//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2003] VSC 425
defendant. Cummins J sentenced Jason Manuel Ghiller to an effective term of ten years' imprisonment on 22 counts, with a minimum non-parole period of six years; individual sentences and cumulation orders are...
Ghiller pleaded guilty to a series of violent armed robberies and related offences he committed from ages 15 to 18 with an older, more violent principal. Cummins J accepted his guilty plea, found mitigating factors including youth, remorse, family influence and rehabilitation prospects, and applied statutory concurrency principles alongside cumulative orders to reach an effective sentence of 10 years' imprisonment with a six-year minimum non-parole period. The judge distinguished Ghiller's role from his principal's greater culpability while still imposing substantial punishment reflecting the offences' severity.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
1,696 words · generated 14/08/2026
DPP v Ghiller is a sentencing judgment delivered by Cummins J in the Supreme Court of Victoria on 3 November 2003. Jason Manuel Ghiller pleaded guilty to 22 offences committed between 15 October 1991 and 9 October 1994, beginning when he was 15 years and ten months and ending when he was 18 years and ten months (see [2], [3]). The offences centred on a sustained series of armed robberies of small businesses in south-eastern Melbourne, often late at night, involving disguise, firearms, tying up staff and customers, planning and reconnaissance. The offending included aggravated burglary and causing serious injury (a 70-year-old manageress at the Rowville Tourist Park), a robbery in which Mr Yacoub was shot and permanently paralysed (Richards' Newsagency), shooting at police officers during an attempted intercept (19 September 1994), arson (burning out the Nissan Bluebird used in the offences), and an insurance fraud relating to the destruction of Ghiller's own car (see [6], [13], [18]-[20]).
No linked legislation citations have been extracted yet.
Ghiller acted with an older, more violent co-offender (the 'principal'), who exercised dominance and perpetrated the worst violence. Cummins J expressly found Ghiller did not personally commit the most serious acts of violence nor fire shots, but that he participated in the joint enterprise, knew of the principal's propensity for violence from the outset, and continued to assist (see [4], [30], [33]). Following extensive investigation that included covert operations and admissions by Ghiller (accepted by the judge as reliable for sentencing purposes), he was arrested on 31 July 2000 and ultimately sentenced (see [23], [25]).
Cummins J imposed an effective term of ten years' imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of six years (see [49]). The sentence was reached by imposing specific terms on individual counts and ordering incremental cumulative additions on several counts, using Count 3 (the first of the armed robbery counts) as the base for cumulation, and applying statutory concurrency rules under s.16(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) (see [36]-[41], [42], [46]-[49]).
The decision reflects the application of familiar sentencing principles to a case of prolonged, organised, and violent offending by a young defendant operating in partnership with a markedly more violent principal.
Key reasons and how they were deployed:
Gravity of offending: Cummins J characterised the 'Pig-out' robberies as "in the most serious category of armed robberies" because of violence, terror, firearms, planning and persistence ([21]). This anchored the court's view that substantial punishment was required.
Role differentiation: The judge carefully distinguished Ghiller's personal conduct from that of the principal. Although Ghiller did not personally fire shots or commit the worst assaults, he acted in concert and knew the principal's violent propensities. The sentencing position therefore treated him as an aider/abettor or co-actor depending on the count, with the result that his sentences reflected substantial culpability but would have been heavier if the principal had been before the court ([4], [30], [33], [34]).
Guilty plea: The judge gave an explicit one-third reduction in the sentence because Ghiller pleaded guilty to all counts. Cummins J articulated the usual reasons for such a discount: it demonstrates remorse, saves victims the trauma of trial, and saves judicial resources ([27]).
Youth and background: The court accepted that Ghiller was very young at the time (not yet 16 at first offending) and was under family influence, described as a 'cult of personality' around the principal (Bandali Debs). Those factors were mitigatory and contributed to leniency ([28], [29]).
Totality and structuring of cumulation: Applying the s.16(1) concurrency presumption, Cummins J imposed sentences on individual counts and then ordered specified cumulative increments to reach an overall effective sentence that avoided a "crushing sentence" and preserved prospects of rehabilitation ([36], [32], [38]-[41]).
Minimum non-parole period: The judge imposed a shorter-than-usual non-parole period (six years) for three expressly-stated reasons: the lengthy lapse of time since offending, genuine prospects of rehabilitation, and the community interest in supervised reintegration (see [46]-[47]).
