years and five months with a minimum non-parole period of four years in this matter.
93Are there any other orders I need to make?
94MS THOMAS: No, Your Honour.
95HIS HONOUR: No. There were no ancillary orders to be made?
96MS THOMAS: There were not.
97HIS HONOUR: No, all right. Thank you. Those are the orders that I will make in this matter.
- - -
0
3
0