Director of Public Prosecutions v French-Hodgkinson

[2025] VCC 1021

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

Case No. CR-24-00754

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

CODY FRENCH-HODGKINSON

---

JUDGE:	JUDGE DAWES
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	8, 10 July 2025
DATE OF SENTENCE:	17 July 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v French-Hodgkinson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VCC 1021

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE

Catchwords:              Sentence – plea of guilty – aggravated burglary (with intent to steal and cause damage) – Verdins – young offender – parity – no criminal history.

Cases Cited:Boulton v The Queen [2014] 46 VR 308, Everett v The King [2025] VSCA 96, R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 62.

Sentence:                  Community Correction Order with conviction; punitive and therapeutic.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr S. Profitt	Ms C. Papaluca, Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr T. Clamart	Ms K. Sheridan, Slink & Keating

1Cody French-Hodgkinson, you have pleaded guilty to aggravated burglary with intent to steal and cause damage, that was committed on 12 December 2023.  The maximum penalty for this offence is 25 years' imprisonment.

2At the time of offending, the victim was 19 years of age.  You were 18 years of age and were in a relationship.  You and your girlfriend were known to the victim through the Melbourne nightclubbing scene and you had frequently visited his address in the past.  Your girlfriend accompanied you on the night.

3Your co-offender, Rhys Phillips, was 19 years of age and was your friend.  He has pleaded guilty to aggravated burglary with intent to cause damage and was sentenced on 16 May 2025.  Phillips had no direct link to the victim.

4The circumstances of your offending have been provided in the Summary of Prosecution Opening, dated 7 July 2025.  It is agreed to be an accurate account of events.  A general summary of the facts is as follows:

5At around 11.07 pm on Tuesday, 12 December 2023, the victim was in his apartment in Werribee when he heard a noise on the roof.  He got out of his bed and saw the silhouette of several people, which included you and Phillips on his balcony.

6As the victim moved to the front of his apartment, one of the windows was smashed by a person on the balcony.  At this point, the victim ran into the bathroom and locked himself inside.  One or more of the trespassers entered the apartment and proceeded to go through the victim's personal belongings.  The prosecution accepts that it is unable to establish which of the trespassers entered the actual apartment from the balcony.

7The victim barricaded the bathroom door by leaning against it.  One of the offenders began to smash the bathroom door using a hammer, which struck the victim's head.  Fortunately, the victim did not sustain any injuries.  The wall of the bathroom was also smashed from the other side, as well as some of the victim's personal items, including a computer and some plates.  Three pairs of Nike sneakers belonging to the victim were stolen.  You and Phillips left the building via the balcony.

8Police were contacted by the victim. The following day, they attended his address and acquired a statement from him.  Police obtained CCTV footage that depicts two men dressed in black, climbing on the side of the building at 11.02 pm.  As the offenders decamped, one was in possession of a hammer.  Police also obtained CCTV footage from the Department of Transport, which shows two males and one female travelling to the Werribee Railway Station prior to the incident and returning to the station shortly thereafter.

9

The victim advised police that he had received a message at 2.21 am on

12 December 2023 stating 'So, you're not gonna pay yh?'  The victim suspected that it was from 'Cody' and that it related to damage sustained to a car that the victim had driven.  Police confirmed that the mobile number was registered to you.

10On 29 December 2023, police executed a search warrant at your home address.  They located clothing that matched the CCTV footage of the clothing worn by the offender that carried the hammer, as well as three pairs of Nike sneakers that were stolen.  You and your partner were both arrested.  Your partner was charged with handling stolen goods, relating to the Nike sneakers.  She subsequently admitted the offence and was placed on diversion in the Magistrates' Court.

11You attended the police station for interview.  You denied your involvement in the matter.  You admitted that you knew the victim and had been to his house on multiple occasions, although the last time you said you were there was in October 2023.  When shown the CCTV footage of you travelling to Werribee, you responded that you had no memory of that day.  You also said that the Nike sneakers found at your address were a Christmas present from your partner.

12Your mobile phone was examined, which revealed that you planned the offending earlier that day.  You sent messages to Phillips, suggesting that he 'run through a house with me tn' and that 'you gotta come' as the victim 'owes so many ppl money'.  You arranged the time and place to meet, how to travel to Werribee, as well as how you would access the apartment via the balcony and source some items.

13You were subsequently charged with a number of offences and remanded in custody overnight.  The next day, you were released on bail, including a condition of CISP that was in place until 22 March 2024.

