R v Mills [1998] 4 VR 235; Bugmy v The Queen 249 CLR 571; Director of Public Prosecutions v Drake [2019] VSCA 293

[2025] VCC 2095

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

Case No. CR-24-01879

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

MOO LWEH

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE BLAIR
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	5 December 2024
DATE OF SENTENCE:	19 December 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Mills [1998] 4 VR 235; Bugmy v The Queen 249 CLR 571; DPP v Drake [2019] VSCA 293
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VCC 2095

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence

Catchwords:              Armed robbery – robbery – carjacking – obtaining property by deception – possess controlled weapon – attempted robbery – early plea of guilty – childhood disadvantage – young offender

Legislation Cited:      DPP v Lombardo [2022] VSCA 204; Farmer v The Queen [2020] VSCA 140; Fariah v The Queen [2021] VSCA 213; Bugmy v The Queen 249 CLR 571; DPP v Drake [2019] VSCA 293; R v Mills [1998] 4 VR 235; DPP v Bromley [2020] VCC 857; DPP v Ceu [2021] VCC 1726; Fariah v The Queen [2021] VSCA 213; and Seiler v The King [2023] VSCA 171; 70 VR 243; Boulton v The Queen [2014] VSCA 342

Cases Cited:Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic)

Sentence:                  Community Corrections Order for a period of 2 years and 6 months

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Mr Z. Petric	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms S. Gillahan	Caitlin Blakeney

HER HONOUR:

1Moo Lweh, on 14 November 2024 your matter came before me as a case conference hearing. Subsequently, on 21 November 2024, you made application for a sentence indication on one charge of obtain property by deception, one charge of carjacking, one charge of robbery, one charge of armed robbery, one charge of attempted robbery[1] and a related summary offence of possess a controlled weapon.

[1]This charge was originally referred to as an attempted armed robbery in the sentence. The charge was incorrectly described on the indictment coversheet and was amended.

2Your sentence indication application was not opposed and was subsequently granted. After consideration of the written and oral submissions of the prosecution and defence and material tendered on your behalf, I indicated that were you to plead guilty to these charges I would impose a community corrections order.

3The indication was accepted and you told the court you would plead on indictment Q11612462.1 to the charges that were subject of the sentence indication.

4On 6 December 2024 you were arraigned, you pleaded guilty, and you also consented to the summary charge of possess controlled weapon being heard by this Court and pleaded guilty to that charge.

5You have no prior convictions.

Circumstances of the offending

6The circumstances of your offending are set out in the Prosecution Opening for Plea dated 5 December 2024. This document was tendered on your plea and what follows is a summary.

7At the time of your offending, the sentence indication and your plea you were 20 years old. Now at the date of sentence you are 21. You committed these offences with Ronald Kala, Tristan Loffel and Nahom Yilma on 31 July 2024 between the hours of 4.00 am and 12 noon.

8Before you joined the group, in the early hours of the morning on 31 July 2024, your co-offenders used a debit card belonging to another to purchase various items. You joined the group sometime after this occurred.

9At approximately 4.00 am you, Mr Yilma and Mr Kala attended a BP service station in Braybrook in your car, a black sedan with a grey bonnet. You used the same debit card to purchase cigarettes valued at $50.55. (Charge 1 – obtain property by deception).

10Later, you, Mr Kala, Mr Loffel and Mr Yilma attended a carpark in Tarneit.  Mr Yilma was driving your car.

11At around 5 am, Elizabeth Mayo was sitting in her Nissan Pulsar. She noticed a dark coloured sedan parked nearby. As she was about to get out of her vehicle, she saw a male wearing dark clothing standing at her driver's door. She described the male to be of African descent, thin build, 175 to 180cm tall, and wearing a black hooded jacket or jumper with the hood up, black pants and black footwear.

12The male opened the door and said, 'get out of the car'. The victim said, 'please don’t take my handbag or car. I’m a pensioner. I don’t have money. I can’t afford another car'. The male said, 'get out of the car, just get out of the car'. In fear the victim got out of the car. She observed you and another male standing near her car.

