DPP v Carrington

1. Mr Carrington, offences involving the unlawful possession and use of firearms are inherently serious, as reflected in the maximum penalties of 10 years' imprisonment for both the offence of possessing a firearm as a prohibited person and the offence of using a firearm in a public place. The offence of assisting an offender carries a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment.
2. Mr Tamburro, appearing for the prosecution, submitted the court should assess the objective seriousness of your offending by reference to several factors. These included your significant and relevant prior history, your status as a prohibited person, having served a term of imprisonment within the preceding five years for attempting to pervert the course of justice; the fact that the firearm involved was a loaded and operable shotgun; and the absence of any ongoing criminal activity associated with that weapon.
3. He further submitted that Charges 1 and 2 are distinct and separate offences, and therefore the court is entitled to impose individual sentences for each, allowing for appropriate cumulation without resulting in double punishment. In relation to Charge 2, Mr Tamburro noted that the discharge of the shotgun occurred while your associates were violently pursuing a man unknown to you. He acknowledged that this took place during the early hours of the morning in a sparsely populated area, as confirmed by CCTV footage.
4. As to your role, Mr Tamburro submitted that you were the sole offender in relation to Charges 1 and 2. Regarding Charge 3, he submitted you were merely a passenger in the getaway vehicle, which was driven by Ms Till, and that the property where the firearm was ultimately disposed of was her residence. He also conceded that there was no evidence suggesting your involvement in any planning in relation to the offending.
5. Mr Barker, appearing on your behalf, acknowledged the seriousness of your offending, noting that discharging a firearm in a public place inherently carries significant risk. Further, he submitted that the shotgun was fired into the air and did not place any individual in immediate danger. He further noted that your possession of the firearm was brief.
6. In relation to the charge of assisting an offender, Mr Barker characterised it as an offence against the administration of justice. He emphasised that both offenders whom you assisted were ultimately apprehended and brought to justice. Your involvement, he submitted, was limited to moving the handgun a short distance on a single occasion, and the weapon was recovered from the same location approximately nine hours later when you were arrested.
7. Mr Barker contended that the offence of possessing a firearm as a prohibited person was a mid-range example of its kind, while the offences of discharging a firearm in a public place and assisting an offender fell towards the lower end of the spectrum in terms of seriousness.
8. I find in your case, the seriousness of your possession and use of a loaded firearm is heightened by your prior history of similar offending. While I accept that your possession of the firearm was brief and that it was discharged in a location, manner, and at a time where the risk of injury to others was minimal, your mere possession, given your history, is nonetheless concerning. That concern is compounded by the fact that you were in a severely intoxicated state and unable to exercise sound judgment at the time.
9. I accept that your possession of the firearm was not in furtherance of any broader criminal purpose. I also acknowledge that your role in assisting other offenders was limited: you were not the driver of the vehicle, the property, where the gun was secreted was not your residence, and there is no evidence of your involvement in planning the offending. In all the circumstances, I accept the categorisation of your offending as advanced by your counsel.

1. Mr Carrington, you are currently 31 years old. You were raised by both parents until the age of six, when they separated. During your early childhood, you experienced physical abuse from both parents, your father struggled with anger management, and your mother was affected by alcoholism. You have had no contact with your mother for approximately nine years.
2. Your father's anger issues began to subside when you were around 13 years old. You now have a positive relationship with him. He has since re-partnered, and you have a 13-year-old half-brother.
3. You had two older brothers. One of your brothers who you were close to tragically died by suicide in early 2017. You remain close with your other brother.
4. You grew up in Fitzroy, living between housing commission and private rental properties. While your housing was stable, you were frequently exposed to racial discrimination and surrounded by gang-related activity and crime.
5. At the age of eight, your mother forced you to leave the family home, likely due to her alcohol misuse. You then lived with your father until age 15, before returning to your mother's home. In 2013, following a dispute with your mother, you were again forced to leave. Unable to live with your father, who was residing in a one-bedroom apartment, you became homeless.
6. From 2013 onwards, you have couch-surfed, slept rough, and stayed in

