IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA
AT Melbourne
CRIMINAL DIVISION	Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication	
Case No. CR-21-00719
Indictment No. L12112764.1

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS		
		
v		
		
DIMITRI EVANGELOU

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE TRAPNELL 	
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne	
DATE OF HEARING:	25 August 2021, 11 November 2021	
DATE OF SENTENCE:	1 December 2021	
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Evangelou	
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VCC 1934		

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:		Criminal Law
Catchwords: 	Sentence – Causing serious injury recklessly – Serious example of offence – Victim unknown to the offender – Unprovoked stabbing attack – No criminal history – Early plea of guilty – Offender has no memory of the offending conduct – Young first offender – Unexplained nature of offending – Verdins principle 5 engaged – Family support – Reasonable prospects of rehabilitation – Suitable for YJC
Legislation Cited:	Sentencing Act 1991 
Cases Cited:	DPP v McKay [2018] VSCA 292 – Ashdown v The Queen (2011) 37 VR 341 – Ejupi v The Queen [2014] VSCA 2 – R v Mills [1998] 4 VR 235 – Azzopardi v The Queen (2011) 35 VR 43 – R v Kilic (2016) 259 CLR 256 – DPP v Dalgliesh (a Pseudonym) (2017) 262 CLR 428 – DPP v Zhuang (2015) 250 A Crim R 282
Sentence:	Three years’ detention in Youth Justice Centre

---

APPEARANCES:
	Counsel	Solicitors	
For the DPP	Mr A Sprague
24 August 2021
11 November 2021

Ms A Paterson
1 December 2021	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions	
			
For the Accused	Ms J Willard
	Papa Hughes Lawyers	
HIS HONOUR:

1	Dimitri Evangelou, you have pleaded guilty to an indictment containing one charge of causing serious injury recklessly. The maximum penalty for this offence is 15 years’ imprisonment.
The Facts
2	The prosecution filed an amended summary of prosecution opening upon plea dated 10 November 2021, which your counsel agreed I can treat as a statement of agreed facts for the purposes of sentencing you.
3	At the time of committing this offence you were aged 18 years and you lived in Gowanbrae. You are presently 19 years old.
4	The victim in this matter, Zoe Tsitonakis, was 21 years old at the time of the offending. You and the victim were not previously known to each other.
5	At 10:15 am on 3 September 2020, Ms Tsitonakis was walking along Gowanbrae Drive towards her home after having had coffee with her father and his friend at a nearby café. She was walking along the footpath at the Gowanbrae community centre carpark when she observed you walking towards her. Owing to the narrowness of the path, Ms Tsitonakis walked directly past you and made eye contact with you. 
6	Ms Tsitonakis continued to walk in a southerly direction towards a nearby playground. You then walked down a winding path, which led to Primula Boulevard. Shortly afterwards, you changed your direction and ran south along Vanderloo Crescent. You entered the community centre carpark and by 10:19 am you were walking through the playground. 
7	Ms Tsitonakis saw you again when you were approximately 20 metres away to her right. She observed you were looking straight at her. She continued to walk along the winding path. At some stage, you ran over the grass area and positioned yourself ahead of her. 
8	At 10:21 am, Ms Tsitonakis walked around a bend in the path, which was surrounded by thick shrubbery. At the time, she had headphones in her ears. She then suddenly saw you popping into her peripheral vision from behind in an aggressive type of motion. You grabbed her but did not have a tight hold of her. As she backed up towards one of the trees, you were taking hold of her when she felt something sharp in her back. 
9	You started stabbing Ms Tsitonakis with a foldable knife. You stabbed her three times in the back which caused three stab wounds. During the course of the struggle, you struck Ms Tsitonakis’s left ring finger, which resulted in a penetrating injury through the distal phalanx.
10	Ms Tsitonakis fell to the ground and, when she realised she had been stabbed, she started to scream. You ran away in the direction of the playground. 
11	Upon hearing Ms Tsitonakis’s scream, several bystanders came to her aid and called 000. Police and ambulance officers attended the scene. She was conveyed to the Royal Melbourne Hospital for treatment of her injuries. 
12	During a procedure under general anaesthetic, Ms Tsitonakis’s back injuries were cleaned, debrided and sutured. Under another general anaesthetic, her finger was surgically repaired and a Kirschner wire was inserted to align the fragments of bone at the tip of her finger. Ms Tsitonakis was discharged later in the day, with ongoing treatment to continue with a splint, sling, antibiotics, pain relief and a follow-up appointment in a hand clinic.
