DPP v Cockram & Anor [2025] VCC 692

VENN: But for the plea of guilty, a sentence of four and a half years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of three and a half years would have been imposed.

1. Mr Cockram and Mr Venn, you have each pleaded guilty to the same indictment,[1] which contains one charge of attempted home invasion[2] and one rolled-up charge of intentionally damaging property.[3]
2. The maximum penalty for attempted home invasion is 20 years' imprisonment. For intentionally damaging property, it is 10 years' imprisonment.
3. The relevant offending occurred on 22 October 2023, at which time you were aged 26, Mr Cockram, while you were aged 27, Mr Venn. You are now aged 28 and 29, respectively.[4]
4. I further note that at that time you, Mr Venn, were on two sets of bail, the second set having been entered into by you a mere eight hours before your commission of these offences.[5] That bail related to charges of retain stolen goods, possess drug of dependence, go equipped to steal, contravene conduct condition of bail and commit indictable offence whilst on bail.

1. The circumstances of the current offending are set out in the typed amended Summary of Prosecution Opening.[6] The basis on which you both now fall to be sentenced was also discussed during the earlier sentence indication hearing and at the plea hearing.[7] I have had regard to that opening and to those discussions when determining the appropriate sentences in this case.
2. For present purposes, the offending can be summarised as follows.
3. At approximately 9:00pm on 22 October 2023, Patrick Quinliven and Phillip Oliver were at their home in Croydon. While in his bedroom, Mr Quinliven heard the sounds of someone kicking the front door and of breaking glass. In response, he ran to the front door and saw it being forced open by a person on the other side. He could see the outline of at least two persons outside the door. He managed to force the door closed using his hip and shoulder. After noticing the door jamb was broken, he picked up a piece of broken wood and swung it towards the blinds in front of the broken window next to the door to prevent the person or persons outside from entering through that broken window.
4. Mr Quinliven heard two voices yelling, "Get out here you dog cunt", and words similar. He told the offenders to "fuck off" while continuing to push against the pressure that the offenders were applying to the door from outside.
5. At approximately 9:02pm, Mr Oliver called Triple 0. As that was occurring, Mr Quinliven felt the pressure on the door ease. Mr Oliver ended the call before any police officers were able to be dispatched.
6. Mr Quinliven then heard multiple sounds of glass breaking, which seemed to get further away. After the offenders had left, he ran outside in time to see a dark‑coloured hatchback vehicle being driven quickly away with its lights off.
7. The conduct as just described forms the factual basis for the offence of attempted home invasion alleged in Charge 1 on the indictment.
8. Afterwards, Mr Quinliven boarded up the broken window and attempted to secure the front door.
9. During the incident, Mr Quinliven suffered a small laceration to his nose with minor bleeding.
10. Later that evening, Mr Quinliven went outside and saw that the four cars parked in his driveway had been damaged. Three belonged to him, while the other belonged to a friend named Brett Way. The damage caused was as follows:
    • His 2001 Land Rover had a broken side window;
    • His 2005 Ford Territory had a broken rear windscreen;
    • His 1989 Nissan Skyline had a large scratch on the driver's side rear quarter panel; and
    • Mr Way's 2001 Holden Commodore had a broken windscreen and rear driver's side window.
11. The damage caused to those four vehicles forms the factual basis for the rolled‑up charge of intentionally damaging property alleged in Charge 2 on the indictment.
12. On the following day, 23 October, Mr Quinliven went outside to inspect the scene during daylight hours and located a tyre iron only a few feet away from his house, and in line with one of the vehicles. It appeared new and did not belong to any occupants of the house. He then called police and reported the incident. Police attended, checked the tyre iron for fingerprints and photographed the scene.[8]
13. On 25 October, while working outside, Mr Quinliven noticed a mobile phone on the ground near where the incident had occurred. As he did not recognise it or any of the persons in the photograph on the locked screen, he notified police, who reattended and seized the phone.

