DPP v Hailu [2025] VCC 1758

1. The other two incidents of offending were committed while you were detained at Malmsbury Youth Justice Centre ('Malmsbury').
2. Arising from an incident at Malmsbury on 27 September 2023, you have pleaded guilty to three charges:

(a) One charge of affray while wearing a face mask, the maximum penalty for which is seven years' imprisonment; and

(b) Two rolled-up charges of intimidating a law enforcement officer, the maximum penalty for which is 10 years' imprisonment.

1. You have also pleaded guilty to the following charges arising from your involvement in riotous behaviour at Malmsbury on 3 October 2023:

(a) Violent disorder while wearing a face mask, which carries a maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment;

(b) Four charges of aggravated burglary, each of which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment;

(c) Armed robbery, which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment;

(d) Two charges of false imprisonment, each of which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment;

(e) Conduct endangering persons, which carries a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment;

(f) Conduct endangering life, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment;

(g) Recklessly causing serious injury, which carries a maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment; and

(h) Two charges of producing an intimate image, each of which carries a maximum penalty of three years' imprisonment.

1. A prosecution opening was tendered on your plea in respect of each of these incidents of offending. The summaries represent the agreed basis upon which you are to be sentenced. In each matter the plea was directed to the characterisation of your role in the offending based on the undisputed facts. It is therefore only necessary for me to provide an overview of the summary of the facts in relation to each incident.

1. Turning firstly to your involvement in the offending committed on 2 July 2022. You were 17 years old at the time of this offending.
2. In July 2022 the victim in this matter, Mr Alan Neil, lived with his partner, Ms Kim Hanson, and their children at an address in Wandong, Victoria.
3. At 11.42am on 2 July 2022, a witness saw two males park a black Holden Captiva at a primary school near the address. You were driving the car. Soon after, CCTV captured you drive into Mr Neil's driveway, roll down the window and throw eggs at a vehicle parked at the address before reversing out of the driveway.
4. At 12.03pm that day, you and a male co-offender returned to the address in the Holden Captiva. You remained at the front of the premises for about six minutes, before driving the car forward. The co-offender got out of the front passenger seat and walked towards the house, wearing a black facemask and a black puffer jacket over a white hooded jumper. The co-offender kept his hands in the sleeves of his jacket. As he approached the house, the co-offender produced a firearm from his jacket.
5. At this time Ms Hanson became aware of the Holden Captiva parked at the front of the house and alerted Mr Neil. Mr Neil went to check on his CCTV system and observed the male wearing a facemask. He then went outside to investigate, leaving the house through the backyard before approaching the front yard from a side gate entrance.
6. When Mr Neil entered his front yard, the male co-offender immediately discharged his firearm twice, striking Mr Neil in his shoulder/back area and in both legs. This conduct is the subject of charge 1 - recklessly causing injury. You have pleaded guilty to this offence on a complicity basis.
7. By your plea you accept that you knew the firearm was in the vehicle you were driving and that the co-offender intended to use the firearm in settlement of a grievance against the victim. You were not a party to that dispute and it is not alleged that you were involved in the planning of the offending. The prosecution accepts that yours was a limited role, being the driver of the vehicle. Significantly, the prosecution also concedes that you were not aware the co-offender would injure the victim by discharging the firearm directly at him.
8. You have also pleaded guilty to charge 2 - being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm. By your guilty plea you acknowledge you drove the vehicle knowing there was a firearm in it at a time when you were prohibited by law from possessing a firearm.
9. After the victim was shot the male co-offender returned to the car, he pulled tools out from the rear tray of the vehicle which he threw at the house, causing a window to break. He then returned to the front passenger seat of the car, and you drove away.
10. Ms Hanson had heard the shots being fired before seeing the victim come to the front door. Mr Neil asked Ms Hanson to call the police and an ambulance. He then returned to the backyard so he could not be seen by the children in the house.
11. The victim was conveyed to the Royal Melbourne Hospital and underwent surgery to remove shotgun pellets from his left and right thighs, both knees and his back. Dr Matthew Lynch of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine concluded that the victim's injuries were substantial but were not life threatening. Multiple gunshot pellets remain within the soft tissue of his neck, back, left arm and both legs. The victim required significant pain relief while in hospital where he remained for ten days following surgery.
12. You were arrested on 6 July 2022. Investigators later analysed your mobile phone on which they located a photograph of the victim downloaded by you on 2 July 2022, a text message dated 2 July 2022 from a male asking you to bring his bag for him, and a screenshot of a report of the shooting on Facebook, timestamped 8.15pm on 2 July 2022. Call charge records for your mobile phone also connected you to the location of the shooting on that date.
13. Investigators spoke with your former partner who subsequently participated in a compulsory examination. She confirmed that she had been in the vehicle with you on 2 July 2022, together with a male known by the name 'Hectic' who she said had shot the victim. She said that your role involved driving the co-offender to the address.
14. You declined to participate in a record of interview regarding this matter on 23 November 2023, in accordance with your rights.
15. You were not charged with this offending until after you turned 19, and accordingly the charge was not heard in the Children's Court.

27 September 2023 - Affray and intimidating a law enforcement officer

1. The next incident of offending relates to your involvement in an affray at Malmsbury on 27 September 2023. You were 18 at the time of this incident. The other four co-offenders were under 18 and have since been sentenced for their involvement in the Children's Court.
2. Leading up to this incident the group of offenders had developed increasing animosity towards members of the Safety Emergency Response Team ('SERT'), due to their perceived mistreatment in Malmsbury. The SERT team is tasked with responding to violent incidents within the Youth Justice Centre.
3. On 27 September 2023 you and others were in the communal area of the Latrobe Unit at Malmsbury. At around 7.00pm, one of the detainees found a dead mouse and began chasing you and others around the unit, attempting to throw it at a member of the group. In response you and the others locked yourselves inside the laundry. A Youth Justice worker refused to open the door until the mouse was disposed of.
4. When the door to the laundry was opened, two members of the group grabbed you and attempted to drag you outside to fight. The Youth Justice worker intervened to stop this from happening.
5. However, when the others let go of you, you retrieved the dead mouse and began to chase them. The Youth Justice worker tried to de-escalate the dispute. When he was unable to, the worker contacted the control centre to ask them to close the airlock doors of the unit to keep the two groups separate.

