Director of Public Prosecutions v Kakis

[2025] VCC 1095

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Revised
Not Restricted
 Suitable for Publication

Case No. CR-24-00180
CR-24-01708

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

STAMATA KAKIS

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE WILMOTH
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	4 July 2025
DATE OF SENTENCE:	1 August 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Kakis
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VCC 1095

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject: Criminal law - sentence 

Catchwords: Offender found guilty by a jury of one charge of aggravated burglary and one charge of theft – over $80,000 - pleaded guilty to one summary charge of possession of a prohibited weapon, one summary charge of making a false report to police and on separate indictment one charge of possessing  a drug of dependence – planned and executed fake armed robbery and theft as insider – co-accused used imitation gun to force offender to open safe and allow co-accused to take cash from gambling venue -  serious offending – gross breach of employer’s trust. 

Legislation Cited:      

Cases Cited:DPP v Cini [2024] VCC, Verdins  v R [2007] VSCA 102

Sentence:                   2 years and 7 months with a non-parole period of 18 months.         

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Mr Z. Petric (plea) Ms E. Muir (sentence)	OPP
For the Accused	Mr J. Connolly	Hofman Carroll Criminal Law

HER HONOUR:

1Stamata Kakis, you have been found guilty by a jury of one charge of aggravated burglary and one charge of theft. These offences occurred on 20 May 2023, by means of a staged aggravated burglary, with you playing an insider role.

2You have also pleaded guilty to two related summary offences, making a false report to police and possessing a prohibited weapon, namely a baton (Indictment P11481358T CR-24-00180).. On a separate indictment is a charge of possessing a drug of dependence, namely MDMA. Two tablets of MDMA were found in your possession when you were arrested on 10 July 2023 (Indictment P11481358P CR-24-01708).

3The maximum sentences for aggravated burglary and theft are 25 years and 10 years' imprisonment respectively, and for the summary offences, one year for making a false report, and two years for possessing a prohibited weapon. The maximum penalty for possession of a drug of dependence is five years. Fines are also available for these three offences.

4Although you have been assessed as suitable for a Community Correction Order, I have determined that a combined sentence, incorporating a prison term with a Community Correction Order, is not appropriate.

I will be sentencing you to a term of imprisonment of two years and seven months, with a non-parole period of 18 months.

The offending

5In May 2023 you had been employed for some time at the Nu Hotel in Scott Street, Dandenong. On the morning of the offence you were tasked with duties of opening the venue. You and an associate, Ryan Bayless,[1] had planned to rob the hotel of takings from the previous night, in order to finance legal fees for your brother Stephen Kakis, who was in custody at Port Philip Prison. Bayless and Zak Hendley were associates of your brother. Hendley had been released from prison just before the offending, and Bayless shortly before Hendley.

[1] A pseudonym. 

6Your brother had been in frequent telephone contact with you from prison in the fortnight or so before the offence, and he had told you that his solicitor needed the money for his legal fees. There was a sense of desperation in those requests to you, as he returned repeatedly to the topic to discuss its urgency. You reassured him that you understood and that you would get the money and pay the lawyer.

7Your brother told you that Bayless might get in touch with you about this. Hendley's role was to place you in contact with Bayless, whose phone number you did not have.

8All these calls from prison were recorded by the Arunta system. The content of certain of those calls suggests that you were under considerable pressure from your brother to obtain the funds by the deadline required by the lawyer.

9On 13 May the CCTV system at the Nu Hotel was deactivated. You were seen that day, making entries on a computer in the security room from where the CCTV system was controlled. The system remained deactivated for three days until it was reactivated by a security contractor.

10The prosecution case at the trial was that you deactivated the recording system to enable you to carry out the burglary plan, but when it was reactivated your plan had to be modified. Through your counsel, Mr Connelly, you deny that, maintaining that this was much earlier than the burglary and so cannot be connected with it.

11On 14 May you had obtained online materials dealing with procedures in reacting to armed robberies at work. The prosecution maintains that this was to assist you in your plan for a fake armed robbery, but you denied that.

12On 17 May you used Google to search the words 'under desk duress'. The prosecution maintains that this was part of the information you were seeking to assist in the planning of the offence. Again, you deny this.

13The prosecution further maintains that on 20 May you deleted material from your computer, and that this indicates incriminating conduct designed to hide any trace of planning for the offending.

