DPP v Cullen [2025] VCC 1824

Charge 2: non-fatal strangulation (intentionally cause injury) on 30 December 2024, contrary to s34AD(1) of the Crimes Act 1958, maximum 10 years' imprisonment;

Charge 3: false imprisonment on 30 December 2024, contrary to common law, maximum 10 years' imprisonment;

Charge 4: intentionally cause injury on 30 December 2024, contrary to s18 of the Crimes Act 1958, maximum 10 years' imprisonment;

Charge 5: possess drug of dependence (methylamphetamine) on 31 December 2024, contrary to s73(1) of the Drugs, Poisons & Controlled Substances Act 1981, 30 penalty units or 1 year imprisonment or both;

Charge 6: possess drug of dependence (Butanediol) on 31 December 2024, contrary to s73(1) of the Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981, 30 penalty units or 1 year imprisonment or both.

1. Mr Cullen, you accepted the prosecution summary dated 15 October 2025 as accurately setting out the circumstances of your offending. Given your recent denials of many of the allegations to Ms Cokorilo as late as 9 November 2025, I asked your counsel if you accepted the allegations made by the victim as set out in the summary. Your counsel accepted that you did. For that reason, I do not need to repeat those matters in detail and I set out only a short summary below necessary to give context to my sentencing remarks. You accept your prior criminal history and once again I refer to it only to give context to your offending.

1. Briefly, the factual matters surrounding your offending are as follows. You were born in May 1979 and were aged 45 at the time of the offending. You had a brief relationship with the victim who was born in 1998. At the time of the offending in December 2024 she was aged 26.
2. On 19 December 2024, a family violence intervention order ("FVIVO") was made restricting your contact and interaction with the victim. The order was served on you on the same day by police. Almost immediately after that order was made and served on you, you breached it repeatedly between 22 December and 30 December 2024. On some days you sent over 20 text messages to the victim and then on 28 December 2024 you further breached it by being physically proximate to her (Charge 1: persistent contravention of a family violence intervention order). The main offending that these charges relate to, however, occurred on 30 December 2024 and in circumstances where you were again in breach of the order.
3. On 30 December 2024, the victim was at your home in Morwell. It appears you physically assaulted her on numerous occasions. Forensic investigation revealed multiple separate injuries. It is perhaps easiest to put what occurred on that day in the words of the victim herself which were contained in the summary read out and accepted by your counsel as being accurate:

"... 'Every time I tried to get up, crying, trying to get out of the house, he pushed me back down, and then whatever he had. He punched me in the face (heaps of times ... all over my head...), pushing me down again, putting a sheet in my mouth, trying to suffocate me - biting my hands and everything' ... . > > ... > > ... 'I think he got his guitar at one point and whacked that. And then he had a whip or a strap or some - some lead or something' ... and 'whacked. ... my back a couple of times and then, like, across my face multiple times. And all I'm saying is just let me go please. Just stop, let me go, I wouldn't do anything'

... 'He's holding me down, like, all different limbs and my hair' ... And then I might be like, trying to get my arm up in between his - from holding him down - and then if I'd do that, he'd - he bit me - bit me, spitted in my mouth' ... .

... 'He tried to suffocate me about ... God knows, 10 times or whatever. I'm gasping for breath ... The times that I was able to get up and walk two steps trying to get out, he'd push me over the coffee table ... keeping me there ... .

... 'Then he had something around my neck a couple of times ... I think it was his hands at one - one time. And then I don't know what it was, ropes, frickin' belts' ... ."

"When Paul made attempts to strangle you, did you ever lose consciousness at all? Yeah for short periods. I'd come and try to get up and like getting out again...And any time, like, I'd scream or not he'd like shut me up by doing that." [1]

(Charge 2: non-fatal strangulation; Charge 3: false imprisonment;

Charge 4: intentionally cause injury).

1. Later, after your arrest when the allegations were put to you, you denied them, indicating it was the victim who hit and strangled herself. You denied touching her at all.
2. A search of your property revealed the presence of methylamphetamine and Butanediol (Charge 5: possess a drug of dependence, methylamphetamine; Charge 6: possess a drug of dependence, Butanediol).

