DPP v Dulevski [2025] VCC 1230

1. The circumstances of your offending were set out in a Summary of Prosecution Opening which was initially prepared for a sentence indication hearing.[1]
2. This matter relates to evidence given by you in the course of a bail application heard in the Melbourne County Court on 21 February 2023, where you placed reliance on a false document said to have been provided to you by Ezi Cheque Cashing, a business which provides (among other services) the ability for account holders to exchange cheques for cash.
3. By way of context, at the time of the offending:

(a) You were residing with your brother, Adam Dulevski, and your mother at an address in Epping;

(b) Mr Dulevski had been bailed to reside at that address for charges relating to trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a drug of dependence, namely methylamphetamine; and

(c) Mr Dulevski's partner and co-accused in the trafficking matter, Bianca Antolini, was on remand at the Dame Phyllis Frost Centre, and was also facing proceeds of crime charges.

(i) The Bail Application

1. The bail application in which you committed your offending was made by Ms Antolini. In the course of this application the informant, Detective Leading Senior Constable Matthews, gave evidence that Ms Antolini and Mr Dulevski were still in contact with each other, despite Mr Dulevski being subject to a bail condition prohibiting contact with Ms Antolini as a co-accused in this matter.
2. At the close of prosecution evidence, you were affirmed as a defence witness. The defence also tendered a record of payments from Ezi Cheque.
3. You gave the following evidence in the course of examination-in-chief:

(a) That you were willing to provide a surety of $4,500;

(b) That over the preceding year you had had contact with Ms Antolini maybe once a month;

(c) That you had provided the Ezi Cheque document to Ms Antolini's solicitor, having obtained it by contacting that business (an act comprising Charge 2 - using false document); and

(d) When asked why you had obtained the document, stated 'Um, so the money that was found on Bianca when she was arrested was from a cheque that she'd won from the pokies and that was just to clarify that that's where that money had come from.'

1. You proceeded to give the following evidence under cross-examination:

(a) When asked to confirm that the Ezi Cheque document did not provide anybody's name, you said 'Um, I don't think so, no.' Further, when asked to confirm that you had been provided with that document on behalf of Ms Antolini, you stated 'Yes, I contacted Ezi Cheque and that's what they have emailed back to me.'

(b) When asked what authority you provided to Ezi Cheque to obtain the document, you stated that 'I just gave them her name and they gave me those details because they were aware of, um, who I am.' Further, when asked about what authority Ms. Antolini gave for you to obtain the information, you gave evidence that she did not provide discrete authority to Ezi Cheque, but that she nonetheless asked you to obtain the information.

(c) When prosecution counsel reiterated that the document provided no name and put to you that it could be for anyone, you responded 'Well, I can get them to resubmit it if that would be beneficial.'

(d) When asked whether you had any further material to suggest the document related to Ms Antolini, you stated 'Well, no, but the, um - it's just whatever the cheque details were.' You then confirmed you had not provided email correspondence between Ezi Cheque and yourself to Ms Antolini's solicitor.

(e) When asked whether Mr Dulevski and the Applicant were in a relationship, you gave evidence that they had separated in the last year. Then when asked if 'Your brother still speaks to Ms Antolini, doesn't he?' You responded 'No, he doesn't speak to her.'

1. Following your evidence, the Informant made enquiries with Ezi Cheque and confirmed the tendered document had been altered. The Informant was recalled and gave evidence that the document had been altered in two ways:

(a) The words 'Hello Adam' had been removed from the top of the document; and

(b) One of the seven cash payment records had been removed, namely 'Cheque 500314 dated 26.12.2022 from Court Jester for $2,503.20'.

1. Your alteration of the document in this manner forms the basis of Charge 1 (make false document).
2. I note that because the informant had not yet obtained the original document, counsel acting for Ms Antolini still sought to place weight upon it for the purposes of the bail application on the basis that your sworn evidence was only contradicted by the informant's evidence, rather than external proof. Ultimately bail was refused in that matter.

