IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA
AT Melbourne
CRIMINAL DIVISION	Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication	
  Case No.
CR-21-02665
CR-23-00624 
CR-23-00625

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS		
		
v		
		
JOSHUA VASSALLO		

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE SYME	
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne	
DATE OF HEARING:	11 August 2023	
DATE OF SENTENCE:	8 September 2023	
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Vassallo 	
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VCC 1591		

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
Subject:	CRIMINAL LAW		
Catchwords: 	Rape – False Imprisonment – Supply a Drug of Dependence to a Child Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice – Kidnapping – False Imprisonment – Conduct Endangering Persons – Common Assault – Pleas of guilty as acceptance of the inevitable – Guarded prospects of rehabilitation 
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1958 (Vic); Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic).
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37.
Sentence: 	22 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14 years. 	 

APPEARANCES:
	Counsel	Solicitors	
For the DPP	Ms N. Deltondo 	Ms O. Chan 	
			
For the Accused	Mr T. Marsh	Ms S. Vardy	

HER HONOUR:

INTRODUCTION

1	Joshua Vassallo, you have pleaded guilty to a series of offences on three separate Indictments.  
2	On Indictment L12782183.3, you have pleaded guilty to two charges relative to one complainant who will be referred to as Kylee Stearns. Namely, that on 13 January 2019, you committed one count of rape and one count of false imprisonment.
3	Under the same indictment, you have also pleaded guilty to two charges relative to a second complainant who will be referred to as Frances Perez. Specifically, that on 22 November 2020, you committed one count of rape and one count of supply a drug of dependence to a child. 
4	On Indictment N12197319, relative to a third complainant who I will refer to as  Leland Kelley, you have pleaded guilty to one count of kidnapping, one count of false imprisonment, one count of conduct endangering persons and one count of common assault which occurred on 25 October 2019.
5	On Indictment P10696954, relative to a fourth complainant, who will be referred to as Mila Godwin, you have pleaded guilty to one count of attempting to pervert the course of justice on the 23rd of April 2022. 
6	The maximum penalty for rape is 25 years with a standard sentence consideration of 10 years imprisonment. 
7	The maximum penalty for kidnapping is also 25 years imprisonment and is a category 2 offence. 
8	The maximum penalties for false imprisonment and supplying a drug of dependence to a child are 10 and 15 years imprisonment, respectively.
9	The maximum penalty for conduct endangering persons is 5 years as is the maximum penalty for common assault in this instance. 
10	The maximum penalty for attempting to pervert the course of justice is 25 years imprisonment.
11	In addition to the sentences imposed today, you will be subject to sex offender reporting obligations for life. 
PRIOR CRIMINAL HISTORY 
12	You have admitted a criminal history spanning from March 2017 to December 2019, prior to your apprehension for this offending. You have been convicted of offences pertaining to dealing with proceeds of crime, possession of firearms and controlled weapons, driving offences, drug trafficking and possession offences, thefts and burglaries.
13	Although you have no recorded violent or sexual prior offending, the number and nature of prior convictions will not allow a consideration of leniency in the sentence imposed today. Your prior record is not an aggravating feature.
INDICTMENT L12782183.3
14	In relation to Indictment L12782183.3 concerning rape and associated charges relating to Kylee Stearns (charges 1 & 2), Frances Perez and Mila Godwin (charges 3 & 4), the facts are contained in the prosecution opening and are not in dispute. 
Charges 1 & 2 – Kylee Stearns
15	In 2016, Kylee Stearns met you through a young family member. Until 2019, Stearns regularly attended your home, and you communicated through online means. At times, the messages were sexualised. Stearns refused to engage with your requests for sexual acts as she thought of you as a ‘brother’. She was born in September 2004 and was aged 14 years at the time of the offending. You were aware of her age, and you were aged 23 years. 
16	Sometime, during the early hours of 13 January 2019, Stearns used SnapChat to message you. She asked you to pick her up from her home to take her to McDonalds.
17	At approximately 1:00am, you attended in a silver Holden Commodore and picked her up from her home in Point Cook. You drove her around for 10 minutes before parking near a Reserve in Point Cook. When the car was stationary, Stearns asked you to drive her home.
18	You told Stearns, ‘Not until you suck my dick, you're not leaving’. She responded ‘No’. She reached for the controls in the centre console to unlock the door, but you grabbed her hand and pushed it away. 
19	You picked the child up and threw her onto the back seat of the vehicle. When she unlocked the back door of the vehicle and attempted to get out, you grabbed her by her ankles and pulled her back onto the back seat.
20	The complainant continued trying to get out of the vehicle but you kissed her neck, grabbed her breasts, and slapped her buttocks. You put your hand under her skirt and rubbed her vagina above her underwear. She yelled at you to ‘stop’ and attempted to punch and kick you. 
21	You got on top of her, grabbed her hair, and penetrated her mouth with your penis. She choked. You forced your penis into her mouth until you ejaculated. 
22	You then wound the window down a little to enable the victim to spit the ejaculate out. She was screaming as she tried to lower the window further to climb out, but you pulled her back into the vehicle. 
23	Stearns asked you to take her home. As you moved from the back seat to the driver's seat, she opened a back door of the vehicle and ran towards her home. You followed in your car and stopped when she arrived at her street.
24	When she arrived home, her parents were on the phone to Werribee Police to report her as missing. She told them that she had ‘just been at Macca’s and back’. Later that day, Stearns told her niece, and her mother, Kimberly Holland, about some of the events that had occurred that morning.
25	On 14 January 2019, Stearns reported the matter to police. Two days later, she advised police that she did not want to proceed as she was not ready to go through the court process. 
26	On 21 January 2019 at approximately 7.35pm, you called Holland and spoke with her. Stearns was present with her mother. During this phone call, you attempted to convince Holland that you did not touch her daughter. This was clearly an attempt to prevent a police report proceeding. When Stearns spoke up during the call, you abused her in aggressive terms.  
27	When Holland told you that Stearns was too frightened to leave the house, you responded that she was “too frightened because the day she told everyone [was] the day people called her a slut, a junkie and a liar”. You said you were “copping shit” for something you did not do. This was not only a lie but evidence of your manipulation of the victim, and I find, further attempted manipulation of her friends and family, all of which exacerbated the consequences of your offending for the victim.
28	This observation is further reinforced by the contents of a text message you sent to Holland which states, in part: 
If you honestly want this shit to finish, then end this bullshit here because when we finish court. …. what do· you think people are gonna say when its found out that it didn't happen? Everything is going to be ten times bad for her………. I will deal with my sister when you come to the table ready to talk because if your (sic) not going to try and resolve this without things going downhill for me and your daughter.