Admissions and reliability: The judge accepted the factual accuracy and reliability of admissions made to covert operatives for the purpose of sentencing, though he warned against over-reading the defendant's callous expressive style as an indicator of inner feeling ([23], [24]).
The overall approach balanced denunciation and deterrence against rehabilitation and totality concerns, applying statutory concurrency norms and established mitigating factors.
This judgment applies well-established sentencing doctrines rather than establishing novel legal principles. The decision:
Reiterates the statutory starting point that sentences are concurrent under s.16(1) unless the court orders otherwise, and exemplifies a methodical approach to structuring concurrency and cumulation by selecting a base count and incrementing others ([36]).
Confirms the familiar practice of quantifying a guilty-plea discount and the reasons for it; Cummins J applied a one-third reduction in this case ([27]).
Applies the principle of totality in practice, showing how a court structures multiple sentences to prevent crushing cumulative punishment while recognising each victim's interests ([32]).
Treats youth and family influence as material mitigatory factors and applies them in the exercise of sentencing discretions ([28]-[29]).
After this case, practitioners can point to it as an example of how a Victorian Supreme Court judge might quantify a guilty-plea discount and structure cumulation in a prolonged series of violent joint-enterprise offences, and as an instance of articulating reasons for reducing a non-parole period where there has been a significant lapse of time and genuine rehabilitation prospects. The case does not displace or change statutory or appellate authorities; it exemplifies application.
Paragraph [21]: "The Pig-out robberies ... are in the most serious category of armed robberies." Plain English: The judge describes the crimes as highly serious because they were violent, planned, and involved firearms and terrorising victims.
Paragraph [27]: "Because of your plea of guilty ... I have reduced by one-third the sentence otherwise I would have imposed." Plain English: The court reduced the sentence by a third because Ghiller pleaded guilty, which the judge treated as a significant mitigating factor.
Paragraph [36]: "By s.16(1) sentences are to be served concurrently ... I will impose sentence in categories ... using the first armed robbery count, Count 3, as a base ..." Plain English: The law presumes sentences run at the same time unless the judge orders otherwise; the judge chose a practical method to order some sentences to run one after another by starting from one count and adding incremental time for others.
Paragraph [46]: "I consider a shorter minimum term ... because of the lapse of time ... prospects of rehabilitation ... community interest in parole ..." Plain English: The judge decided a shorter minimum non-parole period was justified because many years had passed, the defendant seemed rehabilitated, and supervised release would help reintegrate him.
Paragraph [49]: "So the effective result ... ten years' imprisonment, with a minimum period ... six years." Plain English: The final sentence is ten years in prison, and the earliest Ghiller can apply for parole is after serving six years.
Practitioners should consider DPP v Ghiller where a defendant:
In such circumstances, DPP v Ghiller illustrates the court's willingness to differentiate culpability, apply a substantial plea discount, structure cumulation to avoid crushing sentences, and reduce non-parole periods when justified by time lapse and rehabilitation prospects.
The judgment itself does not cite subsequent appellate treatment in the provided text, and the present analysis is grounded solely in the judgment's contents. The case functions as an instructive trial-sentencing decision rather than a binding appellate precedent. It demonstrates sentencing reasoning which lower and intermediate courts may follow for similar fact patterns. Where higher courts have considered similar issues, they have generally endorsed the relevant principles applied here: role differentiation in joint enterprises, the import of guilty pleas, s.16(1) concurrency considerations and totality, and youth as mitigation. Users should consult appellate authorities if seeking binding precedent on points of law.
Quantification of guilty-plea discounts: Cummins J applied a one-third reduction here. The precise percentage to be applied remains a matter for judicial discretion dependent on factual context and the quality/timing of the plea. How a different judge might quantify the discount in materially similar cases remains open.
Weight to give to long lapses between offending and sentencing in setting non-parole periods: Cummins J cited lapse of time as a reason to shorten the minimum term. The limits of that principle, particularly where offending is serious, remain case-sensitive and may be clarified further on appeal in future cases.