1. The charge of affray arises from the events that then followed.
2. The Youth Justice worker entered the B-wing area and spoke to the group to try to defuse the situation once more. However, members of the groups responded by saying, 'Allow it, if it doesn't happen today, it will happen tomorrow'.
3. At 7.26pm, the Youth Justice worker opened the laundry storeroom so your group could begin cleaning up. Instead, you and three co-offenders began arming yourselves with vacuum poles, brooms and mop handles found in the storeroom. At the point you began arming yourselves, staff in the control centre directed the Youth Justice workers to retreat into the secure staff area, which they did.
4. The group asked whether SERT members were coming to the unit. At 7.41pm, you removed your earrings and placed them in a disposable glove in anticipation of a confrontation with SERT members.
5. After this you and three co-offenders continued to raid the storeroom before pacing the lounge area of the unit armed with poles. The group kept watch at the window waiting for the SERT members to arrive.
6. You and the co-offenders poured cleaning detergent on the floor, obscured CCTV cameras with sauce to avoid detection, and broke lighting fixtures, causing glass to shatter across the floor. The group then began barricading internal doors with trollies, cushions and chairs.
7. SERT members attended at the courtyard of the unit and attempted to negotiate with the group but were unsuccessful and retreated. They returned a short while later to re-engage in negotiations but the group responded by attempting to incite the SERT members to enter the unit for a physical confrontation. The SERT members retreated again.
8. Approximately two hours later, at 9.53 pm, two Youth Justice workers returned to the unit to attempt to negotiate with your group, unsuccessfully offering tablet devices to de-escalate the situation. You and the co-offenders continued to demand that SERT members return to the unit so that you could 'fuck them up'. By this time the Youth Justice workers were aware that all SERT members had finished their shifts and had left the facility.
9. After a lengthy discussion, one of the co-offenders agreed to be escorted back to his room. Youth Justice workers accompanied him to the door which the co-offender held open for the other members of the group to enter. He then demanded that the two Youth Justice workers also enter.
10. While the co-offender held the door open, you and the other co-offenders approached the two Youth Justice officers holding the improvised weapons, raising them in the air. You had covered your face and were wearing gloves and an apron at this point. The group of you encircled the Youth Justice workers, holding your weapons while hitting the windows and yelling in an attempt to intimidate the staff.

1. The charges of intimidating law enforcement officers arise from the threats you then made.
2. Brandishing your weapon, you threatened the Youth Justice workers if they did not open the door to the secure staff area, stating 'Get in here or we're going to fuck you up'. Two other co-offenders made similar threats. Still armed, you approached one of the staff in a menacing manner repeating, 'You heard what he fucking said, you better open that door or we're going to fuck you over'.
3. In fear the Youth Justice workers walked to the secure staff area conscious that that there were no SERT members on site. You and the co-offenders followed while threatening to assault one of the Youth Justice workers if he did not open the door. Once the door to the staff area was opened, you entered the area. A co-offender holding two metal poles demanded that the staff open the secure door leading to the staff area. However, while you and two of the co-offenders were distracted, the two Youth Justice workers quickly left the area.
4. Between 11.00pm and 5.00am on 28 September 2023, the group attempted to conceal their identity using head and face coverings. As stated, you had already covered your face.
5. Over the course of the next six hours the group caused $14,000 worth of damage to the Latrobe unit. Collectively you:

(a) broke fire sensors, triggering the fire alarm and sprinklers, causing flooding and significant water damage;

(b) damaged internal power supplies, internal access doors, fixtures and settings across the unit; and

(c) destroyed furniture, computer systems and internal structures.

1. At approximately 4:13am, after ongoing negotiations had failed, OC spray was released into the unit enabling staff to remove the group of you from that unit.
2. The damage left the Latrobe unit uninhabitable, requiring staff to move all occupants to other units.

1. The third incident of offending occurred five days later, on 3 October 2023 at Malmsbury.
2. On that date you, in company with 12 co-offenders, engaged in terrorising and riotous conduct at Malmsbury over the course of two hours.
3. You were one of five adults in the group and were 18 years old at the time of the offending. The other four adult co-offenders were aged between 18 and 19. The remaining co-offenders were under 18 at the time and have subsequently been sentenced in the Children's Court.
4. Broadly speaking, the offending occurred in the context of ongoing tensions and hostilities between separate 'youth gangs' and their affiliated members. To manage these tensions various members of the opposing gangs had been placed in separate units at Malmsbury.
5. The 13 co-offenders were amongst those placed in either the Monash or Deakin units at Malmsbury. You and two other adult co-offenders, MA[1] and Isaac Hindmarsh, were placed in the Deakin unit. The victims targeted in the offending, including 17-year-old Atem Juma,[2] and 18-year-old David Buol[3] were placed separately in the Topaz unit at Malmsbury.
6. On 3 October 2023, young people housed in the Monash unit were scheduled to be relocated to the Cherry Creek Youth Justice Centre. During this process an altercation took place between SERT members and two of the child co-offenders. As a result, those two were placed in holding cells.
7. While being transferred back one of the child co-offenders walked past you and a group in the Deakin unit courtyard and told you that the other co-offender had been 'violated' by a SERT member.
8. Approximately 30 minutes later, one of the child co-offenders was transferred back to the B wing of the Monash unit but refused to enter his room.
9. The child co-offender spoke to a group gathered in the lounge area of the Monash unit through the doorway. When it became apparent that they would not be transferred to Cherry Creek, the group became agitated. Three of the co-offenders armed themselves with various items including a broom and vacuum cleaner pole, forcing two Youth Justice workers to flee to the 'fishbowl' area. Two of the group broke the fire alarm and sprinkler, setting off the alarm. At approximately 3.23 pm, three co-offenders began changing their clothes, covering their faces and began to 'fortify' the Monash B Wing unit corridor.
10. One of the co-offenders confronted Youth Justice worker, Jodie Spadano, grabbing her by the shirt while pointing a sharpened pen at her. He threatened to kill her if she did not give him the keys to the internal door separating the junction between the two wings of the Deakin unit. In fear Ms Spadano handed him the keys which the co-offender used to allow MA to enter. Others then demanded the security swipe from Ms Spadano and attempted to take her swipe and radio before she was able to escape behind a secure entry door.
11. Five co-offenders then ran into the Deakin B wing, arming themselves by snapping off the heads of brooms and mops. Witnessing this escalation from the fishbowl, the Youth Justice workers fled the area through a staff door.
12. At this point you and Mr Hindmarsh joined the group and also began arming yourselves with poles. Armed with your makeshift weapons, the seven co-offenders, including you, unlocked the secure entry door to the Deakin B wing corridor and ran towards the Monash unit where other members of the 'gang' were located.

1. At approximately 3.57pm, the seven Deakin unit offenders, including you, Mr Hindmarsh and MA, arrived at the secure entry door to the Monash unit. The door was unlocked and the group united with the six co-offenders in the Monash unit. You all began cheering, handshaking and hugging.
2. From this point onwards the violent disorder commenced and continued until the group began to be apprehended by staff at 6.01 pm. During that two-hour period, the co-offenders both threatened and used unlawful violence with the common goal of disrupting the operations of the Youth Justice Centre and in doing so caused injury to others and extensive damage to the facilities at Malmsbury. Within the course of that violent disorder, other specific offences were committed. You were complicit in that other offending.
3. After joining together, the co-offenders used the stolen internal keys to enter the Monash unit 'fishbowl' area where they continued to change clothes and cover their faces. A member of the group stole a tablet device (later used to film the offending) and suggested that the group 'Go get Atem', a reference to 17-year-old Atem Juma. The group left the area armed with broken brooms, mops and a fire extinguisher.