Objective seriousness - Charges 1 & 2 

29	At your plea hearing, it was conceded by your counsel that the rape and false imprisonment of Kylie Stearns was around the mid-range of objective seriousness. The prosecution submitted that they were high-range examples of such offences. It is not necessary that the court be able to imagine potentially more serious examples or outcomes of this type of offending to make a finding of elevated objective seriousness. 
30	There is no dispute as to what occurred. The charge of rape is above mid-range objective seriousness. The following matters increase the objective seriousness in relation to charges 1 & 2 concerning Kylee Stearns:
31	A breach of trust - Stearns regarded you as a trusted figure, a ‘brother’, and regarded your sister as one of her best friends. It was in that context that she contacted you. Thus, your offending constituted a breach of trust;
32	Use of force - it is conceded by your counsel that Stearns signified her lack of consent forcefully.  You accept, through your counsel’s submission, that you were aware, at all times, of this lack of consent. Your behaviour in violently forcing her to remain in the car to enable the sexual offending to occur is a significant aggravating consideration the effect of which is moderated by the charging of the related offence. You slapped her and otherwise assaulted her as part of the overall offending. 
33	Type of penetration - you forced your penis into her mouth. Ejaculation into Stearns’ mouth in these circumstances is particularly confronting and unpleasant.  
34	Age - you were well aware of the complainant’s age. The difference between your age and hers was about 9 years thus increasing her relative vulnerability. 
35	Preventing or delaying a police report – you sought to prevent or delay a police report being made by contacting Stearns’ mother and being abusive – a transaction encompassing manipulative threats. You threatened that you would ‘lose your shit’ and that ‘everything [would] be bad for her’ (the complainant, Stearns). While this does not, of itself, increase the objective seriousness of the act itself, your actions indicate your continued ability to manipulate the child. 
36	Regarding the offence of false imprisonment, the aggravating circumstances include the age of the complainant, the time of night, the isolated place that the complainant was taken to, and the physical force applied to prevent escape.
37	Taking all of these matters into consideration, the combination of the offending represents a high range of seriousness. 
38	It is accepted that the offending overlapped in some areas of aggravation and conduct. This will result in some concurrency in the sentences to be imposed. 

