James Dimitriou on 12 September 2024 you involved yourself in a confrontational aggravated burglary that occurred at a residential property in Braybrook. The maximum penalty for that offence is 25 years' imprisonment. Inside those premises you were party to a common law assault, the maximum penalty for which is five years' imprisonment. You have pleaded guilty to those offences.
The victims in this matter are Ms Tenzin Dhayoe and Mr Tenzin Lhundup. Mr Lhundup is from the United States and Ms Dhayoe is from New South Wales. They were dating and at the time of this incident, were visiting Melbourne and staying with friends at the Braybrook address.
You were enlisted by your friend Tenzin Tharpa, along with your cousin Adrian and two others, Jordan Keys [1] and Brayden Taylor.
You and your co-offenders ranged in age from 17 to 21. You were born in November 2003 and were 20 years old at the time of this offending.
You have no prior criminal history.
[2]
Approximately six months prior to this incident Mr Tharpa and Mr Lhundup had an online dispute on social media. They had never met in person and the reasons for the dispute are unclear.
Mr Tharpa and Mr Lhundup agreed to meet on the evening of 12 September. Mr Lhundup told him '' and ''. When Mr Lhundup learnt that Mr Tharpa was on his way he said, ''. In response, Mr Tharpa said, ''.
I'll be right outside waiting for you
Stop talkin come pull up
I been waiting for this moment to come pull up in ur city n beat ur ass
Keep the same energy when I see u
At approximately 10.10 pm that night, all of you arrived at the Braybrook address. Mr Tharpa was not disguised, however you, together with your co-offenders wore face coverings. Everyone except Mr Taylor carried a weapon. Mr Taylor was at the back of the group and used his mobile phone to film. That footage is an exhibit.
Mr Tharpa messaged Mr Lhundup that he had arrived. Mr Lhundup and Ms Dhayoe were in the vicinity of the front door, and Ms Dhayoe went outside. She saw your group walking quickly towards her. She retreated to the house and tried to close the front door.
Your cousin Adrian and Mr Tharpa entered the house by forcing her back from the doorway and into the hallway. Mr Tharpa was holding a knife, and Adrian was holding a machete.
Once inside Mr Tharpa tried to advance towards Mr Lhundup who was standing at the end of the hallway. Ms Dhayoe was standing between them. She tried to push them both outside while saying she was going to call police.
Mr Tharpa in fact pulled Adrian away from Ms Dhayoe by grabbing him around the waist and moving him back. He also took hold of his right hand, which was holding the machete.
While Ms Dhayoe was pushing at and yelling at Mr Tharpa, Adrian turned to you, and Mr Keys and said, 'Come in here, get in here'. He again attempted to push past Ms Dhayoe and continued to hold the machete above his head and point it at Mr Lhundup.
Mr Keys entered the doorway of the house holding an offensive weapon. He stood inside for a few seconds. You pulled a machete out of your pants and pushed past him and entered the house. Mr Keys then came outside while Mr Taylor continued to film from outside. That entry in those circumstances is the foundation of Charge 1 Aggravated Burglary.
Mr Lhundup at one stage began to film the incident and at another ran to the kitchen and got a knife before returning to the hallway.
At that point your cousin and Mr Tharpa were inside the house, yelling at Ms Dhayoe and Mr Lhundup. Mr Tharpa told Adrian not to 'jump in', while you and he continued to brandish the machetes in a menacing way. It is the brandishing and threatening with weapons against both victims which forms the basis of the common law assault.
While she was contacting Triple 0, Ms Dhayoe managed finally to push you all outside. Immediately after she shut the door, Mr Tharpa kicked the bottom glass panel, which caused it to smash.
Your group then left.
On the 26 November 2024 police excused a search warrant at your home and located a blue machete identical to one used in the commission of the offence.
Later that day, you attended Footscray police station by appointment and were arrested. At interview you made 'no comment' to the majority of questions put to you. You did however say that your memory was 'a bit how-ya-going' since your mother passed away. You also said you had started taking Xanax, which 'fucked with [your] head'.
You spent two days in custody before being released on CISP Bail.