Treatment of admissions to covert operatives: The judge accepted the factual accuracy of Ghiller's admissions for sentencing but cautioned on expressive style. Questions about the evidentiary treatment and permissible uses of such admissions in other contexts (e.g., trials of co-accused) remain governed by separate admissibility rules and were noted in the judgment only insofar as they affected sentencing (see [23]-[24]).
Degree of differentiation between principal and participant: While Cummins J differentiated sentence because Ghiller was younger and less violent, the boundary between reasonable differentiation and an impermissible discount for participation in violent joint enterprise will vary with facts; appellate guidance may further delineate that boundary.
This analysis is an extraction and explanation of the reasoning in DPP v Ghiller [2003] VSC 425, grounded in the judgment text cited above. It is legal information, not legal advice. I can make mistakes. Before you act on, rely on, or use any part of this analysis, get a qualified Australian lawyer to check it.
[2003] VSC 425
CRIMINAL LAW - Sentencing - Pleas of guilty - Armed robberies - Causing serious injury intentionally - Causing serious injury recklessly - Aggravated burglary - Reckless conduct endangering life - Arson - Obtaining property by deception - Shooting at police officers in lawful execution of their duty - Acting in concert - Aiding and abetting - Multiple counts - Acting with older and dominant participant - Lengthy time since offences - Rehabilitation .
1 Mr Ghiller, you may remain seated during the imposition of this sentence.
2 Mr Ghiller, you have pleaded guilty to 22 counts of very serious crimes committed over a period of three years. The first crime was committed 12 years ago when you were 15 years ten months of age. The last crime was committed nine years ago when you were 18 years ten months of age. You are now 27 years and ten months of age. You were born on 14 December 1975.
3 The profile of the crimes which you committed with an older violent man, whom I shall call the principal, had a distinct character and pattern. There were numerous robberies of small businesses being principally restaurants and take-away food premises in the south-east of Melbourne from 15 October 1991 to 9 October 1994. During that time the principal, but with you assisting him, committed a reign of terror on the citizens of south-east Melbourne. The premises were characterised by having little or no security. The robberies and other offences demonstrate considerable reconnaissance and planning. The robberies were nearly always at the weekend, from Friday night to Sunday night, at or around closing time late at night or in the early hours of the morning. You and the principal both carried handguns which were loaded and wore balaclavas - on a couple of occasions rubber monster masks, but almost always disguised.
4 The modus operandi of the robberies was that you and the principal would burst in in your armed and frightening state. You would quickly round up staff and customers and tie them up and with the principal pointing his gun at them make them lie on the floor. The principal, who was nearly always aggressive and callous and violent, set about terrorising the victims. The principal nearly always targeted the manager or owner of the premises. The principal at gun-point obtained the takings and the cash to which he helped himself, and of which you got little, and when the robberies were complete you both decamped. But even though you were not the violent one, it took two people to be in the team and the principal could not have done it by himself. Further, even though you yourself personally committed no violence on the victims, you knew from the very first event, technically speaking an aggravated burglary at the Rowville caravan park on 15 October 1991, the principal's propensity of violence and callousness and you kept coming back for more.
5 I shall briefly state the matters, omitting a vast amount of human detail.
6 The first two offences in this series - as I have said, an aggravated burglary, not an armed robbery, but in substance the same - were committed on 15 October 1991 at the Rowville Tourist Park in the dark early hours of that morning. The manageress, aged 70, was asleep with her husband, heard some sounds in the manager's residence, went out and was confronted by the principal wearing a balaclava and armed with a club or baton. He struck her viciously across the head with that club or baton. That knocked her unconscious. She was hospitalised for six weeks, treated with great care for that first week to ensure she came through, and suffered fractures to the forehead bones, facial injuries, bruised and abraded shoulders, arms and legs - all at the hands of the principal wielding the baton on the 70 year old woman. The principal ransacked the place, tore up the floorboards and the carpets and you and he decamped together. Thus Count 1, aggravated burglary of the victim, and Count 2, recklessly causing serious injury to the victim. Thus from the outset you knew the potential and the propensity of the principal. But you returned 12 more times for the robberies. The robberies have been called by later police investigators the Pig-out robberies, a computer generated name of no special significance.
7 On Count 3, the second separate event, at the Eating House Restaurant in Dandenong in the very early hours of Sunday morning, 22 December 1991, the restaurant was closed, the staff were cleaning up, you and the principal burst in with handguns and wearing masks, staff were forced to the floor, they were tied up, demands of money were made and $7,000 was taken by the principal from the till and you decamped together.
