Director of Public Prosecutions v Jal
[2025] VCC 1180
•18 August 2025
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
GENERAL LIST
CR-24-02089
Indictment No. Q11289289
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| LUAK JAL |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE GEORGIOU | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF PLEA HEARING: | 4 March 2025 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 18 August 2025 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Jal | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2025] VCC 1180 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Possession of firearm by prohibited person – Recklessly cause serious injury – Theft – Young Offender – Significant criminal history – Intoxication – mild intellectual disability - complex PTSD.
Legislation Cited: Children, Youth & Families Act 2005; Disability Act2006; Sentencing Act 1991
Cases Cited:DPP (Vic) v Betrayhani [2019] VSCA 150; Hamid v The Queen [2019] VSCA 5; R v Mills [1998] 4 VR 235; Azzopardi v R; Baltatzis v R; Gabriel v R (2011) 35 VR 43; Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; Rule v The Queen [2022] VSCA 162; Rule v The Queen [2022] VSCA 162
Sentence: 3 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 24 months
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Ms Spiteri | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Offender | Mr J. Mortley | Papa Hughes Lawyers Pty Ltd |
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
1Luak Jal, on 4 March 2025, you pleaded guilty to the following offences:
Charge 1: at Dandenong, on 12 April 2024, being a prohibited person, you possessed a firearm.
Charge 2: at Dandenong, on 12 April 2024, without lawful excuse, you recklessly caused serious injury to Lucas Tang.
Charge 3: at Dandenong, on 12 April 2024, you stole a Tommy Hilfiger cross-body bag belonging to Lucas Tang.
Circumstances of offending
2The circumstances of your offending are set out in the summary of prosecution opening for plea dated 27 February 2025. With one exception, the contents of that summary are not disputed by you. I will come to that exception shortly.
3On 12 April 2024, at approximately 1.40 am, you and your elder brother attended the Players Hotel in Dandenong. The victim, Lucas Tang, was also at the hotel.
4At approximately 5.00 am, you and your brother left the hotel. The victim and his friends were also outside the hotel attempting to get an Uber.
5As you walked past the victim, you or your brother made a comment to him along the lines of 'you think you’re good because you’re with girls'.
6At some time between 5.05 am and 5.35 am, your friends, Tristan Le and Annie Nguyen, arrived in a white MG wagon and picked up you and your brother. Nguyen was driving and Le was in the front passenger seat. You and your brother got into the rear seats.
7The car travelled past the victim. Nguyen pulled the car over on the north side of Scott Street. You and your brother got out of the car and started running in a westerly direction on Scott Street towards the victim. Le also got out of the car. He pointed a sawn-off shotgun up in the air and fired a shot. He then got back into the car. Nguyen performed a U-turn and travelled west in Scott Street towards you.
8You and your brother chased the victim into Thomas Street. Your brother, who was ahead of you, caught up with the victim on the footpath and grabbed him by his bag, which was over his shoulder, and swung him around. This caused both of them to fall to the ground. The victim got up and ran south on Thomas Street, leaving behind his bag.
9You also ran into Thomas Street, carrying a handgun in your right hand as you chased the victim. The victim circled back, running to where your brother was. You caught up to the victim and struck him from behind on the head with the handgun, causing him to fall to the ground and lose consciousness.
10You patted down the victim’s clothing while he lay on the ground. You then picked up the victim’s bag and took it with you.
11At approximately 5.38 am, you and your brother walked to and got in the MG that had pulled up near the victim. You, your brother, Nguyen and Le then left the area. The victim was lying motionless on the ground.
12Police attended approximately 10 minutes later. The victim was given first aid until an ambulance arrived. He was then taken to the Alfred Hospital where it was noted he had sustained an elevated cranial fracture.
13At 6.03 am, the four of you returned to Nguyen’s address in Burwood. You retained possession of the victim’s bag.
14After obtaining CCTV footage from various relevant locations, police were able to track the MG to Nguyen’s address. On 12 April 2024, Nguyen and Le were arrested. A black Mercedes Benz was located at the Burwood address. It was searched and police found a loaded revolver handgun and five rounds of revolver ammunition.
15On 19 June, police arrested you and your brother. You were taken to Dandenong police station and when interviewed you answered 'no comment' to police questions. You have remained in custody since 19 June 2024.
