Director of Public Prosecutions v Ramsey (a pseudonym)
[2025] VCC 762
•11 June 2025
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| TRISTAN RAMSEY (a pseudonym) |
---
JUDGE: | Karapanagiotidis | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 12 May 2025 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 11 June 2025 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Ramsey (a pseudonym) | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2025] VCC 762 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing
Catchwords: obtaining a financial advantage by deception – theft – handling stolen goods – possession of drug of dependence – conduct endangering life – trafficking in a drug of dependence – possession of equipment capable of being used to retain identification documentation
Legislation Cited: ss 5(1), 6AAA Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic)
Cases Cited:
Sentence:Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order (DATO)
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Ms V. Kambouropoulos | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr W. Barker | Orange Legal Group |
HER HONOUR:
1Tristan Ramsey[1], you have pleaded guilty to:
(a) One charge of obtaining financial advantage by deception (1);
(b) One charge of possession of equipment that is capable of being used to retain identification documentation (2);
(c) Two charges of theft (3 & 7);
(d) Two charges of handling stolen goods (4 & 9);
(e) One charge of possession of a drug of dependence (5);
(f) One charge of conduct endangering life (6); and
(g) Two charges of trafficking in a drug of dependence (8 & 10).
[1] A pseudonym.
2You have also agreed to this Court hearing, and have pleaded guilty, to the summary charges of unlicensed driving (summary charge 29) and drive under the influence (summary charge 33).
Circumstances of the offending
3The full circumstances of your offending are outlined in the prosecution opening, marked as Exhibit A. This constitutes the factual basis upon which I sentence you.
Charge 1 - Obtaining a financial advantage by deception
4The Victorian Government provided a COVID-19 Test Isolation Payment (TIP) Program designed to financially support Victorian workers without access to sick leave entitlements who were required to self-isolate after a coronavirus (COVID-19) test and stay in isolation while waiting for their test results. As of 13 August 2020, the support payment was $450.
5Between 9 to 25 November 2020 you submitted four fraudulent applications online for this payment. You were successful with these applications and received $450 for each (totalling $1800). Details of these applications is set out in the table in the prosecution opening at paragraph [5]. A couple of anomalies, as referred to in the opening, led to the Department of Jobs, Skills, Industry and Regions (DJSIR) reviewing and identifying these fraudulent payments.
Charge 2 - Possession of equipment that is capable of being used to retain identification documentation
6On 22 March 2022, at approximately 6:23am, you drove a black Audi A3 Sedan and parked it on Collins Street, Melbourne. Carrying a red shopping bag, you walked to the HSBC bank ATM nearby and attached articles to the ATM that would obtain bank card and pin information of customers that used it.
7At the commencement of the business day on 22 March 2022 a HSBC Branch manager checked the external ATM facing onto Collins Street and detected an inconsistency. He located a device underneath the Pin Pad that contained a Pin Hole camera and SD card and power source. The Pin Pad that had been placed over the legitimate Pin Pad cover extended outwards like a veranda giving the Pin Hole camera a clear view of customers entering their PIN Numbers.
8An ATM technician subsequently attended to inspect the ATM and located a skimming device inserted into the card reader (this deep insert device captures banking data from the black stripe off the back of legitimate customers’ banking cards). The technician removed this deep insert device. All relevant items were given to police, before you returned to retrieve them. The data the devices recorded would have enabled you to produce cloned bank cards with a correlating PIN code. Your DNA was later recovered from this device.
9On 27 July 2023 at 9.30am police executed a search warrant at your address on Whites Lane. You were not home at the time and were seen by police nearby driving off in a vehicle. Your partner was present and police located a number of items, as outlined in the opening (at [15]).