1. At approximately 6:00am on 23 October 2023, you, Mr Cockram, were involved in a motor vehicle collision in Box Hill while driving your then girlfriend, Madison Hall's blue Hyundai i20 vehicle. She reported her car stolen in the days following the collision.
2. Police seized and examined an SD card containing dashcam footage from that vehicle. It had captured the hours prior to and after the present offending. It showed you collecting Mr Venn and a third unidentified male from an associate's address approximately 20 minutes prior to the incident. The group is then depicted travelling to the vicinity of Mr Quinliven's address and discussing where to park. The vehicle was ultimately parked directly opposite the address.
3. Prior to the incident the dashcam footage captured Mr Cockram telling the other two men where the gloves and a crowbar were, as well as a hat which he said one of them could wear if they needed to. When Mr Cockram asked Mr Venn if he wanted him to "come in as well", Mr Venn replied, "Sure".
4. The footage then cut out for several minutes during the incident but later restarted at the same location and showed the group driving away from the address.
5. After the incident, the dashcam footage captured Mr Venn saying that he had "been there" and "standing behind". When Mr Cockram asked Mr Venn how long you get for 'home burgs', Mr Venn told him that it was an aggravated home invasion. By that time, Mr Cockram had realised he had accidentally left his mobile phone behind at the scene and was expressing his concern and saying he did not know what to do about it. The footage also captured the group discussing a shoulder dislocation that Mr Cockram had sustained during the incident and their unsuccessful attempts to put it back into place. When Mr Cockram had his shoulder relocated in hospital later that night, he told medical staff that he had sustained the injury as the result of a fall.
6. The mobile phone located by Mr Quinliven was later examined by police and identified as belonging to Mr Cockram.
7. On 16 November, police inspected Ms Hall's vehicle at a salvage yard and discovered that a tyre iron was missing from the spare wheel tool kit.

1. On 25 January 2024, police searched Mr Cockram's address and located the clothes he had been wearing on the night of this incident and a black Tommy Hilfiger hoodie top that had been worn by Mr Venn.
2. Mr Cockram was arrested at his home and later interviewed at Ringwood police station. He identified the mobile phone found at the scene as being his but professed to have no recollection of where he had lost it, blaming his memory problems on the fact that he had been taking Xanax tablets. He also professed not to have previously seen the address or any of the damaged vehicles parked in the driveway. He claimed not to know any of the other males shown on the dashcam footage or how he came to dislocate his shoulder. He also said he had no memory of being involved in a collision and did not believe he had used his girlfriend's vehicle in the preceding period.
3. Following the interview, Mr Cockram was released pending summons but later charged and bailed.

1. Mr Venn was arrested in respect of other unrelated offending on 14 February 2024. He exercised his legal right to give no comment answers when interviewed. He was then charged and remanded in custody.

1. Mr Cockram remained on bail until being remanded in custody at the conclusion of the plea hearing held on 22 May 2025. The total period of pre-sentence detention to be declared in his case is therefore six days up to but not including today's date.
2. In respect of Mr Venn, he was remanded in custody on 14 February 2024. On 24 June 2024, he was sentenced for unrelated offending to an aggregate sentence of six months' imprisonment with 131 days reckoned as a period already served under that sentence. That sentence lapsed on 14 August 2024. Since that time, he has been held on remand solely in relation to this offending. As a result, the total period of pre-sentence detention to be declared in his case is 286 days up to but not including today's date.
3. The periods of pre-sentence detention in respect of each accused will be made the subject of formal declarations shortly.

1. Although neither of the victims have made a written victim impact statement, I am prepared to infer that they must have been put in great fear as this offending unfolded.
2. In the case of Mr Quinliven, the prosecution, without objection from the defence, advised the court at the earlier sentence indication hearing of what he had told them, which was in the following terms. The offending had impacted all parts of his life and he had lost friends over the incident. He was left feeling very jumpy and agitated. In the six months following the incident, he freaked out whenever he heard a bang and became stressed whenever anyone came up behind him.

1. I accept that this matter resolved at a relatively early stage of the proceedings, given that the prosecution had initially been seeking a conviction on a more serious charge and that any contest at committal was confined to addressing issues to do with that more serious charge without denying presence at the scene.
2. Accordingly, I am prepared to proceed on the basis that each of Mr Cockram and Mr Venn are to be sentenced in the context of having entered an early plea to these charges.

