//
[2021] VSC 515
General information, not legal advice.
Supreme Court of Victoria
2021-08-23
Beale J
Original judgment source is linked above.
CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Intentionally causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence - Offender fired multiple shots at victim from car - Premeditated offending - Life- threatening injuries - High-range example of offence - Mandatory minimum non-parole period - False imprisonment - Theft - Common law assault - Mid-range examples of offences - Pleas of guilty of significant utilitarian value - Impaired cognitive functioning and post-traumatic stress disorder - Verdins principles three and four enlivened - Harsher conditions in prison during COVID-19 - Delay in sentencing - Surrender of weapons to police - Guarded prospects of rehabilitation due to cognitive functioning and long-term drug use - Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) ss 15, 74(1) - Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) , (1), - ; 16 VR 240 -
1 Omar Tiba, you pleaded guilty to the following offences:
2 These offences relate to three separate incidents, the first of which occurred on 14 April 2017.
3 In relation to that first incident, you met the victim Witness A a couple of weeks before 14 April 2017 and exchanged mobile numbers. You called him a few times thereafter and sometimes he failed to return your calls. A mutual friend Nohe Mourad contacted Witness A on 14 April and it was agreed he would attend Mourad's home later that day, ostensibly to purchase methylamphetamine. Witness A drove to Mourad's home in Northcote in his BMW X5, arriving around 6pm. He entered Mourad's home with $400 in cash on him to find, to his surprise, several people there - you and two other males (one of whom you knew as Mo), Mourad and two other females (one of whom you knew as Sophie). You were armed with a small bat, known as a fishing priest, and said to Witness A words to the effect of "you think you are better than us because you won't answer our phone calls?".
4 The revised agreed summary of facts says this about what happened next.[1] I have substituted the word "you" for "Tiba":
[Witness A] was subjected to a brief beating. The beating continued on for between 45 seconds to one minute, during which time you told Mourad and Sophie to go into a bedroom. As a result of this beating, [Witness A] did not seek medical attention. After the beating finished, the men told [Witness A] to remain on the kitchen floor. From this time until [Witness A] was dropped off at the Croxton Hotel by Mourad about 5 hours later, [Witness A] was deprived of his liberty against his will, which is the subject of [the] false imprisonment charge.
You and Mo took [Witness A's] jumper and shoes from him. [Witness A] sustained a bloodied nose and mouth. His face was swollen and his arms and back was sore. You took [Witness A's] gold Apple iPhone 6 and the keys to his BMW X5 before going outside.
After about 15 to 20 minutes, you returned inside and hit [Witness A] with the fishing priest. You said, 'What do you think this is, a lolly game? This is a drug game. We aren't selling lollies here. What are you trying to be, a Lebo or something, you dog?'
While [Witness A] was at Mourad's address, his partner, [Witness B], frequently called his phone. [Witness B] was getting angry, as it was unusual for [Witness A] not to answer his phone. You then sent her a number of text messages in response, pretending to be [Witness A]. On one occasion, you texted her and said that you would meet in Epping. [Witness B] sent a text back saying that she was on her way to Epping. She drove around Epping looking for [Witness A], but she could not find him.
Within minutes of [Witness B] sending [Witness A] a text message saying that she was at Epping, you told Mo and Mourad to go to [Witness A's] address and grab whatever they could. You remained at [Mourad's] house with [Witness A].
...
You retrieved a black taser from the kitchen. You approached [Witness A] with the taser and began swearing at him while activating the taser's electricity near his face in order to scare him. He believed that if he tried to leave the house, he would be beaten further.
5 In relation to the offence of theft, the following property was stolen from Witness A, either by you personally or by Mourad and Mo when they attended Witness A's home on your instructions: a gold-coloured Apple iPhone 6, a BMW X5 registration 1JS4FZ, clothing, three pairs of Nike shoes, tools including two Paslode nail guns, cash, jewellery, watches, sunglasses and men's perfume. No estimate of the value of the property has been provided to me.