10A Black Audi Sedan was also located in the garage of your address by Police. Checks on this vehicle revealed that between approximately 10:30pm on 6 February 2022 and 7:00am on 7 February 2022 a black Audi A3 Sedan (registration as noted in opening) was stolen from a residential address in Glen Iris. The vehicle was valued at $22,230. It is not alleged that you were the one who stole the vehicle on this date. You were in possession of it knowing it was stolen on 27 July 2023. (Charge 7 – Theft)
Charge 6 - Conduct endangering life
11On the same day, 27 July 2023, at 10:40am Police, who were searching for you, located you sitting inside a Black Audi Station Wagon (registration as noted in the opening) in the Village Green Hotel carpark at the corner of Ferntree Gully Road and Springvale Road Glen Waverley.
12When Police attempted to intercept you, you drove at the Police vehicle narrowly missing them and causing them to take evasive manoeuvres to avoid a collision. You drove south on the wrong side of the road into oncoming traffic along Springvale Road.
13Police Airwing (Helicopter) located the vehicle being driven by you.
14Between 11:37am and your arrest at 11:55am you were driving in a manner that constituted conduct endangering life. You repeatedly and continuously accelerated to dangerous speeds, up to 150km/h, regularly reaching 100 or 110 km/h in short stretches of narrow, built-up residential and industrial roads where speed limits were set to 50 km/h. This occurred during the normal business trading hours, with pedestrians and other road users being exposed to the driving.
15You repeatedly disobeyed traffic control signals, crossed onto the wrong side of busy roads, crossed single and double solid white lines, mounted curbs and concrete traffic islands and caused other road users to have to take evasive action to avoid a collision.
16Whilst Police attempted to intercept you on three separate occasions, the Police Forward Commander deemed it too dangerous to engage in a pursuit. As such, Police maintained distance from you and there was no continuous pursuit.
17A detailed description of your driving recorded by the Airwing is set out in the table contained at Annexure A. The relevant footage was also played in Court during the determination hearing.
Arrest
18At 11:55am you lodged the vehicle amongst thick reeds in a Reserve next to Governor Road, Mordialloc. You exited the vehicle, retrieving items from the rear driver’s side passenger area, before fleeing on foot towards the footpath on Governor Road. You jumped the fence to the footpath and fell, dropping items in the process. These were later retrieved by police. They were a laptop with black case and keyboard and 2 x mobile phones
19You then ran along Governor Road and turned into Lamana Road, Mordialloc, jumping over a fence to enter a business premises, “Urban Underground” café. You were followed into this location by Police and you were then arrested.
20At the time of the offending you did not hold a current Victorian Driver Licence. Your licence expired on 3 September 2014 and has never been renewed. (Charge 29 – Unlicenced Driving).
21Police located the following during your arrest:
a. 3x Mobile phones.
b. An Audi car key and a Mercedes car key.
c. Two bags of Methylamphetamine in crystal form (part of Charge 10 - Trafficking in a drug of dependence).
d. A ziplock bag containing four Methylenedioxy-N-Methylamphetamine (MDMA/ecstasy) tablets weighing 0.3grams. 22 (Charge 5 - Possession of a drug of dependence)
e. SD Card.
f. a large number of Bank cards, medicare cards and drivers licences in various names, as outlined in the opening and in schedule 1 (Part of Charge 9 - Handling stolen goods).
22You were conveyed to the Monash hospital as you had an elevated heart rate. During this time blood was taken from you.
23Shortly after you were discharged and conveyed to the Moorabbin Police Station.
24Your blood was tested for illicit substances and the results indicated the presence of Methylamphetamine (~0.40 mg/L), Amphetamine (~0.08 mg/L) and Tadalafil (~0.65 mg/L). (Charge 33 - Driving whilst under the influence)
Search of the 2019 Audi station wagon
25The 2019 Audi station wagon that was being driven by you on 27 July 2023, just prior to your arrest, was seized and examined by Police.
26Checks on the vehicle revealed that it was stolen on 19 April 2023 from a Beaumaris address during an aggravated burglary and was valued at $120,000.26 It is not alleged that you stole the vehicle on 19 April 2023 but possessed the vehicle knowing it was stolen on 27 July 2023 (Charge 3 – Theft).
27A number of modifications were made to the vehicle to hide its true ownership, as outlined in the opening.
