IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA	Not Restricted	
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S ECR 2024 0289

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS	Crown	
		
v 		
		
PT	Accused	

---

JUDGE:	Champion J	
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne	
DATE OF HEARING:	5 February 2025	
DATE OF SENTENCE:	12 February 2025	
DATE OF REASONS:	14 February 2025	
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v PT (No 4)	
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 44	

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Sentence — Breach of Supervision Order (SO) — Methylamphetamine use — Eighth breach of SO — Residential rehabilitation accommodation proposed — Long‑standing drug addiction — Serious Offenders Act 2018 (Vic) ss 169, 174.  

---

APPEARANCES:
	Counsel	Solicitors	
For the Crown	L Andrews	Office of Public Prosecutions	
			
For the Accused	C McLennan	Chris McLennan & Co	

HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
1	PT, on 5 February 2025 you entered a plea of guilty to two charges of contravening a supervision order (‘SO’), contrary to section 169 of the Serious Offenders Act 2018 (Vic) (‘Serious Offenders Act’), in that you are alleged to have used methylamphetamine and morphine.
2	On 2 February 2023, you were placed on an SO for a period of four years by his Honour Justice Beale.  It was a condition of the SO that you ‘must not use or possess prohibited drugs (including synthetic drugs), obtain drugs unlawfully or abuse drugs of any kind’.
3	You have since appeared before this Court on seven previous occasions due to breaches of your SO in broadly the same fashion, namely the use of illicit drugs.
The offending
4	Pursuant to the conditions of your SO, at the time of this most recent offending you were residing at Nicholson House in Preston.  
5	On 2 December 2024, your Corrections Victoria Specialist Case Manager (‘SCM’), Ashlea Anderson, in consultation with others, formed reasonable grounds to suspect you had contravened your SO by consuming drugs.
6	These reasonable grounds were based on a combination of events, including:
(a)	on 28 November 2024, you failed to attend an online Children’s Court hearing with the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing, regarding ongoing care arrangements for your youngest daughter.  This failure was considered atypical for you; and
(b)	on 29 November 2024, following a denied request by you to travel to Ballarat to meet with an unidentified female acquaintance, you returned to your residence after your curfew time of 10:30pm.
7	On 29 November 2024, at the request of your SCM, you attended the Reservoir Justice Service Centre for urine analysis testing.  On 3 December 2024, the urine test returned a positive reading for:
(a)	methylamphetamine, 348 micrograms per litre; and
(b)	other substances for which you had a prescription.
8	On 5 December 2024, your SCM again formed reasonable grounds to suspect that you may have contravened your SO by consuming drugs.  This was on the basis that on 4 December 2024, you failed to engage with the Australian Community Support Organisation outreach and did not attend a scheduled supervision appointment with your SCM.  During this period, your electronic monitoring movements indicated that you had spent several hours in public parks while remaining uncontactable.
9	Accordingly, on 5 December 2024, your SCM directed you to undertake further urinalysis testing.  On 10 December 2024, the analysis of your urine sample revealed that you had morphine, amphetamine, methamphetamine, and other prescribed substances in your system.  Given that methamphetamine is regarded as a by‑product of metabolised methylamphetamine, this charge only relates to the amphetamine and morphine in your system.  On 11 December 2024, you were arrested and declined a police interview.  
Procedural history
10	On 11 December 2024, the same day as your arrest, you were brought before the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court and remanded in custody to appear at this Court on 18 December 2024 for a directions hearing.  
11	The matter resolved prior to this initial directions hearing.  The prosecution concedes that you agreed to plead guilty at a very early opportunity.  
12	A plea with respect to this matter was listed and proceeded before me on 5 February 2025.  At this hearing, you made an application for the charge to be heard and determined summarily pursuant to section 174 of the Serious Offenders Act.  This application was not opposed and was granted by me.  
13	You have pleaded guilty to two charges, one of which is rolled‑up to encompass two occasions on which you consumed methylamphetamine.  
14	You have been in custody since your arrest on 11 December 2024.  Pre‑sentence detention up to but not inclusive of the date of this sentence, being 12 February 2025, is 63 days.
15	The maximum term of imprisonment where the contravention of an SO is heard and determined summarily is two years’ imprisonment, and/or a maximum fine of 500 penalty units.
Relevant background and criminal history
16	A summary of your background and criminal history is set out in previous reasons of this Court and is extremely well documented.  
17	Briefly, with respect to your index offending, on 27 June 2013 his Honour Justice Beach sentenced you to 10 years and three months’ imprisonment with a non‑parole period of seven years and three months on charges of intentionally causing serious injury and false imprisonment.  The prosecution case was that you, along with two other men, engaged in violent torturous conduct against another person in the context of drug use, whereby the victim received very significant injuries to various parts of his body.  The assaults included the use of a knife, placing scissors into the victim’s mouth and cutting his cheek, attempting to tear off the victim’s right nipple, carving words into his back, kicking him in the head, burning him with an ice pipe on a number of occasions, and other violent conduct, including choking.  The sentencing judge described the activity as a terrifying and painful ordeal for the victim, which occurred over a period of time, and in which you were an active participant.