1. I have taken into consideration the relevant penalties for each of the offences you have pleaded guilty to. Those penalties inform my assessment of the nature and gravity of the offending.
2. I do not have any victim impact statement. However, it is undoubted an event like that which occurred on 30 December 2024 was significant in a person's life. I do not have any evidence of long-lasting physical or psychological injury.
3. I consider the gravity of your offending to be high in relation to the persistent breaches of the FVIVO under Charge 1. This is because:

(a) the offending began almost immediately after being served with the FVIVO. You were clearly aware of it and made a conscious decision to flout it almost immediately. You have a history of such behaviour, which is revealed by your accepted criminal history. That shows that you have had previous family violence orders against you with breaches, and on occasion, persistently so;

(b) the contravention of the order was repeated and insistent. This is demonstrated by the volume of your text messages in the particulars of Charge 1. It also escalated to actual physical contact with the victim, noting this occurred on 28 and 30 December 2024;

(c) the offending in breach of the order on 30 December 2024 was violent, degrading and frightening. The victim was held in your home against her will and not permitted to leave. During that time, you pushed her repeatedly so she was on the ground and vulnerable. You hit her with all manner of things. You bit her repeatedly. You spat on her in a clear sign you wanted her to feel trapped, helpless and worthless;

1. I consider the objective gravity of your offending to be serious in respect of Charge 2 (non-fatal strangulation intentionally causing injury). Section 34AD(1) was introduced into the Crimes Act in 2023 with a suite of amendments. However those provisions did not come into operation until 13 October 2024. There is no authority I can find on the assessment of objective gravity of this type of offending.
2. In introducing the provision the Honourable Minister A Carbines said in the Second Reading Speech dated 19 October 2023:

"...Strangulation is a highly dangerous and easily fatal form of violence which can cause unconsciousness within seconds and death within minutes... > > ...The element of intentional injury means there is a higher level of culpability attached to this offence, triggering the higher maximum sentence..."

3. Section 34AC of the Crimes Act sets out the guiding principles that courts must have regard to in considering this offence. These are:

a) non-fatal strangulation of a person by a current or former intimate partner indicates that the person is, statistically, significantly more likely to be killed by the current or former intimate partner; and > > b) in circumstances of family violence, non‑fatal strangulation can indicate an ongoing and escalating pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour by the perpetrator; and > > c) even very short or individual instances of non-fatal strangulation can demonstrate the perpetrator's physical dominance and control over the victim and create an atmosphere of fear and compliance; and > > d) non-fatal strangulation will not always leave physical signs or injuries, and it can result in physical signs or injuries that only appear after weeks or months have passed.

4. Bearing these matters in mind I consider that your offending on Charge 2 is serious objective offending of this type. This is because:

a) your behaviour was repeated. The offence in s34AD of the Crimes Act includes both choking and suffocation. You engaged in both forms of offending. You put cloth in her mouth to stop her breathing. You used both hands and perhaps a belt or rope around her neck to restrain her; > > b) the behaviour was repeated over the course of the hour and particularly when she was crying out for help, as a way to stop that help; > > c) the behaviour was so serious that she lost consciousness on several occasions.

5. I consider that your offending on Charge 3 (false imprisonment) falls in the mid range of objective seriousness for this type of offending. This is because:

a) the detention was for over an hour, which I consider a not insubstantial amount of time for a person to lose their liberty and be in fear for their life; > > b) you did not let her go at anytime and she was only removed after police intervention; > > c) your detention of her was by violent physical means and permitted you to inflict violent acts on her and to degrade her.

6. I consider that your offending on Charge 4 (intentional cause injury) falls in the mid to high range of objective seriousness for this type of offending. This is because:

a) you used a variety of methods and tools to inflict injury. This indicates that you were prepared to change implements to obtain the results you wanted. A degree of callousness is demonstrated by such actions; > > b) it occurred in a situation where you were degrading and humiliating her; > > c) the injuries were all over her body. Many were in completely unprotected parts, showing you did not care where or how you struck her.

