Crown v Accused

2 For a motivation which remain entirely unclear, on the morning of 17 September 2024, you walked into a tobacco store near where you lived, jumped over the counter, and attacked the 64 year old female proprietor of the store, Thanh Lam, with a knife. You used this knife to stab Ms Lam repeatedly, with the intention of killing her. You caused serious injuries to Ms Lam, but did not succeed in your aim.

3 At the time of your crime, you were undoubtedly suffering the effects of having taken a substantial dose of methylamphetamine ('ice'), which you were accustomed to doing. You may also have been suffering from a drug induced psychosis. I will say more about these matters later. Suffice to say, your use of ice, and its effects upon you, including any psychotic behaviour triggered by that use, are not matters in mitigation. Whatever the precise mechanism was, and whatever the precise reason for your frightening and violent conduct, you are fully responsible for your actions, and you were, at the time of your attack upon Ms Lam, a very dangerous individual.

4 To this day, Ms Lam suffers the physical and emotional impact of your terrifying attack upon her. Whether she will ever recover from the physical effects is unclear. As for the emotional effects, it can be safely anticipated that she will never fully recover.

5 These few introductory words should be sufficient to make clear that your crime was a serious one, deserving of a serious response by the Court.

6 At the time of these events, you were 48 years old. You lived in an apartment in Pickles Street, Port Melbourne, about 700 metres from CTC Tobacco, the store at 229 Bay Street, Port Melbourne which was owned by Ms Lam and her husband, and had been operated by them for more than 30 years. For many years, your life had been blighted by the twin effects of your addiction to ice, and the drug induced psychotic illness from which you suffered as a result.

7 You had been a regular customer of the store, attending once or twice a week to purchase cigarettes. Ms Lam described you as being a large man who was sometimes a bit impolite by swearing when in the store, but was never rude to her. There is nothing to indicate that you had ever had any disagreement or problem with Ms Lam in your dealings with her.

8 CCTV footage from your apartment building indicates that on the morning of 17 September 2024, you left the building at about 9.30 am, driving your Toyota Hilux utility. At 9.37 am, you walked into CTC Tobacco, where Ms Lam was on her own behind the counter on the right hand side of the shop, seated on a stool. There were no customers in the shop. CCTV cameras provided coverage of the whole store.

9 You approached the counter and then jumped up on top, standing over Ms Lam. While briefly up on the counter, you pulled out a knife from your pocket, holding it behind your back. Ms Lam held up her arms in a gesture of surrender. You then jumped down on the floor on her side of the counter. You raised the knife, grabbed her by the hair, and struggled with her for a few seconds, forcing her over towards the end of the counter, where she was trapped, and completely defenceless. You then raised the knife high up and plunged it into Ms Lam, as she cowered down near the counter, raising her hands up at various points to try to protect her head, which was the focus of your strikes. The footage indicates that you stabbed her about 7 times with the knife. The attack continued for 43 seconds. During the attack, Ms Lam, who was petrified and understandably feared that she would be killed, told you that the money and cigarettes were 'over there', but this had no apparent effect upon you. It is obvious that robbery was not the motive for your attack. At one point, Ms Lam started to loudly cry out for help. You jumped back up onto the top of the counter and over the other side, falling onto the floor of the shop. You then got up and left the store. Shortly afterwards, Ms Lam, who was bleeding heavily from the injuries you had caused, herself ran out of the store, where she was assisted by passersby.

10 I have carefully viewed, on a number of occasions, the CCTV footage which was provided to the Court, showing your attack upon Ms Lam from different angles. It makes for shocking viewing.

11 The CCTV footage at the front of the store showed you walking out of the door and then commencing to run across the road. You returned to where your vehicle was parked, and then drove back to your apartment building. As least insofar as your demeanour was apparent from the CCTV footage, by that time, you appeared calm. You must have taken some steps to either clean or dispose of the knife you had used. When you were arrested at your home the next day by a Critical Incident Response Team, you shouted out, 'what are you doing? I have done nothing wrong'.

12 You were taken to St Kilda Police station. Police arranged for a medical assessment to determine your fitness for interview. The assessment was unable to be carried out effectively because you did not co-operate in the assessment process. You were interviewed by police and you exercised your right to make no comment to most questions asked of you.

