R v Okh
[2025] VSC 644
•14 October 2025
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S ECR 2025 0250
| THE KING |
| v |
| OKH (a pseudonym) |
---
JUDGE: | Gorton J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 14 October 2025 |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 14 October 2025 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v OKH |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2025] VSC 644 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Contraventions of condition of supervision order – Use of methylamphetamine in context of difficulties coping with stress – Admissions made in record of interview – Plea of guilty at earliest opportunity – First contraventions of supervision order – Aggregate fine imposed – DPP v SM [2019] VSC 466 – Serious Offenders Act 2018 (Vic) s 169.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Ms Anna Dearman | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Ms Jo Swiney | Victoria Legal Aid |
HIS HONOUR:
OKH,[1] on 3 October 2025 you were charged with two offences of contravening a condition of a supervision order, contrary to s 169(1) of the Serious Offenders Act 2018, by your use of methylamphetamine. The charges, as amended, are that you did so on 19 and 29 September 2025. You sought that these matters be heard summarily, and the prosecution did not oppose that being done. I agreed that this was appropriate. Accordingly, I ordered that, pursuant to s 174 of the Serious Offenders Act 2018, the charges on the Charge Sheet dated 3 October 2025 be heard and determined summarily. You then formally pleaded guilty to those offences in accordance with your earlier indication that you would do so. As these offences are being heard and determined summarily, the maximum penalty that may be imposed for each offence is 2 years’ imprisonment and a fine of 500 penalty units ($101,755).
[1]A pseudonym is used in this proceeding consistent with the order of Elliott J on 11 December 2024.
In November 2005, you were convicted and sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment for offences of murder and make threat to kill, after you stabbed a taxi driver and then threatened to cut the head off a witness who gave evidence at your committal hearing.[2] You were drug affected at the time of the murder and possibly experiencing drug-induced psychosis. A non-parole period of 15 years was set.
[2][Redacted].
On 20 December 2023, Jane Dixon J made a supervision order in relation to you under the Serious Offenders Act 2018 for a period of two years, after determining that you posed an unacceptable risk of committing a serious violence offence if you are in the community and a supervision order is not in effect. The supervision order was made because of the risk that, should you revert to taking illicit substances, you will engage in violent offending. In this respect, I note that in his earlier sentencing remarks, Teague J accepted expert evidence put before him that ‘you may be prone to psychotic symptoms when under stress or when influenced by drugs’.[3] The supervision order was reviewed and confirmed by Elliott J on 11 December 2024. As it currently stands, the supervision order ends on 19 December 2025.
[3]Ibid [11].
The supervision order includes conditions that you must not use or possess prohibited drugs, and that you must submit to drug and alcohol testing as directed (subject to certain pre-conditions being met).
On 18 September 2025, Ms Sarah Wilkes, your specialist case manager, suspected that you had breached the conditions of your supervision order after you appeared to be ‘overly sleepy’, had jumped a fence at your residence to engage with a co-resident who is a ‘known drug user’ and had been leaving your residence late at night. Ms Wilkes was concerned on these occasions because they were, in her words, behaviours outside your ‘usual baseline presentation’. You were directed to attend for urinalysis but failed to do so. You attended a supervision appointment on 19 September 2025 and were directed to undergo urinalysis but you failed to produce a sample. An oral fluid test was then conducted which produced a positive result for methylamphetamine.
On 29 September 2025, Ms Wilkes again suspected that you had breached the conditions of your supervision order as your electronic monitoring device showed that you had been spending a lot of time with your brother and cousin late at night, and had been going to petrol stations, alleyways, bottle shops and TAB venues. You attended a supervision appointment and were directed to undergo urinalysis but, again, you failed to provide a sample. You then participated in an oral fluid test, which again produced a positive result for methylamphetamine.
You were arrested on 3 October 2025 and participated in a record of interview where you made admissions to using drugs because of recent life stress you had been experiencing. You have been in custody since then, and have served 11 days of pre-sentence detention.
You are now 41 years old and, I am told, have ‘limited income’ as you receive only the disability support pension. You have a long history of committing violent offences. However, most of your previous offending occurred decades ago, and since you were released on parole, you have only been before the courts on one occasion when, in February 2023, you were convicted of throwing a missile and breaching a condition of your parole. You were sentenced to an aggregate fine of $500 for those offences.
A breach of a condition of a supervision order is a serious offence, as it is a breach of an order of the Court and non-compliance with the supervision order regime undermines its effectiveness in ensuring the protection of the community. A conviction should be recorded for each offence.
That said, the supervision order was made some 22 months ago and this is the first occasion on which you have been charged with breaching it. Your offending was not accompanied by any allegations of violent or threatening behaviour, and I accept the explanation put forward by your counsel that this offending arose in circumstances where you were struggling to cope with stress associated with your preparations for moving from supervised accommodation to a private rental, the commencement of a horticultural course at TAFE, and the illness of an important family member (who has since died, while you were in custody). Further, you pleaded guilty, or made the relevant admissions, at the earliest opportunity, and I consider this to reflect remorse and I also take into account the significant utilitarian value of those pleas. I note, too, that on your release from custody you will be returning to the supervised accommodation.
Your counsel submits, and the prosecution accepts, that it is open to the Court to impose a non-custodial sentence. I agree. Often, a custodial order is not made for a first offence but a fine is imposed.[4] In circumstances where you have limited means, and where this is your first offence notwithstanding that the supervision order has been in place for not long short of two years, and having regard to the other matters set out above, I do not think it is appropriate to impose a term of imprisonment. I do consider it is appropriate to impose an aggregate but reasonably modest fine for the two offences.
[4]See, eg, DPP v SM [2019] VSC 466, [13].
OKH, will you please stand:
For the offence of contravening a condition of your supervision order on 19 September 2025 by using a prohibited drug, namely methylamphetamine, and for the offence of contravening a condition of your supervision order on 29 September 2025 by using a prohibited drug, namely methylamphetamine, you are convicted and fined an aggregate sum of $250.
0