Director of Public Prosecutions v Patel (a pseudonym)
[2025] VCC 860
•20 June 2025
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Suitable for publication |
| THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| ARJUN PATEL (A PSEUDONYM) and RAVI PATEL (A PSEUDONYM) |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE LYON | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 21 May 2025 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 20 June 2025 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Patel (a pseudonym) & Anor | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2025] VCC 860 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: Criminal Law
Catchwords:
Legislation cited:
Cases cited: Director of Public Prosecutions v Kim [2022] VCC 1130; Palise v The King [2024] VSCA 51
Sentence: Eleven Years and Nine Months’ Imprisonment; Seven Years and Five Months Non-Parole Period
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr A. McKenry at plea | Ms Washington (appeared at sentence) |
| For the Accused | Ms C. Richardson at plea (Arjun Patel) Mr C. Oldham at plea (Ravi Patel) | Mr Joshi (appeared at sentence) Ms Singh (appeared at sentence) |
HIS HONOUR:
1Arjun and Ravi Patel,[1] on 11 April 2025, you were found guilty by jury verdict after a trial of nine days on three charges of rape, which each carry a maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment; and one charge of abduction or detention for a sexual purpose which carries a maximum period of 10 years' imprisonment.
[1] Pseudonyms.
2You are liable to be declared serious sexual offenders on Charges 3 and 4. I will say more about that later in these remarks.
3I note that the prosecution does not make application for sex offender registration.
4You have no previous or subsequent criminal histories and you have no matters outstanding.
Circumstances of Offending
5The facts upon which the jury found their verdict are as follows:
6
The offending occurred on the night of Saturday 18 March / early morning Sunday, 19 March 2023. At the time, Mr Arjun Patel, you were 36 years of age.
Mr Ravi Patel, you were 28. The victim, Jasmine,[2] was 20 years old.
[2] A pseudonym.
7On the evening of 18 March 2023, you travelled together to the Revel nightclub in Albert Road South Melbourne. The club is located close to St Kilda Road. The club was holding a Bollywood-themed night. Ravi Patel drove to the nightclub and did not consume any alcohol. Arjun Patel consumed about four beers over the course of the evening.
8Your victim attended the club with friends. Before attending the club, Jasmine[3] and her friends had been out for dinner where she consumed a vodka drink. She consumed another four or five vodka drinks over the course of the night at the club and became intoxicated. Club security escorted her from the club bathroom and she was ejected from the club due to her intoxication.
[3] A pseudonym.
9Club security sat Jasmine on the entrance steps of the building next door to the club. It appears she was provided with water by security who made a cursory enquiry that she was all right to make her way home. A couple of Jasmine’s friends also made a cursory enquiry of her, but soon returned inside the club.
10Jasmine had ordered an Uber using her phone app. Mr Arjun Patel, you showed considerable and sustained interest in the victim and sat down on the step next to her and commenced to talk to her. Mr Ravi Patel, you were more detached from the conversation but still had a role to play.
11Charge 1, the charge of taking away for a sexual purpose, was committed when you, Mr Arjun Patel, offered to drive Jasmine home. Although she stated that she had ordered an Uber, between the two of you, you took her phone from her hand and cancelled the Uber on the app. When the Uber arrived, Ravi Patel spoke to the driver and sent the car away. The pair of you then got the victim to her feet and holding her arm and waist, escorted her into the back of Ravi Patel’s car. You were both found guilty of Charge 1.
12Arjun Patel, you got into the back of the car with Jasmine. Although Jasmine lived in Chadstone, you, Ravi Patel drove the car to Albert Park Lake. As the car drove away from the nightclub, you, Arjun Patel, got on top of Jasmine. You lifted her dress, and pushed her underwear to the side. You penetrated her vagina with your penis. While driving, you Ravi Patel, told Arjun to use a condom 'otherwise we’ll get caught'.
13Arjun Patel, you did not use a condom and you withdrew your penis and ejaculated on the external surface of Jasmine’s genitals. Throughout your act of penetration, the victim shouted and cried 'no' in Hindi, making it clear to both of you that she did not consent to the sexual penetration.
14You were both found guilty on this charge of rape – Arjun Patel, for the physical act of penetration and Ravi Patel, for your complicity or agreement in that act.