1. Due to the earlier incidents, Malmsbury was in 'lockdown' and all residents of the Topaz unit had been returned to their cells. There were four Youth Justice workers present in the unit. When they became aware the group were heading to the unit, they barricaded themselves inside a manager's office using office furniture to hold the door closed.
2. Another group of Youth Justice workers and teachers based in the Education Building saw the group, masked and carrying poles, running towards the Topaz unit. The teachers collected scissors from within the office and locked themselves inside a toilet, placing the scissors inside the cistern to avoid them being accessed.
3. At 4.10pm the group of you used the stolen keys to enter to the Topaz unit 'fishbowl' and discovered the location of Mr Juma's unit, 'D1', written on the whiteboard. A member of the group yelled 'D1' repeatedly and urged the group to 'whoop his arse badly'. The group then walked towards D1, banging on other unit doors as you passed.
4. You used the stolen keys to unlock the door to Mr Juma's cell. In company with the 12 co-offenders, you entered and immediately began to assault Mr Juma using the improvised weapons, hitting and stabbing him repeatedly. He managed to crawl out of the room while being assaulted before running to the exit wearing only his underwear.
5. All 13 of you gave chase, but you stopped at the door of 'D2' where you saw

18 -year-old David Buol inside. You called for the co-offenders to return. Two of the co-offenders stopped chasing Mr Juma and returned to cell 'D2'. One of the co-offenders opened the door to the cell. The three of you entered; you and another wielded sharpened broom sticks while the other co-offender carried the fire extinguisher. The three of you immediately began to assault Mr Buol who screamed while he was being struck with the makeshift weapons before running out of his cell. 6. Mr Buol was then cornered in the 'multipurpose room' and told you that he did not want 'beef'. You told him to drop the 'jook', which he did, before the three of you continued to assault him including spraying him with the fire extinguisher. He ran from the room into room 'D1' where he picked up a broom stick. He was then confronted by you and the two co-offenders in the lounge area. 7. You then stabbed Mr Buol approximately six times with a small handheld implement, causing him to fall to the floor, while a co-offender continued to spray him with the fire extinguisher. Mr Buol attempted to protect himself while you and the co-offender began striking him with the mop and broom sticks. You stood over Mr Buol taunting him, feigning further stab strikes, while the other

co-offenders returned to join the rest of the group who remained with Mr Juma. 8. You pointed the broom stick at Mr Buol demanding he tell you, 'who won', and to 'say it', until he replied, 'you'. 9. The other co-offenders re-entered the lounge area where Mr Buol was lying on the ground clearly in pain. The group took turns striking his head and body with the improvised weapons, stabbing, kicking and stomping on his head and body. One of the co-offenders poured a drink over him before striking him to the face with a pole. 10. Most of the group then left to search for another inmate but you and Mr Hindmarsh remained behind, standing over Mr Buol pointing towards cell 'D2'. When Mr Buol attempted to stand, Mr Hindmarsh kicked him forcefully to the face causing him to fall forward. You then ran towards him screaming, 'move your fucking bitch ass'. Mr Buol ran into cell 'D2' and you followed. You were joined by the other co-offenders who joined in a further assault on Mr Buol for approximately five minutes. Mr Buol screamed in pain as he was assaulted. 11. In the meantime, the rest of the group had chased Mr Juma to the fishbowl area and continued to assault him as he lay on the floor. At 4.21pm, when he believed the group had left the Topaz unit, Mr Buol also fled to the fishbowl area where he hid under a table with Mr Juma.

1. The 13 co-offenders left the Topaz unit and ran to the Education Building where the Youth Justice workers and teachers had locked themselves inside the toilet.
2. You, together with seven co-offenders, located them and demanded that they open the door to the toilet. The group told them they would not be hurt but demanded they hand over their keys, threatening to break down the door. In fear the staff opened the door wide enough to pass out their keys, radios, belts and swipes.
3. The group then walked to the Central Administration Building and tried to use the keys and swipes to unlock the pedestrian door of the sallyport to access the 'senior' sides of Malmsbury where another inmate was located but were unable to do so.

1. At approximately 4.38pm, the group returned to the Education Building, again demanding that the Youth Justice workers and teachers come out of the toilet. The stolen fire extinguisher was then sprayed through the vent. As a result, the eight staff members inside the toilet were unable to breathe properly and left the toilet. The group demanded the victims sit at a table and then locked them inside the Education Building, falsely imprisoning them.

1. At approximately 4.47pm, the 13 co-offenders re-entered the Topaz unit where 17-year-old Jay Edwards[4] and 21-year-olds Travis Lynch[5] and Adam Hansen [6] were located.
2. Mr Hansen was located in cell 'B3' where the door was unlocked. He was made to turn out his pockets and leave the room and sit in the lounge area.
3. Mr Lynch was found in cell 'B2'. The group entered his room where the door was unlocked and assaulted him with the improvised weapons. Mr Lynch was removed from the room with blood covering his forehead. He was struck to the face with a weapon and made to sit in the lounge area with Mr Hansen.
4. The group then surrounded the door to Mr Edwards's cell, 'B1', and demanded that he come out. When he refused, Mr Edwards was struck with an improvised weapon and began attempting to push the co-offenders out of his doorway. The group of offenders entered Mr Edwards's cell and continued to strike him. The group then held the door to 'B1' closed.

1. The door to 'B1' was opened by MA, allowing you to spray the victim with the stolen fire extinguisher before shutting and locking Mr Edwards inside the room. By your guilty plea you acknowledge that your reckless conduct endangered the victim and that a reasonable person would have realised these actions placed the victim at risk of serious injury or may have done so.

1. The violent disorder continued when Mr Edwards was told to come out of the room. He initially refused before coming out to sit in the lounge area. He was then struck to the head with a pole and told to move to the other end of the lounge area. As he did so, Mr Hindmarsh punched Mr Edwards to the back of the head causing him to stagger. He was then chased out of the area while being assaulted with the improvised weapons and told to go into cell 'B2'.
2. As the taunting continued Mr Edwards was again assaulted with improvised weapons before he used a broken vacuum cleaner pole to defend himself, waving it at the group. He was then threatened, being told to 'put that down or we'll fuck you up real shit'. He then put the pole down on the table. As he did so, Mr Edwards was punched to the head and surrounded by three co-offenders who kicked him to the head and dragged him into cell 'B1'. He was then forced back into cell 'B2', where Mr Lynch remained, before the door was closed and locked.
3. Twelve of the group then began looking for Mr Juma, while one of the group attended the Education Building where he told the Youth Justice workers and teachers they could leave the building.