13 Paramedics attended the scene and provided treatment to Ms Lam, who was very distressed, and bleeding profusely, particularly from serious injuries to her hands. Ms Lam was conveyed by ambulance to The Alfred Hospital, where she remained as an inpatient for three days, being treated for her injuries.

14 The injuries were described in detail in the statement of Dr Cecil Johnny, an Emergency Medicine Consultant,[1] and Dr Maaike Moller, a Forensic Medical Officer from the Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health.[2] The injuries included:

i. A penetrating wound to the right posterior neck at the C1 level. This injury extended into the space between C1 and C2 but did not penetrate the spinal canal. This injury had the potential to have devastating consequences.

ii. A sharp force injury approximately 2 cm long to the right occipital scalp.

iii. A number of sharp-force injuries to the palm and fingers of the left hand, resulting in complete transection of nerves, arteries and tendons in the middle, ring and little fingers of the hand.

iv. Sharp force injuries to the right hand resulting in the complete transection of the ulnar digital nerve.

15 Ms Lam was taken to the operating theatre on the day of her admission and underwent debridement and surgical repair of the injuries by plastic surgeons. A damaged tendon in the left hand was unable to be repaired. The injuries to the head and neck were stapled.

16 Dr Moller indicated in her report that whilst the injuries sustained were not life-threatening, the hand injuries would likely take months to heal. She stated that it was possible that the sensation and fine motor movement, particularly of the left hand, could be affected in the medium or even long term.

17 Ms Lam underwent further scar-release surgery on 21 May 2025. Her victim impact statement cast further light on the progress of her injuries.

18 You are 49 years of age, having been born in Melbourne on 27 January 1976. Your parents, with whom you have always had, and still maintain, a close relationship, are of Maltese background, and were both factory workers before their retirement. You are the middle of three siblings, with an older brother, Adrian, and a younger sister, Alison. You maintain a close and positive relationship with each of them, as clearly attested to in the letters of support they provided to the Court. You have described your upbringing as stable, structured and supportive. You grew up in Altona Meadows, and remained living in the family home until you were 30. You were educated at Altona Meadows Primary School followed by Altona North Secondary College, where you completed your VCE in 1993. You were a good student who experienced no behavioural or other difficulties at school. Following school, you completed an Associate Diploma in Civil Engineering at RMIT. You subsequently worked in the construction industry, initially as a labourer and later in concreting. You and your brother established a small property development business, in which you worked together developing residential properties. The business was successful, and continues to operate under the control of your brother. During your involvement with the business, you taught yourself architectural drafting skills, and contributed to the drafting and planning aspects of projects carried out by the business. Several of the personal references tendered during the plea hearing speak of your good work ethic, and considerable skill as an architectural draftsman. Your brother indicated that you last worked alongside him in the business in 2017, although some other material indicates you continued to play a role in drafting plans beyond that time, until ceasing your involvement with the business a few years ago, due to a decline in your mental health. Since ceasing work, you have been on a disability support pension. Your brother was appointed as your financial guardian in 2019 as a result of an application he made to VCAT. You have no children and are not currently in a relationship. You had one significant intimate relationship in your early adulthood, which came to an end when you were 22. After that time, you did not pursue any further intimate relationships, instead focusing your energy on your work and the business.

19 I have had regard to a large bundle of impressive references provided by your siblings, your mother, and various work associates and friends. They describe you, when not affected by the psychiatric illness and drug addiction from which you suffer, as a kind, gentle, and considerate person, with a good work ethic, and part of a supportive family. Many of the references, notably those of your siblings, cast light on the battle you have fought for many years with psychotic illness and drug dependence. I will say more on this shortly.

20 You have abused illicit drugs for many years. Your drug use was summarised in the report of Rebecca Fakhri, Consultant Psychologist, which was relied upon during the plea hearing. You began using cannabis where you were 18, but ceased usage some years ago as you felt it contributed to your feelings of paranoia. You started using amphetamine when you were about 23, before transitioning to ice, which, other than during some periods of abstinence, you used up until the time you committed this offence. Mr Gullaci, in his submissions, described you as a high-functioning drug addict for most of your adult life.