8 On Count 4, the third robbery, at the Pizza Hut Restaurant at Cranbourne on 9 February 1992, at 12.30 a.m. on a Sunday morning, again a restaurant had closed and you and the principal burst in carrying guns cladded with balaclavas. The proprietors had a little child, a seven month old baby. They were forced to the floor. At least to your credit you said to the mother that you would care for the baby and moved her towards the wall so the child would not fall. You did demonstrate concern, Mr Ghiller, which in that violent context does stand to your credit; but the context was one in which you participated of violence against innocent people. $1,900 was stolen on that occasion. You then decamped together.
9 On Counts 5 and 6, the fourth robbery, at the Shooters Shop on 28 February 1992 at Springvale, the principal had a desire to accumulate a considerable number of weapons and so he and you robbed those premises. This was a Friday night at about 7.45 p.m. You as a decoy went into the premises and enquired about a very expensive hunting knife. The principal then came in, announced it was a hold-up and forced the owner to the rear of the premises. On this occasion neither of you were disguised because of the modus operandi that you and the principal had previously agreed upon to obtain these guns for the principal. The owner of the premises failed initially to respond to the threats by the principal and so the principal struck him on the head. The owner received lacerations to the head and bruising in the attack. You again showed some sensitivity in the context of this violence and callousness and did say to the victim "Don't worry, we'll call an ambulance". The premises were ransacked, $6,000 was taken together with a very valuable opal collection and 15 firearms were stolen. You then decamped together. Years later under the house of the mother of Mr Bandali Debs in Epping, New South Wales were found numerous handguns buried in a bucket, six of which came from this Shooters Shop armed robbery.
10 On Count 7, the fifth robbery, the McDonald's restaurant at Fountain Gate at 2.35 a.m. on 5 April 1992, again the staff were cleaning up, again you and the principal burst in with handguns and balaclavas and forced victims to the ground and $7,000 was taken. Again, the principal dominated and threatened the staff. You participated in tying up the staff. You then decamped together.
11 On Count 8, the sixth robbery, the Charcoal Chicken Shop on 27 September 1992 at Endeavour Hills, again balaclavas, handguns, bursting in, threats, cash taken, decamping together.
12 On Count 9, the seventh robbery, the Pizza Haven, Black Rock, 1 November 1992. The owner and his sister and an employee were confronted by you and the principal yet again, with the same behaviour by you both. On this occasion the principal's gun discharged accidentally.
13 Next, the eighth robbery in this series, Mr Ghiller, and a most grievous and tragic matter: Counts 10, 11 and 12, at Richards' Newsagency, Clayton operated by Mr Shawki Yacoub and Mrs Victoria Yacoub. These two good people, hard-working and law-abiding citizens and a credit to this country and their migrant background, were working in the early hours of Sunday morning preparing newspapers for distribution. Mr Yacoub was 59 years of age. On Sunday mornings, his wife came in early and helped him. Mr Yacoub went out of the premises at about 4.20 a.m. to load up the papers and he heard his wife calling out from inside. He ran in and saw the principal wearing a dark balaclava and holding his wife in a brutal headlock. The brave and loyal Mr Yacoub threw himself over his wife to protect her. The principal shot him in the back causing him permanent paralysis. He is now a paraplegic in constant pain. Despite his efforts to protect his wife he passed out through the pain and woke up seven days later in Monash Hospital. The principal pushed past the unconscious victim, struck Mrs Yacoub over the left side of her head with his pistol causing her to have a cut in the head which required suturing and treatment in hospital, and then as a final insult stole the measly sum of $16 from her wallet of the man he had caused to become a paraplegic. This was a wicked crime.
14 Next, the ninth robbery, Counts 13 and 14, at McDonald's restaurant Fountain Gate on 16 May 1993. That was the McHappy Day when the multi-national was giving the day's takings to charity, and there were a lot of takings. The takings did not reach the charity. Early in the morning the manager with a security guard left the premises and went to the Commonwealth Bank nearby to place the substantial takings in the Commonwealth Bank's night safe. You and the principal had rehearsed and planned this particular operation in prospective detail. You ran up to the manager of the premises of McDonald's, disguised and armed. Significantly it was the principal who ran up to the security guard, who himself was armed with a pistol and the security guard was forced to hand over his .357 revolver to the principal. The robbery took place. The sum of $11,000 was taken. You both decamped together.