18	On 21 October 2022, shortly before the completion of your sentence, an application was made by the Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety for an SO.  On the same date, an interim SO was made by his Honour Justice Beale.  On 2 February 2023, his Honour placed you on a final SO for a period of four years.
19	Thereafter, across 2023 and 2024, you have appeared before this Court on the following occasions:
(a)	on 10 February 2023, Justice Beale sentenced you to 14 days’ imprisonment regarding one charge of contravention of an interim SO by using methylamphetamine;
(b)	on 17 March 2023, Justice Croucher convicted and discharged you for one charge of contravention of an SO by using methylamphetamine;
(c)	on 14 August 2023, Justice Jane Dixon sentenced you to 13 days’ imprisonment for one charge of contravention of an SO by using methylamphetamine; 
(d)	on 6 September 2023, Justice Croucher sentenced you to 14 days’ imprisonment for one charge of contravention of an SO by using methylamphetamine;
(e)	on 21 November 2023, I sentenced you to 30 days’ imprisonment for one charge of contravention of an SO by using methylamphetamine; 
(f)	on 5 April 2024, Justice Tinney sentenced you to 60 days’ imprisonment for one charge of contravention of an SO by using methylamphetamine; and 
(g)	on 23 July 2024, I sentenced you to 75 days’ imprisonment for one charge of contravention of an SO by using methylamphetamine.  This period was reckoned as time served.  By the time of your sentence, you had served 75 days pre‑sentence detention.  
20	Accordingly, you now come before this Court with respect to a breach for the eighth time since the interim SO was made on 21 October 2022, with the final SO granted thereafter.  Each contravention has been of the same or a very similar nature and involved the use of methylamphetamine.  The number of breaches might be regarded as a poor outcome, however, I acknowledge that recovery from drug addiction is not always linear.  I also note that as the number of breaches have increased, so have most of the corresponding sentences imposed.  
Parties’ submissions
Submissions for the prosecution
21	Counsel for the prosecution filed written submissions dated 29 January 2025, which were supplemented by oral argument during the plea hearing.  The Court also had access to the previous sentencing remarks made by various judicial officers of this Court, including myself, in relation to your previous breaches.  Briefly put, the prosecution submits that a term of imprisonment is the appropriate disposition.  
22	In previous matters before this Court, the prosecution initially submitted that your prospects of rehabilitation were poor, however, this altered to ‘guarded’ in more recent matters.  On this occasion, the prosecution submits that your prospects ‘cannot be described as anything but poor’.  Doubtless this submission is advanced on the basis that you have now, on two occasions, committed similar offending since those earlier submissions regarding your ‘guarded’ prospects were made.  
23	It is argued that the contravention of an SO is a serious matter.  Although counsel accepts that drug‑related contraventions are generally considered to be less serious than other types of contraventions, it is submitted that it is not for an offender to pick and choose the conditions of their SO to which he can comply.  In your case, it is noted that condition 6.6, which prohibits the use of illicit drugs, is one of the central mechanisms by which your order is designed to do its work.  The importance of this is underlined by the fact that there was a connection between your drug use and your index offending.
24	With respect to deterrence from committing future similar conduct, the prosecution submits that general and specific deterrence are important factors which should be given significant weight, especially given that methylamphetamine use is capable of negatively affecting your judgement and reasoning.  It is noted that your offending was not spontaneous, and involved you making deliberate choices to obtain and consume drugs on the multiple separate occasions.  Accordingly, the prosecution submits that, notwithstanding your intellectual impairment and substance abuse disorder, your moral culpability for this offending is relatively high, especially given that you are well aware of the link between your index offending and substance abuse.
25	With respect to general deterrence, the prosecution notes that it is vitally important that other serious violent offenders, whose offending is inextricably linked with drug use, ‘appreciate the seriousness of repeated drug‑related breaches and comply with conditions prohibiting such conduct’.  
26	It is further submitted that the Verdins principles have limited or no application in this case.  
27	Counsel for the prosecution also addresses protection of the community, being a primary purpose of the Serious Offenders Act.  Counsel submits that, given your drug use is closely linked to your index offending, community protection assumes a particularly important role.
Submissions for the defendant 
28	Your counsel relied on detailed written submissions dated 28 January 2025, which were also supplemented by oral argument.  Particular emphasis is placed on matters concerning your difficult personal background and your diagnoses of recurrent depressive disorder, substance abuse disorder, and complex post‑traumatic stress disorder.  The Court’s attention is drawn to your well documented and long‑standing intellectual disability, resulting in your weak executive functioning, extremely low range on all aspects of memory functioning, and your speech impediment.  You are a recipient of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and you are on a disability support pension.  It is noted in an expert report filed with this Court that your disability impacts your capacity to complete many activities of daily living, and you require significant support.  
29	Your counsel relies on a detailed expert report dated 15 November 2024 authored by a psychologist, Anna Hoy.  Furthermore, the Court is also aware of various previous reports filed on your behalf and relied on in previous proceedings, including:
(a)	report and addendum report of Anna Hoy dated 24 January 2023; 
(b)	expert report of Simon Crowe dated 10 December 2022; and
(c)	psychological report of Ian McKinnon dated 16 June 2024.  
30	With respect to the most recent report of Anna Hoy, your counsel highlights the observation that you are displaying a general abstinence from substance abuse despite several lapses into methylamphetamine use.  Counsel also notes that you have completed various drug rehabilitation courses, and you entered a 28‑day program at Seahaven Private Residential Rehabilitation in which you participated well until 24 August 2024, after which you left following an incident with a co‑resident.  Counsel confirms that you are welcome back to Seahaven, and that Seahaven has indicated that, generally, you participated well in the program.  Furthermore, it is submitted that you are ‘interested in further rehabilitative support’ upon release from custody.  At the plea hearing, Karl Johansson, Assistant Manager of the Specialist Response Unit at the Post‑Sentence Branch of Corrections Victoria, gave evidence and confirmed that Seahaven has offered you placement in its rehabilitation program upon your release from custody.  It appears that Seahaven has made an exception on your behalf in this regard.
31	Your counsel notes that whilst your breaches have been of the same or similar nature, there is no evidence of violent offending associated with your drug use.  Counsel also draws the Court’s attention to a handwritten letter by you which is addressed to the Court and was filed the day prior to the plea.  It is submitted that this letter demonstrates insight into your relapse, and that these lapses followed your departure from Seahaven and the loss of the program’s support.
32	With respect to the objective gravity of this offending, your counsel submits that this is of an entirely different degree to your index offending, though acknowledging that your drug dependence formed a central part of the index offending and therefore justified imposition of the relevant condition of your SO.  It is further submitted that your moral culpability is reduced by reference to the principles in Bugmy and Verdins given your complex and traumatic history, and mental illness combined with your long‑standing intellectual disability.
33	As has been submitted on previous occasions, counsel on your behalf contends that the weight afforded to the sentencing considerations of general and specific deterrence should be moderated in light of your mental impairment and mental conditions.  It is also submitted that the small amount of drugs consumed with no alleged corresponding violent or menacing behaviour should be taken into account in considering the degree to which community protection applies as a sentencing factor in this matter.  Furthermore, it is argued that your repeated attempts at rehabilitation are also relevant to the assessment of the appropriate penalty, with reference being made to previous comments by this Court as to the difficulty of breaking the cycle of drug addiction.
34	In terms of penalty, it is submitted that, with respect to parsimony and proportionality, the sentence imposed by the Court must be no more severe than is necessary to meet the purposes of sentencing.  However, counsel also concedes that a term of imprisonment is warranted, with the period you have served to be taken into account and reckoned as served.
Analysis and conclusions
35	Much material has been placed before the Court with respect to you, PT, on both current and previous occasions.  
36	As I have said previously, your consistent appearances in this Court for breaches of your SO demonstrate the difficulty of breaking the cycle of drug addiction.  Whilst breaches of an SO are inherently serious, and just punishment and protection of the community are therefore relevant factors to consider, it appears that in your case what is needed are continuing efforts to be directed towards your treatment and rehabilitation.  Repeated appearances before this Court for breaches of such a similar nature suggest that something must change.  
37	On the basis of the material which has been put before me, and the arguments and the submissions which have been made, I am satisfied that, in these circumstances, the appropriate sentence to pass for two charges of the summary offence of contravening a condition of an SO contrary to section 169 of the Serious Offenders Act is one that is effectively time served, which the prosecution has indicated is 63 days’ imprisonment.  That will then allow you to be released, as I understand it, immediately, and then for you to, as per the direction from the Post Sentence Authority, reside at Seahaven Private Residential Rehabilitation Program.
38	With respect to your release, the Court has been informed that Seahaven is prepared to accept you into its rehabilitation program, and that you have an available credit of 28 days, as well as the prospect of participation in the ongoing residential program.  These proposals provide the Court with some degree of comfort that you again will be able to engage in rehabilitative treatment.  You also need to fully understand that considerable effort, community resources, and taxpayer funding is being applied to provide you with an opportunity to overcome your drug addiction, and to become a useful member of the community.  At the same time, it should be steadfastly remembered by you that each time you breach your SO, your sentences of imprisonment are increasing in size.  At some point, should your offending continue in this vein, you may expect that the community, and the Court, will lose patience with its efforts and contribution to your rehabilitation.  
39	Taking into account and balancing all relevant matters, I sentence you to an aggregate sentence of 63 days’ imprisonment on these two charges.  Accordingly, I declare that a period of pre‑sentence detention of 63 days be reckoned as having been served as part of this sentence.  
40	Pursuant to section 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), I declare that but for the plea of guilty, the Court would have otherwise imposed a sentence of 100 days’ imprisonment.