IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION	Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication	

CR 24-00813

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS		
		
v		
		
BILAL SIDANI		

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE GUCCIARDO	
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne	
DATE OF HEARING:	17 March 2025	
DATE OF SENTENCE:	2 June 2025	
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Sidani	
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VCC 710	

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:                  Criminal Law - Sentence upon plea of guilty. 
Catchwords:           Persistent contravention of a family violence intervention order - arson - 
                               extortion with threat to inflict injury - relevant criminal history - offending 
                               does not fall in the higher range of seriousness – lack of actual violence    
                               - drug and alcohol use – guarded prospects of rehabilitation. 
Legislation Cited:    Family Violence Protection Act 2008.  
Cases Cited:
Sentence:               Total effective sentence of 3 years and 6 months with a non-parole 
                                period of 2 years and 3 months.
---

APPEARANCES:
	Counsel	Solicitors	
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr C. Brydon	Office of Public Prosecutions	
			
For the Accused	Ms R. Cashmore	Dribbin & Brown	

HIS HONOUR:  
1	Bilal Sidani, you pleaded guilty to three charges, Charge 1 of persistent contravention of a family violence intervention order, Charge 2 of arson, Charge 3, extortion with threat to inflict injury.
2	Charge 1 was particularised by 19 separate occasions between 13 November and 7 December 2023, in which you contravened the order.
3	The circumstances of your offending are summarised in a prosecution document. I will outline the circumstances from it, effectively an agreed statement of facts.
4	Amanda Hurst, the victim of the persistent breach offending, had previously been in a relationship with you.  At the time of the offending you had together a two‑year-old child.
5	In 2022, Ms Hurst ended the relationship and on 13 November 2023 a full and final order for no contact order was made in the Magistrate's Court as a family violence intervention order.  An explanation of the contents of the order was given to you by Magistrate Burns at the Dandenong Magistrate's Court in accordance with the relevant section of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 s96(1).
6	A number of people apart from Ms Hurst and your child, were covered by the order as protected persons.  Ms Hurst’s other children from a previous relationship were also covered by the orders protection, which precluded attempts to locate Ms Hurst or the keeping of her under surveillance.
7	The instances outlined in the particulars to Charge 1 comprised iMessages, TikTok messages, sending your location, telephone contact, installing a tracker application on your mobile device to track Ms Hurst’s location and movements, requesting her location, Snapchat messages and calls, and the frequency and number of instances of just such conduct is enumerated in the prosecution opening at paragraph 22. Suffice to say it was between 
13 November 23 and 7 December 23 and comprised many instances and persistent breaches of the order.  These were evidenced upon an analysis of your phone, as located by the police.
8	On 5 December you sent an image to Ms Hurst from a deleted Snapchat account showing a house brick with a white piece of paper covered in black writing.  She recognised your handwriting.  You had previously shared your phone location with her through a Find My Friends application.
9	At 12.25 am she took a screenshot of your location.  The screenshot and call charge records confirmed that your phone was in the vicinity of a particular address at a relevant time.  That address was the address in which Mr Bourke and his partner, Ms Van Den Berg, were residing.  Neither of them knew you.  The house was Ms Van Den Berg's home where she resided with her parents, grandmother and brother.  
10	On 29 November 2023 Mr Bourke arrived at that address at about midday, parked his Ford Ute on the nature strip outside the house.  He stayed the night and at about 2.30 am he heard a noise outside and saw that his car was on fire.  The vehicle was written off.
11	At 2.15 am CCTV footage from a BP service station nearby depicts you dressed in dark pants, a grey hooded jumper, and face covering attending there in a Hyundai sedan registered to your mother, and paying cash for $10 worth of petrol and a jerry can.  This is the subject of Charge 2 of arson.
12	On a subsequent evening on 5 December, reflected by the Hurst screenshot as to your location and CCR data mentioned above, at about 2 am you threw a brick through the front window of the house belonging to Ms Van Den Berg.  Mr Bourke was again staying overnight.
13	When they arrived on the scene, police found a brick in the study area of the house.  A note was wrapped around it.  The note read in part:
Don't call the cops, I gave you enough time to come up with the 7K.  The car was a warning.  Because of your (y-o-u-r-e) fuck up your missus copped it.  We want the 7K by 4 pm this afternoon or your missus is going to be sad that she has to wheel you around in a wheelchair for the rest of your life.  7K or it's getting worse.