28Police searched the vehicle and located a number of items as outlined in the opening, including:
a. 16x 500ml bottles containing 1,4-Butanediol weighing 7.6kg . (Charge 8 - Trafficking in a drug of dependence).
b. 3x Ziplock bags containing Methylamphetamine in Powder form.
c. 3x Ziplock bag containing Methylamphetamine in Crystal form. (part of Charge 10 - Trafficking in a drug of dependence). The total weight of the methylamphetamine located was 9.5g.
d. 3x Samsung Tablets.
e. 2x Scales.
f. 6x Laptop and 15x Mobile phones.
h. Vehicle Registration Plate 1VW3TZ. (Charge 4 - Handling stolen goods)
i. 4x Parts for skimming device.
j. Card Reader.
k. 465x Gift cards with Pins.
p. Flipper Device (Used to open garage doors and unlock cars, or even fully start Smart key activated cars).
q. Volkswagen Car Key.
r. Jewellery & Watches.
s. Identification and bank related cards belonging to a number of different members of the public (see Annexure B). (Part of Charge 9 - Handling stolen goods)
Record of interview
29You were interviewed on 27 July 2023 at the Moorabbin Police Station, during which you stated -
a. That you were heavily affected by drugs and being involved in the pursuit where you agreed your driving was dangerous.
b. That you swapped 3 ½ to 7 grams of “Ice” for the stolen black Audi SUV you were driving on 27/07/2023.
c. You otherwise gave a no comment record of interview.
Gravity of offending
30The nature and gravity of your offending varies between charges. Overall and globally your offending is serious, as indicated by the relevant maximum penalties.
31Charge 1 is a rolled-up charge and I take into account the full circumstances of the offending. The offending was calculated and committed over the period between 9 to 25 November 2020. You made 4 applications for funds that you were not entitled to and received a total of $1800.
32Charge 2 was committed on the 22 March 2022 and can be characterised as offending that was ‘well-considered’, ‘sophisticated and premeditated’. You attached various articles to an ATM in an attempt to obtain bank card and PIN information of customers that used it. This was achieved by placing an insert into the car readers (which records the information on the bank card) as well as positioning a small camera onto the ATM to capture the PIN of bank cards. I assess the gravity of your offending against the maximum penalty of 3 years imprisonment that applies to this charge.
33The trafficking charges are serious, as indicated by their maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment. In Brian Gregory (a pseudonym) v. R[2] the Court of Appeal set out the manner in which trafficking charges should be approached by a sentencing judge. The sentencing regime for trafficking offences is quantity-based. While quantum is an important factor it is of course not the sole, determinative factor and there are other relevant considerations.
[2] [2017] VSCA 151.
34On charge 8 a total of 7.6kg of 1,4 butanediol was seized, which exceeds the prescribed commercial quantity threshold of 2 kilograms. By the charge, the prosecution does not allege that you were aware of the quantity. I accept however the prosecution submission that objectively the quantity makes it a more serious example of a trafficking simpliciter offence.
35I take into account that the charge is confined to one day. I note your Counsel’s submission that there’s no evidence of you arranging multiple sales or of engaging in actual transactions and there is no evidence of proceeds of crime connected to this offending. I also take into account that 1,4-butanediol is less profitable than other drugs of dependence[3]. Charge 10 concerns a lesser comparable amount of 9.5grams of methylamphetamine and is also charged on the one day.
[3] See R v Maxwell [2013] VSCA 50.
36While the trafficking charges, in particular charge 8, are serious, I regard charge 6 on the indictment as representing the most serious offence.
37Endangerment offences have a very broad scope and can cover a broad range of circumstances. You placed other road users at significant risk. You should not have been in charge of a motor vehicle. You were unlicenced at the time and affected by drugs. Your driving was for a period of some 18 minutes, during business trading hours, with pedestrians and road users exposed to your driving. You drove at high speeds to evade capture. At one stage your speed reached 150kmg/h. At another time you accelerated to a speed of approximately 110 km/h in a built-up residential area of 50km/h. You drove through red lights and intersections, and on the wrong side of the road numerous times, to overtake other vehicles.