1. At approximately 5.01pm, Mr Juma was found hiding behind a rubbish bin at the rear of the Programs Building opposite the Topaz unit and tried to run away from the group. Mr Buol ran around the exterior of the Topaz unit, attempting to avoid the 13 co-offenders.
2. Mr Juma stopped running outside the back of the Topaz unit and held his hands up, signalling that he was surrendering to the group. Despite doing so, Mr Juma was struck directly to the head with a pole with sufficient force that he fell to the ground. He placed his hands over his head as he was repeatedly struck to the head and body by the co-offenders using poles and improvised weapons. He was sprayed with the stolen fire extinguisher and his hair was ripped out in chunks.
3. Mr Juma was forced to display his bleeding and swollen face to a 'Zoom' call made by one of the group, while his hair was again ripped out. The group made him repeat the words, 'fuck East Side' which he did to the cheers of the co-offenders and others on the link. The victim was also forced to display the symbol of the 'West Side' gang with his hand.
4. In the meantime, Mr Buol was cornered between the group assaulting Mr Juma and the perimeter fence. You ran towards him brandishing a sharp implement. Mr Buol indicated that he was surrendering by sitting on the ground. Despite this, Mr Hindmarsh approached and kicked Mr Buol with force to the head causing him to fall backwards. Mr Hindmarsh grabbed Mr Buol by the hair and pulled him into a sitting position before kicking him again to the face. You, together with Mr Hindmarsh and four co-offenders, then joined in kicking and stomping on Mr Buol's head as well as stabbing at him with poles and makeshift weapons.
5. Mr Buol was repeatedly dragged to his feet before being punched and kicked to the head. He was then led to where Mr Juma was lying on the ground and placed in a headlock. In this position he was repeatedly punched to the face, kneed and kicked to the head by members of the group and was sprayed with the fire extinguisher causing him to fall to the ground.
6. As he lay on the ground, the group took it in turns to take running jumps and stomp on Mr Buol's head with both feet, using significant force. Mr Buol was then struck repeatedly with the stolen fire extinguisher to his head until he stopped moving. Mr Buol lay on the ground, unmoving and apparently unconscious, while members of the group began slapping him saying words to the effect, 'wake up, wake up', 'bye-bye', and 'anyone home?'
7. This is the conduct that is the subject of the charge of reckless conduct endangering life. By your guilty plea to this charge, you acknowledge that a reasonable person engaged in this conduct would have realised that they were placing the victim at an appreciable risk of death or may have been doing so.
8. As a result of the sustained assault on Mr Juma, he suffered a complete avulsion and loss of three upper teeth and a fracture to one of his lower teeth, fractures to his nasal bridge and left nasal bone, in addition to lacerations to his head, face, lip and back, swelling of his face, scalp, and possible concussion.[7] The dental injuries are permanent serious injuries.
9. Arising from your participation in the repeated assault on Mr Juma, you have pleaded guilty to the offence of recklessly causing serious injury on a complicity basis. You acknowledge that you were aware your conduct would probably cause the victim serious injury and went ahead regardless of that probability.

Produce intimate image - David Buol kissing Atem Juma

1. Mr Juma remained on the ground covering his head while his ripped-out hair was displayed. He was taunted while the incident was live streamed via a 'Zoom' call. A co-offender attempted to rip off his shorts and underwear while the group demanded he take off his clothes. He was dragged by his hair to his feet before being dropped back to the ground while co-offenders and 'Zoom' participants shouted 'make him 'get sturdy'', a reference to a popular dance.
2. Mr Juma was told to stand and take his pants off which he did while being filmed. He was then made to remove his underwear and dance which he did while attempting to cover his exposed penis. The co-offenders laughed and jeered and when Mr Juma stopped dancing repeatedly told him to 'keep going'. This is the subject of the charge of producing an intimate image of Mr Juma dancing naked.
3. Mr Buol was brought over and made to stand next to Mr Juma. Both were held by the hair and slapped and punched in the head while members of the group screamed at them to sing, dance and kiss their feet. A co-offender held Mr Juma and dug his fingers into the area where his hair had been pulled out causing him to scream out in pain. He was pushed to the ground and made to kiss the feet of an offender.
4. The group then demanded that Mr Buol kiss Mr Juma which the group filmed on the iPad, broadcasting this to 'Zoom' participants. This is the subject of the further charge of producing an intimate image of Mr Buol and Mr Juma kissing.

False imprisonment - Youth Justice worker, Jenna Lyon

1. At approximately 5.14pm, the 13 co-offenders returned to the Education Building where the Youth Justice workers and teachers remained. The group made them form a line outside the building and walk towards the secure entry gate. Once there the co-offenders chose Youth Justice worker, Ms Jenna Lyon, to accompany them to the gate. One of the teachers from Parkville College, Mr David Seddon, volunteered to accompany her.
2. As the group approached the gate, SERT members formed a blockade to prevent you all from accessing the door to the sallyport. In response the co-offenders began yelling, 'get back inside or we'll hurt someone'. The SERT members retreated to the Administration Building.
3. The group demanded that Ms Lyon use her swipe pass and fingerprint to open the door to the Administration Building. When the door opened one of the group yelled_, 'grab her, grab her'_ to stop Ms Lyon getting away. A co-offender responded by placing a sharp implement to Ms Lyon's throat.
4. Observing the SERT members were re-forming outside the Administration Building, you approached Mr Seddon from behind. You then grabbed hold of him and held an engraving tool to his neck.[8] Mr Hindmarsh punched Mr Seddon to the face saying, 'Get back inside or we'll hurt someone'. When the SERT members did not withdraw Mr Hindmarsh punched Mr Seddon to the face again.
5. The 13 co-offenders ran towards the secure entry point while being chased by SERT members. Ms Lyon used the now open Central Administration Building door to escape, ending her false imprisonment. Mr Seddon also fled.

1. At approximately 5.29pm, the 13 co-offenders re-entered the Education Building and began barricading the entry points with furniture. A Youth Justice worker and four teachers were told to 'get up against the wall' as SERT members surrounded the building and sprayed OC spray into the building. The group demanded that the Youth Justice workers and teachers 'get into the spray'. You pushed one of the Youth Justice workers into the spray. As they moved towards the door and the spray, SERT members opened the door allowing the staff to flee.
2. Between 5.30pm and 6.01pm, the group of you refused to leave the building and continued throwing chairs, violently resisting despite the deployment of OC spray. By 6.01 pm, all 13 co-offenders had been forcibly removed from the building, ending the incident.

1. The victims, Mr Juma and Mr Buol were both found lying in foetal positions on the floor. Mr Juma who was located in the laundry was not moving and was covered in blood with swollen eyes. When staff arrived, he asked if the offenders were gone. Mr Juma was then transferred to Bendigo Hospital.
2. Mr Buol was found locked in cell 'B1' where he was located curled into a ball on the floor crying, soaking wet and covered with fire extinguisher powder. His face was swollen and was also covered in blood. He was transferred to Royal Melbourne Hospital and treated for fractured fingers, a lacerated lip, blurred vision in his left eye, in addition to extensive bruising to his face, forearms and back.[9]
3. Mr Edwards, Mr Lynch and Mr Hansen were found locked in their cells. Mr Lynch was taken to Bendigo Hospital for his bleeding forehead to be treated. Mr Edwards was offered first aid treatment. Mr Hansen was not physically injured.
4. Extensive damage, estimated at $40,000, was caused to the Malmsbury facility, requiring urgent repairs to the electrical, plumbing and critical operating systems.