21 You have a limited criminal history, comprising findings of guilt of five charges recorded over two appearances in the Magistrates' Court. In 2012, you received a non-conviction bond for wilful and obscene exposure, resisting police and failing to answer bail. You were convicted and discharged on a charge of being drunk in a public place.

22 In 2022, you were convicted and fined for a charge of unlawful assault. I was provided with no information in elaboration of this charge. You claimed to Ms Fakhri to have no recollection of the circumstances of the offence.

23 For completeness, I note that Mr Gullaci properly drew my attention to the fact that you have an outstanding matter concerning your allegedly having slashed the tyres of your brother's motor vehicle with a knife. He indicated that the matter arose during the period of time when your behaviour and health were in decline, and is likely to resolve to a plea of guilty. I will have no regard to this matter in sentencing you.

24 Mr Gullaci emphasised the fact that none of the prior findings of guilt involve the use of a weapon.

25 Your criminal history is of little significance in your case. If anything, it serves to demonstrate that your psychiatric and drug abuse history have not brought you frequently before courts over the years, and that notwithstanding your frequent episodes of psychotic behaviour, you have not shown a tendency to carry out serious acts of violence.

26 Your history of mental health problems is dealt with in the report of Ms Fakhri, and in more detail in the two reports of Associate Professor Danny Sullivan ('Dr Sullivan'), which were obtained for the principal purpose of consideration of the possible availability to you of a defence of mental impairment. Considerable light is also thrown on your mental health history by the references of your brother and sister. There is a history of psychotic illness in your family, your father having been diagnosed many years ago with schizophrenia. According to your brother, you commenced to show signs of mental illness in your late teenage years.

27 In his first report, dated 11 March 2025, Dr Sullivan noted your description to him of having not experienced psychotic episodes until you commenced using ice. He detailed your psychiatric history, as revealed in the various medical and other records to which he had regard, including the voluminous Alfred Health records, and records from various other clinics and health providers attended by you over the years.

28 Your first hospital admission in relation to psychiatric ill-health occurred in 2002, when you were 26. You were noted to have exhibited prominent symptoms of paranoia in the context of your polysubstance abuse. There was an early diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. From 2002 onwards until your commission of the current offence, you were intermittently treated with antipsychotic medication, and experienced numerous periods of inpatient treatment in psychiatric hospitals or wards, sometimes involuntarily. You continued to abuse ice throughout this time, and your acceptance of psychotropic treatment was inconsistent. You had periods of functioning well in the community and workplace, as indicated in the statements of your brother and sister, who provided a great deal of assistance and support to you. Over the years, you have exhibited a tendency to be in denial about your need for medication, and to understate and minimise your drug use.

29 The material before the Court indicates that you had been receiving depot injections of antipsychotic medication until a few months before your crime. You told Dr Sullivan that when you attended at your general practitioner's practice about two months before your crime, you refused to permit a person whom you described as 'an Asian nurse' to administer the injection. You left the premises without receiving the injection, and received no further injections until you were taken into custody.

30 I interpose here that your siblings were unaware that you had ceased attending the clinic and receiving your injections, and are devastated about the fact that they were not informed by the clinic.

31 Dr Sullivan indicated that you told him that you had smoked half a gram of ice prior to the offence, and had no memory of what had happened, although you did tell him that you had not sustained any injuries yourself, but that you believed you had blood on your clothes and had 'thrown them out'.[3] You said you recalled the tobacco store, and used to buy your tobacco there. You knew the Asian woman who worked there, and denied any adverse interactions with her in the past.

32 Dr Sullivan considered you to meet the criteria for a diagnosis of severe substance use disorder, in remission in a controlled environment. He stated that you also meet the criteria for a diagnosis of schizophrenia, with a differential diagnosis of stimulant-induced psychotic disorder. He noted that at the time of his assessment of you, you reported compliance with long-acting injectable antipsychotic medication, and denied substance abuse in prison.

The boundary between schizophrenia and drug-induced psychosis is somewhat arbitrary in those who recurrently use drugs which may cause psychosis, such as cannabis or stimulants. In Mr Cassar's place (sic), his recurrent substance use renders it difficult to determine which of these diagnoses is most accurate. The best opportunity to clarify the diagnosis would be after a protracted period of abstinence from substance use and without any antipsychotic medication. This is unlikely to occur.