[3]
It is trite to say the community is sick of young men engaging in this type of offending all for the purpose of demonstrating their male bravado. The only person who showed any degree of bravery or courage in this entire incident was Ms Dhayoe. During what must have been a very frightening event for her, she put herself in the path of danger and managed to get you and your co-offenders to leave the house.
To attend another person's place of residence with weapons and face coverings and to instil fear in them cannot be tolerated. The sentence I impose in those circumstances must deter other young men from acting in this way. It must protect the community and must make clear the denunciation of the court on behalf of the community. It must also deter you from engaging in this type of behaviour again.
[4]
The aggravated burglary is complete at the point where you crossed the threshold and entered the house. In most if not all cases the seriousness of that charge tends to be eclipsed by what happens inside, in particular where the intention on entry is to assault. Fortunately here you were only inside for a very brief period. The entire incident occurred over a matter of minutes. You were inside for part of that time.
More fortuitous is the fact that no one was injured, and nothing was damaged inside the house. In that sense the overall offending is less serious.
However, when I assess the objective gravity of the aggravated burglary, I take into account the following features which increase its seriousness.
Mr Tharpa, as a result of some innocuous dispute determined to engage in a confrontation with Mr Lhundup and for that purpose enlisted four other people to accompany him. He was the instigator and organiser of the confrontation.
You, Mr Dimitriou, were a willing participant in that confrontation. The feud occurring between Mr Tharpa and Mr Lhundup is nonsensical. Even more ridiculous for you to involve yourself in it, given it was nothing to do with you.
You willingly disguised yourself and armed yourself with a machete. The nature of the weapons carried is particularly concerning. The risk posed by knives and machetes of causing significant injury or death is real. That risk is only increased when people are drug affected, fired up and unpredictable. For some reason, machetes have become a prevalent weapon of choice by some young people in parts of our community. That is particularly concerning given the high risk they pose.
I accept the circumstances of this aggravated burglary are somewhat unusual. That is, Mr Lhundup was aware Mr Tharpa was coming to engage in some confrontation, and I accept it was anticipated that the confrontation would occur outside as discussed. In that sense, although a planned confrontation, it was not planned to commit aggravated burglary which occurred as part of the unfolding event. It is completely unsurprising that on seeing Mr Tharpa had brought along a group who were disguised and armed, he and Ms Dhayoe retreated into the house. Undeterred by that fact Adrian Dimitriou and Mr Tharpa forced their way in and later called you to join them. At one point there were four of you inside, each armed with a weapon.
Those features make this a serious aggravated burglary.
The high risk of someone being seriously injured is also demonstrated by the fact that Mr Lhundup armed himself with a weapon. It is most fortunate that Mr Lhundup and Ms Dhayoe were not injured. And it is fortunate that none of you or your
[5]
co-offenders were injured. While I am very cognisant of those risks, and while I take them into account in a broad sense, in sentencing you I must be very careful to sentence you for what actually occurred, rather than for the potential.
10. The common law assault to which you have pleaded guilty is a non-contact assault. It was made out by you and your co-offenders brandishing the weapons and putting the victims in fear. Ordinarily an assault which does not involve physical contact is a lower-level assault. Here however and mindful not to double punish you for the aggravated burglary with intention to assault and the actual common law assault, I have to view this noncontact assault in the context in which it occurred. In particular, the threatening with weapons and the fact it occurred in what was their residence at the time. For those reasons it is a more serious example of a noncontact assault.
11. Fortunately, as I have seen on the footage, the episode in total was very brief - a matter of minutes.
12. I accept the submission made by Mr Barrera that your role in this offending is less serious than Mr Tharpa and Adrian Dimitriou, but more serious than that of Mr Keys and Taylor. It places you in the middle of the group of offenders.
[6]
The two victims here have not provided victim impact statements. I can confidently assume that it must have been a very frightening experience, in particular for Ms Dhayoe. When an episode like this occurs in a place where a person is staying or living, there tends to be additional anxiety and worry about personal security. There tends to be additional concerns around return visits and retribution.
