Director of Public Prosecutions v MA (a pseudonym)
[2025] VCC 1357
•15 September 2025
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| MA (A PSEUDONYM) |
---
JUDGE: | CHIEF JUDGE CHAMBERS | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 4 September 2025 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 15 September 2025 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v MA (a pseudonym) | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2025] VCC 1357 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:Criminal law - sentencing
Catchwords: Guilty plea – violent disorder while wearing a face mask, four charges of aggravated burglary, armed robbery, four charges of false imprisonment, conduct endangering persons, two charges of producing an intimate image, conduct endangering life and recklessly causing serious injury – group of 13 offenders engaged in terrorising and riotous conduct over two hours at Malmsbury Youth Justice Centre – offence of violent disorder involves acts of the group with a common intention of causing injury or damage to property – offender complicit in other specific offending committed by the group – attacks on others detained were relentless and vicious – guilty plea entered at first reasonable opportunity – young offender – ADHD contributes to impulsivity – burden of imprisonment – totality a significant matter where offender subsequently sentenced for manslaughter – deterrence, denunciation and public safety warrant a sentence of imprisonment additional to that currently being served.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1958 (Vic); Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic)
Cases Cited:DPP v Sewell & Anor [2023] VSCA 70; R v Tafa [2022] VSC 466; R v MA (a pseudonym) [2023] VSC (unreported); Yat v The King [2024] VSCA 93; El-Waly [2012] VSCA 184.
Sentence: Total effective sentence of three years, two months and six days’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of two months and six days.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr G. Hayward | Office of Public Prosecutions Victoria |
| For the Accused | Ms K. Rolfe | Paul Vale Criminal Law |
HER HONOUR:
1MA,[1] following a sentence indication hearing before me,[2] you have pleaded guilty to the following offences arising from your involvement in riotous behaviour at Malmsbury Youth Justice Centre (‘Malmsbury’) on 3 October 2023:
(a) Violent disorder while wearing a face mask, which carries a maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment;
(b) Four charges of aggravated burglary, each of which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment;
(c) Armed robbery (a rolled up charge), which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment;
(d) Four charges of false imprisonment, each of which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment;[3]
(e) Conduct endangering persons, which carries a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment;
(f) Two charges of producing an intimate image, each of which carries a maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment;
(g) Conduct endangering life, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment; and
(h) Recklessly causing serious injury, which carries a maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment.
[1]Although MA is being sentenced as an adult, he was previously sentenced by the Supreme Court of Victoria as a child and, given the need refer to that anonymised sentence, the name of the accused has been anonymised in this matter.
[2]Sentence indication hearing conducted on 11 and 21 August 2025.
[3]One of which is a rolled-up charge
Key facts
2The offending involved thirteen co-offenders, acting as a group, who engaged in violent, terrorising and riotous conduct over the course of two hours at Malmsbury on 3 October 2023. You were one of four adults in that group and were 19 years old at the time of the offending. The other three adult co-offenders were 18.
3Eight of the thirteen co-offenders were under 18 and have subsequently been sentenced for their role by the Children’s Court.
4In order to place your offending in context, it is necessary to outline the background and incidents leading to these events.
5Broadly speaking, the offending occurred in the context of ongoing tensions and hostilities between separate youth 'gang' members and other young people affiliated with those groups who were either detained or on remand at Malmsbury. To manage these tensions, various members of each group had been placed in separate units at Malmsbury.
6The 13 co-offenders were amongst those placed in either the Monash or Deakin units. You and two other adult co-offenders, Michael Hailu and Isaac Hindmarsh, were housed in the Deakin units. The victims targeted in the offending, including 17-year-old Atem Juma,[4] and 18-year-old David Buol,[5] were placed separately in the Topaz Unit at Malmsbury.
[4] A pseudonym
[5] A pseudonym
7On 3 October 2023, young people detained or remanded in the Monash Unit at Malmsbury were scheduled to be relocated to the Cherry Creek Youth Justice Centre. Following an altercation earlier that day with members of the Safety and Emergency Response Team, known as 'SERT', two of the child co-offenders were placed in holding cells. When being transferred back to his unit, one of the co-offenders told a group of six of the co-offenders, who were seated in the Deakin unit courtyard, that the other co-offender had been 'violated' by a SERT member.
8After this, one of the co-offenders who had been placed in a holding cell refused to return to his room. A group within the Monash unit became agitated when they were told they were no longer going to be transferred to Cherry Creek. Three of the co-offenders then armed themselves with various items including a broom and vacuum cleaner pole, forcing two Youth Justice workers to flee to the secure 'fishbowl' area for staff. Two of the group then broke the fire sensor and sprinkler system setting off the fire alarm. At approximately 3.23 pm, three co-offenders began changing their clothes, covering their faces and began to 'fortify' the Monash B Wing unit corridor.
9One of the co-offenders confronted a female Youth Justice worker, Jodie Spadano, grabbing her by the shirt while pointing a sharpened pen at her. He threatened to kill her if she did not give him the keys to the internal secure door separating the junction between the wings to the Deakin unit. Up to this point you had played no role in these events. However, once the co-offender was handed the internal keys, he used them to open the 'T' junction doors to the Deakin Unit B Wing, allowing you to enter.
