DPP v Chetcuti & Ors [2025] VCC 1470

1. The full circumstances of your offending are outlined in the prosecution opening and this constitutes the factual basis upon which I sentence each of you.
2. On 9 April 2024, at about 1.14 pm, you, Mr Chetcuti, and you, Mr Picken, attended at a apartment building in Doncaster East. You rang the intercom of a resident, to gain access to the secure underground garage. You were refused entry and the resident watched you walk up and down the victims address looking at the apartments above you.
3. At 1.28 pm, you both got into the secure underground garage and walked around. You went up to level four of the apartment building. At the time, you, Mr Chetcuti, had paperwork in your left hand. You knocked at the resident's door. She refused to answer out of fear and called Triple 0.
4. The two of you then spoke to residents of two other apartments, claiming to be police officers. You said you had a warrant to search for a male. Mr Chetcuti, you were holding paperwork and, Mr Picken, you presented a Victoria Police badge.
5. You both left the apartment building via the underground garage and walked onto the street. Outside, you approached a witness. You claimed to be detectives from Werribee Criminal Investigation Unit and showed what appeared to be a Victoria Police badge. Mr Picken, you showed the witness photographs of the male and female victims on your phone and asked the witness if she recognised them.
6. Later that night a resident of the apartment building found unmarked police calling card on her apartment door.
7. The following evening, 10 April 2024, the male victim and his wife, the female victim, were at home in their apartment, with the female victim's five-year old son.
8. At 6.16 pm, Mr Chetcuti, you arrived at the apartment building in a silver Holden. You walked into the underground garage at number 7. At 6.22 pm, you met Mr Picken at the pedestrian gate. You drove the silver Holden further down the street.
9. At 6.28 pm, you both, along with Mr Carruthers, exited the silver Holden and attempted entry at the apartment building. At 6.37 pm, you all entered the underground garage on foot and took a lift to level three. CCTV depicts you, Mr Carruthers, holding a mobile telephone, you, Mr Chetcuti, with paper and gloves in your back pocket, and you, Mr Picken, wearing gloves.
10. At 6.38 pm, Mr Chetcuti, you knocked on the door to apartment, with Mr Picken and Mr Carruthers nearby. The female victim answered the door, and the male victim also came to the door. Mr Chetcuti, you claimed you were police officers and presented a piece of paper you said was a search warrant. You showed what appeared to be a Victoria Police badge. You wedged your foot in the front door so that it could not be closed and all three of you entered the apartment and closed the door behind you.
11. Mr Checuti, you directed the victims to sit on the couch. Mr Chetcuti and Mr Picken, you questioned the male victim about his identity and said you were there to execute a search warrant. The female victim asked to see the search warrant and Mr Chetcuti you handed it to her. Mr Chetcuti and Mr Picken, you then searched the apartment. Mr Carruthers, you left the apartment and remained near the outside entryway of the apartment block for the duration of the incident.
12. Mr Checuti, during your search of the bedroom, you located a safe, you asked for it to be opened. The safe contained jewellery including four diamond rings, a diamond bracelet, watches and wedding jewellery. Mr Chetcuti, you took the jewellery, valued at $110,596.23. You then left through the front door of the apartment. CCTV footage shows you holding the elevator door open, you appeared to be waiting for Mr Picken. You eventually went to the underground garage and left the scene in the Holden.
13. Mr Picken, when you attempted to leave with Mr Chetcuti, the male victim grabbed you. You punched the male victim to the face several times. You were wearing knuckledusters. You twisted his arm behind his back. During the assault, you told the male victim repeatedly you were going to kill him.
14. In fear, the female victim picked up the knife she had used to prepare dinner and told you to stop hitting her husband. You did not stop. She stabbed you in the arm. The fight spilled out of the apartment and into the common hallway.
15. The female victim screamed to her neighbours to call the police, which they did. The victims were able to hold you in the corridor until police arrived. The male victim suffered injuries to his face and right arm, and he had to wear his arm in a sling.
16. In response to Triple 0 calls, police attended the scene and arrested you, Mr Picken. You were searched and a small amount of cannabis was found in your left pocket. You were taken by ambulance to hospital for treatment and you were under police guard. You were charged and taken into custody on 12 April 2024 upon discharge from Box Hill Hospital, post-surgery.
17. Mr Chetcuti, on 12 April 2024 investigators arrested you in a caravan in the backyard of a Reservoir address. Police also executed a search warrant and seized blue sneakers with white soles, the same shoes worn by you and captured on CCTV footage at the apartment building on 9 and 10 April 2024.
18. Investigators conducted a further search of your family home in Sunbury on 3 May 2024 and located three firearms - a homemade 12-gauge single shotgun, a homemade .22 long calibre single shot pistol and an imitation firearm. Cartridge ammunitions were also found in a locked chest in your bedroom.
19. Mr Chetcuti, at the time of this offending you were on three counts of bail to appear at Sunshine Magistrates' Court on 1 May 2024. You failed to appear on this date. You were also on another count of bail to appear at Heidelberg Magistrates' Court on 12 September 2023 and you failed to appear on this date.
20. Mr Carruthers, on 26 April 2024 investigators arrested you at a Meadows Heights address. Investigators located the clothes you had worn during the home invasion. Investigators also found quantities of cannabis, 4-Hydroxybutanoic acid and methylamphetamine. You failed to provide investigators with the passcode to your phone, and you were on bail to appear at the Broadmeadows Magistrates' Court on 29 February 2024. You failed to appear on this date.