6 When Mourad and Mo returned from Witness A's place, you allowed Witness A to contact his partner Witness B and arrange to meet up with her. You instructed Mourad and Mo to drop him off, which they did in Thornbury. From there he got a taxi to a McDonald's in Preston where he met up with Witness B and the two of them went home and saw that there had been a break-in and items stolen. Witness B took photos of Witness A's injuries, that is, bruises on his face and a bloodied nose.
7 I consider yours to be a mid-range example of the offence of false imprisonment, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment. What elevates your offence above the low range is the premeditation on the day in question (a matter conceded by your counsel),[2] the duration of the false imprisonment (hours not minutes) and the fact that violence, both actual and threatened, was used to keep Witness A imprisoned. You personally struck him with the fishing priest and threatened him with the taser during his ordeal.
8 I also consider the theft to be a mid-range example of that offence which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment. The charge is a rolled up count of theft. The property stolen was of significant value. The dishonesty was not spontaneous but considered.
9 The second incident occurred three days later on the afternoon of 17 April 2017.
10 Your brother Osman was driving the BMW which you had stolen from Witness A. He was driving that car near the Mosque in Moore Street, Coburg, and you were in the front passenger seat.
11 Two men, Feres Al Janabe and Mohammed Oueida, approached the Mosque on foot. CCTV captured the BMW hanging back and driving along slowly behind them in Moore Street.
12 Another man - Samir Chaarani - arrived in a Lexus owned by Oueida. He joined Al Janabe and Oueida and together they went into the Mosque.
13 The BMW stayed in the area whilst the three men were inside the Mosque, a period of approximately 15 minutes.
14 When the three men came out of the Mosque, they walked to Oueida's Lexus, which was parked in Moore Street. The BMW turned into Moore Street at approximately the same time, paused, then accelerated towards the Lexus, stopping suddenly beside Oueida as he walked around the rear of the Lexus.
15 From the open front passenger window of the BMW, you fired at least three shots from a revolver at Oueida, one of the shots hitting him in the abdomen and perforating his colon. Oueida fell to the ground but quickly got up and ran off into the Mosque. You yelled out "run you bastard son of a bitch" as you and your brother drove off.
16 Oueida was taken to John Fawkner Hospital but transferred to Royal Melbourne Hospital later that night. He underwent a four-hour operation on 18 April 2017. A .32 bullet was recovered from his abdomen. But for medical intervention, it is likely that Oueida would have died. Dr Schrieber from the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, who reviewed the medical files, states that Oueida's quality of life is likely to be compromised.
17 On 19 April the BMW X5 was found by police in Reservoir after it had been set alight by a person or persons unknown.
18 On 22 April, you were arrested, made a "no comment" interview and were released without charge.
19 In relation to this second incident, neither Oueida nor Al Janabe made a victim impact statement, but there was one from Samir Chaarani who has suffered great emotional and psychological stress because of the incident. He feels unsafe and his family feels unsafe and it has led to him moving out of his family home.
20 An assessment of the seriousness of the shooting turns on whether it was "unplanned, opportunistic and impulsive"[3] as you submitted, or planned and premeditated as submitted by the prosecution.
21 You submitted that, having been shot yourself in January 2017 - a matter not in dispute - you were in the habit of carrying a gun purely for self-defence. You submitted that when your brother stopped the car near Oueida, who in your mind was indirectly responsible for the January shooting,[4] your impulsiveness got the better of you and you discharged the gun at him.
22 There are several points to be made about this submission.
23 The first point is that, in my view, the submission traverses your plea of guilty to the charge of intentionally causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence. The terms of the charge to which you pleaded guilty and which reflect the definition of "circumstances of gross violence" in s 15A(2)(a)(i) of the Crimes Act 1958, specifically refer to you planning to use the firearm:
The Director of Public Prosecutions charges that OMAR TIBA at Coburg in Victoria on the 17th day of April 2017 without lawful excuse intentionally caused serious injury to MOHAMMED OUEIDA in circumstances of gross violence, namely, that OMAR TIBA planned in advance to have with him and to use a firearm and in fact used that firearm to cause the serious injury.