Charges 3 & 4 – Frances Perez and Mila Godwin 

39	In November 2020, Frances Perez met you through mutual friends. You exchanged messages through social media platforms and had conversations on the phone. She was aged 15 and she told you that.  Her friend, Mila Godwin, was aged 16. 
40	During the messaging, you offered Perez money to ‘do things’. You offered her $3,000 for oral sex. She told you she did not need the money as she was aged 15. You persistently asked her if she had friends who would do things with you for money, and, if so, you would go pick them up. You told the girls you were 24 years old.
41	On 22 November 2020, Perez and Godwin went to a Hotel in Port Melbourne for lunch with Godwin’s mother and her friends. During lunch, they consumed alcohol. At approximately 4.00pm, they left the hotel and about 15 minutes later, telephoned you and asked you to pick them up from the Hotel.
42	At 4.23pm, you arrived in a silver Holden Sedan and picked them up. When you collected the two girls, they noticed that there were ‘wads of money’ and ‘GHB’ in the centre console of your vehicle.
43	You asked them if they ‘wanted Juice’. Godwin declined but Perez asked ‘What GHB was?’. You told her, ‘It makes you really, really happy or really, like hyper’.
44	You used a plastic plunger to extract GHB from a Dettol hand sanitiser bottle. You handed it to Perez, who put it in her mouth and swallowed the contents. 
45	You continued driving around through Sunshine and Footscray where you obtained more GHB and gave Perez at least one more plunger of the substance. You also gave a plunger of GHB to Godwin.
46	At approximately 6.00pm, you dropped Godwin off to her friend's house at Taylors Lakes. Perez moved into the front passenger seat of the vehicle.
47	At 6.13pm, you then drove Perez to a car park at the Taylors Hill Shopping Centre where she went to the toilets, and you purchased cigarettes. While you were separated, you sent a snapchat message to Perez saying, ‘You're missing out on 1500. Just do it. It will be worth it’. Perez responded that she was ‘menstruating’ and had ‘really bad tonsils’.
48	When you both returned to the vehicle, you told Perez that you would give her ‘$1000 for oral sex’, and ‘$2000 for, like, regular sex’ and ‘$3000 for a threesome’. You ultimately claimed that you would give her ‘$3000 just for oral sex alone’. You gave her another plunger of GHB and she blacked out. 
49	When Perez regained her consciousness, she was seated in the car which was parked near a side path of a school fence and grass area. You were holding her hair while you forced your penis into her mouth.
50	At 6.20pm, Godwin started ringing Perez’s phone numerous times. When she answered the fourth call, Godwin asked that you pick her up from her friend’s house.
51	As you drove to pick Godwin up, you sent a snapchat saying, ‘Frances [is] being my slut, you know, she's sucking my dick’. On arrival, you told Godwin that, ‘Frances was [your] slut’. Frances was vomiting. You told Godwin that she was ‘fine and just blowing out’. Perez passed out on the seat. When Godwin asked you ‘Do we take her to the hospital?’ you said ‘No, no. We'll just take her home. Say to her parents it was like a hole’.
52	At 7.27pm, you dropped Godwin to her home address, Perez blacked out again and started vomiting in the vehicle. You drove to the second level of the Pacific Werribee Shopping Centre car park and changed her out of the white top she was wearing and into your grey t-shirt.
53	At approximately 8.15pm, you drove to the Woolworths entrance of the Shopping Centre, parked, got out of the vehicle, and left Perez unconscious - locked in the vehicle. You returned to the vehicle shortly later with bread rolls and a bottle of water.
54	At 8.48pm, you arrived at Perez’s residential address. She was in the car and wet from water that you had thrown over her in an attempt to rouse her.
55	You knocked on the door and spoke to Perez’s father. You told Perez’s mother, that your name was Josh and that you were Mila’s cousin. 
56	You said that you had Frances in your car. The parents saw their daughter seated on the front passenger seat in a slouched position with her head tilted forward. They tried to wake her up with no response. Her mother asked you what was wrong with her, noticing her wet clothes. As she checked that her daughter was breathing, you said you were sorry, but you had to pour water over her as she was unconscious. You told her you could not wake her up and that she had been vomiting.  
57	You told them that ‘both girls were very drunk ... You picked the girls up instead of them catching an Uber’. You were just ‘dropping them off as they were drunk’.
58	After some time, the complainant woke up and her parents helped her out of the car. She was very disorientated.
59	You then left and called Godwin telling her that you were going to go ‘off grid’ because it was not ‘a good look for [you] and everything’. 
60	You were notified that Perez was attending hospital and notifying the police. 
61	At 11.14pm, Perez was taken to Werribee Mercy Hospital by her sister and mother, but they were turned away due to COVID wait times. 
62	The next day, at 12.15am, Perez re-attended the hospital with her sister. Urine tests revealed positive results for THC and Cocaine.
63	Perez’s mother attended the Werribee Police Station and reported the incident. At this time, Perez did not disclose being orally penetrated by you.
64	On 23 November 2020, Perez attended the Wyndham Multidisciplinary Centre (‘MDC’) and participated in a disclosure interview. She told police about you penetrating her mouth with your penis. She participated in a viewing of a photoboard and identified you.
65	On 24 November 2020, Perez again attended the Wyndham MDC and took part in a VARE.
Objective seriousness - Charges 3 & 4 
66	As with charges 1 & 2, your counsel conceded that the rape offence, charge 3, was around the mid-range of objective seriousness. The prosecution submitted that charges 3 & 4 were both well above that level.  Again, an assessment of objective seriousness requires a consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. 
67	There is no dispute as to what occurred. The matters that increase the objective seriousness in relation to charges 3 & 4 are that you were aware of Perez’s age, and the age difference of about 9 years. 
68	Your counsel concedes on your behalf that there is no information to suggest that you could have believed your conduct was welcomed. Perez had rebuffed your sexual suggestions previously.  She was clearly incapable of consenting and her incapacity was due to your significant supply of the drug GHB.
69	The offending, as a whole, occurred over a four-hour period. Perez was unconscious for about 2 hours.  Your actions in supplying drugs resulted in her being incapacitated. Over an extended period of time, you took advantage of this incapacitated, and therefore vulnerable, teenager.  
70	After the supply of drugs to her, you did not tend to Perez’s safety with any real sense of urgency – electing to leave her locked in your vehicle, unconscious. You did so instead of taking her to medical care despite knowing that she was struggling to breathe. Your lack of concern, bordering on indifference, turned into an audacious arrogance when you returned Perez to her parents and presented yourself as if you had been inconvenienced. 
71	You told her parents she was drunk. This misdirection limited the ability of her parents to provide prompt medical attention to her. They were also deprived of the ability to advise a crowded hospital of the possible urgency of the situation. 
72	In addition, you were on parole at the time of these offences, having been sentenced in December 2019 for firearms, trafficking and related offences. 
73	Such offending is of very high objective seriousness. The rape, individually, is objectively above mid-range seriousness. Considering the overlap in the offending behaviour between counts 3 & 4, there will be some concurrency in the sentences to be imposed. 
Uncharged act
74	The prosecution opening includes details of uncharged acts concerning another similarly aged child and an attempt by you to provide drugs to her in exchange for sexual contact. This constitutes context evidence and, as such, is not considered to make any part of the offending more serious. It gives the court an understanding of the regularity of your mindset of targeting young girls to indulge in sexual activity in exchange for drugs. It simply overcomes any suggestion that this type of behaviour was merely opportunistic or isolated. It will be relevant as referred to below. 
INDICTMENT N1297319
75	The facts concerning the kidnapping and associated charges concerning Leland Kelley are similarly contained in the respective prosecution opening for plea and are not in dispute. 
76	You and the complainant were known to each other prior to the offending as he had previously received ‘ice’ from you. Your co-offender, Aleisha Warwick, and the complainant were also known to each other through involvement with drugs.
77	On 25 October 2019, you called the complainant asking if he wanted to go for a drive with you. You gave the excuse that the purpose of the drive was for him to fix something on a car. 
78	You picked him up from his home. He entered the vehicle and sat in the rear left seat. You were in the driver’s seat with an unknown person in the front passenger seat. Once in the vehicle, you demanded the complainant’s watch (worth approximately $350.44). He complied.
79	You then picked Warwick up from an unknown location. Upon entering the vehicle, she punched the complainant in the face. She told him the punch was for ‘treating her like shit’. Once Warwick entered the car, you locked the doors, began speeding, and ran red lights. The complainant had no reasonable means to escape from the vehicle.
80	You drove to a mechanic workshop, which was run by you and witness, Pat Collier, in Truganina. Warwick pushed Kelley out of the vehicle.
81	Once inside, you placed a dog collar and lead around Kelley’s neck to detain him.  You and Warwick punched and kicked him until you got to the back of the warehouse. Kelley was prone to epilepsy and tried to protect himself. 
82	He received multiple kicks and punches from both of you. A series of further assaults then occurred, including pushing him into the toilets and using a crowbar to hit him on his legs, just above his knees. He could barely walk as a result.
83	Whilst on the ground in the toilet, you filmed Kelley on your mobile phone. You repetitively told him to eat dry dog food out of a dog bowl. You forced him to do so by shoving his face into the dry dog food and kicking his head into the bowl. He complied out of fear. 
84	The videos you filmed were tendered in the plea hearing. I observed a callous and degrading series of events for the complainant which were perpetrated, seemingly, with some delight on your part.   
85	You taunted the complainant about owing you money and required him to eat dog food from a bowl without using his hands. 
86	As part of the event, Kelley’s head was pushed into the dog bowl four times by an unknown offender. You subsequently directed Kelley to swallow the dog food. 
87	You kicked Kelley in the head. He was visibly injured. You appeared to be expressing delight. 
88	Next, you threatened to cut Kelley with a scalpel. You lifted his top, put a knife to his abdomen, and asked, “do you want a real tattoo?”. You threatened to stab him. Your co-offender told you to do it. You held the scalpel to his stomach, making contact, but did not force it in.
89	Kelley was directed to exit the toilets and crawl on his hands and knees into the workshop. He was still wearing a dog collar around his neck which was attached to a leash which you held. He was obviously injured. As above, you filmed this offending. You further assaulted him. Other unknown offenders joined in on the assaults and humiliation.
90	Kelley was then taken towards a raised vehicle inside the workshop and his head was held underneath the wheel. You dragged him with the dog collar to a car inside the workshop which had its bonnet open. You lifted him in front of it and tried to force his head into the rotating fan of the engine. His face was about half a centimetre away from the fan. He thought he was going to lose his face. This was clearly your intention. This extreme behaviour continued for several minutes, until you threw Kelley backwards and he fell into a pan of used car oil. Oil splashed and caused him excruciating pain. You then sprayed degreaser into his eyes.  
91	Your co-offender helped Kelley to the toilets to wash his eyes out. The owner of the shop, Pat Collier, subsequently approached Kelley in the toilets and told you, that this was enough. Collier helped Kelley into his car and subsequently took him home.
Objective seriousness  
92	In a sense, the offences represent a continuous transaction, but can be characterised individually. The initial act of getting Mr Kelley into the car and not permitting him to leave enabled each of the other offences to be committed while he was unable to leave. Your offending against Kelley, overall, is of a remarkably serious, dehumanising and frightening nature. 
93	In relation to the rolled-up count of assault, your actions of placing a dog collar on Kelley’s neck, repeatedly kicking and punching him, pushing his head into a bowl and spraying his eyes with degreaser were sustained, cruel and degrading. These assaults were committed in company and filmed by you. This rolled up offending is toward the upper end of the scale of seriousness for the offence charged. 
94	Lastly, the deliberate act of placing Kelley’s face into very close proximity of a rotating engine fan within a bonnet exposed him to a real risk of serious injury, which, if it eventuated, would have been catastrophic. This is a matter of high objective seriousness. 
95	While each offence is of a high order of objective seriousness, it is acknowledged that the offending overlaps. There will be a substantial period of concurrency within the sentences imposed on this indictment.
INDICTMENT P10696954
96	On Indictment P10696954, attempting to pervert the course of justice, this charge relates to you attempting to arrange contact with Mila Godwin so that she would withdraw her account of what had transpired concerning Frances Perez.
97	A series of preliminary hearings for the rape charges had been listed in February 2022. Those hearings had been adjourned for various reasons including for further investigations and/or negotiations.  
98	In August 2022, you were in custody serving sentence for an unrelated matter. You were awaiting the Special Hearing in relation to the rape indictments concerning Perez and Stearns, which was finally listed to be heard in November 2022.   
99	On 23 August 2022, in the lead up to that hearing, you approached a cellmate at Karreenga Correctional Facility who was due to be released from custody the following day. You handed him a letter to take with him when he was out. 
100	You told your cellmate to post it and not show it to the guards or anyone else. This letter was sealed and addressed to Scott Gannon. Your cellmate told you that it was better for you if you just gave him the letter without the envelope, to avoid it being found by officers.   
101	On 24 August 2022, your cellmate read the letter. The letter included directions to your friend to arrange to threaten Goodwin who was due to give evidence at the upcoming Special Hearing.
102	The contents of the letter are included in the prosecution opening in full. In it, you instruct the recipient to visit another and/or Godwin and offer her a significant amount of money to change her evidence. You suggested that if she did so, she would not be punished for talking to police. The letter also contained a threat that if the request was not complied with, then revenge would be taken on the girls and their mothers.  
103	This letter was given to authorities on 3 October 2022. Forensic analysis confirmed you to be the author of it - a position you now accept by your plea. 
Objective seriousness
104	The prosecution states the obvious circumstances of the offending which include threats to family, the offer of money and an attempt to avoid detection. This offence was your attempt to avoid the court process which you now face. Your counsel concedes that this is not at the lowest end of objective seriousness for such of offending.  Noting the relative lack of thought and sophistication and the threats to complainants and family being indirect rather than direct, the Court finds this to be a matter of low-to-mid-range objective seriousness. 
105	That being said, the consequences of this offending include significant increases in stress and anguish for the complainants and their families when they learnt about your attempt to intimidate them from your gaol cell.