15The car stopped at Albert Park Lake where you Ravi Patel moved from the driver's seat to the back seat of your car. You Ravi Patel said 'I’ll come back now'. Although Jasmine had sat up briefly, you climbed on top of her and penetrated her vagina with your fingers. You Arjun Patel encouraged Ravi to 'use three' fingers to penetrate Jasmine’s vagina. You Ravi Patel moved Jasmine’s dress and pushed her underwear to the side and penetrated her vagina with your penis.
16Throughout these acts of penetration Jasmine constantly said 'no'.
17During the course of the penetrations, the pair of you made degrading comments such as 'look at her boobs' and other parts of her body; and were laughing and 'having fun”'
18You, Ravi Patel, then returned to the driver's seat and drove Jasmine home. On the journey home, you Arjun Patel sat in the back seat with Jasmine, you were holding her phone out of reach and firmly holding her hand. At her address, she snatched her things and you let her out of the car. You asked if you and Ravi could go inside. Jasmine said nothing, but rushed inside her home.
Standard Sentence Principles
19I turn now to consider the standard sentence principles under the standard sentencing scheme.
20The scheme provides for a standard sentence on Charges 2, 3 and 4 of rape. The standard sentence is 10 years.
21All things being equal, I must set a minimum term of not less than 60 per cent of the head sentence unless I consider it is not in the interests of justice to do so.
22The standard sentence takes account only of the objective factors affecting the seriousness of the offence. It is marked as the middle range of seriousness for that offence.
23Objective factors exclude consideration of matters personal to you as offenders or as a class of offenders. Rather it is determined wholly by reference to the nature of the offending.
24I may only consider other standard sentencing cases when I am looking for comparators for sentencing purposes.
25In determining the appropriate sentence for your offending, I must take into account the standard sentence as one of the factors relevant to sentencing.
26In this way, it is an additional factor to consider in the sentencing process.
27This does not limit the matters which I must or may take into account in determining the appropriate sentence. Nor is it intended to affect what is known as the instinctive synthesis process.
28The standard sentencing scheme may be considered as a guidepost in the sentencing consideration. However, it is neither determinative nor a starting point from which I must simply remain, go up or go down in my sentencing consideration.
Objective Gravity and Moral Culpability
29I turn now to a consideration of the objective gravity of your offending and an assessment of your moral culpability.
30The objective seriousness of the crime of rape can be measured first by having regard to three statutory considerations - first, the offence carries a maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment. Second, rape is a category one offence which requires a sentence of imprisonment to be imposed. And finally in this respect, as I have said rape is a standard sentencing offence, with a standard sentence of
10 years.31Moreover, each of the individual charges (including abduction for sexual purpose), and the overall offending constitute a very serious example of these crimes.
32As the prosecution noted, and I agree, you each took a proactive role, so there is no meaningful difference between your roles or (looking ahead) no meaningful difference between your circumstances for sentencing purposes.
33In my view, the following factors inform the seriousness of your offending:
i.You took determined and co-ordinated action over the course of a number of minutes to talk to the victim, to offer her a lift home (as a ruse for your actual plan), to cancel the order on the app, and to approach and send away the Uber driver when he arrived. Your determination continued as you physically shepherded the victim to your car. You kept her phone from her until you took her home;
ii.Your victim was a young woman, only 20 years of age, who had been ejected from the nightclub because she was intoxicated. I am satisfied that you were aware of the state of her intoxication;
iii.Your offending occurred late at night, in company and in the car. The car was moving as you Arjun Patel first raped the victim. She was taken to an isolated location where you Ravi Patel raped her next. The use of the car in motion, the time of night and the ultimate location at albert Park Lake; together with the fact that you had her phone, all ensured that she had no means of escape or calling for help when you knew that she did not consent;
iv.The rapes were protracted, committed in turn and in the face of her obvious distress and protests. It was measured from various CCTV cameras that the Uber was sent away at 1:43 am, and the victim dropped back to her house at 2:48 am;
v.The acts of rape were accompanied by your comments of humiliation and degradation. You Arjun Patel encouraged Ravi Patel to penetrate the victim with three fingers, you both said (using the victim’s words) 'look at her boobs look at this look at that' laughed and had fun.
vi.You, Ravi Patel, were alive to the precaution of using a condom; not out of concern for the victim, but so that you didn’t get caught.