drug-affected environments. You spent a significant period incarcerated until 2022, when you began living with your ex-partner. As I understand it, you were again imprisoned from January 2023 until April 2024. 7. Following your release in April 2024, you briefly returned to live with your father. However, your mental health deteriorated, and you relapsed into substance use. At the time of the current offending, you were homeless. Upon release, you intend to seek employment and return to your father's home until you can secure private rental accommodation. You are likely to require support in obtaining stable housing. 8. Your educational history includes attendance at primary school until Grade 2, when you were expelled. This coincided with your mother evicting you while she was intoxicated. You then attended another primary school until Grade 6, where you were again expelled. You were enrolled into secondary school but were expelled midway through Year 7. You briefly attended a community school during Year 8 before leaving. After a short break from schooling, you enrolled at another secondary school, where you reportedly completed up to Year 10 and obtained a Certificate II in Automotive Studies. 9. Throughout your schooling, your behaviour was disruptive, marked by frequent fighting, poor concentration, and classroom disturbances. You were assessed for Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in primary school, though you were unsure of the outcome and denied receiving medication or support. Despite behavioural challenges, you performed well academically. 10. At age 18, you undertook factory work briefly before securing employment at a scrap metal yard for 12 months. Your last employment was at age 21, coinciding with increased substance use and homelessness. You have intermittently received a Centrelink income throughout adulthood. 11. During past episodes in custody, you have worked in the laundry and timber yard. More recently when on remand you did not work but you did complete various courses, including obtaining your White Card. 12. You entered your first significant relationship at age 16, from which you have a son, now 13 years old. That relationship ended when you were 18. Due to your criminal history, child protection authorities intervened, and you were temporarily prevented from having contact with your son. A Family Violence Intervention Order (FVIO) was also obtained, further restricting contact. During this period, your son's mother reportedly relocated, and you were unable to locate him. Since 2022, you have re-established contact and as I understand it now maintain some relationship with him. 13. Between the ages of 18 and 20, you were in a relationship that was positive and substance-free. However, your mental health deteriorated due to you being unable to see your son, which led to suicidal thoughts and daily methamphetamine use. This contributed to the breakdown of the relationship. You denied any violence in that relationship. 14. You subsequently entered a three-year relationship with a partner who had a history of methamphetamine and cannabis use. Your most recent relationship also lasted approximately three years, during which you lived intermittently with your partner following your release from prison in 2022. Both of you engaged in substance use. You have not had any serious relationships since. 15. You tend to associate with peers who use substances and have criminal histories, which you acknowledge as a negative influence. While you also have friends without such issues, your contact with them is limited. Your father and two childhood friends remain your primary sources of support.

1. You first used cannabis and alcohol at the age of 12. While you did not consider cannabis use problematic and ceased by age 15, your alcohol consumption escalated from weekend binge drinking to daily use by age 21. You last drank alcohol following your release from a six-year custodial sentence.
2. Methamphetamine use began at age 15, becoming daily by age 21 during a period of homelessness and declining mental health. From age 22, you were using approximately 1 gram per day, with your last use occurring on the day of your arrest in April 2024.
3. You also reported daily use of GHB prior to the offending, averaging 2 mil per day, and confirmed use on the day of your arrest. At age 29, you began using

non-prescribed benzodiazepines to manage anxiety and sleep difficulties, consuming two tablets of diazepam and alprazolam on the day of the offence. 4. You acknowledged occasional use of cocaine, MDMA, and ecstasy, but denied problematic use. Your substance use was often influenced by peers and unstable housing. Outside of custody, your longest period of abstinence has been four months. 5. In 2017, you completed 12 counselling sessions through a drug treatment program and found the experience beneficial. While on remand, you have continued to engage in Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) programs. 6. Following your grant of bail on 23 July 2025, you resided at The Cottage rehabilitation facility until 13 October 2025. The program required abstinence and focused on group-based recovery. Staff reported that you showed commitment to recovery and developed skills in managing relationships, communication, anger, and addiction tools that will assist your reintegration into the community.