38On the remaining matters I take into account the items the subject of the charge, noting in particular that charge 9 covers a large volume of goods, as per the attached schedule. On charge 5, taking into account your history of drug use and the amount of the drug seized and that it was on your person, I am satisfied that you were not in possession of the drug for purposes related to trafficking.
39Psychologist Ms Daniella Kocic outlines your reported accumulation of stressors in the lead up to your offending, including substance use, homelessness and transience, medication non-adherence and poor mental state (at [96]). This provides some relevant context to your offending but does not excuse it or in itself moderate your moral culpability.
40In respect of the offending, I take into account the principle of totality, noting that 8 out of the 10 charges on the indictment occur on the one day, namely the 27 July 2023. This will be reflected in orders for cumulation and concurrency, which also however will be structured to mark the separate criminality involved in each offence. I also take into account the principle of proportionality which further requires that I impose an overall total sentence that is a just and appropriate one.
41In respect of your driving the subject of charge 6, I have taken into account as aggravating features that you were unlicenced and under the influence of drugs at the time. Orders of concurrency will ensure that double punishment is avoided.
42On charge 1, I also will take into account the substantial delay involved in the prosecution of this matter and the lost opportunity to have this case heard on previous occasions where you were sentenced to terms of imprisonment.
Plea of guilty
43You entered a plea of guilty with your matter resolving prior to the trial hearing on 25 March 2025. Your plea of guilty entitles you to an important sentencing discount. It has utilitarian value and indicates your willingness to facilitate the course of justice and accept responsibility for your offending. I also take into account that when interviewed you admitted that you were the person driving the vehicle in pursuit and that your driving was dangerous. The admission also extended to possession/control of the items inside the car.
44I also accept that your plea of guilty, along with your other representations, is indicative of some remorse though there is scope for further development. Ms Kocic assessed you as displaying partial insight, however poor judgment, into your offending behaviour. You took full responsibility for the offending, did not endorse any victim-blaming attitudes or externalisation of blame, and expressed genuine remorse’ (at [67]).
Personal circumstances
45Your personal circumstances were outlined by your Counsel and canvassed in the psychological report of Ms Kocic of 18 April 2024.
46You were aged between 42 and 45 at the time of the offending and you are now 47 years of age. You were born in Romania, as an only child. You describe a chaotic and unstable childhood marred by family violence, early exposure to substance use, physical and verbal abuse, and neglect.
47In Romania you grew up during the war and you describe your environment as a very ‘bad’ one. You slept in the same room as your parents and the family relied upon food rations as a means of survival. At times during the war your family were not permitted to leave the small apartment. The army would occupy the street to enforce this. Your father went missing for days or a week at a time and you didn’t know why and didn’t know if he was dead or alive.
48In between the war your parents both worked in a shoe making factory in Romania. They worked together for some fifteen years before your father became a truck driver. They are now receiving a pension and your mother has been diagnosed with dementia.
49Growing up your parents were alcoholics and you witnessed your father ‘bashing mum all the time.’ You recall your parents were often out with friends drinking and you spent time between attending school and your grandparent’s home. You were subjected to verbal and physical abuse by your parents throughout your childhood.
50As for schooling, you attained an equivalent year 10 secondary education whilst in Romania. You often truanted and describe yourself as an ‘average’ student.
51You moved out of home and at the age of 17, and alone, you moved to Austria. Your parents remained in Romania. You initially entered the country without a residential or working visa but over the years you managed to obtain one. At the start you didn’t have a fixed place of abode but then you were able to find some jobs for cash and achieve a degree of security.
52Shortly after going to Austria you met your wife. She was part Hungarian and part Serbian but had lived in Romania and so you both spoke the same language. You moved in together and this represented your first proper home since leaving your parent’s home. When you were only aged 18 your wife gave birth to your son. You were doing any work you could find to support your family and your wife was studying nursing. After becoming lawful you enrolled for an IT Diploma when you were 21 and completed it over a 3 year period, while also helping to raise your son. When you were 27/28 you got a job as an IT Engineer for IBM and worked there until you migrated to Australia about a year and a half later.
