DPP v Bitrus

1. A summary of prosecution opening was tendered at your plea hearing which comprehensively set out the agreed facts and circumstances of your offending. In brief, the circumstances of your offending were as follows.
2. On Monday 4 November 2024, an Interim Family Violence Intervention Order was issued at Broadmeadows Magistrates' Court where you were the Respondent and Viola PRACHI[3] was the AFM. The order included a prohibition against contacting Ms PRACHI or getting another person to do anything that you were prohibited from doing under the order.
3. The Order was served on you at the Heidelberg Magistrates' Court on 4 November 2024 at 3.52 pm.
4. On the same day, another Interim Family Violence Intervention Order was issued at the Broadmeadows Magistrates' Court where you were the Respondent and Mailen PRACHI[4] was the AFM. This included a prohibition against contacting the AFM and getting another person to do anything that you were prohibited from doing under the order.
5. The Order was served on you at the Heidelberg Magistrates' Court on 4 November 2024 at 3.53 pm.
6. Viola PRACHI had been your domestic partner for around three years. Mailen PRACHI is her mother.
7. On Monday 4 November 2024, you were remanded in custody for criminal charges of making threat to kill Mailen and Viola PRACHI, Contravening a Family Violence Intervention Order against Mailen and Viola PRACHI.
8. Mailen and Viola PRACHI were prosecution witnesses against you.
9. In breach of the Family Violence Intervention Interim Orders, a series of phone calls were made by you from prison.

Calls from the Melbourne Assessment Prison (the MAP)

1. Between 5 November 2024 and 12 November 2024, you were at the Melbourne Assessment Prison (MAP).
2. While at the MAP, you contacted Viola PRACHI 18 times, in contravention of the Family Violence Intervention Order, and that is the basis of Charge 2 - Persistent Contravention Family Violence Intervention Order.
3. In several of the calls, you said things to Viola PRACHI in which you pressured her and her mother to withdraw their complaints against you by making statements of no-complaint. This is part of the conduct comprising Charge 1 - Attempt to Pervert the Course of Justice. The calls from the MAP are summarised as follows:

(a) At 3.57 pm on 7 November 2024, you encouraged Viola PRACHI to tell her mother to drop her statement.

(b) At 4.08 pm on 8 November 2024, you told Viola PRACHI she could get you out and asked her if she had spoken to your lawyer.

(c) At 12.31 pm on 9 November 2024, you spoke to Viola PRACHI and told her to tell Mailen to go to Court and vary the Intervention Order, stressing that it needed to be done before the case returned to Court.

(d) At 3.19 pm on 10 November 2024, you told Viola PRACHI to tell Mailen PRACHI to keep going because you had a recording of her making a threat to kill.

(e) At 3.35 pm on 10 November 2024, you told Viola PRACHI to tell Mailen PRACHI to reconsider if she thinks a statement is enough to keep you in custody, and told Viola PRACHI 'Butter her up bub 'cause we need her to do that thing, you know'. Viola PRACHI told you that she was working on it.

1. Between 12 November 2024 and 6 January 2025, you were at the Marngoneet Correctional Centre.
2. While at Marngoneet, you made several phone calls to your sister Ayla BITRUS,[5] asking her to encourage the victims to make a statement of no complaint. The calls from Marngoneet constitute a continuation of Charge 1 - Attempt to Pervert the Course of Justice and they are as follows:

(a) At 3.48 pm on 27 December 2024, you spoke with Ayla and told her to tell Viola PRACHI to go to a police station and provide a statement of no complaint. At 3.55 pm, Ayla called Viola PRACHI for seven minutes and one second.

(b) At 11.56 am on 31 December 2024, you told Ayla to tell Viola PRACHI to make a statement or else you wanted nothing to do with her.

(c) At 7.12 pm on 31 December 2024, you told Ayla to tell Viola PRACHI do what you asked her to do.

(d) At 6.29 pm on 2 January 2025, you told Iman to tell Viola PRACHI to stop delaying.

(e) At 8.39 pm on 2 January 2025, Ayla told you she had just messaged Viola PRACHI. You told Ayla to tell Viola PRACHI 'Moe said you've got time to hang out with that lagging dog but not to go do what he - what he needs you to do'.

(f) At 8.42 pm, Viola PRACHI called Ayla for five minutes and 59 seconds.