1. The issue of remorse is a nuanced one in Mr Cockram's case. As the dashcam footage reveals his concern was not about the victims but rather about his own situation. In a similar vein he demonstrated pure self-interest when being interviewed, telling a number of deliberate lies in an attempt to avoid any personal responsibility for this offending. So, he displayed no remorse initially.
2. However, I am prepared to accept that he has subsequently reflected on the situation and developed some remorse for what he did. I have come to that conclusion based on his early plea, the observations of a number of his referees and his recent efforts to rehabilitate by attempting to address the reasons for his offending, including his drug problems.
3. In Mr Venn's case, I am prepared to accept that he too is remorseful based on his early plea, the observations of some of his referees, his motivation to effect change in his life and his productive use of the time he has spent in custody to date.

1. I note that Mr Cockram has no prior criminal history but a limited subsequent criminal history. As the relevant LEAP history reveals, on 22 October 2024, he was convicted and placed on a 12-month CCO for drive under the influence of alcohol, careless driving and fail oral fluid test within three hours of driving.[9]

1. In your case, Mr Venn, you have an extensive and very relevant criminal record.
2. You have previous convictions for 92 offences as a result of eight court appearances in the seven-year period between July 2015 and November 2022.
3. Those prior offences span a wide range of offence types, including carjacking and other offences involving violence and threatened violence, possession of a firearm and other weapons, extortion with threat to destroy property, reckless conduct endanger life, numerous offences involving dishonesty, possession and use of drugs and other driving and bail related offences.
4. In addition, you have subsequent convictions for another 20 offences as a result of your last court appearance on 24 June 2024. Those further offences included 15 for dishonesty, four of possess drug of dependence and one each of possess prohibited weapon and failing to answer bail. On that occasion you were given an aggregate sentence of six months' imprisonment in respect of which 131 days' pre‑sentence detention was declared. That sentence expired on 14 August 2024.
5. I note that you have been placed on numerous community correction orders, including one as part of a combination sentence you received in 2018.
6. You breached two of those community correction orders, including the one which formed part of the combination sentence.
7. You have also been sentenced to a number of immediate terms of imprisonment, including 12 months as part of the combination sentence in 2018, an aggregate term of four months in May 2020, a head sentence of 655 days with a non-parole period of 475 days in July 2020, an aggregate sentence of nine months in August 2022 and a further aggregate sentence of six months in June 2024.
8. Due to the significant period of time that you had spent on remand before being sentenced in July 2020, you were prevented from being released on parole at the earliest available time. In fact, according to your counsel, you were not granted parole at all and so had to serve the entire head sentence of 655 days.

1. I will now briefly outline your personal circumstances, Mr Cockram.
2. You are now 28 and an only child. Your parents separated in 2007. Until being remanded you lived and worked with your father, who owns and runs his own carpet cleaning business. The two of you share a very close bond. You are not close to your mother.
3. You were sexually assaulted by an employer when a teenager and this unfortunate experience led to you abusing alcohol and drugs, which has been an ongoing problem, including on the very night on which you engaged in this offending. More recently, you have been experiencing seizures against a history of concussive episodes and this has led your treating psychologist to recommend a neuropsychology assessment.
4. On 18 December 2023, your GP referred you for psychological assessment and counselling in relation to this offending and your anxiety and longstanding alcohol and drug abuse problems.
5. You have been seeing the senior clinical psychologist, David Stickels, ever since. At the time of writing his report dated 3 February 2025,[10] you had attended 16 sessions. You continued to see him after that time until being remanded in custody after the plea hearing. You intend to continue seeing him once you are released from custody.
6. In addition to seeing Mr Stickels, you also attended on a drug and alcohol counsellor at Inspiro Community Health for approximately eight months until being discharged in mid-2024.[11]
7. In the view of Mr Stickels, you are of above average intelligence but suffer addiction disorders for both alcohol and drugs as well as a significant anxiety disorder with associated behavioural problems. As noted in his report, you have been a willing participant in counselling with him and with your drug and alcohol counsellor.
8. In addition to seeking that professional help, you have also taken important steps to address your behaviour. So, you have stayed out of any further trouble, stopped seeing some former friends, abstained from use of MDMA or methylamphetamine and reduced your consumption of alcohol and cannabis. In the view of Mr Stickels, you have shown substantial improvement in your addictive behaviour and your mental state and this, together with your sound employment record, suggests you have good prospects.
9. For all but two of the past seven years, you have worked at your father's carpet cleaning business. Both you and he plan for you to take on a more significant role in that business in the future.
10. Your father, who provides strong and ongoing support, has noticed that you are now more settled and displaying a positive change in your lifestyle, which he attributes to your commitment to seeking help and a recent reconnection with an old school friend who has provided you with guidance and support. In his view, you regret your past substance use and the offending which brings you before this court. Other referees similarly note the positive progress you have been making and the remorse that you have demonstrated. And you are clearly a valued and trusted employee with a good work ethic.
11. On 5 May 2025, you were interviewed and assessed as suitable for placement on a community correction order with various conditions being recommended, including treatment for your mental health and alcohol and drug problems.