34Ms Richardson, who appeared on the plea for you Arjun Patel, submitted the following factors should be taken into account:
i.That whilst serious, this should not be viewed as the worst example of offending;
ii.there was little premeditation or planning;
iii.no weapons were used;
iv.there was no gratuitous violence or threats of violence made;
v.no injuries were sustained by the victim;
vi.she was taken home.
35Mr Oldham, for you Mr Ravi Patel, also submitted this should not be viewed as the worst example of offending.
36I received the victim impact statement of Jasmine. The effect of your actions on this young woman have been devastating and long lasting. Jasmine has suffered severe mental health issues since the offending; in the form of panic attacks and PTSD. She was unable to work for many months after this attack, she was unable to continue her studies and had to defer for a period of time. As a young international student, she had no money, and she had to call for financial support from overseas and she had no immediate family she could call on for emotional support in Australia. She had to move house and suburb because she did not feel safe because you knew where she lived. Then, there has been the cost to her social life. She feels unsafe when she goes out, and there has been a breakdown in a number of her friendships. I fear that it will take long time and a deal of professional help for her to overcome the damage you have inflicted on her.
37The Court of Appeal has provided extensive assistance in outlining factors which affect the objective seriousness of offending.[4] Taking into account the matters set out in some of those authorities, I have regard to the fact that the victim did not know you and did not even meet you in social circumstances inside the club. In this respect I can only conclude that your encounter with her on the steps outside the club was not initially social, but entirely for the purpose of taking her away to rape her.
[4] See for example Judicial College of Victorian Sentencing Manual 5.1.2 footnote 857 the cases referred to there.
38Moreover, whilst there is no evidence of a plan per se, once the two of you fixed on her, you worked with determination and coordination to move her to the car. Throughout the ordeal and referring to the matters I have already outlined, it is evident that you continued to use a degree of thought and awareness to keep your victim contained - that is contained in addition to your acts of penetration until you dropped her home.
39At least in your case Mr Arjun Patel, the lack of protection during your act of penetration exposed the victim to the risk of pregnancy (notwithstanding the absence of your DNA on her internal examination), and to the fear of pregnancy, and to the risk and/or fear of disease.
40Whilst I agree that there was no gratuitous violence or weapon used, each of the acts of rape constitute serious acts of physical and psychological violence and violation.
41Finally, in my consideration of your counsels’ submissions, I cannot conclude that there was any act of civility, kindness or consideration in driving the victim home. It is apparent from her statement that it simply added to her terror; that is you knew where she lived. It forced her to leave and seek safety elsewhere.
42Whilst your offending may not constitute the worst example of the crime of abduction or rape, I nevertheless consider it to be extremely grave. Your moral culpability is high. Your offending must be met by principles of general deterrence, denunciation, and just punishment.
Personal Circumstances
43I turn now to your personal circumstances.
44Arjun Patel, you were born in August 1988, and you are 36 years old.
45Ravi Patel, you were born in February 1996 and you are 29.
46You were both born in India and are Indian nationals residing in Australia on visas. I was told by your counsel that you Arjun Patel, have a Temporary Graduate Work Stream visa and Ravi Patel, a student visa.
47Arjun Patel, your counsel submits you were raised in a stable family in north-west India and have maintained a stable life. Your family operated a small farm. You completed your high school education at age 16 and have consistently worked since leaving school. You worked on the family farm and then in electrical and sales.
48You met your wife in 2009 (pursuant to a family arrangement) and you then married and have two children aged 10 and 15.
49You travelled to Australia in 2018 where your wife commenced studies. You returned home to India to look after your children on the farm whilst your wife remained here. You had only returned to Australia on 5 March 2023 with your children, when these offences occurred a couple of weeks later.
50I note your wife remains supportive of you throughout the trial. She gave evidence to the jury of your good character. She was present in court every day of the trial.
51Your son has returned to India but your daughter remains here with your wife. Your wife visits you in prison.
52I was told you are a devout Sikh and would attend temple every day prior to going to prison. You engaged in volunteer activities in connection with the temple.
53In Australia since March 2023, you worked as a cabinet maker in your own business.