[7]
In assessing your personal circumstances I have had regard to the submissions of your counsel Mr Barrera, a psychological report of your treating psychologist Mr Daniel Morrell dated 23 January 2026, the Final CISP Progress Report dated May 2025, a number of personal references and a number of urine screen results.
You are a 22-year-old man of Greek background. You are the only child born to your mother and father. You have a half-sister on your mother's side who you have contact with.
Your upbringing was characterised by family instability, exposure to domestic violence, and a largely absent father with a history of significant substance misuse and criminal offending.
Your father left the family home when you were four years of age. Your mother then assumed both parental roles. Your mother suffered from Type 1 diabetes and from approximately 14-15 years of age, you assumed a very significant caregiving role for her as her diabetes worsened and her health deteriorated. This included practical care, organising transport to medical appointments, and household responsibilities. Around that same time, you left school. You were in Year 9.
Her health was gradually deteriorating and at about age 19 you realised her situation was serious. You began using cannabis and eventually abusing Xanax. In that period you made rash and ill-considered decisions. Perhaps the most serious of which involved driving a moped at speed and refusing to stop on police request. You crashed and suffered head injuries.
In July 2023 you also committed an offence with similarities to this, involving trespass and unlawful assault and you involved yourself in a dispute about a girl who had left home and was in conflict with her family. You made a threat during a verbal confrontation where you were again armed with a machete.
In October 2023 when you were 20, your mother suffered serious complications from her diabetes. You were there with her and tried to help her. Very tragically, she died in your arms. She was 44 years of age. This event was profoundly traumatic and a major turning point in your life.
The last time you saw your father was at your mother's funeral. He has not stepped up to support or care for you despite the fact that you are largely alone. You have had only occasional phone contact with him since then.
Mr Morell opines that the loss of your mother 'was characterised by acute grief, suicidality, and a rapid escalation to polysubstance use as an avoidant coping strategy.' After the death of your mother, you reached a very different level of cannabis use and ultimately addiction to Xanax, and some use of cocaine and ketamine.
Your treatment with Mr Morell has been voluntary. You saw him three times in late 2025 and have an appointment booked for 18 February. You have paid privately for those sessions. He says you present in the context of your legal situation and also for treatment of 'significant mental health difficulties which [you] linked to complicated bereavement, longstanding stress exposure and a period of rapidly escalating substance use and dependence which coincided with his mother's death.' Over the course of treatment you told him of current or past suicidal ideation in particular around the time of her decline and passing.
He says you experienced persistent grief and emotional pain with prominent anger and difficulty expressing vulnerability. You experience anxiety and hyperarousal, sleep disturbance, intrusive thoughts and episodes of zoning out particularly when reminded of her. You also suffer memory loss, reduced concentration and reduced recall.
You reported to Mr Morrell that you have experienced multiple head injuries, including the moped accident with head impact, which was followed by worsening migraines and episodes of altered consciousness. He opines that this warrants urgent medical follow up. You also told him that you talk to yourself and have internal arguments. He suggests this should be further explored to determine whether this is part of your trauma related disassociation, complicated grief intrusions, post concussive changes or reflective of an emerging psychotic phenomena.
In summary he says 'Mr Dimitriou is a young adult who appears to have experienced significant early adversity and marked parental furcation... His mother's death in his arms at age 20 represents a profound attachment loss and appears to have precipitated acute psychological destabilisation. The period following this loss was characterised by acute grief, suicidality, and a rapid escalation to polysubstance use as an avoidant coping strategy. Clinically, such a pattern is consistent with severe grief trauma related dysregulation and is associated with impaired judgement increased impulsivity and behavioural disinhibition during the relevant period.'
From the material, I understand that period to be between mid-2023 until the time of this offending, with a significant uptick in drug use from October 2023.
Significantly, a number of those matters have been corroborated in the reference material. I have received a reference from your fiancé Chantelle Stojevski. She writes, 'James' early life was marked by significant challenges. His father was absent during his upbringing and he witnessed considerable family violence which had a profound impact on him.' She confirms the decline and death of your mother placing considerable emotional and physical stress on you. Further, she confirms that your experience of your mother's passing in October 2023 was one which resulted in a period of intense grief. She says it was during that difficult time you turned to drugs. 'Witnessing this decline was deeply traumatic for me, as I was unaware how to support him through his grief and struggles'.