14	Neither Bourke nor Van Den Berg owed you money.  You were arrested on 
7 December 2023.  You were interviewed.  You denied knowing Bourke; that you did not know anything about a car being set on fire; you denied anything to do with both the arson and the throwing of the brick into the victim's home.  You provided the PIN to your phone.
15	On 8 December messages were located on your phone between you and 
co-accused Jeremy Caruana.  He was more recently located, arrested and summons was pending at the time of your plea.
16	These messages reveal that on 27 November 2023, Caruana requested you to 'to give Bourke a black eye in exchange for $500'.  Caruana sent you a screenshot of Bourke's vehicle registration, Van Den Berg's address, and times of gym attendance by Bourke.  You told Caruana that you would 'get him' (Bourke) in the morning.
17	Caruana replied 'get him good' and that the assault needed to 'send a message from the bikies' and if you did well, more jobs would come your way.
18	The next day, the 28th at 1 am, you sent Caruana a message saying you were 'getting it done', but that Bourke did not attend the gym, that you would borrow a car and go to his home that evening. 
19	At 10.55 am you messaged that you would go to Bourke's place that night and you asked whether you 'could firebomb the house'.  
20	At 9.39 pm you messaged Caruana and told him Bourke was not at the address.
21	On the next day, the 29th at 7.48 am, you sent Caruana a message telling him Bourke was again not at the gym.  You told him you would go to the address that night after attending a community corrections order appointment.
22	At 10.03 pm you sent Caruana a message telling him you had gone to the wrong address.
23	At 11.54 pm you messaged Caruana that you 'had wheels' and will pay him $500 to attend with you.
24	On 4 December at 12.14 pm you messaged Caruana to say there were no vehicles at the victim's address.  You confirmed you had burnt the Ford and that you were about 'to do the brick'.
25	At 1.31 am you told Caruana 'it's done'.  Caruana told you that he would relay this to a third person who it appears had requested the offending.  Caruana would say you had thrown a brick through the window and demanded 7K from Bourke before hitting him with a baseball bat and burning his Ute.
26	On 6 December Caruana advised you to get rid of the clothes you were wearing on the night you committed the offences.  These facts are the basis for Charge 3 of extortion with threat to inflict injury.
27	Mr Bourke provided a victim impact statement to the court.  He wrote that the emotional and psychological torment he has experienced has been unbearable.  The serenity of being home has been shattered.  He has experienced fear, hypervigilance, loss of sleep, palpitations, and trepidation in response to your criminality.  He has had to drastically change his life including uprooting himself to a new place.  He experiences headaches, stress, and a constant sense of unease and fatigue.  It has affected him physically with persistent muscle stomach aches and hyperventilation.  
28	Having to replace the car has impacted his financial situation.  The fire destroyed the car but also personal items and documents.  He has become increasingly withdrawn and isolated, vulnerable and mistrustful.  He avoids social gathering and leads the life of a loner, away from the community and support networks he engaged as integral in his life.
29	There are two distinct aspects to your offending.  Charge 1 concerns your conduct in relation to Ms Hurst and your persistent breach of a court order.  In relation to such breaches as exemplified in Charge 1, there are two important aspects:
30	(i), is your continued defiance of court orders which prohibited you from such behaviour.  You simply ignored the order on a continuous and contemptuous manner.  This requires deterrence and punishment.  Obedience to court orders is vital to the administration of justice.  Disobedience to such orders, particularly those which concern a domestic situation, concern the duty of the court to protect vulnerable members of the community.  The community abhors such conduct and is unwilling to tolerate it.  Such conduct undermines the foundation of personal relationships and the trust and respect on which society rests.  This kind of behaviour produces situations of real fear and anxiety.  In this case these incidents are fortunately not accompanied by violence of themselves but are apt to create fear and dread.  Your actions deserve punishment and must demonstrate retributive and enforcement punishment to those minded to ignore court orders.
31	I will come to considerations of your circumstances and background in a moment, but I note that in the context of this charge, Charge 1, you have a relevant criminal record of similar offending.  
32	In March 2020 you were convicted for three charges of persisting contravention of family violence orders.  You were placed on a CCO for 
18 months with 100 hours of community work.  
33	In July of 2020 you were dealt with for the contravention of that order but the CCO was confirmed.  You had breached the CCO by offences which included contravention of family violence final intervention orders, for which you were imprisoned for 19 days.  
34	In July 2021 you again breached the confirmed CCO with new contraventions of family violence orders.  The CCO was varied on that occasion.