16Dr Jason Schreiber, of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, gave an opinion as to the injuries sustained by Mr Tang, as follows:
(a) the injuries with skull bone fracture and brain bleeds were immediately life threatening. Without medical help from first aiders, ambulance and hospital treatment, Mr Tang was likely to have died due to the injuries;
(b) the skull bone fracture would require significant force and is unlikely to be caused by a forward fall. It is consistent with being struck by a gun.
Background and personal history
17You were born in June 2002. At the time of these offences, you were 21 years of age.
18You were born in Australia, and you have four sisters and five brothers. You are the third oldest child in the family.
19Your parents are Sudanese and migrated to Australia.
20At birth you suffered an injury to your left arm which has affected your ability to use that arm and hand, despite hospital treatment and therapy.
21Your parents separated when you were four years of age. Your father went to live in Western Australia; You and your siblings remained with your mother. Your mother re-partnered shortly after the separation. You describe your stepfather as a caring individual.
22You have had a troubled educational history. You struggled academically. You had behavioural problems at school, you were disruptive in class and had a tendency towards argumentativeness and aggression. You had particular difficulty after you transitioned to secondary school. You achieved Year 9 level of education, although you completed some further study in Parkville College while serving periods of detention.
23Notwithstanding your history of violent and aggressive outbursts towards peers and family, you instruct your counsel that you come from a loving family who remain very supportive of you. Your mother and sister attended court during the plea hearings to support you.
24You have never been gainfully employed.
25You have a history of drug abuse, commencing with cannabis at the age of 14 and cocaine on a frequent basis from the age of 18.
26You have an extensive criminal record dating back to 23 June 2017. Your previous offending includes numerous dishonesty offences, breaches of youth supervision orders, property damage, and offences of violence.
27On 23 June 2017, at the Dandenong Children’s Court, for a number of offences including two charges of unlawful assault and a charge of arson, you were placed on a youth supervision order. That order was breached.
28On 19 January 2018, at the Dandenong Children’s Court, for a number of offences including two charges of robbery and contravening a family violence intervention order, you were convicted and ordered to be detained in a Youth Justice Centre for a period of eight months.
29On 11 May 2018, at the Dandenong Children’s Court, again for a number of offences including attempted aggravated burglary and contravening a family violence intervention order, you were convicted and ordered to be detained in a Youth Justice Centre for a period of eight months.
30On 19 October 2018, at the Melbourne Children’s Court, on two charges of assault by kicking and a charge of unlawful assault, you were placed on a youth supervision order for a period of 10 months.
31On 21 November 2019, for offences of attempted aggravated carjacking, aggravated carjacking with an imitation firearm, two charges of assaulting a Youth Justice custodial worker, and affray, you were released on a youth attendance order for a period of 12 months and directed to participate in a program at the Malmsbury Youth Justice Unit.
32On 13 January 2020, at the Melbourne Children’s Court, for the offence of assaulting an emergency worker on duty, you were ordered to be detained in a Youth Justice Centre for a period of four months.
33On 26 April 2021, at the Melbourne County Court, for offences including home invasion, robbery, attempted robbery and a number of other offences, you were sentenced to a total effective sentence of four years three months, with a non-parole period of two years and three months.
34You were released from that sentence on 31 March 2024, some 12 days before the commission of these offences on 12 April.
35I have not set out the entirety of your criminal record, but I do make it clear, you are not to be punished again for your previous offending, however, they are relevant to my consideration of the appropriate sentence.
Factual issue for determination
36A factual issue arose at the plea hearing concerning whether you struck the victim twice to the head with the handgun, as alleged by the learned prosecutor, or just the once, as asserted by your counsel.
37Tendered at the plea hearing were CCTV recordings of the offending, Exhibit P1. I have carefully reviewed those recordings, and, in my opinion, you struck the victim twice to the head with the handgun. I am satisfied of this beyond reasonable doubt. The recording shows you chasing the victim and striking at him twice. The first strike, which is disputed by you, caused the victim’s head to move in a downward direction. I do not accept that the victim lowered his head to avoid your attempted blow. He was running from you at the time and had his back to you. After this first strike, the victim continued running for about four or five steps before you struck him again to the back of the head with the gun. This time he fell to the ground. It is not clear to me which of the two strikes caused the serious injury or whether it was a combination of both. I should note that the medical evidence does not reveal how many strikes there were, and that a single injury may be consistent with several blows to the area of injury.