ARREST & INVESTIGATION CHRONOLOGY
106	On 27 November 2020, you were placed under arrest for the rape offences. A mobile phone seized by police was found to contain footage related to the kidnapping indictment.
107	On this date, you were first interviewed in relation to Perez and Godwin.  You told police that you picked up Perez and Godwin and admitted that Perez ‘definitely had GHB’. You denied any of the allegations relating to the sexual offending or the supply of drugs. 
108	You said Perez was vomiting and that you changed her top. You admitted to leaving her in your car, unconscious, while you purchased bread rolls. You had to pour water on her, but she passed out again.
109	You also admitted to sending Perez text messages the day before. In your words, ''obviously, there were sexual messages but at that point, she had told me she was 18, but obviously, l found out she wasn’t, and nothing ever happened.” Most of your conversation with police about the offending was untrue. Any admissions were to divert attention from your offending.  
110	On 1 December 2020, Stearns told police that she was ready to proceed with a criminal investigation. 
111	On 11 January 2021, you participated in a second record of interview in relation to Stearns. During this interview, you made no admissions beyond knowing her. Charges were laid representing those now contained in the first 2 indictments. 
112	Between January and November 2021, investigations continued including analysis of items seized on the day the search warrant was executed. Many hearings were listed in both the Magistrates Court and the County Court. Many hearings were adjourned. None of the adjournments were due to prosecution delay. 
113	In June 2022, a trial was listed to commence in March 2023 with pretrial special  hearings listed for November 2022. In August 2022, you committed the further offence of attempt to pervert the course of justice. As above, you asked your cellmate to deliver a letter in which you hoped to convince another to do certain acts to convince witnesses to change their evidence. This was an act clearly aimed at dissuading the complaints and witnesses from giving true evidence in the Special Hearing in preparation for the trial.
114	Following investigation between December 2022 and March 2023, that charge was laid.  You indicated a plea to that charge at an early stage. Your indication to pleas on the remaining charges (including the kidnapping) followed. Your plea was finally entered on the 11th of August 2023. 

