DPP v Ajeme [2025] VCC 1547

Sentence: Total effective sentence of 10 months of detention in the

1. Ali Ajeme, on 1 October 2024 you committed two serious knife crimes, being intentionally cause injury to one victim and recklessly cause serious injury to another victim.
2. The circumstances of your offending were set out in the prosecution opening for the plea. To summarise further, in the period before 1 October 2024 you came to learn that your cousin, who became the primary victim, was in a relationship with a young female. You and the primary victim's brother, also therefore your cousin, did not approve of this relationship. The brother of the primary victim became what I will call your 'co-accused'.
3. You and your co-accused's disapproval of the relationship was expressed in messages between you both, indicating that you wanted to do something about it.
4. On 1 October 2024 you came to learn that the primary victim and his girlfriend were together at a café in Hughesdale. You and your co-accused went to the café. The interaction in the café and in the entrance area of the café where the stabbings occurred were captured on CCTV footage. I have watched that footage a number of times. None of it does you any credit.
5. First, you and the co-accused went into the café and confronted the victim, who was simply enjoying himself in the company of his female friend at one of the tables. Both he, his female friend and other patrons there were simply enjoying themselves on different tables in the café, were taken aback by your aggression.
6. The owner of the café intervened to try to keep the peace. He asked you and your co-accused to leave. You did leave, but as you did you said frightening, aggressive words to the primary victim, urging him to 'come outside'. You said 'I am going to shoot this place up and kill everyone if you don't come outside'. The primary victim remained in the café.
7. Once you were outside, you could and should have kept going and left the area, but you did not. Rather, you got a weapon, an odd one, being a tennis racquet, and you came back into the café with intense aggression. With the tennis racquet you hit the café owner to his head and then confronted the primary victim, forcing him back towards the serving counter.
8. There, the victim briefly grabbed one of the café kitchen knives. He put it down, as they say, quickly. You and the co-accused were throwing punches. Others in the café left in fear. You then grabbed the kitchen knife yourself, holding it towards the victim saying, with chilling menace 'I'm going to fucking stab you and kill you, I swear on the Quran that I will kill you'.
9. At this point in the melee, a brave woman got between you and the victims. She was able to get the knife from you but unfortunately you were able to get another similar sized knife from the kitchen counter area. The primary victim moved away from the kitchen area into the café itself, trying to escape. You followed him wielding the knife. The primary victim then moved outside the café towards the street. You and your co-accused followed, as did the café owner.
10. The café owner and the primary victim came back inside the corridor area. They were standing there, with the café owner on the phone to the police. He displayed the phone to try and get you to understand that the police were coming. But in response to this, you lunged forward and used your knife to stab the café owner to the back and under his ribs. While doing that you said again the chilling words 'I am going for your heart, I will take your fucking life'. Then you moved to the primary victim, stabbing him under the left arm, close to the arm pit.
11. The café owner ran from the premises and was chased by you and your

co-accused. He took refuge in a nearby address and received assistance. The primary victim came back inside towards the kitchen and blood could be seen pouring from the stab wound and dripping onto the floor. The police and ambulance arrived and thankfully both victims were taken speedily to the Alfred Hospital. 12. As to the injuries to the primary victim, he sustained a penetrating injury under his left arm which caused damage to one of the major vessels supplying blood to his arm. As a consequence of this damage, he suffered major blood loss requiring massive transfusions of blood. He underwent initial interventional radiology so as to ensure, through this specialised procedure, that the bleeding could be stopped. He was admitted to Intensive Care. 13. As he set out in his victim impact statement, he remained there for three days and was in hospital for ten. He required further surgery to remove clots resulting in further major blood loss. Unsurprisingly the expert opinion from the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine set out an opinion that, but for the medical treatment, it is very likely that the primary victim would have died from blood loss. 14. The café owner or other victim sustained superficial stab wounds to his chest area and under his arm. He required five stitches to the larger wound and three to the smaller wound. 15. Your crime has had a significant impact on the primary victim, who provided a compelling victim impact statement outlining the enduring difficulties he has. I will refer to that victim impact statement at some length. He wrote:

...I have struggled for words on what happened to me on 1 October 2024. It is a date that will live with me for the rest of my life.

