DPP v Grosso [2025] VCC 1252

1. The offending charged in the first indictment[6] occurred on 8 November 2023 when you were aged 30.
2. The offending the subject of the second indictment[7] occurred on 3 February 2024, by which time you had turned 31.
3. You are now aged 32.[8]
4. The circumstances of your offending are set out in the typed Summary of Prosecution Opening[9] and the basis on which you now fall to be sentenced was discussed during the plea hearing. I have had regard to that opening and to those discussions when determining the appropriate sentence to impose in your case.
5. For present purposes, your offending can be summarised as follows.

Incident of 8 November 2023 (The First Indictment)

1. In the early afternoon of 8 November 2023, police from the Victoria Police Air Wing unit were conducting a routine patrol of the inbound lanes of the Citylink Freeway.
2. At 1:58pm, police noticed a white Audi SUV vehicle being driven erratically and at speed while travelling southbound on the Tullamarine Freeway, in Parkville. You admit to being the driver and sole occupant of that vehicle, Mr Grosso.[10]
3. You exited the freeway onto Boundary Road and then turned right from a

non-turning lane into Racecourse Road. You then used the bike lane to 'undertake' a vehicle on its left and proceeded to drive through a red light at the Racecourse Road/Citylink entry ramp. 4. You then drove straight through a left-turn only lane at the intersection of Racecourse Road and Smithfield Road, left into Epsom Road and then right into the carpark of Quest Apartments in Flemington. You were then seen to drive to the northernmost carpark, where you parked front forward in an empty parking bay. 5. A check of the registration plates revealed that they were registered to a blue 2017 Audi A3 sedan. 6. At approximately 2:00pm, First Constables Bethany Power and James Lea attended that location in a marked police vehicle.[11] Power was driving while Lea was in the passenger seat. Both were in full police uniform, including fluoro vests. 7. Lea got out of the police vehicle and took up a position behind the Audi. As Power walked towards the Audi, she noticed that you were sitting alone in the driver's seat. 8. When both officers noticed the reverse lights of the Audi vehicle illuminate, Lea yelled out a warning to Power. 9. You then reversed the Audi vehicle at speed directly towards both officers, forcing them to jump out of the way to avoid being struck. 10. You then made a sharp turn towards an embankment which resulted in the Audi colliding with a fence and becoming and remaining stuck despite your attempts to accelerate and escape. 11. Your conduct in driving the vehicle as you did in the carpark forms the factual basis for the offence of aggravated offence of intentionally exposing an emergency worker to risk by driving alleged in Charge 3 on the first indictment. It is a

rolled-up charge as it relates to both of the police officers involved. 12. Once the Audi had become stuck on the embankment, both officers ran towards the driver's side of the Audi and tried to get you out. In response, you held the door closed and repeatedly frustrated their attempts to extract you. Ultimately, Power managed to grab you by your shirt and pull you out of the vehicle. 13. After a further struggle, the two officers managed to subdue and arrest you. 14. The entire incident was captured on Police Air Wing footage and the footage and stills taken from it were tendered on the plea.[12] 15. When the Audi was searched by police, they located a grey-coloured Louis Vuitton bag containing a firearm and ammunition on the front passenger seat, as well as Victorian, Queensland and New South Wales registration plates, black gloves and two mobile phones. 16. You were taken to the Royal Melbourne Hospital for a medical examination and treatment for a suspected fracture. You were ultimately discharged on 10 November and then remanded in custody without being interviewed. 17. A ballistics expert who examined the firearm concluded that it was a silver .22 Long Rifle calibre Single Action Army Revolver. It was operational and had modifications to the cylinder chamber and muzzle and the serial number had been removed. The ammunition located consisted of two cartridges, only one of which was a .22 Long Rifle calibre suitable for use in the firearm. 18. On 3 July 2020, a firearm prohibition order had been made and served on you. It was for an operational period of 10 years and prohibited you from acquiring, possessing, carrying or using any firearm or firearm related item. Your possession of the firearm and ammunition located by police forms the factual basis for the offences of possession of a firearm and possession of a firearm related item contrary to a firearm prohibition order alleged in Charges 1 and 2 on the first indictment.