1. A victim impact statement from the female victim was tendered and read to the court at your plea. In her statement, she described the emotional impact of your offending upon her and her family. She said it was devastating and

life-altering. She has experienced immense psychological trauma and is now living in fear and with no sense of normalcy. The theft of her jewellery has deprived her of her life's savings and left her in a position where she now struggles to provide basic comforts to her family. Coming from a culturally and linguistically diverse background, she feels socially isolated, unsupported and misjudged by the community. The challenges of integrating into the community have intensified since the offending. She feels she cannot invite anyone into her home, for fear of being judged, unsafe and misunderstood. She is unable to trust others. 2. Her partner, the male victim, suffered a broken shoulder - again that is not confirmed by medical material, as a result of the offending, and has become unwell and was bedridden for months. He is now dealing with other medical issues with no clear timeline for recovery. He cannot work or drive, rendering

the female victim the sole caregiver to him and their son. 3. The victims' son, who was five years old at the time of offending, has been deeply traumatised. He cannot sleep through the night and is facing social isolation and behavioural issues. He was assessed by a mental health clinician at the Austin Hospital, who found that he is frequently scared, anxious and angry. He suffers re-occurring and intrusive memories of the incident, regularly experiencing nightmares and bedwetting. He now attends school on a reduced timetable due to difficulty coping with fulltime schooling and his behaviours at school are marked by themes of misbehaviour and defence, to the extent that on one occasion he brought a weapon with him to school. 4. His anxiety about protecting his parents has prematurely shifted him from the role of a child into one of an emotional protector, a role that is overwhelming and developmentally inappropriate. 5. I have had regard to the relevant and admissible portions of the female victims statement. I accept that the statement must be considered in light of the role that each of you had in the offending. I have taken into account her victim impact statement and the statement in relation to her son in formulating the sentences I will shortly impose upon each of you.