14A Victim Impact Statement has not been provided and there is no further information about the residual effect of your misconduct.  There is no dispute that this must have been a terrifying experience for the victim to have been at home at night and have his balcony window smashed, before he was confronted in his apartment.  His perception of safety and security must have been affected.  You planned this offence and engaged Phillips to attend with you when this incident occurred. 

15I sentenced Phillips on the basis of the agreed facts that were put to the court for his plea, which were somewhat different to the agreed summary provided in your case.  I will sentence you on the basis of the agreed facts here which, in effect, note that while you organised the offending, ultimately the Crown position as to the offenders has changed.  The prosecution has confirmed that they are unable to establish how many offenders actually attended the address, who entered the apartment or inflicted the damage.  I note that in the victim's statement, he observed four people outside on the balcony when the window was smashed.  There is no evidence that you entered the apartment or had any interaction with the victim.  In those circumstances, I am not able to exclude the possibility that although you planned the offending, had a motive to engage in it and were the driving force behind it, you did not actually enter the apartment from the balcony.  Through your plea, you admit that you were complicit in the offending that occurred.

16In a recent report that has been provided,[1] you stated to psychologist Ms Sandra Cokorilo that you had no recollection of the offending, which you attributed to consuming methamphetamine.  Although the victim had damaged your partner's car, you had no intention of hurting him and attributed your offending behaviour to the effects of drug intoxication.

[1] Psychologist Assessment by Ms Cokorilo dated 7 July 2025 (Exhibit A).

17You were charged on 29 December 2023 and, at a committal case conference on 13 May 2024, your matter resolved and you pleaded guilty.  Your case has previously been listed three times in this Court, as the facts were not agreed upon.  Negotiations soon started between your current counsel and the prosecution and your matter has now resolved on a less serious basis than was initially alleged.  The parties agree that your plea of guilty was entered at an early opportunity and has a significant utilitarian benefit.  You have saved the court and the community the time and expense of running a trial and spared the victim the ordeal of giving evidence at any time.  In those circumstances, you have facilitated the efficient administration of justice and you are entitled to a benefit for that. 

18Your plea of guilty also demonstrates that you have accepted some responsibility for your offending, notwithstanding your denials with police in your interview.  In consultation with Ms Cokorilo, you admitted that whatever the victim had done wrong does not make what you did right, and that you should not have committed the offence.  You acknowledged that the victim would have felt frightened and apprehensive.[2]  Ms Cokorilo noted that you appeared genuine in your remorse, noting that you said you would not have offended if you were sober.[3]  You have taken steps to address substance issues since your offending occurred.  I accept that you have shown remorse for your misconduct, which is consistent with your guilty plea.  I take that into account in your favour.

[2] Paragraph 39.

[3] Paragraph 40.

19I turn now to your personal circumstances.  You are of indigenous heritage.  You were born in Victoria in May 2005 and are now 20 years of age.  Your parents separated when you were two years old and you remained in your mother's care.  You have two older brothers and maintain a positive relationship with the younger one.  You have been in a relationship with your partner for some time.  Both she and your parents were present at your plea hearing.  You have no prior criminal history.

20While there is no evidence of exposure to interparental violence, your childhood was marked by sustained and pervasive peer bullying, notwithstanding that you also had friends.[4] You attended secondary school and completed Year 11 and have previously been employed as a mechanic, a cook and a labourer.  For the past six months, you have been studying a Certificate IV in Civil Construction and are in receipt of Centrelink benefits.  You are trying to define your future and are working towards setting up a car customisation business, as well as being interested in joining the Navy.

[4] Paragraph 65.

21You have been in two significant relationships, the most recent starting when you were 18.  Your partner, who attended the address with you, is now 19 years of age and has just become pregnant with your first child.  You reside with her at her family home.

22You were evicted from you mother's home in October 2023, due to your lifestyle.  Prior to your offending, you underwent a period of instability, spending time on the streets as well as couch surfing and staying with your partner.  You had little contact with your mother until you were arrested but have since become closer.  Your father has also become more involved in your life since your arrest.  You have the support of your parents and are most fortunate in that regard.[5]

[5] Paragraph 9.

23There is no family history of substance abuse and your history of substance use is limited.  You began to drink alcohol at the age of 17 and reported regular weekend use from the age of 18.  You commenced the use of cannabis at the age of 18, as well as trying ketamine, MDMA and cocaine.  I am told that you consumed methamphetamine, believing it was MDMA, before this offence was committed.  Since February 2024, you have been prescribed medicinal cannabis for anxiety, depression and back pain.  You have not consumed any illicit drugs or alcohol since you were arrested, complying with your bail conditions which has assisted your rehabilitation.  While on CISP you were referred to ACSO for drug and alcohol needs and assessment and are reported as having positive engagement with a counsellor.  You also completed a number of AOD counselling sessions.