Incident of 3 February 2024 (The Second Indictment)

1. Having spent nearly three months on remand for charges relating to that first incident, you were then released on bail on 29 January 2024.
2. The remainder of your current offences were committed only five days later, on 3 February 2024.
3. On that date, a male named Amar Altaee was contacted via Facebook message by someone he knew as 'Mark', whose partner was known as 'Russian Jess'.
4. You had known Mr Altaee for several years.
5. In the message, Mark indicated that some of his and his partner's property was in a car that Mr Altaee had leased. Later, when Mark changed the subject and asked for 'gear', Mr Altaee became suspicious. When Mark wanted to meet up in the city, Mr Altaee declined and said he would have to come to the west.
6. Later that day, around mid-afternoon, Mr Altaee received a phone call from you, Mr Grosso. You said you wanted to see him to discuss the fact that some of your girlfriend's clothing had gone missing and explained that you believed Mark had the clothing and that Mr Altaee knew where it was.
7. Mr Altaee agreed to meet you at Bunnings in Altona North.
8. There were further telephone conversations in the lead up to this proposed meeting and several text messages were exchanged about meeting at Bunnings. You used two different mobiles to send texts. The fact that you would not turn on your video during these calls aroused Mr Altaee's suspicions.
9. At 3:17pm, you texted Mr Altaee, advising that you were at Bunnings.
10. When he could not find you, he called. You answered and said words to the effect of 'we're here, behind Bunnings'. When Mr Altaee questioned your use of the word 'we', you explained that you were with Moe Elrajab, a person that Mr Altaee had known for several years.
11. At approximately 3:48pm, Mr Altaee drove his silver Holden Commodore vehicle to the street behind Bunnings and reversed parked next to the silver Toyota Hilux vehicle in which you were seated.
12. Initially, Mr Altaee could only see you in the front passenger seat and Mr Elrajab in the driver's seat. He then saw two further males. Phi Nguyen, a man he had known for about two weeks, was sitting behind Mr Elrajab in the back passenger seat, while 'Mark' was sitting in the back passenger seat behind you.
13. The confrontation that then ensued was filmed on a mobile phone by a nearby resident.[13]
14. After you and Mr Nguyen exited the Toyota, you leaned into Mr Altaee's vehicle and attempted to take hold of his car keys with one hand while using your other hand to point a shotgun at his face. Mr Altaee described the weapon as a 'sawn off shotty'. In response, he grabbed the end of the gun and pushed it away.
15. The prosecution does not allege that it was you who brought the shotgun to the meeting as it came from a vehicle in which there were three other male occupants.
16. Whilst you were confronting Mr Altaee, Mr Nguyen smashed the rear driver's side window of Mr Altaee's vehicle with a knife, in the course of which Mr Altaee received a laceration to his upper right arm, which he later stitched himself.
17. After withdrawing the shotgun from Mr Altaee's vehicle you repeatedly yelled 'Give me the bumbag or I'll shoot you'. This threat forms the factual basis for the offence of make threat to inflict serious injury alleged in Charge 1 on the second indictment.
18. The bumbag to which you were referring was located on the front passenger seat of Mr Altaee's vehicle and belonged to him not your girlfriend. He refused to hand it over.
19. Faced with that refusal, you then told Mr Nguyen to get the bumbag. With that in mind, Mr Nguyen went to the front passenger side window and unsuccessfully attempted to break it with the knife.
20. Then, whilst you were holding the shotgun outside the vehicle, it discharged twice. It is alleged that your handling of the shotgun was reckless and caused it to discharge in what was a parking area of a public street, and that this may have placed persons in the vicinity in danger of serious injury. Those circumstances form the basis for the offence of conduct endangering persons alleged in Charge 2 on the second indictment.
21. As is clear from the nature of the offence charged and from the footage itself, you are not to be sentenced on the basis that you intended to fire the shotgun at the time that it discharged. As acknowledged by the prosecution, you appeared genuinely surprised when the weapon discharged. Your actions relating to the handling of that firearm are therefore to be treated as reckless not intentional.
22. Mr Altaee's vehicle sustained damage to the rear right window and the rear right tyre.[14]
23. After the discharge of the shotgun, you and Mr Nguyen quickly returned to the Toyota and were then driven away from the scene by Mr Elrajab.
24. Mr Altaee left the scene in his own vehicle a short time later.