1. You were assessed by psychologist Rebecca Fakhri on 16 January 2025 her report dated 22 January 2025 was tendered on your determination hearing. In Ms Fakhri's opinion you are a person whose upbringing was marked by significant dysfunction, including exposure to family violence, neglect, and parental substance abuse. These early experiences created an invalidating environment that shaped your emotional and behavioural development. According to social learning theory, children often imitate the behaviours of their caregivers, and in your case, this included aggression and violence. Ms Fakhri referred to research that also suggests that impulsive aggression has a strong genetic component, and harsh parenting can disrupt neurophysiological systems, increasing vulnerability to mental health issues later in life.
2. It was the opinion of Ms Fakhri that your exposure to chronic trauma has led to a diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), with symptoms more consistent with Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (C-PTSD). Ms Fakhri explained that C-PTSD, encompasses traditional PTSD symptoms along with disturbances in emotional regulation, interpersonal relationships, and self-concept. These symptoms are exacerbated under stress and often co-occur with other mental health conditions. Your trauma history has contributed to social discomfort, paranoia, and difficulty in communication, often manifesting as irritability and agitation due to heightened autonomic arousal.
3. Ms Fakhri opined that for you anger has been a frequent response to perceived threats, a survival mechanism rooted in your trauma. This reaction, she said, is common among individuals with C-PTSD, where emotional dysregulation overrides cognitive control, leading to impulsive behaviour. Substance use has further intensified these effects. In her opinion you meet the criteria for both Stimulant Use Disorder and Sedative/Hypnotic/Anxiolytic Use Disorder, with heavy use of methamphetamine, GHB, and prescription medications. These substances initially served as coping mechanisms but ultimately they have worsened your mental health and contributed to your emotional instability.
4. It was the opinion of Ms Fakhri that your history of untreated trauma and substance use has significantly impacted your ability to manage stress and resolve conflicts, contributing to violent offending. The activation of your threat-response system, particularly following traumatic incidents such as being shot and assaulted, has shaped your reactions to perceived danger. Mood disturbances, including depression and anxiety, are closely linked to your trauma and have been reinforced by relationship dynamics and the suicide of your brother. These emotional states, especially irritability and anger, are known to increase the risk of aggressive behaviour.
5. Despite these challenges, in Ms Fakhri's opinion your insight into the connection between your mental health, substance use, and offending behaviour is a protective factor. You have expressed motivation to seek employment and engage in psychological treatment. Continued family support also serves as a stabilizing influence. However, it was Ms Fakhri's recommendation that further neurological and neuropsychological assessments are undertaken to explore the impact of head injuries on your cognitive functioning, particularly in light of reported memory lapses and attention difficulties. Ms Fakhri further opined that you require intensive supports and treatment in the community.

1. Your counsel submitted that your experience of childhood deprivation operates in a general way to reduce your moral culpability relative to an offender whose formative years have not been marred in that way. [9] The prosecution accepts that the principles in Bugmy are engaged in this general sense.
2. In assessing your moral culpability or degree of blameworthiness to be attached to you for your offending conduct it is necessary to closely examine your personal circumstances and background and an exploration of factors which may explain the offending conduct. To the extent that the offending conduct is due to factors beyond your control the harshness of the moral judgment is likely to be moderated.[10]
3. An examination of your personal history reveals that you suffered significant childhood neglect and deprivation. You were exposed to violence, family violence, parental alcohol abuse, instability, and abandonment for many, if not all of your formative years. I accept the opinions of Ms Fakhri in this regard and consider that to some extent your offending conduct was influenced by factors beyond your control. Accordingly, I consider your moral culpability ought to be appropriately moderated. I consider that this background places your prior history in context.

1. In her report, psychologist Rebecca Fakhri diagnosed you with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Complex PTSD (C-PTSD), consistent with the criteria outlined in the DSM-5-TR. Your counsel submitted that the first four limbs of the principles in R v Verdins[11] are engaged in your case. Mr Barker argued that Ms Fakhri established a sufficient link between your C-PTSD, manifesting in emotional dysregulation, paranoia, heightened reactivity, and impulsive behaviour, and your offending. He submitted that these mental health issues impaired your capacity to exercise sound judgment, thereby reducing your moral culpability. Mr Barker further contended that this impairment should influence the nature of the sentence imposed, noting that you are not an appropriate subject for general deterrence and that specific deterrence should be applied with moderation.
2. The prosecution submitted that the Verdins principles do not apply in your case, arguing that self-induced intoxication generally precludes an offender from relying on such principles.[12] Mr Tamburro further contended that there was no meaningful connection between any diagnosed mental health condition and the offending conduct. In light of your criminal history and the significant role substance use played in the offending, he submitted that there remains a strong need for specific deterrence.
3. The impact of mental impairment on moral culpability must be assessed on a spectrum. To determine the extent to which your impairment contributed to the offending, the Court must consider your conduct before, during, and after the incident, with reference to expert evidence. The central question is whether the impairment diminished your capacity in a way that renders you less blameworthy.
4. Where mental impairment and substance abuse exist independently, the Verdins principles retain full application. Likewise, if substance abuse is a consequence of mental impairment, the offender's moral culpability may be reduced, and the need for general and specific deterrence may be moderated. However, it is not sufficient to show that the impairment led to substance use; the defence must also establish a direct connection between the impairment and the offending conduct. In evaluating this connection, the Court may consider the nature and extent of the substance use involved.
5. Having considered the evidence, including the impulsive, reactive and opportunistic nature of your offending and the expert opinion of Ms Fakhri, I am satisfied that the Verdins principles are enlivened in your case. First, your diagnosed C-PTSD and disordered personality, rooted in a history of childhood abuse and neglect, impaired your capacity to exercise sound judgment and control impulses at the time of the offending. Second, these impairments predate and are to some extent independent of your substance use. Third, they contributed to your pronounced drug dependency and high-risk behaviour, which in turn compromised your decision-making. Fourth, I accept that these impairments played a material role in your offending and, as such, your moral culpability is reduced.
6. In the circumstances of your case, I am mindful that there is some degree of overlap between the application of Bugmy and Verdins and I have therefore been careful to place appropriate weight on these mitigatory factors. It is my view that general and specific deterrence continue to be important in the formulation of your sentence however I do consider their application is somewhat moderated in your case given my findings pursuant to Bugmy and Verdins. Protection of the community remains an important sentencing consideration given the nature of your mental health issues and your lengthy and concerning prior history.