1. Before considering your personal circumstances, I want to say something about the nature and gravity of your offending.
2. Because you are being sentenced on a complicity basis in respect of the shooting incident on 2 July 2022, the law regards you as equally culpable with the co-offender for the offence of intentionally causing injury. Self-evidently this was serious offending and the injuries sustained by the victim were significant, requiring surgery and hospitalisation for ten days. Although no victim impact statement was provided, this could only have been a terrifying ordeal for Mr Neil and those present in his home.
3. Although you are to be sentenced on a complicity basis, it is nonetheless necessary to examine the role you played in this offending. Your role was limited to driving the co-offender to the premises, knowing that a firearm was in the vehicle. You did not handle the firearm in any way. The moral culpability of the principal offender who shot the firearm directly at the victim is far greater than yours.
4. However, the fact you were a prohibited person in possession of a firearm that was used for a criminal purpose and which you knew would be used in some way by the co-offender to settle a grievance, makes this a serious example of that offence.
5. The offence of violent disorder arising from the events of 3 October 2023 is directed at the conduct of the group of offenders, who together, used or threatened unlawful violence with the common goal or intention of disrupting the operations of the Malmsbury Youth Justice Centre. It follows that when assessing the gravity of this offence, it is not appropriate to consider the acts of the individual participants in isolation. A person who engages with others in a violent disorder bears responsibility for the collective harm and damage caused.
6. It is troubling that you actively engaged in the violent disorder so soon after your involvement in the affray at Malmsbury in September 2023. This demonstrates a propensity for violence by you when in custody. It is notable that your involvement in the affray in September 2023 continued despite repeated efforts of Youth Justice workers to intervene and defuse the situation. You then threatened staff while armed.
7. Returning to the offending on 3 October 2023, there are many features of the violent disorder that mark its gravity:
   • acting as a group, you and the co-offenders engaged in violent, terrorising and riotous conduct over the course of two hours. Although the events evolved reasonably spontaneously at first, acting together, the group quickly made a concerted effort to gain access to keys and security swipes and to fashion mops and brooms into weapons.
   • the use and possession of these items as weapons throughout the incident, as well as the stolen fire extinguisher, is an aggravating feature that seriously elevates the seriousness of the group's offending.
   • conscious of the criminality of your conduct, you and the co-offenders took steps to avoid detection, including disabling cameras and covering your faces.
   • the fact that it occurred in a Youth Justice facility where you and the co-offenders were either detained or remanded, further aggravates the offending. Youth Justice Centres are very different to adult prisons. They are established to provide programs and facilities, including education aimed at supporting the rehabilitation of the young people detained there. General deterrence is particularly significant given the offending occurred in a custodial environment.
8. In this case you are to be sentenced for the aggravated form of the offence of violent disorder and the higher maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment applies given that you and others were wearing face coverings, which can only have acted to add to the terrorising effect of the conduct of the 13 co-offenders.
9. You played a prominent role in the offending, particularly once the group determined upon locating and targeting Mr Juma, Mr Buol and others as part of an ongoing vendetta between opposing gangs. Your specific role included:
   • using the stolen keys to unlock the door and enter cell 'D1' with the co-offender's intent on assaulting Mr Juma, armed with improvised and sharpened weapons.
   • initiating an attack on Mr Buol after seeing him in cell 'D2', which you then entered holding a sharpened broomstick.
   • playing a prominent role in the sustained physical attack on Mr Buol, including repeatedly stabbing him with a sharp implement at a time he was vulnerable having been sprayed with the fire extinguisher powder by a

co-offender. * spraying Mr Edwards with the stolen fire extinguisher before closing the door, recklessly endangering serious injury. 10. You, together with the co-offenders, participated in the pack attack on Mr Juma and Mr Buol, both of whom were defenceless, unarmed, and who, after trying to evade the group, put up no resistance. The cowardly attack continued even when the victims were in foetal positions on the ground. The level of violence directed at these two victims was truly shocking. The attacks were relentless and vicious. As observed by Taylor J in the case of Tafa involving a violent disorder_:_

'Bravery is not demonstrated, nor respect found in pack behaviour. Being a member of a gang masks cowardice. True courage is shown by stepping away from a group bent on unlawful, violent behaviour, and indeed, by opposing it'.[10]

1. The serious injury suffered by Mr Juma, being the loss of his three front teeth, is not at the upper end of the spectrum of serious injuries. However, the seriousness of the offending is elevated because it occurred over the course of extensive and ongoing violence directed at Mr Juma, in company, and at times when he was clearly vulnerable.
2. It was a matter of luck that the victims were not more seriously injured.
3. The aggravated burglaries were all targeted. Each room was entered while armed with weapons with the intention of injuring the victims inside their cells, as is clearly demonstrated by the violence inflicted by the group once entry had been achieved. In addition to the assaults inflicted on the victims, the group engaged in various acts intended to humiliate and degrade them, such as having Mr Juma dance naked and forcing the victims to kiss while they were filmed and taunted.
4. The armed robbery and false imprisonment of the Youth Justice workers and teachers would have been particularly terrifying for those victims given the context in which those offences occurred. I have had regard to the information provided by the prosecution in its submissions regarding the impact on those victims. Two of the teachers employed by Parkville College to provide education to young people provided statements in which they spoke of the fear they experienced, not knowing how they lived through it, with one teacher requiring psychological treatment for PTSD after these events. Youth Justice worker, Jodie Spadano, stated she thought her life was going to end that day. These staff play a vitally important role in Youth Justice facilities. They are entitled to be safe.
5. Overall, your moral culpability for your role in the offending is significant.

1. I turn to your personal circumstances, much of which I have drawn from the psychological report of psychologist, Mr Warren Simmons, who assessed you on 25 July 2025 for the purposes of your plea.[11]
2. You were born in March 2005 and are now 20 years old. You are experiencing adult custody for the first time.
3. You were born in Melbourne and lived the first ten years of your life in Collingwood. Your father is of Ethiopian descent but was born in Sudan. Your mother worked as a nurse as you were growing up. You are the only child born of their relationship.
4. You report being exposed to your father's drug use and domestic violence in the home during your childhood. Your parents separated when you were ten, after which you moved with your mother to Craigieburn. You told Mr Simmons that after this move your mother suffered from significant periods of psychosis, requiring hospitalisation in a psychiatric unit. When your mother was absent you would live with your maternal grandmother. However, as your offending increased from the age of 14, child protection services became involved and you were removed from your home and placed in residential care. You report absconding from residential care on a frequent basis.
5. You told Mr Simmons that it was 'exciting' when you would see your father but that he would then disappear for long periods. You understand that your father was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment for the offence of manslaughter and was released on parole 12 months ago. At the time of your father's release, you were already on remand and have had limited telephone contact with him since. You have two half siblings on your father's side but have no relationship with them.
6. You attended primary school in Collingwood and Craigieburn. You struggled with school, finding it hard to concentrate and to make friends. You would miss weeks of schooling and were often suspended. You completed Year 8 at Craigieburn Secondary School before moving to Ignatius Learning Centre, having been referred there following your release from Parkville Youth Detention Centre. However, by 17 you had ceased all formal education. You have not undertaken any further education or training and have never been employed.
7. You have had one significant relationship in your life. At the age of 15 you met a 20-year-old woman with whom you now have a two-year-old daughter. Your relationship lasted on and off for five years but was undermined by your mutual drug use. You began using cannabis at the age of 12 and by 15 you were regularly using methamphetamines. You began associating with others using a combination of drugs including methylamphetamine, cocaine, Xanax and other opioids. This continued up until a month before you were remanded. Your former partner is now abstinent from all drug use and your relationship has ended. You have had no contact with your daughter while you have been in custody.
8. You have a relevant and concerning criminal history for your age, dating back to your earliest appearance in the Children's Court in September 2019. Your prior offending includes possessing controlled weapons and prohibited weapons without excuse, criminal damage, affray, reckless conduct endangering serious injury, unlawful assault, assault with a weapon, burglary, theft and resisting an emergency worker on duty. Although most of your offending was dealt with by a 'without conviction' disposition, you have also failed to comply with previous probation and youth attendance orders imposed by the Children's Court.
9. On 16 July 2021, you were sentenced to an aggregate of 45 days' youth detention, with conviction, for a range of offences including two charges of burglary, three charges of theft, four charges of theft of a motor vehicle, affray, weapons offences and other dishonesty offences.
10. You also have a number of subsequent matters.
11. On 8 February 2024, you were sentenced by the Children's Court to an aggregate of 12 months' detention in a Youth Justice Centre for offences including aggravated burglary, theft, possessing a firearm contrary to a prohibition order.
12. On 2 April 2024 you were convicted and fined an aggregate of $2,000 for theft of a motor vehicle, driving while unlicensed, failing to report an accident to police, retaining stolen goods and possessing a prohibited weapon without excuse.
13. On 18 June 2024 you were sentenced by the Children's Court to 14 days' detention in a Youth Justice Centre for the offence of affray.
14. On 2 April 2025 you were sentenced to two days imprisonment for possession of a drug of dependence.
15. Although you are not to be punished twice with respect to these matters, they are relevant to your sentence and to my consideration of your prospects of rehabilitation.
16. You have now been in custody for a period of close to two years. You have been held on remand at Port Phillip Prison where you have been employed as a billet. You describe finding adult prison difficult. You have no further pending matters.