24 The second point is that the revised agreed summary of facts, in detailing the movement of the BMW prior to the shooting of Oueida, described that movement as "relevant to planning in advance".[5]
25 The third point is the actual CCTV footage of the movement of the BMW, in particular the footage of the BMW pausing for approximately 30 seconds at the beginning of Moore Street - as Oueida and his associates walked from the Mosque to Oueida's car parked in Moore Street - then accelerating at fast rate speed, catching up with Oueida just before he got into his car, stopping briefly, then racing away immediately after you discharged your gun strongly supports the inference that you planned to shoot Oueida prior to the BMW pulling up beside him.
26 The fourth point is that you made a "no comment" record of interview in relation to the shooting and you did not give evidence at your plea hearing. For me to accept your mitigating version of events, namely that the shooting was unplanned and impulsive, I would need to be satisfied of it on the balance of probabilities. I am far from satisfied that the idea of shooting Oueida only entered your head when your brother drew up alongside of Oueida.
27 I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that your plan to shoot him had crystallised at least by the time the BMW began accelerating towards him in Moore Street. Such a finding is justified by the particulars of the charge to which you pleaded, the agreed summary of facts and the movement of the BMW captured on CCTV.
28 I consider your offence to be a high range example of the offence of intentionally cause serious injury in circumstances of gross violence, an offence which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years' imprisonment. While the premeditation and planning may have been of relatively short compass, you used a firearm to intentionally inflict the injury, you fired multiple shots in a suburban street and the injuries inflicted were life threatening.
29 Pursuant to s 10(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), I must impose a non-parole period of at least four years, unless I am satisfied that a special reason exists, as defined by s 10A.
30 Pursuant to s 10A(2)(c) special reason exists if, inter alia, an offender had impaired mental functioning at the time of the offence which was causally linked to the commission of the offence and the impairment substantially reduced the offender's culpability.
31 You submitted that this exemption applied to you, but underpinning that submission was a contention which I have rejected, namely, that your shooting of Oueida was "unplanned, opportunistic and impulsive". Having rejected that contention, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that your impaired mental functioning is causally linked to the commission of the offence.
32 That is not to say that your impaired mental functioning is irrelevant. I will deal with it below when discussing the application of the Verdins principles to your case.
34 Feres Al Janabe, who was a witness to the drive-by shooting near the Moore Street Mosque, attended the Olsen Place Mosque in Broadmeadows, after which he walked to the shops nearby.
35 He saw you, your brother Osman and some other males approaching him and walked into a pharmacy.
36 You followed him into the pharmacy and you punched him once to the side of the head. A pharmacy employee called the police. Your father came to the pharmacy and told your group to leave, which you did before police arrived.
37 On 11 October 2017, you were arrested and made a "no comment" interview. You were charged and remanded in custody.
38 I consider yours a mid-range example of the offence of common law assault, which carries a maximum penalty of five years_'_ imprisonment. What elevates it above the low range is that you pursued the victim and punched him to the head. While your motive might have been the fact that he was a witness to your drive-by shooting of Oueida, I am not satisfied that you pursued and punched him because he was a witness to the shooting. In any event, you are not charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice. You submitted that you assaulted him because he made provocative remarks, but there was no evidential foundation for that claim.
39 Your date of birth is 17 September 1989, making you 27 at the time of the current offences and 31 now.
40 You are of Lebanese background, your parents migrating to Australia in 1976. You were raised in Melbourne. You have eight siblings. You are the third youngest child. Your father was a factory hand, your mother a homemaker. You speak positively of both of them.
41 During your childhood, two of your older brothers led a violent, drug-fuelled lifestyle. The police repeatedly raided your home, which caused great stress for your family.
42 In an effort to remove you from negative influences, when you were 10 your father took you and your younger siblings to Lebanon, where you remained until you were 16. You struggled academically at school in Lebanon, but in 2015 you indicated to forensic psychologist Patrick Newton that you found school there positive and enjoyable.[6]
43 During your time there, Lebanon was riven by conflict and violence. You witnessed fatal bomb attacks. You claim that some of your friends were killed.
