Director of Public Prosecutions v Malual

[2025] VCC 946

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Revised
Not Restricted
 Suitable for Publication

Case No. CR-24-01279
CR-25-00708

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

MABIOR MALUAL

---

JUDGE:	Her Honour Judge Hawkins
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	20 June 2025
DATE OF SENTENCE:	3 July 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Malual
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VCC 946

---

Subject:CRMIINAL LAW - SENTENCE

Catchwords:             Recklessly causing serious injury – recklessly causing injury - affray – machete used to cause injury – youth

Legislation Cited:     Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s. 17, s 18, s 195, s 195H; Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 5, s 18, s 6AAA

Cases Cited:R v Verdins & Ors [2007] VSCA 102; R v Mills [1998] 4 VR 235; R v Azzopardi [2011] VSCA 372; McLean v The King [2023] VSCA 6; Ah-Kau v The Queen; Ofamooni v The Queen [2018] VSCA 296; DPP (Cth) v Peng [2014] VSCA 128; Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606; DPP v Siumu [2025] VCC 418;

Sentence: Total effective sentence across indictment C2416805.1A and R10751893 of 4 years, 6 months and 7 days imprisonment, with a minimum of 2 years and 10 months’ imprisonment to be served before becoming eligible for parole. Pursuant to s 18 of the Sentencing Act1991, the period of 318 days of pre-sentence detention (not including today) is hereby declared as having already been served in respect of CR-24-01279. S6AAA: Total effective sentence of 7 years imprisonment, with a minimum of 5 years imprisonment to be served before becoming eligible for parole.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Ms Kim Voulanas (appeared at sentence) Ms Catrin Davis (appeared at plea)	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms Chan Park (appeared at sentence) Mr Scott Thomas (appeared at plea)	Angus Cameron Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

1Mabior Malual, you have pleaded guilty to:

Indictment C2416805.1A (“the first indictment”):

·       affray, which carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment.[1]

·       recklessly causing serious injury to Dean Kokoros, which carries a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment;[2] and

·       recklessly causing injury to Dylan Naranpanawa, which carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment[3] ; and

·       recklessly causing injury to Anthony Kokoras, which carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment[4].

Indictment R10751893 (“the second indictment’) and notice of related summary offences joins a further charge of:

·       recklessly causing injury to Brandon Jansz, which carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment[5]; and

·       a related summary offence of dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime[6] which carries a maximum penalty 2 years imprisonment.

[1] Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s. 195H

[2]Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s. 17

[3]Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s. 18

[4]Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s. 18

[5]Ibid (n 2).

[6]Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s.195

2On 2 April 2025 I gave a sentence indication on the basis of the charges in the first indictment together with a summary charge of dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime. You subsequently accepted that indication and since that time the further charge of recklessly causing injury in relation to the fourth victim, Brandon Jansz.  You have been committed on that matter, and it was fast-tracked and brought before this court.  That charge is Charge 1 on the second indictment.  That charge was discussed at, but did not technically form part of the charges considered during the sentence indication.  You have now been arraigned in relation to that charge and pleaded guilty to all charges on both indictments. 

3You have also admitted your prior criminal history.[7]

[7]Criminal History

Circumstances of Offending

4On 13 August 2023, you, together with Noah Abraha and Geoffrey Wani were armed with machetes when you attacked Dean Kokoras, Anthony Kokoras, Brandon Jansz and Dylan Naranpanawa in the bathroom of the Men’s Gallery strip club[8].

[8]  The detailed circumstances of offending are set out in the Amended Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea dated 17 June 2025, the accuracy of which you accepted through your counsel.   

5At the time, you were 18 years, Mr Abarha was 23 years and Mr Wani was 20 years old.

6Dean Kokoras was 23 and he was with his brother Anthony, aged 20, and their friends, Dylan Naranpanawa, who were both also 20 years of age.

7You arrived at the CBD strip club with Mr Wani shortly before 4:00am that morning. You joined Mr Abraha and went upstairs and socialised for a few hours.

8Shortly before 6 am, you and one of the victims interacted at the bar in the main showroom. The victims headed for the bathroom. You did so too. You were soon joined by Mr Abraha and Mr Wani.