1. I will now briefly outline your personal circumstances, Mr Venn.
2. You are now 29. Your parents separated when you were only seven and since that time you have had no contact with your biological father. Between the ages of seven and 14, you were subjected to and witnessed domestic violence perpetrated by your mother's new partner, who abused alcohol. You describe him as being an intimidating and angry man.
3. This family violence led to frequent moves and an unstable childhood and interrupted education.
4. As a child you were treated for ADHD.
5. After leaving school at the end of Year 9, you completed a roof tiling apprenticeship and thereafter worked 'on and off' as a roof tiler.
6. You have three children now aged 11, 10 and six, from two past relationships. You regularly see your two eldest children and are in the process of reconnecting with your youngest child with the assistance of DHHS.
7. You were significantly substance-affected when you offended on this occasion. Your problems with substance abuse are of long standing. However, for the first time you have been prescribed buprenorphine whilst on remand and you have found this of benefit not just in addressing your drug addiction but also in ameliorating some of the symptoms of your ADHD condition. You intend to continue with this medication regime once released from custody.
8. At the time of this offending, you were abusing drugs and had no stable accommodation. Fortunately, when you are released next time, you will have the opportunity to live in stable accommodation with your mother and her partner.
9. You have attempted to put your time on remand to good use through ongoing employment (including as a head billet for a period) and by undertaking a three‑month pre-apprenticeship course, which you expect to complete in August.
10. You were assessed by the psychologist Gina Cidoni on 5 February 2025.[12]
11. In her opinion, the results of her cognitive assessment of you are consistent with your disrupted education which likely contributed to limited academic achievement and underdeveloped verbal reasoning skills. On clinical examination, she concluded that you satisfy the criteria for multiple severe substance use disorders.
12. In her opinion, your risk of reoffending is high. However, she notes a number of positive factors, which include the current structured environment in custody, stabilisation on buprenorphine medication and the consistent support from your mother, with whom you are close. In Ms Cidoni's opinion, you have expressed increased insight into your substance use and its role in your offending, which in turn indicates some capacity for change. Your engagement in prison work suggests an ability on your part to assume responsibility and maintain structure, which may assist in reintegration on release from custody. The availability of stable accommodation with your mother is an additional protective factor.
13. However, and as noted by Ms Cidoni herself, these protective factors remain largely circumstantial and depend for their efficacy on your ability to sustain engagement with treatment and structured supports post-release. Thus, your prospects are contingent on your ability to maintain long-term abstinence from substances, which has proved difficult for you to achieve in the past. Clearly the provision of comprehensive long-term substance use treatment on your release will be critical.