54A number of witnesses gave evidence of your good character (including your wife and brother-in-law, who knew you from India) at your trial.
55Your parents are elderly and in poor health. Your absence is difficult for them, from a farm and family consideration.
56Ravi Patel, you were 27 at the time of the offending and you were born in Amritsar.
57Although you travelled to Australia some years ago, you remain close to your parents and would speak to them every second day. You have two older sisters; one who lives in Melbourne with her husband and children. You speak to her every day. Your other sister lives in India with her family. You used to speak to her on a regular basis but you have not been able to speak to her since you have been in prison.
58You completed your secondary schooling in India. Following high school, you completed a three-year electrical industry training course. You were qualified as an electrician and you were offered a place in a local college to complete tertiary education.
59Instead, you came to Australia. You have completed certificates in automotive, painting and decorating and a diploma of building and construction management. You have not updated your electrical qualifications in Australia.
60You work as a truck driver.
61At the time of your remand, you were still studying. You wish to qualify as a construction project manager. In prison, you have expressed your willingness to work in the prison system but you have not been offered any jobs so far.
62You have applied to study English language courses and test and tag courses.
63You are single and have no dependent children.
64You are also a devout Sikh. Mr Oldham told me that on remand your dastar and kara were removed and you were not permitted to cover your head until you got to Ravenhall. The prison system does not provide any Sikh religious services, and I accept that prison has made it difficult for you to practice your religion.
65I accept that prison is a difficult experience for both of you. Neither of you have any prior convictions so of course, neither of you have any experience of the prison system before your remand. I accept you both have difficulties with English (although Ravi has greater English skills than you, Arjun). I accept that you are culturally isolated, largely but note entirely isolated from family support and have difficulties practising your religion. I will give these matters some weight; although overall the matters personal to you cannot dominate the sentencing consideration.
Sentencing Submissions
66Ms Richardson and Mr Oldham submitted that the following factors should operate to mitigate your sentences:
i.Whilst it is conceded that deterrence is the dominant sentencing consideration, specific deterrence has a lesser role to play;
ii.Ms Richardson submitted that a sentence lower than the standard sentence should be imposed;
iii.The principle of totality must be applied;
iv.There should be substantial concurrency between the individual charges;
v.I must avoid double punishment on Charges 1 and 2;
vi.You are both persons of good character;
vii.You have good prospects of rehabilitation;
viii.You face the prospect of deportation at the conclusion of your sentence. You will lose the prospect of settling in Australia and you suffer from the anxiety of reviewing the decision to cancel your visa and the anxiety of your prospect of removal from this country;
ix.You are isolated by your limited English language skills, your cultural differences and the difficulties practising your religion;
x.You were automatically placed into protective custody, and you must endure the restrictions that that entails.
67For you Ravi Patel, your English language skills are somewhat better than those of Arjun. You have been in Australia longer than Arjun and you may feel more anxiety that you will lose the opportunity to settle permanently in Australia. You are a little younger than Arjun but it was not suggested there was any material basis on which a different or lesser sentence could be imposed.
68Mr McKenry for the prosecution submitted the only appropriate sentence is a lengthy term of imprisonment with a non-parole period. Principles of general deterrence, just punishment and denunciation dominate the sentencing consideration.
Analysis
69I turn now to my analysis. I am satisfied that principles of general deterrence, just punishment and denunciation are applicable in this case. Specific deterrence has little, if any, work to do in this case.
70Because I am satisfied that prison must be imposed on Charges 1 and 2, you will each be declared serious sexual offenders in respect to Charges 3 and 4 and I order that be entered on the records of the court. Once the declaration is made, protection of the community becomes the dominant sentencing objective. Further, the presumption of concurrency of sentences is replaced by the presumption that sentences be served cumulatively - that is on top of each other. The prosecution does not seek to impose disproportionate sentences, and I will not do so.
71Neither of you have any remorse. Whilst you must not be punished for running a trial or maintaining your innocence, there are no utilitarian benefits which apply in mitigation.
72I consider that both of you will find your time in custody difficult. To differing degrees, you both face the limitations of English language skills, you face cultural isolation, practising your religion difficult and limited family support. Whilst you both face the prospect of deportation at the end of your sentence, I consider for you Mr Ravi Patel, the likely loss of opportunity to remain in Australia will weigh more heavily. Mr Arjun Patel, your offending was committed within days of you arriving back in Australia. In any event, it was submitted that the same sentence ought be imposed on each of you.