9The bathroom was full of people standing shoulder to shoulder. What happened next in the bathroom only took a few minutes.

10The four young victims were standing near the urinals.  

11A sober witness heard a commotion in the middle of the room, and saw a fight break out. You pulled a machete out from the left side of your body. It was estimated to be the length of a size 11 shoe and about a phone length wide. Mr Wani had a machete in his right hand. A third male was seen also with a machete. All three of you were swinging the machetes. The other people in the bathroom were unarmed.

12You raised your machete and swung it down at one of the victims, who raised his arm to protect himself. You swung the machete at him multiple times. At least two, but maybe more of your group were involved in the attack. You were identified as the male who swung the machete numerous times at Dean Kokoras and Mr Naranpanawa.

13The charges against you and your co-offenders are put on a complicity basis.

14Some witnesses hid in toilet cubicles. Witnesses heard people screaming for help, and in pain.

15Dean Kokoras does not remember much. He remembers seeing his brother looking shocked and saying “Oh my God, your head, your head, oh my God, your brain”. Anthony Kokoras does not remember anything about the night.

16After the fight you walked out of the bathroom. You still had the machete in your hand. A security guard went to grab you and you said something like “If you touch me, I’ll fucking kill you.” (uncharged act)

17At approximately 6:03 AM, Mr Wani and Mr Abraha left the bathroom and walked towards the exit. Mr Wani placed a machete down the front of his pants as he walked and Mr Abraha was directly behind him. You were a few steps behind them, still visibly carrying a machete in your right hand. You wiped the blood off your machete blade before leaving the premises.

18A few minutes later Dean Kokoras called 000. He told the operator that he had been stabbed, had been hit in the head, was bleeding out and that his lung was hanging out.

19Brandon Jansz got into a taxi with friends and was taken to the Alfred Hospital.

20Dean Kokoras, Anthony Kokoras and Mr Naranpawna were taken to the Royal Melbourne Hospital. Dean Kokoras sustained a penetrating trauma to the abdomen causing injuries to his bowel and diaphragm, an injury to the left side of his head causing a depressed skull fracture, other injuries to his forehead, and at least three injuries to his left upper limb. The abdominal and head injuries were life-threatening. Without swift treatment his injuries would have been fatal. He will suffer long term consequences of his injuries.

21Mr Naranpanawa sustained a left scalp laceration, involving an arterial bleed.

22Anthony Kokoras suffered a laceration to his forearm.

23Mr Jansz received a laceration to his left hand.

24A blue Apple iPhone  was located in your possession when your house was searched by police on 17 August 2023. This phone was stolen in an unrelated incident on 15 July 2023 in Prahan, by unknown persons. It is not known how or when it came into your possession. This incident forms the basis of summary charge 3 on the second indictment.

Nature & Gravity of Offending

25Parliament recently responded to public concern about the harm that the use of machetes are causing in our community, by enacting laws to prohibit their sale. They are weapons which have the potential to cause very serious injuries and death.

26Mr Malual, yours is a serious example of the type of violent offending which occurs when a group of young people choose to arm themselves with such weapons, and use them against other unarmed patrons inside a popular licensed venue. Your offending is aggravated by a number of factors. You attended the venue in the company of your co-offenders clearly prepared for trouble. You and at least one of your other co-offenders had machetes secreted under your clothing.  You and your co-offenders caused injuries to multiple victims when you swung your machetes repeatedly in the crowded bathroom against victims who were unarmed.

27One victim received life threatening injuries requiring multiple surgeries. Without that prompt medical attention he received he would have bled out and died. Two other victims received head injuries.

28After the offending, you brazenly left the bathroom, still carrying the machete, and threatened security staff before fleeing the scene. You were on bail at the time, and were not permitted to attend the Melbourne CBD.

29Though you have been diagnosed with psychiatric conditions including PTSD, Major Depressive Disorder, Alcohol use disorder, and/or cannabis use disorder, there was no finding that these conditions impacted your moral culpability. You were fully aware of your actions and I conclude that your moral culpability is high.

30The four victims of your offending are also young men who were enjoying a night out. Each suffered injuries as a result of your attack. None of the victims have been subject to cross-examination in these proceedings but three of them gave evidence at a compulsory examination.