This crime has left an indelible mark on me, both physically and emotionally. I am no longer the person I once was. Before that night, I was known as a joyful and outgoing individual. I cherished my time outdoors, particularly during the late hours, attending car events, going on drives, working out at the gym, and making new friends. I valued my relationships and sought opportunities to connect with others. I approached life with positivity and resilience, always confident in my ability to overcome challenges.

But now, that person feels like a distant memory. This crime has profoundly altered every aspect of my life. I live in a constant state of fear and overthinking. I often wake up in the middle of the night, fearing what may happen to me and my loved ones. Simple interactions with strangers now fill me with distrust and anxiety. My walls are up, and i struggle to engage with people. I find myself retreating to the indoors, clinging to the safety of familiar environments. Even then, I am haunted by questions: Who is around me? What are their intentions? Will they hurt me?

These thoughts are relentless, playing on an endless loop in my mind. I feel emotions I never expected to endure daily - anger, vulnerability, paranoia, and grief. I mourn the loss of the person I used to be. I feel detached from my friends, family, and partner, unable to share my thoughts for fear of reliving the trauma. Flashbacks of that night invade my mind, keeping me awake at night and consuming my energy during the day. The lack of sleep, compounded by an overwhelming loss of appetite, has left me physically and mentally drained.

Physically, I've endured life-altering injuries. The stab wound under my left armpit is a constant reminder of that night...I spent three nights in intensive care and the rest of the week in the trauma ward, undergoing painful procedures and enduring unimaginable discomfort.

... Even after being discharged, my wound became infected, requiring further treatment. The pain in my neck, back, and shoulders from excess drainage was unbearable...

This crime robbed me of my pride in my physical appearance. Before the attack, I loved working out and took pride in my fitness. I had to stop going to the gym fora month, and I've since lost much of the progress I worked so hard to achieve. My routine in the gym was a form of sanctuary for me...

This crime has scarred me in ways I cannot fully articulate. I've lost my sense of security, my confidence, and the vibrant person I once was...

The events of 1 October 2024 have left me permanently scarred inside and out. My physical injuries may heal, but the emotional and psychological wounds will remain with me forever. I do hope that time will help me heal but there is no guarantee that it will...