Over the last 23 years, he has recurrently reduced or ceased antipsychotic medication, increased or relapsed into substance use and deteriorated in mental state.

I have a (sic) considered the availability of a mental impairment defence under section 20 of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness To Be Tried) Act 1997. Mr Cassar denied any preceding antagonism towards the victim and described having had previously unremarkable interactions with her. He denied that he normally carried knives. Mr Cassar could provide no explanation for his behaviour. I note that he reportedly provided a no comment interview to police, and refused to participate meaningfully in an assessment by an FMO. Consequently there is no other information related to his mental state at the time.

On this particular occasion, Mr Cassar's account is that he took a large dose of methamphetamine and subsequently had no recollection of the subsequent events. He had unilaterally ceased antipsychotic medication in the preceding months. On this basis, I consider that the use of methamphetamine was the primary causal factor for the alleged offence, and consequently I would regard this as attributable not to schizophrenia but rather due to acute intoxication with methamphetamine.

Given his claimed lack of recall about the alleged offence and its circumstances, I can provide no underlying explanation for his conduct. While I do note that Mr Cassar exhibits ongoing racist ideation about Asian people, at the time that I assessed him this was not clearly of delusional magnitude. Although he extrapolated from the actions of some Asian people to those of all Asian people, that is not delusional but simply reflects the foundation of racist beliefs. He did not associate his beliefs with any hostile attitudes towards the victim. There is little evidence that his behaviour was attributable to a 'disease of the mind' and significantly more evidence that it was precipitated by intoxication with methamphetamine.

Consequently, I do not consider that a mental impairment defence is available to Mr Cassar.

Mr Cassar has a long history of psychotic episodes, recurrently associated with cessation of medication and substance abuse. This has led to psychosocial decline, a breakdown in relationships, cessation of work and recurrent contact with police and mental health services hospital (sic).

At the time of the alleged offence, I consider that there was a causal association with methamphetamine intoxication and a clear predisposition to psychotic illness. I cannot parse out relative contributions of his behaviour to substance use or to psychotic relapse, as these are interlinked and inseparable. Noting his pattern of relapse involved aggression, persecutory beliefs and poor insight, I consider that at the time of the alleged offence Mr Cassar was unable to think clearly or make calm and rational choices, based on the lack of explanation for his behaviour. I consider that his judgment was severely impaired and he was disinhibited. I do not consider that his awareness of wrongdoing was impacted, as he fled the scene and reportedly disposed of his clothes. [4]

34 Mr Gullaci, in his written outline, asserted that your voluntary ingestion of drugs led to drug induced psychosis, which, he acknowledged, does not mitigate the seriousness of your offending at all.[5] He referred to the decision of R v Redenbach[6] in that respect. His assertion of drug induced psychosis was based on the opinions of Dr Sullivan, although as I pointed out to Mr Gullaci, the opinion of Dr Sullivan was that the primary causal factor of your offending was acute intoxication with ice.[7] He did not expressly state that you had developed a drug induced psychosis on the occasion of your offending. In any event, the alternative position of Mr Gullaci was that you acted under the influence of your ingestion of ice. That would not be mitigatory either.

35 However, Mr Gullaci relied upon your ice intoxication and/or drug induced psychosis as providing context, and an explanation, although not an excuse, for someone with your limited background having engaged in offending as serious as yours. He noted the many features of your crime which make it seem bizarre, inexplicable, and totally contrary to your interests.

36 He submitted that whilst you clearly had the state of mind necessary for attempted murder, that is, an intention to kill, that intent occurred in the context of:

c) extreme violence without a motive to rob or in the context of feelings of animosity or antipathy towards the victim;

37 Mr Gullaci relied, importantly, upon the opinion of Dr Sullivan, set out at [33] above, that at the time of the offence, you were unable to think clearly or make calm and rational choices, your judgment was severely impaired, and you were disinhibited.

39 Mr Gullaci relied on some passages in the reports of Dr Sullivan and Ms Fakhri in support of a submission that the fifth limb in R v Verdins & Ors[9] is enlivened in your case. Dr Sullivan opined that incarceration may weigh more heavily on you due to your long term difficulties with mental [ill] health. In his next sentence, he stated, 'however, while compliant with medication and abstinent from substance use, [you] will not likely have any appreciable burden from incarceration.'[10]

40 Ms Fakhri, too, expressed the opinion that incarceration is likely to be more burdensome for you as a result of your mental condition than it would be for someone without your conditions. She also opined that the sixth limb of Verdins would be enlivened, a contention disavowed by Mr Gullaci.