13A fourth male grabbed her by the arm and spun her around. This male grabbed her handbag which contained a Samsung mobile phone, a wallet containing a NAB credit card and Cancer Council sunglasses. (Charge 3 – robbery)

14You and two others got into Ms Mayo's vehicle and the fourth male got back into your black sedan. (Charge 2 – carjacking) Both vehicles left the carpark.

15You assisted in the commission of these offences by encouraging the others through support in numbers during the carjacking and robbery.

16At approximately 6.00 am, Darren Bartley was walking home along the train line near Werribee. He was approached by four men including you. One of the men had a machete. One of the group said that if Mr Bartley did not give them his belongings, he would be sliced with the machete. Mr Bartley handed over his backpack which contained his wallet, some tools, a black Oppo mobile phone, four rings, Reebok shoes and a Harley Davidson beanie. (Charge 4 – armed robbery) The men then left together in a vehicle.

17You were complicit in this offending by agreeing to commit an armed robbery with the three other co-offenders.

18You spent the early morning with the co-accused. Later, at around 12 noon, you and the co-accused approached Ifiok Uko who was walking on the footpath behind the Point Cook Library. Mr Uko was wearing headphones at the time. You and the co-accused surrounded him. Mr Loffell said, 'I want your stuff'. Another of your group searched through Mr Uko's pockets, who ran away in fear. (Charge 5 – attempted robbery)

19You chased Mr Uko for a short distance before you dropped the long knife that you had in your pocket. You stopped to pick it up.

20You were complicit in this offending by being party to an agreement, arrangement or understanding to commit a robbery.

21The police identified your vehicle which had been used in the offending. At 12 noon you and the co-offenders walked back to your car and you were arrested by police. When searched by the police at this time you were found in possession of a long black knife. You were in possession of a long knife (described by some complainants or victims as a machete) at each of the incidents. This is the basis of the related summary offence. (Related Summary Offence 1 – possess controlled weapon). Items belonging to Ms Mayo and Mr Bartley were found in your vehicle.

Victim impact statement

22

A victim impact statement from Elizabeth Mayo was tendered to the court.

Ms Mayo described that she no longer feels safe and is fearful when pulling into her work carpark, where the offending occurred. Ms Mayo now sits in her car with the motor running and the car in gear until a work colleague arrives. Only then can she leave her car. She described the difficulty in leaving her house alone, and she now has a family member accompany her to everyday activities such as shopping. As a result, Ms Mayo, who was previously a very independent person, feels that her independence has been taken away from her.

23While no further victim impact statements were tendered, I have no doubt that the offending was a frightening experience for Mr Bartley and Mr Uko.

24I have taken into account the impact of your offending upon your victims in sentencing you.

Nature and gravity of the offending

25The offences of carjacking and armed robbery when committed in company with others are inherently serious offences. Not only are these offences punishable by 25 and 15 years' imprisonment respectively, but Parliament has designated them as category 2 offences. Section 5(2H) of the Sentencing Act 1991 requires the Court to impose a custodial sentence, other than a term of imprisonment in combination with a CCO for category 2 offences, unless one of the exceptions set out in paragraphs (a) to (e) can be established. The consequence of this categorisation reflects Parliament's very real concern to protect people from violent property offences.

26Mr Menon who appeared to prosecute, submitted that your offending was very serious as it occurred in company against relatively vulnerable victims. Mr Menon conceded that you had a lesser role than your co-offenders however, he submitted this did not alter the very serious nature of your offending.

27Your counsel, Ms Gillahan conceded that your offending was serious however she submitted that your role in each of the offences was at the lower end. In general she submitted there were four offenders present, there were no attempts to hide identity, the offending was unsophisticated with minimal planning.

28

As to the carjacking, Ms Gillahan submitted that you were not the offender who first approached Ms Mayo's vehicle, and you were not the offender who told

Ms Mayo to get out of her car. Ms Gillahan submitted it was not an exaggeration to say that you were just there, that is, it was your presence which was the basis of the encouragement and thus your complicity. You did not play an active role in this offending. Further, Ms Gillahan submitted the carjacking offence itself falls at the lower end of seriousness in that there were no threats made to Ms Mayo and no physical violence used beyond the fact that there were four men present.