1. The second victim did not provide a victim impact statement but I infer he has had adverse impacts.
2. As to the gravity of your crimes, I see this as serious examples of recklessly causing serious injury and intentionally causing injury. I have come to that view by reason of:
   1. the protracted or ongoing nature of your violent interactions in distinct episodes, escalating in aggression and the seriousness of the consequences;
   2. the confrontation was premeditated, though I accept you did not come armed with a knife or with an intent to stab anyone, however, you quickly moved to getting the knife and you were relentless even in the face of being disarmed. You then, as I outlined, found another knife and then used it. The words that accompanied your violence were chilling and reveal your intense aggression;
   3. although the reasons for you going to confront the primary victim in no way justify what you did, with respect to the second victim, the café owner, he had nothing to do with your family gripes. To stab him was simply gratuitous. It was just good fortune that he did not suffer worse injuries;
   4. your violence was perpetrated in company;
   5. knife crimes and aggression in public places are of growing concern. Our community fears the violent conduct of young men, acting out their feuds in public, disdainful of the impact on the general community. I am not for a moment relating your conduct with notorious gang battles, rather it is that you deployed violence in a café where there were others entitled to feel safe as they socialised. So, too, the owner; he was entitled to not have his business turned into a battleground for your family dispute.
3. Although I will say more about your moral culpability given your very young age at the time, nonetheless, you did have many opportunities to stop and leave. As I said, you did not, but rather you escalated the violence. I will refer to the moderation of moral culpability because of your youth but it needs to be said that the moderation is from a high level to start with.
4. As to your personal circumstances, I was significantly assisted by the evidence both written and oral from your treating psychologist, also from letters from your family or from friends, and your partner in particular, together with the concise written submissions from your counsel. I interpose that your counsel's submissions generally were comprehensive and persuasive.
5. You are now 19 years and six months' old. You were 18 when you committed these crimes. I will speak in due course at length of the sentencing principles applicable to someone as young as you are.
6. But to outline your upbringing, your parents divorced when you were 15. You have a sister. Your family home life was, to use your counsel's words, 'turbulent'. You were exposed to episodes of violence but in the main and unusually, it was your mother who was unpredictable and prone to aggression towards your father and emotional abuse of you and your sister. Your mother was ultimately diagnosed with bipolar disorder and was hospitalised from time to time in mental health facilities.
7. Your difficulties in a chaotic home were mirrored with difficulties that you had at school. You were disruptive and defiant. Your teachers suspected you had ADHD but it seems your parents were resistant to any assessments, much less medical and pharmacological interventions. In those circumstances, you did not gain what you might have in education. You left school at the beginning of Year 11.
8. You moved briefly into labouring jobs before commencing a carpentry apprenticeship. However, you have struggled with being reliable due in large part to your uptake of drugs. At the time of your parents' separation and as you were struggling at school, you took to mixing with antisocial peers and you took to using drugs.
9. By 14 you were using cannabis and by 16 you had moved into using that dreadful drug, methylamphetamine. Your drug use, combined with what is now diagnosed by your psychologist as ADHD, meant you were prone to impulsiveness. The trajectory of your life at the time around 16-18 was not good. It was in this setting that you completely overreacted to what you thought was the primary victim's failure to adhere to cultural expectations, which involved him not going out with the girlfriend he was with when you confronted and stabbed him.
10. After you were arrested for these crimes, you were remanded in an adult prison for 54 days. You felt alone and fearful. With forced abstinence from drugs, you had a clearer head to consider your life choices. You returned to your religious faith and although you were highly anxious, you were able to complete three vocational programs in custody. All that is to your credit.
11. Importantly, you were seen by Mr Albassit, the psychologist who assessed you. He considered that you had undiagnosed ADHD that would be best treated with medication. Also, he considered you suffered from cyclothymic disorder, which is emotional mood fluctuations best thought of as similar to bipolar disorder, but not as severe.
12. Ultimately on your release on bail, you have been treated via telehealth by Mr Albassit and your general practitioner. Mr Albassit has engaged in cognitive behaviour type therapies, focusing on ensuring you achieve stability in all domains. One of those is to ensure you mix with prosocial friends.
13. To that end, you have formed a stable relationship. I was assisted by your partner's letter. She speaks of you being more reflective and determined to deal with the ups and downs of life with clearer thinking and without resorting to drugs, anger and impulsiveness. She wrote of your remorse for what you had done.
14. Another area of life that you have made significant efforts in is to gain and hold a job. Your employer wrote of your reliability and commitment. That is very much to your credit. Importantly, you report that you have been free of drugs and alcohol whilst on bail.
15. I should note that despite your difficult circumstances in terms of upbringing, your resort to drugs and your problems with mood, anger and ADHD, you have no criminal history whatsoever. This is your first time in a criminal court. Unfortunately, it is for such a serious offence. That said, your previous good character is important, and you can call on that in asking for leniency.
16. You have as another sign of thinking about your direction and priorities, taken to fitness and sport in an organised program of up to three attendances a week, again to your credit.
17. You have complied faithfully with onerous bail conditions. Your living arrangements are now with your family, that is you are embedded with your wider and extended family. I note your mother's mental health has deteriorated in recent times causing you real concerns. Your father has returned to the Middle East to try and secure work. In short, there is not much else you could have done to step away from the circumstances which saw you commit these dreadful crimes. There is not much else you could have done to start and advance your rehabilitation.
18. This must be acknowledged in the sentence imposed. These matters together with the importance of reflecting the gravity of your offending in the sentence I impose, are captured in the well-known principles of sentencing young offenders set out by Redlich JA in Azzopardi v The Queen[1]. In your case those principles are so central that it warrants lengthy citation so that you and the community understand what guides sentencing judges like myself in coming to just and appropriate sentences.
19. In your counsel's submissions, he too referred at length to Azzopardi, citing most of the key aspects of the judgment of Redlich JA. There are some further factors I will read shortly. I will not read other case citations or quotations, and I will precis appropriately.
20. Redlich J under the heading in Azzopardi of 'Sentencing principles concerning youth' said the following:

There are a number of considerations which underlie the general primacy of an offender's youth as a sentencing consideration. First, young offenders being immature are therefore "more prone to ill-considered or rash decisions". They "may lack the degree of insight, judgment and self-control that is possessed by an adult".19 They may not fully appreciate the nature, seriousness and consequences of their criminal conduct.[2]

Secondly, courts "recognise the potential for young offenders to be redeemed and rehabilitated". This potential exists because young offenders are typically still in a stage of mental and emotional development and may be more open to influences designed to positively change their behaviour than adults who have established patterns of anti-social behaviour. No doubt because of this potential, it has been stated that the rehabilitation of young offenders, "is one of the great objectives of the criminal law". The added emphasis for the purposes of sentencing on realisation of a young offender's potential to be rehabilitated is further justified because of the community's interest in such rehabilitation, not only at a theoretical level, but because the effective rehabilitation of a young offender protects the community from further offending...

...Thirdly, courts sentencing young offenders are cognisant that the effect of incarceration in an adult prison on a young offender will more likely impair, rather than improve, the offender's prospects of successful rehabilitation. While in prison a youthful offender is likely to be exposed to corrupting influences which may entrench in that young person criminal behaviour, thereby defeating the very purpose for which punishment is imposed. Imprisonment for any substantial period carries with it the recognised risk that anti-social tendencies may be exacerbated. The likely detrimental effect of adult prison on a youthful offender has adverse flow-on consequences for the community.[3]

It is helpful to briefly examine how these considerations are affected where the crimes have been particularly serious or persistent. In the case of R v Mills,[4] this court stated the following general propositions about sentencing youthful offenders as correct:

i. Youth of an offender, particularly a first offender, should be a primary consideration for a sentencing court where that matter properly arises.

ii. In the case of a youthful offender rehabilitation is usually far more important than general deterrence. This is because punishment may in fact lead to further offending. Thus, for example, individualised treatment focusing on rehabilitation is to be preferred. (Rehabilitation benefits the community as well as the offender.)

iii. A youthful offender is not to be sent to an adult prison if such a disposition can be avoided, especially if he is beginning to appreciate the effect of his past criminality. The benchmark for what is serious as justifying adult imprisonment may be quite high in the case of a youthful offender; and, where the offender has not previously been incarcerated, a shorter period of imprisonment may be justified...

... to say of a violent crime that it requires a sentence effecting the purpose of general and specific deterrence is not to show that the case is other than the "usual" for the purpose of the above propositions.

1. I return to Azzopardi. His Honour Redlich JA then went on at para [38]:

In the same year as Mills was decided, this court recognised that there would be cases in which factors such as youth and rehabilitation would take a "back seat" to other sentencing considerations. A year after Mills, Batt JA in R v Bell[5] cautioned sentencing judges that the propositions in that case, while applied frequently were not of universal or automatic application and would depend upon the circumstances of the offence as well as the offender. His Honour further stated that where the offence in question is conduct that is prevalent among young men, then "besides rehabilitation, general deterrence and specific deterrence must bulk large in informing a sound discretionary determination". This concept was repeated in R v Ung,[6] where Eames JA said that there may be circumstances in which considerations of youth must give way to factors of general and specific deterrence. He referred to the reasons of Callaway JA, with whom Buchanan and Vincent JJA agreed in R v Tran[7] that while "rehabilitation of youthful offenders is one of the great objectives of the criminal law which will usually be given greater weight than general deterrence ... [it] is not the only relevant consideration and in an appropriate case might have to yield to considerations of general deterrence".