I have also received a written testimonial from Ms Jessica Hatton who says she has been a family friend for many years. She corroborates much of what you have reported to Mr Morrell. She says 'James has faced significant challenges over the past few years following the passing of his mother in 2023. James who was her full-time carer, experienced a deeply difficult period. During this time he struggled with personal issues including substance abuse and family difficulties. His father has been absent from his life since these troubles began and James faced considerable emotional and personal hardship.'
It was not suggested that the principles of Verdins[2] are enlivened in your case. However, Mr Barrera submitted the principles enunciated in Bugmy v The Queen[3] are relevant here in a general way. That is your early life experiences of instability, neglect by your father, and exposure to his activity, along with your care for your mother and the tragic circumstances of her demise and death have left their mark on you.
I take into account those life experiences and their impact on you cognitively, emotionally and behaviourally around the time of this offending.
Those who write references for you say you have made significant efforts to turn your life around.
Importantly it seems the two days spent on remand for this offending, followed by the period of CISP bail seem to have interrupted the cycle you were in.
According to your CISP practitioner Ms Janelle McMillan, you presented to her as a 21-year-old with complex grief and mental health concerns.
On your initial presentation to CISP, you identified to her one primary treatment goal which was to reconnect with your GP for continued management under your mental health care plan. You reported mixed anxiety and depression, attributing symptoms to unresolved grief and life instability. She says 'Mr Demetriou demonstrated early motivation, including independently arranging a GP appointment and expressing willingness to engage in therapy. He showed insight into his mental health and substance use links, as well as a strong moral stance against harder substances like methamphetamine and GHB.'
She says you consistently attended case management appointments, demonstrating strong engagement and openness during sessions. She said the process of employment preparation had a clear and positive effect on your confidence in future planning. You were linked to use projects employment pathways and pursued employment opportunities, attending job interviews and completing paperwork.
Ms McMillan says your mental health remains stable under consistent medication and lifestyle improvements and she notes you actively explored counselling options.
She describes you as sustaining progress across key areas. 'He remained abstinent from substance use and reported pride in doing so for himself, not due to external pressure. He continued to demonstrate a mature and reflective attitude.' You began a Certificate III in construction further investing in a long-term employment goals.
You maintained engagement in services, following through on a housing transfer application and there were no identified risks or emerging concerns. Ms Stojevski also reports in relation to housing, that you made the choice to move away from the area where difficulties occurred and where you were engaging with negative peers.
Ms McMillan says you also 'navigated court-related uncertainties with increasing independence ... maintaining awareness of your legal obligations.'
In her final recommendation she says 'Mr Dimitriou has demonstrated significant growth throughout this CISP engagement. His journey from young man overwhelmed by loss and lacking direction to someone who actively pursues employment, recognises his mental health needs and remains abstinent - reflects strong personal development and capacity for long term change.... Mr Dimitriou has laid a solid foundation for a stable and independent future.'
Mr Morrell also described you as reliably attending on him, actively participating and having increasing openness about your distressing experiences. He says your willingness to engage in treatment, despite a past belief that talking was weak, is clinically significant.
You are now substance free and have been for over 12 months. As Mr Berrera submitted many people make that claim at a plea however you have provided seven urine drug screens spanning the period April to December 2025. All have been negative. Again, you have paid for these tests privately.
Your state of abstinence is also something you reported to Mr Morrell and is confirmed in the CISP report and in the personal reference material.
I have received a bundle of references from those close to you.