15 Next, the tenth robbery, the Bank of Melbourne at Berwick on 16 October 1993 at about 8.45 a.m. A female employee arrived to start work and open up the premises. Shortly after she did you and the principal burst in, again disguised, the principal having a horror mask on and you a balaclava, and both carrying handguns. In the course of that robbery the alarm was triggered and the principal became very aggressive and almost out of control. There was some stress upon you and the principal because you were not fully in command of the situation on this occasion because the alarm had been triggered and the time-lock could not be operated on the safe. More than $8,000 was taken on that occasion including some $3,500 in coins. You both decamped together.
16 The eleventh robbery, Count 16, occurred at Casey's Restaurant in Berwick on 25 June 1994 at 1 p.m. Again the same modus operandi. Little money was taken on that occasion because the function was a staff function for a nearby business which had been pre-paid. Only $500 was from the restaurant. The rest in dribs and drabs came from the victims who were tied up on the floor.
17 The twelfth robbery occurred at the Malaya Restaurant at Wantirna South on 16 July 1994. The same modus operandi; $5,000 taken.
18 Then, proceeding as I have been doing in chronological sequence, two different offences because these were not robberies, Counts 18 and 19: recklessly engaging in conduct placing two police officers in danger of death. On 19 September 1994 at about 1.30 a.m. a police unit with Constable Jason Bryant as the driver and Sergeant Alan Beckwith as the passenger was on patrol in Hallam Road, Hallam. Three months earlier a set of registration plates had been stolen from a car at Coffey Ford in Dandenong and a Nissan Bluebird was stolen from Berwick Nissan. The officers saw that Nissan Bluebird which contained both you and the principal at 1.30 a.m. on that morning, the Monday morning. They did not know at that time the vehicle was stolen but they were astute, responsible police and they decided to give the vehicle and its passengers a routine intercept. They operated the police lights and siren and pulled your vehicle over. Sergeant Beckwith opened the passenger door and started to get out. As he did he looked up and he saw that the passenger had already got out of the Nissan and was aiming a handgun straight at him and fired at him. That passenger was the principal in all your other robberies. The sergeant threw himself back towards the seat. Two further shots were fired at the vehicle. Constable Bryant ducked for cover behind the dashboard and urgently reversed the vehicle. The Nissan then revved loudly and you drove it away. Police shots were fired at the car but your vehicle sped off and despite the police pursuit was ultimately lost. The principal had fired three shots at the police officers who were exercising their lawful duty of protecting the public that lonely Monday morning. One shot hit the nearside bonnet and the other two hit the windscreen shattering the windscreen and parts of one bullet lodged in the dashboard of the car. Fortunately neither officer was killed or in fact struck by the bullets. Later that day the Nissan Bluebird was found completely burnt out and destroyed by fire behind the Fountain Gate shopping centre in Narre Warren. Despite that you came back for more.
19 Count 21, the final armed robbery at the Palm Beach Restaurant, Patterson Lakes on 9 October 1994. Again, a Sunday night. Again, balaclavas and revolvers and the same modus operandi. $1,000 was taken on that night. I shall return to this matter.
20 The final count, Count 22, is a false insurance claim you made for $10,000 for the loss of your car. For it was your car which was used in the Palm Beach robbery. Because there were too many people at the premises at the Palm Beach Restaurant, you could not tie them all up, and as you and the principal were decamping together in your vehicle one brave and clear thinking victim got into his car and chased you both. He pulled alongside you and looked across and saw an arm come out of the passenger side of your vehicle held by the principal pointing a loaded gun. The victim then pulled off, drove back to the restaurant and reported the event to the police. You thought your registration number had been taken so you destroyed your car. You then desisted from further armed robberies. You did not desist after the 70 year old Mrs Finn was bashed in the first of the robberies on 15 October 1991. You did not desist after the brave Mr Yacoub was shot in the back on 29 October 1992. You did not desist after the two police officers fulfilling their sworn duty to protect the public were shot at on 19 September 1994. But you did desist when you thought you might get caught. That is how the reign of terror came an end - because of your instinct for self-preservation. But come to an end it did. Thankfully.
