DPP v Cavus & Ors [2026] VCC 259

(a) A rolled up charge of attempted armed robbery against Nhat Truong and Leyla Cokacar contrary to s 75A and 321M of the Crimes Act 1958 which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years' imprisonment;

(b) A charge of prohibited person possessing an imitation forearm contrary to s 5AB(2) of the Control of Weapons Act 1990 which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years' imprisonment.

1. On the same indictment, Ferhat Cavus pleaded guilty to:

(a) A rolled up charge of attempted armed robbery contrary to s 75A and 321M of the Crimes Act 1958 which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years' imprisonment;

(b) A charge of prohibited person possessing an imitation forearm contrary to s 5AB(2) of the Control of Weapons Act 1990 which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years' imprisonment.

1. On indictment P10121147.1, Abdigaadir Farah pleaded guilty to:

(a) A charge of attempted armed robbery against Nhat Truong contrary to s 75A and 321M of the Crimes Act 1958 which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years' imprisonment;

1. Abdirahan Yusuf also pleaded guilty to a summary charge of committing an indictable offence while on bail contrary to s 30B of the Bail Act 1977 which attracts a maximum penalty of 3 months' imprisonment.[1]
2. Mr Yusuf abandoned his appeal against a sentence imposed by the Magistrates' Court. The appeal was struck out.[2]
3. Ferhat Cavus also pleaded guilty to:

(a) Summary charge 13, carrying a prohibited weapon without an exemption contrary to s 5AA of the Control of Weapons Act 1990 which attracts a maximum penalty of 2 years' imprisonment; and

(b) Summary charge 14, prohibited person possess cartridge ammunition without lawful excuse contrary to s 124 of the Firearms Act 1996 which attracts a maximum penalty of 40 penalty units.[3]

1. In January 2023, Nhat Truong lived in an apartment on the 14th floor of a building on Drummond Street, Carlton. The building is owned by the Department of Familes, Fairness and Housing ('DFFH'). Mr Truong lived there with his partner Leyla Cokacar. Ms Cokacar is of Turkish descent and speaks Turkish.
2. Abdigaadir Farah lived in the same building in apartment 83 on the eighth floor.
3. Prior to 15 January 2023, Mr Truong had known Mr Farah for a few years, and he knew him as 'Dee'. According to Mr Truong, Mr Farah had always been nice and friendly towards him, and he was always smiling. Ms Cokacar also knew Mr Farah prior to 15 January 2023; she knew him as 'Dee' or 'Smiley'.