1. Home invasion is generally considered to involve very serious offending, as invariably it involves a terrifying experience for the victims and threatens the wider community's sense of security. Not only is home invasion punishable by up to 25 years' imprisonment, but Parliament has designated it a Category 2 offence. This means that unless an exception is enlivened, the court is required to impose a custodial sentence.[1] The creation of this offence and the consequence of this categorisation reflect a clear message from the legislature as to how seriously such offending is to be viewed and I pause at this point to add that no such exception was relied upon by any of the accused. [2]
2. The maximum penalties for the other offending includes, for recklessly cause injury relevant to Mr Picken it is five years' imprisonment; for possess a prohibited weapon also relevant to Mr Picken it is two years' imprisonment; for impersonate a police officer it is one year's imprisonment and that is relevant to Mr Chetcuti and Mr Picken; for failure to answer bail it is two years' imprisonment; for prohibited person possess firearm and for prohibited person possess imitation firearm, relevant to Mr Chetcuti, it is 10 years' imprisonment; for possession of cartridge ammunition it is two penalty units.
3. Ms Mahady, who appeared to prosecute, submitted that this home invasion represented a serious and premeditated offence such that general deterrence must play a role in sentencing. She submitted that you, Mr Chetcuti, and you, Mr Picken, planned the attack in advance, visiting the apartment block the day before to familiarise yourselves with the location. Ms Mahady further submitted that, Mr Carruthers, your guilty plea to the home invasion reflects your participation in the agreement to commit the offence and that the inference can readily be drawn from the circumstances of entry, that is, waiting for a car to exit, the garage door to open and walking in, that you understood what was about to occur. Further, she submitted that the deliberate and coordinated nature of the conduct underscores the level of objective seriousness and the need for a sentence that reflects both the gravity of the offence and the broader deterrent purpose.
4. Ms Mahady submitted that the presence of a child during the incident aggravates the offending, regardless of whether each of the three of you were aware of the child's presence. This factor heightens your moral culpability and forms a significant part of the sentencing matrix. The use of a police badge by you, Mr Chetcuti, and the prior reconnaissance visit add to the degree of premeditation. While it is accepted by the prosecution that each of you did not personally enter intending to commit violence, the violence that did occur was an integral part of the home invasion and contributes to its seriousness. Ms Mahady submitted that in line with principles akin to affray, liability attaches not only to those who directly inflict harm, but also to those who knowingly participate in the collective criminal enterprise that facilitates it.
5. Mr Chetcuti, your counsel, Mr Jackson, conceded the offending was both objectively and subjectively serious and the only appropriate disposition was imprisonment involving a head sentence and non-parole period. Further, he submitted that your intent upon entry was theft, that once you had effected that purpose, you left and the violence that ensued did not involve you. Further, in relation to the guns seized by police, Mr Jackson submitted these were in a locked box at your premises, they were not used or associated with any offending and were made from bits and pieces.
6. Mr Picken, your counsel, Mr Blake, submitted that the planning that took place was directed towards entry and the search, but not violence, and it is clear that the intention upon entry was to obtain property and leave. He submitted that entry was gained by deception, not violence, and that you were not the driver of the impersonation of police, the presentation of the false search warrant or the actual removal of the property, noting when you were arrested at the scene you had none of the stolen property in your possession. Mr Blake submitted the violence that occurred was responsive to the restraint applied by the victims and was not planned. Further, he submitted that although you had possession of the knuckledusters at the time of entry, they were not brandished or used to secure entry, their use only arose after you were forcefully confronted by the victims. Mr Blake submitted the injuries sustained by Mr Ganjiarallo were not life threatening, permanently disabling, significant or ongoing and occurred in reactive circumstances. Overall, Mr Blake submitted the offending was confined to a short period, the police were called and attended quickly, and you, Mr Picken, were restrained and arrested at the scene.
7. Mr Carruthers, your counsel, Mr Thomas, conceded the offending was inherently serious, however, he submitted that you played a lesser role. He submitted that your purpose for travelling to the apartment building on the day was to purchase drugs and you were drug-affected at the time. You were not involved in the planning or attendance at the address the previous day and you did not know the victims or that a five-year-old child was present. Mr Thomas submitted that entry was gained by deception and not force, although it was not you who pretended to be a police officer. He submitted you remained near the door whilst in the apartment and the victims could not recall what you did whilst inside and you did not participate in the search or theft. Mr Thomas submitted it was difficult to say when you became aware of what was planned, but it was likely moments before the entry to the apartment and as such your involvement was spontaneous and opportunistic.
8. Mr Thomas submitted that the CCTV footage depicts you entering the apartment with Mr Chetcuti and Mr Picken, and then leaving after four minutes, which was during the theft and prior to the commencement of any violent confrontation. Your conduct, he submitted, was consistent with conscious withdrawal from the overall offending. You left, then remained in the entryway of the apartment block for the remainder of the incident.
9. Mr Chetcuti and Mr Picken, I accept that your offending demonstrated a degree of planning and premeditation. You attended the apartments the day before, where you are captured on CCTV scoping out the building. You had contact with a resident in an attempt to gain access to an apartment but were unsuccessful. You approached another resident of the building and asked if she recognised photos of the victims. Both of you deliberately selected the premises and victims as your targets in advance and returned the next day to execute your plan. Mr Carruthers, I accept you offended on one day only and became involved shortly before the home invasion occurred.
10. On the day of offending, at the time of home invasion the three of you acted together as part of a group and in doing so you were an intimidating presence. You used deception to gain entry to the victims' home and did not use force. I accept, Mr Carruthers, you were the last to enter and the first to leave and that you were in the home for no more than four minutes. I agree the CCTV footage shows that you not only left the apartment, but that you also left the apartment building. Mr Chetcuti, you were in the victims' home for around 20 minutes, and you were centrally involved in the charge of theft and took possession of $110,596, which is a significant amount, worth of jewellery from the safe. You left immediately after the theft and appeared to hold the lift and wait for Mr Picken. You left without him and before any violence.
11. Mr Picken, you attempted to follow Mr Chetcuti out of the apartment, but were pulled back by the victims. You punched Mr Ganjiarallo multiple times with knuckledusters, you twisted his arm behind his back before the female victim stabbed you in the arm in an attempt to protect her husband. The violence spilled out into the corridor and was largely captured on CCTV. It is apparent that the female victim grabbed you and that the male victim assisted her. He is seen at times to punch you in the head and body. The CCTV footage depicts you punch the male victim, you were struggling and attempting to get free. The female victim has hold of you in a bear hug for a considerable period. Her five-year-old son can be seen during the fighting. He appears visibly distressed as he watches on and is trying to help his mother. This was a terrifying end to the whole ordeal with several residents from the neighbouring apartments watching on and some calling Triple 0.
12. Mr Chetcuti, Mr Picken and Mr Carruthers, your offending represents a well-planned, deceptive, brazen and outrageous example of home invasion. Although it was only Mr Picken who was actually involved in the violence, each of you must have anticipated that such violence was probable as you had invaded the safety and security of another's home to steal their property. Your actions put your victims in a great amount of fear and have had lasting consequences. I accept that you may not have known that a five-year-old boy was likely to be present, however the fact that he was present, and he was witness to this very frightening event, is an aggravating feature. I consider the reactionary violence that occurred to effect Mr Picken's escape, increases the seriousness of the overall offending for you all. I do accept, however, that you each had different roles and you have each pleaded guilty to different charges in relation to the home invasion incident that will require differences to be reflected in the sentences I impose upon each of you.