21 The Pig-out robberies, by their violence, terror, presence of loaded firearms, planning and persistence, are in the most serious category of armed robberies.
22 That recitation of those numerous offences does no justice to what the victims suffered. The victim impact statements tendered before me, Exhibit A, each are moving and impressive documents. Many victims who did not formally file victim impact statements suffered like trauma to that articulated so eloquently in the victim impact statements filed. The statements of Mr and Mrs Yacoub and of Mrs Finn are especially moving. To gain an insight into the trauma inflicted by your principal - but with you there assisting him - I shall quote but one representative statement of another victim. She says this:
"I did not, at the time, know the outcome, only that it would be bleak and perhaps tragic. Forced at gun-point to kneel on the floor with my daughter in my arms, then having our hands tied behind our backs, while she sits on the floor and the threat of being 'gagged' did little to inspire any positive thoughts. On that night much of my faith in human nature was destroyed, along with much of my innocent thoughts of this world. I could no longer manage a business without looking over my shoulder in fear and in anticipation. My husband and I moved our family to another state to escape constant reminders of what happened and what could have happened. My daughter, now almost a teenager, does not understand why I will never allow her to walk home from school by herself, why I must know if she has reached school safely each morning. Not a week goes by when we don't argue about these restrictions, and she will never understand why I fail to see her reasoning. She thinks she is infallible, but I have been taught better! I cannot stay at home alone. I fear the dark and thus sleep with a light constantly on. I jump a mile if the dog barks, especially at night. But I would never be without one. I never trust a stranger, no matter how well meant. But most of all I find the hardest thing to do is to watch or listen to the daily news. Therein like a constant reminder that it could have been us. I cannot help but hear the bad and sometimes tragic experience of others and each time I do, that fateful evening is re-lived all over again. Yes, it's been many years, but the memories are vivid and have engraved themselves in my mind, heart and soul. As the years have passed, I have finally discovered the many and varied ways this incident has negatively affected my life and I know that battling these inner demons will be constant, inescapable and life-lasting."
23 The police investigated these offences widely and exhaustively. However, the investigations did not reveal at the time who the perpetrators were. A strikingly similar set of and robberies but in fact committed by Mr Bandali Debs and Mr Jason Roberts commenced in the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne on 9 March 1998 and continued until the murder of two police officers who were actively engaged in solving them on 16 August 1998. You, Mr Ghiller, had no part whatsoever in those 1998 crimes. Extensive investigations followed those crimes. Ultimately you, Mr Ghiller, Mr Debs, Mr Roberts and others became the subject of police investigation. Lawful warrants for listening and telephone intercepts were obtained. Covert police operations commenced. You were the subject of such operations from 23 September 1999 to 31 July 2000 when you were arrested. During those operations you made numerous admissions as to the counts for which you are now to be sentenced. For reasons I stated in a Ruling given in this Court on 9 September 2003 I consider those admissions were factually accurate and are reliable. However, your mode of expression, often callous, should not be relied upon against you, as I consider much of the mode of your expression was contextual, that is, deriving from the context. I am not satisfied your mode of expression necessarily reflected your inner feelings.
24 Your admissions to the covert operatives are not admissible against the principal whom you named as Mr Bandali Debs. There was insufficient admissible evidence against the person you named for that person to be charged with the offences for which you now stand before me to be sentenced.
25 As I have said, on 31 July 2000 you were arrested and charged with these and related offences. On 25 July 2000 Mr Debs was arrested and charged with the 1998 offences., being the 1998 armed robberies and the murders of the two police officers. Mr Roberts was arrested on 20 July and on 15 August 2000 was re-arrested and he also was charged with the 1998 offences.
26 It is necessary to say something about the comparative situation of you, Mr Ghiller, and in 1998 that of Mr Roberts. There is a significant difference in the legal situation of you on the one hand and of Mr Roberts on the other. First and most obviously, Mr Roberts was convicted by a jury of murdering two police officers. You, Mr Ghiller, committed no murders. That is a vast difference. Second, you did not fire a shot. Third, you personally were not violent to victims. Fourth, at the start of the robberies you were significantly younger than Mr Roberts was at the start of the robberies he was involved in, namely on 9 March 1998. You were 15 years ten months at the commencement of your robberies. Mr Roberts was 17 and a half years of age at the commencement of his - at that age a significant difference. Of course, you continued for much longer in the commission of your offences. Fifth and most significantly, you have pleaded guilty to these charges and you have acknowledged your guilt. Sixth, I consider you have genuine remorse for your crimes. Seventh, you are a different person from Mr Roberts and I consider you are a person in whom the light of rehabilitation already shines.