53In 2006, you and your family immigrated to Australia. You moved here in the hope of a better life. You settled in Hampton Park and your wife was able to quickly get visa sponsorship by an employer with her nurse qualifications and started work right away. You eventually got work for a small laptop repair company for whom you worked for one year until it went into administration. You were then relocated to a Mercedes Benz dealership in Mulgrave where you worked in Software Administration. Then you moved on to the taxation office in the CBD where you worked for around two years. You then moved to Canberra and obtained work for the Government. You worked there for about 3 years in software and IT.
54Your relationship broke down in 2016 in the context of your partners infidelity.
55Subsequently you report that an intervention order was obtained against you by both your ex-wife and your son, who is now in his late twenties. You understand that the order expires in 2025. You have no familial or prosocial supports in the community.
56You began using drugs in an attempt to medicate or manage your feelings. You started drinking alcohol in your early 20s and you have a history of heavy alcohol use. You commenced using methamphetamine in 2010 at the age of 32. It quickly developed into an addiction and became worse in the context of your separation. You reported daily use, smoking between one to three grams. You commenced using GHB in 2019 and have used both drugs consistently until your current remand.
57In the last 10 years your ability to work has been compromised by your instability, substance use, transience and mental health issues. You have relied upon the proceeds of crime to financially support yourself from time to time.
58You have a relevant and extensive prior criminal history which dates back to 2017, commencing at around the age of 39. You have appeared before the Courts on a variety of matters including driving related offences and dishonesty and drug offending. I note that you do not have a history for drug trafficking or for offending involving conduct endangering life or serious injury. You have been subject to various sentencing dispositions, including periods of imprisonment. In 2020 you were placed on a DATO but failed to fully engage with its requirements or supports.
Psychological assessment
59The results of Ms Kocic’s psychological testing indicate ‘severe levels of depression, extremely severe levels of anxiety, and moderate levels of stress.’ On the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test (DUDIT) you scored 35/44 which was indicative of severe drug-related problems, which was consistent with your self-report of substance use.
60On the basis of your self-report, psychometric assessment, clinical presentation at interview and the available collateral information, Ms Kocic concluded that the following diagnosis were indicated – schizophrenia, major depressive disorder, stimulant use disorder, opioid use disorder, and sedative use disorder – all in early remission in a controlled environment.
61In respect of the diagnosis of schizophrenia, Ms Kocic noted that there was no mental health collateral provided to substantiate your self-reported diagnosis, however you had been treated on antipsychotic medication to manage your symptoms (at [92]). You report symptoms of auditory hallucinations, paranoia, social isolation and a loss of interest or pleasure in activities. You have been medicated with olanzapine. I note that the MHARS report lists your diagnoses as paranoid schizophrenia and adjustment disorder.
62In her report Ms Kocic refers to the well-known impact of war on young children and the impact of your unresolved disruption, parental neglect and instability. She considers that these events predisposed you to Major Depressive Disorder, characterised by low mood, worthlessness and fleeting suicidal ideation. You have also been compromised in sustaining effective and adequate coping resources to manage your distress and emotional dysregulation.
63Ms Kocic also suggests that imprisonment would likely weigh more heavily on you than a person without your conditions and given its volatility it could exacerbate your depressive symptoms (see [99]-[101]).
64I take into account your personal circumstances and your deprived and traumatic history. I accept your Counsels submission that Bugmy[4] principles apply, in a general sense and are relevant to an assessment of your moral culpability and the relevant sentencing principles. As submitted by the prosecution I also balance the weight to be given to your deprived background against the need to protect the community.
[4] Bugmy v R [2013] HCA 37.
65Given the state of the evidence your Counsel does not rely on Verdins[5] principles. He submits however that you are someone who has suffered from a series of mental health issues, including potential schizophrenia, major depressive disorder, (predisposed by your chaotic background) and severe stimulant use disorder. These challenges, along with your drug use, remain broadly relevant to your circumstances and the sentencing exercise. While the diagnosis of schizophrenia is unclear and unconfirmed on the evidence, in sentencing you I take into your Major Depressive Disorder and its symptoms, along with your assessed stimulant use Disorders.