1. You were born in May 1979. You have a biological brother and sister and a paternal half-sister. From a young age you witnessed your father physically and verbally abusing your mother. This occurred on an almost weekly basis. The physical assaults were violent and degrading. Your mother gave evidence about this on the plea. She also gave evidence that you not only witnessed these events but were physically assaulted by your father on numerous occasions.
2. You left home at about the age of 15 to live with your grandmother. Your parents separated around this time. You continued to see your mother, with whom you have a close and loving relationship. You had a less positive relationship with your father.
3. You left school at the age of 18 having achieved your VCE. You were noted to be above average academically. You had a particular interest in music and completed a two-year TAFE course in that area.
4. Alcohol became a problem for you early on. You worked as a sawmill operator, customer service operator, sound engineer and boarding house manager. You also began to use marijuana early in your adult life.
5. You had significant intimate relationships in your twenties and thirties. These were normal relationships with no reports of family violence.
6. Between the ages of 30 and 35, you had a significant relationship which ended when your partner moved back to New Zealand. Around this time, approximately in 2012, you developed severe "melancholic depression" according to Ms Cokorilo, and you had psychiatric treatment for about a year. You developed chronic suicidal thoughts and were placed onto antidepressants.
7. Your involvement with the law begins around this time, and I will return to it when dealing with your criminal history.
8. In 2018, you had an admission for psychiatric treatment.
9. To briefly skip over the next few years, it appears that you then had a series of relationships and, at times, were placed onto FVIVOs which, on occasion, you breached. You worked during this time as a guitar teacher, perhaps 20-30 hours per week. You otherwise lived by yourself in rented accommodation. You remained close to your mother and were supported by your siblings and some other friends. You continued using alcohol and drugs, such as cannabis and methamphetamine.
10. In 2024, you began a brief relationship with the victim. You were the subject of a FVIVO made against you on 19 December 2024, and it is the breach of that intervention order that begins the relevant offending for which you are before this Court.

1. This begins in December 2017 for dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime, entering a private place without lawful excuse, assault with weapon, possess a prohibited weapon, traffick cannabis, committing an indictable offence on bail and possessing drugs of dependence, namely cannabis and methamphetamine. What is relevant, however, chronologically, is that this occurs at a time just prior to the psychiatric admission, and is also noticeable for the fact that a Community Correction Orders ("CCO") was imposed requiring treatment for drugs as well as mental health assessment and treatment.
2. About one year later, you were charged with breaching that CCO and a further CCO was imposed.
3. In 2019, you were charged with breaching that further CCO by the possession of methamphetamine, use of cannabis and trafficking in cannabis. A CCO was imposed of 18 months, once again with treatment conditions for drugs and mental health treatment.
4. In February 2021, you were charged with contravening a Family Violence Safety Notice and fined. Immediately after that, in March 2021, you were charged with breaching a CCO and were also charged with persistently contravening a FVIO, for which you were placed on a CCO for 18 months.
5. In September 2021, you were charged with breaching both the CCO and a persistent contravention of the FVIO, for which you were sentenced to two months in custody.
6. On 18 April 2024, you were charged with and fined for using a carriage service to harass.
7. As I indicated, a FVIO was put in place on 19 December 2024 in favour of the victim.

1. The defence submits this limb is enlivened and relies on Ms Cokorilo's report dated 9 November 2025 at paragraphs [46]-[49]. I accept that Ms Cokorilo has diagnosed you with a depressive and anxiety disorder which was active as at December 2024.[2]
2. The prosecution, however, submits that no reliance should be placed on Ms Cokorilo's report and that limbs 1, 2 and 3 are not enlivened. It is useful to set out the prosecution objections to the defence reliance on Ms Cokorilo's report.
3. The prosecution submits that the opinions are only as good as the information Ms Cokorilo had. Here as the reports are based on self-reports of events almost exclusively, the prosecution submits that there is neither credibility nor reliability in your recounting to Ms Cokorilo. It is submitted that this can be seen in three instances:

(i) the inconsistent history of hallucinations between the two reports,[3] when there is no such reference in the first report;

(ii) your minimisation of your offending and focus on the victim's wrongdoing in Ms Cokorilo's report of 9 November 2025 when, by that stage, you had indicated you were pleading guilty to the charges.