44 On your return to Australia you completed Year 10 at Box Forest Secondary College in Glenroy.
45 At the age of 18 you took on the role of primary caregiver to your mother who suffers from a number of chronic health conditions. Whilst you have also worked as a security guard and a labourer, looking after your mother has been your main occupation. You have been in receipt of a caregivers pension.
46 On 13 June 2008, when you were 18, you were admitted to the Royal Melbourne Hospital after you were struck in the head from behind with an object believed to be a bottle. You also suffered a laceration to your right shoulder blade.
47 According to what you told Patrick Newton in 2015, you started using cannabis around the age of 17 and methylamphetamine from the age of 19. You told neuropsychologist Mathew Staios more recently that during this period of your life you used 2-3 grams of methamphetamine daily for at least seven years.[7] You also used GHB.
48 In May 2009, when you were 19, you received your first criminal convictions. You were placed on an Intensive Corrections Order for offences including affray. You breached that ICO and other community-based orders imposed in the years that followed.
49 On 26 May 2011, when you were 21, you were in serious motor vehicle accident in which the driver of the car, your friend, was killed. You suffered skull fractures and other injuries. The following medical reports tendered by you had a particular focus on that accident:
50 Dr van Vugt indicated that your injuries included right frontal bone fracture and brain contusion. You were discharged from the RMH on 6 June 2011 and failed to attend for follow-up at the acquired brain injury clinic at Epworth Rehabilitation Camberwell.
51 Dr Bahnasawi referred to the injuries you suffered in the 2011 car accident, the treatment you received and the fact that you suffered depression after your accident.
52 Mr Kiellerup, to whom you were referred by Dr Bahnasawi, saw you three times in 2013 for problems with your right hip and knee following your 2011 motor vehicle accident.
53 Your cannabis and methylamphetamine use intensified after this accident, according to forensic psychologist Patrick Newton.
54 In your early 20s you got married but you have always lived at home with your parents. You and your wife have one child who is now aged five.
55 In March 2015, when you were 25, you underwent a neuropsychological assessment by Dr Amanda Nielson. You presented with "global severe impairments in cognitive function"[8] which "were reflective of frontal lobe injuries sustained [in the motor vehicle] accident in 2011",[9] although the results "were called into question due to [you] failing a range of tasks assessing effort".[10]
56 On 18 May 2015, you were convicted of offences including possession of drugs, possession of controlled weapon, possession of a prohibited weapon and possession of cartridge ammunition, receiving your first sentence of immediate imprisonment being 190 days.
57 On 20 June 2016, when you were 26, you were convicted of offences including being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm, receiving an aggregate sentence of 125 days and a Community Corrections Order for 24 months, which you breached (see below).
58 On 30 August 2016, when you were 26, you were convicted of possessing a drug of dependence and possessing a prohibited weapon, for which you received 120 days' imprisonment.
59 On 17 October 2016 for the breach of the CCO imposed on 20 June 2016, you were given a CCO of 18 months' duration. This means that your current offences in April and May 2017 breached two CCOs, which is a circumstance of aggravation.[11]
60 On 19 January 2017, just a few months before the current offences, you were shot three times in the legs. Dr van Vugt says in her report that you presented at the RMH on 18 January 2017 in respect of gunshot wounds to your thighs and perianal region. She says you were discharged the following day with a referral to your GP for suture removal. Whilst physically you recovered well from your injuries, you still experience some pain and the incident, according to Mr Staios, occasioned post-traumatic stress disorder. You were shot by an associate of Mr Oueida in the context of a dispute over a debt allegedly owed by your older brother Osman to Oueida. Your counsel told me that this is why you shot Oueida a few months later.