27 In a discriminating plea counsel on your behalf, Mr Montgomery, leading Ms Gwynn, focused on a number of factors in your favour on sentence. First, and importantly, you have pleaded guilty to each of these 22 counts. Mr Montgomery rightly submitted that that is of real significance of itself. It is also of real significance because it betokens remorse on your part. It is also of real significance because it has saved the numerous victims the trauma of reliving in court these terrible events from years ago. Finally, although of less significance, it has saved the administration of justice a very lengthy trial with a multitude of witnesses to be called. Because of your plea of guilty and what it entails I have reduced by one-third the sentence otherwise I would have imposed upon you for these offences.
28 Next Mr Montgomery properly relied upon your youth at the time of these offences. As I have said, you were not even 16 years of age at the time you commenced these offences.
29 Mr Montgomery especially relied upon powerful and enveloping situational factors in your family. Mr Montgomery said "a cult of personality had arisen in the family around Bandali Debs." You were influenced and seduced and overcome by that cult of personality. It is not insignificant that when you pleaded guilty not one member of your family attended court in your support. I consider that you were under the thrall of your uncle, influenced by the holistic family situation that you, not yet 16 years of age, found enveloping you. It is inappropriate on this sentence to say more than is necessary about persons absent from this Court. You are, of course, Mr Ghiller still responsible for your own actions; but they must be seen in that context - of a 15 year old in a family situation.
30 Next Mr Montgomery relied upon the circumstance that you personally did not commit violence upon your victims and, indeed, your personal behaviour was in marked contrast to the principal. However, Mr Ghiller, as I have said, you knew the principal's propensity for extreme violence and callousness and you continued in the enterprise; and also, as I have already said, it was an enterprise which needed two perpetrators; the principal could not have done it alone.
31 Next, Mr Montgomery relied upon your remorse, which he submitted to me was genuine and is the harbinger of rehabilitation. I agree with Mr Montgomery. I consider you do have genuine remorse and I consider it is the harbinger of genuine rehabilitation. I base that conclusion upon the submissions of your counsel on the plea and the evidentiary material on the plea including of two witnesses and seven references and by the support of your friends in court, who I see are again here today, and by your lack of other convictions. Mr Montgomery traced your difficult upbringing and your present circumstances. You are a person of real ability and potential. I consider you have genuine prospects for rehabilitation.
32 Finally, Mr Montgomery rightly submitted that I should bear in mind the principle of totality. He submitted that despite the large number of very serious offences to which you have pleaded guilty, I should not impose a crushing sentence upon you and, in particular, I should not crush the prospects in you of rehabilitation. I also agree with that submission. The principle of totality, a relevant principle here, does not mean that any victim matters less. Every victim matters. The principle of totality simply recognises the fact that one person has to serve the sentences imposed.
33 Although these were joint crimes committed by you and the principal, had the principal been before me I would have imposed a vastly heavier sentence upon him than I now impose upon you - because of the principal's conduct, his age and his influence.
34 The basis upon which I sentence you, analytically, on the various joint counts is, on the armed robbery counts, acting in concert with the principal; on Count 2 (causing serious injury recklessly to Mrs Finn) aiding and abetting the principal (as you did not expect the violence to be perpetrated upon her which the principal perpetrated); on Counts 6 and 12, acting in concert (as he had previously used violence upon a person in a robbery in your presence); on Count 10, aiding and abetting (as a firearm had not been deliberately fired before); on Counts 18 and 19 acting in concert (shooting by your principal in order to avoid apprehension given that he had used a firearm before).
35 On the resumed plea heard on 3 October 2003 your counsel relied upon the difficulties you might have in prison. However, you intend, Mr Ghiller, to cope with those difficulties properly, and I consider you will. Equally I am sure the prison authorities will exercise good judgment on the matter of your placement in the custodial system.