[5] R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102.
66Your general risk of reoffending was assessed by Ms Kocic as ‘high’ (at [83]). Your primary risk factors which increase your propensity to reoffend are your polysubstance use, longstanding history of unemployment, housing instability, association with antisocial peers and your severe mental health issues which have predominantly remained untreated. She considers that your risk will reduce if you are willing to engage in treatment and are assisted with obtaining the support required for your underlying conditions (at [84]). Ms Kocic makes a number of targeted recommendations for your treatment and support from paragraph [99] onwards in her report.
Matters relevant to the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court Determination Hearing
On your behalf your Counsel submits that the Court should impose a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order (‘DATO’). The prosecution submit that it is not open to the Court to sentence you to a DATO as there is insufficient sentencing scope in the proposed order to give proper effect to the necessary sentencing principles and purposes in this case.
The purposes of a DATO are outlined in s.18X of the Sentencing Act 1991 and are to facilitate your rehabilitation, to take account of your drug or alcohol dependency, to reduce the level of criminality associated with drug or alcohol dependency, and to reduce your health risks associated with drug or alcohol dependency. In considering whether to make such an Order, I must regard your rehabilitation and the protection of the community from you, achieved through your rehabilitation, as having greater importance than other sentencing purposes such as denunciation and general deterrence. Clearly however, given the nature of this offending, general deterrence, specific deterrence, denunciation and community protection remain important considerations.
The criteria for the making of a DATO are set out in s18Z of the Sentencing Act 1991.
I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that you are dependent on drugs. This is not in dispute between the parties. I take into account the history of your substances use, as canvassed in the report of Ms Kocic, and also your score of 40 out of 44 on the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test during your assessment with the clinical advisor. This score indicates that you were likely to have been heavily dependent on drugs over the 12 months prior to your arrest (at [10]).
I am also satisfied that your dependency contributed to the commission of the offending now before me, which is also not disputed. I take into account your personal circumstances and the history of your substance use, the circumstances of your offending and your account of heavy drug use at the time. The clinical advisor also opines that you would have satisfied diagnostic criteria for diagnosis of Substance Use Disorder at the time of the initial offending, which was severe in nature and is currently in sustained remission in a controlled environment, with the assistance of pharmacotherapy (at [53]).
In order to impose a DATO I must also be satisfied that it would otherwise be appropriate to impose a sentence of imprisonment of no more than four years.
The prosecution submit there is insufficient sentencing scope for the Court to impose a DATO when regard is had to the maximum penalties, the nature and gravity of the offending and your culpability, your previous history and current sentencing practices.
A table of comparable cases was provided by the prosecution[6] and your Counsel also referred to cases[7]. I have considered all the cases carefully. They have been generally instructive and of guidance. There are both similarities and differences in the cases. Very briefly, for example, the offending driving in DPP v Russell was for approximately 50 minutes duration and contains some additional features not present here. In the case of Martinez v The Queen the driving also involved the ramming of the front of a police vehicle. In Haberman v The Queen the offending was committed some 2 weeks after the appellant’s release from custody for a range of charges including reckless conduct endangering life.
[6] DPP v Russell [2021] VSC 221; Martinez [2019] VSCA 135; Haberman v The Queen [2020] VSCA 286; DPP v Taylor [2021] VCC 287;
[7] DPP (Cth) v Maxwell [2013] VSCA 50; DPP v Goodson [2024] VCC 921; Butler v The Queen [2019] VSCA 132.
I have weighed up all relevant considerations, including the gravity of your offending, your prior history, the general sentencing landscape for such offending, the maximum penalties and your plea of guilty and cooperation. While I consider that the only just and appropriate sentence in your case is a substantial term of imprisonment, I consider that a term of no more than four years can reflect the need for general deterrence, specific deterrence, community protection and denunciation.
Pursuant to s18Z(3) of Sentencing Act 1991, I must not make a DATO unless satisfied in all the circumstances that it is appropriate to do so. This involves a consideration of your suitability for an intensive Order such as a DATO. I have also read and considered the reports from the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court assessors (clinical advisor assessment report, 28 April 2025) and case management assessment report of 28 April 2025).