1. I now turn to the matters raised on your behalf in mitigation of your sentence.
2. You pleaded guilty to these offences following a sentence indication hearing before me.[12] You receive credit for the objective utilitarian benefit of saving the time and resources associated with a trial. This is a weighty consideration in this case as your guilty plea has saved the court from more than one trial in this matter involving many witnesses including the victim of the shooting incident, and in relation to the Malmsbury matters, Youth Justice and other staff. Through your guilty plea you accept responsibility for your role in each instance of offending.
3. Beyond the remorse inherent in your plea, there is no other indication of genuine remorse for your offending. Although the report of Mr Simmons was obtained in relation to this matter, given the charges had not resolved at the time of the psychological assessment, the circumstances of your offending were not explored with you. There is no other information before me which enables me to conclude that you are remorseful for your conduct. Your counsel did not suggest otherwise.
4. That is not to deny the practical benefit of your guilty plea. In relation to the shooting incident, no witnesses were questioned at committal and that matter proceeded directly to a sentence indication. There was significant forensic benefit in holding a contested committal in relation to the other matters which led to you being discharged on a number of offences with other charges subject to resolution discussions after a case conference in this court. I have treated your guilty plea on the Malmsbury matters as having been entered at the earliest practical opportunity once agreement was reached regarding the precise offences for which you are to be sentenced.

1. You were 17 years old at the time of your involvement in the shooting incident and 18 years old at the time of the two incidents in Malmsbury. In sentencing you, I take your youth and the need to allow for your rehabilitation into account. The principles that apply to youthful offenders moderate the need for the sentence to operate as a general deterrent.[13] Your youth is a significant factor that moderates the sentence to be imposed.
2. The law recognises that young people are more prone to rash, ill-considered actions and have less ability to control their impulses or to appreciate the seriousness and consequences of their actions. The effect of imprisonment in an adult prison, risks damaging rather than promoting a young person's prospects of rehabilitation. The mitigating effect of youth is of particular relevance in sentencing you for the offending on 22 July 2022 when you were 17. At that age the law regards you as a child.
3. At the time of the two incidents of offending in Malmsbury you had turned 18. At that age the law still regards you as a young offender.[14]
4. While the events within Malmsbury evolved spontaneously at first and your impulsivity will have played a role in your decision to become involved, you must have appreciated the seriousness of your ongoing riotous, threatening and violent conduct within the confines of the Youth Justice Centre over the two-hour period.
5. Although your youth remains an important consideration and requires greater emphasis to be placed on rehabilitation than would be the case for an older offender, the nature and gravity of this offending means that the importance of youth must yield to the considerations of general deterrence, denunciation and just punishment.

1. You experienced a dysfunctional and disadvantaged upbringing, being exposed to parental drug use and domestic violence from a young age. Following your parents' separation, you experienced periods of significant instability arising from your mother's poor mental health. After early periods living with your grandmother, child protection became involved and you were placed in residential care from a young age, from which you frequently absconded.
2. Your relationship with both parents is now fractured. You have not had any contact with your mother for the past 16 months.
3. Your counsel submitted that your background of disadvantage should be given weight in mitigation of sentence and in reducing your moral culpability. Reliance is placed on the general limb of the authority in Bugmy.[15] It was not submitted that the evidence establishes a causal link between your childhood deprivation and your offending, so as to enliven the specific limb of Bugmy.
4. Although the report of Mr Simmons only briefly outlines your childhood circumstances, I accept that you have established that you had a difficult childhood during which you experienced disadvantage, deprivation and instability. However, a deprived childhood 'does not necessarily result in a reduction in moral culpability' for offending as an adult.[16] The court must still assess the impact of childhood deprivation having regard to the nature of the offending and what the evidence establishes about the offender's capacity to exercise rational thought, their degree of impulse control and ability to exercise moral judgment at the time of the relevant conduct. There is little by way of expert evidence before the court about such matters.
5. Further, as the High Court explained in Bugmy, an inability on the part of an offender to control impulse or to exercise moral judgment 'may increase the importance of protecting the community from the offender'.[17]
6. On balance, I accept that your moral culpability for your offending 'cannot be equated with that of a person who committed the same offence[s] but had the advantage of a normal, stable and regular home environment during his or her childhood years'.[18] In that sense your childhood deprivation 'constitute[s] an important mitigating circumstance' in the determination of your sentence.[19] I have moderated the need for the sentence to operate as a general deterrent as a result.

1. During your assessment with Mr Simmons, he found no basis to conclude that you suffer any 'thought disorder or problems with perception'. His report noted an earlier diagnosis of ADHD and PTSD by Orygen Youth Health in September 2021.[20] Having conducted a PCL-5 PTSD checklist, Mr Simmons concluded that you have symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of PTSD. Mr Simmons did not expand on the nature of these symptoms beyond recording that your appetite is poor and that you struggle with concentration, memory and motivation. He states that you denied feeling irritable, hopeless or suicidal but noted that you are worried about your future.
2. Mr Simmons' report referred to an assessment by the Children's Court Clinic when you were 14 years old that indicated your intelligence fell within the borderline range.[21] Mr Simmons ultimately recommended that you receive a full neuropsychological assessment to determine whether you have any cognitive impairment. I raised the prospect of adjourning the plea hearing for such an assessment to take place but was informed by your counsel that he did not seek to adjourn the plea hearing for this to occur as there was no means of funding a neuropsychological report.
3. There is therefore no evidentiary basis to conclude that any of the limbs of the authority in the case of Verdins apply in mitigation of your sentence.[22]

1. I do, however, have regard to the fact that you are a young man experiencing adult custody for the first time with limited family support. This sense of isolation will only add to the burden of your imprisonment.
2. Following the events on 3 October 2023, there were immediate consequences for you. Between that date and 17 October 2023, you were placed in isolation for 116 hours. Although your time in lockdown was a direct result of your involvement in this offending, this does not mean that the added burden of your time in isolation during that period should not operate in mitigation of your sentence, and I have taken that period of isolation into account.[23]