13	Ms Tsitonakis’s medical records from the Royal Melbourne Hospital were subsequently examined by Dr Angela Sungaila from the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, who prepared a report dated 14 September 2021. Dr Sungaila observed the sharp force injuries to Ms Tsitonakis’s back did not involve deeper structures. With regards to the position where the back injuries occurred, Dr Sungaila opined there was a potential for lung, abdomen and kidney injury. Fortunately, no such injuries eventuated. In relation to the penetrating injury to Ms Tsitonakis’s finger, Dr Sungaila observed the injury involved the nail bed and a partial amputation. 
14	Ms Tsitonakis had follow-up hand clinic consultations on 10 and 24 September 2020. She reported the tip of her finger was sensitive. The Kirschner wire was removed on 1 October 2020. At that time the finger injury was healing satisfactorily. However, Ms Tsitonakis continued to require the use of a splint and movement returned slowly to her finger.
15	Dr Sungaila observed the tip of a finger is crucial for normal touch sensation. A partial amputation of the tip of the finger is an injury which would have transacted small nerves supplying sensation to the tip of Ms Tsitonakis’s finger. Dr Sungaila opined the risk of infection was present owing to contamination at the time of the original penetrating injury.
16	Dr Sungaila further opined:
Overall, [the victim’s] injuries were not life threatening however the combination of risk for internal structure injury and a significant injury to her hand can be considered substantial. It is probable that her injuries, other than scarring, will heal completely however [this] may take weeks to months even in the absence of complicating infection.
17	By your plea you admit causing serious injury recklessly to Ms Tsitonakis. The prosecution puts the case against you on the basis the serious injury comprises:
a.	Finger: There was a substantial injury to Ms Tsitonakis’s finger involving partial amputation. The injury to her finger involved loss of sensation, and this was protracted. This is documented by Dr Sungaila as lasting from 4 September 2020 to at least 24 September 2020. 
Dr Sungaila opines the finger injury was ‘medically significant due to a) the critical importance of a fingertip in humans, b) the need for specialist surgical repair, c) the risk of complications with surgical repair and d) a greater risk of dysfunction without surgical repair.’ Moreover, in her victim impact statement, Ms Tsitonakis says the nail now grows differently and, as of 9 April 2021, her finger remained ‘numb’.
b.	Back: There was substantial injury to Ms Tsitonakis’s back. Dr Sungaila states the back injuries risked injury to internal structures. Additionally, the victim impact statement says the injuries caused Ms Tsitonakis severe pain and discomfort for weeks. 
c.	Harm to mental health: Ms Tsitonakis’s victim impact statement demonstrates she suffered substantial and protracted harm to her mental health. She had post traumatic stress disorder-like symptoms which made her unable to walk on her own for a month after the incident. She suffered nightmares and moments of panic in public settings. She also refers to additional impacts on her emotional state and mood.
Police Investigation
18	Police seized a mobile phone at the scene. The phone was registered to your mother. Subsequent fingerprint analysis located your left thumb print on the phone. 
19	At 11:44 am on the day of the attack on Ms Tsitonakis, you attended the Airport West shopping centre and noticed you had lost your mobile telephone. Your mother approached two police officers who were performing patrol duties at the shopping centre to report you had lost the phone.
20	At 11:54 am, Leading Senior Constable Patrick McCorry called your mobile phone number in an attempt to locate the phone on your behalf. Whilst the crime scene at Primula Boulevard was being processed, your phone was repeatedly ringing and receiving text messages from the concierge service at the shopping centre.
21	CCTV footage from the shopping centre shows you leaving in a vehicle with your mother at 12:12 pm. 
Arrest and Interview
22	As a result of police investigations, you were arrested at 6:30 pm that day outside your home and conveyed to the Fawkner police station.
23	A recorded interview commenced at 7:38 pm, during which you made the following admissions:
•	You attended the Airport West shopping centre with your mother between 9:30 am and 10:00 am and went to Centrelink.
•	You then went to Woolworths to assist your mother with grocery shopping and returned home shortly thereafter.
•	Upon returning home, you played the piano for about 30 minutes and also played video games. 
•	At some time between 10:30 am and 11:00 am, you realised your mobile phone was missing. 
•	You drove back with your mother to the Airport West shopping centre to look for your phone. After being unable to locate the phone, you returned home.