24When you were younger, you engaged with a paediatrician, Dr Frederick Veit, from November 2017.  Dr Veit noted in a letter dated 27 August 2020,[6] that you had been diagnosed with lifelong disorders of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD), as well as severe Generalised Anxiety Disorder and a low cognitive function.

[6] Letter from Dr Veit (Exhibit D).

25Your solicitor arranged for you to participate in the psychological assessment with Ms Sandra Cokorilo. She has provided a report for the court, dated 7 July 2025 and after she was provided with the letter from Dr Veit, a supplementary report dated 9 July 2025.[7]  You provided as much detail to her as you could in the interview although your aboriginality was not addressed and is not relied on as a significant factor in your plea.  Your personal history and circumstances have been summarised in the report.

[7] Supplementary Report from Ms Cokorilo (Exhibit C).

26Ms Cokorilo made the following observations and findings in the first report:

·        You undertook a mental status examination where you were oriented, polite and cooperative.  Your intelligence was estimated to be within average range.[8]

·        You stated that you were diagnosed with ADHD at the age of seven but never received pharmacological treatment for it.[9]

·        You also stated that you were diagnosed with depression and anxiety at the age of 13, which you attributed to peer bullying.  Although you received pharmacological treatment you described it as ineffective.  You reported that your anxiety has increased since your arrest.  You were also diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and Generalised Anxiety Disorder (GAD) at that time. You reported recurrent bouts of low mood and associated withdrawal since adolescence.[10] 

·        The offending occurred in the context of substantial psychological destabilisation following the eviction from your childhood home.  You described yourself as severely depressed during this time and reported suicidal ideation and two suicide attempts.[11]

·        Notwithstanding your enduring psychological difficulties, there is no evidence of antisocial behaviour until the current offence.  You attributed the offending to the effects of drug use, two days prior and claim not to have any recollection of the offending event.[12]

·        Methamphetamine can disrupt dopaminergic transition and can be persistent for days.   Impulsivity is increased during adolescence due to both dopaminergic activation and the immaturity of the frontal cortex, which results in heightened vulnerability to risky and reckless behaviour.[13]

·        Your depression and anxiety would have compounded the vulnerabilities in executive functioning inherent in your ADHD.  Whilst the presence of psychopathology does not preclude you from understanding the nature and quality of your conduct, it did potentially compromise your ability to think clearly, respond calmly and exercise appropriate judgement, thereby contributing to emotional and behavioural dysregulation which culminated in the offending.[14]

·        In addition to your young age, the absence of criminal priors, substance use disorders, entrenched antisocial personality feature or behaviours, and a pro-criminal orientation are also protective.  You are assessed as a low risk of both general and violent recidivism.  Your prospects of rehabilitation are viewed as excellent.[15]

[8] Paragraph 41.

[9] Paragraph 25.

[10] Paragraph 26.

[11] Paragraph 12.

[12] Paragraph 71.

[13] Paragraph 71.

[14] Paragraph 74.

[15] Paragraph 80.

27Ms Cokorilo received a letter from Dr Veit, your paediatrician, where your self-disclosure in relation to your diagnosis and antipsychotic treatment is corroborated.  In her supplementary report,[16] she writes that this offers additional support for the presence of mental impairment at the time of the offending, stating:

·'You claim to have no recollection of the offending, due to consumption of methamphetamine 2 days prior' and 'your thoughts, emotions and reasoning process at the time of the offending could not be explored. However, it is noted that the executive dysfunction in ADHD impairs inhibitory control and self-monitoring. These deficits result in impairment in emotional and behavioural regulation, impulse control and consequential reasoning. Taken together, these limitations impair ability to think clearly, respond calmly and exercise appropriate judgment, particularly during emotionally charged situations.  Noting the enduring nature of your psychopathology, the functional consequences of your ADHD, GAD and MDD would have been active at the time of the offending'.[17] 

·Your longstanding and severe deficits in distress, tolerance and emotional dysregulation inherent in your ADHD mean that imprisonment would very likely have a significant adverse effect on your mental health.  You present with depression and anxiety, meaning that imprisonment would result in you being subject to a materially and substantially larger than ordinary burden.[18]

[16] Exhibit C.

