[4] Contrary to s 88 of the Crimes Act 1958.

[5] Contrary to s 73 of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981.

[6] Contrary to s 30B of the Bail Act 1977.

[7] Contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Road Safety Act 1986.

[8] Contrary to s 5AA of the Control of Weapons Act 1990.

[9] Contrary to s 195 of the Crimes Act 1958.

[10] See paragraph [5] of these reasons.

[11] Psychological report of Mr Jeffrey Cummins dated 26 October 2023 ('Cummins Report').

[12] Report of Australian Forensic Therapeutic Rehabilitation Melbourne dated 20 October 2023 ('AFTR Report').

[13] DPP v Alqassim [2023] VCC 2157, ('Reasons'), [60].

[16] Ibid [52], citing the Cummins Report, [28]; AFTR Report, [8.13].

[17] Reasons, [53], citing the Cummins Report, [22]; AFTR Report, [8.12.5] and [8.14].

[18] Reasons, [54]-[55], citing the AFTR Report, [8.15], [8.20].

[33] Ibid [63], citing the Staios Report, [7.1].

[36] Ibid [66], citing the Cummins Report, [15].

[37] Reasons, [51], citing the Cummins Report, [15] and [31]

[38] Reasons, [66], citing the Staios Report, [3.7], the Cummins Report, [28], [and the AFTR Report, [8.13].

[40] Ibid, citing the Cummins Report [28].

[42] Ibid [69], citing the Cummins Report, [23] and [27].

[43] Reasons, [69], citing the Cummins Report, [27].

[47] Citing DPP v Wol [2019] VSCA 268, [63] and Fisher v The Queen [2018] VSCA 222, [36].

[50] Ibid [77], citing the Cummins Report [32]-[33].

[53] Ibid [85], citing the Cummins Report, [34].

[57] Ibid [93]-[94] (emphasis added).

[58] See paragraph [28] of these reasons for judgment.

[59] See paragraph [31] of these reasons for judgment.

[62] At the time of sentencing (20 November 2023), the appellant was aged 23 years and 7 months (his birthdate is 26 March 2000). The appellant's total effective sentence is 10 years and 1 month and he had served 711 days as pre-sentence detention, which is effectively 2 years. Thus, his sentence will expire 8 years and 1 month from 20 November 2023. That is December 2031, when the appellant will be aged 31 years and close to turning 32 years.

[63] Aggravating features includes circumstances where the offender is carrying a weapon at the time of entry, knows or is reckless to the fact that a person is present in the building at the time of entry, has an intent to steal/assault/cause damage, uses forced entry, is accompanied by others, and where the victims are particularly frightened: DPP v Meyers [2014] VSCA 314; (2014) 44 VR 486, 419 [25]-[26], 498 [48]; [2014] VCC 314 (Maxwell P, Redlich and Osborn JJA). Offending that takes place late at night or in the early hours of the morning is a further aggravating feature: at 495 [38], 496 [40], 497 [43].

[65] See paragraphs [5]-[10] of these reasons for judgment.

[67] The victim impact statements tendered at the plea hearing describes how Mr F has trouble sleeping, frequently relives the incident in his mind (particularly the gun), and has installed increased security to try to feel more safe. Mrs F's statement describes having regular nightmares and panic attacks, being easily frightened and remaining fearful that a similar incident may recur. Mrs F stated she wears a panic alarm around her neck when she is alone. Both victims were undertaking counselling following the incident.

[68] See paragraphs [11]-[13] of these reasons for judgment.

[70] A court must not have regard to any possibility or likelihood that the offender will be affected by executive action of any kind: Sentencing Act 1991, s 5(2AA).

[71] The imposition of less severe individual sentences may call for greater cumulation to reflect total criminality where more severe individual sentences may require greater concurrency: Nguyen v The Queen (2016) 256 CLR 626, 677-8 [64]; [2016] HCA 17. Furthermore, a sentencing judge or court may approach a sentencing task differently and this does not demonstrate error, especially if the total effective sentence and the non-parole period are within range: Cay v The Queen (2010) 29 VR 560, 569 [58] (Nettle JA).

[72] Reasons, [93]. See paragraph [31] above of these reasons for judgment.

[73] The sentences on charges 6-8 were not challenged in this appeal.

[74] See, e.g. Clarkson v The Queen (2011) 32 VR 361; [2011] VSCA 157 ('Clarkson').

[75] Ibid; Rohen v The King [2024] VSCA 1, [123] (Priest, Taylor and Boyce JJA).

[77] Clarkson [2011] VSCA 157; (2011) 32 VR 361, 384 [89] (Maxwell ACJ, Nettle, Neave, Redlich and Harper JJA); [2011] VSCA 157.

[78] [2011] VSCA 372; (2011) 35 VR 43.

[79] See paragraphs [38]-[40] of these reasons for judgment.

[80] [2022] VSCA 203.

[81] [2021] VSCA 204.

[82] [2019] VSCA 268.

[83] [2018] VSCA 268.

[84] [2017] VSCA 214.

[85] [2019] VSCA 217.

[86] (2014) 44 VR 486; [2014] VSCA 314.

[87] (2012) 37 VR 658; [2012] VSCA 302.