•	You provided the number and PIN of the phone to police. 
24	The interview was suspended at 10:20 pm to allow a search warrant to be executed at your home. During the search, police located and seized a foldable knife taped to the slats underneath the bed in your bedroom. Police also located and seized items of your clothing, including a t-shirt, which appeared to have a blood stain on the bottom left corner. In your bathroom, police observed a tap with an apparent blood stain on the handle. 
25	At 11:21 pm, the interview recommenced. You described and drew a sketch of your house and identified the location of your bedroom.
26	After the interview recommenced, you made the following statements:
•	You denied having been in possession of any weapons in the house.
•	When you were shown a photograph of the foldable knife that was taped to the slats under your bed, you said, ‘That’s my pocket knife’. You said you bought it some time that year. You claimed you could not recall putting the knife underneath your bed. 
•	You identified the various items of clothing seized from your bedroom. 
•	You denied being near the Gowanbrae community centre around the time of the offending.
•	When shown a still photograph taken from CCTV footage depicting you running along Vanderloo Crescent before the offending,  you said you were not the man depicted in the CCTV footage. 
•	You denied being involved in stabbing the victim.  
27	The interview concluded at 2:16 pm on 4 September 2020. You were then charged and remanded into custody. You have remained in custody since your arrest on 3 September 2020.
Victim Impact
28	A victim impact statement from Ms Tsitonakis was tendered and read aloud in Court by the prosecutor at the plea hearing. 
29	In it, Ms Tsitonakis describes PTSD-like symptoms resulting from your offending conduct. She could not walk anywhere on her own or have anyone behind her. She suffered from nightmares following the incident and had several moments of panic when in public settings. She is emotionally better now. However, your offending has caused fear in her she never used to have and she is now extremely cautious. 
30	Ms Tsitonakis suffered a broken bone in her finger from the knife and three stab wounds to her back. These injuries caused her severe pain and discomfort for weeks after. She underwent hand surgery, then had her finger in a cast for a month. She had bandages on the stab wounds to her back. She could not do things she would usually do. She lost her fingernail completely which now grows differently. Her finger remains almost completely numb. 
31	Your offending conduct greatly impacted Ms Tsitonakis’s social wellbeing. She struggled to be around people but also could not be left alone. She had to discontinue study units she was undertaking for a university degree. Although your offending conduct greatly affected Ms Tsitonakis and those around her, she does not feel hopeless about her future because of the support she has received from family and friends.
32	It is clear your offending has had a serious adverse impact on Ms Tsitonakis’s physical, mental and emotional wellbeing. Clearly, this was a very traumatic experience for her. On behalf of the Victorian community, I denounce your attack on Ms Tsitonakis, and I will take the impact of your offending conduct on her into consideration in sentencing you for this crime.
Offence Seriousness 
33	Causing seriously injury recklessly is a serious criminal offence carrying a maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment. 
34	In my opinion, objectively, this is a serious example of the offence. You violently attacked a lone defenceless woman with a knife, who was unknown to you and who did nothing to provoke you, in a public place in broad daylight for no apparent reason. Your conduct is bizarre, and you appear to have absolutely no memory of the attack or the events leading up to it or its immediate aftermath. Apparently, you have no recollection of being arrested and interviewed by police. This is a very concerning aspect of your offending conduct.
35	Recklessly causing serious injury using a knife is an inherently grave offence. As Maxwell P observed in Ashdown v The Queen: ‘Ordinarily … the use of a weapon will mean that the offence is more serious, since it heightens both the probability of serious injury and the degree of seriousness of the probable injury.’ 
36	The fact the weapon used was a knife further increases the relative seriousness. In Ejupi v The Queen, the Victorian Court of Appeal said:
This Court has often remarked on the dangerousness of knives, given the obvious risk in their use of damage to a victim’s internal organs and blood supply and thus to life. Those who would venture forth with a knife anticipating its use to inflict injury, and those who would use knives foreseeably to inflict serious injury, need to be deterred from so doing.
37	It is indeed fortunate the injuries suffered by Ms Tsitonakis were not more serious, particularly given the nature of your stabbing attack to her back and the vulnerability of her underlying internal organs.
38	Your counsel acknowledged the objective gravity of your offending conduct is ‘serious’. I accept the attack was of short duration, you wore no disguise and there was no significant planning involved in the crime, although you did equip yourself with a knife prior to leaving your home. As your counsel correctly observed, this was a motiveless and bizarre crime. It is very concerning you did not know the victim and had apparently never seen her before the attack.