36 Accordingly, I turn to impose sentence upon you. By s.16(1) Sentencing Act 1991 sentences are to be served concurrently with each other unless the Court specifically orders cumulation. I will impose sentence in categories, because that is easier for you to follow, using the first armed robbery count, Count 3, as a base for orders for cumulation.
37 I first deal with the 13 counts of armed robberies. They were the robberies of 22 December 1991 to 9 October 1994, being Counts 3 to 5, 7 to 9, 11, 13 to 17 and 21.
38 Dealing first with those counts, being 13 counts of armed robbery, I sentence you on each count of armed robbery to three years' imprisonment. As to cumulation, I order that on each of the 12 counts after Count 3, two months of the sentence be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed upon Count 3 and upon each other, giving a total cumulation of two years. The effective result for the 13 armed robberies is that you are sentenced for those 13 offences to five years' imprisonment.
39 On the first two counts, being the aggravated burglary and then the causing serious injury recklessly to Mrs Finn at the Rowville Tourist Park on 5 October 1991, I sentence you as follows: On the first count, aggravated burglary, I sentence to you one year's imprisonment. I make no order as to cumulation, so that is concurrent with the armed robbery sentences. On Count 2, causing serious injury recklessly to Mrs Finn, I sentence you to three years' imprisonment. As to cumulation on Count 2, I order that one year's imprisonment on Count 2 be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed on Count 3, the first armed robbery count. So that is one extra year on the armed robberies, making a progressive cumulation of six years' imprisonment.
40 On the two other counts of causing serious injury recklessly, that is Count 6, at the Shooters Shop, Springvale on 28 February 1991 upon the victim Mr Klimek, and Count 12, at the Richards' newsagency Clayton, on 29 November 1992, upon the victim Mrs Yacoub, I sentence you to one year's imprisonment on each count with no orders as to cumulation.
41 However, on Count 10, causing serious injury intentionally to Mr Yacoub at the Richards' newsagency on 29 November 1992, I sentence you to seven years' imprisonment. I order that two years of that sentence be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed upon Count 3, which makes thus far a total cumulation of eight years' imprisonment. That is the totality of the various armed robberies and related charges: a total effective sentence of eight years' imprisonment.
42 I turn next to the two counts of shooting at the two police officers, being reckless conduct endangering life, Counts 18 and 19, the shooting at Sergeant Alan Beckwith and at Constable Jason Bryant on night patrol on Hallam Road, Hallam on 19 September 19994. On each of those two counts I sentence to you six years' imprisonment. I order that one year of the sentence on Count 18, the shooting of Sergeant Beckwith, and also one year of the sentence on Count 19, the shooting of Constable Bryant, be served cumulatively on the sentence imposed upon Count 3. Those police were protecting the public in the lawful execution of their duty and the Court in turn should protect the police. So there are two further years' cumulation for those two counts, making a total effective sentence thus far of ten years' imprisonment.
43 I turn next to the arson, Count 20, the burning out of the Nissan Bluebird at Narre Warren on 19 September 1994. For that I sentence you to two years' imprisonment, with no order for cumulation.
44 Finally, Count 22, obtaining property by deception, the $10,000 you fraudulently obtained from Fortis Insurance for your burnt out Ford Laser, I sentence you to one year's imprisonment, with no order for cumulation.
45 That means, Mr Ghiller, that you have a total effective sentence upon the 22 counts of ten years' imprisonment.
46 I have considered carefully the question of the minimum term to be imposed upon you and I consider a shorter minimum term than is usual should be imposed upon you. That is for three reasons. First, because of the lapse of time since the last offence; second, because of your genuine prospects of rehabilitation; and thirdly, because it is in the interests of the community that upon release you are given the continuous positive influence and support that parole gives, after the negative influence you had when you were very young.
47 I direct that you serve a period of six years' imprisonment before you are eligible for parole.
48 I declare pursuant to s.18 Sentencing Act 1991 you have served 75 days already of that sentence and I so certify.
49 So the effective result, Mr Ghiller, for the 22 counts is ten years' imprisonment, with a minimum period before eligibility for parole of six years' imprisonment.
DPP
Ghiller [2003] VSC 425
Cummins J sentenced Jason Manuel Ghiller to an effective term of ten years' imprisonment on 22 counts, with a minimum non-parole period of six years; individual sentences and cumulation orders are set out in the judgment (see [36]-[49]).