14On 17 May you sent a text message to Hendley telling him to come to your place to talk about an opportunity 'on Saturday morning' to make money for Stephen's legal fees and some for himself. On 18 May Hendley and Bayless both came to your home and together you planned the fake armed robbery. There is no evidence that Hendley played any further part in the execution of the plan.

15At about 5.45 am on Saturday 20 May, Bayless, wearing a backpack, approached the Nu Hotel on foot, and turned his mobile phone off. He then walked into Dickens Lane which leads to the back roller door of the staff entrance to the hotel.

16A few minutes before 6 am Nina Ouch, the duty manager, completed her shift and left the hotel via the front door. This had been the first time she had performed alone the closing duties at the end of the shift. The security company had called her at 5.30 to ask her why the alarm had not yet been turned on. Ms Ouch said she was running late and would turn it on when she left.

17You had met Ms Ouch several months earlier and she had obtained her job at the Nu Hotel when you encouraged her to apply. You had helped train her and it appears that she had confidence in your experience.

18She called you that morning to check as to her duties. She did not have a code for the safe and you had instructed her to leave the takings on the table, rather than place the cash in the safe. You also told her not to bother turning the alarm on as you were on your way to the hotel and were nearby.

19At about 6 am you drove past the front of the hotel, performed a U-turn, then drove back past the hotel and along Scott Street. You then drove past the front of the hotel again, and entered Dickens Lane, and drove into the garage area.

20As soon as you parked there, Bayless, who had been waiting for the door to open, ran inside and feigned to forcefully remove you from your car, holding you at gunpoint, with what you both knew was an imitation firearm.

21He then walked you at gunpoint to the office where the cash safe was stored. You unlocked the safe and went to two ATMs and handed all the cash from them to Bayless. He also gained access to the safe in the strong room.

22Later when you spoke to police you said the man who held you at gunpoint told you to take him to the money, and in the strong room you handed him takings of about $40,000 stored in pencil cases on a benchtop.

23Bayless left in your car and you rang Triple 0. When police arrived, you told them you had been held at gunpoint and forced to give the cash to the man. You said your bag and phone had been in the car and had been taken by the man.

24At about 6.15 pm that day you told police that at about 1 pm you had used the 'Find My Phone' application, which indicated that your phone (and likely your car) was at 2 Napier Street, Dandenong. You said you tried again an hour later but did not get a result. You did not explain why you had not told the police this earlier.

25At around 7pm police found the car parked outside 14 Napier Street. Later that evening you searched, via Google, for 'how to delete activity' on your computer.

26On 21 May your brother telephoned you and you told him you had been ambushed at work and had over $100,000 taken at gunpoint. You told him you needed until Tuesday to pay the lawyer, and that there was no need for him to get a loan from your parents.

27On 22 May Bayless called the lawyer and went to his office in the city. On 26 May the sum of $33,500 was banked in relation to Stephen Kakis' legal fees.

28On 23 May you had a conversation with your brother in which you both referred in code form to the money having been paid to the lawyer, and that his trial could now go ahead.

29Bayless was arrested on 9 June 2023 and was found with a number of items that linked him to the fake armed robbery. You were arrested on 10 July 2023. On 30 May this year the jury found you guilty of both charges. After the trial you were remanded in custody.

30When your home was searched police found two MDMA tablets, which were for your own personal use, and a baton, which was not the weapon used in the course of the aggravated burglary.

Gravity of offending

31An aggravating factor in this matter is that a large sum of money, $80,704.50,  was stolen from the hotel and never recovered. There is no evidence that you benefitted at all from the funds, reinforcing that the motivation was to help your brother.

32You made a false report to police and did not tell them the truth, thus hampering the investigation. You did not give them full details in relation to your missing phone and car.

33The prosecution submission as to gravity is that it is at a medium level. The feigned nature of it means that no person was inside the premises, violence was avoided, and no-one was a victim in that sense. However, you had gained the trust of your employers through your hard work over several months, and you were able to leverage that trust and breach it, to their cost. You succeeded in circumventing security and manipulating the good faith of Ms Ouch, by pretending to be helpful to her.

34The plan you made and put in place was quite skilled and sophisticated and easily became the subject of a false complaint to police, when you made a statement to them after the burglary.