The prosecution raise a number of concerns in your case, including the following the absence of stable long-term accommodation upon release; limited pro-social community supports; longstanding history of unemployment; criminal associations; history of failing to comply with court orders and longstanding polysubstance use.In particular, they highlight your previous non-adherence and compliance with a 2019 Drug Treatment Order imposed by the Dandenong Drug Court.
The concerns raised are reasonable and I accept that your rehabilitative prospects must be cautiously assessed and assessed in light of your previous history, which includes non-compliance on orders. However, there are others matters that also influence an assessment of your rehabilitative prospects and suitability on the order. While you have a relevant and extensive history it is one that didn’t commence until 2017 when you were nearly 40 years of age. Prior to this, you managed to study and work.
You report no illicit substance use in custody and are treated with buprenorphine administered every 3 weeks. You have also completed the ‘Ice and me’ course.
As to your current motivation, you told the clinical advisor that you believed a DATO would support you to get the help you need and stay clear of drugs. You referenced your previous DATO experience as having been positive in supporting treatment and abstinence. Though you did not fully engage with programs you managed to maintain abstinence for a reasonable period of time and made attempts to engage in the order. You reported you wanted to ‘give it a go’ and challenge yourself and that a DATO will help ‘keep [you] under control’ and ‘manage yourself.’ Your proximal goals were to repair your fractured relationship with your son and to secure housing and employment.
In your assessment with the case manager, you told her that you found the previous DATO helpful ‘to have a guideline and structure’. You had only used substances three times however the order was cancelled due to reoffending. It is clear from the notes that there were also issues of ongoing dishonesty on your part while on the order. You told the case manager that you wanted to engage with an order as it will support you ‘stay away from people with drug involvement …’ and provide ‘a routine to keep me away from crime …’ You disclosed that you are ready to make change in your life and ‘live a life without drugs.’ You also referred to your 29 year old son, who had ‘cut ties; with you due to your substance use and of your motivation to stop using and leading a prosocial lifestyle. I note you also told Ms Kocic that you would like to stop reoffending due to ‘feeling too old for it’ ([85]).
Your failed attempt on an order in the past is a cause for concern. However, I accept that at the time you made some effort towards your recovery but that a range of issues, including your ongoing drug dependency, impacted your ability to comply with the order. You are presently motivated to engage with the order and I consider that you have the capacity and ability to do so. You well understand the intensive obligations and requirements of a DATO. Given the nature of your addiction and the issues you present with, you require ongoing support, treatment and supervision in the community to enable you to achieve your goals and make positive changes. Many of the issues and concerns raised by the prosecution can be actively targeted and addressed on an order.
The clinical advisor was satisfied that the treatment and supervision component of a DATO would be an appropriate intervention to address your substance use disorder, and that there are no significant concerns regarding your capacity to participate in such an order.
The case management report also recommends your suitability for a DATO. As for your transitional needs, there were no concerns raised concerning your daily living skills but should you be granted an order you would benefit from support with the Salvation Army’s (TSA) Housing Pathways Program. It was considered that a DATO may assist you to access long term counselling for you AOD needs and also provide a safe space for you to address your mental health.
I have also had regard to the individual treatment plan, which has been devised by the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court clinical team in conjunction with those named in the individual treatment plan as your care team.
You have now been on remand since your arrest on 27 July 2023, which is approaching 2 years. I note that 8 months of this period is attributable to other unrelated offending. You therefore have a total of 445 days pre-sentence detention on this matter. Your lengthy period on remand is also a matter that I have taken into account. Having served this period in custody, you will now be placed on a significant order, which will carry onerous obligations and a substantial custodial component operative for up to several years. While the treatment and supervision part of a DATO has a rehabilitative rather than punitive purpose, the core and program conditions of a DATO involve restrictions on a person’s freedom and the imposition of a range of positive obligations, reflecting the onerous nature of the order.[8]
[8] Makrogiannis v Magistrates’ Court of Victoria VSC 190, at [17].