29In respect of the robbery of Ms Mayo's handbag, Ms Gillahan submitted the taking of the bag came out of nowhere. A fourth male seemed to appear and grab it out of Ms Mayo's hands. Your comment 'what are you doing' was consistent with what the victim reported and consistent with how this offending unfolded.

30Ms Gillahan submitted that the charge of armed robbery was put on the basis of an agreement between you and your co-offenders, it involved some minimal planning and was heavily based on what you had said in your record of interview. You admitted you had gone through the fence to get to the victim and although you admitted to having a machete in your possession you did not resort to using this in anyway.

31In respect of the attempted armed robbery, Ms Gillahan submitted there was no violence or threat of violence made by any of the offenders against Mr Uko.

32In my view the offences to which you have pleaded guilty are very serious offences committed against vulnerable members of the community. However, I do not consider the circumstances of your offending, particularly the carjacking, robbery and attempted robbery [2] Ms Gillahan submitted there was no violence or threat of violence made by any of the offenders against Mr Uko.

[2]This charge was originally referred to as an attempted armed robbery in the sentence. The charge was incorrectly described on the indictment coversheet and was amended.

33In my view, the offences to which you have pleaded guilty are very serious offences committed against vulnerable members of the community. However, I do not consider the circumstances of your offending, particularly the carjacking, robbery and attempted robbery  to be serious examples of these offences. I find that you had a very limited role in all of the offending. Further, I accept on the whole your offending was not sophisticated or planned, it occurred over a very confined period. It is my view that you got caught up in the offending as a result of your ingestion of substances and being part of the group.

34On the day of your offending you were under the influence of cannabis and Xanax. You had limited experience with Xanax and had abused this substance in the context of your association with a negative peer group, which included your
co-accused. This occurred at a difficult time in your life when you had disengaged from your church and had dropped out of your apprenticeship. You have not used any illicit drugs since the day of your arrest.

Personal circumstances

35You were born in December 2003 in Umpien Mai refugee camp in Thailand. Your parents had fled Burma and had lived in the camp for approximately 20 years. You lived in this camp for the first five years of your life, without leaving for fear of capture and gaol. During this time you lived in a hut made from bamboo and banana leaves that provided insufficient shelter against the frequent torrential rain. You and your family survived on rations of rice, oil and salt provided each two to three months by aid agencies. There was never enough food and your family was forced to hunt or forage for food. Many people died of starvation.

36At age five your family were granted asylum in Australia through the assistance of the UNHCR. When you arrived in Australia no one in your family spoke English and you had nothing but the clothes on your backs.

37Upon arrival in Australia, your family lived with relatives in Laverton for six months before securing a rental property nearby. Eventually, in 2020 your family settled in Wyndham Vale, where your parents purchased their own home, providing a stable and supportive environment for the family.

38You are a member of a close-knit family that maintains strong ties with the Karen community in Melbourne. Your parents have limited English proficiency. They both enjoy good health. Your father is employed at a nursery in Werribee, while your mother primarily manages the household and cares for you, your siblings and your grandfather. Your maternal Aunt also lives with your family.

39You have three younger siblings, two of whom were also born in Thailand and the other in Australia. You and your siblings all currently live at home and share the same bedroom.

40No one in your immediate or extended family has any history of involvement with the law. Since your arrival in Australia, you have lived in stable housing with your parents and siblings. You have not experienced periods of homelessness or independent living. Your family have been highly supportive, and they have also accompanied you to court appearances.

41You attended Laverton Primary School from Prep to Year 6 and then proceeded to Laverton College, where you completed Year 12 in 2020. During your final year, you participated in the VCAL program, focusing on mechanic studies as part of your vocational training. You maintained good academic performance, passing all subjects, and were regularly present at school with no history of truancy, behavioural issues, or disciplinary actions.