Psychological and other reports
38Tendered at the plea hearing on your behalf were the following reports:
· Exhibit D2, report of Alison Mynard, psychologist, dated 25 February 2025.
· Exhibit D3, report of Alice Lee, neuropsychologist, dated 15 March 2019.
· Exhibit D4, report of Mathew Staios, neuropsychologist, dated 11 November 2020.
· Exhibit D5, addendum report of Alison Mynard dated 23 April 2025.
39I have read and had regard to each of those reports. I shall refer to them in brief only.
40Ms Lee stated you were placed in residential care in June 2017 because of your aggressive behaviour towards members of your family and damaging property. Police took out an intervention order against you and you were required to leave home. You were 15 years old, and this marked your first involvement with Youth Justice.
41Ms Lee noted your history of learning difficulties and behavioural issues as well as poor school attendance. Your educational years were marked by aggressive outbursts and defiant attitudes towards adults.
42With regard to your left arm disability, Ms Lee noted that your motor skills are affected because of a limited range of movement and mobility of your left arm.
43Ms Lee referred to intellectual functioning assessments conducted when you were seven, nine and twelve years of age. They showed that your overall cognitive functioning was deemed to be in the extremely low range. Ms Lee conducted her own assessment using the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – Fourth Edition. You were assessed as having a full-scale IQ of 70. Ms Lee stated that your general cognitive ability fell within the borderline range of intellectual functioning. She stated, with 95 per cent confidence, that your true full scale IQ score lies between 67 and 75. At the time of your assessment you were 16 years, nine months of age. Ms Lee considered that you have consistently presented with mild intellectual disability and that you suffer significant deficits in your adaptive functioning.
44Mr Staios noted a history of binge drinking and cannabis use commencing at the age of 12. He stated you consistently used cannabis throughout your adolescence using approximately two grams daily, as well as opportunistic use of benzodiazepines. He also noted a previous psychological assessment that referred to symptoms of post-traumatic stress and depression.
45Ms Mynard’s reports were obtained in relation to the current offences.
46Ms Mynard administered the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale – 21. This is a self-report questionnaire used to measure depression, anxiety and stress. According to your answers, you measured in the severe range of depression symptoms, the moderate range of anxiety, and the severe range of stress. It was not clear for how long you have had those symptoms or whether they were present during your offending.
47Ms Mynard noted that during your teenage years you felt a strong need to fit in with your peers, particularly because you had been ostracised and bullied by many of your peers due to your disability.
48You told Ms Mynard that you have been in a relationship for the last seven years and report that your girlfriend is an important source of support and motivation in your life.
49You were reluctant to talk to Ms Mynard about past traumas. You did, however, report having experienced many traumas when in Parkville Youth Training Centre and in gaol. You stated you had been in fights, been assaulted many times and that you were in isolation cells for seven months.
50Ms Mynard considers you meet the criteria for complex post-traumatic stress disorder and mild intellectual disability. In her opinion these had significant effects on your mental state at the time of your offending. She states that your alcohol intoxication had some impact that likely exacerbated these issues.
51Ms Mynard states that at the time of your offending your low cognitive functioning led to reduced capacity to weigh the pros and cons before impulsively making a decision to assault the victim.
52In her second report, Ms Mynard said you told her you were so angry about what the victim and his friends did to your brother in jumping him and stealing his phone. Ms Mynard states you were consumed by an overwhelming focus on retrieving what was taken, describing it as 'tunnel vision to get the phone'.
53Regarding your mild intellectual disability, Ms Mynard stated that when coupled with your complex post-traumatic stress disorder, your impairments have significantly affected your ability to process information, regulate your emotions and problem solve under stress, all of which, she submitted, played a critical role in your response to the offending.
54Regarding your drinking on the night, Ms Mynard stated that your level of alcohol intake, as reported by you, was consistent with acute intoxication, which significantly impairs judgment, emotional regulation, inhibition control and motor coordination. The effects of alcohol likely amplified your compromised functioning. She stated that your offending behaviour took place in the context of the combined cognitive, psychological and alcohol disinhibited state.
55At paragraph 46 of her second report, Ms Mynard stated:
'In the absence of alcohol, while Mr Jal may have still experienced distress, anger, and reduced capacity for reasoned thought and decision-making, it is difficult to say whether the offending would have occurred in the same form given his existing mild intellectual disability and his complex PTSD presentation that also impact his behaviour.'