(g) At 8.48 pm on 2 January 2025, Ayla told you she had spoken with Viola PRACHI. She told you that Viola PRACHI had been told by a detective that they would not take her statement:

AYLA: And then she was like, 'Yeah, but when I went and that detective was like, "No, I'm not taking your statement..."'

(h) The conversation continued and, later in the conversation you said that you had told Viola PRACHI to go to any police station:

YOU: All right. I told her to go to any one, any station.

YOU: Tell her stop pretending like you can't fuckin' do it...

Ayla called Viola PRACHI at 8.54 pm for four minutes and 57 seconds.

1. The calls between 27 December 2024 and 2 January 2025 give rise to Charge 3 - Persistent Contravention of a Family Violence Intervention Order.

1. On 4 January 2025, Viola PRACHI and Mailen PRACHI attended at the Heidelberg police station and made a statutory declaration of no complaint. The statutory declaration was co-signed by both the victims.

Accused's Response to the Statement of No Complaint

1. Ayla advised you of the statement of no-complaint at 2.32 pm on 5 January 2025. Ayla told you of the contents of the statement, and you became angry that the contents of the statement were not as you desired. You said 'I said this a thousand times. I told you to tell her this a thousand times, Ayla.'
2. At 5.17 pm on 5 January 2025, you told Ayla 'Text her, say - listen, he said "Shut your fucking mouth. Go and do what he fucking asked you to do, and he'll be home, that's it."'
3. At 4.13 pm on 6 January 2025, Ayla told you that Viola PRACHI had told her she was going to do another statutory declaration so she could edit it.
4. At 8.36 pm on 6 January 2025, you asked Ayla if Viola PRACHI did 'that thing', and to send a copy to your lawyer.

1. You were not interviewed.
2. Your co-accused, your sister Ayla, pleaded guilty to a single charge of harass witness and was placed on a diversion plan.

1. Attempting to pervert the course of justice is an inherently serious offence. Your conduct involved:

(a) attempts by yourself, and via your sister acting as your intermediary, to pressure your two victims to withdraw their statements;

(b) this occurred when you were in custody and occurred over a period of around two months;

(c ) the charges for which you were in custody involved family violence and your conduct is a continuation of your perpetration of family violence on your former partner and her mother;

(d) your victims made statements of no complaint in response to the pressure you exerted.

1. Ms Freijah who appeared on your behalf submitted that it cannot be established that you had attempted to procure a false account as Viola PRACHI never provided a statement against you in the first place, and because she, at all times, remained uncooperative with the prosecution, and the charges which led to the imposition of the family violence order in respect of Viola PRACHI were ultimately withdrawn. In my view it can hardly be said that these matters preclude the conclusion that you attempted to procure a false document and thereby reduce the assessment of the objective gravity of your offending.
2. First, I note the submission makes no reference to Mailen PRACHI, in respect of whom you were ultimately prosecuted for making a threat to kill and sentenced to 30 days' imprisonment.
3. Secondly, the reluctance of Viola PRACHI to cooperate in your prosecution is not unusual behaviour for a victim of family violence. It is well understood by the Courts that the dynamics of family violence often result in victims reluctant to act against perpetrators because of fear and/or a conflicted attitude to the punishment of the perpetrator.
4. Your offending did not involve threats of violence. However, I note in the case of Qayyum v The King[6] the Court noted that the absence of threats of physical violence does not ameliorate the overall seriousness of the conduct.[7]
5. I regard your offending as an objectively serious example of the crime of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

1. Turning to your personal circumstances and I rely on the following material:

(a) Defence Submissions for Plea in mitigation, tendered at your plea as Exhibit A; and

(b) Report of Ms Cidoni, Consultant Psychologist, dated 1 December 2025 and tendered at your plea as Exhibit B.