1. You have an extensive and highly relevant criminal history, marked by a persistent cycle of substance abuse, offending, and incarceration over several years. Notably, you have three prior convictions for possessing firearms as a prohibited person. In 2015, you were sentenced to six months' imprisonment and an

18-month community correction order for that offence and for using a carriage service to harass. In August 2018, you received a sentence of 39 months for reckless conduct endangering life, having discharged a firearm across a children's playground, and a further 18 months for a second offence of prohibited person possess a firearm. The total effective sentence imposed was four years, with a non-parole period of two years and nine months. Later that same year, you were again convicted of possessing a firearm as a prohibited person and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment. You were also dealt with for attempting to pervert the course of justice. 2. Despite being subject to numerous rehabilitative orders in the past, you have struggled to maintain lasting change. Your early life as I have said was marked by adversity, compounded by poor mental health and has led to a serious drug dependency that requires intensive support. Nevertheless, you have demonstrated a willingness to reform and have expressed a genuine desire to engage in treatment. On 23 July 2025, you were granted bail to attend The Cottage inpatient rehabilitation program in Shepparton. You commenced the program the following day and have since completed the three-month course. The report from The Cottage is favourable and highlights your meaningful efforts toward rehabilitation. Since completing the program, you have been residing with your father and remain committed to continuing your recovery journey. 3. I have regard to the three months you spent in inpatient rehabilitation. Whilst this period does not constitute pre-sentence detention, it involved significant restrictions and punitive elements alongside its therapeutic focus. In my view, this time should be considered as part of the instinctive synthesis of sentencing and recognised as a measure that encourages participation in such programs by you and others in similar circumstances. [13] 4. In all the circumstances, it is my view that your previously guarded prospects for rehabilitation should now be viewed more favourably. You have demonstrated both commitment and courage in pursuing change, and I consider that these efforts ought to be supported and encouraged.

1. Your counsel submitted that your plea was entered at the second committal mention, which is an early stage in the proceedings. No witnesses were required for cross-examination. By entering this plea, you avoided the need for a trial, thereby saving the court considerable time and resources. Your plea accordingly has substantial utilitarian value, demonstrates a willingness to facilitate the administration of justice, and reflects an acceptance of responsibility for your conduct. It also indicates a degree of remorse. The prosecution acknowledges the significant utilitarian value of your early plea, and I propose to allow a substantial sentencing discount on that basis.

1. Prior to your release on bail, you spent 468 days in custody on remand. I accept your counsel's submission that this period was served under particularly harsh conditions. You were held predominantly, if not entirely, in management units, with access to only one hour outside your cell each day. This restrictive regime was implemented for your protection and, in my view, constitutes a significant factor in the sentencing process, amounting to extra-curial punishment.

