Director of Public Prosecutions v Milhuisen

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2022 0120

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS	Crown
v
JASON MILHUISEN	Accused

---

JUDGE:	Jane Dixon J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	28 February 2025
DATE OF SENTENCE:	16 May 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Milhuisen
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 269

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Shooting – Guilty verdict following jury trial –Sentenced to 32 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 25 years – Sentencing Act 1991 ss 3, 5, 11A, 18 – DPP v Rider & Ong [2023] VSC 466 – DPP v Thorn [2023] VSC 702.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms E Ruddle KC with Ms A Harrold	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P Morrissey SC	Melasecca Zayler

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

Jason Milhuisen, on 19 December 2024, following a 20-day trial, you were found guilty by a jury of having murdered Daniel O’Shea (‘Daniel’) on 26 April 2019 in Fawkner Park, South Yarra.[1]
[1]Redactions and deletions or substitutions have been made to this published sentence at my direction.
The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment, and the standard sentence for murder is 25 years.
At approximately 7.45pm Daniel’s body was discovered by a passing jogger. Daniel was lying face down in Fawkner Park, and was unresponsive. Emergency services were called, and Daniel was declared deceased at 8.15pm. It transpired that Daniel had gunshot injuries to the head and body. An encrypted phone was located near Daniel’s body along with a quantity of cash inside his shoe.[2]
[2]Police could not obtain data from the phone.
At the time of his death, Daniel was aged 41 and lived in a Queens Road apartment complex with his de facto partner, Ms Sakos. Daniel was described by the Crown in their opening as a career criminal and a man who associated with other criminals. He had previously served time in prison for drug trafficking. Shortly prior to his death on 26 April 2019, Daniel had arrived home from an outing with Ms Sakos and then headed out on his own. His movements on his way to Fawkner Park were able to be tracked to some degree via CCTV.
An investigation into Daniel’s death was undertaken by the Victoria Police Homicide Squad.
Almost two years after Daniel’s body was found, following information received by police and further testing of crime scene evidence, you were arrested, and on 22 April 2021, you were charged with murder. The Crown alleged, and the jury must be taken to have accepted, that it was you who shot Daniel.
You were aged 33 at the time of relevant events and lived between your parents’ home, and an address in Cranbourne where your then partner lived. Your former partner and child were living at an address in South Australia.
Summary of offending
Details of the factual background to your offending can be gleaned from the parties’ addresses to the jury and evidence led at trial. I am bound by conventional sentencing jurisprudence regarding disputed facts that are not elemental to the jury’s verdict.[3]
[3]The Court must not take facts into account in a way that is adverse to Mr Milhuisen unless they are established beyond reasonable doubt; however, if there are circumstances relied on in Mr Milhuisen’s favour, it is sufficient for those circumstances to be proved on the balance of probabilities: R v Storey [1998] 1 VR 359, 369 (Winneke P, Brooking and Hayne JJA and Southwell AJA); R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270, 281 [27] (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Hayne and Callinan JJ).
Forensic pathologist, Dr Michael Burke, gave evidence that he performed an autopsy on the deceased on 27 April 2019 and found gunshot injuries. He extracted three fired Federal brand .38 calibre projectiles from the deceased.
Ballistics expert, Sergeant Tony Ruiz, also attended the autopsy. He testified that four bullets were located, three from inside the deceased and one from underneath the body at the scene. He agreed that the evidence suggested that at least five bullets went towards or very near to the deceased, despite only four bullets being able to be located.
Dr Burke described examining five injuries to the deceased as follows:
(a)Injury 1 was an entry wound on the right side of the forehead.[4] A projectile was recovered from the head of the deceased. The injury to the head was described by Dr Burke as a very serious injury, that may well have been a fatal injury but was not necessarily so. The deceased was wearing a cap that had been damaged by a bullet. Sergeant Ruiz gave evidence that, based on lead wipe and fibre indications, a bullet had gone through the underside of the peak of the cap and exited on the overside of the peak, but that the bullet that caused that damage was not the one found inside Daniel’s skull.[5] He concluded that the bullet that damaged the cap could not be located.[6]