39	Despite you being a young first offender, overall, I consider your moral culpability is high. General deterrence, denunciation and just punishment are important sentencing considerations in this case, sensibly moderated by reason of your status as a young first offender.
Personal Circumstances
40	You gave a personal history to Mr Warren Simmons, a consultant psychologist engaged by your legal representatives, who interviewed you on 20 August 2021 via videoconference from Ravenhall Correctional Centre. 
41	You are now aged 19 and at the time of offending you were 18 years old. You were born in Melbourne and raised in Tullamarine.
42	Your mother, with whom you were living at the time of the offending, is aged 58 and works as a dental nurse. You have an older sister, aged 21, who is a psychology student and works at Melbourne airport. She lives with your mother. Your mother and sister are very supportive of you and they are very concerned for your wellbeing.
43	You told Mr Simmons your father is between 10 to 15 years younger than your mother and your parents separated when you were quite young. Your mother has had a few subsequent relationships. Your father is in a relationship with a woman named Taylor, and you have a half-sister aged about 11.
44	You told Mr Simmons you had a ‘normal’ childhood. You always had food and clothing and there was money for you to attend school excursions and undertake other activities. You said you did not do a great deal as a family. Your mother was frequently working. You told Mr Simmons you and your sister were left together unsupervised a great deal. You started playing basketball at the age of 11 which you did for about five years and you spent some time with friends. You found it difficult to articulate what you would do with friends. 
45	Your maternal extended family reside in Adelaide and you travelled there for Christmas and Easter. You recall some contact with your father’s extended family. You saw your paternal grandfather, uncle and cousins every couple of months but have not seen them for several years. You did not see your father’s family frequently. Contact with your father’s family only occurred when either your mother or your sister wanted to see them and would invite them over. 
46	Growing up, you were close to your mother and you told Mr Simmons your mother was ‘nice’. You said your mother set rules and was sometimes strict, although this was not frequent. You were sent to your father’s house when you misbehaved. Your mother said your father believed in ‘tough love’. You had fortnightly contact with your father. Your mother said, when you visited your father, he would often leave you at home on your own and go out with his partner and your half-sister. At about the age of 14, you called your mother and told her you had been left at home and were afraid. Your mother collected you and you have had no contact with your father since this incident. 
47	You said you had anger issues as a child. You told Dr Meredith Gray, a consultant psychiatrist who assessed you on 27 and 29 September 2021, you were an ‘angry and violent’ child who was also ‘quiet and shy’. You demonstrated significant behavioural problems throughout childhood which included destruction of property. You told Dr Gray you have at times been physically aggressive with your mother and sister during arguments. You also reported being targeted at school and responding violently, including physical retaliation to verbal taunts. As an example, you told Dr Gray that you once became so angry with a cat that had annoyed you that you chased it around and tried to kill it with an axe. 
48	You described a close relationship with your sister Natasha. You said you lived with her all your life. There was ‘nothing terrible’ growing up. You said although your sister described your father as abusive, you do not remember this. 
49	You attended Gladstone Park Primary School to Year 6 and Gladstone Park Secondary College to Year 10. You did not do well academically and struggled with schoolwork. You told Mr Simmons the difficulties occurred across all subject areas, but you are literate. You said you were a slow learner and used to copy other students’ work. You denied to Mr Simmons having any problems with teachers or peers. However, you told Dr Gray you got into fights regularly at school and this was attributed to your experience of being bullied. You said you were never the smartest kid in school and people would pick on you because of that. You told Dr Gray of an incident where you were unable to answer a question in class and a kid called you a ‘dumbass’. You said you waited around after class and hit him around a bit and then locked him in a toilet cubicle for a few hours. 
50	You failed Year 10 and then attended Kangan TAFE in Broadmeadows. You undertook general studies as you were uncertain what future career you wished to pursue. You completed Year 11 VCAL in 2019.
51	You then spent 12 months with your mother visiting family in Cyprus. On returning to Australia, you obtained employment in a printing factory where you remained for six months until you lost your job because of the COVID-19 restrictions. You remained unemployed until you commenced working part-time in a pizza shop for several months until your arrest in September 2020. You also worked part-time in the kitchen at a local KFC for two years.