Mr Elijah Mokdessi says he has known you for a long time. He is the owner of Groundline Concrete. He says he was disappointed to learn of your involvement in this offending and believes it is important that you take responsibility for your actions. He says having known you for many years he does not believe these actions reflect your true character. 'In my experience he is a goodhearted, respectful and well-behaved person. I strongly believe that James is capable of change and deserves another opportunity to prove himself. [He says] I am willing to offer James ongoing employment. I believe that stable work, routine and responsibility will help provide him with structure and support and I am prepared to mentor him and hold him accountable in the workplace. In my honest opinion allowing James the opportunity to remain in the community would give him the chance to rehabilitate, work hard and become a productive member of society. I believe he understands the consequences of his actions and is motivated to do better moving forward.'
You have taken up the offer of employment as a concreter and have completed a training day.
I have also received a reference from Ms Michelle Mifsud, who is the mother of your fiancé. She was also present in court during these proceedings. She has known you for approximately six years. You and she have commenced a cleaning and rubbish removal business together. She describes you as committed,
[8]
hard-working and taking pride in meeting your obligations. She says at a personal level you 'are loving and a devoted family man. You have shown genuine care, loyalty and respect to our family and our relationship is one built on mutual trust and affection.' She regards you as a son. She says this offending behaviour is not reflective of the person you truly are and adds that in her view you are capable of growth, accountability and rehabilitation.
36. Her mother also writes in support of you and says that due to physical limitations you regularly assist her with gardening and household chores. In addition, you assist her to pay bills and organise appointments. She says 'he reads to me, spends time talking with me and ensures I never feel alone or overwhelmed. His support has had a significant positive impact on my quality of life and I trust him completely in my home and with personal matters.'
37. In relation to employment, your cleaning and rubbish removal work has been on an ad hoc basis. The concreting job too is likely to fluctuate. You plan to take whatever work is available to you in both of those areas until a clear pathway emerges.
38. Josephine and Armando Svesto also write in support of you. They describe you as a valued member of their community and say that on many weekends you have voluntarily assisted with gardening and mowing lawns around the neighbourhood. You have earned their trust 'through his consistent actions and respectful behaviour. We have felt completely comfortable welcoming him into our home and relying on him to assist us with household tasks and outings. He has proven himself to be reliable, honest and considerate in all interactions.'
39. Importantly, all writers of references are aware of the serious charges to which you have pleaded guilty.
[9]
I take into account you have pleaded guilty to this offending. Your plea was entered on 21 October 2025, before that of any of your co-offenders. You had run a contested committal, however your plea of guilty saves the victims having to give evidence again before a jury. It also has a utilitarian benefit in that it saves the court and the community the cost and time of a jury trial.
In assessing the value of your plea I take into account that Mr Lhundup has returned to America and Ms Dhayoe to New South Wales. They have apparently disengaged with the legal process and as such the prosecution may have had difficulty securing their evidence. That adds weight to the significance of your plea.
[10]
A plea of guilty may also reflect genuine remorse and where that exists it bodes well for potential rehabilitation. Such a plea is usually reflective of some insight into the offending and a positive marker towards rehabilitation and away from the need for specific deterrence.
In assessing the level of remorse you have shown, I note the comments of Ms Stojevski. She says 'I have seen firsthand how seriously he has taken this matter and how deeply he has reflected on his actions. He has expressed sincere remorse and has shown a strong desire to learn from this experience and move forward in a positive way. I truly believe this has been a turning point for him and he is committed to making responsible and respectful choices in the future'.
Ms Mifsud too says, 'James has expressed remorse and has taken responsibility for his actions, and I believe he is genuinely committed to learning from this experience and making positive changes moving forward'.
Those reflections are also repeated by Mr and Mrs Svesto. They too say 'Based on our interactions we believe he is capable of positive change and growth.'
Similarly, Ms Hatton states 'I am pleased to share that James has recently turned a new leaf. He has worked diligently to overcome his past struggles, including successfully getting off drugs and rebuilding his life. As a youth worker myself, I have observed a remarkable transformation in James. He now demonstrates responsibility, maturity and genuine commitment to positive change. I believe he has the strength, insight and determination to continue on this positive path and make meaningful contributions to his community moving forward.'
I accept in your case Mr Dimitriou your plea does reflect genuine remorse.
I also accept the submissions of your Counsel that your remorse has been demonstrated by your sincere engagement in efforts towards your rehabilitation.