(b)Injury 2 was a gunshot entry wound to the right axilla (armpit) area. It had gone through and into the diaphragm, liver, lungs and heart and was necessarily a fatal injury.[7] A projectile was recovered from the left axilla.[8] Dr Burke opined that, based on the location of the bullet through the body, this injury was sustained while Daniel was rotating.[9] Dr Burke confidently stated that the cause of death in this case was this injury involving the heart.[10]
(c)Injury 3 was a wound to the abdominal area. Dr Burke described it as a very irregular injury in keeping with an exit wound, and that it was the exit wound for injury number 5.[11]
(d)Injury 4 was a gunshot entry injury to the left hip and buttock area, and Dr Burke was able to recover the projectile associated with that injury.[12] The path of that projectile extended across the body and had gone through bone in part of the pelvic region and was recovered up high on the major leg bone.[13] Dr Burke said the injury to the hip would not be lethal.[14]
(e)Injury 5 was an entry wound to the left lumbar region of the back. The injury to the lumbar region had gone through bowel, but with surgery would not have been fatal.[15]
[4]T 318.
[5]T 414–5.
[6]T 414.
[7]T 316.
[8]T 318.
[9]T 317.
[10]T 322.
[11]T 320.
[12]It was recovered ‘just posterior to the proximal femur’: T 321.
[13]T 321.
[14]T 322.
[15]T 321.
Upon canvassing by police, several witnesses reported making relevant observations around the time it is likely Daniel was shot, including hearing sounds consistent with gunshots. The Crown prepared and tendered a diagram showing the location of the various witnesses at the time of their observations.[16]
[16]Exhibit P2.
Some witnesses described seeing a man wearing dark clothing and a hoodie[17] in the children’s playground abutting Christ Church on the north-east corner of Fawkner Park. The man was doing stretching movements and sit-ups.[18] The man had a backpack with him which he put aside while stretching. The man was sighted in the playground at a time proximate to the putative time of the shooting around 7.40pm.[19] The playground was about 500 metres away from where Daniel’s body was located. The Crown suggested that this man was you.[20]
[17]T 209 (Claudia Haeger); T 264–5 (Nicholas Farrell); T 275–6 (Catherine Tudor).
[18]T 209, 214, 217, 276, 278.
[19]Shots were overheard around 7.40pm by Mr Ahearn (read-in), Mr Fiddes, Ms King, Mr Jeffs, Mr Bacon (read-in) and Mrs Bacon, Ms Coory, Ms Zydower, Ms Weston, Ms Haeger and Mr Soininen.
[20]T 1409. The Crown submitted in closing that witness Claudia Haeger was on a phone call from 7.38pm to 7.48pm, heard the gunshots towards the start of that call, saw the man appear in the playground between the middle or end of that call, and that this was consistent with Mr Milhuisen moving away from Daniel’s body towards the exit of Fawkner Park: T 1410.
The day after Daniel’s body was found, two guns were located in leaf litter about 15 metres from the playground. They were a .38 calibre Smith & Wesson model 12-2 6-shot revolver and a .22 long rifle calibre Walther model PP pistol. At around this time, the caretaker of the nearby Christ Church on the corner of Punt and Toorak Roads found a green and white plastic shopping bag in the bushes, which contained two bottles of mineral turpentine, a cigarette lighter, a black Anko bumbag and seven pieces of paper. Five days later, following examination of CCTV from the vicinity of Christ Church, a detective searched the grounds of Christ Church and found a pair of scrunched-up gloves discarded in the garden. Subsequent testing detected gunshot residue on the bumbag and the gloves.
Police had viewed CCTV footage of nearby homes and businesses and identified a ‘man in a green cap’ as a person of interest whose movements were captured on CCTV leaving Fawkner Park and exiting through the Christ Church carpark proximate to the time of the murder.[21] This person was seen on CCTV taking off his gloves near the garden of Christ Church. At 11.34am on the morning of the murder, a cash purchase had been made not far from where you lived, at the Burwood East K-Mart. The purchase comprised of a pack of chewing gum, a green BBL cricket cap, a long-sleeve black T-shirt, men’s trackpants, an Anko bumbag and a grey/black commuter backpack. The bumbag matched the one later found by the Christ Church caretaker, and the cap, T-shirt and trackpants appeared to match those worn by the person in the CCTV footage.
[21]The police prepared a 7-minute CCTV compilation of the man in the green baseball-style cap carrying a red and white shopping bag, walking from Fawkner Park through Christ Church and up Toorak Road and ending on Como Avenue in South Yarra.