56Ms Mynard gave evidence on the second day of the plea hearing.
57Regarding your underlying mental health and cognitive functioning, Ms Mynard stated it was her belief they had a huge impact on your decision-making and survival at the time of your offending. She stated it appeared your PTSD had been triggered because you were feeling targeted and helpless to the point that you developed 'tunnel vision' to get your brother’s phone, notwithstanding that the phone had been taken some 90 minutes before the offending.
58Regarding the impact of incarceration, Ms Mynard stated that because you suffer complex post-traumatic stress disorder and intellectual impairment, the prison environment will continue to have a serious impact on your mental health because you lack the resources to be able to manage it. She referred to your report that you 'self-harmed' while in gaol. She also stated that you become triggered with the interpersonal dynamics with other prisoners and with being bullied.
59Asked by your counsel what your risk of reoffending was, Ms Mynard stated it was moderate. With appropriate therapy, it would be reduced to probably a low risk of reoffending. Ms Mynard conceded that she had not conducted any formal risk assessment.
60Ms Mynard accepted that it was hard, and in her words 'really impossible' to disentangle the state of your intoxication and your complex PTSD and intellectual disability. She stated that being substance-affected did not negate your PTSD, nor did it cancel out your intellectual impairment. It more likely enhanced the symptoms of PTSD.
Submissions
61Ms Tatas, who appeared on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions, submitted that your offending is a serious example of the offence of recklessly causing serious injury.
62Ms Tatas submitted the following matters were relevant to the assessment of the objective gravity of your offending:
1) the injuries suffered by the victim and the opinion expressed by Dr Schreiber;
2) the victim was intoxicated and unarmed and therefore vulnerable;
3) you used a handgun as a weapon;
4) the chase was not instantaneous and, in circumstances where a gun had been discharged and you were chasing the victim with a gun, the period of the chase would have been terrifying;
5) you committed the offences in company, having chased the victim with your brother: and
6) the violence was significant involving two strikes to the back of the head with a weapon.
63Ms Tatas stated you entered your pleas of guilty on the morning of a contested committal hearing and no witnesses were examined. It was accepted that your pleas of guilty have utilitarian value and are evidence of some remorse.
64Regarding your prospects of rehabilitation, Ms Tatas noted that you had been released on 31 March 2024 following a sentence imposed by Judge Tinney on 26 April 2021.[1] On that occasion, His Honour, whose reasons for sentence I have read, regarded your prospects of rehabilitation as 'guarded'. You committed these offences 12 days after your release. It was submitted that notwithstanding your youthful age, your prospects of rehabilitation are poor and the risk of you reoffending is high.
[1]DPP v Jal [2021] VCC 488
65Ms Tatas accepted that limb 1 of Verdins[2] is enlivened to 'some small degree' because of your reduced capacity to assess situations; 'to weigh the pros and cons,' both due to your history of trauma and your intellectual disability. Ms Tatas accepted there was a causal connection between your impairments and the offending. She submitted, however, that your state of intoxication reduced the weight to be given to the first limb.
[2] R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269
66Ms Tatas also accepted that Verdins limbs 3 and 4 have some application. The weight needed to be given to those factors, she submitted, must be moderated against community protection. Ms Tatas conceded Verdins limb 5 but submitted there is no specific evidence that would enliven limb 6.
67Ms Tatas accepted it is open to find that you became involved in this offence because of the theft of your brother’s phone. She submitted, however, that your conduct was retribution for that theft and does not reduce your moral culpability.
68Ms Tatas submitted that this offending was serious, and the only appropriate sentence is one of a head sentence with a non-parole period. She submitted that community protection is the most important sentencing consideration given your past history of offending, and that you committed these offences within two weeks of being released from a significant period of imprisonment. She also relied on Ms Mynard’s evidence concerning your inability to regulate your 'flight or fight' responses. Ms Tatas also questioned Ms Mynard’s evidence that your risk of re-offending is 'moderate' having regard to your past behaviours and mental state.
69Regarding your co-offenders, Mr Le pleaded guilty to using a firearm in a public place; being a prohibited person in possession of firearms; and a charge of assisting an offender on the basis of hiding firearms. His case is listed for mention in the Drug and Alcohol Division of this court. Ms Nguyen pleaded guilty to being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm; possessing methylamphetamine; and assisting an offender. She was sentenced in the Magistrates’ Court to a community correction order. Your brother is charged with recklessly causing injury and is listed for a sentence indication hearing at this Court. I have not been provided with any details concerning their antecedents. In any event, they face different charges, and it has not been suggested that the principle of parity applies.