1. I now turn to consider the matters relied on in mitigation, commencing with those for you, Mr Cockram.
2. Your counsel placed reliance on your early plea of guilty and its significant utilitarian value. By taking that course, you have accepted personal responsibility for what you did, facilitated the course of justice, saved the community from the cost of a trial and spared the victims from the ordeal of giving evidence at a trial. For all of those reasons you are entitled to a significant discount in the sentence you receive.
3. You have demonstrated remorse.
4. You have displayed insight into the reasons for your offending and have voluntarily sought assistance through drug and alcohol counselling and psychological treatment.
5. You have stopped using some drugs and reduced your use of alcohol and cannabis.
6. You have a sound work history and the chance to advance your career in the near future.
7. You enjoy strong support from your family and from others in the community.
8. You have no prior convictions and only a very limited subsequent history.
9. And you enjoy good prospects of rehabilitation.

1. Mr Venn, the matters which your counsel relied on in mitigation, included the following.
2. You entered an early plea. For the same reasons as I just referred to in Mr Cockram's case, you are therefore entitled to a significant discount in your sentence.
3. You have shown remorse.
4. You have shown some insight and have expressed a desire to get treatment.
5. As the references from your mother, stepfather, stepbrother and a friend demonstrate, you have a number of good qualities despite the difficult upbringing which you were subjected to. To their mind, you appear to have reflected on your situation and are making some progress in dealing with your mental health and substance abuse problems. Those persons are prepared to continue to support you in the future.
6. Your desire to improve your relationship with your children provides an incentive for you remaining drug and offence-free on release.
7. You were subjected to a difficult and disadvantaged upbringing. As noted by Ms Cidoni, your history of trauma, exposure to domestic violence and childhood instability has led to maladaptive coping strategies, particularly substance use and impulsivity. Of course, none of that is your fault and, as your counsel submitted, it is appropriate to take that background into account both generally and when assessing your level of moral culpability, which I am prepared to accept is somewhat reduced on account of that fact.
8. The path to long-term rehabilitation in your case will likely be a difficult one. In this context, a number of the observations made by Ms Cidoni are particularly relevant. Whilst custody has provided you with forced sobriety and given you a break from the cycle of drug use and crime, this does not amount to meaningful rehabilitation. The lack of ongoing psychological intervention means that the underlying causes of your substance use and offending remain unaddressed. So, despite your current stability you remain caught in a cycle of repeated incarceration.
9. It seems clear, therefore, that in order to guard against the risk of relapse into substance use, homelessness and reoffending upon release, you will need to be provided with structured support aimed at addressing the problems to which I have referred, especially your mental health issues and related drug addiction.
10. Your counsel sought to highlight your relative youth and the presence of additional protective factors that have arisen in more recent times and that ought provide a more positive prognosis for your rehabilitation than may have been the case earlier. You are now more motivated to turn things around and will have the benefit of family support and secure accommodation on your release. You are also confident of getting further work as a roof tiler while you try and secure an apprenticeship.

1. An important further sentencing consideration for this court is the seriousness of the offending.
2. As signified by the significant 20 year maximum penalty fixed by Parliament for the crime of attempted home invasion, this type of offence is inherently very serious.
3. With a 10 year maximum, any offence of criminal damage is intrinsically serious and must be treated as such.
4. In my view, the particular offence of attempted home invasion with which this court is concerned represents a relatively serious example of its type. It is also somewhat troubling given the absence of any real explanation for it. It was clearly premeditated. It occurred at night. Force was used in trying to gain entry via a door and window and such violence was accompanied by the yelling of obscenities. There were two victims in the house, each of whom would no doubt have been terrified at the time and in the immediate aftermath. For Mr Quinliven, the adverse effects of this offending continued for months. Whilst not of an extended duration, the attempt was frightening, persistent and likely abandoned only because of Mr Quinliven's continued resistance and the increasing risk of police being called.
5. The rolled-up nature of the criminal damage charge makes it more serious as it encompasses four vehicles and two owner victims. Whilst unspecified, the value of the damage caused was likely of some significance and, until the damage was rectified, three of the vehicles were left in an unsecured state. It appears to have been gratuitous offending carried out in order to punish and inconvenience those to whom the attempted home invasion offence was directed. In all the circumstances, I view this offence as a relatively serious example of its kind.
6. I note that the offending carried out on this night is put on a complicity basis. Whilst the prosecution cannot identify exactly what each offender did, including which offender possessed the tyre lever, the criminal acts were undertaken in accordance with what had been discussed and agreed between them. And, it is clear that each of Mr Cockram and Mr Venn attended at the house as opposed to remaining in the parked vehicle.
7. All things considered, I do not see any basis for materially distinguishing between the two accused based merely on their roles. Each was intricately involved in what occurred and willingly participated in the incident in full knowledge of its seriousness.
8. That said, the fact that you were prepared to offend whilst on bail in the circumstances that you did, Mr Venn, is a significant aggravating factor in relation to your offending and elevates your level of moral culpability for it.