10Together with four other co-offenders, you then ran into the Deakin Unit B wing, where the group of you armed yourselves by snapping off the heads of brooms and mops to wield as weapons. Youth Justice workers fled from the 'fishbowl' area, which the group then entered and began searching.
11Mr Hindmarsh and Mr Hailu joined the group and also armed themselves with poles. They unlocked the secure entry door to the Deakin B wing corridor and the seven co-offenders, including you, ran towards the Monash Unit.
Violent Disorder
12At approximately 3.57pm, the seven Deakin unit co-offenders, including you, Mr Hindmarsh and Mr Hailu, arrived at the secure entry door to the Monash Unit armed with makeshift weapons. The door was unlocked and, after entering the Monash Unit, the group united with the six co-offenders from the Monash unit. You all began cheering, handshaking and hugging.
13This is when the violent disorder commenced and continued until the group began being apprehended by staff at 6.01pm. During that two-hour period, the co-offenders both threatened and used unlawful violence with the common goal of disrupting the operations of the Youth Justice Centre and, in doing so, caused injury to others and extensive damage to the facilities at Malmsbury.
14Within the course of that violent disorder, other specific offences were committed. You were complicit in that other offending.
15After joining together, the co-offenders used the stolen internal keys to enter the Monash unit staff 'fishbowl' area, where they changed clothes and covered their faces. A member of the group stole a tablet device that was later used to film the offending. A decision was then made to 'go get Atem', a reference to Atem Juma. The group then left the area armed with broken brooms, mops and a fire extinguisher.
Aggravated burglary of cells D1 and D2
16Due to the earlier incidents, Malmsbury was placed in lock-down. There were four Youth Justice workers, including Andrew Monaghan, working in the Topaz Unit at the time. They had returned those detained in D Wing, including Mr Juma and Mr Buol, to their cells.
17When they learnt that the group of you had left the Monash Unit and were heading to the Topaz Unit, the Youth Justice workers barricaded themselves inside the Manager’s office, using office furniture to hold the door closed. When other Youth Justice workers and teachers saw the group of you running towards the Topaz Unit, masked and carrying poles, they locked themselves inside a toilet. The teachers took the precaution of hiding scissors inside the toilet cistern, so they could not be accessed by any member of the group.
18At 4.10pm the group gained access to the Topaz unit staff area using the stolen keys and discovered the location of Mr Juma’s unit, 'D1', written on the whiteboard. A member of the group yelled 'D1' repeatedly and urged the group to 'whoop his ass badly'. The 13 co-offenders then walked towards D1, banging on other unit doors as they passed. Mr Hailu used the keys to unlock the door to D1. The group entered and immediately began to assault Mr Juma with the improvised weapons, hitting and stabbing him repeatedly. Mr Juma managed to crawl out of his room whilst being assaulted before running to the exit, wearing only his underwear.
19Other co-offenders then opened the door to D2 and began to assault Mr David Buol, before he also ran out of the room. He was then cornered by the co-offenders in a multipurpose room where the assault on him continued.
20In the meantime, you and the rest of the group had chased Mr Juma to the fishbowl area and continued to assault him as he lay on the floor.
21After being assaulted by others, Mr Buol ran back into 'D2’ followed by Mr Hailu and co-offenders who continued to assault him, causing him to scream out in pain. At 4.21pm, Mr Buol observed that the group had left the Topaz Unit and fled towards the fishbowl area where he hid under a table with Mr Juma.
Armed Robbery
22The group then ran to the Education Building where the two Youth Justice workers and six teachers remained locked inside the toilet. You, together with seven co-offenders, attempted to push the door open, demanding that the staff open the door and hand over their keys. When the co-offenders threatened to break the door down, the staff opened the door far enough to hand over their keys, radios, belts and swipe passes, before closing the toilet door.
23The group then tried to use these keys and swipes to unlock the sally port door dividing the ‘junior’ and ‘senior’ sides of Malmsbury, to gain access to another detainee, but were unable to do so. +
24
False Imprisonment
25At 4.28 pm, the group of you returned to the Education Building, again demanding that the Youth Justice workers and teachers come out of the toilet. The stolen fire extinguisher was then sprayed through the vent. As a result, the eight staff members inside the toilet were unable to breathe properly and left the toilet. The group demanded the victims sit at a table and then locked them inside the Education Building.
Aggravated burglaries of cells B1 and B2
26At 4.47pm, the thirteen co-offenders re-entered the Topaz unit where other young people, including 17-year-old Jay Edwards[6] and 21-year-old’s Adam Hansen[7] and Travis Lynch,[8] were located.
[6] A pseudonym
[7] A pseudonym
[8] A pseudonym
27The group entered Mr Lynch’s room 'B2', which was unlocked, and began to assault him with the weapons. He was removed from the room with blood covering his forehead. He was then struck to the face with one of the improvised weapons before being made to sit in the lounge area next to Mr Hansen.