1. For completeness it is appropriate to mention the issue of parity. There are three others who have been charged with offending as a result of this incident. Given the nature and circumstances relating to those offenders I do not consider issues of parity arise in your case. I understand that the case against Brock Jewell has not resolved. I have been informed that Taj Jewell was sentenced to a total effective sentence of three years with a two year non-parole period for charges of prohibited person possess a firearm, recklessly cause serious injury and theft. Ms Till was dealt with in the Magistrates' Court for prohibited person possess a firearm, possession of methylamphetamine and assisting an offender with a serious indictable offence. After a period of deferral she was sentenced to a 14-month community correction order.

1. Your counsel, Mr Barker, submitted that the Court should impose a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order (DATO), citing your long-standing drug dependency and the need for intensive support to facilitate meaningful rehabilitation. He argued that a DATO would provide the structured assistance necessary for you to reform. Mr Barker highlighted the 468 days you spent in custody on remand under onerous conditions, as well as your demonstrated commitment to rehabilitation through your participation in the three-month program at The Cottage. He referred to the report of Ms Souris, which described you as being at a 'crossroads' in your life. Mr Barker submitted that a sentence of four years would be adequate in all the circumstances and emphasised that, under s5(1) of the Sentencing Act,[14] the Court must give greater weight to your rehabilitation and the protection of the community through that rehabilitation than to other sentencing purposes.
2. The prosecution opposes the imposition of a DATO. It was submitted that the Court lacks sufficient sentencing scope to properly give effect to the relevant sentencing principles within the framework of a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order. The prosecution also emphasised your extensive and highly relevant prior history, including multiple unsuccessful attempts at community-based dispositions. Mr Tamburro referred to the specific nature of your current offending and argued that, in light of your criminal history, current sentencing practices, and the seriousness of the offences involving firearms, a sentence of four years' imprisonment would be manifestly inadequate. He further submitted that the Court should exercise its discretion not to impose a DATO, given the risk you pose to the community and the gravity of the firearms-related conduct.
3. The purposes of a DATO are to facilitate your rehabilitation, take account of your drug and alcohol dependency, to reduce the level of criminal activity associated with drug or alcohol dependency, and to reduce your health risks associated with drug or alcohol dependency.[15] Importantly, if I am considering making such an order, I must regard your rehabilitation and the protection of community from you, achieved through your rehabilitation, as having greater importance than other sentencing purposes such as denunciation and general deterrence. The principles of general and specific deterrence, denunciation and community protection remain important sentencing considerations, notwithstanding my findings pursuant to Bugmy and Verdins.
4. The criteria for the making of a DATO are set out in s18Z of the Sentencing Act 1991[16], and I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that you are dependent on drugs or alcohol and that your dependency contributed to the commission of the offences now before me. In making these findings, I have had regard to the circumstances of your offending, your prior history, the psychological reports, and importantly, the Drug Court assessment reports. This aspect of the criteria was not challenged by the prosecution.
5. The real issues in contention are whether it would be appropriate for the court to impose a sentence of imprisonment of no more than four years duration and whether given the nature of your offending a DATO is the appropriate sentence in your case.
6. I have considered the comparable cases referred to by the prosecution of Tran, Noonan and Landmark.[17] I have had regard to the sentencing statistics, mindful of the limitations of using such data. This review has assisted me to gauge the sentencing landscape for offending of this nature. Importantly I have read the previous sentencing remarks from your prior County Court matters.
7. Your previous poor performance on community-based dispositions, your repeated possession of firearms whilst a prohibited person and your use of loaded firearms are cause for concern. However, I accept that you have spent a considerable and difficult period in custody, you have demonstrated your ability and desire to reform through inpatient rehabilitation, and you remain motivated to achieve change. I consider your offending to be serious but not so serious as to preclude you from a DATO. Further I accept the risk assessment undertaken by Ms Fakhri and her conclusion that you are a moderate risk of further violent offending. With further intensive treatment such risk will be reduced.
8. My decision to impose a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order in your case has been informed by the assessment reports provided from the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court clinical adviser and case manager. All have assessed you as suitable for a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order.
9. Case manager Helena Souris considers you a suitable candidate for a DATO. Ms Souris noted that you are ready to address your presenting needs, and you understand what is required of you in relation to a DATO. In her assessment, you expressed shame around your offending. You described this stage of your life as a 'crossroads' for change. A DATO will open an avenue for you to address your substance use and mental health through long term counselling. Further, a DATO may support you to address your criminogenic risk and needs.
10. Clinical advisor, Terry Sequeira also assessed you as suitable for a DATO. Mr Sequeira had regard to the psychological assessment of Rebecca Fakhri, where she diagnosed you with complex post-traumatic stress disorder, as well as stimulant and sedative use disorders. As also mentioned in Ms Fakhri's report, there is an immediate elevated risk of re-offending should you relapse into substance use. On this basis Mr Sequeira recommended that you undertake residential rehabilitation prior to undertaking a DATO.
11. Mr Carrington, I have carefully considered the nature and gravity of your offending, the report of Ms Fakhri and to a lesser extent the dated report of Mr Cummins, the assessment reports from the Drug Court team, the written and oral submissions of both your counsel and the prosecution, the material from The Cottage and the current sentencing practices to which I have referred. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that it would otherwise be appropriate to impose a sentence of imprisonment of no more than four years, and I propose to impose a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order in your case.

