Director of Public Prosecutions v Handley

[2025] VCC 1034

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

CR-24-01402

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

DIESEL HANDLEY

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE DOYLE
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	18 July 2025
DATE OF SENTENCE:	21 July 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Handley
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VCC 1034

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence

Catchwords:              Guilty plea – Recklessly cause injury – Committed in company - Victim struck across the head by machete and in the face by a truncheon - Offence committed on bail – Difficult upbringing – Youth - Criminal history – Late plea – Currently serving sentence on separate matter – Sentence part cumulatively on the sentence presently undergoing.

Legislation Cited:      Crimes Act 1958; Sentencing Act 1991.

Cases Cited:Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571; R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269; DPP v Handley [2024] VCC 566.s

Sentence:                  Total Effective Sentence of 8 months’ imprisonment with 2 months cumulative on the sentence currently undergoing.
6AAA – 10 months’ imprisonment with 4 months cumulative on the sentence currently undergoing.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Ms S. Thomas	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms J. Buxton	Stary Law

HIS HONOUR:

1Diesel Handley, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of recklessly causing injury.  The maximum penalty for that offence is five years’ imprisonment.

2The offence in this case occurred in October 2022.  You were in custody by the time the police were investigating your participation in the assault on the victim Joshua Gilbert and the other offences that led up to the assault which involved the co-offenders. 

3The indictment in this matter contained charges against two others, Joseph Eydems and Timothy Paul.  Timothy Paul is your co-offender in respect of the recklessly causing injury.

4It is not necessary to go into great detail in relation to the offences that relate to Mr Eydems and Mr Paul, but a general explanation is required because that offending is linked in various ways to the reckless injury offence.

5Joseph Eydems committed a burglary in company with Joshua Gilbert and another person, Michael Smith.  The victim of that burglary was John Richardson.  Richardson is the uncle of Mr Gilbert.  He is Lois Ryan’s son.  Lois Ryan is Joshua Gilbert’s grandmother, and the premises burgled was her address in Drouin.

6Mr Gilbert was a drug user, and he knew Mr Eydems.  Together they committed the burglary of Ms Ryan’s premises and stole a safe containing three firearms and five kilograms of silver bullion.

7Mr Eydems knew Mr Paul who was staying at your residence at 2 Blyth Place, Mulgrave. After the burglary, Mr Eydems spoke to Mr Paul about selling the firearms and Mr Paul arranged a buyer for one of the firearms which was an antique.

8Mr Eydems, Mr Gilbert and Mr Smith took the firearms to a shed at 2 Blyth Place, Mulgrave, which is where Mr Paul was sleeping.

9Whilst arrangements were being made to sell the firearm, police arrived to conduct a bail check at that address in relation to you, Mr Handley.  Those in the shed ran away and hid.  Mr Gilbert made his way back to Blyth Place, but no-one was there so he began walking along the road.  Mr Paul picked him up in a black SUV and they went back to the shed.  Paul asked him if he had taken anything from the house.

10Back at Blythe Place, Mr Paul accused Mr Gilbert of taking $2,500 in cash.  He called you into the shed. He questioned Mr Gilbert about the money.  By this time, you and Mr Paul were in possession of weapons, a machete and a police truncheon. You encouraged this aggressive questioning.  Mr Eydems and Mr Smith returned to the shed.

11You and Mr Paul continued to accuse Mr Gilbert of stealing.  Mr Gilbert became impatient and suggested that the two of you should check the cameras.  Mr Paul lost his temper with Mr Gilbert.  Mr Gilbert was forced back against the shed wall and then made to sit down with you and Mr Paul standing over him.

12Mr Paul yelled at Mr Gilbert and said, 'I don’t believe you'.  He swung the machete at Mr Gilbert, who ducked down but was struck across the head by the machete which caused him immediate pain, and he began to bleed.  Mr Paul then threatened Gilbert and said he had two seconds to tell, or he would be killed.  You, Mr Handley, said 'just tell him.' You swung the baton at Mr Gilbert hitting him in the mouth causing further pain and injury.  He was left bleeding, and he felt dizzy from the blows.  He said he could not control his body.

13Mr Eydems and Mr Smith later took him to the Dandenong Hospital and unceremoniously dropped him out the front at about 6.45 am.  He had a large laceration to the left side of the back of his head which was bleeding and a laceration to the inside of his upper lip.  He was treated in hospital and underwent tests.

14At the time of this offence, you were on bail for an offence of robbery and some other matters which were dealt with in the Moorabbin Magistrates Court in 2023.   You apparently received an undertaking with conviction.

15On 22 May 2024, Judge Quin sentenced you to six years with a minimum of three years for a culpable driving offence and drive whilst suspended and commit an indictable offence on bail. That culpable driving occurred in January 2023. You have been in custody since then. Therefore, you have no pre-sentence detention in relation to this matter. You are due for parole in January 2026. 

16The main issue on this plea is whether I should impose an entirely concurrent sentence or whether I should cumulate some period of my sentence on the sentence you are presently undergoing.

17Your counsel, Ms Buxton, tendered two psychological reports from Mr Patrick Newton that were prepared for the culpable driving plea heard by Judge Quin.[1]

[1]Exhibit “DH-2”.

18I accept, as Judge Quin did, that you had a very difficult upbringing.  Your mother died in 2011 when you were just six years old.  Judge Quin described your father as a punitive, sadistic and unpredictable authority figure.[2]  I accept the relevance of the Bugmy[3] principles in this case as reducing your moral culpability and requiring some moderation of general and specific deterrence.  It is not hard to understand how you became immersed in the criminal milieu and developed the type of personality disorder described in Mr Newton's report, both of which are factors which explain your involvement in this offence.