73I consider you both have reasonable prospects for rehabilitation.
74You have no prior convictions, you have good work histories and family support; both here and in India.
75I must have regard to the principle of totality – that is I must impose a sentence which is not crushing. So I intend to reduce the periods of cumulation of sentence to achieve a just outcome.
76The Crown provided me with a sentence in a case called Kim[5].
[5]Director of Public Prosecutions v Kim [2022] VCC 1130
77I do not consider that case to be of particular assistance as a comparison. In the matter before me, the victim was not socialising with you, she was not getting intoxicated with you at your expense and showed no sign of familiarity or affection towards either of you. Those factors were present in the case of Kim. Jasmine was and remained a stranger to you both at all times. At the beginning of the trial I was referred to the case of Palise[6]. The sentence in that case (which was not the subject of the appeal) more closely reflects the sentence I consider appropriate in this case. In the end however I must not be over influenced by sentences in other cases. I must set a sentence which reflects the objective circumstances of your offending, the appropriate sentence principles and (to the extent the law allows) the matters personal to each of you.
[6]Palise v The King [2024] VSCA 51
Orders
78Accordingly, the sentences I impose are as follows:
79On Charge 1, the charge of abduction, you are convicted and sentenced to three years' imprisonment.
80On Charge 2, you are sentenced to eight years and nine months' imprisonment and that is the base sentence.
81I declare you each to be serious sexual offenders and I enter that fact on the record of the court and on Charge 3, you are sentenced to six years' imprisonment.
82On Charge 4, you are convicted and sentenced to eight years and nine months' imprisonment.
83I order that 12 months of the sentence on Charge 1 be served cumulative on the base sentence and on all other sentences.
84I order that nine months of the sentence on Charge 3 be served cumulative and I order that 18 months of the sentence on Charge 4 be served cumulative.
85My intention is, and I hope I have got my maths right, but my intention is that you serve a total effective sentence of 11 years and nine months.
86INTERPRETER: Sorry, Your Honour, could you repeat that. I missed that.
87My intention is that you serve a total effective sentence of 11 years and 9 months and so I will ask counsel to check the periods of cumulation to ensure I have achieved that result because if my maths is wrong, I will change it to ensure that I achieve that result.
88I set a non-parole period of 63 per cent of that total effective sentence which is a period of seven years and five months. That is the period you must serve before you become eligible for parole.
89I declare the period of 70 days, that is seven-zero days, pre-sentence detention reckoned as already served.
90The sentences on Charges 2, 3 and 4 are lower than the standard sentence provided for by law. Notwithstanding the objective seriousness of your offending, the principle of totality requires that I set an overall just sentence. As a consequence, I have set sentences which I consider appropriate to achieve the overall principle of totality.
91Thank you. Ms Washington, are there any matters I have missed or anything you need to raise?
92MS WASHINGTON: Your Honour, one matter - there was a disposal order for Ravi Patel in relation to a white T-shirt if that could please be made.
93HIS HONOUR: Is there - yes, no problem?
94MS SINGH: There's no objection.
95HIS HONOUR: Thank you, the order will be made in chambers.
96
MS WASHINGTON: Thank you, Your Honour. And Your Honour, my calculations come out as 12 years for the total effective sentence so I wonder whether
Your Honour could just confirm once again - - -
97HIS HONOUR: I'll just stand down for a couple of moments.
98MS WASHINGTON: Thank you, Your Honour.
99HIS HONOUR: I've only got a couple of minutes before we go offline.
100(Short adjournment.)
101HIS HONOUR: Thank you, Ms Washington. You are correct. It comes - - -
102MS WASHINGTON: Thank you, Your Honour.
103HIS HONOUR: - - - out at 12 years. That is not my intended sentence.
104MS WASHINGTON: Of course.
105HIS HONOUR: The period of cumulation will be reduced on Charge 4 to 15 months so the total effective sentence remains a sentence of 11 years and nine months. That does not affect the non-parole period. That remains at seven years and five months. That is 63 per cent of the total effective sentence with 70 days pre-sentence detention reckoned as already served.
0
2
0