35Mr Connelly submitted on your behalf that the gravity should be regarded as lower than this, even accepting that there was planning and that a considerable sum was stolen. He submitted that you yourself were not carrying the imitation gun, that you made sure no-one else would be in the building, and the building was a commercial premises, and one of a number of corporative entities, rather than a local small business.

36Mr Connelly submitted that Bayless was the only other person involved, in that Hendley's only role was to provide access to Bayless. Mr Petric for the prosecution characterised this differently, with Hendley being a crucial link between you and Bayless, thus neutralising the connection between you and Bayless. This is important to assess the level of criminality of the plan and its execution, by ascribing it to three people rather than two, with both the men having in common their criminogenic social connections.

37The particular aspects of planning relied upon by the prosecution and denied by the defence, as mentioned earlier, are the deactivation of the CCTV recording system, and the computer searches for armed robbery training and the 'under desk duress'. Your action in deleting material from your computer later on 20 May lends credence to the likelihood of you doing the computer searches.

38Mr Connolly submitted that the timing of these actions does not support the prosecution case, but there is nothing to indicate that you did not begin the plan as early as 13 May, with what probably appeared to be an obvious step to take, in deactivating the CCTV recording system. It pre-dated by about five days the making of the plan with Bayless, but that quite elaborate plan would not have been necessary if the CCTV system was out of action and a simpler plan could have been put in place earlier.

39This evidence was part of the circumstantial case put to the jury in the trial, but it is not known to what extent, if at all, they accepted that evidence. It is now my decision to make, and I find that proof of these actions by you is established beyond reasonable doubt, in what was a strong circumstantial case.  

40The unique nature of this offending does, perhaps paradoxically, render it slightly less serious than otherwise. It was not real, and no-one felt the fear or other consequences that could have occurred and does occur in other cases. The breach of trust by you brings it very close to the medium level, but my view is that the offending fits within a slightly less serious level than that.

Personal background and circumstances

41You are now aged 54, and you were aged 51 when you committed the offences. You are single, and the mother of two sons, now aged 28 and 24. You have been married twice and have also had a third relationship. Unfortunately, the first marriage ended owing to physical violence by your husband, and you attribute to that violence a long-standing spinal injury, for which you have had surgery and still suffer consequential pain and disability.

42You have been treated by neurosurgeon Mr Greg Malham who reviewed you in April this year and reports that your medical status is stable, but you are permanently unfit for work.

43You have remained in contact with your second husband, the father of your older son, and you have an amicable relationship with him. He has written a reference for you, describing you as a dedicated mother who has worked hard to provide for your sons.

44A reference was also provided by Ms Chantelle Smith, a friend whom you helped in the past when she and her children were homeless.

45After your most recent relationship ended you relapsed into drug use, which had been a long-term problem since you began using amphetamine when you were 32, in the context of the breakdown of your second marriage. For a decade after that you used mainly methamphetamine but ceased when you met your third partner.

46In your 50s you started using alcohol to ease anxiety, which continued in the context of the charges for the current offending.

47You developed a gambling addiction, which was exacerbated by drug use and by your deteriorating mental health.

48You were assessed by a clinical psychologist, Ms Christine Kennedy, on 1 July 2025.

49In her report Ms Kennedy set out the details of your early years, specifically that you migrated to Australia from Greece with your parents and younger brother when you were aged 11. You had found this challenging, missing your friends in Greece and missing your grandmother.

50You were bullied at school for being Greek and not speaking English, and by your cousins, as their father had paid for your family's fares to Australia and your parents were accused of being slow to repay the money. You found learning difficult and did poorly, but you attended school until Year 11.

51You told Ms Kennedy that there was a certain amount of unhappiness at home, and you left at age 18 and moved in with your then boyfriend. Later in life you had counselling to help with relationship problems with your parents, and you were estranged from them for many years. Then you decided to attempt a reconciliation and you achieved this.

52You told Ms Kennedy that you have always been anxious, that you sleep very little and have a poor appetite. Ms Kennedy diagnosed borderline personality disorder, which she said is demonstrated by an inner state of vulnerability and emotional dysregulation. This, combined with other features of the disorder, make you likely to engage in impulsive behaviours that reflect poor judgment or lapses of judgment.