1. In relation to the charges of prohibited person possess a firearm, using a firearm in a public place and assisting an offender, you are convicted and you are placed upon a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order. That order will commence today.
2. Georgia Blyth and Krishna Jones will by your Case Manager and Clinical Advisor. Your treatment team is listed on your individual treatment plan that you will get a copy of. Stephanie Corish from VLA is in court and she is part of the Drug Court team who you may see in reviews.
3. A Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order has two parts: there is a treatment and supervision part and a custodial part. The treatment and supervision part has two parts, and these are as follows:
4. There are core conditions - these are as follows:

(a) You must not commit, whether in or outside of Victoria, another offence punishable by imprisonment during the time of the order;

(b) You must attend Drug Court when required to do so;

(c) You must report to the Melbourne Drug Court House within two clear working days after the order is imposed,

(d) You must report to and accept visits from the members of the Drug Court;

(e) You must undergo treatment for alcohol and drug dependency as specified in the order or by the Drug Court;

(f) You must give notice of any change of address, at least two clear working days before the change, to a specified Drug Court officer;

(g) You are not to leave Victoria without the permission of the Drug Court; and

(h) You are to obey all lawful instructions and directions from the Drug Court team.

1. Those core conditions will operate for 38 months or until further order.
2. The program conditions are as follows: you must

(a) Comply with the individual treatment plan which is dated 28 October 2025;

(b) Submit to drug and alcohol testing as directed;

(c) Submit to detoxification or other treatments specified in the order as directed;

(d) Attend vocational, educational and employment programs as directed;

(e) Submit to medical, psychiatric and psychological treatment as directed;

(f) Reside at your directed address, any changes to that address will need to be approved by the Court;

(g) You are to comply with a curfew that you remain at your address between the hours of 9.00 pm and 6.00 am;

(h) You must not drive a motor vehicle;

(i) You are not to use a drug of dependence without lawful authorisation;

(j) You are to abstain from alcohol; and

(k) You are to do, or not do, anything else that the Drug Court considers necessary or appropriate concerning

(i) your drug and alcohol dependency, and

(ii) the personal factors that the Drug Court considers contributed to your criminal behaviour.

1. These program conditions will operate for two years or until further order.
2. The custodial part of the DATO is the term of imprisonment that I consider appropriate, and it is a term of three years and two months, so that is the total of 38 months, and it is made up as follows:
3. In relation to Charge 1, prohibited person possess a firearm, you are sentenced to two years and six months' imprisonment.
4. In relation to Charge 2, using a firearm in a public place you are sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment.
5. In relation to Charge 3, assisting an offender you are sentenced to six months' imprisonment.
6. The sentence on Charge 1 is the base sentence and I order seven months of the sentence on Charge 2 and one month of the sentence on Charge 3 to be served cumulatively. The total effective sentence is therefore 3 years and 2 months.
7. Further, I declare that you have served, 468 days in custody by way of

pre-sentence detention and this will be declared as time served and entered into the records of the court. 8. Pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act[18], if you had not pleaded guilty and been found guilty after trial I would have imposed a total effective sentence of four years with a non-parole period of two years six months.

[2] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 83A.

[8] Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 325.

[9] Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37.

[10] R v Hermann [2021] VSCA 160 at [14].

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

[12] R v Martin [2007] VSCA 291, [19]-[30]; R v Kao [2009] VSCA 273, [42].

[13] Akoka v The Queen [2017] VSCA 217.

[14] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 5(1).

[15] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s18(1).

[16] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s18Z.

[17] Tran v the Queen [2021] VSCA 331; DPP v Noonan [2021] VCC 1343; Landmark v the Queen

[2015] VSCA 178.

[18] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s6AAA