28The group surrounded the door to room 'B1', where Mr Edwards was located, demanding that he come out. When he refused, Mr Edwards was also struck with an improvised weapon as he tried to push the co-offenders out of the doorway. The co-offenders entered his room as they continued to strike Mr Edwards. The door to 'B1' was then held closed by the group.
Reckless conduct endangering persons
29You then held to door to room 'B1' open, allowing Mr Hailu to deploy the stolen fire extinguisher into the room occupied by Mr Edwards. The door was then shut and locked behind you. By your guilty plea, you acknowledge that your involvement in this reckless conduct endangered the victim and that a reasonable person would have realised your conduct placed the victim at risk of serious injury or may have done so.
Violent Disorder continues
30The violent disorder continued when Mr Edwards was told to come out of the room. He initially refused, before coming out to sit in the lounge area where he was struck to the head with a pole and told to move to the other end of the lounge area. As he did so, Mr Hindmarsh punched Mr Edwards to the back of the head, causing him to stagger. He was then chased out of the area, continuing to be assaulted with the improvised weapons and being told to go back into room, ‘B2'.
Produce intimate image
31You and Mr Hindmarsh entered the room where Mr Lynch was lying on his bed bleeding.
32Mr Edwards was instructed to kiss Mr Lynch. In fear of being struck again, Mr Edwards leant forward and kissed Mr Lynch on the mouth, in response to which the group began laughing and taunting him. The group demanded they do so repeatedly, and for longer. A co-offender streamed the image of the victims’ kissing using the stolen tablet, while being encouraged to do so by the group.
Violent Disorder continues
33As the taunting continued, Mr Edwards was again assaulted with improvised weapons before he picked up a broken vacuum cleaner pole to defend himself, waving it at the group. The victim was then threatened, being told to, 'Put that down or we’ll fuck you up real shit'. Once Mr Edwards put the pole down on the table he was punched to the head and surrounded by three co-offenders who kicked him to the head before dragging him into room 'B1'. He was then forced to move back to room 'B2' before the door was closed and locked.
34As twelve of your fellow co-offenders began to search for Mr Juma and Mr Buol, you returned to the Education Building and unlocked the door. You told the Youth Justice workers and teachers that they were free to leave. They tried to do so via a secure gate. When they asked you for the keys to open the gate, you refused and the staff returned to the Education Building.
Reckless conduct endangering life to Mr Buol
Recklessly causing serious injury to Mr Juma
35At 5.01 pm, Mr Juma was found hiding behind a garbage bin at the rear of the Programs Building, opposite the Topaz unit, and tried to run away from the group. In the meantime, Mr Buol began running around the exterior of the Topaz unit to avoid being caught.
36Mr Juma stopped outside the rear of the Topaz unit and surrendered to the group, raising his hands in the air. Despite doing so, he was struck directly to his head with a pole with sufficient force that he fell to the ground. He placed his hands over his head trying to protect his head as he was repeatedly struck to the head and body with poles and improvised weapons. The stolen fire extinguisher was sprayed over Mr Juma and his hair was ripped out in chunks.
37As the assault continued, the group made Mr Juma display his bleeding and swollen face to a 'Zoom' call made by one of the group. The group demanded that he repeat the words, 'fuck East Side' which he did to the cheers of co-offenders and others present on the link. The victim was also forced to display the symbol of the 'West Side' gang with his hand.
38In the meantime, Mr Buol was cornered by the group at the exterior fence line, when Mr Hailu ran towards him holding a sharp implement. Mr Buol attempted to surrender by sitting on the ground but was kicked to the head by Mr Hindmarsh with sufficient force to cause him to fall backwards. While he lay on his back, Mr Hindmarsh grabbed the victim by the hair to pull him into a sitting position before kicking him again to the face. Mr Hailu and six co-offenders then kicked and stomped on his head, as well as stabbing at him with poles and the makeshift weapons.
39Mr Buol was repeatedly dragged to his feet before being punched and kicked to the head. He was then pulled to where Mr Juma was lying on the ground, and placed in a headlock. In this position, he was repeatedly punched to the face, before being sprayed with the fire extinguisher, and kneed and kicked to the head by members of the group.
40Members of the group took it in turns to run at Mr Buol before stomping on his head using significant force. He was then repeatedly struck to his head with the stolen fire extinguisher, until he stopped moving. While appearing unconscious, members of the group began slapping the victim, saying words to the effect, 'wake up, wake up', 'bye bye', and 'anyone home?'
41This is the conduct that is subject of the charge of reckless conduct endangering life. By your guilty plea to this charge, you acknowledge that a reasonable person engaging in this conduct would have realised that they were placing Mr Buol at an appreciable risk of death or may have been doing so.
42Arising from the assault on Mr Juma, he suffered a series of injuries including the complete avulsion and loss of three upper teeth, a fracture to one of his lower teeth, fractures of his nasal bridge and left nasal bone, in addition to lacerations to his head, face, lip and back, and swelling of his face and scalp. He also suffered a possible concussion.[9] The dental injuries are permanent, serious injuries.