1. Pursuant to a search warrant executed on 5 May 2023, the Informant obtained Mr Dulevski's account records with Ezi Cheque Cashing, and a copy of correspondence between the business and Mr Dulevski's email address on 21 February 2023.
2. Through these records and information provided by Ezi Cheque employees, the informant learned of the following interactions on the day of Ms Antolini's bail application:

(a) At around 11:00 am, a female contacted Ezi Cheque on Mr Dulevski's number introducing herself as his girlfriend. She requested information be sent to Mr Dulevski's email covering records of cheques cashed from December 2022 to January 2023, which was required for court. Pawandeep Singh, Control Room Operator, who took the call recalls the caller referring to themselves at different times as 'Bianca' and 'Belinda';

(b) Ezi Cheque were only willing to release this information to Mr Dulevski's email address and at 11:02 am the phone number registered to Mr Dulevski messaged Ezi Cheque with Mr Dulevski's email address;

(c) At 11:24 am, Ezi Cheque provided an email setting out seven past payments for cheques in the body of the email;

(d) The same female called Ezi Cheque again, requesting that the same information be placed into a document with the organisation's letterhead, which Ezi Cheque provided to Mr Dulevski's email at 12:07 pm; and

(e) At 2:14 pm, Ezi Cheque's work phone received a text from Mr Dulevski's number simply reading 'Bianca Antolini'.

1. Records for Mr Dulevski's account confirmed that the cashed cheques referred to in the tendered document were in fact in his name, not Ms Antolini's. Your giving contrary evidence under affirmation forms the basis of a particular of Charge 3, a rolled-up charge of perjury - namely, that the cashing transactions in the relevant document pertained to Ms Antolini's cheques.
2. The informant also obtained an original copy of the unaltered document from Ezi Cheque, demonstrating that the tendered document was an altered one. This forms the basis of another particular of Charge 3 - namely, that the document you provided to the County Court via Ms Antolini's solicitors was the document you had been provided by Ezi Cheque.

1. The Informant also conducted a subscriber checks on the following numbers:

(a) 0404 823 903, the number registered to Mr Dulevski's Ezi Cheque account, which came back in the name of an unknown person; and

(b) The number believed to belong to you which came back under your name.

1. The Informant obtained call charge records with respect to both numbers. In sum, these demonstrate that between 17 January 2023 and 2 March 2023, you received 67 calls from Ms Antolini while she was in custody, which it appeared you had forwarded onto Mr Dulevski.
2. The Informant also obtained audio recordings of two calls between Ms Antolini and yourself on 21 February 2023. In both calls, after an initial brief exchange, you were heard to forward the call to Mr Dulevski. This is the basis of the third particular of Charge 3 in that you knowingly falsely affirmed during the bail application that Ms Antolini did not have contact with Mr Dulevski despite facilitating that very contact.

1. You were arrested on 15 August 2023 and transported to Mernda Police Station where you participated in a record of interview and made the following representations - you said:

(a) You knew Ms Antolini as your brother's girlfriend, stating 'It was on and off, I dunno';

(b) That you did not really know what it meant to be sworn in on affirmation, but stated 'It's the - I think -that you tell the truth, I guess';

(c) The document related to money Ms Antolini had when she was arrested, which is why you sought the document, as well as any other reasons including:

(i) 'So, I wasn't really sending this, like, as a letter.'... 'A document from - like, I was just sending it to the lawyer, saying, "These are the details of the cheque place and these are the cheques that were - - - cashed".'

(ii) That you were aware that the document was most likely going to be used as part of a court proceeding;

(iii) That you were just trying to show where the money had originated from, not that the cheques were in Ms Antolini's name;

(iv) When asked why you gave evidence that you had given Ms Antolini's name to Ezi cheque to acquire the documents, you stated: 'When I called, these are the - I asked for, "The cheques that had been cashed in either Adam or Bianca's name." And that's what had - they had given me. 'Cause I didn't - like, I didn't know if it was - whose name it was under, if it was in her name or his name.'

(v) When asked who had cashed the cheques referred to, you stated 'Adam'.

(d) You confirmed you had emailed the Ezi Cheque letter to Ms Antolini's lawyer. When questioned on the state of the document, you stated:

(i) When shown the tendered document, 'Yeah, that's what they had sent me';

(ii) Firstly, that you had sent it to Ms Antolini's lawyer as an attachment, and secondly you had copied the information sent to you and pasted it into the body of an email to send onto Ms Antolini's lawyer;

(iii) That you had received the cashing information in email form, which you had made into a letter, typing up the letterhead yourself, because it looked better for the lawyer and not like you made it up.

(iv) When asked where the unedited version of the document came from, confirmed that it had been sent to you and you made the edits.

(e) When asked about the removal of the words 'Hello Adam', you stated:

(i) That because you were sending the documents to Ms Antolini's lawyer, not Mr Dulevski, you did not think it would matter; and that

(ii) You removed the words because you did not think it was relevant.