1. The principles of general deterrence and denunciation are very important sentencing considerations in this case and must be given due weight.
2. Offending of this nature strikes fear into the immediate victims and creates real concern in the broader community. It undermines the ability of people to feel safe in their own homes. The community therefore has a justified expectation that when offenders are caught courts will punish them in a manner that makes clear that such conduct is totally unacceptable in a civilised society and that sends a clear message to others in the community contemplating carrying out such offences, that the likely punishment will far outweigh the perceived benefits.
3. Specific deterrence is also relevant in each of your cases, but to varying degrees.
4. In your case, Mr Cockram, this is a factor that attracts moderate weight, even allowing for the fact that the service of the custodial component of any combination sentence would itself likely achieve a level of specific deterrence. Your offending has not been fully explained beyond the fact that you were drug and alcohol‑affected and, according to your counsel, assisting a friend. You clearly have a very serious problem in respect to your abuse of alcohol and drugs and I do not underestimate the difficulties that you will face in attempting to achieve long‑term abstinence. Until you do, there remains a risk that you will reoffend despite you having only a limited criminal history and ongoing support in the community.
5. In your case, Mr Venn, specific deterrence assumes more significance and must be emphasised. Not only did you offend after having just been released on your second set of bail, but you have an unenviable and extensive criminal history for someone of your age. You have failed to take advantage of previous lenient court sentences which sought to facilitate your rehabilitation and past sentences of imprisonment failed to deter you from committing these serious offences. Accordingly, the sentence you receive today must be of a sufficiently punitive nature that you are discouraged from reoffending in this or any similar fashion.
6. This court must also have regard to your respective ages and prospects of rehabilitation. Whilst you are of a similar age, your prospects are clearly different.
7. In your case, Mr Cockram, this court must proceed with some caution as until you complete the required counselling and treatment for your related mental health and alcohol/drug problems, you will continue to be at risk of reoffending. You have, however, displayed insight into your need for such treatment and have been engaging well with your treating psychologist to date. Whilst you have not been able to abstain from alcohol or cannabis, you have reduced the level of your use. The ongoing support from family and friends, stable accommodation and employment are positive indicators. All relevant matters considered, I have concluded that your prospects are good.
8. In your case, Mr Venn, the picture is not so positive. You have an entrenched drug problem, an extensive criminal record and a history of relapsing back into drug use and offending once released from custody. However, you are now at or approaching an age when some offenders take stock of their lives and start to turn things around. You seem to have been trying to use your time in custody to good effect by working and studying with a view to gaining an apprenticeship once released. Your desire to play a more meaningful role in the lives of your children should provide an incentive for you to address the factors underlying your past and current offending and, in particular, your drug problem. Whilst you will have the benefit of family support, I do not underestimate the difficulty of the challenges you will face in any attempt at long-term rehabilitation. Doing the best I can on the available material, I consider your prospects to be modest and quite guarded.
9. For similar reasons, I consider protection of the community to be a relevant consideration in each of your cases but as requiring more weight in your case, Mr Venn.
10. This court must arrive at a just punishment in each of your cases. Given the nature and seriousness of this offending, any such punishment must involve incarceration, albeit not to the same extent. The difference in your respective personal circumstances and the need to balance the various sentencing considerations differently in each case means that different sentences are warranted. As counsel for Mr Venn appropriately acknowledged, the parity principle does not require that like sentences be imposed in this case, given the marked differences in the personal circumstances of Mr Cockram and Mr Venn.
11. The totality principle is a further consideration that needs to be taken into account in this case. Whilst involving a discrete and additional level of criminality, the criminal damage offending occurred during the same relatively brief episode in which the attempted home invasion offence occurred. As such, this court must ensure that the overall level of punishment imposed on each of the offenders is commensurate with their total level of criminality, no more and no less. I have borne this in mind when determining the appropriate sentence in Mr Cockram's case. For Mr Venn, it has led me to order a moderate degree of cumulation and a substantial degree of concurrency as between the sentences imposed for the two charges.