35	In October 2021 you were ordered to obey the direction of disability staff and treating health professionals for persistent contravention of family violence orders.  The matter was adjourned to October 2022.
36	In January 2023, the July 21 varied CCO was cancelled and you were fined $1,000 for another contravention of the community corrections order.  On the same date you were convicted of contravention of family violence orders and sentenced to 55 days' imprisonment with 45 days declared as pre-sentence detention.
37	In September 2023 you were again convicted of persistent contravention of family violence orders, amongst other serious offences including using a carriage service to harass.  You were sentenced to 210 days' imprisonment with 169 days as pre-sentence detention and further convicted for contravention of a family violence intervention order.  This was adjourned to September 24 to facilitate your involvement in an accredited Men's Behaviour Change program and Anger Management.
38	This history is relevant, not because you are again to be punished for these offences, but because it informs the sentence as to specific deterrence and prospects of rehabilitation.  You have again committed offences in contravention of court orders in the sphere of family violence.  You have already experienced gaol as a result of such behaviour, but it has clearly not deterred you from ignoring court orders again.
39	Your prospects must be guarded as far as this aspect is concerned and specific deterrence remains very relevant in your case, as well as I have said general deterrence and punishment for some breaches, these offences are aggravated by the fact that you were in fact on a community corrections order at the time.
40	Persistent contravention carries a maximum of five years' imprisonment.
41	The prosecution and the defence, although accepting the inherently serious nature of the offending, agreed this offending does not fall in the higher range of seriousness for offences of this nature as it lacks actual violence.  It was accepted that on occasion Ms Hurst engaged in what was termed 'responsive' communications with you, which included images of the children to you.
42	The SIM tracking application, it was agreed, would require content and confirmation from Ms Hurst’s phone by way of a code sent to the application on her phone, which would have then required confirmation on her part.  The contact did not contain threats or insults.  Of course, the complainant cannot consent to a breach of the order, but the acquiescence of the recipient on occasions places a more accurate context upon this communication.
43	As noted by the prosecution, absent a victim impact statement from 
Ms Hurst it is my view nevertheless that the frequency and persistent nature were likely to cause some level of distress and anxious concern.  The order was in place for her protection and its contravention is a deliberate flouting and frustration of the order's intent.  The fact that you have been convicted and imprisoned or otherwise sentenced for this kind of offence before, demonstrates the need to deter you from such unlawful conduct by stern punishment.  Recidivism often leads to more serious and violent offending.
44	The two remaining charges represent a marked escalation from Charge 1, and for the matters contained in the prior criminal record, although similar in relation to general conduct.  The arson and extortion have clearly had a lasting impact on Mr Bourke, and I take his victim impact statement into account.  The offending shows a brazen disregard for private property and for safety of someone's home.  
45	The involvement with Caruana, in discussion you participated in the planning and you were intent and assiduously so in satisfying the wishes of Caruana and others in causing Mr Bourke to be dealt with violently. The combination of the arson and extortion were designed to create fear and make the threat real and palpable.  You appear to have been interested at the prospect of financial reward including future jobs from Mr Caruana.  It was put that these offences are at the lower end of a scale of seriousness by the defence, because it was easily detected, neither planned nor sophisticated.  
46	In my view, neither arson nor extortion is a sophisticated enterprise.  It was easily planned and executed, did not require extensive planning.  The danger and seriousness inherent in burning a motor vehicle in the way that it was done, are plain and consistent with punishment being required to denounce and deter such conduct.  
47	The extortion was delivered in no uncertain or vague terms, rather in stark and obvious language and not easy of detection had it not been performed in the way that it was by you.  Your role and active participation in the execution of the plan was essential.  Your voluntary taking up of this role and what you did shows that you are prepared to play the thug for reward, a thug for hire by other criminals.  You went about your thuggery for others without thought for the dangers inherent in what you were doing.  The community would properly look at the court for protection from you and such conduct.  Behaviour which causes fear and consternation.  I consider the gravity objectively serious.