1. You were arrested nearly three weeks later, on 21 February 2024.
2. When interviewed about the incident involving Mr Altaee, you denied being at the scene and to being one of the persons depicted in the mobile phone footage. While you denied being an associate of Mr Nguyen, you admitted to being an associate of Mr Elrajab and to having been in the Toyota. You went on to explain that while you had issues with Mr Altaee because he had stolen items belonging to your girlfriend, you had since got those items back.

1. I note that you spent a period of 83 days in pre-sentence detention for the first incident between the date of your initial arrest and remand on 8 November 2023 and the date on which you were bailed, namely 29 January 2024.
2. You have spent a further period of 553 days in pre-sentence detention for the second incident as you were arrested and remanded on 21 February 2024 and have remained in custody ever since.
3. Accordingly, in respect of the charges for which you fall to be sentenced today, you have spent a total period of 636 days in pre-sentence detention, up to but not including today's date. Is that an agreed figure, Counsel?
4. COUNSEL: It is, Your Honour.
5. HIS HONOUR: That period will be the subject of a formal declaration shortly.

1. Although each of your victims have elected not to make a victim impact statement, I have no doubt that they would have been placed in considerable fear by what you did.

1. You pleaded guilty to the charges on the first indictment on the day that the matter was listed for trial before Judge Hogan. Whilst you also pleaded guilty to the charges contained in the second indictment on the day that it was listed for trial before me, it is noteworthy that it resolved on a lesser basis, assisted by the fact that the prosecution decided to no longer pursue an additional charge of attempted armed robbery.

1. For reasons which I will briefly refer to later, in my view what remorse you may have for your current offending is very limited.

1. You have a very extensive, serious and relevant prior criminal history, Mr Grosso.
2. As the result of numerous court appearances over the 10-year period between 2013 and 2023, you have been sentenced for a multitude and variety of offences.
3. You have, for example been sentenced for offences that have involved violence, dishonesty, drugs, and driving, and for some offences that were committed while on bail.
4. Of particular relevance in the context of this case are your prior convictions for resisting police, resist emergency worker on duty, reckless conduct endanger serious injury, possess prohibited weapon, and drive in a manner dangerous.
5. You have been treated by the courts with some leniency in the past by way of a number of conditioned community correction orders as well as multiple wholly suspended terms of imprisonment. You failed to grasp those opportunities and were dealt with on multiple occasions for breaching such orders.
6. You have been sentenced to numerous terms of immediate imprisonment ranging from a term of four months up to a straight sentence of 18 months. On another occasion, you were given a head sentence of 15 months with a non-parole period of nine months.
7. Your most recent sentence prior to committing the current offences was a term of four months received on 30 January 2023.[15] Accordingly, it was some nine months or so after receiving that sentence that you committed the offences the subject of the first indictment.