41 Ms Ramsay, for the prosecution, conceded that it would be open for the Court to find some application of limb 5 of Verdins.

42 Mr Gullaci, in his oral submissions, conceded that, should I be inclined to give effect to the fifth limb of Verdins, it would have a very moderate impact on sentence. [11]

43 In the circumstances, I am satisfied that limb 5 of Verdins is enlivened, but this would be of very limited significance.

44 You pleaded guilty on what was scheduled to be the first day of the trial. I accept that it was always the intention of your legal representatives that this matter be resolved as a plea of guilty. Various offers were made on your behalf and rejected by the prosecution. I accept that these efforts on your behalf to settle the matter were genuine, and that it was never intended, either at a committal, or trial, had there been one, that Ms Lam would be required for cross-examination. Furthermore, I note that it is clear that a good portion of the delay which occurred before you entered your plea of guilty was spent in proper exploration of the availability to you of a mental impairment defence.

45 Your plea of guilty, late though it was, is an important matter in mitigation, as the declaration I will soon make pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 ('the Act') will attest.[12] Your plea facilitated the course of justice, and significant utilitarian value attaches to it. Furthermore, your plea is further evidence of the remorse which I am satisfied you now feel for your crime, as revealed by you in discussions with Dr Sullivan, Ms Fakhri, and your family members.

46 Victim impact statements from Ms Lam and her son, Anthony Vong, were filed in Court and read aloud by the informant, Senior Constable Paltridge. The statements lost nothing in impact by their brevity.

47 Ms Lam details the emotional and physical effects she still suffers from your attack upon her. She describes the limitations in function and feeling in her left hand. Even now, 14 months after the attack, she has lost feeling in her fingers and has difficulty performing daily activities such as brushing her teeth, cooking, cleaning and eating. She struggles to look after her husband, who is in palliative care, and is unable to lift her grandson, which has limited the quality of her time with him. She has ongoing numbness to the back of her head and neck from her injuries there. She experiences terrifying nightmares in which you chase her with a knife. She feels scared and anxious upon hearing loud voices. She struggles with her sleep, and with eating. She is hypervigilant, and terrified at the sight of a knife, even on television. She stopped working as a result of the attack, and found herself unable to continue to work in the store, which had been her working life for more than 30 years, leading to the sale of the business, and a resulting financial impact upon her.

48 Mr Vong's statement is an illustration of the far-reaching effects of crimes upon the family members of primary victims. Although objectively, he is not remotely responsible for the plight of his mother, Mr Vong is quite distraught and feels an overwhelming sense of guilt for not being able to protect her. He has become almost obsessively concerned with the safety of his parents, and this has caused a strain upon his relationship with his fiancée. He has needed to take many days off work in order to be able to take his mother to medical and other appointments, costing him opportunities at work.

49 The victim impact statements portray a compelling picture of the way in which your crime has dramatically damaged and changed the life of Ms Lam and her family, in a way which is unlikely to ever be fully repaired. The loss they have suffered is substantial.

50 I take into account, as I am required to do pursuant to s 5(2) of the Act, the contents of the victim impact statements, and repeat the appreciation I expressed on the day of the plea hearing for the authors having had the courage and fortitude to play their important part in the criminal justice process.

Nature and gravity of offence and moral culpability and degree of responsibility

51 Mr Gullaci, in his oral submissions before me, described your attack upon Ms Lam as 'brutal, violent, unprovoked, uncalled for [and] unjustified',[13] and a 'horrible act of violence'.[14] He conceded the prevalence and seriousness of knife attacks in our community. He made it clear that the altered mental state in which you acted is not mitigatory, and made no submission to suggest your moral culpability was in any way reduced because of it, but contended that at the time of the attack, your mental state was compromised.