1. On the evening of 15 January 2023, Mr Truong was at his apartment with Ms Cokacar.
2. At about 10.30 PM, Mr Truong left his apartment to check on some laundry that he had in the communal laundry on his floor which was about 10 metres from his front door. As he was returning to his apartment from the laundry the three offenders ran at Mr Truong from the stairwell area and cornered him in the hallway outside his apartment.
3. Each of the three men had a weapon and together they made demands of Mr Truong for money and valuables. Mr Farah, who was the instigator, was armed with a baseball bat. Mr Farah told Mr Cavus and Mr Yusuf that Mr Truong owed him money. Mr Farah demanded money from Mr Truong and Mr Truong told Mr Cavus and Mr Yusuf that he didn't owe Mr Farah any money.
4. Mr Yusuf was carrying a yellow Dewalt cordless grinder with a metal cutting disc on it. He was also carrying a tyre iron.
5. Mr Cavus had a black imitation pistol in the right side of his jeans.
6. The three offenders confronted Mr Truong in the hallway for about 5 minutes demanding money and valuables from him and threatening him with their weapons.
7. Ms Cokacar heard the commotion outside the door and opened the internal apartment door to see what was happening in the hallway but kept the security wire mesh door shut. Mr Truong told her to keep the door locked to prevent the males from entering the apartment.
8. Ms Cokacar yelled at the men and told them that she was calling the police. She did call "000" to report that there were males outside her apartment with weapons who were assaulting her boyfriend.
9. During the confrontation, Mr Farah held the baseball bat up in a threatening manner as if he was going to hit Mr Truong. Mr Cavus showed Mr Truong the imitation pistol in his pants by pulling his top up. The imitation pistol was black and rectangular in shape like a Glock pistol.
10. Mr Yusuf was the most aggressive of the males. He swung the grinder at Mr Truong twice in an aggressive manner and asked him if he had anything that was valuable. He was also holding the tyre iron described by Mr Truong as a bent metal pole.
11. Mr Yusuf reached into Mr Truong's pockets to see if he had anything valuable on him (Part of Charge 1 - Attempted Armed Robbery - Yusuf and Cavus on Indictment No. C2315932.2 and Charge 1 on Indictment No. P10121147.1 for Farah).
12. Mr Yusuf also told Mr Truong to take off the silver chain that he had around his neck, but Mr Farah interjected and told Mr Yusuf to stop. Mr Yusuf also used the grinder on the front door lock but stopped when it was making a lot of noise.
13. During the confrontation, Mr Truong told Ms Cokacar to give the men anything that was valuable from inside the apartment. Ms Cokacar had a conversation with Mr Cavus in Turkish during which he asked her if she owed the guys anything and she told him that she didn't and that they were just looking for an easy target to rob.
14. Mr Cavus then asked Mr Farah if they owed him anything and Ms Cokacar told Mr Farah that she didn't owe him anything.
15. Mr Farah told Ms Cokacar to "stop lying bitch" and that they were not "fucking around."
16. When the men heard the sound of approaching police sirens they left the apartment via the stairs. Ms Cokacar also left the building as she believed that she had outstanding warrants and so wanted to avoid being arrested by the police.
17. Numerous Police units attended at 478 Drummond Street, with the first units arriving at about 10:40 pm. Police attended Mr Truong's apartment and announced their presence, but no one answered the door as Mr Truong had gone to a friend's apartment as he also believed he had outstanding warrants. Calls by police to Ms Cokacar's mobile number went unanswered.
18. At approximately 11:08 pm, whilst Police were still present, Mr Yusuf returned to the immediate vicinity of Mr Truong's apartment. Mr Yusuf was still in possession of the yellow cordless DeWalt angle grinder and also had the tyre iron with him. The attending officers were unaware of Mr Yusuf's involvement in the earlier offending and only spoke to him briefly.
19. Mr Yusuf told the police that he lived in the building and that he hadn't heard any disturbances and that he was going upstairs because there were people using drugs in his apartment. When the police asked him what he was doing with the angle grinder and tyre iron, he said that he had found them.
20. The police did not question Mr Yusuf further about the angle grinder that he had in his possession because when Ms Cokacar called "000" she told the operator that one of the males had a drill rather than an angle grinder.
21. By 11.15 PM, all Police had left the residence. At that point in time, the veracity of Ms Cokacar's '000' call was unknown and no complainants or witnesses to the incident had made themselves known to Police.

1. At about 11:18 pm on the same night, Mr Yusuf and Mr Cavus returned to Mr Truong's apartment without Mr Farah. Mr Yusuf attempted to pry open the front door with the tyre iron. Mr Truong had returned to his apartment and he heard the disturbance and yelled out to the males 'what are you doing?', to which they responded: 'just let us in'.
2. When Mr Yusuf was unable to pry open the front door he tried the bathroom window instead. He removed the security screen to the bathroom window and then opened the sliding window and looked into the bathroom.
3. Mr Truong momentarily retreated to his kitchen and grabbed a knife to defend himself and the apartment. Mr Truong warned Mr Yusuf and Mr Cavus that 'if you jump in I'll stab you'. Mr Truong made two separate calls to '000' to report the men trying to get into his apartment.
4. Mr Yusuf and Mr Cavus remained outside the bathroom window for about 15 minutes. They appeared to be undeterred by Mr Truong's defensive efforts and his ongoing calls to '000'. They each made demands of Mr Truong for his property saying that his sister owed them money. At one stage Mr Yusuf put both his hands on the window frame and moved his body up and down as if he was contemplating climbing through the window.
5. Mr Cavus then pointed what appeared to be a handgun at Mr Truong. Mr Truong sought cover behind his bathroom wall and made further calls to '000'. Mr Yusuf again demanded Mr Truong hand over any valuables he had. (Part of Charge 1 - Attempted Armed Robbery - Yusuf and Cavus). A short time later, Mr Yusuf ran off towards the stairwell when Mr Truong told them that he had called the police. Mr Cavus left shortly after.
6. A further, and substantial, Police response was initiated by Mr Truong's multiple calls to 000. Numerous uniformed Police members and members of the Critical Incident Response Unit (CIRT) attended the Drummond Street residence to locate Mr Truong and the offenders.
7. Mr Truong was located by members of the CIRT at his apartment. He was escorted by those officers to the ground floor of the building where he spoke to uniform members. Mr Truong indicated that he knew one of the offenders (Mr Farah) as 'Dee' and that he likely resided on the 8th floor of the building. Mr Truong subsequently provided a statement to Police.