31The victims have declined to make victim impact statements in this matter

Personal Circumstances

32You are currently 20 years old. You were born and raised in Melbourne. Your parents were born in Sudan, and Dinka, a language spoken in South Sudan, is spoken in the family home.

33You have three younger teenage brothers, with whom you have a good relationship. Your parents are separated but remain living together to support the children. You maintain a relationship with your parents and have had phone contact with them whilst in custody, speaking to you mother frequently. She has personally attended court to support you during your appearances, and I note that she does so again today. Upon release from custody, you plan to return to live with your parents in Sydenham.

34Your education has been disrupted due to your frequent involvement with the justice system. Your exact level of educational attainment is not known. You have not been gainfully employed.

35You were engaged with Orygen Youth Health following your first time in youth detention in 2019. You were previously diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and were noted to exhibit mental health symptoms including self-harm ideation, trauma, substance use, irritability / anger and neurovegetative symptoms.

36You have abused various substances from the age of 15, including alcohol, cannabis, non-prescribed benzodiazepines, cocaine, amphetamines and methylamphetamine. You have demonstrated some insight into the negative impact of that abuse on your life and the conduct it has caused in discussions with psychologists.

37Forensic Psychologist, Laura Fleming assessed you and provided a report dated 16 September 2024[9]. She reports that you indicated that you identified experiencing childhood physical abuse, parental separation, domestic violence and parental mental illness during your childhood. You chose only to disclose limited details to her, so her report was incomplete, and she was only able to make general comments about the experience of young persons in the custodial system, rather than your specific circumstances. As a result, I am unable to place great weight on her conclusions and recommendations contained within her report.

[9]Psychological Report of Laura Fleming dated 16 September 2024.

38Forensic Psychologist, Jeffrey Cummins further assessed you and provide a report dated 18 March 2025.[10] He similarly had difficulty attempting to interview you earlier this year.

[10]Psychological Report of Jeffrey Cummins dated 18 March 2025.

39Whilst you were guarded during psychological assessments, Mr Cummins also opined that you spoke in a manner indicating that you had been subject to abuse as a child and/or teenager and that you may have been physically assaulted whilst in the community.

40Mr Cummins was able to ascertain that you are currently administered an antidepressant and antipsychotic medication. On the basis of your comments and presentation he provisionally diagnosed you with complex PTSD, and in the alternative, Major Depressive Disorder. He noted however that you spoke in a manner which was not immediately indicative of being currently depressed. You acknowledged to him that you have a problem with anger. Mr Cummins did not conclude that your mental health would suffer during your incarceration, nor that imprisonment would weigh more heavily upon you due to your youth and mental health condition than it would for a person without such a presentation.

41You have used your time well in adult custody, with a job as a billet in the mainstream unit at Port Philip Prison; completion of a cleaning course; commencement of a construction course; and being placed on a list to commence a business course. You are also participating in the Buprenorphine program in custody.

Sentencing Considerations

Plea of Guilty

42You pleaded guilty to the charges comprising the first indictment following a sentence indication at this court. Your plea was made in the face of a strong prosecution case. Three of the victims gave evidence at a compulsory examination in the Magistrates’ Court but were not cross examined. You pleaded guilty to the charges on the second indictment after it was “fast tracked” by way of direct hand up brief through the Magistrates’ Court to join the charges you had pleaded guilty to on the first indictment. Your plea, whilst not early, none the less has significant utilitarian benefit. You avoided the need for several witnesses to be cross-examined prior to trial; saved witnesses the stress of giving evidence in court and avoided the use of public resources that would have otherwise been spent in conducting a trial.

Mental health

43In relation to the effect that your mental health has had upon you, reliance is placed on the “fourth” and “fifth” limb of the principles in Verdin’s[11] case.

[11]       R v Verdins & Ors [2007] VSCA 102.

44Specifically, your Counsel submits that due to the combination of  youth and  your mental health problems, imprisonment may weigh more heavily upon you than it would for another person without these conditions.

45Defence Counsel further rely on Ms Fleming’s opinion that it would be unlikely that your mental health would be adequately treated in custody. They submit that as you are currently in receipt of pharmacotherapy, and are prescribed antidepressant and antipsychotic medication there is a risk that imprisonment may adversely affect your mental health.