48	The fact that the offending was motivated by financial benefit, in my view is as egregious as any personally motivated burning a vehicle.  Burning a vehicle is not in any sense a reckless undertaking to others and other property.  Fire started in this way is not contained by your will or wish but has a life of its own.  That the extortion is limited to one occasion is not an ameliorating factor, only a distinguishing factor.  A threat to inflict injury so as to cause someone to be pushed around in a wheelchair is a serious one.
49	I take your plea of guilty into account.
50	It was a plea entered early in relation to the process of bringing this matter before the court.  It has a utilitarian value in relation to having avoided further proceedings such as a trial and further evidence for victims.  It was accepted by the prosecution that you have shown some remorse expressed in terms of regret, but with little emphasis on empathy for the victims concerned.  I accept the plea is and of itself some evidence of remorse and your plea will reduce your sentence.
51	I take into account your background and circumstances.
52	You were born in May 1995 as you are 30 years of age, one of seven siblings.  In your first year of life you had admissions to various hospitals to treat various illnesses.  Age five you received a statement of intellectual disability from the Department of Health and Human Services.  At age seven you were diagnosed with ADHD and after this diagnosis received the Disability Support Pension.  At primary school you had an integration aide.  You attended a special school till Year 9 and TAFE for Years 10-12.  
53	After your parents divorced you were taken in by your grandmother, but all of your other siblings remained with your mother.  However, your grandmother died when you were 13 and after a while you went back to your mother and siblings.  As a teenager you worked at a supermarket before attending a mechanic's course at TAFE.  For a number of years you worked at a motor vehicle service centre.
54	In 2016 you worked with your father delivering bread.  The day after the birth of your oldest daughter, you were injured in a road accident.  You had various injuries to knees, back, feet and hands, necessitating wheelchair use and physiotherapy.  
55	Your seven-year-old daughter whom I have just mentioned, was born in 2017 from one relationship.  You commenced another in 2020 and you had another child, now aged four.  
56	Before incarceration you had been a carer for your mother who had some complex medical conditions including diabetes, chronic pain, and functional neurological disorder which require frequent acute hospital management.  Your incarceration will likely impact on her management and her care, although I was not told whether other family members can assist.
57	You started using illicit substances at a young age, being cannabis and MDMA occasionally.  You abused alcohol but you have been abstaining since in custody.  
58	A psychological report was tendered to the court.  It is an assessment by Carla Lechner dated April 2024 for purposes of these charges.  Ms Lechner notes that your prior criminal history:
…has arisen in the setting of psychological immaturity attendant to a mild intellectual disability, association with negative peers and drug and alcohol use.  [She writes that your behavioural and emotional dysregulation appears to be related to] a constant sense of overload and inability to cope.
59	You proffered to have been intoxicated during these offences and have no memory of them.  Ms Lechner is sceptical of this explanation, assigning your poor recollection, particularly of messages between you and co-accused, to an unwillingness to lag on anyone.
60	You admitted a financial motive for the offending, the subject of Charges 2 and 3.  You have demonstrated limited insight for your tendency to get into trouble and given this immaturity, you are vulnerable to the manipulation by others in order to feel accepted.  Unfortunately, these others were also drawing you into criminal activity.  Ms Lechner writes that you impress 'as quite simple' and currently medicated for depression.
61	You told her of a voluntary psychotic admission some nine years ago just before the car accident which caused the serious head injury in 2017.  However, apart from nightmares, symptoms of PTSD were difficult to discern beyond the grief of the loss of your grandmother.  You are described as cognitively, emotionally and socially immature in keeping with your intellectual disability.  You will often channel internal distress through anger and negative self-talk.  You have a very limited social network as a result.  
62	I have noted your psychometric testing reported on p4 of the report highlighting concrete rather than abstract thinking, with difficulty in interpreting the world around you beyond your own.  This is consistent with the nature of the offending here.  
63	You are likely to be psychologically distressed.  You said you had no recollection of the offending but accept responsibility for it.  Ms Lechner reported while in custody you profited from a Men's Behaviour Change group and your willingness to do the course again. In prison you have focused on some rehabilitation work.  You present with a mild intellectual disability and emotional and behavioural dysregulation. I noted the treatment considerations and recommendation of Ms Lechner at p5 of her report.  
Ms Lechner opines that your mental health is likely to decline in custodial setting, especially as you appear to lack robust skills to cope in such an environment, leading to a deepening of your depressed mood.  I take the contents of this report into account.