61 You have been in custody since 11 October 2017. You claim to have stopped using illicit drugs. You tendered 14 negative drug screens from March 2018 to April 2021.[12] You also tendered a positive report from a prison-based drug and alcohol program called Caraniche with whom you have undertaken drug counselling, commencing on 22 September 2020. You deserve praise for your efforts to overcome your drug addiction. But you know from past experience that the greater challenge is to abstain from illicit drugs when back in the community.
62 Written character references from the following people were tendered on your behalf:
63 Sheikh Moustapha Sarakibi, who came to know you and your family through his work as a prison chaplain, attended your home in Preston on 17 January 2017 to participate in a mediation "for a money related dispute between the Tiba family and Mr Mohammed Oueida". When he learned that you were shot later that evening in Campbellfield, he ceased his involvement as mediator. He believes you are "sorry for making the wrong choices which [led] to ... Oueida being seriously injured".
64 Samir Mohtadi says that in your involvement with the Youth Centre, you have shown good and honest character.
65 Mukhtar Mohammed, coordinator of Muslim Connect, says you have been found suitable for their program and details the support services they can offer you upon your release from prison.
66 Haissam Tiba, your oldest brother, speaks of the strong support you have from your family and his capacity to offer you work in his shop-fitting business.
67 Your partner Jodie Pickett says that in prison you have "overcome your drug addiction" and "turned your life around". She longs for you to be reunited with her and your five-year-old daughter Sumayah.
68 Mehedin Abbas of Rogers Gym says you have "high morals" and are "an asset to the community ... helping out less privileged youth".
69 Your sister-in-law Yasmine El Hanafy and niece Yusriyeh Tayba also believe you have rehabilitated during this latest period of incarceration.
70 Notwithstanding these sometimes glowing character references, I must confess that I am guarded about your prospects of rehabilitation given your antecedents and your long history of drug abuse, but I hope that when you are released you can demonstrate the same resolve regarding abstinence from drugs that you have exhibited in prison.
71 The following reports which were tendered on your behalf focused on your impaired mental functioning:
72 In 2015, Patrick Newton assessed you in circumstances where you were remanded in custody on drug trafficking and firearms charges allegedly committed whilst you were on bail for drug trafficking.[13]
74 He said your "capacity for moral reasoning remain[ed] intact" and you were "able to appreciate the nature and consequences of [your] actions".[16]
76 Dr Nielson said this about you in her executive summary:
... Mr Tiba presented with significant executive dysfunction, consistent with the frontal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident in 2011. While his performance on formal neuropsychological assessment was almost uniformly severely impaired, his level of effort was found to be significantly compromised, thus invalidating the findings of the formal assessment ... my clinical opinion is that Mr Tiba suffers from an acquired brain injury, predominantly affecting his executive functions. ... In particular, Mr Tiba will struggle to organise and control both his cognitive abilities and his emotional reactions to situations, and he will have difficulty in curbing his impulsivity and acting in a reasoned manner.[19]
77 After formal testing, Mathew Staios found you to have a mild and longstanding intellectual disability.[20] He said this about your cognitive functioning:
Mr Omar Tiba, a 31-year-old male, was referred for neuropsychological evaluation and opinion regarding his cognitive status. His current cognitive profile was characterised by a limited ability to reason with and understand language, non-verbal reasoning skills, spatial processing skills, slow to process information, limited idea generation, and divided attention. His memory for information presented in visual format was limited and below expectation. In contrast, he benefited from repetition to facilitate new learning and his performances on a task measuring verbal memory were relatively better developed. Furthermore, he displayed relative strengths on task assessing basic attention and working memory, however, his performance still fell within the lower end of the low average range. The results of the current assessment are consistent with those noted during his previous neuropsychological assessment in 2015, indicating global cognitive impairment. Given his limited functional/adaptive skills, early learning difficulties, and a very limited employment history, it is my opinion that a mild intellectual disability is longstanding and consistent with his developmental history.[21]
78 As regards the aetiology of your intellectual disability, Mathew Staios opined that you may have suffered a brain injury in childhood and in the 2011 car accident. He also opined that chronic substance abuse further compromised your cognitive functioning:
Based on the medical information reviewed, Mr Tiba sustained a mild complicated traumatic brain injury as a result of his motor vehicle accident in 2011, with frontal lobe contusions noted on CT Brain Scan. This incident, in combination with chronic substance use, likely exacerbated Mr Tiba's longstanding cognitive vulnerabilities to varying degrees and served to further limit his already reduced cognitive skills.[22] ...