52	You told Mr Simmons you commenced a relationship when you were 16 with a woman named ‘Hayley’, whom you met at school and who was your age. You liked her personality, and she was a ‘good person’. Your relationship lasted about seven months. You described this as a generally positive relationship. You ended the relationship because Hayley wanted to start a family. 
53	You denied ever being a victim of sexual assault or other abuse. 
54	You told Mr Simmons you would consume alcohol once every few months. You would drink with friends until you were intoxicated. You said you have been drinking since the age of 17 (you told Dr Gray 14) and would consume up to nine glasses of spirits. You told Mr Simmons and Dr Gray you have never use illicit drugs or misused prescribed medication. You denied any alcohol or illicit drug use in the weeks preceding or on the day of the offending.
55	Upon being remanded in custody at the Melbourne Assessment Prison (‘MAP’), you were placed in quarantine for 14 days under COVID-19 procedures. You were then transferred to the Acute Mental Health Unit for 13 days because you were hearing voices. Since then you have been in protection at the MAP Deakin A protection unit, the Metropolitan Remand Centre and protection units at Marngoneet (Karreenga) and finally, Ravenhall Correctional Centres, where you have been for the past 11 months. Your confinement in protection units is because of your young age and vulnerability. Your behaviour in the prison system has been ‘acceptable’ and you are described as being ‘generally quiet’ and keeping to yourself.
56	You spent a lot of your time in your cell at MAP, but this improved at Karreenga and Ravenhall. You have had some work as a billet and in the industries unit but have not worked since you moved to Ravenhall because of COVID-19 lockdowns. You attend the prison gymnasium when you can. 
57	Whilst on remand you have applied for a number of courses including first aid, traffic management and a forklift licence course. However, as a result of the COVID-19 restrictions these courses have been unavailable to you. For the same reason you have been unable to access any rehabilitative programs to date whilst on remand.
58	You have had only one contact visit with your mother and sister; however, you speak to them daily on the telephone and recently you engaged in a video link with them.
59	So far as your future is concerned, you told Dr Gray you intend to return to live with your mother and sister upon your release from custody. You hope to obtain work in hospitality while you train to become a truck driver.
60	Under the Level of Service Risk/Need/Responsivity risk assessment tool administered by the correctional services officer, who prepared the Extended Pre-sentence Assessment – Outcome Report dated 30 October 2021, you were assessed as being a medium risk of general reoffending. Dr Gray conducted a violence risk assessment of you using the HCR-20 V3 and assessed your risk of violent reoffending as being moderate. Accordingly, I need to give some weight to specific deterrence and protection of the community in sentencing you for the present offence.
Mental Health
61	The unexplained and bizarre nature of your offending behaviour necessarily raises the question of the extent to which your mental health contributed to you committing this serious offence, when you have no history of serious violence.
62	You maintain you have no memory of the stabbing incident or the events leading up to it. Dr Gray advises: 
Mr Evangelou reported he could not recall any of his movements on the morning of 3 September 2020 and was vague when prompted with the contents of the brief or specifics relating to his movements that day, answering “yeah I guess so, I don’t really know”.
63	You told Mr Simmons you have problems with your memory and concentration, admitting they have been a long-term issue for you. You disclosed problems with poor energy and motivation. You are currently not enjoying the activities of daily life and you have decreased libido.
64	Your mother reports you have always had difficulty expressing your emotions and you never spoke about your feelings. You were slower at school and failed Year 10. 
65	Your mother revealed your behaviour deteriorated in the 12 months prior to the offending. You were withdrawn and spending a great deal of time in your bedroom watching Netflix. This included you taking your meals in your bedroom. You were withdrawing from social activities, as well as family and friends. You lost a considerable amount of weight over this time. Since being in custody you have regained weight and you now weigh a healthy 75 kgs.
66	You also engaged in some bizarre behaviour, like building a fort of cushions in your bedroom in the manner of young children. When your mother asked you about this, you offered no explanation and dismantled it.
67	You revealed to your family you were thinking of harming yourself. This caused your sister to seek assistance from the National Youth Mental Health Foundation program ‘headspace’. Your mother is of the view your mental health needs have not been adequately addressed to date and she feels you require intensive psychiatric and psychological therapy.
68	When you were remanded in custody for this offence, MAP staff expressed concern regarding your mental health, and you spent 13 days in the Acute Assessment Unit. Upon admission into prison, you were experiencing auditory hallucinations. You reported hearing whispers every day and you were not sure if they were your own thoughts or others’ voices. You reported being able to push the voices aside and not listen to them. You reported the voices started six months before going into custody and they were more prominent if you were angry or stressed. However, you denied this history when you were seen by Dr Gray.