1. At approximately 12:30 am on 16 January, 2023, members of the CIRT attended level 8 of the Drummond Street building, Carlton and located Mr Farah as he was leaving apartment 83. Mr Farah was searched and found to be in possession of a silver flick knife.
2. A photograph was taken of Mr Farah and shown to Mr Truong. Mr Truong confirmed the photograph was of the male he knew to be 'Dee' and that he was one of the offenders involved in the incident.
3. Mr Farah was taken to the Melbourne West Police Station where he was processed and charged in relation to his suspected involvement with the first incident on the 14th floor. During the interview Mr Farah answered "No Comment" when the allegations were put to him.
4. At approximately 1:45 pm on 16 January 2023, investigators executed a search warrant, issued under section 465 of the Crimes Act (1958), at apartment 83 of the Drummond Street building. During the search, police located and seized a black baseball bat from a drawer in a cabinet in the loungeroom.
5. Following the arrest of Mr Farah, a crime scene guard was established at the apartment pending the application and execution of a further search warrant.
6. At approximately 8:57 am on 16 January 2023, Mr Yusuf was seen outside apartment 83 by police officers performing crime scene guard duties outside the apartment.
7. Mr Yusuf was found to be wearing or in possession of the following items of note:

(a) 1 x Orange Hi-Visibility Jacket,

(b) 1 x Grey back pack, containing,

(c) 1 x DeWalt Angle Grinder,

(d) 1 x Tyre Wrench,

(e) 1 x Black Toy Gun (and handle) (Charge 2 - Prohibited person in possession of an imitation firearm - Yusuf).

1. Mr Yusuf was taken to the Melbourne West Police Station where he participated in a recorded interview with the police. During the interview Mr Yusuf:

(a) Denied committing an armed robbery at Drummond Street and asked the police officer why would he commit an armed robbery in the building he was staying in.

(b) Said that he was around the building as he was trying to pick up some heroin and to get some methamphetamine. He was inebriated and was walking around trying to get high.

(c) Told police that at the time of his arrest he was on the 8th floor of the building because he was looking for drugs that he thought he may have dropped there. He didn't know who lived in apartment 83 on that floor and had never been in that apartment.

(d) Said that he was not involved in any armed robbery in the building and was just trying to sell an angle grinder and bicycle for some drugs.

(e) Admitted possession of the angle grinder, tyre iron and toy gun at the time of his arrest. He described the toy gun as being broken and as having been left in his bag by his younger brother.

1. At the time Mr Yusuf committed the offence of attempted armed robbery he was on Bail. (Summary offence Charge 7 - Commit an Indictable Offence on Bail.
2. At approximately 8:00 am on 23 January 2023, Investigators attended outside a building on Lygon Street, Carlton, to execute a search warrant, issued under section 465 of the Crimes Act (1958), at apartment 118. This address was believed to be occupied by Mr Cavus.
3. At approximately 8:05 am, Mr Cavus was observed on the footpath of the Lygon Street building and was arrested by Police in respect of the 2 incidents on 15 January 2023.
4. A search of Mr Cavus located a Black Flick Knife on his hip (Summary charge 13 - Possess a Prohibited Weapon). Whilst under caution, Mr Cavus divulged information, believed to be about his involvement in the offending, stating words to the effect of:

'the Asian' bloke from the 14th floor, I slapped him cause he started selling to underage', 'I went there to buy meth of him and I smacked him', 'one day he sold to a 15 year old', 'mate underage, I can't let that happen', 'the other day, I'm being honest with ya' and 'it was evening'.

5. Mr Cavus was taken to apartment 118 and the search warrant was executed. The following items were located and seized by Police:

(a) 4 x Rounds Assorted Cartridge Ammunition (Summary Charge 14);

(b) 1 x Black 'Raiders' Baseball Cap with Red Logo;

(c) 1 x 'Lock 22' Black Imitation Handgun, (Charge 3 - Prohibited person in possession of an imitation firearm);

(d) 1 x White 'Versace' Baseball Cap;

(e) 1 x Pair of Blue 'Puma' Shorts; and

(f) 1 x White 'Nike' Hooded Jumper.

1. Mr Cavus was taken to the Melbourne West Police Station where he participated in a recorded interview regarding the 2 incidents on 15 January 2023.
2. During the interview, he told the police that he knew Mr Truong as he had purchased methamphetamine from him on 3 occasions.
3. He also told the police that Mr Truong had sold methamphetamine to a 15 year old kid but denied being involved in the attempted armed robbery of Mr Truong or attempting to break into Mr Truong's apartment.
4. When the police asked him about the black imitation pistol they found in his apartment he told the police that you can buy them online but he did not confirm that the imitation pistol belonged to him.