46It is unclear from her report, why Ms Flemming opined that your access in custody to psychological treatment was reduced. Earlier this year, you reported to Mr Cummings that whilst you are not receiving ongoing mental health treatment; you are seeing a psychiatric nurse approximately every 1-2 months, and taking medication, and are sleeping and eating okay. You declined to comment on how you are coping on a day to day basis and Mr Cummins in his more recent assessment of you and report did not express that your mental health is at risk of deterioration.

47Your Counsel submitted that Mr Cummins’ silence on this issue ought not be considered a repudiation of Ms Fleming’s earlier assessment. Whilst urging the Court to place appropriate weight on this factor, Counsel sensibly acknowledge that had this been a significant operating factor at the current point in time, it would likely have been mentioned by Mr Cummins.

48At the present point in time there is insufficient evidence to permit the Court to conclude that your imprisonment raises a serious risk of harm to your mental health, nor that it would be more onerous upon you, than any other person.

Criminal History

49Mr Malual, as you were less than two months past your 18^th birthday when this offending occurred, it is unsurprising that you have no criminal history as an adult. Your time spent on remand has been your first time in adult prison. Ms Fleming reports that your exposure to adult offenders has assisted you to develop insight and provides motivation for your potential rehabilitation in the future.

50You have a considerable history in the Children’s Court for offending involving serious violence.

Youth

51You are currently aged 20 years, and are therefore a young offender under the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic). The principles in R v Mills[12] regarding the consideration to be given to youth are applicable in your case. However, the degree of criminality is high in your case, and the sentencing objectives of deterrence, denunciation, just punishment and protection of the community are prominent in the sentencing calculus. Like the circumstances in Azzopardi v R[13] given the seriousness of your offending, your guarded prospects of rehabilitation and your relevant prior convictions, the corresponding mitigatory effects of your youth are not extinguished, but must be reduced.

[12]R v Mills [1998] 4 VR 235

[13]R v Azzopardi [2011] VSCA 372

52Such an approach was illustrated in the case of McLean v R[14] to which I was referred where the Court of Appeal concluded that the mitigatory effects of youth were reduced where violent offending has occurred.

[14]McLean v The King [2023] VSCA 6

Parity

53Offenders who are party to the same offence should, all things being equal, receive the same sanction. However, as Gibbs CJ in Lowe v The Queen[15] stated:

“…but other things are not always equal, and such matters as the age, background, previous criminal history and general character of the offender, and the part which he or she played in the commission of the offence, have to be taken into account.”

[15](1984) 154 CLR 606 at [3]

54The charges against Mr Abraha have been withdrawn due to issues with the weakness of evidence against him.

55The charges against Mr Wani proceeded in the summary stream and by oversight were resolved by a police prosecutor in May 2024 before the serious injury charge was laid. It appears that Mr Wani entered an early plea of guilty to three injury charges, together with an affray; and a count of possess controlled weapon for which he was sentenced to 27 days imprisonment, (time served) and released on a 12 month adjourned undertaking. Mr Wani was 22 years of age at the time of sentence and had an adult criminal history including priors for reckless conduct endangering serious injury, robbery and affray, together with a history of violent offending in the Children’s Court.

56By the time your matter reached the OPP, the time for the Director to appeal Mr Wani’s sentence had expired. Whilst I am not appraised of the full details of the summary of offending alleged against Mr Wani, nor the plea material put before the Magistrate, that sentence appears to be inappropriately low.

57The principle of parity does not call for the same sentence to be imposed across co-accused or to justify a sentence that is inappropriately low or outside the range for a co-accused.[16] In the case of Peng[17] the Court stated:

… where the co-offender’s sentence is regarded as being excessively low, the task is not to match the prisoner’s sentence to the lenient one, but to re-sentence. The approach required in constructing the new sentence is to have regard to the sentence that was imposed on the co-offender, ‘thereby taking it into account in the broad sense in the course of exercising the sentencing discretion’.

…

But the co-offender’s sentence may not have such a constraining effect as to require a new sentence which remains wholly inappropriate or disproportionate to the circumstances.

[16]Ah-Kau v The Queen; Ofamooni v The Queen [2018] VSCA 296 [45]; DPP (Cth) v Peng [2014] VSCA 128 [36].