[17] Paragraph 10.

[18] Paragraph 14.

28Your counsel has submitted that Verdins limbs 1- 4 are applicable, given the effect of your impaired mental functioning.[19]   It is accepted that your drug use also affected your conduct.  The defence submit that your psychological condition engages Verdins limbs 1-4.  The defence position is that your mental impairment was active at the time of offending and reduces both your moral culpability and the weight to be given to deterrence.  The prosecution does not agree that Verdins limbs are applicable, given that it is impossible to disentangle the drug use from your mental health issues.  The heightened impulsivity can also result from the consumption of methamphetamine.  The prosecution submits that there is no basis to accept that this offending was impulsive, given that you initiated the offending and arranged for Phillips to attend with you, around 12 hours before the incident occurred.

[19] R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 62.

29There is no dispute that you do suffer from ADHD and that it was active at the time of this incident.  I consider that it is impossible to evaluate the extent to which your mental health issues are connected to your offending, in light of the effect of your admitted consumption of methamphetamine.  You have attributed the offending to your drug use at the time.  There is no cogent and positive evidence to apply  Verdins limbs 1-4 and I am not satisfied that they are enlivened here. While your conditions remained active, that does not mean there was a causal connection between them and the offence.  It is also significant that the offending was not spontaneous.  You planned the incident and recruited assistance.  In those circumstances, you had time for mature consideration and I do not accept there is any room to moderate your moral culpability or the need for deterrence, due to your mental health.  I am not satisfied that these Verdins limbs are enlivened here.  However, I do take your background and the findings of your mental health factors into account in your favour, as part of your general circumstances.

30The parties agree and I accept that Verdins limbs 5 and 6 are engaged, as your diagnosis would add to the burden of custody, if you were to be sentenced to imprisonment.  Ms Cokorilo found that a sentence of imprisonment would weigh more heavily on you than on a person in normal health and that it may have a significantly adverse effect on your mental health.[20]  I take these factors into account.

[20] Paragraph 81.

31You have no criminal history.  You are someone of previous good character and are entitled to call upon that good character on your plea.  I note that you have been charged with a subsequent traffic offence.  This matter has not been dealt with and is listed in the Magistrates' Court in August 2025.  It is not relevant and I do not take it into account when determining the appropriate sentence.

32You were 18 years old at the time of your offending.  You are now 20 and are to be sentenced as a young offender.  Your age is relevant when considering your prospects for rehabilitation.  Given that you are also a first offender, I consider that the principle of rehabilitation must strongly feature in the sentencing mix.  I take your age into account as a mitigating factor when imposing the appropriate disposition, notwithstanding the gravity of your offending.

33The principle of parity reflects the notion that those who commit the same or similar offences should be treated equally, save where differences in the offender's age, background, previous criminal history and general character, and the part which each played in the commission of the offence, justify the imposition of different sentences. The purpose of the principle is to ensure consistency in punishment.[21]

[21] Everett v The King [2025] VSCA 96, [42].

34Phillips was sentenced to a 12 month punitive and therapeutic Community Correction Order, without conviction.  

35I accept that there are several factors in the circumstances here that engage the principle of parity.

·You have both pleaded guilty.

·the prosecution is unable to establish which of the trespassers entered the apartment and interacted with the victim.  I am unable to determine who was active in the apartment.

·You both sought some limbs of Verdins considerations, which were not accepted, although Verdins limbs 5 and 6 were applicable to both you and Phillips.

·You are both young offenders, although Phillips was slightly older than you.

·Neither of you were sentenced on the basis that you were physically present in the apartment.

·Neither of you have any prior convictions.

·You have both been found suitable for a Corrections order.

36However, there are some important factors of disparity between you.

·Your charge of aggravated burglary is on the basis of intention to steal and cause damage, while your co-offender was dealt with only on the basis of an intention to cause damage.

·You were the driving force to commit this offence and had the motivation to do so.  You were not a peripheral participant.  The fact that the stolen Nike sneakers were located at your address supports this conclusion.

·Your co-offender had Bugmy considerations of considerable childhood disadvantage.[22]

[22] Bugmy v the Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571.

37In these circumstances, given that you were the motivator and the driving force behind the aggravated burglary, I consider that you are more criminally culpable than your co-offender.

38General deterrence is normally a primary sentencing consideration for offences of aggravated burglary, in light of these offences regularly occurring and the effect it causes in the community.  Denunciation and just punishment are also relevant and that same community expects that those who engage in this serious offence must be punished and denounced for their conduct.  I take into account your previous good character and that you have not re-offended since this incident occurred.  In light of your previous good character and the assessment given by Ms Cokorilo, I assess that your prospects for rehabilitation appear to be very good.