1. No victim impact statements were provided to the court. However, the absence of any such statements does not preclude a sentencing Judge from inferring that the victims were adversely affected by the offending.[4]
2. I have no doubt Mr Truong and Ms Cokacar would have found the incidents disturbing and frightening. Their residence was effectively under siege by three armed men who threatened them with violence over an extended period of time.

1. The maximum penalty of 20 years' imprisonment makes it clear that attempted armed robbery is a serious criminal offence. The first in time of the two attempts was committed by all three of the offenders before the court making it a serious example of the offence. All three were holding weapons which were used to reinforce the demands made for valuable. They were seeking to enforce a drug debt.
2. Mr Farah played a more prominent role than the other two as he made the demand for money. However, he did prevent Mr Yusuf from stealing the silver chain from Mr Truong.
3. The second in time of the attempts involved two of the offenders both of whom were armed. Mr Farah was not involved on this occasion. That Mr Yusuf and Mr Cavus returned to the apartment to continue their demands after the police attended is most concerning. The offending went on for some time and there was at least one attempt to break into the apartment.
4. The offence of being a prohibited person and possessing an imitation firearm is also serious. Mr Farah was not charged with this offence. In each case, the charge relates to conduct on a date other than the date of the substantive offending (Mr Yusuf on 16 January 2023 and Mr Cavus on 23 January 2023).
5. Mr Cavus used the imitation weapon as part of the armed robbery when he pointed it at Mr Truong who thought it was a real firearm.
6. I turn to consider the personal circumstances of the three men starting with Mr Cavus.

1. You were born in Turkey in 1987 and came to Australia when you were six months old. You were 36 at the time of the offending and are now 39.
2. Your childhood was marred by abuse and neglect, and you experienced violence at the hands of both your father and step-father.[5] You have a half-sister and an 11-year-old son, both of whom you have no contact with.
3. You struggled throughout your schooling, and have a limited employment history. You are a participant in the NDIS, and have been in receipt of the Disability Support Pension for approximately 10 years.
4. You have a long history of substance abuse, particularly cannabis and ice. You began smoking cannabis around the age of 16 and used ice around once or twice a week more consistently.
5. You experience symptoms of PTSD in response to your childhood experiences of abuse and neglect, which have been compounded by exposure to trauma whilst incarcerated when you were assaulted at the age of 21.[6] These experiences have lead you to develop feelings of interpersonal mistrust, avoidance and emotional and behavioural dysregulation.
6. You were first diagnosed as having a mild intellectual disability when you were 12 in 1999 in response to your academic progress and behaviour at school. Since then, a number of neuropsychologists have conducted further assessments and made findings consistent with this diagnosis.[7] The court has a certificate of intellectual disability dated 26 July 2013 signed by a delegate of the Secretary of Health and Human Services which describes you as having significant sub-average general intellectual functioning.
7. In 2014, at the age of 27, you were assessed as having the cognitive ability of a 5-6 year old.[8] You were assessed in 2025 by Neuropsychologist Ms Anna McLaren as having an overall level of intellectual functioning 'within the extremely low range'.[9]
8. Your criminal history dates back to 2006 when, as a 19 year old you received an adjourned undertaking in the Magistrates' Court. Since that time, you have appeared on numerous occasions in that court and the County Court in relation to offences involving drugs, dishonesty and violence. In 2010 you were sentenced to 54 months' imprisonment by this court for serious violent offending. You have contravened a number of community-based orders most recently in 2019. However, you completed the most recent Order successfully in October 2025. You credit this outcome to distancing yourself from pro-criminal influences.
9. Ms Lechner opines that your 'mental health would decline markedly in a prison environment, with an uptick in symptoms of anxiety and post-trauma in light of his previous experience of assault in custody'.[10] This enlivens limb 6 of the Verdins[11] principles. I also accept that your time in custody would be more onerous than would be the case for a person without your mental health challenges thus enlivening limb 5. I have moderated the sentence accordingly.

1. You have little family support but remain close to your mother with whom you are living intermittently. You describe your relationship as 'here and there'. You have experienced periods of homelessness and couch-surfing especially after disagreements with your mother and step-father.
2. According to a recent Disability Overview Report dated 3 February 2026, there has been some progress in the status of your application for public housing. Disability Justice are available to support you in this regard.[12]
3. You have had some periods of employment most recently in 2024 when you worked as a concreter. You are interested in obtaining employment and wish to reduce your substance use.
4. As noted, you have a concerning criminal history and a longstanding drug abuse condition.
5. On a more positive note, you have the benefit of support under a Justice Plan which is discussed later in these reasons.
6. It is also significant that you have expressed some remorse for your offending. However this must be balanced against your resistance to participating in offence-related treatment.[13]
7. On balance, it is difficult to be optimistic about your future prospects as you have spent most of your adult life involved in the criminal justice system. Much will depend on your engagement with the supports available under the Justice Plan together with the NDIS supports available to you.