I accept you are now drug free, employed, and engaged in counselling to deal with your very difficult life experiences. As I said to you at your plea, those consistent, ongoing efforts that you have made have saved you from a more serious punishment.
[11]
As a young offender there is no dispute that your rehabilitation forms a critical part in sentencing you. A young offender is defined by Parliament as a person under 21 years of age.
Despite the usual punishment for offending such as this, the consideration in the circumstances of a young offender are radically different. As higher courts of this State have made plain, there are very particular features which a sentencing judge must take into account when dealing with a young offender.
Relevantly, those factors recognise that young offenders, being immature, are more prone to ill-considered or rash decisions; they may lack a degree of insight, judgment and self-control that is possessed by an adult; they may not fully appreciate the nature, seriousness and consequences of their criminal conduct; and further, the courts also recognise the potential for young offenders to be redeemed and rehabilitated, and that they may be open to positive influences which might change their behaviour.
It is for that potential that rehabilitation is seen as one of the greatest objectives of the criminal law when dealing with a young person.
Your youth is also relevant to the question of the impact of any time in custody. That factor was recognised in the decision of Boulton v The Queen[4] where regard was had to the alternative sentence of a CCO.
I have been mindful of your age and the fact that imprisonment has the potential to expose you to an environment which is likely to be damaging to you. In your case youth detention is not an option. I am also mindful that returning you to custody will interrupt the good work you have done to turn yourself around. It is not only to your benefit that you be rehabilitated, but the community ultimately benefits.
It is to your credit you have taken these steps. They highlight what in my view are your strong prospects for rehabilitation.
[12]
I have also given careful consideration to the concept of parity. That is, how to sentence each individual in a group of offenders. Parity is an aspect of equal justice. There should be no unjustifiable difference in sentences imposed upon similar offenders for similar offending. The key words are 'unjustifiable difference'. That is because parity takes into account, consideration of the offending and your role in that offending, but must also take into account your personal circumstances at the time and since. In that sense, equal justice may result in different outcomes, as it has here.
Mr Tharpa pleaded guilty to aggravated burglary and common law assault and received an 18-month term of imprisonment in combination with a two-year community correction order.
He was the instigator of this offending and engaged you to join him. I accept that a person who organises, plans and then enlists others to commit an offence bears a higher culpability for it. He also played a lead role once at the house, being first to enter and remaining to the end, brandishing a knife, and gratuitously kicking the glass panel on exit.
Mr Tharpa was older than you at 21 and just short of 23 when I sentenced him. His background involved coming to Australia as a refugee and experiencing violence at the hands of his father. He was largely abandoned by his parents who moved interstate when he was a teenager, after which he experienced periods of homelessness. He has had an ongoing drug addiction since age 17 and has amassed a concerning and relevant prior criminal history for someone his age.[5] At the time of this offending, he was on a community correction order.
In addition, he had been on remand for 399 days as at the time I sentenced him.
In relation to your cousin Adrian Dimitriou, he was 19 years old at the time of the offending and 20 when I sentenced him. He had a limited prior criminal history with only one previous appearance. He complied with an adjourned undertaking. Although his initial compliance with Youth Justice bail was inconsistent, he had been able to make significant gains since August 2024. He had completed a drug addiction program, remained drug free, completed a knife crime program, and was continuing to engage with his Youth Justice worker, and had obtained employment, was supported by his parents and brothers and pro-social peers.
Youth Justice detention was an option in relation to Adrian. Ultimately, I sentenced him to undertake a CCO of 35 months with conditions including 250 hours of unpaid community work and therapeutic conditions.
Mr Taylor's role was very different, and he pleaded guilty to common law assault only. I sentenced him to a community correction order of 18 months with 150 hours unpaid work. His prior criminal history was more extensive and more serious than yours.
Mr Keys was sentenced in the Children's Court on this and other offences to a nine month term of probation.
[13]
In light of all the matters on your behalf, Mr Barrera submits that all sentencing considerations could be met by way of a community correction order including punitive conditions and those aimed at furthering your rehabilitation.