53These personality features, particularly your vulnerability, may help to explain, although not excuse, your decision to make the plan and carry it out, in order to assist your brother. Wiser or more reflective judgement may have prevented this. The tone of the telephone calls from your brother in prison, and your compliance with what really were his urgent demands, suggests your vulnerability to those demands, and the part they played in encouraging your compliance.

54As to other aspects of Ms Kennedy's report, she considered that your resort to illicit drugs as a form of self-medication has led to the diagnosis of stimulant use disorder, which is in early remission because you are in custody. Ms Kennedy also diagnosed, from your history and presentation, a generalised anxiety disorder and a gambling disorder which is both severe and persistent. However, you impressed her as a woman who has the capacity for generally good judgement and good ability to achieve positive outcomes. She sees you as struggling with the consequences of domestic violence and difficult childhood experiences, but that you would be amenable to having therapy in the community and might benefit from it.

55So in the context of that interview with Ms Kennedy you were able to demonstrate a capacity for good judgement, which you were not able to bring to bear on the situation of urgency expressed by your brother.

Sentencing issues

56The prosecution submission is for a head sentence with a non-parole period. The submission was that this was an inside job based on your egregious breach of the trust placed in you, with great efforts taken to conceal it, and with the theft of the whole night's takings being involved. The prosecution submission is that the preparatory steps you took and the false report to police all make it more serious, and deserving of a sentence more substantial than a combination sentence. The use of the imitation gun in particular contributed to the high degree of seriousness. Mr Petric submitted that the subsequent and pending matters reduce your prospects for rehabilitation.

57There is merit in those submissions, and I must weigh them against the defence submissions that a shorter combined sentence would be warranted.

58Mr Connolly submitted that a combination sentence of imprisonment and a Community Correction Order is an appropriate disposition. It was submitted that although you have a criminal history it is limited and you are not a persistent recidivist, unlike many others who appear in the courts. Your incarceration will be your first custodial sentence, at the age of 54.

59Your prospects for rehabilitation are likely to be good, based on your past demonstration of being able to leave behind the offending you committed as occurred when you were sentenced for in 2010, some 15 years ago, despite a more recent appearance for theft in 2022, for which you were fined.

60I am told that you have some convictions for driving offences, subsequent to the matters for which I am sentencing you today. There are also some more serious driving offences pending, alleged to have been committed in March this year.

61My focus must be on the current charges and matters relevant to that event. You have the support of your parents, who attended your trial every day, and were in court for the plea hearing. Your two sons and your brother also support you. While in prison you may well feel some anguish in not being able to help your parents as you have been doing. They are not easily conversant in English and require your help. Your brother, who is no longer in custody, may now be able to assist in that regard.

62Indeed he recently assisted his and your parents by writing a reference on their behalf, for the plea hearing. He described their frail health and the fact that you had been their primary support until recently. He referred to your supportive and caring nature, and capacity for rehabilitation.

63General deterrence is of high importance in a case like this, meaning others who might offend in this way should be deterred from it by the sentence imposed, and its denunciation by the court. On the other hand, the unique nature of the offending, as well as your likely good prospects for rehabilitation, mean that there is a somewhat reduced need for the sentence to provide for community protection.

64With these factors in mind, I arranged for you to be assessed as to your suitability for a Community Correction Order.

65For the purposes of the assessment you were classified as being at high risk of general re-offending, without any indications of persistent recidivism. After the offending in 2010 you worked hard in your employment and became the trusted worker you were at the time of the offending. You told the assessing officer that at this time you had relapsed into drug use after being abstinent for four years, and you expressed regret and shame for the impact on your employer.

66That said, having conducted a trial and denied your involvement, of course no discount for remorse or a plea of guilty is available to you.

67You have been assessed as you know as suitable for a Community Correction Order. That assessment warrants mention in that the assessing officer noted your reflections on prison life which indicate some positive insight, and the fact that you have completed a large number of certificate courses in the relatively short time you have been on remand.

68Your anxiety disorder, and physical frailty due to spinal injury and subsequent surgery, are relevant to sentencing.  Your experience of custody is likely to be more onerous than for others who do not suffer such conditions. I am told that you were working as a billet in prison but had to cease because of possible bullying.