64	I take into account your prior criminal history you admitted.  It commences in 2020 with the imposition of an 18-month community corrections order for assault with a weapon, criminal damage, persistent contravention of family violence intervention order, amongst other similar offences.  I have recited the following history.
65	Leading up to the cancellation of another order in January 2023, only to reoffend again by persistent contravention of an intervention order, threat offences including threat to kill and threat to inflict serious injury, and using a carriage to harass, for which you received 210 days' imprisonment.  This is a poor record of repeating offending, a seeming inability to abide by court orders and a failure to adequately be deterred, rather engaging in an escalation of conduct culminating in these offences.
66	This record, in my view, calls into prominence specific deterrence.  Just as your mental state calls for some modest moderation in your sentence, its significance also makes community protection a relevant consideration.  The priors led to an assessment of your prospects of rehabilitation as being guarded but not poor.  I take this into account.
67	Certificates of completion were sighted by the court.  You completed courses for alcohol, the impact of its abuse, First Aid certificate, hospitality skills, workplace health and safety, and equipment testing are some positive indications of your time in reclusion.  I take these efforts into account.
68	I also take into account references from the Australian Community Support Organisation and Forensicare worker, Mr Papadopoulos, who writes of your participation in the ReStart program, one which helps participants to establish supportive links in the community while on remand.  Once released, the program will assist you hopefully for some three months with assertive outreach and support.
69	I take into account the letter from Dr Rafique in relation to your mother's health conditions and requirements for care and frequent medical oversight to deal with complex medication and conditions which impact her quality of life and everyday function, which in the past you were involved in.  I take into account that your imprisonment will impact upon her, as well as deprive you of the liberty with which to provide care for her.  
70	I also take into account the two Assay results from urine samples in December and November 24, all showing negative results for a range of drugs.  
71	I take into account that you have some supportive family upon your release, together with some parental support.
72	I note that arson comes with a 10-year maximum sentence, that extortion with threat to inflict injury carries a 15-year maximum.  The legislators by these have indicated the seriousness with which the community regards such criminality. These are guideposts of which I take into account.
73	Arson falls under the Serious Offender Statutory Scheme.  In sentencing you under the relevant part of the Act, part 2A, I must regard protection of the community as a principal sentencing purpose.  To achieve this purpose the court may sentence to a longer term than one appropriate to the gravity of the offending.  I do not intend or propose to do so and note such a disproportionate sentence was not sought by the prosecution.
74	This purpose does not mean that other sentencing purposes and principles have been excluded; rather, to ensure that an assessment of the risk posed is undertaken.  I have in my description sought to evaluate the risk as properly addressed by a sentence which is proportionate.
75	The second effect of the Scheme is that the term imposed must be served cumulatively upon any uncompleted sentence. This prima facie rule can be altered by a direction of the court in imposing concurrency for good reason.  In my view, given that the arson and the extortion offences are clearly connected, there should be some concurrency to reflect this course of offending but have addressed the separate and discrete nature of the offences with a reasonable measure of cumulation.
76	The arson here was used to reinforce the nature of the threat and this lends each offence its gravity as a standover tactic, designed to instil genuine fear and compliance. I have reviewed the cases cited by the defence as comparable cases, have read them, and been assisted by the court's approach to sentencing in each of them.
77	On the persistent contravention of a family violence protection order, you are convicted and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment.
78	On the arson you are convicted and sentenced to one year and eight months' imprisonment.
79	On the extortion and threat to inflict injury, you are convicted and sentenced to two years' imprisonment.
80	I order six months of Charge 1, 12 months of Charge 2 be cumulative on Charge 3, making a total effective sentence of three and a half years with a non-parole period of two years and three months.
81	I declare that you have served 543 days by way of pre-sentence detention and I will note that number in the records of the court.
82	But for your plea, I would have sentenced you to four years and three months with a non-parole period of three years.
83	I understand there is a disposal order in this case and I will make it available.
‑ ‑ ‑