[9]Report of Dr Maryanne Lobo, Forensic Paediatric Consultant, VFPMS dated 2 December 2023
43Arising from your participation in this assault on Mr Juma, you have pleaded guilty to the offence of recklessly causing serious injury, by which you acknowledge that you were aware the conduct would probably cause him serious injury.
Produce intimate image
44Mr Juma continued lying on the ground, attempting to cover his head while the incident was live streamed to participants via the 'Zoom' call. He was taunted by the group as a co-offender tried to rip off his shorts and underwear.
45He was dragged to his feet by his hair and dropped back to the ground, while the co-offenders and 'Zoom' participants shouted, 'make him get sturdy’, which is a reference to a popular dance. Mr Juma was instructed to remove his pants, which he did while being filmed. The group began demanding that he remove his underwear and dance. He complied but attempted to cover his exposed penis as he was filmed. The group laughed and cheered, and told him to 'keep going'.
46Mr Buol was brought over and made to stand next to Mr Juma. Both were held by the hair, slapped and punched in the head, while the group screamed at them to sing, dance and kiss their feet. One co-offender dug his fingers into the areas where Mr Juma’s hair had been pulled out, causing him to scream out in pain. He was then forced to the ground and made to kiss the feet of another co-offender.
False imprisonment – Mr Juma and Mr Buol
47The group then separated Mr Juma and Mr Buol. Mr Buol was taken back to the Topaz unit and his hands tied behind his back. Mr Juma was paraded, naked, along the fence line. He was made to gesture signs associated with an opposing gang using one hand, while he tried to cover his penis with the other.
48You then opened the door to the Topaz Unit wing, where the laundry was located. Mr Juma was struck to the head with a pole, causing him to fall to the ground. He was then kneed in the face. Mr Juma was directed to enter the laundry, where he tried to clean the blood from his face. He was taunted again by four co-offenders before the door was closed, and furniture was placed against the door, preventing his escape.
49The group then located Mr Buol with his head resting against the window of the Topz Unit dayroom. The group walked him to into the dayroom, untied his hands, and then locked him inside room 'B1'.
False Imprisonment – Youth Justice Worker, Ms Jenna Lyon
50At approximately 5.14pm, the thirteen co-offenders returned to the Education Building where the Youth Justice workers and teachers remained. The group made them form a line outside the building and walk towards the secure entry gate. Once there, the co-offenders chose Youth Justice worker, Jenna Lyon, to accompany them to the gate. One of the teachers from Parkville College, David Seddon, volunteered to accompany her.
51Members of SERT formed a blockade to prevent the group from accessing the door to the sallyport. The co-offenders began yelling, 'get back inside or we’ll hurt someone’, in response to which the SERT members withdrew to the Administration Building.
52The group demanded that Ms Lyon use her swipe pass and fingerprint to open the door to the Administration Building. When the door opened, one of the group yelled 'grab her, grab her' to stop Ms Lyon getting away. A co-offender responded by placing a sharpened improvised weapon to her throat.
53Observing the SERT members re-forming outside the Administration Building, Mr Hailu ran behind Mr Seddon, grabbing hold of him, and held an engraving tool to his neck while Mr Hindmarsh punched him to the face.
54The group of you then ran towards the secure entry point while being chased by SERT members, allowing Ms Lyon (and Mr Seddon) to escape.
Apprehension of co-offenders
55At approximately 5.29pm, the group re-entered the Education Building and began barricading the entry points with furniture. A Youth Justice worker and four teachers were told to 'get up against the wall' as SERT members surrounded the building and sprayed OC spray into the building. The group demanded that the Youth Justice workers and teachers 'get into the spray'. As they moved towards the door and the spray, SERT members opened the door to allow the staff to flee.
56Between 5.30pm and 6.01pm, the group of you refused to leave the building and continued throwing chairs, violently resisting, despite the deployment of OC spray. By 6.01 pm, all thirteen co-offenders had been forcibly removed from the building, ending the incident.
The victims
57The victims, Mr Juma and Mr Buol were found separately, both lying in foetal positions on the floor. Mr Juma, who was located in the laundry, was not moving and was covered in blood with swollen eyes. When staff arrived, he asked if the group had gone. Mr Juma was then transferred to Bendigo Hospital.
58Mr Buol was found locked in room 'B1'; crying, soaking wet and covered in fire extinguisher powder. His face was swollen and was also covered in blood. He was transferred to Royal Melbourne Hospital and treated for fractured fingers, a lacerated lip, blurred vision in his left eye, in addition to extensive bruising to his face, forearms and back.[10]
[10]Report of Dr Maaike Moller, forensic physician at the VFPMS, dated 2 December 2023.
59Mr Edwards, Mr Lynch and Mr Hansen were found locked in their rooms. Mr Lynch was taken to Bendigo Hospital for his bleeding forehead to be treated. Mr Edwards was offered first aid. Mr Hansen was not physically injured.
60Extensive damage, estimated at $40,000, was caused to the Malmsbury facility, requiring urgent repairs to the electrical, plumbing and operating systems.