I note that previous cognitive assessment indicated that Mr Tiba's global cognitive weaknesses may have been long-standing and related to a reported brain injury sustained in childhood, and further exacerbated by his motor vehicle accident in 2011.[23]
79 Mathew Staios opined that you had a post-traumatic stress disorder "in the context of sustaining gunshot wounds in 2017".[24] He opined that the incident where you were shot "appears to have led to an overall destabilisation in psychological well-being, leading to significant substance abuse as a means of coping and escapism",[25] but I note that your drug abuse was chronic long before that incident. I also note that there is no evidence that you were drug affected at the time of your current offending.
80 I conclude from the above reports that at the time of your offending your mental functioning was impaired by the combination of your mild intellectual disability and post-traumatic stress disorder.
81 Does that reduce your moral culpability in respect of any of the three incidents for which I must sentence you? I note Patrick Newton's comments above about your capacity for moral reasoning remaining intact.
82 I have already indicated above that I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that your shooting of Oueida was causally linked to your impaired mental functioning. I reject your submission that the shooting was unplanned and spontaneous. Consequently, I am not satisfied that your impaired mental functioning reduced your moral culpability in respect of that incident in any of the ways enumerated in Verdins.[26]
83 I take the same view in relation to the first and third incidents. The first incident, the false imprisonment, involved a degree of planning, a matter conceded by you. And in the third incident, you followed the victim into the pharmacy where you struck him to the head. It is possible that when you followed him into the pharmacy your intention was just to speak to him and that the assault was an unpremeditated act of violence, but I am not satisfied of that on the balance of probabilities.
84 However, because of your impaired mental functioning I consider that Verdins principles three and four are in play and that there should be some moderation of general and specific deterrence in your case.
85 There will also be a discount for the delay in the finalisation of your case. Over four years has passed since your offending. That is a regrettably long time to have this matter hanging over your head. The uncertainty regarding your situation will no doubt have added to the hardship of imprisonment.
86 Those hardships will have also been exacerbated by COVID-19. Since early 2020, prison visits and programs and movement within prisons have been severely affected by the pandemic. This unfortunate state of affairs justifies a further reduction in your sentence.
87 You are entitled to a significant discount for your pleas of guilty, even though it is conceded they were not made at the first reasonable opportunity.[27] Pleas entered in a time of pandemic and lockdowns have added utilitarian value. The Court of Appeal said this recently in Worboyes v The Queen:
For these reasons, we consider that - all other things being equal - a plea of guilty entered during the currency of the COVID-19 pandemic is worthy of greater weight in mitigation than a similar plea entered at a time when the community and the courts are not afflicted by the pandemic's effects. A plea of guilty during the pandemic ordinarily should attract a more pronounced amelioration of sentence than at another time.[28]
88 It was submitted that your pleas were also indicative of remorse. Some of your character references also refer to you being sorry. But given the nature of your offending and the lateness of your pleas, I am not satisfied that you are truly remorseful as compared with just being sorry for yourself.
89 You arranged for the surrender of a number of weapons.
90 All of the weapons were in working order. All potential identifying marks had been removed from the weapons. None of them could be linked by police to any crimes.
91 There is of course a benefit to the community in those weapons being surrendered. The mere fact that functioning weapons are "off the street" has obvious utility. Accordingly, I consider it appropriate that there be some reduction of your sentence by reason of the surrender.
92 But that discount will be a modest one due to the fact that I have no idea of the provenance of the weapons. You indicated to police that no-one would be upset by their surrender. That indicates to me that you have not taken any significant risk in surrendering the weapons. A member of your family facilitated the handover of the weapons. For all I know, the weapons could have been acquired by your family solely for the purpose of trying to "buy" a sentencing discount.