1. At present it is difficult to assess your rehabilitation prospects in a positive light.
2. From a young age you have engaged in offending resulting in multiple appearances in the Children's Court between 2019 and 2021. You have not taken the opportunities provided to you to engage with Youth Justice under previous orders; having breached a probation order in August 2020 and separate youth attendance orders in January 2021 and July 2021. You have been sentenced to periods of youth detention for relevant offending, including affray, resisting an emergency worker on duty and possessing a prohibited weapon without exemption in July 2021.
3. Your involvement in a serious shooting incident, notwithstanding the fact you played a limited role, represents a significant escalation in your offending in the community.
4. You have subsequently been sentenced for offending that includes possessing a firearm contrary to a prohibition order, in addition to offences of aggravated burglary and theft, for which you were sentenced to 12 months' youth detention. This matter also has bearing on my assessment of your prospects of rehabilitation.
5. On the other hand, you are still youthful.
6. This is your first time in adult custody which should serve as an incentive to turn your life around. You hope to obtain work in construction upon your release.
7. Much of your offending prior to your remand was drug-related. Addressing your risk of further offending will also depend on your motivation to avoid a relapse into drug addiction into the future.
8. For now, I am guarded about your future prospects. Much will depend on you.

1. In submissions made on your behalf it was accepted that a period of imprisonment with a non-parole period fixed was the only available sentencing disposition. That submission must be accepted in order to give effect to the weighty sentencing considerations of general deterrence, just punishment and denunciation that arise in respect of violent offending, particularly whilst armed.
2. Others must be deterred by the sentence I impose from playing any role in gun-related violence in order to promote community safety. Those who possess firearms for a criminal purpose must understand that imprisonment terms will invariably follow from such offending, particularly where the offender is prohibited from possessing firearms.
3. Similarly, general deterrence must be given prominence in the sentences imposed for the violent disorder affray and other offences committed within Malmsbury. As highlighted by the sentencing submissions of the prosecution, the 'law of the jungle' cannot be permitted to take hold in Youth Justice Centres.
4. The sentence must also deter you from re-offending.

1. Generally, the sentencing principle of parity provides that where co-offenders are sentenced for the same crime or series of crimes, the sentences imposed on each offender should be proportionate to their role in the offending and to the matters personal to the offender that operate in mitigation of sentence.
2. In relation to the shooting incident on 2 July 2022, the co-offender has not been identified.
3. Four of the co-offenders involved in the affray at Malmsbury on 27 September 2023 were aged between 16 and 17 at the time of the offending. For the offences of affray and two rolled-up charges of intimidation of law enforcement officers, in addition to a charge of violent disorder, which I note does not apply to you in respect of this offending, the co-offenders were sentenced by the Children's Court to between six and seven months' detention in a Youth Justice Centre.
4. Of the 13 co-offenders involved in the violent affray and other offences at Malmsbury on 3 October 2023, eight of the child co-offenders aged between 15 and 17 at the time of the offending, have been sentenced by the Children's Court. They received sentences ranging from 21 to 34 months' detention in a Youth Justice Centre to be served either concurrently or partially concurrently with other sentences already being served.
5. However, as these sentences were imposed in the Children's Court pursuant to the youth-specific sentencing considerations of the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005, the sentences imposed on those co-offenders are of limited relevance when considering the question of parity.[24]
6. On 15 September 2025, MA was sentenced to a total effective term of three years, two months and five days' imprisonment for his role in the offending on 3 October 2023. However, as stated in my sentencing remarks in that case, given he was serving a sentence of six years' imprisonment for unrelated offending, the principle of totality assumed far greater significance in his case. For that reason, I indicated that neither the individual sentences nor the total effective sentence imposed in his case should not be viewed as a guide to current sentencing practices, or as otherwise relevant for the purposes of parity with the other adult co-offenders.
7. The other adult co-offenders are yet to be sentenced.

1. In sentencing you, as far as it is possible to do so, I must have regard to current sentencing practices. Neither party was able to refer me to sentences imposed in the higher courts for the offence of violent disorder committed in similar circumstances.
2. The prosecution submitted that some guidance could be gained from the sentences imposed arising from the riot that occurred at the Metropolitan Remand Centre ('MRC') in June 2015. The prosecution fairly acknowledged that the riot at MRC was far more serious in many aspects in that it was planned, lasted up to 16 hours and involved damage to the facility in the vicinity of $7m. In contrast, however, the offending did not involve any serious injuries and you are facing additional charges.
3. With these limitations in mind, I have regard to the sentence of two years, five months' imprisonment imposed for the offence of riot in the case of DPP v Luca, of which 21 months was directed to be served cumulatively upon an earlier sentence, giving a total effective sentence of five years, three months' imprisonment.[25] In the case of Boreham, the offender was sentenced to 22 months' imprisonment for his role in the riot.[26]
4. I have also had regard to the sentence of nine months' imprisonment imposed in the case of Tafa, where a 22-year-old offender was sentenced for the offence of violent disorder.[27] In that case, in the context of gang-related conflict, the offender joined with nine male youths to threaten and use violence directed at the victim. During the assault the victim was dragged to the ground, punched, struck and kicked as he lay on the road. He was struck with a baseball bat and extendable baton and stabbed once to the chest. The offender was the only adult in the group and was described as 'the leader of the enterprise'.
5. In relation to the offence of recklessly causing serious injury, the prosecution referred me to the Court of Appeal decision in Ashdown v R,[28] and to the Sentencing Snapshot of the Sentencing Advisory Council ('SAC') for this offence. I have had regard to the sentence imposed in Ashdown, for which the offender was resentenced to three years, six months' imprisonment in a case where the victim sustained multiple facial fractures, requiring surgery to have her cheekbone plated and screwed. The offending in that case occurred in the context of family violence.
6. I have also had regard to the decisions of Russo v The King and DPP v Dow,[29] to which I was referred. In Dow the young offender was sentenced to two years, six months' imprisonment for recklessly causing serious injury where, without provocation, he punched the victim to the side of his face causing him to fall and lose consciousness. The victim suffered a fractured jawbone. Relevantly in that case the offender had two prior convictions for very similar offending for which he had been sentenced to 156 days' imprisonment and a community correction order ('CCO'). It was an aggravating feature of the offence that he was serving the CCO at the time of the offending.
7. I have had regard these cases and the sentencing statistics for the offence of recklessly causing serious injury. Broadly speaking, sentences of imprisonment involving non-parole periods tend to involve cases where more significant injuries are inflicted than is the case here. In its written submissions the prosecution conceded that if you were being sentenced only for this offence, a Youth Justice Centre order would have been open.
8. I also have regard to the SAC statistics in higher courts for the offence of reckless conduct endangering life. For males under 25, sentences for this offence include community correction orders, combination sentences, and in approximately 41 per cent of cases, imprisonment. The median term imposed was approximately two years imprisonment. This offence often arises in different circumstances than here, most commonly reckless driving endangering life or offending involving the discharge of a firearm.
9. While I have had regard to these cases, as always, every case must turn on its own facts and circumstances.