70Your counsel, Mr Mortley, acknowledged your lengthy and relevant criminal history. He stated you are at serious risk of institutionalisation.
71Mr Mortley submitted there was a 'clear nexus' between your cognitive impairment and complex PTSD and the offending. He submitted that given your intellectual disability, including deficits in perceptual reasoning, adaptive skills, processing speed and adaptive behaviour, combined with a heightened threat perception, including the perception of being bullied, you are less blameworthy in the circumstances for how you reacted.
72Mr Mortley also submitted you have a reduced capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of your response, believing that you were the victim who was unfairly targeted. It was put that you were single minded in your endeavour to retrieve your brother’s phone and that the consequences of swinging a pistol at the victim, who you perceived to be a fleeing thief, were not within your cognitive grasp.
73All these factors, he submitted, reduce your level of moral culpability.
74It was also submitted that there was no planning involved in the commission of the offences, you had not consumed any illicit substances, you were not armed with the gun until after being attacked, and that your offending occurred impulsively when the victim would not stop running and return the phone.
75Mr Mortley also submitted that this was not a random attack on a stranger. He submitted you were not out looking for trouble, your only intention was to help retrieve your brother’s telephone, and the theft of the phone induced in you a state of mind that you were a victim. This consideration, he submitted, reduces the need for denunciation and protection of the community.
76Mr Mortley submitted that all Verdins principles are enlivened.
77Mr Mortley also relied on the application of sentencing principles concerning youthful offenders and, given your intellectual disability, on the principles stated by the court in Muldrock.[3]
[3] Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120
78Mr Mortley also submitted that your complex PTSD and cognitive impairment, means that imprisonment will be more onerous for you than on an offender who does not suffer such issues. He also submitted Ms Mynard gave evidence that there is a serious risk imprisonment will have a significant adverse impact on your mental health. Mr Mortley pointed to the incident of self-harm during your period of remand. Little else, however, was provided by way of detail concerning that incident.
79It was also submitted that your rehabilitation through targeted interventions, such as those suggested by Ms Mynard, will best protect the community.
80Mr Mortley submitted that I should sentence you to a combination sentence of gaol and a community correction order with a Justice Plan.
Sentencing considerations
81In assessing the gravity of your conduct on Charge 2, I have had regard to the seriousness of the injury suffered by the victim and the degree of recklessness of your conduct. I also have regard to the maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment that may be imposed for this offence.
82I have already referred to the expert opinion of Dr Schreiber. You caused a fracture of the skull bone with internal brain bleeding that was immediately life threatening. Without timely medical treatment, Mr Tang was likely to have died from the injuries you caused. You did not render him any assistance but callously left him lying motionless on the ground. I have not been informed whether there has been any lasting impact upon Mr Tang. There is no victim impact statement. However, having viewed the CCTV recordings, I have no doubt that he must have been terrified of both you and your brother as he tried to run from you.
83I also have regard to the fact that you struck Mr Tang twice with a weapon to the head, a vulnerable part of the body. The strikes were delivered in quick succession. It is not clear whether one or both strikes caused the serious injury. The use of the weapon is an aggravating feature of your conduct. Adding to the seriousness of your conduct is that it was committed in the company of your brother and in public. Drunken street violence is regrettably all too prevalent in our community.
84While the victim lay motionless on the ground, you stole his bag. The offence of theft has a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.
85I am not able to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that your conduct in striking the victim was 'retribution' for the theft of your brother’s phone. Whatever had earlier occurred is far from clear. It is conceded by the prosecution that your brother’s phone was stolen. Beyond that, however, there is no evidence.
86I am also not able to be satisfied that the assault on the victim was planned or premeditated. Nevertheless, this was serious offending, falling, in my opinion, within the mid-range level of seriousness. By your plea to the charge of recklessly causing injury you were aware that your acts in striking the victim with the handgun would probably cause him serious injury.
87Your possession of the handgun is also serious. You armed yourself with a handgun and were in possession of it as you chased the victim. You carried the gun in public while acutely intoxicated. The gun was not possessed for any lawful purpose. The seriousness of this offence is reflected in the maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment that may be imposed.