The most oft-cited passage dealing with the issue of the tension between the mitigating influence of an offender's youth and the increased need for general (and specific) deterrence in the case of very serious violent offending is that of Batt JA in Director of Public Prosecutions v Lawrence:[8]

"... with an offence as serious as intentionally causing serious injury and particularly with an instance of it as grave as this one, the offender's youthfulness and rehabilitation, achieved and prospective, whilst not irrelevant in the instinctive synthesis which the sentencing judge must make, were of much less significance than they would have been with a less serious offence. As has been said, youth and rehabilitation must be subjugated to other considerations. They must, as the President said in Wright, take a "back seat" to specific and general deterrence where crimes of wanton and unprovoked viciousness (of which the present is an example) are involved, particularly where (again as here) the perpetrator has been given previous chances to control his aggressive habits..."

1. Clearly, there are many factors such as your immaturity, compounded by your ADHD and impulsiveness, that lower your moral culpability. There are factors that are important such as that you are a first offender, and importantly that you have made already solid steps towards reform. All that means I must emphasise your rehabilitation and do what I can to further facilitate your rehabilitation. However, as was made clear in the principles, there comes a time when the seriousness of the offence means rehabilitative sentencing purposes must yield to more punitive purposes such as denunciation and general deterrence.
2. Here, the significant tension is the considerable seriousness of your stabbing crimes, most particularly to the primary victim. Your stabbing of him caused very grave consequences of days in Intensive Care, and more still in hospital and enduring problems. There are long term, ongoing physical and especially mental issues for him. He would have died but for speedy intensive medical intervention.
3. The seriousness of this crime means that the rehabilitative purposes must yield to a significant degree. There must be proper weight given to denunciation, punishment and deterrence to others who may be minded wielding and use knives in anger and cause serious injury.
4. Having considered all the many and powerful factors in mitigation, most particularly your significant advances in rehabilitating, there is a real tension as to whether a penalty not involving incarceration would be just and appropriate, or whether the sentencing purposes of denunciation and general deterrence and punishment would be too diluted, given the circumstances of this crime, if a community corrections order alone was imposed.
5. I had you assessed for both a Youth Justice Centre period of detention and a community corrections order. Not surprisingly, you were found suitable and recommended by both report writers. I have paid close attention to the report written by the Youth Justice worker. But in both reports and in all the written testimonials from friends, it is clear that you have accepted responsibility for what you did, and you are deeply ashamed and remorseful. You have genuine empathy for the victims' plights.
6. Your plea of guilty is significant in all domains. It must and will be acknowledged in the sentence to be imposed. You are motivated by your current significant insight into what you did and why, and how the consequences of your poor lifestyle saw you at a low ebb, such that now you are determined to be better. I am confident you will permanently reform.
7. The Sentencing Act 1991 makes it clear that I cannot impose a sentence involving incarceration if all sentencing purposes can be met by a sentence not involving incarceration. I have given your case long and anxious consideration. Taking you from your current stable circumstances and sentencing you to a period of incarceration is a grave step. I considered all the principles articulated by the Court of Appeal in Boulton[9] as to the value of a community corrections order and how it punishes and deters, and how it operates to punish and rehabilitate simultaneously. They are very important matters and apply to young offenders, where the real option is not gaol or a combined sentence, but one of detention in a Youth Justice Centre.
8. The discretionary decision I have to make is one that cannot overlook the gravity and impact of your crime simply because you have done so well to turn things around. There must be a balance, that while favouring rehabilitation of young offenders like you, I do not do so to an extent that the dire circumstances of the offence are undervalued in the sentencing synthesis.