1. I now turn to consider your personal circumstances, Mr Grosso. In that context, I have had regard to the commendably focused written submissions from your counsel and to the history that you provided to the psychologist Ms Lechner when she assessed you in late March this year. I do note, however, that Ms Lechner encountered some difficulty obtaining a detailed history of your background on account of your purported memory impairment.
2. You were born in Melbourne but spent your early childhood years living in Italy with your parents and younger brother. At age six, your mother was forced to return to Melbourne with her sons on account of your father's violent behaviour towards her and you.
3. You have not had any contact with your father since leaving Italy and appear to have not seen your younger brother for many years. Your relationship with your mother has been a strained one. In 2023, you were discharged from the Royal Melbourne Hospital to the home of your mother, but this arrangement was short lived and you have had no further contact with her since you returned to prison.
4. Your mother was a schoolteacher and someone you remember as being very strict. I note that you did sufficiently well at primary school to earn a scholarship to Essendon Grammer for Year 7. However, you were expelled the same year for fighting and after attending at a number of other schools, you eventually left in Year 9 or 10. In her report, Ms Lechner notes that you experienced bullying whilst at school on account of your difficulties with English.
5. I was informed by your counsel that you and your brother spent some time in foster care when you were aged 13. You told Ms Lechner that you had been 'kicked out' of home at an early age and placed in residential care.
6. Since leaving school, you have managed to work in a variety of jobs, including concreting, furniture removal and landscape gardening.
7. You have never married or had children.
8. In the past, you have had little in the way of positive contacts as your social networks have primarily involved other drug users and you tend to cease contact with your mother when you are using drugs.
9. For the last two years or so, you have been in a relationship with your current partner, Nesreen. You describe that relationship as 'close' and intend to live with her once you are released from custody.
10. You were assessed by the clinical psychologist, Carla Lechner, on 20 March 2025. I have read and had regard to the contents of her report dated 1 April 2025.[16]
11. Ms Lechner noted that you have a lengthy prior history of offending that has arisen in the setting of a long-term drug addiction.
12. In the history you provided her in relation to your current offending, you said that you had panicked during the first incident when you saw people coming towards you with a gun and had accidentally reversed the vehicle. You also claimed to have panicked during the second incident, which you described as occurring in circumstances where you were confronted with a gun produced by the other person and responded by wrestling it from him. I consider that in giving that history, you were seeking to minimise the criminal conduct in which you had engaged. The fact is that you could not have but realised that the approaching people were uniformed police officers and, given your prior driving conduct and the presence of a firearm and ammunition, you had an obvious incentive to try and avoid arrest. Furthermore, it is clear that you obtained the sawn-off shotgun from the vehicle in which you had arrived at the rendezvous location, not as a result of wrestling it away from the victim, Mr Altaee.
13. In Ms Lechner's opinion, you presented with symptoms of Complex PTSD stemming from a number of traumatic experiences you were exposed to in your formative years, including your father's violence, a lack of emotional connection with your mother and being sexually abused whilst in youth detention. In more recent times, you have attempted suicide and been the victim of a serious physical assault.
14. You also presented as highly anxious, which Ms Lechner considered further impacted on your cognitive functioning.
15. The limited history you provided Ms Lechner concerning use of alcohol and drugs revealed that you have not consumed alcohol in recent times. By contrast, you told her that you have always used drugs, commencing with cannabis at age 15, then heroin and more recently, Ice and GHB. According to Ms Lechner, at the time of her assessment, you were prescribed Seroquel, Gabapentin and Methadone. She concluded that you have a long-standing and chronic drug addiction sufficient to meet the criteria for a Stimulant and GHB Use Disorder.
16. As noted by Ms Lechner, you present with a complex clinical picture for which you will require both supervision and support in the community. She strongly recommends that you undergo a full neuropsychological assessment before any final decision is made as to how best to tailor your treatment needs. At present, she is of the view that you would benefit from trauma informed psychotherapy in addition to alcohol and drug counselling. She also recommends that you be registered with NDIS in the event that you are not already registered.