88You pleaded guilty to the charges on the morning of the committal hearing. While these are not pleas entered at the earliest opportunity, they are nevertheless of utilitarian value. You have spared the witnesses the ordeal of having to give evidence and you have saved the Court and the community the time and expense of a trial. You have acknowledged responsibility for your conduct and by reason of your pleas, you are entitled to a reduction in the sentence that would otherwise be imposed. I also accept that your pleas are indicative of some remorse.
89At the time of these offences, you were 21 years of age. As has been recognised in cases such as Mills[4] and Azzopardi,[5] youth of an offender should be a primary consideration for a sentencing court where that matter properly arises. Rehabilitation is often a significant sentencing consideration. However, each case will depend on its own facts and generally the more serious the offending, the less significant the mitigating effect of an offender’s youth.
[4]R v Mills [1998] 4 VR 235
[5]Azzopardi v R; Baltatzis v R; Gabriel v R (2011) 35 VR 43
90Regarding your prospects of rehabilitation, I consider them 'guarded' at best. Although you are still of a young age, your history of offending is alarming, and it is not insignificant that these offences occurred 12 days after you were released from a significant term of imprisonment for serious offences including home invasion, robbery and attempted robbery. You have many prior convictions for offences of violence and have previously been given opportunities to rehabilitate.
91Furthermore, I do not accept Ms Mynard’s opinion that you represent only a 'moderate' risk of re-offending. Ms Mynard did not elaborate on her opinion, made no reference to your criminal history in giving her opinion, and did not conduct any formal testing.
92In Muldrock, the court stated:
'… A question will often arise as to the causal relation, if any, between an offender’s mental illness and the commission of the offence. Such a question is less likely to arise in sentencing a mentally retarded offender because the lack of capacity to reason, as an ordinary person might, as to the wrongfulness of the conduct will, in most cases, substantially lessen the offender’s moral culpability for the offence. The retributive effect and denunciatory aspect of a sentence that is appropriate to a person of ordinary capacity will often be inappropriate to the situation of a mentally retarded offender and to the needs of the community.'[6]
[6]Muldrock (n2) at [54]
93In Rule,[7] the court considered the principles in Muldrock and Verdins and stated that the extent to which particular attributes of an offender may be relevant to sentence and moderate the weight that might otherwise be accorded to denunciation and deterrence, cannot be reduced to a particular formula. At paragraph [29] the court stated:
'… It is imperative that the principles not be reduced to ritual incantation, but equally that they not swamp other considerations, including community protection, so as to produce an entirely inadequate sentence.'[8]
[7]Rule v The Queen [2022] VSCA 162
[8] Ibid at [29]
94I accept that the level of your moral culpability is reduced by reason of your intellectual disability, complex post-traumatic stress disorder, and your youthful age. It is appropriate to moderate the weight to be given to considerations of deterrence, denunciation and punishment. Your impairments affected your ability to process information, regulate your emotions and problem solve when under stress. The impact of those impairments, however, was amplified through your state of acute intoxication. While considerations of deterrence, denunciation and punishment will be moderated, they are not excluded, and some weight must attach to them. In considering the extent to which they are to be moderated, I have regard to your state of intoxication, your deliberate acts in telephoning friends, seeking their assistance, and arming yourself with a pistol before chasing the victim. Given your history of offending, in particular violent offending, weight must attach to the need to protect the community from you.
95Having regard to your intellectual disability and complex PTSD, I accept that prison will be a greater burden on you than on a prisoner without those impairments. I take this into account in determining an appropriate sentence. However, I am not persuaded that there should be any reduction in sentence on account of Verdins’ principle 6. I do not consider that the evidence of Ms Mynard establishes that there is a serious risk of imprisonment having a significant adverse effect on your mental health. No reference was made by Ms Mynard as to the effect previous periods of incarceration have had on your mental health, or why it is that any further incarceration will have such an impact.
96At the conclusion of the plea hearing, and without deciding the appropriateness of placing you on a community correction order with a Justice plan, I nevertheless had you assessed for both.
97A community correction order assessment dated 3 June 2025 was provided to the court and to the parties. You were assessed as representing a high risk of general re-offending. Notwithstanding this high risk, you were assessed as suitable for a community correction order.