1. You were born in Somalia in 1985 and moved to Australia around 1993. You completed your schooling up to year 11 in Australia. You were 38 years old at the time of your offending and are now 40.
2. You have a close relationship with your mother and a number of your siblings, particularly one of your sisters. From a previous relationship which ended around 2019, you have two sons aged 10 and 8 with whom you have monthly phone contact.
3. You were struck by a car when you were 18 years old in 2004. From this, you sustained a severe traumatic brain injury and consequently ceased attending school at this point. You have rarely been gainfully employed and have been a recipient of the DSP since the accident.
4. In recent times you have worked as a kitchen hand in your brother's restaurant. In a letter to the court he refers to your 'remarkable resilience' in light of your brain injury.
5. A letter from Somali Community Inc. informs the court that your family is deeply supportive of you.
6. You have a significant history of polysubstance abuse. You began using alcohol and cannabis around age 19, and report daily use of methamphetamine and heroin.[14]
7. You have self-reported high levels of stress, anxiety and depression. You have recently been assessed as experiencing symptoms of these and it is recommended you engage with mental health support. It has been difficult for a number of neuropsychologists, however, to assess whether you suffer from any cognitive impairments resulting from your traumatic brain injury due to a history of poor engagement by you in these assessments on your behalf.
8. According to a report dated 24 November 2025 prepared by Dr Felicity Evans, senior clinical Neuropsychologist, and based on your reports, 'it would appear that [you are] experiencing significant mental health difficulties'.[15] You report severe symptoms of depression, anxiety and stress and will likely need significant support.
9. Your exposure to the criminal justice system is lengthy and relevant. In 2003 when you were 18 you were fined by the Magistrates' Court for being unlawfully on premises. Since then, you have regularly appeared in the Magistrates' Court and been sentenced for dishonesty, drug and violence offences. This is the first time you have appeared in this Court and represents a concerning escalation in your offending pattern.
10. In 2013, 2017 and 2021 you contravened CCOs.

1. Having regard to your extensive involvement in the criminal justice system, and the various challenges you face with your mental health and drugs, it is difficult to be sanguine about your prospects of rehabilitation. I assess your prospects as guarded. Much will depend on your ability to avoid drug use and antisocial peers.
2. I accept your counsel's submission that you will need an extended period of supervision in the community upon your release from custody.

1. You were born in January 1995 and are currently 31 years of age. You were born in a refugee camp in Kenya to Somalian parents. Your mother was 15 years old when she gave birth to you.
2. You have a younger sister and two younger brothers. Your father left Kenya and moved to the United States. Your remaining family stayed in the refugee camp until you were eight, where you experienced adversity, trauma and abuse before being sponsored to move to Australia.
3. Your family lived in multiple Australian cities before settling in Melbourne in 2018. Your mother had many abusive partners, with the family frequently seeking refuges for safety. You have had limited contact with your mother since 2020, as she currently lives in Perth. You have no contact with your siblings.
4. You attended over 20 schools growing up, facing racial vilification and bullying due to being overweight. You completed Year 12 after repeating Year 11. You were diagnosed with ADHD at school and have difficulties focusing. You have mainly worked in unskilled labour at KFC, abattoirs, warehouses and also on a cabbage farm.
5. You have been taking drugs since the age of 14. You commenced taking methamphetamine at the age of 18 which turned into a daily habit by the age of 22. You began drinking at the age of 15 and then were drinking excessively between 23-25.
6. In early 2021, you were seriously assaulted and were hospitalised for 11 days, which resulted in an acquired brain injury. You have experienced multiple overdoses over the years. You have experience instances of psychosis, including hallucinations which have included communication with the TV and radio.
7. You have suicidal ideation and have attempted suicide in various ways. You report that this has improved since being prescribed medication in custody.
8. Your earliest exposure to the criminal justice system was in 2015 when, at age 20, the Perth Magistrates Court fined you for stealing. Since then you have appeared sporadically in Victorian courts. You have received short terms of imprisonment for offending including breaching family violence orders, an assault and, in September 2022, recklessly causing injury and possession of a controlled weapon. This is your first offending heard by this court and represents an escalation in your pattern of offending.