1. In her sentencing submissions, counsel who appeared on behalf of Mr Cockram submitted that all sentencing considerations could be met by a lengthy and intensive stand-alone community correction order. In making that submission, counsel placed particular reliance on her client's lack of any prior convictions, early plea and efforts to rehabilitate since being charged. Alternatively, it was submitted that a combination sentence with a short custodial component was open.
2. In her sentencing submissions, counsel who appeared on behalf of Mr Venn acknowledged that nothing other than a head sentence with a non-parole period was open. However, she urged the court to temper any sentence in light of the early plea and other mitigating factors present. The court was also invited to fix the lowest reasonable non-parole period in order to maximise and facilitate Mr Venn's prospects, particularly in light of the fact that he has never previously had the benefit of a supervised release on parole.
3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Director sought to highlight the serious aspects of this offending and the consequent need to accord proper weight to the sentencing considerations of deterrence, denunciation and just punishment.
4. In the case of Mr Cockram, the prosecution submitted that whilst a term of imprisonment was appropriate, one in combination with a community correction order was within range in the particular circumstances of his case.
5. For Mr Venn, however, the prosecution submitted that nothing short of a sentence comprising a head sentence with a non-parole period was appropriate.

1. I have carefully considered the submissions made by each party.
2. In the case of Mr Cockram, I have ultimately concluded that a stand-alone community correction order is neither open nor appropriate. Whilst there will be occasions when even relatively serious offending can be dealt with by way of such an order, this is not one of those cases, in my view. To adopt such an approach on sentencing would represent an unjust punishment for this level of offending and would fail to accord appropriate weight to a number of other important sentencing principles, including general deterrence and denunciation.
3. However, that said, I am of the view that a combination sentence is open.
4. In the case of Mr Venn, the parties have sensibly identified the need for a head sentence with a non-parole period and I intend to adopt that course. I have given some additional weight to the matters in mitigation when determining the appropriate non-parole period, although there are limits as to the degree of leniency that this court can extend to Mr Venn in that context. To fix an unduly low non-parole period in relation to the head sentence would undermine some of the very sentencing principles that require emphasis in his case and would undermine rather than promote the administration of criminal justice.

1. After separately considering, balancing and weighing the various sentencing considerations in each accused's case, I have decided to impose the following sentences.