1. Each of you have pleaded guilty after a contested committal. Although your pleas were not entered early in the proceedings, I accept it would not have been realistic or practicable for you to plead guilty prior to the contested committal, the result of which was the withdrawal of the most serious charge. Your pleas of guilty have a significant utilitarian value as they have spared the court a trial which would have been difficult, costly and lengthy in the context of the need for interpreters and the involvement of three counsel.
2. Further, I accept your pleas demonstrate that each of you accepted responsibility for your offending and reveals a degree of remorse. Each of you has in this sense facilitated the course of justice. In your case, Mr Carruthers, your plea of guilty in the face of a triable issue increases the value of your plea. I propose to allow a significant discount for the plea of guilty of each of you to reflect these factors.

1. Mr Chetcuti, you are a 45-year-old man of Maltese heritage. You were 44 years old at the time of this offending.
2. You grew up in Sunbury with your mother, father, older brother and two younger sisters. Both of your sisters have since passed away. Your sister Lisa was pregnant when she suffered a blood clot in her lung. Your other sister Rebecca died at 28 of meningitis. Clearly you have experienced grief and loss as a result. Your relationship with your brother has been difficult over the years and you have in recent times begun talking to him again. You currently enjoy a good relationship with both of your parents. Your mother lives in Queensland and she is battling lung cancer. You have phone contact with both of your parents daily.
3. You attended Kismet Park Primary School from Prep to Grade 6. You report being the victim of abuse at the Don Bosco Centre when you were between the ages of six and seven. At the age of 12, your parents separated. Post separation your mum did not cope, she started drinking heavily and attempted suicide a couple of times. On occasions she had to be hospitalised. You have had to perform CPR and call an ambulance, which you of course found very distressing.
4. You attended Sunbury High School where you completed Year 11. You were sports captain in Year 10 and class captain in Year 11 and did not experience any learning, social or behavioural difficulties. You left school to help support your family.
5. After leaving school, you worked for Qantas as a machine operator and baggage handler for four or five years. After that you drove a delivery truck while studying a range of courses that would enable you to drive petrol tankers. You gained employment in this specialised truck driving field, working for several companies transporting fuel. In 2018 your life changed as a result of a serious motor vehicle accident. You hit a guard rail in the context of what you believe was a blackout due to an aneurysm. You have no memory of the accident but woke up in hospital a different person. You sustained a traumatic brain injury and initially could not walk or talk. You were very angry. After a period in hospital, then a rehabilitation facility and a day-hab, you were no longer able to work and provide for your family. The accident has had a profound impact on your life, not only is your personality different but you have found it very difficult to negotiate everyday tasks.
6. You were married to your former wife for about 23 years and together you have an 18-year-old son. You separated in the context of the motor vehicle accident and TBI you sustained. You have not had any contact with your son since being in custody. The breakdown of your marriage had a devastating effect upon you. An intervention order prevented you from contacting your son. You had moved into independent accommodation and your drug use escalated. It is in this context the offending occurred.
7. Prior to the offending and your remand, you had entered a new relationship. You and your current partner have an 18-month-old son together. They have returned to Africa whilst you are in custody as she has limited supports in Australia. You have only limited contact with them via video. You have found this difficult. Your time in custody has otherwise been of assistance to you as you had stopped your drug use and gained some stability. You are currently in Fulham and employed as a 'stores billet'. You have undertaken as many courses as possible, and several certificates were tendered on your plea. In addition, you attended 44 weeks of NA which I consider to be an impressive example of your motivation towards rehabilitation.
8. At your plea, your counsel tendered a psychological report dated 23 July 2025 from Carla Lechner and a neuropsychological report dated 18 August 2025 from Dr Anne-Marie Ternes.
9. Ms Lechner undertook testing which revealed you have a moderate level of psychological distress. You undertook the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), with your score falling within the 'moderate' range, aligning with your presentation during interview. You endorsed symptoms including sleep disturbance, fatigue, agitation, loss of interest, and feelings of sadness, guilt, worthlessness, and self-criticism. Additionally, you completed the International Trauma Questionnaire (2018), which revealed symptoms consistent with both post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and complex PTSD. Reflecting on your experience of waking up in hospital after your accident, you reported moderate to high levels of nightmares and avoidance, though you no longer experience flashbacks or hypervigilance. You also showed significant disturbances in self-organisation, emotional regulation issues, a negative self-concept and interpersonal difficulties, likely stemming from your life changes post-accident, as well as earlier experiences such as your parents' separation, your mother's mental health struggles, and the childhood abuse you sustained.
10. Ms Lechner opined that you have a limited criminal history and a background of stimulant and opioid use disorders (currently in remission), major depressive disorder and some features of complex PTSD. Following a traumatic brain injury in 2018, you experienced profound life changes, and you could no longer work, your marriage broke down and you began using drugs to cope with depression and anger. Your offending occurred during a period of emotional instability, substance use and impaired judgment, possibly worsened by the cognitive impacts of your brain injury. Ms Lechner recommended cognitive testing.
11. Dr Ternes undertook assessment and testing and opined that during the assessment, your cognitive performance fell within the low average to average range for your age. Without prior baseline data, it was difficult to determine your previous cognitive level, but the assessment suggested mild cognitive impairment, particularly in attention, processing speed and the ability to learn and recall new information. You also reported word-finding difficulties and memory problems consistent with the observed test results. Psychological assessment indicated symptoms of depression and stress, reflecting ongoing emotional distress.
12. In Dr Ternes' opinion there was strong evidence that you sustained a brain injury in 2018, documented as severe in the available records. Dr Ternes stated that although further medical documentation would be needed to confirm the full extent of the injury, it is likely contributing to your current cognitive difficulties. Further, she stated that your psychological symptoms, including depression and stress, may also be compounding these impairments, highlighting the need for comprehensive treatment and rehabilitation support.
13. I accept the opinions of both Ms Lechner and Dr Ternes. I accept the submission of your counsel that this does not excuse your offending, rather, it puts into context the vast difference between your pre- and post-accident life and behaviour.