[17]Ibid [37]-[38]

58So whilst Mr Wani was co-offender, the charges to which he pleaded were materially different to those you face. He obtained an unusually significant benefit for his early plea of guilty. It is accepted that his sentence must have some mitigatory effect upon your sentence, however, it is impossible to accord great weight to the principle of parity in your case because to do so would result in a sentence that would be inappropriately low in your case.

Comparative cases

59The parties were unable to identify cases comparable to yours, having regard to your age, role, the injuries sustained, and the overall circumstances. The prosecution submit that of some relevance is DPP v Siumu[18], a decision of Her Honour, Judge Quin of this Court, handed down on 4 April 2025. Other than the use of machetes by young people in a public place, causing injuries, I do not consider that that case provides great use as a comparable case.

[18][2025] VCC 418.

Totality

60Totality is a relevant sentencing consideration both in relation to the offences against the first three victims on the first Indictment, but also in relation to the second Indictment concerning Mr Jansz.

61All charges are put on a complicity basis. There is close temporal connection between each offence, and they all arose from the same course of offending. Whilst I gave the sentence indication in respect of the first three victims only, the fourth was referred to in the original prosecution opening in so far as Mr Jansz’s injuries were included in the affray. For these reasons I will accord significant weight to the principle of totality which will be reflected through the degree of concurrency I will accord to each charge.

Sentencing Purposes

62In sentencing you, I have had regard to a range of matters such as the seriousness of your offending, your culpability for it and your personal circumstances.  I must balance the interests of the community in denouncing criminal conduct with the interests the community clearly has in seeking to ensure as far as is possible, that young offenders are rehabilitated and are reintegrated into society. I must impose a sentence which is proportionate to the gravity of the offence, considering the circumstances. The sentence must be no more than is necessary to satisfy those various objectives of sentencing.

63Your machete attack was carried out, in company, in a crowded place, accessible to members of the public. There is no finding that your ability to understand your actions was impaired in any way. You have experienced problems regulating your anger, but do not appear to be prepared to seriously address this issue. Given your past lack of engagement with services and further unrelated allegations of serious violent offending, whilst rehabilitation remains relevant due to your age, your prospects of rehabilitation must currently be viewed as guarded. Your current risk of reoffending is high. For those reasons, all sentencing purposes[19] are relevant in the sentencing synthesis.

[19]Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 5

Sentence

64Mabior Malual I sentence you as follows:

Charge	Offence	Max Penalty	Sentence	Commencement/ Cumulation
Indictment C2416805.1A
1	Affray	5 years	18 m	8m cum
2	Recklessly Cause Serious Injury (D. Kokaras)	15 years	2 yrs 10 m	Base
3	Recklessly Cause Injury (Naranpanawa)	5 years	1 yr 6 m	6 m cum
4	Recklessly Cause Injury (A. Kokoras)	5 years	6m	3m cum
Indictment R10751893
1	Recklessly Cause Injury (Jansz)	5 years	6m	3m cum
Summary Offence	Deal with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime	2 years	7 days	7 days cum
Total Effective Sentence (State): Non-Parole Period:		4 years 6 months, 7 days imprisonment 2 years 10 months imprisonment
Pre-sentence Detention Declared:		318 days
Section 6AAA Statement:		TES of 7 years/ NPP 5 yrs
Other Relevant Orders: 1.   Order for forfeiture and disposal of property in the Schedule.

Pre-Sentence Detention

65Pursuant to s18 of the Sentencing Act, the period of 318 days, as at today's date but not including today, of pre-sentence detention has hereby been declared as having already served in respect of this sentence and I order that such declaration and its details be entered into the court records.

66In relation to pre-sentence detention, I do note that you have been in custody since 18 August 2023, but during that period you have served a 12-month term of detention such that the total period of pre-sentence detention referrable to this matter only is the 318 days that I have reckoned as served.

Section 6AAA Declaration

67Pursuant to section 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, I indicate that had you pleaded not guilty and been found guilty after trial, I would have sentenced you to a total effective sentence of 7 years with a non-parole period of 5 years in respect of both CR-24-01279 and CR-25-00708.

Ancillary Orders

68I make the disposal order for the stolen phone, machete and pair of shoes sought by consent.