1. While I accept each of these matters, I do not accept that her opinion has been totally undermined by reason of the inconsistencies referred to by the prosecution: she has seen you over two occasions, is well experienced, made clinical observation and undertook psychometric testing before formulating her opinion. As such her opinion was not formed solely on the basis of self-report.[4] I therefore accept Ms Cokorilo's opinion as to the diagnosis, the fact that the conditions were extant as at December 2025, and the nexus to the offending.
2. As a result, I accept, by reason of paragraphs [48] and [49] of Ms Cokorilo's second report, that these active conditions materially diminished your capacity to reason, particularly during the events of 30 December 2024.
3. However, there is some force to the prosecution's submission that there was considerable offending from 22 to 30 December 2024, which was rational, reasoned and calculated. These were the persistent breaches of the FVIO in the lead-up to the events of 30 December 2024.
4. In respect of the primary charges, being Charges 2, 3 and 4, I accept that limb 1 has work to do and sensibly reduces your moral culpability.

1. For the above reasons, there is still some work for limb 2. Particularly I note that prison has been difficult for you by reason of your mental conditions and that your condition has deteriorated. I will take this into account in your sentence as your counsel submits that a sentence of time served and a CCO are the appropriate disposition.

1. There is also work for limb 3. I accept that you have a diagnosed psychiatric condition - being the depressive and generalised anxiety disorders. They were both present at the time of offending and also at the time of sentence. I find, in accordance with Ms Cokorilo's report that they effected your capacity to rationally deal with the circumstances of the order imposed on 19 December 2024. It culminated in what Ms Cokorilo described as "impaired cognitive control under stress" on 30 December 2024 resulting in "...impulsive, disproportionate responses to perceived provocation and/or conflict".[5]
2. However it is also quite clear that you knew of the FVIVO and its terms. You chose to disobey them. Further there can be no doubt that you also behaved in a way which was calculated to punish and degrade the victim. You prevented her from leaving, then treated her in a violent, degrading manner over one hour. This was not a momentary lapse of reason.
3. Overall there will be a modest reduction in moral culpability on account of Verdins' limbs 1, 2 and 3.
4. I consider that limbs 5 and 6 of Verdins have work to do, as it is undoubted that your time in prison to date has been and will be more onerous by reason of your diagnosed psychiatric conditions. I take into account the history Ms Cokorilo has recorded at paragraph [40] of her second report.[6] I have moderated your sentence on that account.

1. I accept that Bugmy applies in a general sense given your background. That is, I accept that experiences of trauma experienced in childhood do not necessarily diminish over time and that all factors relevant to an individual's situation must be taken into account in arriving at an appropriate sentence.
2. I have also had regard to the fact that your traumatic childhood experiences in combination with your psychiatric state render you less able to control your rational decision making into the future.

1. In Pasinis v The Queen,[7] the Court stated that the key to protecting victims of family violence:

"... lies in deterring the violent conduct by sending an unequivocal message to would-be perpetrators of domestic violence that if they offend, they will be sentenced to a lengthy period of imprisonment so that they are no longer in a position to inflict harm."

2. Priest JA in both DPP v Reynolds (a pseudonym)[8] and DPP v Kurtaj,[9] qualified the statement by stating that it is not permissible to impose a sentence as a form of preventative detention. With that caveat, his Honour was clear:

"... the general and specific deterrence, curial denunciation, just punishment and community protection will often be prominent features animating the sentencing discretion in cases of domestic violence. ... ."[10]

3. In Skeates (a pseudonym) v The King,[11] the Court said that family violence offences call for:

"... condign punishment to denounce and deter family violence is because of its prevalence and the seriousness of its consequences."