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS
115	Your offending has profoundly impacted the lives of all of the complainants and their families.  I have read and heard the reports by each of the complainants and their family members who have tried to support them through the years that these matters have taken to get to this point.  I acknowledge that the delays have traumatised them further, and for that, I apologise on behalf of the justice system. None of the delays were as a result of their inaction. 
116	The complainants’ statements speak of anxiety, depression, rumination, loss of friendships and enjoyment of life, impacts on schooling and the hardship they have endured as a direct result of this terrible offending and your subsequent behaviour after it.  The impact has been significant and at times, overwhelming. 
117	The Victim Impact Statements remind the court of the destructive consequences of such offending. The prosecution does not suggest that any result in particular amounts to an unusual or  aggravating circumstance. However, each complainant has had their lives irrevocably changed for the worse by your cruel and selfish acts. 
118	Courts are well aware of the devastating consequences of offending such as this and acknowledge that the penalties provided by legislation reflect these consequences as frequent.  The consequences are considered in the sentence imposed. 
  PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND MITIGATING FEATURES
119	Details relating to your personal circumstances have been provided by your self-reports to Dr Nina Zimmerman, psychiatrist, whose report is dated 11 April 2022 and Ms Carla Lechner, psychologist, in her report dated 24 July 2023. An undated letter from your mother was also supplied to the Court. 
120	Your self-report to Dr Zimmerman also contains reference to a previous psychological report prepared by Mr Healy, which was not tendered. These two reports were prepared prior to your plea of guilty to any of the charges and at a time when you were still vigorously denying the rapes and related offences, and before you committed the final offence. I will refer to this below, as the contents of these two reports clearly contain significant untruths. This, in turn, reflects on your truthfulness in general in relaying information to report writers. It is a caution I must consider. 
121	What is not disputed is that you were aged 23-24 at the time of offending. You are an only child, born to a Maltese family in NSW.  Your parents separated when you were two and a stepfather came into your life when you were about 4. You reported that he was very violent towards your mother, and that you hated him for many years, but that you now have a good relationship with him. You reported that as you got older, you protected your mother.    
122	In conversation with Dr Zimmerman, you described your mother as a ‘good person’ who ‘tried her best’ but ‘she had a temper when she was stressed’. You recall her losing her temper, particularly when she had been drinking and fighting with your stepfather when you were young.  In her undated letter to the court, your mother confirmed that alcohol abuse and family violence featured in your childhood.   
123	You reported to Dr Zimmerman (at paragraph 21) that you lived with your biological father ‘on and off’ throughout your childhood. You had previously apparently reported to psychologist, Mr Healy, that he was dependent on cocaine, and that in your mid-teens, you were sourcing drugs from him.  Your mother does not confirm this information in her letter, although she does refer to your drug use commencing when you were 17 years old. 
124	You report that you were diagnosed with ADHD and prescribed medication in your teen years but elected not to take your prescriptions, you report, in favour of substances introduced to you by your father.
125	You further reported that you were sexually abused by your uncle between the ages of six to ten. The abuse reportedly involved penetrative sexual abuse (both oral and anal) and ‘a dog’. You say your uncle threatened to send you to a boy’s home if you disclosed the abuse to anyone. 
126	Notwithstanding that your mother confirms that you did report these assaults to her when you were aged about 17, you report that she did not believe you, thus causing great distress. Her letter does not give this impression. You told Carla Lechner more details of the sexual abuse over many years but did not mention a dog. You reported to Ms Lechner that after you told your mother, she stopped talking to her brother - suggesting that she was supportive.
127	The prosecution does not challenge that your background contained significant violence and sexual abuse from when you were aged about 5 to about 11 years old. They do not accept that there is a connection between your childhood abuse and this offending. In order to assess any connection, it is necessary to consider all information provided on your behalf. 
128	You do not report any academic difficulties at school and that you finished year 12. You report behavioural problems from a young age. You referenced truanting, fighting, and smashing objects alongside aggression and abuse directed toward teachers. You mentioned a lack of good role models and being unable to control your anger. 
129	You commenced a carpentry apprenticeship and did not continue, reportedly, due to substance abuse. You have worked in car detailing and in a warehouse.
130	You are currently single and have no children. You report that your longest relationship was for two years between the ages of 18 and 20. 
131	Having considered your background and presentation, Dr Zimmerman opined that you meet the criteria for a diagnosis of substance misuse disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder.  She noted that PTSD resulted from your reported upbringing in a violent family and the sexual abuse you reportedly suffered as a child. 
132	Dr Zimmerman reported that part of this diagnosis was based on your vehement denial of any sexual offending and the strong reasons and emotional delivery you gave her for that denial.  Ms Lechner, who assessed you after you admitted the rapes, seems to confirm the observation of PTSD. She relates the presentation to  you being a victim of both domestic violence, and sexual abuse.  
MORAL CULPABILITY
133	Your counsel submitted, at paragraph 44 of the filed submissions, that your moral culpability must be assessed in light of your early exposure to family violence, drug use and sexual abuse. Counsel relied on the observation of Dr Zimmerman at paragraph 76 of her report. 
134	She states ‘his formative experiences, … severe physical and sustained sexual abuse …. Has contributed to his growing dependency on drugs … and his openly admitted turn to trafficking to sustain his heavy use’. However, there is no observation in either the Zimmerman report or the Lechner report that your sexual offending is in any way related to substance abuse, or to the alleged sexual abuse you experienced as a child. 
135	Dr Zimmerman was specifically requested to provide an opinion as to whether there was any relationship between “any condition and offending”. It is noted that at the time you spoke to Dr Zimmerman, you were adamant that you did not commit any sexual offences and reported that you were “preoccupied with the horrific injustice of some of the allegations being made against you” (per paragraph 11).
136	Her observations must be considered in light of your apparently convincing lies to her about this involvement. It is not suggested that the supply of drugs covered in charge 3 had anything to do with financing your own drug use, which she suggests, is related to your substance abuse as a teenager.  
137	In any event, Dr Zimmerman did not suggest any relationship between your sexual offending and any mental health condition. She opined that there was a relationship between a substance abuse disorder and trafficking offences. However, this is based only on the observation that you used some of the money obtained by selling drugs to finance your own habit (at paragraph 92). 
138	Carla Lechner, who prepared her report after you had admitted the sexual offending, suggested some presentation and personality features which she observed to be consistent with a borderline personality disorder. 
139	However, she qualified this by stating that she could not be definitive on this observation due to your drug use. You told her that you were not using drugs at the time of the interview. You had told Dr Zimmerman you were not using drugs at the time she interviewed you. That was apparently a lie as you told Lechner that it was your use of drugs in custody which drove your offending in the pervert the course of justice charge. 
140	Lechner  did, however, note that your presentation at interview was consistent with disorders including complex PTSD, major depressive disorder, adult ADHD, and a stimulant use disorder, in remission (assuming there was no substance use at that time).  
141	In her observations of the relationship between any ‘diagnosis’ and your offending, she observed that “severe childhood maltreatment interrupts normal child development and …. increases the risk of maladaptive avoidance strategies” (at paragraph 5). However, she does not opine a causal relationship between your sexual offending and your mental health conditions anywhere in her report. 
142	The highest she puts it is that your drug use has “significantly contributed to disinhibited behaviour, poor judgement and decision making.” 
143	Nevertheless, it was submitted on your behalf that on the evidence provided, mostly by way of self-report, you suffered a difficult upbringing, marred by substance abuse, sexual abuse, and violence. As noted above, your mother’s letter supports that to some extent. The prosecution does not challenge the thrust of this self-report and concedes that the case of Bugmy v The Queen is a relevant case consideration, to some extent. 
144	The prosecution concede that there is evidence of a background in which drugs were introduced by a parent and that there was violence in the home. This is some way from a concession that there is a causal relationship between your childhood experiences and this range of offending, especially the sexual offending against vulnerable young girls.
145	I find that there seems to be a relationship between your substance abuse and your childhood experiences. I do not find a causal relationship between your disadvantaged childhood and the current sexual offending, save that your mental health appears to be compromised. The observation that you were under the influence of drugs (thus reducing your inhibitions when you raped these young girls) is not a mitigating factor, nor does it reduce your moral culpability for the offending. However, this must be a consideration in an assessment of your prospects of rehabilitation. 
146	In considering the relevance of Bugmy’s case, it is noted that the High Court stressed that a deprived background and mental disorder potentially related to that background could be taken into account in mitigation. It is noted that Bugmy’s offending was of a violent nature against police officers, clearly related and connected to the offender’s upbringing. 
147	I see no evidence to support the proposition that your sexual offending is related to any sexual abuse perpetrated on you. Indeed, you professed to Dr Zimmerman that you found the allegations disturbing because you were aware of the damage sexual abuse causes.  As above, she noted that your mental state presentation was one of preoccupation with the unfairness of such allegations. There is no finding by either Dr Zimmerman or Lechner that your moral culpability for sexual offending is thereby reduced, either due to any form of violence in your formative years, or substance abuse as a teenager. 
148	There is, however, an accepted connection between your substance abuse and offending in general and this substance abuse had its beginnings in your teenage years. Your resort to violence or threats in this context may be related to your upbringing. Your behaviour towards the victim in the kidnapping and your threats and manipulation in the attempt to pervert the course of justice are signs of a very misguided and intoxicated state of mind. For these offences, your moral culpability is reduced due to the circumstances of your childhood. 
149	These observations may impact on findings as to your prospects of rehabilitation and related matters, however, they do not reduce your moral culpability for the serious sexual offending. Lechner does not suggest that it does. I am not advised of, and not aware of, any learned investigations suggesting that victims of sexual assault are more prone than others to commit such offences on others.  The fact that you were, on your self-report, intoxicated by drugs at the time of offending is not, in and of itself, a matter of mitigation. Having noted that, I do consider that your mental health and substance abuse are intricately linked. 