42Your first paid job was an apprenticeship as a mechanic in the service department at Werribee Kia, beginning in your late teens. However, feeling limited by the narrow scope of tasks, primarily cleaning and basic duties, you transferred to a smaller workshop at Western Roadworthy during your second year. You left after six months, as a result of dissatisfaction due to a lack of support for your schooling component. Early in your third year, you decided to take a break from your apprenticeship. You have worked with your father at the nursery and more recently, you have been working casually in warehousing in Laverton and plan to return to your apprenticeship in the coming year.

43Your goal is to resume your apprenticeship in 2025.

44In recent times you have commenced your first relationship. Your girlfriend lives nearby and is currently working whilst taking a gap year from her studies. You are happy in this relationship.

Psychological assessment

45Your counsel tendered a psychological assessment report from psychologist Gina Cidoni. Ms Cidoni interviewed you via telehealth conference on 6 November 2024. In Ms Cidoni's view, you have no history of mental health diagnoses and currently, your biggest worry is your court matter.

46Ms Cidoni engaged you in MCMI-IV testing, which is designed to assist with the diagnosis of clinical and personality disorders. The test indicated no significant clinical concerns beside mild mood fluctuations. You did exhibit some turbulent personality traits, which suggested a mild tendency towards impulsivity or heightened emotional responses in certain situations. You also exhibited a degree of compulsive tendencies, as reflected in your preference for structure and routine, and dependency on familiar structures. Ms Cidoni noted that your independent decision-making is limited.

47In Ms Cidoni's opinion, these tendencies do not meet the threshold for a personality disorder, but rather, they are reflective of a natural, age-appropriate variability often seen in younger individuals. 

48There were no concerns as to your cognitive functioning, which was assessed in the Average range on a Brief Cognitive Status Exam and which supports effective daily decision-making, logical thinking, and the ability to process abstract concepts appropriately.

49Your alcohol consumption is infrequent and modest. The extent of substance experimentation was taking Xanax amongst friends on five separate occasions in March 2024. You reflected that this was the result of social pressure from certain peers. The circumstances of your experimentation with substances may have compromised your ability to make sound decisions.

50

At the conclusion of your psychological assessment, Ms Cidoni determined that your risk of reoffending was low. In addition, she opined that because of your young age and limited life experience, you were prone to succumbing to peer pressure, especially in unfamiliar settings. Outside of your stable, sheltered family environment, you were at risk of poor decision-making. However, Ms Cidoni was optimistic about the risk being reduced as you develop maturity and self-regulation, assisted by appropriate interventions focused on skill-building, resilience and decision-making. Your stable family environment and your connections in a

close-knit community act as further protective factors against your risk of re-offending.

51Ms Cidoni considered your prospects of rehabilitation are positive as you have shown that you are willing to engage with therapeutic support. Ms Cidoni expects that rehabilitative measures, such as counselling services and mentorship programs, will provide you with a strong foundation for a positive future trajectory.

52Ms Cidoni opined that a sentence of imprisonment will likely exacerbate your challenges rather than support your development.

Burden of imprisonment

53In reliance on the opinions of Ms Cidoni, your counsel submitted that you would be vulnerable in custody. You have led a sheltered upbringing and present as a young, naive man with limited life experience. The unfamiliar and often harsh prison environment could overwhelm your ability to manage stress, leading to heightened anxiety and difficulty adjusting. Your mild impulsivity and dependency on familiar support structures may impair your capacity to navigate the prison's social dynamics, where peer influences and a lack of personal autonomy could potentially steer you in a negative direction. This setting would likely strain your resilience and hinder your capacity for positive change, making imprisonment a detrimental environment for your developmental and psychological needs.

54Confinement, submitted Ms Gillahan, would create a real risk that you would establish further negative peer influences and environments similar to that which allowed the current offending to occur.

55I accept the opinions of Ms Cidoni and the submissions of your counsel in this regard.

Childhood disadvantage and Bugmy

56Your early childhood was marked by profound social disadvantage as I have described. Your experiences in Umpien Mai refugee camp saw you exposed to enormous hardship with limited food and shelter. Further, you were exposed to violence and had knowledge of people back in Burma being assaulted and raped.