(f) When asked about the removal of the cheque entry, you stated:

(i) That the entry was from before Antolini was arrested so you did not think it was relevant, and that you could not then remember when Antolini was arrested;

(ii) You then stated: 'Yeah, I probably did remove it, thinking that it wasn't needed 'cause that's not what they asked for.'

(g) You then variously stated:

(i) When taken to your evidence under cross-examination that the document you provided was the one you had been given by Ezi Cheque, you said: 'Yeah, it is the document';

(ii) That you could not recall whether it was yourself or your brother who had contacted Ezi Cheque, nor could you recall whether it was sent to yours or your brother's email address;

(iii) When put to you that the document you provided did not contain all the information originally sent to you, you said: 'Okay, and if it did, would it have made a difference? No. Like, all it said was, "Hello, Adam," and another transaction. Like, what difference does it make if there's a transaction that was on the 26th of December not there?'

1. You were charged on 31 August 2023 and have not spent any time in custody.
2. A filing hearing proceeded in the Magistrates Court on 3 October 2024, and you were committed to the County Court on 12 December 2024 by way of straight hand-up brief, having entered a plea of not guilty. Resolution discussions were ongoing from this point and the matter was ultimately listed for an Application for Sentence Indication on the basis of a crown offer made on 7 May this year.
3. The Application for Sentence Indication proceeded before me on 7 August 2025. I indicated on 11 August that I would be likely to impose a sentence of a specified type, that being a community corrections order if you were assessed as suitable for such an order.
4. You accepted this indication on 13 August 2025, and the matter proceeded to plea on 25 August.

1. You come before the court with a relevant Victorian and interstate criminal history, dating back to 2011. Of particular note there are a number of deception offences to which the prosecution drew my attention, including:

(a) Two separate convictions for possession of counterfeit money, one in Queensland in 2020 and one in Victoria in 2022;

(b) Two counts of fraud for which you were sentenced in Queensland in 2022;

(c) Three separate instances of obtain property by deception offending, namely:

(i) Six counts in June 2011, for which you were not convicted and sentenced to an adjourned undertaking;

(ii) In August 2017, for which you were sentenced to an 18-month CCO that you later breached;

(iii) In June 2018, for which you were sentenced (in addition to other offences including theft, burglary and going equipped to steal) to 47 days' imprisonment; and

(d) Eight counts of obtain financial advantage by deception in February 2013, for which you received an eight-month term of imprisonment that was wholly suspended.

(e) Further offending including obtaining financial advantage by deception for which you were sentenced to a CCO on 9 April 2024.

1. Reference was made to pending dishonesty matters currently before the Heidelberg Magistrates Court with acknowledgment by the prosecution that these are presently allegations only. Ms Freijah confirmed that they are contested.
2. The prosecution submitted, and I accept, that your criminal history necessitates the placing of greater weight on specific deterrence as a sentencing consideration in this particular case. The present offending was calculated and demonstrates a concerning resistance to court process notwithstanding the therapeutic and punitive sanctions that have been imposed upon you at regular intervals across the last 15 years.
3. However, Ms Freijah argued on your behalf that your rehabilitation had progressed markedly since the bulk of these offences having been committed, noting that save for one outstanding matter you have not been charged with further offending dated beyond June 2023. I accept that your parenting role, vocational and educational pursuits, recent completion of a CCO and reduced usage of methamphetamine, are matters that moderate the significance of specific deterrence.