It was accepted by your counsel at trial that the man in the green cap observed on CCTV from the night of the murder was you. The Crown submitted to the jury that you shot Daniel with the revolver at the location where his body was found, and that the Walther pistol was your back-up gun. On the Crown case, you then fled in a direct line up towards Christ Church, but perhaps because you saw there were still families around the children’s playground, shining a torch and bike light about looking for possums, you panicked and discarded the two guns amongst the fallen leaves and entered the Christ Church grounds without them.[22]
[22]The Crown submitted to the jury in closing that Mr Milhuisen brought the bottles of turpentine to the park, but that it was unclear whether he had them with him in the backpack or planted them there before: T 1410.
The Crown submitted to the jury that you could be seen on CCTV walking through the Church grounds after the time of the shooting wearing the gloves at a location proximate to where the gloves were thrown in the garden. You did not dispute wearing the gloves and throwing them into the garden.
The Smith & Wesson revolver was examined by police ballistics experts and found to contain six fired Federal 38 Special cartridges. The projectiles located under and inside Daniel’s body were able to be matched to that specific weapon. The Walther pistol contained a magazine filled with rounds but showed no signs of having been recently discharged.[23]
[23]The serial number appeared to have been ground off that firearm.
Fibre examination conducted by a forensic expert found that fibres of the same type were present on the revolver, the bumbag and the gloves.
A DNA profile for Unknown Profile “A” was detected on crime scene items including the Smith & Wesson revolver, the right-hand glove and the handles of the green and white plastic shopping bag. At that time police did not know who the man in the green cap was or who Unknown Profile “A” could be.
Almost two years after Daniel’s murder a witness[24] (hereinafter referred to as ‘the witness’) was arrested by police in 2021, following a violent ‘run-through’ at a factory that was being used to store large quantities of contraband cigarettes. Occupants of the factory at the time of the run-through included the witness, two other men and the witness’s friend[25] (hereinafter referred to as ‘the friend’). Police laid charges in relation to both the activities of the factory’s occupants and the offenders who perpetrated the run-through who were associated with an outlaw motorcycle gang (‘OMCG’).
[24]A pseudonym.
[25]A pseudonym.
At the factory, the witness told police that he had information relating to Daniel’s murder. He subsequently provided further information to police and nominated you as the person who shot Daniel. Among other things, the witness told police [certain information]. These matters did not form part of the information released by police to the media at the time of Daniel’s death.
The witness gave evidence[26] that the friend had introduced him into a criminal syndicate[27][28][29] and that the witness had reason to suspect your involvement in Daniel’s death based on things he heard around the time Daniel was murdered, and based on viewing CCTV footage released by police after the murder.[30] He said he recognised your distinctive build and walk in that footage, and that you did not deny being the man in the footage.[31]
[26]T 597ff.
[27]A pseudonym.
[30]Being the CCTV clip referred to earlier of the ‘man in the green cap’ that was made public by police after Daniel’s body was found: T 626.
[31]T 626, 667.
The witness described a confession made by you to Daniel’s murder in late 2020.[32][33][34][35]
[32]Being Daniel’s nickname: T 604, 620.
As a result of the witness’s information to police, a sample of your DNA was obtained. A DNA profile obtained from the handles of the green and white plastic shopping bag found in the bushes of Christ Church, when compared to your DNA profile, provided very strong support for the proposition that you were a contributor. A DNA profile obtained from the inside of the right-hand glove found by police provided extremely strong support for the proposition that you were a contributor.[36] A swab from the grip of the Smith & Wesson revolver also produced a DNA profile indicating extremely strong support for the proposition that you were a contributor.[37]
[36]That glove was also found to have gunshot residue on it.
[37]Various other DNA results of items were led through expert witness Ms Salerno, including a standalone analysis of swabs of the Smith & Wesson trigger: refer exhibits P59, P60.
It was not disputed by you at trial that you were at Fawkner Park at the time of the shooting, and that you threw away the gloves and were associated with the plastic bag containing the turpentine, cigarette lighter, bumbag and pieces of paper. It was also not disputed that you were captured on CCTV walking away from Fawkner Park into the grounds of Christ Church and then down Toorak Road wearing the green cap and holding an orange and white plastic bag. The Crown suggested that you had stuffed the backpack you had been using into the plastic bag you carried as you departed.