1. Your counsel was able to rely on several matters in mitigation on your behalf, Mr Grosso, including the following.
2. You have pleaded guilty to all of the offences for which you now fall to be sentenced. The plea to the offences contained in the first indictment are to be viewed as having been entered at a relatively late stage. Whilst your plea to the offences contained in the second indictment was also entered at trial, it is to be properly viewed as having been entered at a relatively early stage as up until that time, the prosecution had been intending to pursue an additional charge of attempted armed robbery, a course which they ultimately abandoned.
3. In any event, your pleas, whenever entered, have still saved the community the cost and time of two trials and, even more importantly, have spared the three victims of your offending the ordeal of having to give evidence and thereby relive their unfortunate experiences.
4. You are therefore entitled to and will receive a discount in sentence for pleading guilty in the circumstances that you have, although the task of assessing any such discount is more nuanced than usual in your case for the reasons to which I have already averted.
5. Your counsel sought to rely on such pleas as evidence of your remorse. In your case, I consider that to be a relatively thin basis for concluding that you are genuinely remorseful for your criminal conduct. In this context, I note that the case against you in respect of each incident was strong and included video footage. Furthermore, you benefited from the manner in which the charges relating to the second incident were resolved and so, it is plain that you had an incentive to plead guilty in relation to that incident for purely pragmatic reasons. And further, as recently as 20 March 2025, you sought to minimise and misdescribe the circumstances of your offending when being assessed by a psychologist for the purposes of this case.[17] Your accompanying expressions of remorse made to Ms Lechner whilst giving that history ring somewhat hollow in my view.
6. In the end, whilst I am prepared to allow for the fact that you have some remorse, I consider it to be very limited in nature and degree.
7. I accept that the symptoms of Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder to which Ms Lecher refers will make the service of any sentence of imprisonment a more onerous experience for you than it would be for a prisoner of sound mental health. I am therefore satisfied that Limb 5 of Verdin's case has been engaged and will have regard to that fact when determining the appropriate sentence in your case.
8. I will also have regard to the nature and extent of the injuries that you suffered and for which you were admitted and treated at the Royal Melbourne Hospital in May and June of 2023.[18] As noted by Ms Lechner, those injuries appear to have included an acquired brain injury secondary to an assault.
9. Ms Lechner concluded that you are vulnerable in a custodial environment as you find it hard to process information and may miss cues in your environment. This could lead to you being exposed to unsafe situations. Whilst it is not clear to me whether this observation is based solely or partly on your acquired brain injury, I suspect that it is. In any event, it highlights the onerous nature of any custodial sentence in your case.

1. In addition to those matters which are personal to you, Mr Grosso, this court must also have regard to the objective gravity of your offending.
2. In light of the applicable maximum penalties, each of the offences which you committed are of a type that must be viewed as inherently serious, and in particular the aggravated offence of intentionally exposing an emergency worker to risk by driving. Parliament has emphasised the seriousness of this type of offence by fixing the very high maximum penalty that it has, 20 years' imprisonment, and by including it in the list of Category 2 offences in the Sentencing Act 1991 ('the Act'). Consequently, any offender sentenced for such an offence must be sentenced to a term of immediate imprisonment other than one in combination with a community correction order unless the court is satisfied that one of the statutory exceptions apply.[19] I note that your counsel did not seek to rely on any exception.
3. The seriousness of this type of offence has also been recognised in a number of appellate decisions, including in Nguyen v The Queen,[20] where the Court of Appeal said:

Those who seek to drive in a dangerous or reckless manner to escape police, and who thereby place police or other citizens at risk of death or serious injury, need to know that such conduct will not be tolerated, and will be met with stern punishment.[21]

1. That court has also noted the serious nature of the offence of possessing a firearm contrary to a firearm prohibition order. For example, in Bruce v The Queen,[22] the court said:

As to general deterrence, the purpose of the FPO scheme is to promote community safety by ensuring that weapons do not fall into the wrong hands. It is of the first importance that sentences imposed for possessing firearms in breach of an FPO are set at a level which will send a strong message to others who might be tempted to disregard an FPO to which they are subject.[23]