9. I have endeavoured to be as lenient as the law would warrant, but it cannot be that for offending as grave as recklessly causing serious injury, the sentence is a community corrections order alone. There must unfortunately be a period of Youth Justice Centre detention.
10. As an expression of parsimony and the principle of totality in your circumstances, I have moderated significantly the order for cumulation, notwithstanding that the crime of intentionally cause injury was on a separate victim and in the ordinary course deserving of significant cumulation. I have revisited the sentence to be imposed on each offence and revisited my moderate order of cumulation. I have then stepped back again and moderated again, as a final expression of parsimony or mercy to you as a young man with significant potential.
11. Thus, the sentence that I will order is as follows:
12. For the crime of intentionally cause injury, you are sentenced to three months detention in the Youth Justice Centre.
13. For the crime of recklessly causing serious injury, you are sentenced to nine months' of detention in the Youth Justice Centre.
14. One month of Charge 1 is cumulative. The total effective sentence is thereby 10 months of detention in the Youth Justice Centre.
15. I note you have done 54 days in adult custody. This figure having been reckoned, I now declare it is part of the sentence that I have just imposed and I will ensure that the authorities are in no doubt that you have already done 54 days of the sentence that I imposed.
16. Had you pleaded not guilty to these offences and been found guilty of them, I would have imposed a two year period of detention in the Youth Justice Centre.
17. Are there any other orders, Ms Dearman?
18. MS DEARMAN: No, Your Honour. Just one matter to raise in relation to pre-sentence detention.
19. HIS HONOUR: Yes.
20. MS DEARMAN: My calculation is 55 days, Your Honour. There may have been a typo in some of the material, but it is definitely 55.
21. HIS HONOUR: Thanks. Mr Murphy, I acted on your submission which said 54.
22. MR MURPHY: That is my mistake, Your Honour. Upon reviewing it again it is correct that it is 55.
23. HIS HONOUR: Yes. You probably did that orally in the whole thing.
24. All right, Mr Ajeme, I will adjust the order to ensure that the pre-sentence detention, the word in the Sentencing Act 'has been reckoned', it has been reckoned at 55 days and that is now declared and I will ensure the declaration is entered into the records of the court.
25. MS DEARMAN: Yes, Your Honour, in relation to the disposal order, sorry I did say no, but one was filed on 29 August in relation to the knife and the tennis racquet.
26. HIS HONOUR: All right, that will happen. Ms Dearman, my staff have just pointed out to me, it must be my fault, that happens so routinely, that there is some summary charge. Is that still persisted with?
27. MS DEARMAN: No, Your Honour.
28. HIS HONOUR: It's not, it's been withdrawn, thanks. All right.
29. MS DEARMAN: Yes, Your Honour.
30. HIS HONOUR: Thanks very much, I'm so sorry about that, but there have been so many of these, I just asked someone yesterday if there were any other orders I had to make and everyone told me no, I've covered the lot, and then of course there was a summary offence. I must say I don't pay a lot of attention too unfortunately, because they should be dealt with in the Magistrates' Court, nonetheless.
31. Mr Ajeme, that is the sentence I have imposed, hard as it might seem, I mean hard as this may seem. The court is not set up for you to spend any time with those that are there that I can see. Mr Murphy will assist them in telling them where you are heading to and how to contact and so on. You have to go with the prison staff now and they will organise for you to be transferred to the Youth Justice Centre in due course. So you have to go with them now. I remain on the Bench to make sure that that happens smoothly. Thank you.
32. OFFENDER: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.
33. HIS HONOUR: Thank you, I again thank counsel for what were very comprehensive, high-quality submissions, written and oral, thank you.
34. COUNSEL: It please the court.

[1] [2011] VSCA 372; (2011) 35 VR 43.

[2] [2011] VSCA 372; (2011) 35 VR 43, [34].

[4] R v Mills [1998] 4 VR 235.

[5] R v Bell [1999] VSCA 223; (1999) 30 MVR 115.

[6] R v Ung [2002] VSCA 101.

[7] R v Tran [2002] VSCA 52; (2002) 4 VR 457.

[8] Director of Public Prosecutions v Lawrence [2004] VSCA 154; (2004) 10 VR 125, [22].

[9] Boulton v The Queen [2014] VSCA 342.