57Ms Gillahan relied on the case of Bugmy,[3] as discussed in the case of Drake, to submit that the childhood disadvantage you experienced has played a significant role in shaping your personality and your responses.[4] It was not submitted that there is a causal nexus between your childhood disadvantage and your offending, however I accept that Bugmy has application in a general sense: ‘your offending could not be equated with that of a person who committed the same offence but had the advantage of a normal, stable and regular home environment during their early childhood years’.[5]

[3] Bugmy v The Queen 249 CLR 571.

[4] DPP v Drake [2019] VSCA 293, [32].

[5] Ibid.

Youth

58Your age of 20 years at the time of offending and 21 at the time of sentence qualifies you as a youthful offender. Ms Gillahan relied on the principles in the case of Mills[6] in her submission that, firstly, rehabilitation with individualised treatment is far more important than general deterrence for young offenders and, secondly, that a youthful offender should not be imprisoned in an adult prison if such a disposition can be avoided, especially if they appreciate the effect of your criminality. The benchmark for what is serious as justifying adult imprisonment may be quite high in the case of a youthful offender; and, where the offender has not previously been incarcerated, a shorter period of imprisonment may be justified.[7]

[6] R v Mills [1998] 4 VR 235.

[7] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 5(4).

59I accept these principles have application in your case.

Good character

60Importantly you have no criminal history and have not offended subsequently. You come before the court with good character. Say Htoo Eh Moero, secretary to the Westgate Karen Baptist Community Church wrote a character reference letter on your behalf. He has known you since you were five years old as a result of your regular attendance at church. He described you as 'gentle, kind and polite'. You participate in the church's youth group and volunteer at the church when required.

61

At the time of offending you had disengaged with the church however, since your arrest you have recommitted to your faith and you were baptised again on

6 October 2024.

Admissions

62In your record of interview, you made considerable admissions to police and claimed responsibility for your role in the offending. You were somewhat protective of your co-accused and were careful not to 'betray' them. On this basis, you cannot claim to have assisted the authorities over and above your own admissions.

Plea of guilty

63You have pleaded guilty at an early stage. I consider in the circumstances your plea has significant utilitarian benefit. The Court has been spared the time and expense of a trial but more importantly each of the victims were not required to give evidence and so have not had to endure the ordeal of reliving the events in the court environment, which would no doubt be a harrowing experience.

64Further given the issues in your case, I consider your plea to be a valuable one in the sense that you may have had an arguable defence in relation to some of the charges. In these circumstances, I cannot increase the utilitarian value of your plea. However, I can and do take into account the subjective factors that your plea of guilty demonstrates. These factors include your desire to facilitate justice, your acceptance of responsibility for your offending and as an indicator of the depth and degree of your remorse.[8]

[8] Zogheib v The Queen [2015] VSCA 334.

Remorse

65You have also expressed remorse for your offending through your discussions with church leaders, the admissions in your record of interview and your unprompted letter of apology. In your letter of apology you took full responsibility for your behaviour and apologised to the victims and the people around you for your offending. Further, the author of the presentence report from Corrections reported that you stated 'I regret what I did'. I find that your remorse for your offending is genuine.

Rehabilitation

66Your prospects for rehabilitation are supported by the submissions made by your counsel and by Ms Cidoni. I consider your offending to be an aberration, given your lack of criminal history and otherwise good character. Your youth, strong family support, cooperation with police and employment are very real indicators that you are capable of reform and that you have very favourable prospects for rehabilitation.

Submissions of the parties category 2 offending

67As part of her thorough and compelling plea, your counsel, Ms Gillahan, argued that I should find a special reason exists in your case, as defined in s5(2H)(e) of the Sentencing Act. Pursuant to this section the court must evaluate whether there are substantial and compelling circumstances that are exceptional and rare that justify a departure from the mandatory imposition of a term of imprisonment.

68In determining whether there are substantial and compelling circumstances that are exceptional and rare under sub-s(2)(e) I must regard general deterrence and denunciation of your offending conduct as having greater importance than the other sentencing purposes set out in s5(1) of the Act.