1. You are presently 39 years of age having been 36 years old at the time of the offending. You currently reside with your mother, brother and son.
2. Your parents were together until your father's death in 2013. While you did not directly experience family violence, you report that your mother had disclosed its occurrence. Your father was often absent from the home and uninvolved in your parenting.
3. As detailed in the psychological report authored by Sandra Cokorilo, tendered on the plea as Exhibit 2 ('the Cokorilo report'), you report having felt neglected by your parents who favoured your brother.[2] You reported that they were not affectionate towards you and that you never felt close to either of them, albeit having significantly improved your relationship with your mother since returning to reside with her in 2013.
4. You did not suffer from any learning or behavioural issues at school, although you did change schools in Year 9, having experienced bullying. You completed Year 12.
5. You report consistent employment until 2012, primarily in customer service and management roles, when you ceased work due to parenting commitments. You returned to employment in 2023 as a store manager, leaving after six months to start an event styling business you continue to operate. You report having completed a Certificate IV in Floristry in 2014, although described this mainly as a 'hobby'. You also reported having commenced a two-year Diploma of Community Services in July this year, hoping to start a career in social work.
6. You report having experienced serious domestic violence at the hands of your previous partner, the father of your son, including sexual, physical and emotional abuse. At one point he was incarcerated for an assault on you. You subsequently developed a drug addiction, commencing with amphetamines at 21 and escalating to daily use of methamphetamine by the age of 26, as a coping mechanism for previous domestic violence and emotional distress.
7. You have been diagnosed with depression, anxiety and PTSD, the latter linked to the intimate partner violence that you suffered.
8. However, your counsel submitted that significant changes in your personal circumstances bode more positively for your future. Particular reliance is placed on your parenting role which Ms Cokorilo opined to be a 'critical motivation to reform [your] lifestyle'. That you missed your now 12-year-old son's first day of school due to being incarcerated in 2018 is said to have promoted 'a positive change in behaviour, manifesting as a clear pattern of de-escalation in the frequency of offending.' Your son has had no contact with his father for over four years. A period of incarceration would mean that your mother would have to care for your son in your absence.
9. Further, you have established greater stability in your personal network. You enjoy the support of a positive, pro-social partner with whom you have been in a healthy relationship for four years and who you describe as a good stepfather to your son.
10. You are involved in community pursuits, including volunteering three times a week as an assistant soccer coach for your son's team. Ms Josie Montagnese, Team Manager at the Epping City Football Club, has provided a character reference to this effect, describing you as demonstrating 'a high level of commitment, enthusiasm and care for all the children involved', and that 'despite [your] struggles with anxiety, depression and the effects of past trauma, [you] remain a pillar of strength and support for those around [you].'
11. Although presenting with a longstanding stimulant use disorder, you reported to Ms Cokorilo that with the exception of a single lapse you have abstained from drug consumption since April 2025. You undertook your assessment with Ms Cokorilo on 5 July 2025, and you instruct that there have been additional lapses in your abstinence since that time. Clearly your addiction is an ongoing struggle and Ms Freijah submitted that the therapeutic assistance afforded by a Community Correction Order is required to facilitate your ongoing rehabilitation.
12. You have now completed a methamphetamine personal education program, and a certificate was tendered to this effect.

1. The report of Ms Cokorilo confirms your diagnoses of persistent depressive disorder, generalised anxiety disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder.[3] In this context Ms Freijah submitted that Limbs 5 and 6 of Verdins are enlivened.[4] She placed particular emphasis on the opinion of Ms Cokorilo that your particular psychopathology 'characterised by post-traumatic intrusions, chronic hyperarousal and negative affect, is likely to be exacerbated by a period of imprisonment,'[5] with a custodial environment 'particularly triggering for [you] due to [your] history of trauma and anxiety.'[6] Further, Ms Cokorilo opined that you were 'not likely to have access to adequate interventions specific to [your] psychopathology, which would limit [your] prospects of rehabilitation in custody.'[7]
2. As concerns Limb 5 of Verdins, the prosecution drew my attention to the remarks of the Court of Appeal in Harmon (a pseudonym) v The Queen,[8] where it was noted that cogent evidence is required to establish 'the significance of the impairment to the imposition of a prison sentence.'[9] Mr Hardisty argued that there is insufficient evidence for this limb to be enlivened. He argued Ms Cokorilo's report lacks the precision required in articulating the nexus between your mental health diagnosis and the significant additional burden you would suffer in serving a term of imprisonment.
3. Similarly, in regard to Limb 6, the prosecution takes issue with Ms Cokorilo's opinion that your mental health conditions are 'likely to be exacerbated by a period of imprisonment'[10] because she does not otherwise articulate the manner or extent to which your health would so deteriorate, nor properly evidence her opinion that you would be unlikely to receive appropriate psychological care in custody. Mr Hardisty argued that there should be more cogent evidence available regarding the impact of a prison environment upon your mental health given you have spent time in custody subsequent to the onset of these conditions.
4. While this may be the case, and whilst there is no evidence before me of the previous impact of a custodial term on your mental health, I accept Ms Cokorilo's opinion that the custodial setting may be particularly triggering for you given your history of trauma and anxiety, such that Limb 5 is enlivened. With respect to Limb 6, while there is no direct evidence as to the impact of jail historically, I also accept Ms Cokorilo's observation that your psychopathology is likely to be exacerbated by a period of imprisonment. Furthermore, the period of separation from your son is likely to enhance this, albeit that this was not specifically addressed by Ms Cokorilo with respect the effect on your mental health, but rather on your potential for rehabilitation given that he is considered your key protective factor.
5. Further, I accept that a period of separation from your 12-year-old son, for whom you are the sole carer, would be extremely difficult for you. Whilst your counsel has not sought to argue that this hardship would be exceptional, in line with Markovic v The Queen,[11] I do accept that your anguish at being unable to care for and support your child will make the experience of imprisonment more burdensome.