1. The offences that you committed on 8 November 2023 were very serious and quite troubling. No satisfactory explanation has been put forward as to why you would choose to possess and have readily available a revolver that was capable of being loaded and fired. All that can be said on your behalf is that you at least did not choose to do so in order to avoid being apprehended by the police.
2. Whilst it is of note that the ammunition you possessed was limited in quantity, it is also relevant that one of the cartridges was kept with and capable of being fired in the revolver.
3. I consider the aggravated offence of intentionally exposing an emergency worker to risk by driving that you committed to be a relatively serious example of its type. Whilst your driving did not reach the speed reached by offenders in some other cases, you gave the police very little warning of your intention to rapidly reverse as you did and were it not for the evasive actions that they each took, I have no doubt that this incident could have ended very differently. Clearly, they would have been placed in great fear at the time and I have no doubt they would have been left reeling in the immediate aftermath. The fact that there were two victims not one increases the level of seriousness of this offence.
4. As for the offences you committed on 3 February 2024, I note at the outset that they were committed at a time and place far removed from that which occurred in the first incident. Furthermore, they were committed after you had had time to reflect on your earlier criminal conduct while on remand and then while on bail. The fact that these offences were committed while on bail for the serious charges contained in the first indictment is a serious aggravating factor for each of the two charges contained in the second indictment.
5. It is quite alarming that you would, so soon after being released on bail for those charges, be prepared to possess and brandish a loaded firearm. The fact that you did so in the belief that the victim had some involvement in the ongoing theft of some of your girlfriend's property provides absolutely no basis or justification for acting as you did or for taking the law into your own hands.
6. To repeatedly threaten to inflict serious injury by shooting a person immediately after pointing a sawn-off shotgun at their face is a very serious example of the offence of make threat to inflict serious injury. The victim, Mr Altaee, must have been absolutely terrified at the time and no doubt assumed, as it turned out correctly, that the weapon being pointed at him was loaded.
7. The potential consequences of mishandling such a weapon are extremely serious and it is fortunate for all concerned that your reckless management of that firearm occurred after you had withdrawn it from the victim's vehicle and not while it was being pointed at the victim's face.
8. When viewed globally, there can be no doubt that your offending was very serious and warrants a significant punishment.

1. I note that Mr Nguyen pleaded guilty in the Melbourne Magistrates' Court to one charge of make threat to inflict serious injury and one charge of common assault. Those charges were based on his use of the knife to attempt to break the front passenger side window of Mr Altaee's vehicle and his use of that knife to injure Mr Altaee's arm.
2. Mr Nguyen was sentenced on 19 June 2025 to seven months' imprisonment for the offence of common assault and to a 12-month community correction order for the offence of make threat to inflict serious injury.[24]
3. In this context, it is relevant to note that while Mr Nguyen was sentenced for his involvement in the same incident for which you fall to be sentenced, each of you have been sentenced for quite distinct and different acts and in that sense, you are not true co-offenders from a parity principle perspective.
4. I have only mentioned Mr Nguyen's fate for the sake of completeness, not because it is appropriate to mould your sentence to accord with his. Furthermore, in contrast to him, you face additional serious charges relating to a separate incident.
5. In such circumstances, it is unsurprising that your counsel placed no reliance on the parity principle.