Nature and gravity of offending
61This was undoubtedly very serious offending.
62The central elements of the offence of violent disorder are that there are six or more participants, who together use or threaten unlawful violence and who share a 'common goal or intention', where the conduct 'taken together' causes injury or damage to property. As the Court of Appeal observed in the case of DPP v Sewell, the offending is 'quintessentially directed at the conduct of the group'.[11] Nonetheless, to be guilty of the offence, a person must intend to use or threaten violence or to be reckless as to whether their conduct involves the use of violence or threatened violence.
[11]DPP v Sewell & Anor [2023] VSCA 70, at [9] (‘Sewell’)
63It follows that when assessing the culpability of the offending, it is not appropriate to consider the acts of the individual participants in isolation. A person who engages with a group of others in a violent disorder bears responsibility for the collective harm and damage caused.[12]
[12]DPP v Luca [2016] VCC 1573
64There are many serious features to this offending in which you were involved:
· acting as a group, the offenders engaged in a violent, terrorising and riotous conduct over the course of two hours. Although the events evolved reasonably spontaneously at first, acting together, the group quickly made a concerted effort to gain access to keys and security swipes and to fashion mops and brooms into weapons;
· the use and possession of these items as weapons throughout the incident, as well as the stolen fire extinguisher, is an aggravating feature that seriously elevates the seriousness of the group’s offending;
· conscious of the criminality of their conduct, the offenders took steps to avoid detection, including disabling cameras and covering their faces;
· that it occurred in a Youth Justice facility where the offenders were either detained or remanded, aggravates the offending. Youth Justice centres are very different to adult prisons, they are established to provide programs and facilities, including education, aimed at supporting the rehabilitation of the young people detained there;
· The courts cannot allow the law of the jungle or mob rule to take hold in Youth Justice centres. General deterrence has a powerful role to play in sentencing for such offending.
65In this case you are to be sentenced for the aggravated form of the offence of violent disorder and the higher maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment applies, given you and the others were wearing face coverings, which can only have acted to add to the terrorising effect of the group’s conduct.
66As to your specific role, I accept that you were not involved in the initial incidents leading to the violent disorder, however once it began, you quickly joined in with the others as an active participant over two hours. I recognise that you did not play as prominent a role as others in the offending, but clearing participated in the actions of the group, for instance, opening the door to allow the fire extinguisher to be deployed against David Buol.
67In addition to the offence of violent disorder, you were also complicit in other specific offending committed by the group. Early in the incident, the group decided to locate and target Mr Juma and Mr Buol as part of an ongoing vendetta between opposing gangs. Once located, you participated in a pack attack on the victims, both of whom were defenceless, unarmed, and who, after trying to evade the group, put up no resistance. The cowardly attack continued even when the victims were in foetal positions on the ground.
68The level of violence directed at Mr Juma and Mr Buol was truly shocking – particularly the direct targeting of their heads and faces. The attacks were relentless and vicious. As observed by Taylor J in the case of Tafa:
'Bravery is not demonstrated nor respect found in pack behaviour. Being a member of a gang masks cowardice. True courage is shown by stepping away from a group bent on unlawful, violent behaviour, and indeed by opposing it'.[13]
[13] R v Tafa [2022] VSC 466 at [47].
69Although the serious injury suffered by Mr Juma, being the loss of his three front teeth, is not at the upper end of the spectrum of serious injuries, what makes this example of the offence of recklessly causing serious injury so grave is that it occurs over the course of extensive and ongoing violence directed at him, in company, and at times when he was clearly vulnerable.
70The aggravated burglaries were all targeted; each room was entered by the group, while armed with weapons, with the intention of injuring the victims inside their rooms. This is clearly demonstrated by the violence inflicted by the group once entry had been obtained. In addition to the assaults inflicted on the victims, the group engaged in various acts intended to humiliate and degrade the victims, such as having Mr Juma dance naked and forcing other victims to kiss while being filmed and taunted.
71The armed robbery and false imprisonment of the Youth Justice workers and teachers would have been particularly terrifying for those victims given the context in which those offences occurred. I have had regard to the information provided by the prosecution in its written submissions regarding the impact on those victims. The submissions refer to statements made by two of the teachers employed by Parkville College, in which they spoke of the fear they experienced, not knowing how they lived through it, with one teacher requiring psychological treatment for PTSD after these events. Youth Justice worker, Jodie Spadano, stated she thought her life was going to end that day.
72Youth Justice worker, Andrew Monaghan, provided a powerful victim impact statement which was read at your plea hearing in which he sought to highlight two matters to the court. Generously, he wrote to speak of the very positive interactions he had with you while you were at Malmsbury, referring to you as a 'smart and intelligent young man'. He also wanted you to know just how upset he was that his positive working relationship with you 'seemed to mean nothing when this happened'. Mr Monaghan states:
'The impact of these crimes on me was the not knowing what was going to happen that day, not knowing if there was going to be a tomorrow. I could not, and do not, understand how he got to this point, he is a smart, bright, intelligent man, and knowing this and comparing that to what he did is the biggest impact.'[14]
[14] Exhibit B - Victim Impact Statement of Andrew Monaghan dated 3 September 2025.