69Further, I must give less weight to your personal circumstances than the nature and gravity of the offence and I must not have regard to your early plea of guilty, your prospects for rehabilitation or parity with other co‑offenders.

70Ms Gillahan referred to several Court of Appeal cases where this test had been considered, in particular the cases of Lombardo, Farmer and Fariah.[9] In both of the cases of Farmer and Fariah the very high threshold had been met. Each of these cases involved very young offenders who each had some kind of profound childhood difficulty that had an impact into adulthood.

[9] DPP v Lombardo [2022] VSCA 204; Farmer v The Queen [2020] VSCA 140; Fariah v The Queen [2021] VSCA 213.

71For Farmer, this was the condition of alopecia that resulted in him being severely bullied and socially cast away where he had fallen into an offending peer group grateful for anyone who would befriend him. For Fariah, this was his exposure during childhood to the atrocities of civil war in Somalia that resulted in the loss of several family members, including his mother and father, prior to his coming to Australia at the age of 15 years.

72In your case, Ms Gillahan submitted that there were several factors that combined to satisfy the test of substantial and compelling reasons that are exceptional and rare.

73First, your limited role in the offending, your childhood experiences of disadvantage and deprivation in Umpien Mai refugee camp which enliven the principles in Bugmy, your status as a young offender, your very real vulnerability in any custodial environment as a result of your youth, lack of involvement in the criminal justice system and your sheltered upbringing, your admissions and cooperation with police, your demonstrative remorse and the fact that you fall to be sentenced as a first-time offender with no criminal history.

74Mr Menon on behalf of the prosecution submitted that a sentence involving confinement such as youth detention must be imposed in your case given the gravity of your offending. Mr Menon provided several comparable cases, all of which he conceded could be distinguished in some way from the circumstances in your case. Nonetheless, he submitted that these cases dealt with the principles to be applied and provided the court guidance as to the sentencing landscape for offending similar to yours.[10] 

[10] DPP v Bromley [2020] VCC 857; DPP v Ceu [2021] VCC 1726; Fariah v The Queen [2021] VSCA 213; and Seiler v The King [2023] VSCA 171; 70 VR 243.

75Mr Menon also conceded the matters relied upon in mitigation on your behalf. He described them as uncontroversial and with evidentiary foundation. However, he submitted when all matters were considered, the prosecution position was that the very high hurdle of substantial and compelling reasons that are exceptional and rare had not been made out.

Analysis

76In particular, it is my view that your very limited role in the offending, your considerable vulnerability, your very young age and other factors relied upon by Ms Gillahan are substantial and compelling. That is, I consider them to be weighty, forceful and powerful reasons that justify departure from the imposition of an immediate term of imprisonment.

77In addition, I find these factors in combination are exceptional and rare. It follows that I find a special reason exists that justifies a departure from the imposition of an immediate term of imprisonment other than a term of imprisonment imposed in combination with a CCO.

78In making this finding I have not had regard to your early plea, your prospects for rehabilitation or parity. Further, I have weighed up the importance of general deterrence, denunciation and the nature and seriousness of the offending as best I am able, in light of what I consider to be the extraordinary and exceptional circumstances of your case.

79Having found the exception enlivened I must also consider the other matters in mitigation. In this regard I have taken into account each of the matters raised by your counsel that I have just mentioned.

Sentencing principles

80The basic purposes for which a court may impose a sentence are punishment, general and specific deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation and protection of the community.

81In my view given your youth, psychological vulnerabilities described by Ms Cidoni, my findings pursuant to Bugmy[11] and your general background circumstances, general deterrence must give way to the promotion of your rehabilitation. I consider that specific deterrence should be given limited weight in the sentencing synthesis given your lack of prior history, your experience of arrest, and as I understand it you spent a day in custody, is that correct, there was a day in custody?

[11] 249 CLR 571.

82MR PETRIC:  That's correct.

83HER HONOUR:  Yes. In your case, I regard protection of the community is best achieved by continuing and not interrupting the strong family support and positive influences in your life and also by not exposing you to the corrupting influences likely to be encountered in custody, this is what will likely reduce what is an already low risk of future reoffending.  I consider that to remove you from the community would be a retrograde step that would not be in anyone's interests.