1. You were assessed by Corrections as a high risk of general re-offending which I accept.
2. As with your co-offenders, it is difficult to be optimistic about your prospects. Your criminal record is relevant but not as extensive as those of your co-accuseds'. You are younger than them.
3. However, you have little family or other support and must deal with your drug abuse history. I accept your counsel's assessment that your prospects are guarded.

1. The principle sentencing consideration in a case such as this is general deterrence. It is unacceptable for people to take the law into their own hands and others must be deterred from doing so. The community must be protected from this sort of behaviour.
2. Specific deterrence is also important as each of the offenders has a previous criminal history. In the cases of Mr Cavus and Mr Farah, their histories are extensive and relevant. Mr Yusuf's criminal record is not as extensive as theirs but remains relevant.
3. Of course, they are not to be punished again for their earlier offending. However, the prior histories are relevant as '... indicators of moral culpability; [their] prospects of rehabilitation; dangerous propensities (and concomitantly, the community's need for protection); and the increased importance of specific deterrence as a factor in sentencing'.[16]

1. As discussed earlier, Mr Cavus has an intellectual disability. According to clinical Neuropsychologist Ms Anna McLaren, his cognitive impairments 'are considered likely to have contributed to some extent to his current offending'.[17] As Ms Lechner has explained, Mr Cavus is easily overwhelmed by too much information and will defer to others he perceives to be smarter. He is therefore susceptible to being taken advantage of on account of his genuine cognitive limitations.[18]
2. The relevance to the sentencing process of an offender having a diagnosed intellectual disability was explained by Priest and Kennedy JJA in the case of Stevens v The Queen[19] as follows:

As [the High Court case of] Muldrock makes clear, an intellectually disabled offender's moral culpability will in most cases be lessened - although not necessarily eliminated - due to a reduced capacity to reason as to the wrongfulness of his or her conduct. The aspects of denunciation and just punishment in a sentence appropriate for a person of ordinary capacity will often - but, presumably, not always - be inappropriate for an intellectually disabled offender (and the needs of the community). So much is consistent with what had earlier been said in Verdins. > > Moreover, in the case of an intellectually disabled offender, general and specific deterrence may - depending upon the nature and severity of the symptoms exhibited by the offender, and the effect of the condition on the mental capacity of the offender - be moderated or eliminated as sentencing considerations.[20]

3. In the case of Muldrock v The Queen,[21] the High Court had explained that, unlike cases in which an offender relies on a mental illness in mitigation of her or his moral culpability where it will generally be necessary to discern a causal relation between the illness and the offending:

... [s]uch a question is less likely to arise in sentencing a mentally retarded[22] offender because the lack of capacity to reason, as an ordinary person might, as to the wrongfulness of the conduct will, in most cases, substantially lessen the offender's moral culpability for the offence.[23]

... [t]he retributive effect and denunciatory aspect of a sentence that is appropriate to a person of ordinary capacity will often be inappropriate to the situation of a mentally retarded offender and to the needs of the community.[24]

5. Where both Verdins and Muldrock are relevant, a sentencing court must assess both. Specific consideration must be given to an offender's intellectual deficit 'whether or not the evidence establishe[s] a distinct causal pathway to the offending, as is usually required for the application of Verdins principles'.[25]

1. In accordance with the principles just discussed, I consider that your moral culpability for his offending is considerably reduced. You are a less appropriate vehicle for deterrence than would otherwise be the case and this must be reflected in a lower sentence than would otherwise be merited by the criminality. The sentence must, to the extent possible having regard to the applicable sentencing purposes, be aimed at promoting your rehabilitation.
2. Having said that, this was serious criminal offending. The community rightly expects the courts to denounce this sort of violent lawlessness. Your possession of an imitation firearm is concerning as you were a prohibited person at the time.
3. At the request of your counsel, I referred you for assessment as to suitability for a community correction order.
4. You were assessed on 2 February 2026 and the court received a report of the same date. Despite being assessed as a high risk of re-offending, you were assessed as suitable. The recommended conditions are treatment and rehabilitation for drugs, mental health and re-offending risk together with supervision and compliance with a Justice Plan.
5. The Justice Plan prepared for you under s 80 of the Sentencing Act 1991 recommends that you participate in referral to a Forensic Disability Clinical Services program or related program to engage in assessment process and any offence-related programs or treatment among other recommendations.
6. Despite this assessment, the prosecutor submitted that the objective seriousness of your offending is such that only a head sentence and minimum term will adequately meet all of the sentencing purposes.[26] I consider that this submission gives too little weight to your personal circumstances especially your significantly reduced moral culpability due to your intellectual disability.
7. Your counsel sought a straight CCO or a combination sentence 'based on your pre-sentence detention'.
8. Balancing all of the relevant considerations including the seriousness of your offending, your guilty pleas and your very challenging personal circumstances, and with some hesitation given your extensive criminal record and especially your poor history of breaching community-based orders, I will accede to your counsel's submission and impose a combination sentence. However, the objective gravity of your offending, especially your use of an imitation pistol, means that the time you have served of a little over 6 months, is inadequate to achieve the applicable sentencing purposes.
9. You will be sentenced to 12 months in custody to be followed by an 18-month rehabilitative CCO. Such a sentence aims to punish you appropriately while also promoting your rehabilitation. I will explain the details of the CCO in a moment.