39When considering the appropriate penalty, your counsel submitted that a Community Correction Order (CCO) would be appropriate and satisfy all the relevant sentencing requirements in your case.  The prosecution position is that a combination sentence, comprising a term of imprisonment and a CCO is appropriate.

40An assessment for a Corrections Order was undertaken on 8 July 2025 and you engaged appropriately.  You stated that at the relevant time, you were using MDMA on a weekly basis and that you were under the influence of 'ice' at the relevant time.  You acknowledged the influence of drug use on your offending.  You previously consumed alcohol although it had no effect on you.  When you presented to the assessing officer, you said that you could not remember the events in the week around the offending, due to your drug use.   While you showed little remorse for your behaviour, you acknowledged the effect of your offending conduct on the victim.

41You were referred to the Mental Health and Advice Response Service but did not respond to phone calls.  I am told that you forgot about the appointment.  You subsequently contacted the clinician, but his assessment had already been provided.  Given your psychological material, it is recommended that mental health assessment and treatment be a condition of the order, if it is imposed.

42You have been assessed as a medium risk of general re-offending.  I am told that you have a back condition that may inhibit your ability to complete some community work, although the assessment indicated that the service can allocate appropriate tasks for you to perform and you are prepared to do so.  You indicate that you are willing to comply with a Corrections Order and have been found suitable for such an order.

43I have considered the decision of Boulton v The Queen.[23]  In particular, that a CCO may be suitable even in cases of relatively serious offences which might previously have attracted a medium term of imprisonment.  A court may find that in view of the objective gravity of the conduct and the personal circumstances of the offender, a properly conditioned CCO may satisfy the sentencing requirements.

[23][2014] 46 VR 308, 338 [131].

44After considering your circumstances in the context of your offending, I am persuaded that a Community Correction Order is the appropriate outcome here.  Given your role in offending, I have determined that the imposition of a conviction is required.  As I have said, you arranged and were the driving force in the commission of this offence.  Without your actions, the offence would not have occurred.

45I take into account the maximum penalty for the offence and current sentencing practices, as well as the relevant principles of parity.  I accept that a CCO which is both punitive and therapeutic in nature, provides the appropriate balance between all the competing sentencing considerations in your case.  I accept that the interests of the community are best served by not interrupting your rehabilitation.  Further, it is in your own interests to consolidate the progress that you have made.  I propose to impose such an order.

46In relation to the charge, you are convicted and sentenced to:

·        A Community Correction Order for 21 months.

·        You are to report to Frankston Community Corrections Centre within two working days of being sentenced.

·        To perform 180 hours of unpaid community work.

·        To comply with supervision.

·        To undergo assessment and treatment as directed for drug and alcohol use.

·        To undergo assessment and treatment as directed for your mental health.

·        To undergo programs to reduce reoffending, as directed.

·        I order that 50 hours of treatment and rehabilitation may be accredited to the community work hours.

47The order for forfeiture that is sought by the prosecution is made, without objection.  Now, I will just get my associate to print out a copy of the CCO and Mr Clamart, if you could then take your client through, so that he understands the conditions?

48MR CLAMART:  I will.

49HER HONOUR:  And then if he could formally agree or disagree to comply with the order.

50MR CLAMART:  Yes.

51HER HONOUR:  Thank you.

52MR CLAMART:  Thank you.  As you can see, my client Cody French-Hodgkinson has signed the order, so he consents.

53HER HONOUR:  All right, so does he understand the conditions?

54MR CLAMART:  I've taken him through the conditions and the consequences for not complying and he understands and he consents.

55HER HONOUR:  All right, thank you.  So, can I just confirm also, sir, that you need to sign in.  You need to go the Frankston Community Service Centre by 4 o'clock on Monday to sign up for the order and I would expect that anyone involved in a Corrections order at the start has more requirements and as the time goes on, once you get into the routine, it won't be as intensive as at the start. It’s really important that you comply and prioritise your community corrections order, so that you can comply with the order throughout the period of 21 months, okay?  All right, thanks.

56MR CLAMART:  The court pleases.

57HER HONOUR:  We'll give you a copy of the orders before you leave and also the prosecution.  Thanks, I'll just sign the order.  All right, thank you both very much.

58COUNSEL:  Thank you, Your Honour.

- - -