150	The relationship contended is that in your teen years, whether it be 15 or 17 years of age, you were encouraged to substance abuse by your father.  Your Counsel submitted that ‘the chaotic life you lead as a result of your drug use is related to this offending.’ Although it was not submitted, it is probable that your state of mind as a result of your abusive childhood encouraged this indulgence.  It is well accepted that substance abuse as a younger person often leads to chaotic life choices. I accept this. There is no evidence of a link to violent sexual offending and/or sexual offending against young people.  Lechner suggests a different motivator, that of your desire to control. 
Effects of custody 
151	Dr Zimmerman reports that your diagnosis of PTSD is relevant to how you will experience prison. Given the nature of your offending, you have been housed in a protection unit. This means that you are living alongside others who have been charged/convicted of sexual offences. You report that these matters trigger memories of your own abuse which, in turn, negatively impacts your mental state and, in one case, has led to you getting into a fight with another offender. 
152	Lechner reported that you are finding prison a difficult environment to manage with respect to your post-trauma symptoms. You experience a high level of anxiety and hypervigilance. You report that you have been inappropriately touched and that this led to a “fight” response.
153	Dr Zimmerman further noted that general stresses can also be associated with re-emergence or intensification of symptoms of PTSD, raising the possibility that the inevitable stresses in your custodial environment may result in a deterioration in your mental state. For these reasons, there is a risk that imprisonment will be “more burdensome” for you. 
154	I accept these observations and will take them into account when considering both the head sentence and the non-parole period relevant to that sentence. 