1. It is significant that you were only involved in incident 1 and fall to be sentenced for only one charge of attempted armed robbery which is not rolled up. However, as discussed earlier you played a central role in this offending and it appears that it was a debt owed to you that was the impetus for the offending.
2. Your plea of guilty was entered on 17 June 2025 after the commencement of your trial. It is best described as a late guilty plea accompanied by little if any remorse. Having said that you are still saving the community the cost of a trial and must receive a discount for the utilitarian value of your plea.
3. At your counsel's request I agreed to have you assessed for suitability for a CCO. Despite assessing your risk of re-offending as 'high' and noting your history of breaching all four of the community-based orders imposed on you between 2010 and 2022, you were assessed as suitable.
4. The MHARS report dated 28 January 2026 states that you are not presently suffering any significant mental health issues apart from psychological stress.
5. I accept your counsel's submission that you require an extended period of supervision in the community whether under a CCO or on parole.
6. I also accept the prosecution submission that, in all of the relevant circumstances, and giving full weight to the matters of mitigation upon which your counsel relied, only a head sentence and a non-parole period adequately address the applicable sentencing considerations. Importantly, there is little to reduce your moral culpability which I assess as considerable. This places you in a different category to Mr Cavus.
7. The only appropriate sentence is a custodial sentence. I have set the non-parole period to promote your rehabilitation.

1. As was the case with your co-accused, Mr Cavus, you fall to be sentenced for a rolled up charge of attempted armed robbery involving two separate instances of committing this serious crime. You are also to be sentenced for possessing an imitation firearm despite being a prohibited person.
2. The principal matter of mitigation is your plea of guilty. It represents an acceptance of responsibility by you and saves the community the cost of a trial and the witnesses the anxiety of giving evidence.
3. I accept that limbs 5 and 6 of Verdins[27] apply to your circumstances and I have moderated the sentence to be imposed to a modest extent accordingly. Your deprived childhood enlivens the general principle in Bugmy[28] and I have reflected this by further moderating the sentence.
4. However, in contrast to Mr Cavus, there is no basis to reduce your moral culpability which I assess as significant. It is aggravating that you were on bail at the time of this offending.
5. At your counsel's request, I had you referred for a CCO assessment.
6. In a report dated 14 January 2026, it is recorded that you have had a previous CCO cancelled and that you are currently on a further order which expires on 25 June 2026. As you are presently in custody, that order has been stayed pending your eventual release. You will therefore be subject to a CCO regardless of my decision today.
7. The author of the report records that:

'Mr Yusuf's attempts at avoidance, victim blaming, justifying and denial indicate that Mr Yusuf may not [be] treatment ready'.[29]

8. You are assessed as a high risk of reoffending. You were 'narrowly' assessed as suitable for a CCO in light of identified protective factors including your young daughter and your professed commitment to complying with the conditions that may be imposed.
9. On balance, and despite this, I consider that, like Mr Farah, your current offending is too serious for anything other than a head sentence and a non-parole period. As noted, you will already be subject to a CCO when released. No purpose is served in imposing a further one for the current offending.
10. Turning then to the orders the court makes starting with Mr Cavus.

1. On charge 1, attempted armed robbery, and charge 3, prohibited person possess imitation firearm, you are convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 12 months to be followed immediately on your release by a CCO of 18 months' duration.
2. I am unable to impose a CCO unless you consent to me doing so after I explain to you the purpose and effect of the order, the consequences of breaching the order and the manner in which the order may be varied.[30]
3. The following core conditions apply to all community correction orders:

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

(b) You must report to and receive visits from the Secretary to the Department of Justice, or his or her nominee, during the period of the order;

(c) You must report to the Broadmeadows Community Corrections Centre at 24 Dimboola Road Broadmeadows within two clear working days after your release from custody.

(d) You must notify the Secretary, or his or her nominee, of any change of address or employment within two clear working days after that change;

(e) You must not leave Victoria except with the permission of the Secretary to the Department of Justice, or his or her nominee; and

(f) You must comply with any direction given by the Secretary that is necessary for the Secretary to give to ensure you comply with the order.