1. In terms of mitigation, Mr Jackson relied upon your plea of guilty and that you have a very limited prior history. He submitted that this is your first period in custody, and it has been lengthy. In total you have spent 533 days in custody. Mr Jackson set out in some detail that you have had a matter dealt with in the Magistrates' Court subsequent to your remand. On 20 September 2024 you were sentenced to a total effective sentence of 60 days to commence on 12 April 2024 and a total effective sentence of four months to commence on 10 June 2024. One hundred and fifty-six days of pre-sentence detention was reckoned in relation to the second of those matters. The net effect is that this sentence lapsed on 9 October 2024 and that you have 361 days directly referrable as pre-sentence detention for the current matter. Mr Jackson submitted as a consequence totality is an important consideration. Further, I was informed you have a forthcoming plea in November 2025.
2. I accept that you have positive prospects for rehabilitation, as submitted by Mr Jackson. You have demonstrated the ability to live a productive life, you have made the most of your time in custody and you have worked to address your drug addiction through NA and courses. You have a strong desire to desist from offending, return to your former law-abiding life with your new partner and young son.

1. Mr Picken, you are 38 years old. You were born in Carlton and have one brother. You maintain a supportive relationship with both of your parents and speak regularly to your mother whilst in custody. You have a close bond with your brother, Aaron, and also keep in regular contact with him.
2. In many respects, you had a reasonably normal childhood. You attended Westbreen Primary. At the age of 10 you were expelled following behavioural issues connected to your parents' separation. You later attended Glenroy North Primary and Box Forest Secondary College in Glenroy. You completed schooling to the end of Year 9 before leaving school altogether.
3. From a young age you worked with the Old-World Cleaning Company, and engaged in cleaning and property maintenance. At 18, you purchased the business and sold it a year later to your brother. You then completed a Certificate III in Transport and Warehousing. You were employed by JD Transport for two years, later working with Bluestar Logistics as a forklift driver.
4. You moved to Queensland where you spent three years employed in Collinsville Mining, assisting with accommodation set-up for miners. Following your first incarceration at age 23, you lost employment with Collinsville, but were able to return to work intermittently with Bluestar.
5. You began using cocaine at age 23 in a social setting, at gatherings and parties. This progressed into methamphetamine use. This marked a turning point in your life. As your drug use increased, you ceased employment, your offending commenced and so began a cycle of drug use, offending and incarceration. Although you have an extensive prior history, it is confined to the Magistrates, Court and has involved relatively modest terms of imprisonment. Your longest sentences have been in the order of 12 months coupled with a CCO in 2017 and 12 months with a non-parole period of six months in 2014. Your most recent sentence was 10 days' time served and also a 29-day sentence and a 24 month CCO both in 2023.
6. In 2023, you were the victim of a shooting and later, on Christmas night, you were assaulted in your own home while asleep. You sustained serious injuries and were hospitalised. As a result of the injuries sustained to your arm from this incident, you sustained tendon damage in the arm and continue to suffer nerve related symptoms, limited hand function, and ongoing pain. You have been prescribed Lyrica for pain management. Currently, you are in receipt of buprenorphine injections, and you are prescribed a mood stabiliser.
7. You are currently housed in Port Phillip Prison, Charlotte Unit. You have endured significant periods of isolation, five months in segregation, including a 23-hour lockdown for three consecutive months, with 20 days during which you were denied yard access due to staff shortages.
8. Upon your release from custody, you intend to work with your father, who operates his own company. You hold a white card and a forklift licence and are eligible to obtain a driver's licence.