PROSPECTS OF REHABILITATION
155	Your prospects of rehabilitation are difficult to gauge. The report of Dr Zimmerman is of limited use due to the lies you told her.  
156	In the report prepared by Carla Lechner on 24 July 2023, it was suggested, if your self-report was true, that your presentation represents a complex clinical picture marked by exposure to Complex Developmental Trauma in the form of domestic violence perpetrated by your stepfather and sexual abuse perpetrated by an uncle. Further, your prior drug use has been described as a ‘means of managing [your] symptoms of trauma’ while serving only to aggravate your depression, anxiety and poor impulse control. 
157	You currently present with symptoms which are said to be consistent with GHB & Stimulant Use Disorder – in early remission in a controlled environment (DSM 5-TR), Adult Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (DSM 5-TR, first diagnosed in your teenage years) and Major Depressive Disorder (DSM 5-TR).
158	Your presentation suggests a high level of stress and poor coping skills with you having failed to develop adaptive coping strategies during your teenage and early adult years. Further, you are quick to resort to drug use in the face of environmental or internal stress/distress. You are reluctant to think deeply about the prospect of trauma-informed psychological work and do not fully trust prison clinicians.
159	I am told that you have used illicit substances while in custody, and indeed proffer that use as an excuse for the attempt to pervert the course of justice offence. You told Dr Zimmerman that you were not using.  Presumably, the authorities were unaware of that use.
160	 I am told you are no longer using such substances, but I have no evidence of that, and given your history of lying, manipulation and substance abuse while in custody, I cannot accept that information on face value.  You counsel told me that he was instructed you are no longer using substances and that you have engaged in some prosocial activity in recent times. No evidence was presented.
 
Remorse
161	Your stated remorse is of recent origin. You did not give evidence so the court can only assess your current insight based on your interviews with others. To Dr Zimmerman,  you vehemently denied sexual offending and expressed distress that such an accusation could be levelled at you. You said your distress was because of your implicit understanding of the consequences of sexual assault because of what had happened you. At least part of this conversation with Dr Zimmerman was a lie. 
162	You told Dr Zimmerman that your main preoccupation was “on past experiences of abuse and the horrific injustice of the allegations made against you”. Given that these allegations are now found to have been committed, the court expresses scepticism as to the genuineness of any expression of remorse you now show. 
163	Later, you reported to Ms Lechner that you could not clearly recall the incidents but that you nevertheless found your actions to be ‘disgusting’ and traumatising for the complainants.  You stated the following: 

I’m not making an excuse, what I did was wrong, disgusting and fucked up in so many ways … being on GHB as a coping mechanism, I don’t even really remember much of it … I’m not usually violent or sexually abusive but on GHB I’m not in control.
164	You further stated: 
I can see how it would affect them, traumatize them … I can’t explain why I was with young girls … I look at it now and I’m not aroused, it’s not something I’m into, I feel disgusted … it doesn’t turn me on if there’s no consent … I feel disgusted about it, I’m a horrible person on GHB.
165	However, this denial of sexual attraction is contradicted by your attempts to coerce a similarly aged child to perform sex acts with you, as referred to in the context evidence. 
166	You expressed similar sentiments in relation to your violent offending:
First I picked him up to talk to him, I was taking GHB throughout the day, had no intention of doing something stupid, wanted to work it out … I don’t remember being in control at the time … with GHB your whole mind can blank out … things escalated, I don’t know why it happened, disgusting behaviour, I know he’d be traumatized, no-one deserves that. 
167	Curiously, in light of the above, Lechner concluded that you expressed appropriate victim empathy. In apparent contradiction, she also observed that you are ‘inclined to attribute [your] offending solely to [your] drug use’. This expression diminishes any finding of insight into the consequences of your offending.
168	Sometimes a plea of guilt can be taken to be an acceptance of responsibility and therefore some evidence of remorse.  
169	Your counsel, in his submissions, concedes that your attempt to pervert the court of justice activities [at paragraph 13(d)] strengthened the prosecution case with respect to your other offending. This is accurate. In those circumstances, I note your plea as an acceptance of the inevitable. Your plea cannot support a finding of remorse in such circumstances. 
170	Your plea to the kidnapping related offences and the attempt to pervert the course of justice charge are noted as having been made relatively early. The prosecution case on the kidnapping and associated matters was apparently based on footage from your phone. The attempt to pervert case was similarly strong. Given the circumstances of each, an early plea is not evidence of remorse.  
171	Both were early pleas, however, and you are entitled to significant discounts on those sentences. Your plea on the sexual offences were much later and a discount must therefore be limited. I explain this now as a section 6AAA declaration will ultimately express a global position.  