73The teachers employed by Parkville College and the Youth Justice workers employed at Malmsbury perform vitally important roles for young people detained in custody. They are just doing a job. They are entitled to be safe.
Personal circumstances
74I turn now to your personal circumstances.
75You were born in Alexandria, Egypt, in June 2004 and are now 21 years old.
76You experienced significant instability in your earliest years.
77You are the middle of seven siblings, now aged between 11 and 27. Your family was originally from South Sudan, but fled the civil war in that country before you were born. The family lived as refugees in Egypt for four to five years before arriving in Australia and settling in Sydney when you were 12 months old.
78Your mother left the family home in 2015 when you were only 10 or 11. This happened suddenly without warning, leaving you confused and anxious. When your peers at school learnt of this, you were teased relentlessly. Your mother had moved to Melbourne where you would stay with her on occasion.
79Your father formed a new relationship with a woman in Africa with whom he had a child. However, your parents reunited in 2022 and continue to live in Sydney with your siblings. Your primary contact is with your father who you last saw face-to-face on your birthday last year.
80You struggled at school, needing extra help. In primary school you had the assistance of a classroom aide in Grades 3 and 4. You then attended a catholic college in Years 7 to 9. You completed Year 9 at a secondary college while living with your mother, but your final years of school were disrupted by interstate moves and periods on remand.
81After being remanded in 2022, you completed various qualifications including a Certificate II in Fitness and Traffic Management, and a permit to work in confined spaces. After leaving school you have had some cleaning jobs but no formal employment.
82You began drinking alcohol from the age of 14. By the time you were 17, you were drinking spirits on a daily basis. You have also experimented with a range of illicit drugs including GHB, cocaine, MDMA and cannabis.
83You have no prior convictions in Victoria. However you had been sentenced by the New South Wales Children’s Court for offences committed in that State prior to this offending. In September 2019, when you were 15, you were placed on probation for 12 months on two charges of robbery in company and one of assault with intention to rob. The probation order prevented you from associating with eight other boys.
84In October 2019, you were placed on a 12-month control order for an aggravated robbery, with a non-parole period of four months. A charge of possessing a prohibited drug was dismissed with a caution in August 2020 and in December 2020 you were placed on a six-month bond for contravening the non-association condition of your earlier probation order.
85In April 2021, when you were 16, you were placed on a 15-month control order on a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm in company, to be supervised by Youth Justice on parole after eight months.
86In December 2021, you caused the death of a 41-year-old male at the Melton railway station who was killed as a result of a knife wound to his chest. You were 17 at the time. You stood trial in the Supreme Court of Victoria and on 8 May 2023, you were found guilty of the offence of manslaughter. You were yet to be sentenced for that crime, and were on remand at Malmsbury, at the time of the incident on 3 October 2023.
87On 19 October 2023, you were sentenced by Justice Croucher to six years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years. By that time, you had been on remand since December 2021 and 630 days were reckoned as already served under the sentence imposed by Justice Croucher.[15]
[15] R v MA (a pseudonym) [2023] VSC (unreported)
88For the purposes of sentencing in the Supreme Court, you were assessed by neuropsychologist, Laura Scott, on 15 August 2023.[16] On neuropsychological testing Ms Scott found you had a full scale IQ of only 75, which is in the borderline range, with prominent impairments in your attentional abilities and in executive functions including mental flexibility, impulse control, planning and organisation. Behaviourally, Ms Scott concluded that you present as somewhat impulsive and a little immature for your age.
[16] Exhibit 1 - Neuropsychological Report of Laura Scott dated 1 September 2023.
89Ms Scott opined that your neuropsychological profile was consistent with attention hyperactivity disorder, or 'ADHD', pointing to your history of early learning difficulties and behavioural dysregulation. As explained by Ms Scott, ADHD is a permanent life-long condition which contributes to impulsivity, restlessness and emotional immaturity. In Ms Scott’s view the stressors of your childhood relating to your refugee experience, problem gambling by your father and your mother’s fluctuating involvement in your life, may have made these difficulties worse.
90Ms Scott also raised a concern regarding the risk of suicide and self-harm in custody.
91When sentencing you, Justice Croucher recommended that you be allowed to continue to serve your sentence in a Youth Justice Centre, noting that you were still 'so young, immature and impressionable and likely to be subjected to more undesirable influences in an adult prison'.[17] However, on 19 October 2023, immediately following your sentence, you were transferred to adult custody where you have remained.
[17] R v MA (a pseudonym) at [118].
92You were initially held at the Metropolitan Remand Centre and have since been transferred to Port Phillip Prison, Marngoneet and now Ravenhall. You were in a youth specific unit between 28 December 2023 and 2 February 2024, but were transferred out of that unit following an incident. Neither party was able to provide me with details of the events that led to your transfer to mainstream adult custody.
93You have worked in the kitchen at the various prisons throughout your sentence, but you have been unable to access any treatment or other programs. You are currently on a waitlist for forklift licence training.