Despite admitting being the person with the green cap captured on CCTV, you disputed being the shooter and the jury were invited to consider whether, for example, an OMCG may have been responsible for having Daniel shot. The witness gave evidence over a period of three days during your trial[38] and was extensively cross-examined.
[38]On 27, 28 and 29 November 2024.
It was argued on your behalf that the witness’s account was untruthful and unreliable, and that the friend did not support the witness’s account of the 2020 alleged confession by you to murdering Daniel.[39] The jury were given directions relevant to the witness’s position as a witness.[40]
[39]The friend was called as a witness, and gave an account refuting (among other things) the witness’s account of the confession made by Mr Milhuisen in the friend’s presence.
[40]Viz. that he was a criminally concerned witness and as such may have been unreliable and may have had a motive to lie.
During the course of your trial a high-level statement of agreed facts, along with some other statements of agreed facts, were tendered in evidence, informing the jury about Daniel’s past character for violence, firearms offences and serious criminality he was involved in proximate to his murder. The agreed facts also described various organised crime actors and groups operating in Melbourne and their activities around the time of Daniel’s death.
Another witness called by the Crown, hereinafter referred to as ‘the second witness’,[41] nominated a senior member of an OMCG as having admitted being responsible for Daniel’s murder. The agreed facts statements were relied on by you in conjunction with the evidence of the friend and the second witness in order to raise a reasonable doubt about whether you shot Daniel, or whether instead, another person or group was responsible for Daniel’s murder as a result of a failed drug importation.
[41]A pseudonym.
The jury’s verdict must be taken to represent substantial acceptance of the witness’s evidence and rejection of the friend’s contrary evidence. Indeed, the verdict expressed a rejection of any alternative hypotheses raised by you in your defence to the charge of murder.[42]
[42]Regarding the second witness’s evidence referred to in paragraph 30, the Crown submitted in their closing arguments that, whilst he was an honest and truthful witness in describing a senior OMCG member having taken credit for the murder, it was unlikely that the senior OMCG member was telling the truth in light of other evidence.
Your counsel submitted on your plea that the jury verdict entailed the following factual findings:
(a)You were the shooter;
(b)You were involved in a level of planning for the confrontation with Daniel at least on 26 April 2019;
(c)You were armed at the time of the confrontation;
(d)You fired at least five shots at Daniel, killing him, and holding the requisite intent for murder; and
(e)You decamped from Fawkner Park via Christ Church, abandoning items on your way as depicted in CCTV footage.
It was nevertheless submitted on your behalf that you maintain your innocence and dispute the jury’s verdict.
I accept that Mr Morrissey correctly described matters that must flow from the jury’s verdict. Regarding the aspect of pre-planning on the day of the offence, the Crown emphasised in their closing that you must be taken to have purchased the items at K-Mart on the morning on 26 April, and it was those items that were worn or used during the offending.[43] The Crown submitted before me that your offending was ‘premeditated, well prepared and ruthlessly executed’, arguing that, in light of the objective seriousness of the crime and your high moral culpability, a substantial term of imprisonment well above the middle range of seriousness was called for.
[43]See exhibits P48 and P49.
This submission was made by reference to the standard sentencing regime, which requires consideration of the standard sentence for murder (being 25 years) as one of the factors relevant to sentencing, and a statement by the Court as to how the ultimate sentence imposed relates to that standard sentence.[44]
[44]Prosecution Sentencing Submissions (17 February 2025), [20] citing Sentencing Act 1991, s 5B(2), (5).
The Crown suggested that your role was in effect a ‘gun for hire’, whereas Mr Morrissey submitted that such a description was not borne out by the evidence. On the Crown case, the murder was linked to and (at least in part) arranged by the friend and the syndicate he belonged to, because Daniel was going to ‘take everything away from them’ in relation to an importation of ‘paint’. On the Defence case, the murder was linked to an OMCG, and a debt owed by KA[45] as a result of a failed drug importation.
[45]A pseudonym.