1. You were born in July 1993. You are presently 32 years old.
2. You were born in Melbourne. You report a stable and loving upbringing and report good relationships with your parents and your six siblings. Your father died in 2017 when you were in custody, and this was deeply distressing for you. Along with one of your sisters who lives with your mother, you are your mother's primary caregiver. Your mother suffers a number of conditions affecting her health.
3. You attended school until Year 9. You were poorly behaved at school. You told Ms Cidoni you were a capable student but disengaged. You went to TAFE and you qualified as a boilermaker. You have a solid work history and intend to resume employment upon your release from custody.
4. Your most significant relationship has been with your victim, Viola PRACHI. You told Ms Cidoni that Viola had mental health diagnoses. Viola experienced several miscarriages during your relationship which were significant to both of you. You acknowledged that your drug use and criminality had placed the relationship under stress. You report the relationship is now over.
5. You have suffered a number of physical injuries caused by motor bike accidents and now experience chronic back pain. You report in custody you were unable to obtain your regular pain medication pregabalin and resorted to the illicit use of buprenorphine in custody.
6. You have recently disclosed childhood sexual abuse by a neighbour. You have not participated in any counselling or treatment, but you report you have been able to talk about what happened to you with a fellow inmate who has had a similar experience. You find these conversations supportive and validating.
7. You have been in custody since November 2024. At an assessment in January 2025, you reported a flat and depressed mood. You have recently reported an improvement in your mood and have stated you no longer feel as flat or depressed.
8. You have used cannabis since the age of 14. In 2018 you started using methamphetamine and cocaine heavily.
9. You have a history of problematic gambling which worsened in conjunction with stimulant misuse.
10. You have no history of treatment with mental health services or treatment for drug use or gambling.
11. Ms Cidoni assessed you in January 2025 and again November 2025. She gives the opinion that your insight into your offending improved over this period, and you were able to make the connection between your behaviour and your substance misuse, and that you needed to be better at handling interpersonal conflict. However, she states, 'some minimisation and externalisation remain, suggesting that although judgement has improved, further progress is dependent on sustained abstinence and therapeutic support'.
12. Turning to your mental health.
13. Ms Cidoni gives the opinion that you meet the diagnostic criteria for

post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) likely referable to childhood sexual abuse. You described recurrent distressing flashbacks in custody. She gives the opinion that you also meet the diagnostic criteria for substance abuse disorders. 14. On your mental state at the time of your offending she opines that it was significantly affected by your drug use in custody. She further opines that your PTSD also contributed to your psychological functioning at the time in that your symptoms worsen during times of relationship conflict and legal stress. She says your PTSD in combination with your substance misuse impacted on your ability to make calm and rational choices. 15. She assessed your overall risk of reoffending as moderate. She notes the stabilising influences of your good family relationships and your maintenance of employment. However, weighted against this is your criminal history and entrenched history of drug use. She says your primary treatment need is comprehensive substance abuse intervention. 16. She notes the improvement in your mental state in custody since January 2025 but states that continued imprisonment can increase the risk of further deterioration in mental health and may delay your rehabilitation. 17. You have a relevant criminal history. You have twice been sentenced for contravening family violence orders. You were sentenced to five years and six months' imprisonment in 2014 for offences of armed robbery, attempted armed robbery and criminal damage. You have prior convictions for drug possession and violent offending. You have prior convictions for committing offences on bail. 18. You have been in custody since 3 November 2024. You have served a nine month sentence for unrelated offending. This sentence was nine months in combination with a twelve-month correction order which will commence upon your release. 19. You eventually pleaded to a single charge of threat to kill in respect of Mailen PRACHI and served a 30-day sentence. 20. Your pre-sentence detention referable to these charges is at today 139 days.

1. The following matters were raised at your plea in mitigation of sentence.
2. First, your plea of guilty which was made at the earliest opportunity.
3. Secondly, the principle of totality requires that I take into account that you have been in custody since 3 November 2024 even though, as has been discussed, most of that period is not referrable as pre-sentence detention on the current charges.
4. Thirdly, parity is a relevant sentencing consideration, although your sister played a much lesser role in the overall offending.
5. Fourthly, on the basis of Ms Cidoni's report all limbs of Verdins[8] are engaged in sentencing you.
6. On behalf of the prosecution, it was submitted that your offending is a serious example of family violence related offending and the charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice is particularly grave.
7. The application of Verdins[9] limbs, 1,2,4 and 6 were disputed. The prosecution submitted that your misuse of illicit drugs in custody contributed to your offending and the Court cannot assess the degree to which your PTSD may have contributed. The prosecution noted that the effects attributable to your drug use, according to Ms Cidoni, are withdrawal related irritability, emotional blunting and fluctuating levels of sedation, all of which can interfere with clear decision making and behaviour regulation.
8. The prosecution submitted there should be some modest reduction in the application of general deterrence but not specific deterrence.
9. The prosecution conceded the application of limb 5 of Verdins[10] but disputed limb 6 which requires that the evidence discloses that there is a serious risk of adverse effects on your mental health if you remain in prison
10. Both parties provided me and referred me to comparator cases.[11]
11. On your behalf it was submitted that a sentence involving a straight term of imprisonment equivalent to time served could satisfy all the various objectives of sentencing. The prosecution submitted that a term of imprisonment was required, and that your presentence detention was inadequate.