94You report finding your experience of adult custody difficult and isolating.
Matters in mitigation
95A number of forceful matters apply in mitigation of your sentence.
Guilty plea
96First, and importantly, you have pleaded guilty to these offences. There is significant utility, or practical benefit, in your guilty plea. A guilty plea saves the court and the community the time and resources associated with a trial. This is a significant factor in the circumstances of this case as it would undoubtedly have been a lengthy, complex trial involving many witnesses including Youth Justice and other staff. Moreover, through your guilty plea you accept responsibility for your role in this offending.
97I also accept the submission made on your behalf that you were always prepared to accept responsibility for your offending once agreement was reached on appropriate charges. The offences for which you are to be sentenced resolved following a case conference before me. As such, I have treated your guilty plea as having been entered at the earliest practical opportunity. Your guilty plea therefore attracts appreciable weight in mitigation of sentence.
Youth
98Your youth is also a powerful mitigating factor. You were 19 years old at the time of this offending. The law recognises that young people are more prone to rash, ill-considered actions and have less ability to control their impulses or to appreciate the seriousness and consequences of their actions.
99It is also significant that in the opinion of Ms Scott you are immature and impressionable for your age.
100That said, the nature and gravity of your offending means that the importance of youth must give some ground to the weight that attaches to general deterrence and the need to denounce offending of this kind. While it is clear that the events evolved spontaneously at first, and that your impulsivity will have played a role in your involvement, you must have appreciated the wrongfulness of the riotous and violent conduct the group of you engaged in over the next two hours.
101Nonetheless, I have tempered your sentence considerably by reason of your youth, also conscious of the need to promote your rehabilitation as a youthful offender.
Verdins considerations
102Your neuropsychological impairment in the form of ADHD is also relevant to your sentence.
103Although Ms Scott’s opinion was provided in the context of your offending in December 2021, her observations remain relevant. As stated, ADHD is a life-long condition that leads to deficits in attentional and executive functioning. Ms Scott explains that signs of impulsivity, restlessness and emotional immaturity are consistent with this condition.[18] In addition, Ms Scott states that the condition seriously undermines your capacity to make 'sound, rational decisions especially at times of heightened arousal', and to anticipate the likely outcome of your actions.[19]
[18]Exhibit 1, at [9].
[19]Exhibit 1, at [10].
104I accept that the impulsivity and impaired decision-making caused by your ADHD would have contributed to your impulsive act of joining in on the offending and impaired your ability to fully appreciate the consequences of your conduct. This reduces your moral culpability for your participation in this riotous behaviour and the weight I attach to general deterrence in your case. Balanced against this, your impulsivity and poor decision-making add to the risk of future offending, particularly when you are in the company of other risk-taking or violent young men.
Burden of imprisonment
105Your experience of adult custody is particularly onerous for a number of reasons. Firstly, given that your family live interstate you do not enjoy the support provided by personal visits. For this reason, your experience of custody is an isolating one which must be very difficult for a person your age.
106Secondly, Ms Scott states that she is very concerned about your psychological state, noting a history of chronic suicidality. She is of the opinion that you are at greater risk for suicidal and self-harming behaviours than other prisoners without this prior history.
107While Ms Scott does not consider there is a risk that your ADHD will deteriorate in custody, she states that your symptoms place you at a higher risk of conflict with other prisoners and custodial staff, as is borne out by this offending.
108Ms Scott explains that your symptoms of ADHD make you 'quite reactive', with poor impulse control, leading to a greater risk of being both a perpetrator and a victim of violence in custody.
109I have given weight to the fact that your symptoms of ADHD, combined with these other matters, are likely to make your experience of adult custody more onerous than for prisoners without these mental health impairments.
110Following the events of 3 October 2023, there were immediate consequences for you. Between 4 October 2023 to 17 October 2023 you were placed in lockdown, isolated in your cell. You further instruct there were significant limitations on your movements when you were transferred to the MAP between 19 October 2023 and 10 November 2023 and at Port Phillip Prison between 10 November 2023 and 28 December 2023, as a direct result of your involvement in this offending.
111This is a considerable period of time to be placed in isolation or to be subject to limitations on movement, particularly for a young adult, and is itself a form of extra-curial punishment.[20] Although your time in lockdown was as a result of this offending, this does not mean that the additional burden of your imprisonment during these periods should be given only limited weight.[21]
[20]Yat v The King [2024] VSCA 93, at [85]
[21]Ibid, at [86]
112I give full weight to the additional burden of your imprisonment for the combination of reasons I have discussed in moderating the sentence I have imposed.
Totality
113The other significant sentencing consideration in your case arises from the need to ensure that the total sentence to be served by you reflects the total criminality of your offending, and no more. I am conscious of the need to avoid a crushing sentence having regard to the fact you are presently serving the sentence of six years’ imprisonment imposed by Justice Croucher.
114The prosecution submissions accept that the sentencing principle of totality is highly relevant to your sentence in these circumstances.
115The principle of totality applies in several overlapping ways.