84I take into account the sentencing guidelines referred to in section 5 of the Sentencing Act,[12] where relevant in your case. In particular, I have had regard to the sentencing landscape for the offending before me, particularly the offences of carjacking and armed robbery. Ultimately the sentencing exercise requires that I balance all relevant factors and make a judgment as to the appropriate sentence in the circumstances of your particular case.

[12] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 5.

85The principles of totality, proportionality and parsimony are also important considerations here. They require me to make sure the total sentence is appropriate for the total criminality. I have taken these principles into account in fixing the sentence I will now impose.

86

In my view the appropriate sentence in your case is the imposition of a community correction order. In coming to this conclusion, I am mindful of the guidance given by the Court of Appeal in Boulton v The Queen.[13] I have had regard to a

pre-sentence report from Corrections and note that you were assessed as a low risk of general reoffending.

[13] Boulton v The Queen [2014] VSCA 342.

87Mr Lweh, on each of the charges you will be convicted and placed on a community correction order for a period of two and a half years. The special conditions of this order are that you

(a)   Perform 200 hours of unpaid community work over that two and a half year period.

(b)   Attend for assessment and treatment in relation to drug abuse.

88I intend to offset 100 hours of treatment against the community work hours.

89In addition to the conditions I have imposed, I want you to listen carefully to this because there are standard conditions to a community correction order, and you need to consent to the order before I can make it, so you need to understand what you are consenting to.  So, the first and foremost of the other standard conditions is that you must not commit any offence during the two and a half year period which could be punished by a term of imprisonment. You must also report within two working days to the Werribee Community Corrections Office, you could potentially go there today I think. You are required to advise your supervising Correction Officer of any change of address of where you are living and working, and this must be done within two clear working days. It is also a term of all community correction orders that you must submit to visits as directed and you must obey all instructions and directions of a Corrections Officer. You cannot leave the State of Victoria without prior permission during the currency of the order, so for the next two and a half years.

90If you breach the order by reoffending or you do not do the unpaid community work and drug assessment and treatment that I have ordered, you will be charged with a contravention of the order and you will be brought back to court before me and you may well be re-sentenced for the original charges.  Do you understand the conditions of a community correction order?

91OFFENDER:  Yes

92HER HONOUR:  Do you consent to undertaking such an Order?

93OFFENDER:  Yes

94Mr Lweh, I need to let you know that this is a serious order. This order in effect keeps the charges alive, they will be hanging over your head for the next two and half years. So whilst it is not a suspended sentence, if you were to re-offend you could potentially end up in gaol. I am confident that you will comply with the order, which is part of the reason why I am imposing it.

95I also make the order for disposal sought by the Crown.

96Pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act,[14] but for your plea of guilty, the sentence I would have imposed is two years' Youth Justice Detention.

[14] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 6AAA.

97So we should have an order I think almost ready.  No supervision, yes.  The pre-sentence report did not recommend supervision and I think that's standard when there is a low risk of reoffending, because that was their assessment, so I have gone with what they have said which was those two conditions.  So we will print out an order and we'll get you to sign that, Mr Lweh, and then you'll be right to go.

98OFFENDER:  Yes.

99HER HONOUR:  Have I missed anything?

100MR PETRIC:  No, Your Honour.

101MS GILLAHAN:   There was a disposal order.  I can't remember if Your Honour made that on the last - - -

102HER HONOUR:  Yes, I did.  Yes, I did make it today, yes.  I didn't make it on the last occasion, but yes.  Ms Gillahan thanks very much for your really thorough submissions and your dedication.  And Mr Petric, could you pass on to Mr Menon my thanks - - -

103MR PETRIC:  Certainly.

104HER HONOUR:  - - - his assistance was really helpful, it was yes really good, and your instructor as well, I should say.

105MR PETRIC:  The court pleases.

106HER HONOUR:  So Mr Lweh, I wish you every success with your order.   I confident that you will do very well good luck with it and, stay out of trouble.