Risk of further offending
172	It is Lechner’s conclusion that you present a moderate-to-high risk of future violent offending compared with the average violent offender. She assesses this risk level not so much on account of you being inherently violent or aggressive in nature (unless drug affected), but on account of your parlous mental health, substance abuse, limited coping skills and lack of supportive network. 
173	Lechner suggests the degree of risk could be lowered through continued abstinence from drug use and engagement with treatment services that assist you working through post-trauma symptoms and improving stress and mood management skills, as well as linking you to appropriate support networks. 
174	This observation assumes that you are no long using substances.  Lechner states that you are most at risk of relapsing to self-defeating patterns of behaviour, including aggressive behaviour, if you resume substance abuse, associate with negative peers, and remain in a depressed state, therefore, being unable to cope effectively.
175	In relation to your risk of sexual reoffending, Lechner observes that while you do not appear to have “overt sexual deviance” you may have some “psychopathic personality traits”. She opines that your sexual offending to be a function of hypersexual arousal poor impulse control and a likely desire for control. She observes that this is directly related to your choice of young and vulnerable victims.  She does not directly relate your sexual offending to substance abuse except as your substance abuse may reduce your inhibitions.  
176	Lechner places you in the category of moderate risk of sexual reoffending if your mental health and substance abuse problems are not addressed. Whether you can or will address this issue is unknown
177	A finding of your prospects of rehabilitation must be guarded. A great deal will depend on your progress while you are in custody in addressing the issues identified. 
178	Even accepting your own sexual abuse, any link between a victim of abuse becoming a perpetrator of abuse is not supported.  
179	It is Lechner’s conclusion that you require intensive and multi-disciplinary intervention. Further evaluation by the Specialized Offender Assessment and Treatment (SOAT) program is strongly advised, including intervention to address your history of trauma. This is also recommended by Dr. Zimmerman and would consist of long-term therapy that may include specific trauma intervention such as EMDR, in addition to unravelling the connection between past trauma and present behaviour. 
180	In addition, ongoing AOD counselling focusing on minimizing the risk of relapse is recommended. Again, as outlined above, you present a “moderate/high” risk of violent reoffending and a “moderate” risk of sexual reoffending if your mental health and substance abuse problems are not adequately addressed.
APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES OF SENTENCING
181	Section 5 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) provides that the purposes for which sentences may be imposed are to punish the offender to an extent and in a manner which is just in all of the circumstances; or to deter the offender or other persons from committing offences of the same or a similar character; or to establish conditions within which it is considered by the court that the rehabilitation of the offender may be facilitated; or to manifest the denunciation by the court of the type of conduct in which the offender engaged; or to protect the community from the offender; or a combination of two or more of those purposes. 
182	Sometimes these requirements pull in opposite directions. No submissions suggest that anything other than a significant term of imprisonment is appropriate. 
183	Each of the prescribed purposes of sentencing are relevant to you, although the Court is appropriately concerned regarding rehabilitation.  A generous non-parole to total term ratio will be allowed to give you some incentive to address the areas identified both in custody, and on your release. 

Parity
184	On the matter of parity, in relation to your offending against Mr Kelley, I note your co-offender was convicted of false imprisonment, assault and theft, and sentenced to complete a community corrections order including hours of unpaid community work. You will not receive the same sentence for your offending against Kelley.  Your co-offender was 19 years of age at the time of the offending with limited priors and no associated charges and was dealt with in the Magistrates Court.
Totality

185	It is acknowledged that in sentencing for a number of distinct indictments which include related and unrelated offences, I must ensure that the total term imposed is ‘a just and appropriate measure of the total criminality involved’. I am aware of the need to avoid imposing a ‘crushing sentence’, but it must be a just sentence both individually and in total.  You had relative youth on your side when you committed these offences. You are now aged 27 years. 
186	The sentences imposed for individual offences will reflect the criminality of your individual crimes. The cumulation and concurrency between those sentences must reflect the total criminality. 
187	In the context of this case, there are several very serious offences which must be included in one total effective sentence. The total effective sentence will be a high one. Section 11A of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) is a consideration in this sentence. It requires a 70% non-parole to total-term ratio unless the interests of justice require otherwise. 
188	A further complication is the fact that you have been in custody on unrelated matters since November 2020. Out of fairness, a calculation of the non-parole period should take this into consideration. You were previously eligible for parole on 24 September 2022. I also note that you have been separately sentenced for a prior breach of parole which I found to be an aggravating factor on charges 3 & 4. I will avoid double counting on this factor by again adjusting the accumulation and non-parole period ratio.  
189	When considering the non-parole to total term ratio, I also take into account your relative youth when these offences were committed, and the observations referred to above that your prospects of rehabilitation may be enhanced with appropriate interventions in custody, if you so allow. 
190	Finally, I acknowledge that the time you will spend in custody will be difficult for you, as a result of the above-mentioned mental health presentations. This will be taken into account reducing both the total term and the non-parole period.  At the conclusion of the non-parole period imposed today, the parole authorities will assess whether you are suitable for supervised release into the community. Much will depend on your presentation at that time and any progress you have made in custody. 

SENTENCE
In relation to Indictment L12782183.3
191	Joshua Vassallo, on Count 4, for the offence of rape, I sentence you to 12 years imprisonment. This is the base sentence. 
192	On Count 3, supply a drug of dependence to a child, I sentence you to 3 years imprisonment. I direct that 1 year and 6 months of this term is to accumulate on the base sentence. This is in recognition of some overlap with the events in count 4, but also in recognition that the supply, itself, is a serious separate offence with serious consequences.   
193	On Count 1, for the offence of rape – I sentence you to 10 years imprisonment. 4 years of this term will accumulate on the base sentence. This recognises the separate victims of separate offending, which occurred nearly 2 years apart.  
194	On Count 2, false imprisonment, I sentence you to 2 years imprisonment and direct that this be served with 6 months accumulating on the base sentence.  This is in recognition of the considerable overlap in the events concerning both charges. 

In relation to Indictment N12197319
195	For the offence of kidnapping, I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of 3 years and 6 months imprisonment. I direct that 2 years of the term imposed on this count accumulate on the base sentence. 
196	For the offence of false imprisonment, I sentence you to 2 years imprisonment and direct that this be served concurrently with the base sentence. 
197	For the offence of conduct endangering persons, I sentence you to 2 years and 6 months imprisonment. I direct that 6 months of this sentence accumulate on the base sentence. 
198	For the offence of common assault, I sentence you to 2 years imprisonment and direct that the sentence be served concurrently on the base sentence.  

In relation to Indictment P10696954
199	For the offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice, I sentence you to 4 years imprisonment. I direct that 1 year and 6 months of the term imposed for this offence accumulate on the base sentence. 

TOTAL EFFECTIVE SENTENCE
200	The total effective sentence is 22 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14 years. I find that on account of your relative youth at the time of some of the offending, your mental health treatment requirements, and the earlier sentence imposed, it is in the interests of justice that this non-parole period fall slightly below the 70% threshold stipulated in section 11A(3) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic). 
201	There is no pre-sentence detention to declare.  
202	I grant the disposal order sought against Indictment P10696954. 
203	The Court orders that you be subject to lifetime reporting obligations under the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 (Vic).
204	Pursuant to section 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), had it not been for your plea of guilty, I would have imposed a term of 27 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 years.