1. Whilst your matter was committed to this court pending resolution, no witnesses have been required for cross-examination at any point. The matter resolved following a first sentence indication and you have spared both the court and the community the time and expense of a criminal trial.
2. The prosecution suggested that your plea could not be considered an early one, given that it was entered after an Initial directions hearing, and that 20 months elapsed between the time you were charged and a resolution offer being made. Mr Hardisty further submitted that given what he described as a strong prosecution case against you, as well as what are said to be evasive answers during your record of interview, your plea is not an evident indicator of remorse.
3. These factors notwithstanding, the matter has never been listed for trial, and the plea carries appreciable utilitarian value. While some part of the delay between charge and finalisation may be attributable to you contesting the matter for a period, this is your right, and in any event that contest related to an indictment containing more serious charges than those on which the matter resolved. I find that your plea entitles you to a meaningful discount of sentence. It is, however, the only evidence of any remorse.

1. Turning now to your prospects of rehabilitation. I note there has been substantial procedural delay in the finalisation of this matter. Ms Freijah submitted that this is a powerful mitigatory matter in your case in two respects:

(a) Firstly, it has given you time to commit meaningfully to your rehabilitation, reducing the significance of community protection and deterrence in the sentencing calculus, and justifying the court in facilitating the continuation of those efforts. Counsel submitted on your behalf, and I accept, that this rehabilitation is evident for reasons I have already outlined.

(b) Secondly, the delay has left you in a lengthy state of suspense due to the uncertainty of the outcome of your criminal proceedings.

1. In light of Ms Cokorilo's assessment that your risk of recidivism is low to moderate, I accept that your personal circumstances have markedly improved over the last few years, especially relative to your situation during the period in which most of your prior offences were committed. You have multiple prosocial supports and present as a committed parent to your son. However, Corrections, when assessing your suitability for a CCO found you to be a high risk of re-offending. This is no doubt a consequence of you being candid about your substance abuse issues, among other matters.
2. Your ongoing struggle with drug addiction is of some concern, but I find this risk to be mitigated by your recent successful completion of a 12-month community corrections order imposed by the Magistrates Court which involved your active and consistent engagement with drug and alcohol counselling services offered by Caraniche. You have also voluntarily completed an online course entitled 'Methamphetamine Personal Education Program'. As Ms Freijah argued, it is open for me to conclude that this CCO has had its desired effect in that there has been an appreciable de-escalation in your record of offending, as well as your drug consumption.
3. It is submitted on your behalf, and I accept, that while you require further assistance in managing your addiction, a community-based order with therapeutic conditions is an appropriate vehicle given you have recently demonstrated your capacity to engage with such supports.
4. On the whole, I consider your prospects of rehabilitation to be good, albeit contingent upon you remaining abstinent from drug use.