1. A number of other sentencing principles are relevant to my sentencing task, however.
2. In respect to all of your offences, general deterrence and denunciation are of considerable importance. Any person in the community who might be contemplating acting as you have done, whether it be in relation to the unlawful possession or use of a firearm, or the endangering of police while driving to evade police, or by threatening someone against whom they bear a grievance, must understand that the consequences for engaging in such conduct will be severe. The community is rightly appalled by such conduct. It is intolerable, has no place in a civilised society, and must be denounced in strong terms.
3. Specific deterrence and protection of the community are weighty considerations in the circumstances of this case. You have a bad criminal history, Mr Grosso. A number of the offences for which you have been previously convicted are particularly relevant given the nature of the criminal conduct for which you now fall to be sentenced. You have been undeterred by past sentences, including multiple sentences of immediate imprisonment and by the period you spent on remand until being bailed on 29 January 2024. Your preparedness to engage in the conduct the subject of the second indictment so soon after being released on bail for the charges relating to the first indictment, is alarming to say the least. In all of the circumstances of your case, there is a need to impose a sentence designed to discourage you from engaging in this or any similar offending in the future, and which affords an appropriate level of protection to the community from you.
4. Your age and prospects of rehabilitation must also be considered. You are now aged 32 and reaching a stage in life when some offenders choose to take stock of their lives and turn things around for the better. Your time spent on remand to date has been significant and the longest period you have spent in custody to date. I allow for the possibility that you have been reflecting on your life while on remand with a view to trying to do better when you are eventually released from custody. All relevant matters considered, I have concluded that your prospects are at best fair but also quite guarded. Much will ultimately depend on how motivated you are to rehabilitate and on the level of commitment and discipline that you bring to that task. I do not underestimate the difficulty of that task.
5. You fall to be sentenced for one incident in which three offences were committed and for another incident which occurred just under 3 months later in which you committed two further offences. Each of the incidents were relatively short in duration. In those circumstances, the principle of totality has some work to do. Whilst each of the offences involves a separate and distinct level of criminality on your part, some of them are interconnected. There are of course, three victims. Accordingly, there is a real need to ensure an appropriate level of cumulation as between most of the charges, but also a sensible level of concurrency so as to arrive at a just sentence.
6. The need to sentence you in a manner and to an extent that is just in all the circumstances requires this court to focus on the particular circumstances of your offending and on your personal circumstances, including any matters in mitigation. Individualised justice is what is called for.
7. To the extent that I was referred to other cases as purportedly comparable, I will simply note that there are clear differences between those cases and this case and any such exercise is of very limited use and certainly does not provide anything by way of a precedent.

1. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that for the aggravated offence of intentionally exposing an emergency worker to risk by driving, there is a statutory presumption of cumulation pursuant to s 16(3D) of the Act.
2. A similar presumption of cumulation applies to each of the two offences charged in the second indictment because both were committed whilst on bail, as to which see s 16(3C) of the Act.
3. Whilst it is appropriate that this court have regard to those provisions, the principle of totality remains a relevant sentencing consideration and the court must be astute to ensure that the ultimate level of punishment imposed on you is appropriate and commensurate with your overall level of criminality, no more and no less. Those provisions do not warrant imposing an otherwise inappropriate or crushing sentence.

1. In his focused and realistic sentencing submissions, your counsel acknowledged the seriousness of your current offending and conceded the inevitability of you being sentenced to a custodial sentence of a type that would require the fixing of a non-parole period. However, he urged the court to avoid imposing a crushing sentence and to consider sentencing you in a manner that will enable you to be considered for release on parole in the near future.
2. For their part, the prosecution highlighted the serious nature of your offending and the importance of a number of sentencing principles, in particular, deterrence, denunciation and just punishment. They likewise urged the court to impose a head sentence with a non-parole period.

1. In my view, this court has no alternative but to impose a sentence of some magnitude and certainly one in the form of a head sentence for which a non-parole period will need to be fixed.
2. To do otherwise would grossly undervalue the importance of a number of sentencing principles, including deterrence, denunciation and community protection, and risk undermining the administration of criminal justice through the imposition of an unjust punishment for what is, on any view, serious offending engaged in by someone with a relevant criminal history.

1. Mr Grosso, after carefully considering, balancing and weighing the relevant sentencing considerations in your case as best I can, I have decided to sentence you as follows.
2. On each charge, you will be convicted and sentenced to a term of immediate imprisonment. The length of those terms will be as follows.

1. On Charge 1, possession of a firearm contrary to a firearm prohibition order, 15 months.
2. On Charge 2, possession of a firearm related item contrary to a firearm prohibition order, three months.
3. On Charge 3, aggravated offence of intentionally exposing an emergency worker to risk by driving, three years.

1. On Charge 1, make threat to inflict serious injury, two years.
2. On Charge 2, conduct endangering persons, 12 months.

Global Total Effective Sentence and Non-Parole Period

1. The sentence of three years imposed for the aggravated offence of intentionally exposing an emergency worker to risk by driving alleged in Charge 3 on the first indictment will be the base sentence.
2. I order that the following periods are to be served cumulatively on that base sentence and on each other. For the first indictment, six months for Charge 1, and for the second indictment, 12 months on Charge 1 and four months on Charge 2.
3. That represents a total period of cumulation of 22 months.
4. The global total effective sentence across the two indictments is therefore one of four years and 10 months' imprisonment.
5. In respect of that head sentence, I fix a non-parole period of three years and three months.