The Crown also maintained their argument[46] that what occurred was akin to an ‘ambush’ killing, despite Mr Morrissey’s position that the exact way in which the shooting occurred was obscure and should not be accepted to have been a form of ambush. It was disputed by Mr Morrissey that your offence should be characterised as ‘well above the middle range of seriousness’.[47]
[46]T (plea) 16.
[47]Outline of Defence Plea Submissions (24 February 2025) p 2.
Ultimately, on the basis of all the evidence before the jury, I consider it is open to be satisfied that your role was similar to that of a gun for hire as described by the Crown, in that you did not shoot Daniel because of any animus you held towards him, but acted at the behest of another or others, even if all the details of that arrangement, such as whether you expected or received payment or reward, are not known to the Court. I am also satisfied from the position of gunshot injuries, the position of the body and the surrounding circumstances that an element of surprise was deployed.
As submitted by the Crown, at any event, neither case suggested any personal grievance or dispute between you and Daniel, nor any specific involvement by you in the syndicate’s background criminality. Whilst Mr Morrissey argued that where the Crown relies on the account of the witness to submit aggravating features those matters should not be taken as proven, I do not accept that submission insofar as the key aspects of the witness’s evidence is concerned in nominating you as the person deployed to shoot and kill Daniel, and in relation to the broader context of what took place.
Ultimately, in some cases there may be some matters of detail about a crime that may remain opaque or unable to be established to the criminal standard, and about which a definitive decision by the sentencing judge cannot or need not be made.[48] This may apply to some aspects of what was described by the witness, for example as to the suggestion of you gloating about the murder. I have not taken such aspects into account in sentencing you.
[48]See, eg, DPP v Elliot & Fares (Sentence) [2022] VSC 554, [47] (Tinney J).
Victim impact statements
A Victim Impact Statement (‘VIS’) was provided by Daniel’s mother, Cheryl O’Shea. She explained that she was born into a family of criminals, and cut herself off from them and raised Daniel and his brother, Jamie, alone. Jamie was born with a disability and had many health issues, and Daniel was a big support through those struggles. Now Cheryl wakes every morning without her son, and feels there are no words to express what that means to her. She feels that her family is broken. It has been difficult for her to support Jamie since Daniel died. She said: ‘Daniel was everything to me and I can't believe he isn't here.’ She reminded you that you still have your family to support you.
I have taken Cheryl’s VIS into account in sentencing you.
Objective gravity and moral culpability
This offence represents a very serious example of the always serious crime of murder.
I accept that it has been established[49] that there was an element of planning and premeditation in the way you approached and killed Daniel. The Crown submitted that this was essentially a ‘planned execution’, pointing to the nature of Daniel’s wounds – two shots to the back, one under the armpit and one to the head – and the fact that you did not appear to have been injured after performing the shooting and before leaving Fawkner Park. I accept that Daniel’s murder bore the hallmarks of a planned ‘hit’.
[49]Beyond reasonable doubt.
I also consider that the offence is aggravated to some degree by the brazen way it was carried out in the early evening in the public location of Fawkner Park, even though it is not alleged that any member of the public was immediately endangered. I accept that the location of the shooting was less alarming than in the cases mentioned by your counsel.[50] On the other hand, you showed disregard for the safety of the public by discarding the two firearms (one of which was still fully loaded) in Fawkner Park.
[50]Mr Morrisey referred to R v Armour [2011] VSC 376, where the shooting occurred at a café close to other members of the public, and DPP v Marrogi [2022] VSC 210 where the shooting occurred in a busy carpark.
The Crown submitted that it can be safely inferred that the bottles of turpentine, pieces of paper and lighter found in the bushes at Christ Church were brought to the scene for the purpose of destroying items used in the murder, but were ultimately not used in that way.[51] That appears to be a logical explanation for the presence of those items, but apart from adding some support to the case that this was a pre-planned ‘hit’, such conduct does not otherwise increase the objective gravity of the murder.
[51]Prosecution Sentencing Submissions (17 February 2025), [4(d)].
As mentioned, your counsel sought to characterise this offence as a middle- to upper-range example of murder, and disputed that it should be classified as falling well above the middle range of seriousness.
Given my finding that this murder was in fact a pre-planned ‘hit’ at the behest of others, this was an objectively very serious example of the offence of murder. No explanation has been offered to mitigate your conduct, and your moral culpability is to be assessed as correspondingly high.