[14]
The Prosecution submit that given the seriousness of this prevalent offence, often committed by young people, I should impose a combination sentence of up to one year in custody before releasing you to a CCO.
[15]
I have had regard to current sentencing practices for this offending including a number of cases on the Judicial College of Victoria Sentencing Manual.
I accept this is an unusual case for two reasons - first, the victims knew at least one person was coming for a confrontation, and second, the aggravated burglary was the unplanned extension of that confrontation. Those matters to my mind are not insignificant.
As always there are similarities and differences between both offending and offender and ultimately, I am required to impose a just sentence in all the circumstances before me and that is what I have endeavoured to do.
[16]
I have had you assessed to determine your suitability for a CCO and have received an assessment report and mental health assessment report. Both recommend future treatment, and the CCO assessor says you are suitable for an order given you have taken your own steps towards addressing your offending behaviour and have a desire for future support.
[17]
In all of the circumstances of your case, and taking into account the comments of the Court of Appeal in Boulton v R[6], I sentence you as follows. If you could stand please, Mr Dimitriou.
On both charges I will impose an aggregate sentence given they are closely connected in a series of events. You will be convicted and sentenced to a community correction order of two years' duration.
Before I can impose that order, I need your consent that you will undertake that order, so I ask you to listen to the additional conditions that I will impose, in addition to the mandatory terms.
I impose the following conditions:
[18]
(a) That you be under supervision;
(b) That you undertake unpaid community work of 180 hours;
(c) I allow an offset of up to 50 hours, that means any treatment you do can reduce the unpaid community work up to 50 hours;
(d) In terms of therapeutic conditions, I direct that you are to undergo assessment and treatment for your mental health as directed by the Office of Corrections, and that may include referral for a psychiatric assessment;
(e) I direct that you are to undertake assessment and treatment for drug addiction as directed by the Office of Corrections;
(f) I direct that you are to undertake assessment and treatment for your medical health including any assessment for any head injury as directed by the Office of Corrections;
[19]
Unlike your co-offenders I will not bring you back to court for judicial monitoring because I am satisfied in your ability to fully commit to this order.
Mr Dimitriou, before I ask you if you consent to undertake that order I need to explain that if you were to breach that order, whether that is by any further offending or by not doing the conditions that I have outlined you would be brought back to me for resentencing on this aggravated burglary and common law assault. Do you understand that?
OFFENDER: Yes, Your Honour.
HER HONOUR: Do you agree to undertake the order that I have just outlined?
OFFENDER: Yes, Your Honour.
HER HONOUR: All right.
[20]
In addition, but for your plea of guilty, so if you had not pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to a term of imprisonment of 18 months with a non-parole period of 12 months.
[21]
I note that you served two days on remand for this offending.
[22]
I make the disposal order by consent.
Have a seat there, Mr Dimitriou, and I will have that order printed out.
While that is being done I will just mark the CCO assessment report, along with the Mental Health Assessment Report as Exhibit C.
MR BARRERA: As Your Honour please.
HER HONOUR: Mr Barrera, you are welcome to take that to the dock please.
MR BARRERA: Thank you, Your Honour. Thank you for that time, Your Honour, the order has now been signed.
HER HONOUR: Thank you very much. So, Mr Dimitriou, your signature on that order is your promise that you will undertake that order, and I am sure you will. I think you are someone who has a lot of resilience and internal strength to come through what you have, and the steps you have taken have been very positive and I just encourage you to keep looking forward, and keep moving forward in that good way you have done in the last 16 months.
[5] He was dealt with for approximately 70 charges in the Children's Court and placed on probation before progressing to the adult jurisdiction where he soon received a term of imprisonment for charges of robbery, drug and theft offences and breaches of bail. In 2023 he was dealt with for two charges of aggravated burglary where a person was present, burglary, three charges of attempted burglary, theft of motor vehicle, 12 charges of deception, eight of theft, handling stolen goods, and dangerous driving while pursued by police. He was convicted and fined. Despite that merciful sentence, nine months later he was convicted and placed on a 15 month work-only community correction order for the offence of robbery. He was subject to that order at the time of committing these offences.