69I am satisfied that those matters enliven limb 5 of the Verdins decision, which requires me to take them into account by way of modifying the length and type of sentence I impose, without regarding the offending as anything less than serious. It is not to the point that these conditions can be managed in custody, given that the spinal injury in particular causes pain when you are not in custody, and there is already evidence of your work ethic being undermined by bullying.

70The question of sentencing consistency arises in this case, with the recent sentencing of offenders in a similar case.

71I was referred by Mr Petric to the sentence imposed in the case of Cini,[2] where the circumstances were very similar, involving aggravated burglary and theft from a gaming venue. The offender in that case played the same role as Bayless (that is a reference to Mr Cini here) and was sentenced to a total effective sentence of five years and six months, with a non-parole period of three years and eight months. I am told that the decision is subject to a defence appeal.

[2] DPP v Cini [2024] VCC

72In that matter the offender, a man of similar age to you, had a significant criminal history and his rehabilitation prospects were guarded. He had served prison sentences in the past. He was motivated by financial reward. His circumstances differ from yours in regard to those matters.

73The sum stolen was $321,990, almost four times the amount you stole, which is a marked distinction.

74Since your plea hearing the other two offenders in that case have been sentenced, after a trial. Barbara Babic was the insider who worked at the hotel as Gaming manager and ensured that the cash was available for the planned theft.

75

Steven Cachia was a regular patron at the hotel and formed a relationship with

Ms Babic. He assisted Mr Cini to enter the hotel and provided written instructions to him for committing the offences.  Each was sentenced to three years imprisonment for the aggravated burglary and five years for the theft. The total effective sentence in each case was five years and six months. A non-parole period of three years was fixed for Ms Babic and three years and three months for Mr Cachia.

76The sentencing judge considered that there was careful planning and breach of trust by Ms Babic, as in your case. The offenders in that case, however, were motivated by significant personal financial reward, which sets it apart from this case, where you gained nothing from the theft which you agreed to commit at the urging of your brother.

77

The final sentence that bears some relevance to your case is that of

Mr Bayless, who was sentenced to a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order, of which the custodial part was 48 months. In other words, if he had not had the treatment order imposed, he would have been sentenced to 48 months. He had pleaded guilty, and his personal circumstances, such as significant childhood deprivation, were very different from yours. He had already spent almost two years in custody, having been remanded when arrested.

78

I have given very careful consideration to sentencing you, Ms Kakis. Your circumstances and the nature of your role warrant some leniency, and do not call for a sentence similar to that of the other offenders I have just mentioned. You have been assessed as suitable as you know for a Community Correction Order, and the assessment is useful for disclosing your insight and attitude of regret and shame, and empathy for your former employer, as well as your motivation to

re-engage with the community.

79However, I have concluded that the offending was too serious to be dealt with by a combined prison term and Community Correction Order.  Would you stand now please, Ms Kakis.

80On Indictment P11481358T CR-24-00180 I sentence you to one year and six months' imprisonment for aggravated burglary and two years for theft. I also sentence you to three months imprisonment for making a false report and three months for possessing a prohibited weapon.

81On Indictment P1148138P CR-24-01708 for the charge of possessing a drug I impose a fine of $500.

82The sentence for theft is the base sentence for purposes of cumulation. I order that six months of the sentence for aggravated burglary and one month of the sentence for making a false report be served in cumulation upon the base sentence. This results in a total effective sentence of two years and seven months. I order that you serve a period of 18 months before being eligible for parole.

83The prosecution seeks an order for disposal of items associated with the offending. Are you aware of that, Mr Connolly?

84MR CONNOLLY:  That is not opposed.

85HER HONOUR:  Not opposed, thank you. I make that order.

86I understand that there should be pre-sentence detention of 61 days not including today, is that agreed with?

87MR CONNOLLY:  Your Honour, we have it as 63.

88HER HONOUR:  I see, all right.

89MR CONNOLLY:  Being from the date 30 May, not including today.

90HER HONOUR:  Do you agree with that?

91MS MUIR:  Yes, that figure is agreed.

92HER HONOUR:  Sixty-three, that is to be reckoned as already served and I will note that on the court record.

93Are there any other matters, Ms Muir?

94MS MUIR:  Nothing further.

95HER HONOUR:  No, thank you.  Mr Connolly?

96MR CONNOLLY:  No, Your Honour.

97HER HONOUR:  Thank you. 

98Thank you officer, you may take Ms Kakis now.

- - -