1. By way of mitigation, your counsel, Mr Blake, relied upon your plea of guilty. He submitted that your custodial conditions have been unusually harsh and have involved several and extended periods of 23-hour lockdown and segregation. Your custodial burden has been aggravated by the serious arm injury and consequent ongoing pain that has required medication. Your designation as a protection prisoner has added further to your restrictions and isolation. In the circumstances, I accept the burden of imprisonment in your case is extreme and qualifies as a form of extra curial punishment. It was not entirely clear to me why you were being held in such draconian conditions. However, as I understand the authorities, whether the situation of your incarceration is as a result of your misbehaviour or otherwise, does not mean it cannot be given weight in the sentencing synthesis. I also consider part of your poor custodial experience is as a result of the injury to your arm.[3]
2. In terms of prospects for rehabilitation, Mr Blake submitted that these were not extinguished. You have a previous working history, you have supports in the community in the form of your family and you have a plan for the future. In my view, your potential for reform is contingent upon your ability to do something about what appears to be a debilitating and powerful drug addiction. This period in custody has certainly been the longest and most onerous you have served. It is hoped that this might be the time for you to break the revolving cycle of drugs, offending and gaol.

1. Mr Carruthers, you are 40 years old. You identify as an Aboriginal man through your maternal grandfather's heritage. You were born in England to an Australian mother who was of English and Aboriginal heritage. Your parents were not in a relationship. You have never known your father and your mother was 17 at the time of your birth. You have younger half-sisters from your mother's subsequent relationships. You, your mother and your stepfather relocated to Australia when you were 13 years old, settling in Melbourne.
2. You completed primary school after arriving in Australia and then attended Gladstone Park Secondary College and Box Forest Secondary School. You experienced behavioural issues, though not learning difficulties, throughout your schooling. You left school before completing Year 10 following repeated truancy. You experienced significant physical and psychological abuse at the hands of your stepfather in England and in Australia. Both of your parents consumed alcohol heavily. You were evicted from the family home when you were 16.
3. After leaving home you experienced periods of transient accommodation and homelessness. You have a lengthy history of incarceration, and your living arrangements have been disrupted by this. Between periods of incarceration you have squatted, lived with partners, and lived in other unstable housing arrangements. In the lead-up to your remand, you were living in Meadow Heights with a friend. You were 'couch surfing' and had been living at that house for three to four months.
4. You have been estranged from your family for a long time, although you have in recent years effected some reconciliation with your mother and sister. You have had very limited and sporadic contact with them since your remand.
5. In terms of employment you worked in a variety of jobs until 2012. These included fruit picking, labouring, factory/warehouse roles and installing crash barriers. Over the years you have been a passionate dog lover and have worked in the dog training industry. The court received a testimonial from Adrian Taylor which spoke of your skills and dedication in this regard. Mr Taylor also spoke of your difficult and neglectful childhood and confirmed that he had never known you to be violent. Your work history was necessarily disrupted by periods of incarceration and substance abuse. Between 2012 and 2022 you were unemployed and a recipient of Centrelink benefits. In 2022 you returned to the workforce for one year, working for a labour hire company. You enjoyed the work there until suffering a workplace injury. You left the role and decompensated, relapsing into drug use. You were receiving a Centrelink benefit at the time of your arrest.
6. You have had two previous significant relationships. You have no children. You have been in a relationship with Jessica Smith for the last three years, however you have never lived together. For the second year of your relationship, Ms Smith relocated to the Wollongong area of New South Wales to live near her mother. You and Ms Smith have been in regular contact during your remand, and she remains supportive of you. You have plans to live together when you are released from custody, either in New South Wales or in Victoria. In her testimonial to the court Ms Smith described you as a kind, caring and deeply compassionate person. She says you are remorseful for your offending and desire to live differently and leave your past behind. Ms Smith confirmed she is committed to supporting you emotionally and practically as you move forward with your new path.
7. Mr Carruthers, you have a long history of drug and alcohol abuse. You started using cannabis at the age of 14 and methylamphetamine in your later childhood years. You also used heroin from an early age. You ceased heroin use in 2018, but continued using cannabis, methylamphetamine and GHB. You were hospitalised for an overdose at least once, in 2020. You have had periods of alcohol abuse which range from six to twenty-four standard drinks per day, increasing commensurately with decease in drug abuse. Your previous term of imprisonment was your longest period of abstinence from drugs and alcohol.
8. Your lengthy history of involvement with the criminal justice system is inextricably bound up in drug abuse, and a pattern of incarceration, abstinence, and relapse. Indeed your involvement in the current offending appears to have been driven by your desire to obtain drugs and your possession of a variety of drugs upon arrest is consistent with your drug history. You have a considerable list of prior convictions and have appeared in this court on several occasions. In 2005 when you were aged approximately 20 years old you were sentenced to two years three months' imprisonment with an unusually low non-parole period of 12 months. Most recently, in 2021 where you were sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 months.
9. Following your release from custody in 2021, you lived at Ozanam House, a social housing facility provided by Vincent Care, for 10 months. You remained abstinent from drugs during this time but self-ceased your methadone prescription. You moved in with a friend after securing the labour hire job. When you suffered the workplace injury, you relapsed into drug abuse, mainly methylamphetamine, in the context of unemployment and low morale. At the height of your relapse, you were using up to seven grams of cannabis and one or two grams of methylamphetamine per day. You were also using up to 50 mil of GHB.
10. Since being remanded, you have recommenced participation in the methadone program. You have undertaken the 'alcohol and me program' with a certificate being received after plea. Further, you have undertaken numerous courses to increase your employability. These were detailed in your prisoner education summary report which was also received after the plea, and I should indicate, Mr Thomas, I will give those exhibit numbers in line with the exhibits that have already been tendered.