1. Turning now to the gravity of the offending. In this respect the prosecution notes that your actions were neither spontaneous nor sudden. With respect to Charges 1 and 2, you took calculated steps to deceive the court with respect to the purported Ezi Cheque document.
2. Mr Hardisty argued that this may also aggravate your perjury offending because in turning your mind to the use of the false document you would have understood the potential consequences of giving false evidence. He also emphasised that when cross-examined on the legitimacy of the document, you repeated a false version of events, deceiving the court further.
3. On your behalf Ms Freijah conceded that your offending was inherently serious. The offending is said to have come about when you were asked by Ms Antolini to contact Ezi Cheque on her behalf. It seems that somewhat naively you agreed to do so, assuming the identity of Ms Antolini at her request. It is submitted that when you did so you were of the belief that your enquiries related to a proceeds of crime charge that she was facing and that you were legitimately seeking information, as opposed to fabricating a story relevant to the bail application. You then took it further and altered the document for whatever reason.
4. Furthermore, it is submitted that whilst still serious your offending in relation to the falsity of the document is not at the higher end given that you did not create or fabricate an entire document. Rather, you removed material from an existing document that was not relevant. Again, it is submitted that you were of the view that the documents you were obtaining had some legitimate relevance.
5. You told Corrections that you altered the documents because you did not think it was important. You described to Ms Cokorilo that at the time of the offending you were residing with your mother and brother and your son. At the time you were said to be sleep deprived, stressed and under pressure, juggling parenting demands, employment and assisting your brother who was coping poorly with his legal predicament. Simultaneously, you were using 0.5 grams of methamphetamine daily and at that stage had not engaged with any professional supports.
6. I agree that the offending on Charges 1 and 2 are not at the highest end, however, your conduct is troubling. That Charges 1 and 2 were committed to disadvantage legal practitioners in the discharge of their professional duties, and ultimately to deceive the court, makes them serious examples of those offences.
7. You then gave false evidence and persisted in the face of cross-examination. Perjury is plainly an offence of inherent seriousness. Your offending endangered the instant proceedings and the community's confidence in the administration of justice more generally which relies on the giving of truthful evidence under oath. So much is evident in the continued reliance of Ms Antolini's counsel in the false document during the bail application, even after concerns over its legitimacy were raised.
8. Ultimately, your decision to perjure yourself and to make and use false documents, and thus implicate yourself in serious offending, is somewhat inexplicable. It is not clear what you sought to gain from this conduct. One can only infer that you did so in order to assist your family members, particularly your brother's girlfriend. Again, whether your naivete, or some naivete, played a role or whether you simply thought you could get away with it, is unknown. Plain and simple, your conduct, whilst calculated, also speaks of utter foolishness. Ultimately, you are the person who must bear the consequences of this conduct.

1. Character references were tendered which I have taken into account. Your mother notes the significant hardship which you have endured in your life which she describes you having 'bravely navigated' in the aftermath. Your mother notes your genuine desire to improve not only your life but that of those around you. She notes you are deeply committed to the wellbeing of your son and to ensure he is safe, healthy and thriving. You provide consistent love and support to him, and furthermore, you provide support to your brother who has faced his own battles with poor health and drug abuse.
2. Your mother notes you are a valued member of the community. You have been actively involved in exploring initiatives aimed at addressing youth crime and mental health within your local soccer community. This is supported by the reference from Ms Montagnese who notes your volunteer role within the local soccer club for which you are described as an integral part. You are said to foster a positive environment and are valued for your approachable and caring nature. Her character reference and the fact she attended court in support of you speaks volumes as to how highly she regards you.

1. There are a number of basic purposes for which a court may impose sentence, namely, just punishment, both specific and general deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation and protection of the community. In determining an appropriate sentence, I am required to take into account these objectives, as well as various other matters including the gravity of the offending, your culpability, the maximum penalties applicable and your personal circumstances.
2. The sentence I pass must balance the interests of the community in denouncing criminal conduct with the community's interests in ensuring that as far as possible you are rehabilitated. I am to have regard to the principles of parsimony, and I do so.
3. In the prosecution's submission the public interest in eliminating dishonesty offences against the court process assumes primacy in cases such as these, such that general deterrence should loom large in the sentencing calculus.[12] Mr Hardisty noted the remarks of Charles JA in R v Patniyot and Dailakis to the effect that the giving of false evidence on oath would readily warrant a custodial disposition.[13] He also emphasised your prior like offending as necessitating consideration of specific deterrence.
4. Ms Freijah agreed that the court would ordinarily prioritise the deterrence of this form of offending in the sentencing calculus. She submitted, however, that for the reasons outlined above your progress in the lead-up to the finalisation of this matter justifies rehabilitation assuming greater weight, especially given that it expressly mitigates the role of specific deterrence.
5. For the avoidance of doubt, I do indeed denounce your conduct, and I have regard to the need for general and specific deterrence.

1. I have also had regard to the principles of totality. These offences occurred essentially as part of a single incident and the prosecution concedes that substantial currency is appropriate. I note that Charge 3 is a rolled-up charge, and I take this into account.