93 Given your own assessment that no-one would be upset by the surrender of the weapons, I reject your application to suppress this part of my judgment.
94 On the charge of false imprisonment, I sentence you to two years' imprisonment, one year of which will be cumulative on the base sentence.
95 On the charge of theft, I sentence you to one year's imprisonment, six months of which will be cumulative on the base sentence.
96 On the charge of intentionally causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence, I sentence you to six years' imprisonment. This is the base sentence.
97 On the charge of common assault, I sentence you to one month's imprisonment, which sentence is to be wholly concurrent.[29]
98 The total effective sentence is therefore seven years' and six months' imprisonment.
99 I direct that you serve a minimum term of five years' imprisonment before being eligible for parole.
100 I declare that you have served 1,412 days by way of pre-sentence detention.
101 Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare that but for your pleas of guilty I would have imposed a total effective sentence of nine years' imprisonment with a minimum term of six years and six months.
[1] Transcript of Proceedings, The Queen v Omar Tiba (Supreme Court of Victoria, Beale J, 25 June 21) 19‑21.
[2] Defence outline of submissions dated 11 June 2021 [59].
[3] Defence Outline of Submissions dated 11 June 2021 [22].
[4] (Unpublished transcript of proceedings conducted in closed court (The Queen v Omar Tiba, Supreme Court of Victoria before Beale J, 16 July 2021) 43.
[5] Transcript of Proceedings, The Queen v Omar Tiba (Supreme Court of Victoria, Beale J, 25 June 2021) 21.
[6] Psychological Report of Patrick Newton dated 14 March 2015 [10].
[7] Neuropsychological Report of Mathew Staios dated 18 May 2021 [3.12].
[8] Neuropsychological Report of Mathew Staios dated 18 May 2021 [3.11].
[9] Neuropsychological Report of Mathew Staios dated 18 May 2021 [3.11].
[10] Neuropsychological Report of Mathew Staios dated 18 May 2021 [3.11].
[11] Especially since one of the CCOs was imposed for being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm.
[12] 14 March 2018; 26 March 2018; 30 April 2018; 11 June 2018; 11 November 2018; 20 April 2019; 8 June 2019; 2 September 2019; 23 September 2019; 5 October 2019; 28 December 2019; 25 June 2020; 22 November 2020; 26 February 2021; 12 April 2021.
[13] Psychological Report of Patrick Newton dated 14 March 2015 [1].
[14] Psychological Report of Patrick Newton dated 14 March 2015 [31].
[15] Psychological Report of Patrick Newton dated 14 March 2015 [41].
[16] Psychological Report of Patrick Newton dated 14 March 2015 [32].
[17] Psychological Report of Patrick Newton dated 14 March 2015 [36].
[18] Psychological Report of Patrick Newton dated 14 March 2015 [43].
[19] Neuropsychological Report of Dr Amanda Nielsen dated 22 March 2015, 1.
[20] Neuropsychological Report of Mathew Staios dated 18 May 2021 [7.1].
[21] Neuropsychological Report of Mathew Staios dated 18 May 2021 [7.1].
[22] Neuropsychological Report of Mathew Staios dated 18 May 2021 [7.2].
[23] Neuropsychological Report of Mathew Staios dated 18 May 2021 [7.3].
[24] Neuropsychological Report of Mathew Staios dated 18 May 2021 [7.5].
[25] Neuropsychological Report of Mathew Staios dated 18 May 2021 [7.5].
[26] R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 240.
[27] (Unpublished transcript of proceedings conducted in closed court (The Queen v Omar Tiba, Supreme Court of Victoria before Beale J, 16 July 2021) 47.
[28] Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169 [39].
[29] The prosecution conceded that a wholly concurrent sentence was appropriate (Unpublished transcript of proceedings conducted in closed court (The Queen v Omar Tiba, Supreme Court of Victoria before Beale J, 16 July 2021) 56).
R
Tiba [2021] VSC 515