1. Finally, the principle of totality also applies to the sentence I am to impose in overlapping ways.
2. First, the principle of totality applies to the sentences of imprisonment imposed subsequent to this offending, but prior to 8 February 2024, totalling one year, one month and 26 days, and 16 days' imprisonment imposed subsequent to that date.
3. Notably, all pre-sentence detention prior to 8 February 2024 has been attributed to other matters. Accordingly, pre-sentence detention for this offending commences 8 February 2024, noting that 16 days' imprisonment have since been imposed.
4. Secondly, the totality principle applies to my consideration of the amount of cumulation to be ordered as between the charges for which you are to be sentenced, while reflecting the separate criminality of these offences and the impact on the various victims. I have been conscious to ensure that you are not to be doubly punished for the overarching offence of violent disorder which contemplates the use and threat of violence and other specific offending. In this context the prosecution conceded that a significant degree of concurrency between sentences was warranted, where appropriate.
5. Finally, the principle of totality applies to my consideration of the degree of cumulation to order as between the three incidents of offending, particularly in respect of the two incidents of offending in Malmsbury in September and October 2023.

1. There are no provisions that apply reversing the usual presumption of concurrency. This is not a 'prison offence' for the purpose of s16(3) of the Sentencing Act 1991.
2. However, a degree of cumulation between sentences is warranted to reflect the impact of your offending on separate victims and to reflect the distinct criminality of different offences, mindful of totality. In many respects the aggravated burglaries are subsumed into the riotous conduct. The assaults on the occupants in the cells are serious. Charges 9 and 10 capture very serious incidents of violence.
3. In respect of charge 10, the offence of recklessly causing injury to Mr Juma, you are to be sentenced on a complicity basis where the prosecution is unable to specify when the specific injury to Mr Juma was caused or how each offender contributed to the injury.
4. The sentence I have imposed on the overarching charge of violent disorder has been moderated to ensure that the total effective sentence reflects your role in the offending and its impact on the various victims.

1. Balancing the matters to which I have referred, while having regard to the maximum penalty for each offence, I now sentence you as follows.

1. In relation to the charges arising from the shooting incident on 2 July 2022, you are sentenced as follows:

(a) On Charge 1, causing injury intentionally, you are convicted and sentenced to 22 months' imprisonment. This is the base sentence on this indictment.

(b) On Charge 2, prohibited person possessing a firearm, you are convicted and sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment.

1. I direct that five months of the sentence imposed on Charge 2 be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed on Charge 1, giving a total effective sentence on Indictment Q12201622 of two years, three months' imprisonment.

1. In relation to the charges arising from the affray at Malmsbury on 27 September 2023, you are sentenced as follows:

(a) On Charge 1, affray (while wearing a face mask), you are convicted and sentenced to seven months' imprisonment. This is the base sentence on this Indictment.

(b) On Charges 2 and 3, being two rolled-up charges of intimidating a law enforcement officer, you are convicted and sentenced to an aggregate of six months' imprisonment.

1. I direct that two months of the aggregate sentence imposed on Charges 2 and 3 be served cumulatively upon the sentence impose on Charge 1, giving a total effective sentence on Indictment Q11683933 of nine months' imprisonment.

1. In relation to the charges arising from the events at Malmsbury on 3 October 2023, you are sentenced as follows:

(a) On Charge 1, violent disorder (while wearing a face mask), you are convicted and sentenced to two years' imprisonment. This is the base sentence.

(b) On Charge 2, aggravated burglary of cell 'D1', you are convicted and sentenced to two years' imprisonment.

(c) On Charge 3, aggravated burglary of cell 'D2', you are convicted and sentenced to two years' imprisonment.

(d) On Charge 4, a rolled-up charge of armed robbery, you are convicted and sentenced to two years' imprisonment.

(e) On Charge 5, a rolled-up charge of false imprisonment, you are convicted and sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment.

(f) On Charge 6, aggravated burglary of cell 'B1', you are convicted and sentenced to two years' imprisonment.

(g) On Charge 7, aggravated burglary of cell 'B2', you are convicted and sentenced to two years' imprisonment.

(h) On Charge 8, conduct endangering persons involving Jay Edwards, you are convicted and sentenced to 20 months' imprisonment.

(i) On Charge 9, conduct endangering life involving David Buol, you are convicted and sentenced to two years, three months' imprisonment.

(j) On Charge 10, recklessly causing serious injury involving Atem Juma, you are convicted and sentenced to two years, six months' imprisonment.

(k) On Charge 11, producing an intimate image, you are convicted and sentenced to four months' imprisonment.

(l) On Charge 12, producing an intimate image, you are convicted and sentenced to four months' imprisonment.

(m) And on Charge 13, false imprisonment of Jenna Lyon, you are convicted and sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment.

1. I make the following orders for cumulation on the sentence imposed on Charge 1 and upon one another:

(a) Two months of each sentence of imprisonment imposed on Charges 2, 3, 6 and 7.

(b) Two months of the sentence imposed on Charge 4.

(c) Two months of the sentence of imprisonment imposed on Charge 5.

(d) Three months of the sentence of imprisonment imposed on Charge 8.

(e) Five months of the sentence of imprisonment imposed on Charge 9.

(f) Five months of the sentence of imprisonment imposed on Charge 10.

(g) And two months of the sentence of imprisonment imposed on Charge 13.

1. This gives a total effective sentence of four years, three months' imprisonment on Indictment P12332440.

1. Conscious of the sentencing principle of totality, I make the following orders for cumulation on the sentence of four years, three months' imprisonment imposed in respect of Indictment P12332440, and upon one another:

(a) Five months of the sentence imposed on Indictment Q12201622; and

(b) Two months of the sentence imposed on Indictment Q11683933.

1. This gives a total effective sentence across the three indictments of four years, ten months' imprisonment. I fix a non-parole period of two years, nine months' imprisonment. This is the minimum period you must serve before you are eligible for parole. Whether you are granted parole is a matter for the Adult Parole Board.
2. Pursuant to s18 of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare that 640 days of pre-sentence detention be reckoned as already served under the sentence I have imposed.
3. Pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, I indicate that the sentence I would otherwise have imposed had you not pleaded guilty to each of these charges is a total effective sentence of six years, five months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years, ten months.

[7] Report of Dr Maryanne Lobo, Forensic Paediatric Consultant, VFPMS dated 2 December 2023

[8] This act is not the subject of a separate charge.

[9] Report of Dr Maaike Moller, forensic physician at the VFPMS dated 2 December 2023.

[10] R v Tafa [2022] VSC 466 at [47]

[11] Exhibit 1 - Psychological report of Mr Warren Simmons dated 29 July 2025.

[12] Sentence indication hearing on 12 August 2025.

[13] R v Mills (1998) 4 VR 235 at [242].

[14] Section 3(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991.

[15] Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 ('Bugmy')

[16] Kellway (a pseudonym) v The King [2023] VSCA 109 at [94]

[18] DPP v Drake [2019] VSCA 293 at [32]

[22] R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; (2007) 16 VR 269

[23] Yat v The King [2024] VSCA 93 at [85].

[24] Postiglione v The Queen [1997] HCA 26; (1997) 189 CLR 295.

[25] DPP v Luca [2016] VCC 1573

[26] DPP v Boreham [2017] VCC 1092

[27] R v Tafa [2022] VSC 466

[28] Ashdown v R [2011] VSCA 408

[29] Russo v The King [2024] VSCA 291; Director of Public Prosecutions v Dow [2020] VCC 1605.