Re Mr - [2025] VSC 626

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2025 0179

IN THE MATTER of an application for leave to appeal pursuant to ss 424 and 430 of the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005

MR	Applicant
v
OFFICER BRADLEY STAINER	First Respondent
OFFICER MATT WHELAN	Second Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Beale J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24 September 2025
DATE OF RULING:	24 September 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re MR
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 626

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Offences – Armed robbery, burglary, criminal damage, robbery (x2), theft of motor vehicle, unlicensed driving – President of Children’s Court sentenced offender to total effective sentence of 10 months’ detention in a Youth Justice Centre – Offender’s late Notice of Appeal against sentence deemed to be application for leave to appeal against sentence – No merit in appeal – Application for leave to appeal refused – Children, Youth and Families Act2005, ss 362, 424, 430.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms R Cashmore	Dribbin & Brown
For the Respondent	Mr E Dober	Office of Public Prosecutions

Contents

BACKGROUND

CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCES

Informant Stainer’s charges
Informant Whelan’s charges
Aggravating Circumstances

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Impugned Sentence
Late Notice of Appeal
Co-Offenders

CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER

Bugmy considerations
Verdin’s considerations
Drug History
Verdin’s considerations (continued)
Antecedents

SUBMISSIONS

ANALYSIS

HIS HONOUR:

BACKGROUND

On the 24 September 2025, I struck out an application by MR for leave to appeal from a total effective sentence of 10 months’ detention imposed on him by the President of the Children’s Court for armed robbery, burglary, criminal damage, two counts of attempted robbery, theft of motor vehicle and unlicensed driving. I struck out the application because, in my view, the appeal had no merit. I said I would provide written reasons for my decision in due course. I do so now.
I will begin with the circumstances of MR’s offences.

CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCES

By way of background, on 12 November 2024, MR received his first custodial sentence from the Children’s Court for offences which included four counts of armed robbery. It was a total effective sentence of 12 months’ detention with 128 days declared as time served.

Informant Stainer’s Charges

Later on 12 November 2024, at approximately 7.15pm, whilst in the Emerald Wing (North) of Parkville Youth Justice Centre, MR threatened a custodial officer with a shiv — a thin piece of steel approximately 20 cm long. He demanded and took possession of the officer’s key card and utility belt (Armed Robbery). He used the key card to open a security door. Two other detainees, JA and TJ followed MR into the security office where MR opened another door, namely, the door into the Emerald Wing (South), allowing two more detainees, HS and CA, into the security office. JA and CA armed themselves with two fire extinguishers, TJ armed himself with a pole and HS armed himself with a mop. MR led them from the Emerald…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Re Mr

Details

AGLC: Re Mr [2025] VSC 626
Case: [2025] VSC 626
Decision Date: 24 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Children’s Court of Victoria, the matter involved an offender who was sentenced to a total effective detention of 10 months in a Youth Justice Centre by the President. The offender appealed against the sentence, which was subsequently deemed as an application for leave to appeal. The appeal raised issues concerning the appropriateness and severity of the sentence imposed on the offender, who had committed multiple offences including armed robbery, burglary, criminal damage, robbery, theft of a motor vehicle, and unlicensed driving. The court was required to determine whether the sentence was excessive or inappropriate in light of the offender's age, the nature of the crimes, and the principles of sentencing for young offenders under the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005.

The court considered various factors, including the seriousness of the offences, the offender's criminal history, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. It examined whether the sentence was disproportionate to the crimes committed and whether there were any significant mitigating factors that warranted a lighter sentence. The court also assessed whether the sentence complied with the statutory objectives of the Act, particularly those relating to the welfare of the child and the protection of the community. After careful deliberation, the court concluded that the sentence was neither excessive nor inappropriate, and it upheld the original decision of the President.

In light of its findings, the court rejected the appeal and refused the application for leave to appeal. The decision emphasised that the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the offences and aligned with the statutory objectives of rehabilitation and community protection. The court found no merit in the appeal, thereby affirming the President's judgment. The offender's application for leave to appeal was therefore dismissed.

Orders