1. Turning to my own conclusions.
2. I have already referred to the serious nature of your behaviour. I reject that your moral culpability is moderated because of your PTSD. I accept the submission of the prosecution that given your drug use and its effects on your behaviour it is not possible for me to determine what, if any, were the effects of your PTSD.
3. I regard your moral culpability for your offending as high. You involved your younger sister for which you should be thoroughly ashamed. On the application of parity, your conduct was clearly much more serious and morally reprehensible than that of your sister, who you selfishly involved to further your interests. You also have relevant prior convictions whereas your sister having received diversion must have had no criminal convictions.
4. The predominant sentencing considerations in this case are general deterrence and denunciation. In my view you are a suitable vehicle for the application of both general and specific deterrence, and I reject the submission that the application of either general or specific deterrence should be moderated in your case because of your mental health. Your conduct was purposeful and calculated and done to achieve the specific objective of absolving you of criminal responsibility for your conduct to your partner and her mother. All criminal behaviour involves bad decisions, and your is no exception. The message must be sent by the sentence I impose that offending of this kind will be punished and that you must get the message that you must never behave in this way again. On behalf of the community, I denounce your conduct.
5. I do accept that your mental health makes your time in custody more burdensome, but I reject that the evidence supports the conclusion that there is a serious risk that your mental health will decline if you remain in prison. Indeed, to the contrary your mental health appears to have stabilised.
6. Your plea is a plea at the earliest opportunity and entitles you to a significant mitigatory discount. Your plea has spared the community the cost of a trial and your victims the distress of having to give evidence. Your plea acknowledges your criminal responsibility and is indicative of some remorse on your part.
7. Your rehabilitation is really up to you, Mr BITRUS. You need to address your drug use and seek treatment and support to deal with your experience of childhood sexual abuse. When you are released from custody you will commence your 12-month correction order and hopefully you will benefit from the programmes and treatments that will likely be available to you under that order.
8. I take into my contemplation in the application of the principle of totality that in fact you have been in custody since 3 November 2024.
9. Taking into account all the matters I am required to under the Sentencing Act[12] and matters personal to you, I intend to sentence you as follows. You can remain seated in the circumstances.
10. You are convicted on all charges.
11. On Charge 1 you are sentenced to 20 months' imprisonment.
12. On Charge 2 and 3 you are sentenced to 6months' imprisonment on each charge.
13. Charge 1 is the base charge and I direct the sentences on Charge 2 and 3 be served concurrently on Charge 1.
14. This makes a total effective sentence of 20 months' imprisonment. I am directing that you must serve a period of 10 months before you are eligible for parole.
15. Pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic),[13] had you pleaded not guilty, you would have been sentenced to a total effective sentence of 2 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 1 year and 3 months.
16. Pursuant to s18(4) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic),[14] I declare that you have served 139 days of the sentence I have passed upon you and I direct that this be entered into the records of the Court.

[2] Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) s 125A(1).

[6] Jawad Qayyum v The King [2025] VSCA 14.

[8] R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102

[10] R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102.

[11] Qayyum v The King [2025] VSCA 14; DPP v Parker (a pseudonym) [2021] VCC 2129; DPP v Ellard [2019] VCC 1612; DPP v Hackett [2019] VCC 714; DPP v Soderman [2022] VCC 81; DPP v Holding (a pseudonym) [2019] VCC 2214; DPP v Greenwood [2020] VCC 1970; Haywood [2016] VCC 123; DPP v Reilly [2023] VCC 1114; Hasenkamp (a pseudonym) [2016] VCC 688; DPP v Buckley [2022] VCC 1366.

[12] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic).

[13] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 6AAA,

[14] Ibid s 18(4).