1. Mr Cockram, providing you consent, in respect to the two charges on the indictment you will be convicted and sentenced to an aggregate sentence of nine months' imprisonment in combination with a two-year community correction order, which will have the following core conditions:
   • You must report to the offices of Lilydale Community Correctional Services within two clear working days after the commencement of this order;
   • You must not commit any offence punishable by imprisonment while the order is in force;
   • You must comply with any obligation or requirement prescribed by the relevant regulations;
   • You must report to and receive visits from the Secretary;
   • You must notify a community corrections officer of any change of address or employment within two clear working days of the change;
   • You must not leave Victoria except with the permission of the Secretary; and
   • You must comply with any direction given by the Secretary that is necessary to ensure that you comply with the order.
2. In addition to those core conditions, the order will have the following conditions:
   • You must perform 250 hours of unpaid community work, as directed;
   • You must be under the supervision of a community corrections officer for a period of two years, as directed;
   • You must undergo assessment and treatment (including testing) for drug abuse or dependency, as directed;
   • You must undergo assessment and treatment (including testing) for alcohol abuse or dependency, as directed;
   • You must undergo any mental health assessment and treatment, that may include psychological, neuropsychological, psychiatric or treatment in a hospital or residential facility, as directed; and
   • 50 hours of treatment and rehabilitation satisfactorily undertaken by you are to be treated as hours of unpaid community work for the purposes of the unpaid community work condition.
3. Mr Cockram, one of the core conditions requires you not to commit any further offences during the period of the order. If you reoffend at any stage during the currency of the order and/or fail to comply with any one or more of the other conditions you could be charged with breaching this order, an offence which carries a maximum penalty of three months' imprisonment. Not only could you be sentenced for that offence, but you could also be sentenced afresh for the offences for which you will be placed on this order today. If that were to happen, you could receive a more severe sentence and even be sent back to prison. Do you understand all of what I have just told you, Mr Cockram?
4. MR COCKRAM: Yes, Your Honour.
5. HIS HONOUR: Mr Cockram, do you consent, that is agree, to the terms and conditions of this order and to be bound by them?
6. MR COCKRAM: Yes, Your Honour.
7. HIS HONOUR: Thank you. I will take that as you providing your verbal consent to this order and that fact will be recorded on the order itself.
8. Your legal representatives will be provided with a signed copy of the order shortly.
9. Pursuant to s 18 of the Sentencing Act 1991 ('the Act'), I declare that you have served a total of six days' pre-sentence detention not including today's date in respect of this sentence. I order that such period is to be reckoned as already served under this sentence and I further order that the declaration and its details be entered in the records of this court.
10. Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Act, I indicate that but for your plea of guilty you would have been sentenced to a total effective sentence of three years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years.

1. Mr Venn, in relation to each charge in the indictment you will be convicted and sentenced to the following terms of imprisonment.
2. On Charge 1, attempted home invasion, three years and three months.
3. On Charge 2, intentionally damaging property, 12 months.
4. The sentence of three years and three months imposed on Charge 1 will be the base sentence.
5. I order that three months of the sentence imposed on Charge 2 is to be served cumulatively on that base sentence.
6. The total effective sentence is therefore three years and six months' imprisonment.
7. In respect of that head sentence, I fix a non-parole period of two years and three months.
8. Pursuant to s 18 of the Act, I declare that you have served a total of 286 days pre‑sentence detention not including today's date in respect of this sentence. I order that such period is to be reckoned as already served under this sentence and I further order that the declaration and its details be entered in the records of this court.
9. Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Act, I indicate that but for your plea of guilty you would have been sentenced to a total effective sentence of four years and six months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years and six months.

1. Are there any matters that either counsel need to raise at this stage in relation to either the sentence or the sentencing reasons, starting with you, Ms Swiney?
2. MS SWINEY: No, Your Honour.
3. HIS HONOUR: Ms McGarvie?
4. MS McGARVIE: No, Your Honour.
5. HIS HONOUR: Ms Phillips?
6. MS PHILLIPS: No, Your Honour.
7. HIS HONOUR: Very well. Thank you, counsel.
8. Ms Swiney and Ms McGarvie, if either or both of you wish to briefly confer with your client using the current video link, you're welcome to do so once I leave the Bench.
9. MS SWINEY: Thank you, Your Honour. I'd be grateful.
10. MS McGARVIE: Thank you, Your Honour.
11. HIS HONOUR: Please now adjourn the court sine die, Mr Tipstaff.

[2] Charge 1, pursuant to ss 321M and 77A of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).

[3] Charge 2, pursuant to s 197(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).

[4] Mr Cockram was born in December 1996 and Mr Venn was born in February 1996.

[5] Mr Venn was released on bail at approximately 12:50pm and the offending occurred at approximately 9pm.

[7] A sentence indication was given to each accused at a hearing on 6 March 2025. Each indication was accepted and formally announced in court on 14 March 2025. The plea hearing was held on 22 May 2025.

[8] Police ultimately seized the tyre iron on 13 November 2023.

[9] The convictions were imposed at the Ringwood Magistrates' Court. I also note that Mr Cockram received a diversion disposition on 20 May 2024 for a single charge of possess prohibited weapon.

[11] See letter from 'Manny' dated 1 July 2024 (Exhibit DC-3).

[12] Her report is dated 5 February 2025 (Exhibit JV-2).