52 In respect of the degree of planning which preceded your attack upon Ms Lam, Mr Gullaci submitted that whilst I can be satisfied that you intended to physically confront and hurt Ms Lam at the time you left your home, and had formed an intent to kill by the time you commenced the attack, a consideration of your behaviour as apparent on the CCTV footage would leave open the possibility that that intention was formed only just prior to the attack.

53 As for the injuries suffered by Ms Lam, Mr Gullaci submitted that these were not life threatening, and that whilst the physical injuries continue to have an impact, the injuries were not life changing in the way sometimes seen in cases of attempted murder.

54 The prosecution pointed to a number of features of your crime which aggravate its seriousness, including the evidence of planning prior to the attack, the use of a knife as a weapon, the public location of the attack, the vulnerability of the victim, the significant injuries she suffered from which she has not fully recovered, the targeting of the head of Ms Lam in the attack and the reality that it is by sheer luck that the injuries were not far worse or that she was not killed by the thrusts of the knife which repeatedly targeted her head and neck.

55 Ms Ramsay described the ongoing physical and psychological impact of your attack upon Ms Lam as being 'incredibly significant'[15] after 14 months, impacting every facet of her life, and being 'absolutely life changing'.[16]

56 In respect of Mr Gullaci's contention that the necessary intent may have been formed only just prior to the attack, Ms Ramsay submitted that any pause apparent in your actions inside the store would be equally explicable by your desire to ensure the knife was appropriately angled and placed before launching the attack as by any hesitation in your mind as to your purpose. That is to say, any apparent pause does not necessarily show doubt or lack of intent as it could just as readily indicate preparation. Ms Ramsay submitted I should be satisfied you planned your crime from the time you left your premises as visible on the CCTV footage.

57 Your attack upon Ms Lam, carried out for no apparent reason upon a blameless and helpless victim, was brutal, violent and truly terrifying. Ms Lam, a 64 year old woman carrying out her work in what should have been the safety of her work place, was confronted and set upon by you in shocking fashion. She feared for her life, and suffered serious injuries as she sought to ward of your repeated thrusts towards her head and neck. It is by sheer good fortune that she was not killed by you, or more seriously injured. As it is, your attack has had a devastating effect upon her life. She still suffers the physical effects, which have hampered her life and from which she may never fully recover, in light of the current status of her injuries. And psychologically, this crime has harmed her, and her family, immeasurably. This is a type of crime that justifiably causes fear and discomfort in the community.

58 It is clear that you intended to carry out this attack at the time you left the carpark of your building, armed with a knife. You either took the knife with you from your apartment, or it was in your vehicle. It matters not. I think it is highly likely that as you left your home, you had formed the intention to kill. The CCTV footage showed you walking quite rapidly, and apparently purposefully, towards and then through the door of the shop. You proceeded straight up to and on top of the counter without the slightest hesitation. Once there, you immediately confronted Ms Lam, grappling with her for a short while before jumping down on her side of the counter. By that time, you had already removed the knife from your pocket. You then forced Ms Lam into the corner and commenced your attack upon her with the knife with little delay. I think it is highly likely that your intention to kill Ms Lam had been formed well before you entered the store. I need to reach no firm conclusion on that, however, because if the intention to kill, rather than simply injure, was formed only just before the attack, it would make no difference to the seriousness of your crime.

59 Yours was a serious instance of the crime of attempted murder. Counsel on both sides were content for your crime to be considered to sit in the middle of the range of seriousness of such crimes. I agree.

60 As for your moral culpability, as conceded by your counsel, that was not reduced by the strange and altered mental state in which you acted. Your moral culpability for your offending was high.

61 Before I leave the topic of the gravity of your offending, as I have noted, there is no explanation for your crime. In the past, you have, on occasions, expressed negative sentiments towards and about people of Asian extraction. Your cessation of depot injections from your general practitioner a couple of months before your crime was apparently in response to your reluctance to permit a female Asian nurse to administer the injection. Dr Sullivan described you as exhibiting 'ongoing racist ideation about Asian people'.[17]

62 In light of these matters, your selection of a target who was Asian might be considered to be concerning. For the avoidance of any doubt, I make it clear that I do not reach any conclusion, or sentence you on the basis, that you attacked Ms Lam because of the fact that she is Asian. It remains the case, to my mind, that it is impossible to determine your reason for carrying out this attack.