1. By way of mitigation, your counsel, Mr Thomas, relied upon your very limited role in the offending and what he submitted was an important plea of guilty. Mr Thomas submitted that you have some positive prospects for rehabilitation in the form of the support from Ms Smith and the work and courses you have undertaken in custody. He submitted that issues of totality were relevant in your case as although you have been in custody since your arrest on 26 April 2024, a total of 528 days, you have served a 90 day sentence so that you have 438 days of pre-sentence detention directly referrable to this offending.

1. The principles that govern parity are well established. Equal justice requires that like offences be treated alike, but also that relevant differences between offenders be capable of being treated as justifying different outcomes. The court must assess the individuals and the circumstances. Their ages, backgrounds, criminal history, health, characters and roles played in the offending are all relevant and may justify disparate sentences. A comparative analysis of the culpability and circumstances of co-offenders is indispensable to application of the parity principle.
2. In this case, the concept of parity is a difficult one. You have each been charged with different offences arising out of the home invasion. Mr Carruthers, you have been charged with home invasion itself, Mr Chetcuti you have been charged with home invasion and theft and Mr Picken you have been charged with home invasion, theft and recklessly causing injury. These charges represent each of your roles in the offending, which in my view are considerably different. You each face other offences including summary related offences, and in your case, Mr Chetcuti and Mr Picken, a separate indictment. Further, you all have very different prior criminal histories and different mitigatory factors to call in aid. In this case, disparity is warranted.