69	Whilst you were not overtly psychotic, there were concerns you might be in the early stages of a psychotic illness. However, no formal diagnosis was made at the time of your discharge from the unit, despite ongoing concerns.
70	Mr Simmons believes your presentation, together with your history, suggest you are in the early stages of an incipient psychotic illness with symptoms that may be evident at times and then recede. On other occasions, they are not so pressing, and an affected individual is not able to keep control of their thoughts, so they do not feel the need to disclose it to others. It is not until the psychotic illness becomes more fully developed sufferers find they cannot but otherwise discuss the psychotic phenomena. Mr Simmons opined: ‘It is quite possible that Mr Evangelou is in the early stages of a psychotic illness as he is in the age group when such illnesses start to develop.’ Mr Simmons believes your ability to connect with your emotions and feelings is potentially blunted by the psychotic process.
71	He also opined the possibility of a major depressive disorder with psychotic features is also raised in your case. Whilst you are in custody you are medicated on the antidepressant Escitalopram 20 mg. When seen by Dr Gray you denied any difficulties with sleep or appetite. In custody you see a mental health nurse approximately weekly, but you have no consistent case manager or psychologist. 
72	During the initial plea hearing, your counsel fairly submitted:
Whilst it appears that Mr Evangelou’s mental health issues may well have played a role in the offending, it will not be submitted that there is a causal connection between the offending and his potential psychotic illness. Not enough is known about his possible condition at this stage. Accordingly, no reliance is placed on limbs 1-4 of Verdins.
73	You counsel did submit your major depressive disorder with psychotic features ‘enlivens Verdins limbs 5 and 6’ in that it is likely the burden of custody will weigh more heavily on you by virtue of your ‘mental health issues’ than a prisoner of normal mental health. She also submitted there is a risk of further deterioration in your mental health whilst you remain in custody. However, the prosecution initially submitted the psychological material was insufficient to engage any Verdins principles.
74	Mr Simmons considered ‘a full psychiatric evaluation’ would allow a full consideration of all factors contributing to your presentation. Accordingly, I ordered the preparation of a pre-sentence psychiatric report from Forensicare under s 8A of the Sentencing Act 1991.
75	Since the initial plea hearing, I have received a report from Dr Meredith Gray, a consultant psychiatrist with the Community Forensic Mental Health Service of Forensicare, dated 18 October 2021.
76	You denied to Dr Gray ‘any recollection of persecutory or paranoid experiences’ on the day you stabbed Ms Tsitonakis or in the days prior to that day ‘that might have provided context to [your] actions’. Referencing the summary of agreed facts, Dr Gray observed:
There is no reference to Mr Evangelou saying anything to the victim before, during or after the attack that would provide insight into his motivation or mental state at the time.
77	When asked by Dr Gray for your explanation for the attack and your lack of memory you said:
I’ve had a lot of time to think about it but I just can’t explain it. It is so not me, my family in Cyprus and Australia don’t believe it is possible I could have done this. 
78	Dr Gray conducted a violence risk assessment of you using the HCR-20 V3 assessment tool. She concluded:
His overall risk of serious violence would be rated moderate, however the complete lack of information about precipitating factors to his most serious act of violence, against a young woman not known to him, with no known antecedent, makes it very difficult to consider how to mitigate against future violence and it is my opinion that high case prioritization is warranted.
Mr Evangelou’s description of previous violence appears to suggest emotional dysregulation, anger, fear and retribution for episodes of humiliation as drivers. While there is no context for the current offences, it is feasible that the most pertinent, known and modifiable scenario that may increase risk of violence is a deterioration in mental state and increased paranoia. Those factors that may contribute to a deteriorating mental state, such as social isolation and unemployment, should also be considered and addressed.
79	Later Dr Gray opined:
Given his description of previous violence in response to a belief someone was following him, and later carrying a knife due to these concerns, maintaining mental health stability is paramount in managing violence risk even if it is not clear whether it links to his more recent violence.
80	While Dr Gray postulated the possibility of you suffering from an undiagnosed head injury or autistic spectrum disorder, no conclusion could be drawn without further assessment by a neuropsychologist. Dr Gray also raised the possibility of ‘an emerging psychotic disorder over the 12 months prior to remand, but concluded, ‘However, there is no indication  … of psychosis’.   