116First, given you are undergoing the sentence Justice Croucher imposed, I must consider the total sentence that would have been imposed had all offences fallen for consideration on the one occasion.
117Secondly, at the time of this offence you were on remand for the manslaughter matter, and when sentenced by Justice Croucher, your entire time in custody to that date was reckoned as served. You became eligible for parole under the sentence imposed by Justice Croucher on 27 January 2025. This period has now elapsed. You have no pre-sentence detention for this offending. The sentence imposed by Justice Croucher will conclude on 27 January 2028. I take this matter into account in a general way under the principles of totality.[22]
[22]El-Waly [2012] VSCA 184, at [107]-[114]
118Finally, the totality principle also applies in my consideration of the amount of cumulation to be ordered as between the charges for which you are to be sentenced while reflecting the separate criminality of these offences and the impact on different victims. I have been conscious to ensure that you are not doubly punished for the conduct that gives rise to the offence of violent disorder and the other distinct forms of offending.
119In his reasons for sentence, Justice Croucher determined that your prospects of rehabilitation are at least reasonable. Your involvement in this serious incident of offending, where drugs and alcohol had no role to play, tempers this assessment to a degree. However, I accept that at the age of 21 you have much of your life to live. Both you and the community benefit where you can successfully reintegrate into the community upon your eventual release from custody. Your prospects of rehabilitation would certainly be advanced if you are able to receive the treatment recommended by Ms Scott for your ADHD, in addition to ongoing drug and alcohol counselling. For that reason, I propose to fix a non-parole period roughly equivalent to the non-parole period of three years imposed by Justice Croucher, and for the same reason.
120In order to give effect to the weighty consideration of totality, I have been required to impose individual sentences well below that which I would otherwise have imposed on each charge to properly reflect the gravity of the offending. Similarly, I have imposed very modest levels of cumulation in order to achieve a total effective sentence that is not crushing. Due to the significance of totality in this case, the sentences I have imposed should not be viewed as a guide to current sentencing practices for offences of this kind or otherwise relevant for the purposes of parity with the sentences to be imposed on the other adult co-offenders.
Other sentencing considerations
121It was not disputed by your counsel that your offending warrants a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period fixed. That submission must be accepted in order to give effect to the sentencing purposes of just punishment, denunciation, general deterrence and the protection of the community. The sentence must also deter you personally from further offending.
122I must balance these factors against the mitigating factors to which I have referred, particularly your youth, the fact that you do have a least reasonable or fair prospects of rehabilitation and the significance of totality in your case. In fixing a non-parole period I have sought to provide you with the opportunity to best advance your prospects of rehabilitation. Whether you are granted parole, however, is exclusively a matter for the Adult Parole Board.
Sentence
123Balancing the matters to which I have referred while having regard to the maximum penalty for each offence, I sentence you as follows:
124On Charge 1, violent disorder, you are convicted and sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment. This is the base sentence.
125On Charge 2, aggravated burglary of Cell D1, you are convicted and sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment.
126On Charge 3, aggravated burglary of Cell D2, you are convicted and sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment.
127On Charge 4, a rolled-up charge of armed robbery, you are convicted and sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment.
128On Charge 5, a rolled-up charge of false imprisonment, you are convicted and sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment.
129On Charge 6, aggravated burglary of Cell B1, you are convicted and sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment.
130On Charge 7, aggravated burglary of Cell B2, you are convicted and sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment.
131On Charge 8, conduct endangering persons, you are convicted and sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment.
132On Charge 9, produce an intimate image, you are convicted and sentenced to two months’ imprisonment.
133On Charge 10, false imprisonment of Atem Juma, you are convicted and sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment.
134On Charge 11, false imprisonment of David Buol, you are convicted and sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment.
135On Charge 12, reckless conduct endangering life involving David Buol, you are convicted and sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment.
136On Charge 13, recklessly causing serious injury to Atem Juma, you are convicted and sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment.
137On Charge 14, producing an intimate image of Atem Juma, you are convicted and sentenced to four months’ imprisonment.
138On Charge 15, false imprisonment of Jenna Lyon, you are convicted and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment.
139I make the following orders for cumulation upon the sentence imposed on Charge 1 and upon one another:
(a) four months of the sentence imposed on Charge 13;
(b) two months of each of the sentences imposed on Charges 2, 3, 6, 7 and 12;
(c) one month of each of the sentences imposed on Charges 4, 5 and 8; and
(d) six days of the sentence imposed on Charge 15.
140This gives a total effective sentence of three years, two months and six days’ imprisonment. I fix a non-parole period of two months, six days’ imprisonment.
141Pursuant to s 15 of the Sentencing Act 1991, the sentence imposed by Justice Croucher on 19 October 2023 is suspended for the duration of that non-parole period, that is, for a period of two months and six days.
142Thereafter, I direct that the total effective sentence imposed by me be served concurrently with the sentence of imprisonment imposed by Justice Croucher.
143Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, I indicate that had you not pleaded guilty to these charges, the sentence I would otherwise have imposed is a sentence of four years, four months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 months.
- - -
0
5
0