63 One of the matters to which I am required to have regard in sentencing you is current sentencing practices. In seeking to understand current sentencing practices for this crime, I have had regard, amongst other things, to the statistics available on the Sentencing Advisory Council website. The most recent statistics are for the period 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2024.[18] During that period, sentences were passed for 13 charges of attempted murder. Imprisonment was imposed in 12 of those cases, with 6 years' imprisonment the shortest term and 18 years' imprisonment the longest. The median term was 12 years, meaning that half of the terms were above and half were below that term.

64 I note that those statistics do not include the sentence of 25 years' imprisonment imposed by Beale J in the matter of R v Patterson.[19] I also note the limited utility of sentencing statistics in assisting in an understanding of current sentencing practices.

65 Mr Gullaci provided a table of cases relevant to sentencing of offenders for attempted murder. He and Ms Ramsay both addressed submissions in relation to some of the decisions summarised in the table. Mr Gullaci acknowledged in his written outline that there has been an upward trend in sentencing for attempted murder in recent years.

66 Mr Gullaci paid particular attention to four of the decisions summarised in the table. In two of the cases, DPP v Vaisey[20] and DPP v Bruno,[21] sentences of 7 years were imposed. In the other two, DPP v Chambers[22] and Tedford v The Queen,[23] sentences of 8 years were imposed. He also focused on the sentence passed in DPP v Elliott & Fares.[24]

67 I have considered the cases contained in the table provided by the defence, and other sentences passed for the crime of attempted murder. In respect of the cases particularly relied upon by Mr Gullaci as being of assistance, I note that whilst some cases may have shared features with your case, including the mode of offending, differences abound between your circumstances and the particular circumstances of those offenders. For example, in three of the four cases, there were Verdins considerations leading to a reduction in moral culpability and general and/or specific deterrence, which was not the case for you. In one of them, there was a reduction in sentence allowed in accordance with the principles in Bugmy v The Queen[25] which, again, had no application in this case. In Tedford, the person being sentenced was an elderly man in poor health, in respect of whom the need to avoid a crushing sentence was important. Furthermore, in light of the domestic nature of his offending, there was not considered to be a need to emphasise specific deterrence and community protection.

68 All of this goes to illustrate the obvious proposition that each sentencing task must be considered on its own individual circumstances. I make it clear that no individual sentence passed in any other case is in any way a precedent for the sentence I must pass.

69 I have had regard to current sentencing practices in arriving at an appropriate sentence for you.

70 Mr Gullaci submitted that in the circumstances of this case, a sentence which would provide you with the prospect of re-entering the community at the first reasonable opportunity, subject to the supervision, support and structure which parole can offer, would be in the community's interests. He submitted that the head sentence would be able to appropriately denounce the gravity of your crime, and a moderate non-parole period would provide you the opportunity to spend a considerable period on parole.

72 The assessment of the length of a non-parole period will depend on all of the circumstances of each case. In this case, I think there was considerable force in Mr Gullaci's contention that the community interest would be best served by you being provided with at least the opportunity for an extended period of time living in the community under the strictures of parole upon the expiration of the non-parole period. I have reached this conclusion as a result of a consideration of all of the circumstances, including your limited criminal history, the psychiatric condition and drug addiction from which you suffer, the fact that your conditions may be amenable to being successfully treated, and the high level of family support of which you are the very fortunate beneficiary. Of course, the non-parole period, along with the head sentence, must still adequately reflect and pay regard to the purposes for which sentence must be passed in your case.

73 Bearing in mind the relevant principles, the non-parole period which I will shortly announce will be significantly lower than that which would often be imposed for a head sentence of the length of the head sentence which the needs of justice require to be imposed in this case. I sentence you on the basis, of course, that you may be required to serve every day of the head sentence. The non-parole period I will set, however, will provide at least the potential for you to serve a substantial period of your sentence in the community with the supervision, support and control possible under a grant of parole.

74 Your attack upon Ms Lam was a serious instance of the always-serious crime of attempted murder. For mysterious reasons, but no doubt under the influence of self-administered ice, and most likely, while suffering from a drug-induced psychotic state, you attacked an entirely innocent and defenceless woman doing her job. You attacked her viciously, and in terrifying fashion. She thought she was going to die, and the fear she felt will no doubt live with her forever.