1. In light of the submissions canvassed above, Ms Freijah submitted that the court could consider imposing a community corrections order. It was argued that the community has a vested interest in your ongoing rehabilitation, and that a non-custodial disposition would be unlikely to jeopardise its continued progress. To this end reliance was placed on the comments of the Court of Appeal in Boulton v The Queen.[14]
2. The prosecution submitted that a CCO was not in range for this offending. Rather, that a term of imprisonment is warranted. Mr Hardisty maintained this submission notwithstanding the prosecution's acknowledgement that your compliance with a CCO during the delayed period and your plea of guilty were mitigatory matters.
3. Furthermore, the prosecution submits that a combination sentence is also not within range for this offending. Somewhat puzzlingly, however, the prosecution does not submit that a head sentence with a non-parole period is required here. When pressed further, counsel clarified that the prosecution position is that a straight sentence is within range.

1. The starting point is that the law says that a court must always regard imprisonment as a disposition of last resort and may consider, even in cases of serious offences, that a community corrections order is a punitive disposition which is capable of addressing all relevant sentencing considerations. As was noted in Boulton v The Queen,10 a community corrections order may be suitable in such cases that might previously have attracted a medium term of imprisonment.
2. Overall, having considered all of the material before me, I have concluded that the community is ultimately best served in this case by having you sentenced in a way that does not involve immediate imprisonment, having regard to all of the matters that I have noted. This would also be counter-productive to your rehabilitation steps which have been considerable.
3. You have now been assessed as suitable for a community corrections order with a number of conditions recommended.

1. On Charges 1, 2 and 3, you are convicted and placed on a community corrections order for a period of two-and-a-half years. There will be a number of conditions attached to this community corrections order.
   • You must perform 180 hours of unpaid community work over two-and-a-half years.
   • You are to remain under the supervision of Corrections for two-and-a-half years.
   • You must undergo assessment, and if deemed appropriate, treatment and rehabilitation with respect to drug and alcohol abuse.
   • You must undergo assessment, and if deemed appropriate, treatment and rehabilitation with respect to your mental health. Pausing there, I note this was not a recommendation of Corrections but was recommended by registered nurse Gregory Lane in his MHARS report albeit that you had presented as stable.
   • I am going to allow that 100 hours of treatment and rehabilitation can be counted as hours for the purposes of the unpaid community work condition.
2. There are also a number of core conditions attached to a community corrections order.
   • You must not commit any other offence that is punishable by imprisonment during the two-and-a-half year period.
   • You must comply with any and all obligations and requirements of Corrections.
   • You must report to and receive visits from Corrections.
   • You must report to South Morang Community Correctional Services within two clear working days from today.
   • You must let a Community Corrections officer know within two working days of a change of address or employment.
   • You must not leave Victoria without first getting permission.
   • And you must obey all lawful instructions from Corrections.
3. If you were to breach any conditions of the order, if you were to decide not to do the unpaid community work or engage with the rehabilitation component, for example; or if you were to commit any further offences during the period of the order, then it is likely that you will be brought back before me on a breach and I would need to re-sentence you for this offending and quite possibly for the breach itself.
4. Shortly you are going to be asked to sign some paperwork to indicate that you understand and agree to comply with the conditions of the community corrections order, but I am going to ask you this orally in court. Do you, firstly, understand the conditions as I have read out.
5. ACCUSED: Yes, I do.
6. HER HONOUR: And do you agree to abide by them.
7. ACCUSED: Yes, I do.
8. HER HONOUR: And do you understand that if you were to breach any conditions of the order this matter could be brought back before me for a breach and I would need to re-sentence you for this offending.
9. ACCUSED: Yes.

1. I indicate that but for the plea of guilty, I would have imposed a term of imprisonment of nine months followed by a community correction order.

[1] The Director of Public Prosecutions, 'The Director of Public Prosecutions v Belinda Dulevski: Summary of Prosecution Opening for Sentence Indication' (2 December 2024) ('SPO').

[2] Sandra Cokorilo, 'Psychological Assessment Report: Belinda Dulevski', 25 July 2025 ('Cokorilo Report').

[4] R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; (2007) 16 VR 269 ('Verdins').

[8] [2017] VSCA 169 ('Harmon').

[9] Harmon (n 8) [63] (Ashley, Redlich and Tate JJA), quoting DPP v O'Neill [2015] VSCA 325 [76] (Warren CJ, Redlich and Kay JJA).

[11] [2010] VSCA 105.

[12] R v Schroen [2001] VSCA 126 [14] (Winneke P, Charles and Vincent JJA).

[13] [2000] VSCA 55 [54] (Charles JA).

[14] [2014] VSCA 342 [131].