Director of Public Prosecutions v WA
[2025] VCC 1322
•3 September 2025
v
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CR-25-01017
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| WA |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE PURCELL | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 3 September 2025 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 3 September 2025 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v WA | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2025] VCC 1322 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: BREACH OF SUPERVISION ORDER
Catchwords: Breach of supervision order – Multiple breaches –
Sentencing – Discretion
Cases cited: Director of Public Prosecutions v XG [2024] VSC 82
Legislation cited: Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s6AAA
Sentence: Fined $750
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Prosecution | Ms A. Patterson | |
| The Accused was not represented by counsel |
HIS HONOUR:
1 WA, you are before the court again today in respect to breaches of a supervision order, which is unimpressive, but I take into account that you have pleaded guilty effectively at the earliest opportunity. I note summary jurisdiction has been applied for and is granted. The circumstances of the offending are as set out in the prosecution summary which has been read in court this morning and is not disputed by you.
2 I also take into account your brief oral submissions where you are unrepresented today. In particular I note that broadly you have remained out of trouble since you have been on a supervision order in 2020 and are apparently endeavouring to set up a business where you tell me that perhaps in a good month you are earning something like $1,500 but are otherwise not in receipt of Centrelink.
3
Nevertheless, this is effectively your fifth breach of the
supervision order. Those breaches have broadly involved drug use, or on one occasion, drug paraphernalia. That is of concern and it is one of the relevant factors I have to synthesise this morning in arriving at an appropriate sentence.
4 In other words, I cannot ignore the fact that you have seemingly on several occasions either thumbed your nose at the supervision order or been unable to understand the implications of breaching it. It is also a concern that those breaches arise where the index offending, that is the serious offending for which you were placed on a supervision order, has significant undertones of drug or alcohol abuse as relevant in that offending.
5 I am not here to lecture you, but I think you, yourself, should well understand the risk of drug use for further offending and what that might mean on your life, still at a relatively young age.
6
Another relevant consideration is the fact that the supervision order would appear to be coming to an end. I understand it is due to expire on or about 13 September, you having been on an interim order since
11 December 2020.
7 I am concerned that if I was to impose a custodial sentence, that is if I was to send you to gaol, that might trigger a further enquiry and in effect set in chain a process where you might again be the subject of a supervision order. Some of this is my intuition, other than a lot of evidence about this. And again, at the risk of repetition, I note you do not have lawyers representing you. But I am concerned that if I was to impose a custodial sentence and that was to again trigger a renewal of a supervision order, I am just going to set you up to fail by you breaching such an order.
8 That does not mean that I condone drug use. I think, particularly for someone with your background, it is an incredibly stupid thing to be doing. I understand you have children. I understand you have family. I understand that there have been limitations on access in part because of the supervision order.
9 Why on earth you would want to risk the prospect of re-establishing those relationships for some short-term gain in using methamphetamine in the context where drugs and alcohol have previously got you in a lot of trouble is, frankly, something I cannot understand. But maybe that is a question better asked of yourself, WA, in other words, what are you doing?
10 Nevertheless, on the face of it you have been successfully living in the community since you were released from gaol, apart from the breaches of the supervision order. And whilst I have said before I in no way wish to condone breaches of the supervision order, whilst the prosecution has not conceded this, I think it is fair to say they are relatively low-level breaches. They certainly do not involve serious breaches such as acts of violence and the like.
11 I can tell you this, that where someone has breached a supervision order on multiple occasions a custodial sentence is well and truly on the cards. And I can tell you now that this morning it is a very close run thing as to whether I do send you to gaol.
12 But, in the exercise of a sentencing discretion and a consideration of the limited factors I have before me, but I think particularly where the supervision order is seemingly about to end in about two weeks' time, I am going to give you an opportunity to avoid gaol and to allow the supervision order to come to an end.
13 I think I am now going to say this for the third time in case I have not made myself clear: Repeated breaches of a supervision order are of themselves a very serious matter, so is drug use. The use of methamphetamine of itself is a criminal offence. So, on any view, I do not think it is good enough that you can approach things on the basis that you can simply use methamphetamine or otherwise ignore the conditions of the supervision order without some ramifications.
14 Like it or not, the supervision order is there for a reason and the conditions of it need to be respected. And the fact we are here for the fifth breach of such an order is a significant consideration.
15 For the purpose of this morning I respectfully adopt what was said by Justice Croucher in Director of Public Prosecutions v XG[1] in the context of what I consider to be a relatively low level breach. The facts of the specific case must be taken into account. On this occasion, although the evidence is limited, I consider your prospects of rehabilitation and to continue to live as a solid citizen in the community to be reasonably good.
[1][2024] VSC 82
16 I think it is notable that you are not in receipt of Centrelink benefits and are attempting to improve your situation in self-employment, and that is something that should be encouraged. I also consider it a relevant factor to try and encourage you to get off the supervision order. I think those things tip the scales in favour of allowing you to remain out of gaol.
17 Ultimately, I consider that conviction and fine is the appropriate sentence. In doing so I also take into account the fact that you lost your licence for a period of six months, which I have no doubt would make it difficult to perform employment where I would expect you would need to carry some tools and the like and also to get to different places where your jobs are available.
18
I also note that you have recently been the subject of a fine by
Her Honour Judge Clayton following a breach of the Supervision Order and, as I understand it, were also the subject of a fine and the loss of licence. If in fact you are earning in a good month something like $1,500 and have no other source of income then I suspect you will have difficulty paying a fine, but nevertheless I think that is an appropriate result.
19 The question then is how much. I think the fine needs to synthesise your ability to pay it. The fact that if I was to impose a fine that was too high it might in fact derail your prospects of stable employment and rehabilitation.
20 Ultimately, I have settled on a fine of $750. Not that it is necessary where summary jurisdiction has been invoked and because of the magnitude of the fine, but to give you some insight into the seriousness of what I consider to have occurred here, I will indicate pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act that but for your early plea of guilty and the consideration and the relevant factors in mitigation I would impose a custodial sentence of 25 days in addition to the fine. I note that there are no other orders sought by the prosecution.
21 HIS HONOUR: WA, do you understand what has occurred this morning?
22 OFFENDER: I do, Your Honour.
23 HIS HONOUR: What I've done is to give you a chance to get off the supervision order and get on with life.
24 OFFENDER: Thank you.
25 HIS HONOUR: Ms Patterson, do the prosecution wish to add anything?
26 MS PATTERSON: No, Your Honour.
27 HIS HONOUR: All right. We will make orders in due course. WA, do you understand the effect of the order this morning?
28 OFFENDER: Yes.
29 HIS HONOUR: If you require time to pay the fine, I suspect you understand how you go about making those arrangements, so that's a matter for you and registry.
30 OFFENDER: Thank you.
31 HIS HONOUR: All right. Thank you. Sorry I should have said this, in the context where there was a non-publication order for the supervision order which was something I just checked, I propose to deliver the reasons under the pseudonym as well.
32 MS PATTERSON: Yes, Your Honour.
33 HIS HONOUR: Follow that?
34 OFFENDER: Thank you.
- - -
0