[2]        DPP v Handley [2024] VCC 566

[3]Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571

19Separately, Ms Buxton made a Verdins[4] submission.  I am not satisfied that by reason of your personality disorder I should, separately to the Bugmy submission, take the view your moral culpability is reduced.  The reports were not prepared in relation to this offending, which you denied up until a few days ago.  Mr Newton says you have an anti-social personality disorder and an oppositional defiant disorder, and that you act impulsively.  

[4]R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269

20I am not satisfied without more that these mental states are sufficient to reduce your moral culpability by reason of impulsivity, the suggested link. As I have said, the report was not prepared in respect of this offence and therefore no expert opinion is provided as to the link between the offending and your mental state.  Mr Newton does say there is no indication you do not understand the wrongfulness of your conduct; that was in relation to the culpable driving.

21Nor am I satisfied that Verdins has any real role to play in this case with respect to the burden of your imprisonment. Based on the submissions of your counsel, you seem to have coped well in prison. You have worked, participated in courses and undertaken counselling.  I am told you are determined not to relapse into drug use so you can become a proper father to your four-year-old daughter, Dakota. Your older brother brings her to see you in the prison.

22The most significant mitigating factor in this case is your age.  You were born in July 2004.  You were only 18 when this offence was committed.

23You were living in Salvation Army housing with your younger sister, Aerodyne.  She still lives at the same address and when you are released it is likely you will return to live with her.  I am told you have already put in an application to the Parole Board, and they are waiting to see what the outcome of this sentence is.

24You have a significant criminal history for somebody of your age which includes several convictions for assault, however, most of that history has been in the Children’s Court.  The supervisory orders made in that court failed to stop you offending.  Those prior convictions are relevant to the assessment of your rehabilitative prospects and considerations of specific deterrence.  However, as a young adult you received a very substantial sentence for a very serious offence, and you have now been in prison for almost three years.  Had you resolved this matter earlier, which may have been possible had you made offers, Judge Quin perhaps could have sentenced you alongside the culpable driving offence.  Therefore, for this offence, I must have considerations of totality with the sentence imposed by Judge Quin.

25I regard the offence here as a reasonably serious example of recklessly causing injury.  Firstly, this was offending which occurred in an atmosphere of criminality where Mr Paul turned on Mr Gilbert and you were only too happy to assist.  You and Mr Paul were behaving like gangsters, which is probably how you saw yourselves.  Secondly, the offending was committed in company, a factor which elevates the seriousness of the assault. You are criminally responsibility for all the injuries Mr Gilbert sustained, not just the injury to the mouth you personally inflicted.  Mr Gilbert was in a very vulnerable position, being attacked by two men with significant weapons, for seemingly spurious reasons, in the middle of a criminal endeavour.  The potential for him to be badly hurt, given the presence of weapons, was very real.  The injuries he received were not insignificant.  He had to be taken to a hospital and treated.

26You pleaded guilty to this matter at a late stage. It is not suggested you sought to negotiate at an earlier point. I heard pre-trial argument and cross-examination of witnesses over several days, including a ruling on the admissibility of Mr Gilbert’s sketch of the weapon you used, a weapon which in my opinion was later seized by the police during an unrelated search of your premises. The lateness of the plea limits its utilitarian value, but it still retains utilitarian value.  The trial itself would have taken another week of the court’s time; therefore, you spared the prosecution and the police the use of the resources required for a trial and you spared the witnesses the inconvenience of having to give evidence.

27I am not satisfied your plea demonstrates any genuine remorse given the late stage at which it was entered and because there is no other evidence of remorse in the material before me.

28It is difficult to make a proper assessment of your prospects of rehabilitation given your present situation and because you have been in custody now for nearly three years, but you have done what you can in prison to bolster your rehabilitation and your motivation to be a father to your daughter is a positive sign.

29Having regard to your age, your rehabilitation is a sentencing purpose of importance.  Considerations of general deterrence, just punishment and specific deterrence though, also have a role to play.

30The real issue is whether I should order you to serve an additional period of imprisonment.

31As I have said, you were on bail for an offence of robbery and some other offences at the time this recklessly cause injury was committed.  The Sentencing Act pursuant to s16 (3C) provides that where an offender commits an offence on bail, the presumption of concurrency is reversed, and the default position is that the sentence is to be cumulative unless otherwise ordered.  Those provisions of the Sentencing Act do not exclude the totality principle, but it is modified.  And, of course, it is necessary to consider totality with the sentence Judge Quin imposed which you are still serving.

32In the end I have decided it is necessary to impose a relatively short period of cumulation in this case.  This was an entirely separate unrelated incident to the culpable driving, and you were on bail when the offence was committed.  The incident itself was significant enough and the harm to Mr Gilbert must be recognised with some cumulation.

33In fixing the period you are to serve I have had regard to your age and the other mitigating matters in this case, and I have imposed what I regard as the minimum period I could reasonably impose in the circumstances of this case.

34In relation to recklessly causing injury, you are sentenced to eight months' imprisonment.  Two months of that sentence is cumulative on the sentence you are presently undergoing.

35s6AAA, 10 months with four months cumulative.

36There is no pre-sentence detention in this matter.  And there were some summary charges that were withdrawn, I will make that order as well.