Personal history and circumstances
Six years have passed since the commission of the murder and you are now 39.
You have worked in various roles over your lifetime and held two military roles, firstly in the French Foreign Legion[52] and secondly in the New Zealand army.[53] You incurred an ACL injury to your knee which contributed to you leaving the New Zealand army, although your counsel submitted that the primary reason was connected to you becoming a parent.[54] As a result of your remand in custody for the offence before the Court, you have experienced progressive alienation from your son, and have never met your now 4 year-old daughter.[55]
[52]Commencing service on 25 August 2010 and ending on 26 March 2013: T 1342.
[53]Commencing service on 10 April 2013 and ending on 14 October 2016: T 1343. See also exhibit D33: ‘So he went to France. He go in the Legions there […] couple of years […] Like, four years or five years, he did service there. Then he went to New Zealand. And he did a couple tours with them when he was in the army’.
[54]The first child was lost, but Mr Milhuisen’s partner fell pregnant again subsequently.
[55]Refer to the character reference written on Mr Milhuisen’s behalf by his sister.
You have a limited and distant criminal history, largely comprising historical theft- and motor vehicle-related offending, which is of no real relevance to the matter now before the Court.[56] No term of imprisonment was ever served.[57] You are not a person with a drug or alcohol problem.
[56]The Crown accepted that Mr Milhuisen’s prior convictions were of limited relevance to the present matter, noting his prior offending is both dated and of much lower seriousness than the murder charge: refer Prosecution Sentencing Submissions (17 February 2025), [16], [24].
[57]An aggregate sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment was imposed for four charges dealt with in the Ringwood Magistrates’ Court on 10 September 2008, to be served by way of an Intensive Correction Order.
Having been charged with Daniel’s murder on 22 April 2021, you have now spent all of the time since then on remand. Following a contested committal between 9–11 May 2022, you were committed to stand trial in this Court. You applied for bail unsuccessfully in August 2021 and again in November 2023. The matter had progressed efficiently until November 2022, when your counsel issued subpoenas seeking wide-ranging disclosure.[58] No criticism is made of that decision but a complex interlocutory process ensued in relation to disclosure,[59] thereby elongating the pre-trial period and causing the trial date to be vacated three times.[60] These delays are not attributable to any fault of yours.
[58]Addressed to the Chief Commissioner of Victoria Police and the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police.
[59]Including, most notably, public interest immunity issues.
[60]Previous trial dates of 17 April 2023, 8 November 2023 and 14 May 2024 were vacated.
Mr Morrissey sought to invoke the cases of Worboyes[61] and Diab[62] on your behalf, which addressed the additional hardships incurred by prisoners during the COVID-19 pandemic. I take these matters into account as a mitigating factor in sentencing you, noting that when you went into custody there were still some COVID-19 restrictions in place which would have made your remand more restrictive and difficult for you.[63]
[61]Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169.
[62]Re Diab (2020) 282 A Crim R 462.
[63]Surtees v The King [2023] VSCA 42, [10] (Kyrou and Kaye JJA).
Relatedly, your counsel referred to aspects of your more onerous prison management against a background of threats articulated by associates of Daniel. I have previously commented on the potential detriment suffered by prisoners under management regimes.[64] I take into account these burdensome conditions and recognise that those conditions may persist to some extent into the future.
[64]DPP v Pearson [2023] VSC 483, [70]–[90]; see also Yat v The King [2024] VSCA 93, [64]–[92] (Walker and Boyce JJA).
I have also taken into account the testimonial provided by your sister, which reflects the ongoing support offered by your parents and siblings, and refers to the hardship you have experienced on remand. Your family[65] will support you during your time in prison and assist you reintegrate into society upon your release. This will be important to your rehabilitation.
[65]Detailed information as to family background was before the Court for Mr Milhuisen’s pre-trial bail application on 21 November 2023, and Mr Morrissey adopted that at the plea hearing: T (plea) 12.
Remorse
Your counsel conceded that no relevant finding of remorse was open. Absence of remorse is merely the absence of a mitigating factor that may be present in other cases and does not aggravate your offending, though it may bear upon prospects for rehabilitation.
Current sentencing practices
The Crown supplied a short table of comparable standard sentence cases and submitted that DPP v Thorn[66] and DPP v Rider & Ong[67] were the most directly comparable.
[66][2023] VSC 702.
[67][2023] VSC 466. Leave to appeal against Mr Ong’s conviction was recently refused: Ong v The King [2025] VSCA 21.