81	Dr Gray concluded:
On balance, there is a strong suggestion of Brief Limited Intermittent Psychotic Symptoms (BLIPS), as seen in those people at ultra high risk (UHR) for psychosis, both prior to remand and during his time in custody. Major depressive disorder with psychotic features is a differential diagnosis, however he was not found to be depressed until at least 3 months after remand and in the context of situational stressors. 

At the time of this assessment for court, Mr Evangelou did not appear to be psychotic or severely depressed, with longitudinal emotional dysregulation and anxiety related to incarceration and court primarily evident. While there is a need for longitudinal assessment and treatment, it was not my impression he is acutely unwell.
I have no clear explanation relating to symptoms of mental illness at the time of offending that would explain Mr Evangelou’s actions, although I note the possibility that he was experiencing some symptoms of psychosis, particularly paranoia, that may have contributed to impaired judgment. His young age and history of complex trauma may make incarceration more burdensome on Mr Evangelou than another person and the health resources for young people at ultra high risk of psychosis in custody are limited when compared to community based services.
82	At two points in her report Dr Gray referred to the desirability of you undergoing a neuropsychological assessment. The community corrections officer who prepared an Extended Pre-sentence Assessment - Outcome Report dated 30 October 2021 at my request also flagged the need for a neuropsychological assessment in your case. Apparently, you have been assessed by a neuropsychologist at your legal representative’s request, however, it was not relied upon at your plea hearing, and I have no idea of its contents.
83	Despite the prosecutor’s concession some moderation of general deterrence is appropriate here, considering all the material before me I am not satisfied Verdins principles 1 to 4 are engaged in your case. Your counsel ultimately seemed to accept this was the case and mainly relied on Verdins principles 5 and 6.
84	However, in my opinion there is insufficient evidence in this case to satisfy me there is a serious risk of imprisonment, or detention in a youth justice centre (YJC), having a significant adverse effect on your mental health, so as to engage Verdins principle 6. Nonetheless, in light of your experience of custody so far, I am satisfied Verdins principle 5 is engaged to some extent in your case. Although, to the extent your anxiety and depression is reactive to your current situation, it is to be expected this will improve once you have been sentenced.
Mitigating Circumstances
85	This matter resolved at the third committal mention on 12 February 2021 following plea negotiations. The prosecution accepts you pleaded guilty at the earliest forensically reasonable opportunity. I accept your plea has significant utilitarian benefit, particularly in the COVID-19 environment, and has saved the victim the trauma of giving evidence in court. 
86	Your plea also indicates an acceptance by you of responsibility for your offending conduct and a willingness to facilitate the course of justice.
87	However, on the material before me, there is insufficient evidence to make a finding in your favour you demonstrate true contrition and remorse for your offending conduct, beyond what is evident from the plea itself.
88	You have no prior convictions or findings of guilt and no subsequent convictions or outstanding charges. I have had regard to the character reference provided by your mother and sister. I accept you are a person of otherwise prior good character and you are generally not of a violent disposition. I accept your offending conduct on this occasion was an unexplained aberration of otherwise good character.
89	You are a youthful first-time offender who has the strong support of your mother and sister, which augers well for your future prospects of rehabilitation. However, as the prosecutor correctly observed, ‘the absence of any explanation for the offending or identification of underlying contributing factors is of concern in assessing the risk of reoffending and therefore [your] future prospects’ for rehabilitation. Nonetheless, on balance, I assess your prospects for rehabilitation as being reasonable.
90	As I earlier observed, you were 18 at the time of committing this offence and you are now aged 19. Accordingly, the principles relating to sentencing young first offenders set out in R v Mills and Azzopardi v The Queen apply in your case. I must give primacy to your rehabilitation over general deterrence. Accepting your potential to be redeemed and rehabilitated, in the long run, individualised treatment focussing on your rehabilitation will best serve your interests and the interests of the community.
91	I accept you will experience a greater level of custodial hardship as a result of COVID-19 restrictions. COVID-19 is relevant to sentence because:
(a) 	An offender is a higher risk of contracting COVID–19 if they are incarcerated (presuming an outbreak in custody).
(b)	The inherent utilitarian value of a guilty plea is greater during the pandemic.
(c)	The pandemic is causing additional stress and concern for those incarcerated and their families, as it is for every member of the community.