Having considered the criteria for the making of a DATO set out in s18Z of the Sentencing Act 1991, and all of the relevant reports and submissions, I am satisfied that it is appropriate in all the circumstances to make a DATO in your case.
Sentence
88Synthesising all relevant matters, I consider that the only just and appropriate sentence is a term of imprisonment. You are convicted and placed upon a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order (DATO). This order commences today.
89A DATO has two parts: the treatment and supervision part and the custodial part. The treatment and supervision part itself has two parts which are as follows:
90The core conditions, which are that you (s.18ZF):
(a) must not commit, whether in or outside Victoria, another offence punishable on conviction by imprisonment; and
(b) must attend the Drug Court when required by the Drug Court to do so; and
(c) must report to a Melbourne Drug Court House or other specified place within 2 clear working days after the order is made; and
(d) must undergo treatment for drug or alcohol dependency as specified in the order or by the Drug Court.
(e) report to an accept visits from a member(s) of the Drug Court.
(f) must give notice of any change of address within 2 clear working days before the change to a specified Drug Court officer,
(g) must not leave Victoria without the permission of the Drug Court.
(h) must obey all lawful instructions from the Drug Court Team.
91The core conditions will operate for 46 months or until further order.
92The program conditions, are as follows:
(a) comply with the individualised treatment plan dated 11 June 2025 and signed by you on 11 June 2025.
(b) submit to drug or alcohol testing specified in the order as directed; and
(c) submit to detoxification or other treatment specified in the order (whether or not residential in nature) as directed; and
(d) attend vocational, educational, employment or other programs as directed; and
(e) submit to medical, psychiatric or psychological treatment as directed;
(f) participate in a neuropsychological assessment to assess for any cognitive issues; and
(g) reside at accommodation as directed by the DATC team until further order;
(h) comply with a curfew that you remain at the nominated address between 9pm and 6am. This curfew is required until further order.
(i) do or not do anything else that the Drug Court considers necessary or appropriate concerning:
(i) your drug and alcohol dependency; and
(ii) the personal factors that the Drug Court considers contributed to your criminal behaviour.
(j) Not use a drug of dependence without lawful authorisation.
(k) Abstain from alcohol.
(l) Not to drive or operate a motor vehicle.
93These program conditions will operate for two years or until further Order.
94The custodial part of the DATO is the term of imprisonment that I would have imposed had I note placed on an order, and it is a term of imprisonment of 46 months. This is not to be served unless the Court orders this to occur.
Sentence
95This term is comprised of the following individual sentences:
Charge
Sentence
Cumulation
Charge 1
9 months
3 months
Charge 2
8 months
2 months
Charge 3
7 months
2 months
Charge 4
4 months
1 month
Charge 5
Convicted & discharged
-
Charge 6
2 years, 3 months
BASE
Charge 7
7 months
2 months
Charge 8
2 years
5 months
Charge 9
10 months
2 months
Charge 10
8 months
2 months
Summary offence [29]
1 month
-
Summary offence [33]
1 month
-
96That arrives at a total effective sentence of 3 years and 10 months imprisonment (46 months).
97Pursuant to s.18 I declare that you have served 445 days as pre-sentence detention.
98Pursuant to s.6AAA but for your plea I would have sentenced you to 5 years imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months.
99I make the disposal and forfeiture orders in the terms agreed between Counsel.
100I also cancel all drivers licences and/or disqualify you from obtaining a licence for a period of 2 years on charge [6] and a period of 2 years on charge [33], which represent the minimum mandatory terms.
101Addendum: It is noted that on 12 June 2025 with the agreement of the parties and pursuant to s.104B of the Sentencing Act 1991 the case was re-opened to impose a sentence according to law on summary charge 33. As reflected in these reasons, the sentence of 3 months imprisonment (concurrent) on charge 33 was substituted for 1 month imprisonment (concurrent) and the licence disqualification period of 4 years was substituted for a period of disqualification of 2 years, as at 11 June 2025.
0
7
0