Thorn involved the group assault, kidnapping, false imprisonment and execution murder of an unarmed victim believed to be a paedophile. It did not appear factually similar to your case.
Rider & Ong seems more relevant. In that case, Beale J sentenced two offenders for a drive-by shooting on the Eastern Freeway. Rider pleaded guilty[68] two days before trial but Ong was found guilty[69] after trial. The two offenders were members of the Mongols OMCG. The deceased was unarmed and had no criminal associations, and the case appeared to be one of mistaken identity. In assessing the objective gravity of the offending, Beale J observed that the murder involved considerable planning[70] and occurred in a public place without provocation, and ultimately was followed by a dangerous attempt to avoid police pursuit. His Honour did not accept the prosecution’s submission that the offending fell into the ‘worst case’ category of murder, but imposed sentences of 30 and 35 years’ imprisonment with respective non-parole periods of 21 years and 24 years and 6 months. Justice Beale distinguished the much worse offending in DPP v Elliot & Fares[71] but referred to a number of other cases involving firearms, which I have also considered.[72]
[68]To reckless murder.
[69]Of intentional murder.
[70](including sourcing a firearm and ammunition, surveillance of the deceased’s home over several hours, and changing clothes.)
[71][2022] VSC 554.
[72]As footnoted in the sentencing remarks at fn 37.
Your counsel took issue with the cases relied upon by the Crown, submitting that they were of peripheral (if any) value, and referred the Court to R v Armour,[73] DPP v Marrogi[74] and Trabert.[75] The cases cited by Mr Morrissey all pre-date the operation of the standard sentence scheme and cannot be used as sentence comparators, but general principles can be extracted from them.[76] I have taken the relevant statements of principle into account in the process of instinctive synthesis employed in arriving at an appropriate sentence.
[73][2011] VSC 376.
[74][2022] VSC 210. Marrogi’s crime shared some factual similarities with Rider & Ong. It was a planned ‘hit’ in a busy public location. Coghlan JA in sentencing Marrogi described his offending as ‘very serious offending’.
[75]R v Lindholm, Trabert & Ryan [2015] VSC 739.
[76]Sentencing Act 1991, s 5B(2)(b), and see, eg, DPP v Stiler [2024] VSC 314, [137] (Tinney J).
Purposes of sentencing
The Crown submitted that general and specific deterrence and community protection are relevant in sentencing you, particularly in light of the nature of the offending and your apparent lack of remorse. I accept those submissions. Denunciation and just punishment are also relevant in sentencing you. I am cognisant of the principles of parsimony[77] and proportionality.
[77]I must not impose a sentence that is more severe than necessary to achieve the purposes for which that sentence is imposed: Sentencing Act 1991, s 5(3).
Your counsel relied upon your overall life history in aid of the submission that your rehabilitative prospects are favourable. He referred to your lack of recent or relevant criminal history, your pattern of being able to hold down employment, your law-abiding family of origin and their ongoing support of you and the absence of factors that would hinder your rehabilitation or make it improbable. I accept that those factors are relevant.
Given your current age, I am conscious of the fact that you will inevitably spend a lengthy period of your middle years in prison, and that isolation from your family and children will be very hard for you. In all the circumstances, including your lack of any extensive criminal history, I accept that you have moderate prospects of rehabilitation, while also signalling that it is difficult to make a definitive forecast at this juncture.
This was a grave offence demonstrating a callous disregard for the precious value of human life. Those who commit murder in circumstances such as this case must expect condign punishment.
Sentence
Jason Milhuisen, please stand.
For the murder of Daniel O’Shea, I sentence you to 32 years’ imprisonment. I fix a non-parole period of 25 years. Pursuant to s 11A of the Sentencing Act 1991 I am required to fix a non-parole period that is at least 70% of the head sentence unless the Court considers it to be in the interests of justice not to do so, however, there is no good reason to fix a lesser period in your case.
The sentence I impose is higher than the standard sentence for murder, which is 25 years. Having identified what I regard to be the relevant sentencing factors, including my assessment as to the very serious nature of the offending and your high degree of moral culpability, I have formed the conclusion that this is appropriate.[78]
[78]See, eg, Brown v The Queen (2019) 59 VR 462, 475 [45] (Maxwell P, Priest, Kaye, T Forrest and Emerton JJA).
Pursuant to s 18 of the Sentencing Act 1991 I declare that you have already served 1,486 days by way of pre-sentence detention, not including today’s date, and I direct that this be reckoned as time already served under the current sentence.
I will make the disposal orders sought by the Crown.

[28]T 594.

[29]T 596, 825.

[33]T 662–3, 786.

[34]T 663–4.

[35]T 677.

[2025] VSC 269

16 May 2025