1. I also attach the following additional conditions to the CCO. In doing so I have had regard to the principle of proportionality as well as the purposes for which a sentence can be imposed and the purpose of a CCO.[31]

(a) You must participate in treatment and rehabilitation for drug use, mental health and programs to reduce re- offending as directed; and

(b) You will be subject to supervision.

(c) You must participate in the services specified in a Justice Plan for 18 months.

1. I will now tell you about the consequences of breaching such an order.
2. If you contravene the order by not fulfilling the conditions, or if you breach the order by committing further offences, you can be charged and a sentence of imprisonment is one of the options that can be imposed for the breach. You can also be re-sentenced for the offences that are before me now and, of course, one of the options available would be a term of imprisonment. So, you must make sure that while you are on this order you do not commit any further offences during the term of the order that might incur a term of imprisonment, otherwise you would almost certainly be back before the court and be re-sentenced on the charges that are before me.
3. You also need to understand that if you fail to comply with any direction of the Secretary to the Department of Justice, being a Community Corrections officer as part of this order, a substantial fine can be imposed.
4. You may apply to this Court to vary a condition of the CCO if your circumstances change so that you can no longer comply with the Order or another reason set out in s 48M of the Sentencing Act.
5. Do you understand the conditions and the consequences of breaching the CCO and how the order may be varied? Do you consent to the order being made?
6. On summary charge 13, carrying a prohibited weapon without an exemption you are convicted and sentenced to 2 months' imprisonment to be served concurrently.
7. On summary charge 14, prohibited person possess cartridge ammunition without lawful excuse, you are convicted and fined $200.
8. I declare pursuant to section 18 of the Sentencing Act that the period of 187 days, not including today, be reckoned as having been served under this sentence.
9. Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, had you pleaded not guilty, I would have sentenced you to 30 months' imprisonment with a non parole period of 21 months.

1. On the charge of attempted armed robbery, you are convicted and sentenced to 2 years and 6 months' imprisonment.
2. You will be eligible for parole after you have served 18 months in custody.
3. I declare pursuant to section 18 of the Sentencing Act that the period of 194 days, , be reckoned as having been served under that sentence.
4. Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, had you pleaded not guilty, I would have sentenced you to 3 years and 4 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 28 months.

1. On the charge of attempted armed robbery, you are convicted and sentenced to 3 years and 3 months' imprisonment. This is the base sentence.
2. On the charge of prohibited person possess imitation firearm, you are convicted and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment.
3. I order that 3 months of that sentence be served cumulatively on the base sentence.
4. On the summary charge of committing an indictable offence while on bail, you are convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 1 month. This is to be served concurrently with the other sentences.
5. The total effective sentence is therefore 3 years and 6 months.
6. I declare pursuant to section 18 of the Sentencing Act that the period of 623 days, not including today, be reckoned as having been served under that sentence.
7. You will be eligible for parole after you have served 26 months in custody.
8. Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, had you pleaded not guilty, I would have sentenced you to 4 years and 6 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years and 3 months.
9. I make the forfeiture/disposal orders sought with regard to each offender, noting they are unopposed.

[1] Notice of Related Summary Offences dated 17 November 2025.

[2] Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) s 266(4).

[3] Notice of Related Summary Offences dated 17 November 2025.

[4] Lyddy v The Queen [2019] VSCA 35, 17 [74].

[5] Psychologist Report written by Carla Lechner dated 15 September 2025, 2 [6] ('Lechner Report').

[7] Disability Overview Report prepared by Angus Payne on 3 February 2026, 2 ('Disability Overview Report').

[8] Neuropsychologist Report written by Anna McLaren dated 17 October 2025, 5 ('McLaren Report').

[11] R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102 ('Verdins').

[12] Disability Overview Report (n 7), 5

[14] Neuropsychological Report written by Dr Felicity Evans dated 24 November 2025, 2.

[16] Jones v The King [2023] VSCA 167 at [35].

[19] [2021] VSCA 218, 17 [31] ('Stevens').

[20] Ibid, 17 [32] (citations omitted).

[21] ( 2011) 244 CLR 120, 22 [54] ('Muldrock').

[22] The Court used the terms 'mentally retarded' and 'intellectually disabled' interchangeably.

[25] Clifton v The King [2024] VSCA 82, 15 [51].

[26] Prosecution Submissions for Plea dated 1 December 2025, 2 [8]

[28] Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571.

[29] CCO Assessment report dated 14 January 2026, 2.

[30] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 95.

[31] Ibid, s 48A.