1. Pursuant to s 18 of the Act, I declare that you have served a total of 636 days

pre-sentence detention, not including today's date, in respect of this sentence. I order that such period is to be reckoned as already served under this sentence, and I further order that the declaration and its details be entered in the records of this court.

Section 6AAA indication

1. Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Act, I indicate that but for your plea of guilty, you would have been sentenced to a global total effective sentence of six and a half years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of four and a half years.

1. In respect of any conviction imposed for a serious motor vehicle offence (of which the aggravated offence of intentionally exposing an emergency worker to risk by driving is one), a sentencing court must cancel any driver's licences or permits held by the offender and disqualify that person from obtaining any other licence or permit for whatever period the court considers appropriate[25] but must not specify a period of disqualification that is less than 24 months.[26]
2. In respect of that offence alleged in Charge 3 on the first indictment, I order that any driver's licences or permits held by you Mr Grosso are hereby cancelled, and that you are disqualified from obtaining any other licence or permit for a period of 30 months, effective from today's date.
3. Whilst I am prepared to grant the forfeiture order in respect of the firearm and ammunition, pursuant to s 151 of the Firearms Act 1996, I am not prepared to grant the disposal order sought under s 78(1) of the Confiscation Act 1997 as the prosecution have failed to establish that any of the items listed in the attached schedule were used or intended to be used in or in connection with the commission of any of the charges relied upon or that they were derived or realised from their commission.

1. Are there any matters that either counsel need to raise at this stage in relation to either the sentence or the sentencing reasons, starting with you, Mr Anger?
2. MR ANGER: No, Your Honour.
3. MR YOUNG: No, Your Honour.
4. HIS HONOUR: Thank you.
5. HIS HONOUR: Thank you. Mr Anger, you will be permitted to have a brief conversation with your client using the current video link once I leave the bench, if you wish.
6. MR ANGER: I do wish. Thank you, your Honour.
7. HIS HONOUR: Before leaving the Bench, I would just like to thank you, Mr Anger, and your predecessor, Mr Young, for the assistance that you provided to the court during the hearing of this matter. Thank you.
8. Otherwise the court is adjourned until 9.30am tomorrow.

[1] Charge 1 on Indictment P12368910.1, laid pursuant to s 112B of the Firearms Act 1996 (Vic).

[2] Charge 2 on Indictment P12368910.1, laid pursuant to s 112B of the Firearms Act 1996 (Vic).

[3] Charge 3 on Indictment P12368910.1, laid pursuant to s 317AD(1)(c) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).

[4] Charge 1 on Indictment Q10400390.1, laid pursuant to s 21 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).

[5] Charge 2 on Indictment Q10400390.1, laid pursuant to s 23 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).

[8] Mr Grosso was born in January of 1993.

[10] The vehicle was rented by a female from a car rental business in Tullamarine. It is not clear how Mr Grosso came into possession of the vehicle.

[11] Both officers were stationed at Flemington Police Station at the relevant time.

[14] The window was smashed while the tyre was rendered flat from shot when the firearm was discharged.

[15] For which a period of 18 days pre-sentence detention was declared.

[17] See report of Ms Lechner (Exhibit 2) at pages 2.1, 5.2 and 6.7.

[18] As to which, see Discharge Summary from the Royal Melbourne Hospital (Exhibit 3).

[19] Section 5(2H) of the Act.

[20] [2024] VSCA 290.

[22] [2022] VSCA 100.

[23] Ibid, at [39] (citations omitted). See also DPP v Kumas [2021] VSCA 215, at [56].

[24] The community correction order was also imposed in relation to an unrelated charge of theft from shop (shop steal).

[25] Sections 87P(ba) and 89(1) of the Act.

[26] Ibid s 89(2)(b).