(d)	The pandemic can impact on visits, work and educational opportunities depending on the number of cases of COVID-19 in the community at any given time.
92	While I accept you have found the 454 days you have spent on remand very isolating and difficult, there is no evidence before me to indicate you will suffer any particular additional custodial hardship over and above that of the average prisoner as a result of COVID–19. 
Application of Sentencing Principles
93	I have considered current sentencing practice for the offence before me as informed by the decisions of the High Court of Australia in R v Kilic and DPP (Vic) v Dalgliesh (a Pseudonym) and the Victorian Court of Appeal decision in DPP v Zhuang. I have also had regard to the table of ‘comparable cases’ provided by the prosecution.
94	While current sentencing practice is relevant to the sentences I impose on you, it is only one of a number of sentencing considerations I must take into account in imposing just sentences in your case.
95	Moreover, it is always difficult to gauge more than a general yardstick from so-called ‘comparable cases’, given the wide range of offending conduct that can constitute the offence before me and the myriad of personal circumstances pertaining to individual offenders. Nonetheless, to the extent I have been able to gain any assistance from these cases, I have sought to do so in your case.
96	I have full discretionary power in sentencing you. This is not an offence which is subject to standard sentencing, mandatory or presumptive sentencing, or minimum terms of imprisonment or non-parole periods.
97	The basic purposes for which a court may impose a sentence are just punishment, deterrence, both specific and general, rehabilitation, denunciation and protection of the community. In sentencing you, I must have regard to a range of factors, such as the seriousness of the offence, your culpability for it, the impact on the victim and your personal circumstances.
98	I am required to balance the interests of the community in denouncing criminal conduct with the interests of the community in seeking to ensure, so far as is possible, you are rehabilitated and reintegrated into society.
99	General deterrence, denunciation and just punishment are important sentencing considerations in this case, subject to sensible moderation on account of your young age.
100	Since you have no memory of committing the present offence, you are unable to provide any insight into your actions. You have also been assessed as a moderate risk of violent reoffending and a medium risk or general reoffending. Accordingly, I must give some weight to specific deterrence and protection of the community in sentencing you.
101	For the reasons previously stated, I assess your prospects for rehabilitation as being reasonable. Owing to your young age in particular, I will sentence you in a way that seeks to enhance your prospects for rehabilitation.
102	After balancing all relevant sentencing considerations, I consider a sentence involving your confinement is justified in this case. In my opinion, a sentence of detention in a YJC is appropriate to achieve the purposes for which this sentence is imposed.
103	I have received a pre-sentence report relating to your suitability for a YJC order, dated 11 November 2021. You are considered to be a suitable candidate for a YJC order. The author of the report observed:
Mr Evangelou has exhibited some troubling symptoms which might indicate early stages of psychosis. If sentenced to a youth justice centre, the writer explained to him the expectations of the youth justice authorities and the Youth Parole Board that he must attend all programs deemed appropriate, and attend all therapeutic interventions. Mr Evangelou indicated his willingness to engage with the supports and interventions available on a Youth Justice Centre Order. Mr Evangelou's desire to engage in therapy indicates that he has reasonable prospects for rehabilitation. Mr Evangelou would benefit from the opportunity of a Youth Justice Centre Order where he would be able to explore and address his offending behaviour. Youth Justice would be able to offer intensive and consistent treatment from a team of mental health professionals to optimise his chances of rehabilitation.
… Mr Evangelou is currently in a protection unit and once sentenced it is not guaranteed that he will return to that unit. Given this, there are significant concerns that Mr Evangelou would be vulnerable if required to be housed within a general prison unit.
Dr Gray's assessment of Mr Evangelou indicated that he is an immature young man. The writer considers that if he is sentenced to a prison term then he would continue to be vulnerable within the adult prison system.
104	Informed by this YJC assessment report, I believe you have reasonable prospects for rehabilitation, and you are particularly impressionable, immature or likely to be subjected to undesirable influences in an adult prison. Accordingly, you satisfy the criteria set out in s 32(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991 for the imposition of a YJC order.
Mr Evangelou.
On Charge 1 (causing serious injury recklessly) you are convicted and sentenced to be detained in a youth justice centre for a period of three years.
I declare pre‑sentence detention in your case is 454 days not including this day and I direct that declaration be noted in the records of the Court.
In accordance with s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare that but for your plea of guilty I would have convicted you and sentenced you to be detained in a youth justice centre for a period of four years.
—   —   —