1. The purposes for which sentences may be imposed are just punishment, general deterrence, specific deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation and protection of the community. In this case I agree with Ms Mahady that the most weight should be given to the principles of general deterrence. Mr Picken and Mr Carruthers, you have significant prior histories, and for this reason I have put more weight on specific deterrence than for you, Mr Chetcuti. To be clear, I denounce your offending in the strongest terms. What you did was brazen and you terrified the victims in their own home and exposed their five-year-old son to a horrifying ordeal.
2. I take into account the sentencing guidelines referred to in s5 of the Sentencing Act,[4] where relevant to your case. In particular, I have had regard to current sentencing practices for the offending before me, particularly the charge of home invasion. Counsel provided comparable cases of Wright, Taleb, Garic and others.[5] I found these cases useful in determining the sentencing landscape. Ultimately, the sentencing exercise requires that I balance all relevant factors and make a judgment as to the appropriate sentence in the circumstances of each of your particular cases.
3. The principle of totality is an important consideration, and I must be careful to make sure the total sentence is appropriate for the total criminality, and Mr Chetcuti and Mr Carruthers, I have had regard to this principle in the context of other offending that has been dealt with subsequent to your remand.
4. Principles of proportionality and parsimony are also very important considerations. That is, the punishment I impose must fit the crime and I am to impose a sentence that is no more severe than is necessary to achieve the purposes of sentence. I have taken each of these principles into account in fixing the individual sentence and the structure of the sentence I will now impose.
5. Firstly, Mr Chetcuti, in relation to indictment Q10777721.1, you are convicted and I impose an aggregate term of imprisonment. I consider that the offences are all of a similar nature. In effect, they were the possession of firearms that were found upon search, and I have imposed an aggregate term of 12 months' imprisonment.
6. In relation to indictment C2400243, in relation to Charge 1, home invasion, you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for three years and three months.
7. In relation to the charge of theft, you are convicted and sentenced to one year imprisonment.
8. In relation to Charge 6, impersonate a police officer, this is on 9 April 2025, you are convicted and sentenced to three months' imprisonment.
9. In relation to Charge 14, possess cartridge ammunition, you are convicted and fined $250.
10. In relation to Charges 4 and 5, fail to answer bail, you are convicted and sentenced to one month imprisonment on each of those charges.
11. In relation to the home invasion indictment, the charge of theft for which you received one year imprisonment, I determine that four months of that should be served cumulatively on the three years three months' imprisonment which is the base sentence.
12. So that means that the total effective sentence in relation to the home invasion indictment is three years and seven months' imprisonment.
13. I determine that three months of the sentence imposed on the firearms indictment be served cumulatively, making a total effective sentence across the two matters of three years and 10 months' imprisonment.
14. I determine that justice requires that the time you serve before being eligible for parole is a period of 28 months.
15. I have reckoned the amount of 361 days as pre-sentence detention and this will be deducted from the sentence that I have imposed.
16. In terms of s6AAA, had you pleaded not guilty and been found guilty, I would have imposed a sentence of five years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 40 months.[6]
17. The bottom line for you, Mr Chetcuti, is three years 10 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 28 months.
18. Mr Picken, in relation to indictment C2400243, to the charge of home invasion, you are convicted and sentenced to three years three months' imprisonment.
19. In relation to the theft, you are convicted and sentenced to one year imprisonment.
20. In relation to the recklessly cause injury, you are convicted and sentenced to one year imprisonment.
21. In relation to that indictment, three years three months' imprisonment on the home invasion is the base sentence and I order that four months of the sentence on Charge 2 and four months of the sentence on Charge 3 be served cumulatively, which makes a total effective sentence of three years and 11 months' imprisonment.
22. In relation to indictment Q10777572 in relation to the possession of a drug of dependence, which is a small amount of cannabis, I have determined that you should be convicted and discharged.
23. In relation to Charge 5 of possess weapon, that is the knuckledusters, you are convicted and sentenced to one month imprisonment.
24. In relation to Charge 7, impersonate a police officer, that is on 9 April 2024, the day before, you are convicted and sentenced to three months' imprisonment.
25. That makes a total effective sentence of three years and 11 months' imprisonment and I have determined that the period that justice requires you serve prior to being eligible for parole is a period of 31 months' imprisonment.
26. I have reckoned a total of 544 days as being already served by way of presentence detention.
27. In terms of s6AAA, had you pleaded not guilty and been found guilty, the sentence I would have imposed is five years and two months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 41 months' imprisonment.[7]
28. Mr Picken, the bottom line for you is a sentence of three years and 11 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 31 months' imprisonment with 544 days reckoned as served.
29. Mr Carruthers, in relation to you, you've only got the one indictment, Q10874543. So in relation to the home invasion, you are convicted and sentenced to two years and six months' imprisonment.
30. In relation to each of the charges of possess drug of dependence, possess cannabis, possession of GHB and possession of methylamphetamine, you are convicted and discharged.
31. In relation to Charge 8, failing to comply with direction, that is, failing to give the passcode of your phone, you are convicted and sentenced to one month imprisonment.
32. In relation to Charge 9, failing to answer bail, you are convicted and sentenced to one month imprisonment.
33. The total effective sentence for you is two years and six months' imprisonment and I determine that the amount of time that you should serve prior to being eligible for parole is a period of 19 months' imprisonment.
34. I have reckoned a total of 438 days as already served by way of pre-sentence detention.
35. Had you pleaded not guilty and been found guilty, the sentence I would have imposed is a period of four years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 31 months.
36. Ms Mahady, I believe there will be ancillary orders that need to be made. There would at least be forfeiture of drugs and disposal of the knuckledusters.
37. MS MAHADY: Yes, thank you, Your Honour. I'm sorry I don't have this as I'm on the phone and I don't have in front of me the opening, but it's got the orders sought there.
38. HER HONOUR: I assume that there are no objections to those orders being made from any of the parties.
39. COUNSEL: No objection, Your Honour.
40. HER HONOUR: It just says that a disposal order will be sought, and a forfeiture order will be sought.
41. : Yes, they have been filed. I have a draft of those, and those orders will be made, and I note that there's no opposition to that course.
42. MS MAHADY: Thank you, Your Honour.
43. HER HONOUR: Are there any other issues? Have I left anything out?
44. MS MAHADY: No, Your Honour.
45. HER HONOUR: Can I thank everyone for their submissions both oral and written, and for the assistance that was provided to the court. Ordinarily I would allow you to talk to your respective clients online, but I think that in the circumstances that will be impossible, so unfortunately you might have to schedule a conference at another time. Thanks very much for your assistance. As I have said, we will adjourn the court.
46. COUNSEL: As Your Honour pleases.

[1] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 5(2H).

[2] Taleb v The Queen [2020] VSCA 329, [33].

[3] Yat v The King [2024] VSCA 93.

[4] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 5.

[5] Wright v The King [2023] VSCA 243; Taleb v The Queen [2020] VSCA 329; DPP v Garic [2021] VSCA 1536.

[6] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s6AAA.