75 There are many aggravating features of your crime which I have sought to address in these reasons. One of them is your use of a dangerous weapon, a knife, in carrying out this attack. As was stated recently by the Court of Appeal in DPP v Shackley;[26]

Violent offending involving bladed weapons justifiably is a substantial source of community concern. To the extent that they are able, Courts must play a role in deterring such offending. The sentence imposed in this case did not at all adequately reflect the need for general deterrence, and the need for community protection. Nor was the sentence adequate to denounce the respondent's conduct or to punish him for it.[27]

76 This is a case in which all of the sentencing purposes set out in s 5(1) of the Act have an important part to play in sentencing you.

77 You must be punished in a way which reflects the seriousness of your crime and amounts to an appropriate response to it. The sentence must communicate in clear terms this Court's condemnation and disapproval on behalf of the community of your violent and frightening conduct which terrorised an innocent person, and has led to serious consequences, both physical and emotional, which will likely remain with her forever. Your crime, whilst only brief in its planning and execution, and committed while you were in a state in which you were unable to think clearly and make calm and rational choices, was nonetheless vicious and entirely uncalled for.

78 In respect of general deterrence, the sentence I pass must bring it clearly home to any person who might be minded to carry out an attack upon a defenceless member of the community with a weapon while affected by an illicit substance, intending to kill or seriously injure, that such conduct will be met with very strong punishment.

79 You must also be specifically deterred from any future violent actions to which you may be disposed, especially when under the influence of drugs. You must understand that the submission which was made on your behalf during the plea hearing that, at the time of your offending, you had no understanding that the ingestion of drugs may cause you to carry out serious violence in a psychotic state, will likely not be able to be made on your behalf in future. You are fully responsible for your actions, and need to understand the risk you will face if you abuse drugs in future.

80 Protecting the community from you is another important consideration. I have had regard to it in arriving at the appropriate sentence.

81 As for rehabilitation, I consider that to be an important sentencing purpose in your case. Your prospects of rehabilitation will largely depend on your ability in future to remain drug free, and to comply with the medication which is apparently necessary to control your psychotic symptoms. If you are able to commit yourself to a drug-free life, and become willing to fully embrace the treatment you need to ensure your mental health remains stable, your prospects would be quite good. Otherwise, they would be poor. At the moment, I view your rehabilitative prospects as being fair.

82 In order to foster your future rehabilitation, I will fix a non-parole period which will give you the prospect of being able to spend a substantial portion of your sentence at large in the community under the supervision of parole.

83 Joseph Cassar, for the attempted murder of Thanh Lam, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for 12 years.

84 I fix a period of 7 years during which you will not be eligible to be released on parole.

85 I declare a period of 436 days up to and including yesterday, 27 November 2025, as being a period already served under this sentence. I direct that the fact of the making of that declaration and its details be noted in the records of the Court.

86 I state pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 that, but for your plea of guilty, I would have sentenced you to be imprisoned for 14 years with a non-parole period of 10 years.

[1] Depositions, statement of Dr Cecil Johnny, 86.

[2] Ibid, statement of Dr Maaike Moller, 93.1.

[3] Report of Dr Sullivan, 11 March 2025, [28].

[4] Report of Dr Sullivan (n 3) [60]-[67] (italics in original).

[5] Defence Outline of Plea Submissions, 19 November 2025 ('Defence outline').

[6] 52 A Crim R 95, 99.

[9] [2007] VSCA 102; (2007) 16 VR 269 ('Verdins').

[10] Report of Dr Sullivan (n 4) [68].

[11] Plea transcript ('Transcript') 53.4-18.

[12] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 6AAA ('the Act').

[17] Dr Sullivan's report (n 3) [64].

[18] Sentencing Advisory Council, SACStat, Sentences imposed for Attempted Murder 2019-2024. A slightly earlier set of statistics was relied upon by Mr Gullaci during the plea hearing.

[19] [2025] VSC 557.

[20] [2021] VSC 584.

[21] [2018] VSC 822.

[22] [2025] VSC 63.

[23] [2020] VSCA 71. ('Tedford')

[24] [2022] VSC 554.

[25] (2013) 249 CLR 571 (French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ).

[26] [2025] VSCA 282 (Priest, Taylor and Kaye JJA).