98When discussing your offending with the author of the report, you disclosed disappointment in yourself and remorse for your conduct. You recognised that for the victim it was 'a situation of nightmares'. You said you had thought a lot about your behaviour and wished you had done things differently or just walked away. You also noted you had consumed a large amount of alcohol compared to an average night and that you acted without thinking of the consequences. These reflections on your part are encouraging.
99A report was also obtained from the Mental Health Advice and Response Service dated 2 June 2025. It recommended that should you be placed on a community correction order, a mental health condition be attached given the author’s assessment that you have a 'moderate mental health problem'. It was also reported you have been experiencing suicidal ideation in custody and that you cut yourself approximately two months ago on your body. It was a small cut that did not require medical attention. You denied other self-harm incidents in prison and denied any intent or plan of suicide.
100A report was provided in response to the request for a Justice Plan, by Leila Lima, Forensic Disability Statewide Access Service, Department of Families, Fairness and Housing, dated 6 May 2025.
101Ms Lima noted that you had previously been referred to DFFH pursuant to s571(4) of the Children, Youth & Families Act 2005 by a magistrate on 19 August 2019. An assessment was conducted by psychologists Dr Francis Puccio and Stephanie Lau using the Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability. You were aged 17 years and four months at the time. That assessment is intended for people from culturally diverse backgrounds. Using that assessment, a score of 89 was obtained, which fell within the low average range of intellectual functioning. Regard was also had to the psychological assessment reports of Jake Kraska, psychologist, dated 12 June 2024, and the report of Alice Lee, dated 15 March 2019.
102In addition, the reports of Mr Mathew Staios and Alison Mynard were also provided. Ms Lima reported that John Phung, psychologist at DFFH, reviewed the information and determined it did not change the previous outcome. It was considered you do not have an intellectual disability within the meaning of the Disability Act2006, and you are therefore not eligible for a Justice Plan.
103In response, Mr Mortley provided further submissions dated 8 August 2025, submitting that there is extensive evidence to sentence you on the basis of 'substantive cognitive deficits and mental health concerns' that give rise to Muldrock and Verdins considerations. I accept the submissions of Mr Mortley. I do not have the report of Dr Puccio and Ms Lau or the basis for Mr Phung’s opinion. I note that the prosecution was also given the opportunity to respond to the reports just mentioned and declined to do so. However, the fact remains that you are not eligible for a Justice Plan.
104In determining the appropriate sentence, I have had regard to the cases to which I was referred by counsel, together with other decisions of the Court of Appeal and this Court.[9] Sentences passed in other cases may provide some assistance in informing the instinctive synthesis, but they are not precedents that must be followed. I note that the offence of recklessly causing serious injury, in particular, encompasses a broad range of conduct, such that comparisons are often difficult to make. Each case must ultimately be decided by reference to the circumstances personal to the offender, the circumstances of the offending and the aggravating and mitigating features present in the case.
[9]Mazzonetto v The Queen [2022] VSCA 153; Jawahiri v The Queen [2021] VSCA 287; Hamid v The Queen [2019] VSCA 5; Al Wahame v The Queen [2018] VSCA 4; DPP v McKay [2018] VSCA 292; DPP v Edwards [2018] VCC 1910; DPP v Akok [2021] VCC 722; DPP v Dow [2020] VCC 1605
105Notwithstanding the detailed and careful submissions of Mr Mortley, and his reliance on the second limb of Verdins, I do not consider it appropriate to release you on a combination sentence. In my opinion, your offending was serious and warrants, in all of the circumstances, a term of imprisonment, together with a non-parole period.
106Mr Jal, would you please stand.
Sentence
107On Charge 1, being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm, you are convicted and sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment.
108On Charge 2, recklessly causing serious injury, you are convicted and sentenced to two years’ and nine months’ imprisonment.
109On Charge 3, theft, you are convicted and sentenced to 14 days’ imprisonment.
110I direct that three months of the sentence imposed on Charge 1 be served cumulatively on the sentence imposed on Charge 2. This makes a total effective sentence of three years’ imprisonment. I set a non-parole period of 24 months.
111Pursuant to s18 Sentencing Act 1991 the period of imprisonment reckoned as already served under this sentence is 425 days, not including today.
112Pursuant to s6AAA of that Act, had it not been for your pleas of guilty the sentence I would otherwise have imposed is four years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 34 months.
- - -
0
16
0