1. You have had previous FVIVOs and you have breached them. You have been punished as a result. Yet you have persisted in breaching such orders. There is a real need to bring specific deterrence into the sentencing equation.
2. General deterrence also has a role to play in all such offending given the prevalence of family violence in the community. Given my acceptance of Verdins' limbs 1 and 3 in particular I moderate general deterrence in your case given your mental condition. However this is only a sensible moderation and does not eliminate the need for general deterrence to play a role. Others in the community need to be deterred from reacting violently in the way you did to the circumstances you were presented with on 30 December 2024.

1. I consider punishment must also feature in the sentence I impose on all the charges. Not simply because of the statements of the Court of Appeal, but also because of your history in relation to family violence offending.
2. The circumstances of the offending were said to be of a brief period over 1 hour. I would not accept that categorisation. The offending here occurs over a period of one week at least, leading up to the substantial offending on 30 December 2024. That lead up demonstrates a willingness to breach the order repeatedly and persistently. Overall there is a clear escalation in your behaviour. This was activity conducted rationally without any situation of conflict.
3. In that circumstance, why you persisted in contacting her in contravention of the order is completely unexplained. It is a blatant disregard for an order of protection for the victim.
4. Second, the events on 30 December 2024, while going for an hour, contained multiple instances of assault and strangulation. The crimes committed in that hour upon the person of the victim are substantial and grave. They are not minimised simply because they occurred within an hour.
5. I accept that while the victim may not have sustained exactly 53 separate injuries, she has sustained multiple injuries and, on the plea, you are taken to have accepted that you have caused her multiple injuries. These come from strangulation, biting, hitting and punching.
6. By your plea, you also accept that you suffocated her causing momentary losses of consciousness on numerous occasions.[12]

1. Your prospects for rehabilitation were said to be guarded. This is because you had stable accommodation, a supportive family and an ability to earn. Against this, however, is the fact that you have demonstrated an ongoing pattern of being unwilling to comply with FVIVOs, and have repeatedly breached CCOs where you were receiving treatment. For whatever reason, you indicated to Ms Cokorilo that you would cease treatment of your own volition.
2. Ms Cokorilo opines:

"This presentation of minimisation, denial, and externalisation of blame is clinically significant. Forensic literature identifies cognitive distortions of this kind as maintaining factors in family-violence dynamics, reflecting impaired insight and reduced empathy, both of which increase risk of recidivism. Such distortions hinder capacity to recognise the full impact of behaviour and to adopt prosocial coping responses to interpersonal conflict."[13]

3. Accordingly, she increased your risk of future violent behaviour from low to low -moderate over the last year. She considers it only possible that with long-term treatment you "may" achieve meaningful rehabilitation.[14]
4. There are no matters which you have put before the Court to indicate your remorse for your actions. I accept that your plea was at an early stage. It was prior to the victim having to give evidence. This has saved her the ordeal of a trial. Your sentence will be discounted accordingly.
5. Overall, however, these matters indicate to me that your prospects for rehabilitation are poor.
6. Denunciation must also be reflected in the sentence I impose.
7. Community protection is also a factor I consider. This arises from your repeated breaches of family violence orders as shown by your criminal history and your latest offending. In addition your cessation of treatment for your underlying psychiatric conditions renders your ability to adequately deal with conflict or stress impaired. This heightens the need to reflect a degree of community protection in the sentence I impose.
8. Having arrived at that stage I have stepped back to consider the principle of totality and to ensure that the sentence I impose is just in all the circumstances.
9. As a result of the above, particularly noting the seriousness of your offending in Charges 2, 3 and 4, having particular regard to the guiding principles in respect of s34AC,[15] your poor prospects of rehabilitation, no real expression of remorse, but accounting for the impact of your psychological condition which limits your moral culpability and enlivens Verdins' limbs 1, 2 and 3, 5 and 6, I consider a head sentence of 4 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years and 7 months (31 months) to be an appropriate sentence.
10. I have been careful not to sentence you twice for the same offending. I note that Charge 1 in respect of particulars [10] and [11] overlaps with Charges 2, 3 and 4. Similarly the offending the subject of Charges 2 and 4 overlap to a lesser degree.
11. Given the severity of the offending on Charge 2 and the principles enunciated in s34AC I have assessed this as the base sentence. This is informed by the objective gravity of your offending and the fact that Parliament considered the deadly consequences of this offence sufficient to create a separate offence with a significant maximum penalty. I have cumulated the penalty on Charge 1 to reflect the offending between 22 and 28 December 2024. There is little concurrency for this reason on the base sentence. I have cumulated significant amounts of Charges 3 and 4 on the base sentence to reflect the offending occurred during the same period.
12. I do not consider a sentence of time served and a CCO adequately reflects the objective gravity of your offending, the need for deterrence given your past history and your poor prospects for rehabilitation.
13. I declare 345 days pre-sentence detention.
14. But for your plea of guilty I would have imposed a sentence of 64 months with a non-parole period of 48 months.

Persistent contravention of a family violence intervention order

Non-fatal strangulation intentionally causing injury

1. Paul Cullen, you have been charged and pleaded guilty to six charges relating to persistent contravention of a family violence intervention order, non-fatal strangulation intentionally causing injury, false imprisonment, causing injury intentionally and possession of a drug of dependence.
2. You have a relevant prior criminal history.
3. You have had previous FVIVOs and you have breached them. You have been punished as a result. Yet you have persisted in breaching such orders. There is a real need to bring specific deterrence into the sentencing equation.
4. General deterrence also has a role to play in all such offending given the prevalence of family violence in the community.
5. I consider punishment must also feature in the sentence I impose on all the charges. Not simply because of the statements of the Court of Appeal, but also because of your history in relation to family violence offending.
6. The offending here occurs over a period of one week at least, leading up to the substantial offending on 30 December 2024. In that circumstance, why you persisted in contacting her in contravention of the order is completely unexplained. It is a blatant disregard for an order of protection for the victim.
7. There are no matters which you have put before the Court to indicate your remorse for your actions. I accept that your plea was at an early stage. It was prior to the victim having to give evidence. This has saved her the ordeal of a trial. Your sentence will be discounted accordingly.
8. Overall, however, these matters indicate to me that your prospects for rehabilitation are poor.
9. Denunciation must also be reflected in the sentence I impose.
10. Community protection is also a factor I consider. This arises from your repeated breaches of family violence orders as shown by your criminal history and your latest offending. In addition your cessation of treatment for your underlying psychiatric conditions renders your ability to adequately deal with conflict or stress impaired. This heightens the need to reflect a degree of community protection in the sentence I impose.
11. Having arrived at that stage I have stepped back to consider the principle of totality and to ensure that the sentence I impose is just in all the circumstances.
12. I consider a head sentence of 4 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years and 7 months (31 months) to be an appropriate sentence.
13. I declare 345 days pre-sentence detention.
14. But for your plea of guilty I would have imposed a sentence of 64 months with a non-parole period of 48 months.
15. This summary is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the County Court or to be used in any later consideration of the Court's reasons.

[1] Summary of prosecution opening for plea dated 15 October 2025 at paragraphs [42(g)], [42(i)], [42(k)], [42(l)] and [42(m) [42(n)]

[2] Psychological Assessment Report of Ms Sandra Cokorilo dated 9 November 2025 at paragraph [39]

[3] Psychological Assessment Report of Ms Sandra Cokorilo dated 9 November 2025 at paragraphs [14] and [15]

[7] [2014] VSCA 97 at paragraph [42]

[8] [2022] VSCA 263; (2022) 71 VR 336

[9] [2025] VSCA 203

[10] DPP v Kurtaj [2025] VSCA 203 at paragraph [5]

[11] [2023] VSCA 226 at paragraph [56]

[12] See particularly, Summary of prosecution opening for plea at paragraph [42(n)]

[13] Psychological Assessment Report of Ms Sandra Cokorilo dated 9 November 2025 at paragraph [37]

[15] Crimes Act 1958