Jake Hall, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a drug of dependence, one charge of conduct endangering life and three charges of possession of a drug of dependence.
You also pleaded guilty to six summary charges - possessing a prohibited weapon, failing to answer bail, unlicenced driving, possessing a dangerous article in a public place, failing a drug test and dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime.
The maximum penalties for these offences are set out in a footnote to these sentencing remarks and I will not read them all out now.[1]
On 22 June 2024 at 5.10 am, you were driving north on Oaklands Road, Oaklands Junction, when you were involved in a serious collision. Your car, with high beam lights on, veered onto the wrong side of the road and collided with two cars that were travelling south.
Oaklands Road is comprised of one lane in each direction, with a speed limit of 80 kilometres per hour. The weather was overcast with light drizzle, and good visibility. The only traffic was your car and the two with which you collided. One was driven by a taxi driver, Manmohan Singh, and the other by Saurabh Poddar, with three passengers.
Your car collided head-on with the car driven by Singh, who unsuccessfully swerved in an attempt to avoid the collision. That is Charge 2, conduct endangering life.
Your car then spun to the right, causing it to become horizontal across the traffic lanes. Poddar's car collided with your car, having also tried to swerve to the left.
There was extensive damage to all vehicles due to the high speed and high impact of the collision. Police and ambulance attended, and Singh was taken to hospital where he was examined and discharged the same day. He was found to have sustained spinal and lower back injuries, and whiplash to his torso and neck, for which he had physiotherapy. In a victim impact statement signed in March 2025, he stated that he still suffers pain and headaches, with symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder which prevent him from driving. He was referred by his general practitioner for mental health treatment.
Mr Poddar and his passengers all escaped injury. Neither he nor Singh tested positive to alcohol.
You told police at the scene that you had taken GHB and that there were drugs in the car. You were taken to hospital and a blood sample was taken. Analysis revealed it contained 0.37 milligrams of methylamphetamine per litre of blood, giving rise to summary Charge 19, failing a drug blood test.
The analysis also revealed diazepam and nordiazepam in your blood, and indications of past use of cannabis. GHB was not detected, indicating that it would have been eliminated from your body at that time.
At the scene you were wearing a ballistic vest, and were charged with possessing a prohibited weapon, which is summary Charge 10. The sum of $2,630 was in your possession, which is summary Charge 20.
In your car police found numerous items relating to trafficking methylamphetamine, which is Charge 1, trafficking in a drug of dependence. These items were four clear Ziploc bags containing methylamphetamine, a small round plastic container with a glass lid containing methylamphetamine, a black magnetic box containing methylamphetamine in a Ziploc bag and drug paraphernalia, including scales and deal bags.
Also found were a clear Ziploc bag containing cannabis, 30 tablets of diazepam in blister packaging, a clear Ziploc bag containing two ecstasy tablets and a plastic bag containing portions of tablets and MDMA powder. Those are three charges of possessing a drug of dependence, Charges 3, 4 and 5. A baseball bat in a duffle bag was also found in the car, which is summary Charge 15, carrying a dangerous article.
77 grams of the methylamphetamine was pure, so the amount was technically of a commercial quantity. MDMA was a traffickable quantity, and the cannabis was a small quantity.
After being discharged from hospital you were taken to the Broadmeadows police station, where you were interviewed. You said you had set out on a drive intending to commit suicide, although you had no plan, and would not have deliberately driven into a family. Nor did you intend to hurt anyone. You did not remember anything of the collision and thought that you had probably fallen asleep or passed out, because of 'having things in your system'.[2]
At the time you were on bail and you had failed to appear at court on 15 May 2024. You were charged with failing to appear on bail in respect of that matter. That is summary Charge 12. You were also unlicensed to drive at the time, which is summary Charge 13.
Mr Singh has provided a Victim Impact Statement in which he described how the accident has affected his whole life. He is unable to work and complete studies he had commenced, because of pain and overwhelming stress and fear of driving, amounting to post-traumatic stress disorder. He lost his business and has had financial difficulties as a result. He and his wife have had to abandon plans to start a family. He has had to give up activities he enjoyed, such as sport and walking. He said he has been through 8 months of hell, and there is no cure for his pain. He has consulted many specialists.
His new car was wrecked, and he is still dealing with the insurance company. He has been unable to attend family events overseas. He said he feels very isolated.
[3]
You are a 30-year-old single man, born in Melbourne and brought up in a family with considerable difficulties. Your father, now deceased, was a heroin addict who was in and out of prison during your childhood. You were exposed to drug use and began drinking to the point of intoxication, every day, from the age of 14. You were first charged with offending at age 15, and by 18 you had left home, a regular user of methamphetamine.
You succeeded in completing VCE at Pavilion College, an alternative education provider, when you were 18. After that you completed many TAFE certificates and a pre-apprenticeship in electrotechnology.
By the age of 18 you had also become the father to a daughter, who is now aged 12. You have lost contact with her. You also have a son aged one, born while you were on remand and you have not seen him since March. You have described your relationship with this child as being central to your motivation towards rehabilitation.
In that regard it is of relevance that you were sentenced by His Honour Judge Smallwood in May 2021, for attempted aggravated burglary, negligently dealing with the proceeds of crime and possession of a drug of dependence, namely cannabis, as well as several summary matters. You were sentenced to 26 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 months. You already had a significant criminal history, as His Honour described it, and His Honour told you that your rehabilitation was a matter for you. It appeared that you were then regarded as a relatively low risk of re-offending.
Unfortunately, you committed the present offences only a few months after your release from prison.
Mr Lewis has submitted on your behalf that the Bugmy principle applies in this case, that is, that the deprivation you experienced as a child should be taken into account in assessing your culpability. That principle is to the effect that the results of deprivation do not diminish over time, and may be considered as having played some part in the criminality before the court.
As I said before your father was a heroin addict who was often in prison while you were growing up, and he died of a heroin overdose. You were exposed to drug use during those years as well. You began drinking to the point of intoxication, as I said earlier, from the age of 14, and by the age of 18 you were using methamphetamine daily.
One of your early relationships was with a young woman whose family were all methamphetamine users, and whilst living in their home, you resumed your dependence. When that relationship ended acrimoniously, you reacted violently and were convicted of attempted aggravated burglary and sentenced to two years and two months in prison.
Your next relationship, with the mother of your son, also ended due to drug use, but she has continued to support you, together with your mother, and has visited you with your son, both in prison and at the residential program where you attended for some time.
These matters are addressed by the psychologist Ms Cidoni, who first assessed you in March this year, at the rehabilitation program at The Cottage in Shepparton. At that time you were about to leave The Cottage and commence the 12-week program in the community.
From the history you gave, Ms Cidoni identified unresolved trauma from your childhood, including exposure to parental drug abuse, domestic violence, and abandonment, although this was not in isolation from your drug dependence.[3] Ms Cidoni said you present with traits of borderline personality disorder which has links with your drug abuse and psychosocial instability.
She said your entrenched use of methamphetamine and other illicit drugs contributed to your significantly impaired mental state at the time of the offending. Your drug use has led to a chronic pattern of impaired decision- making, emotional dysregulation, and compromised impulse control.
She added:
[4]
Beyond the acute effects of intoxication, his psychological profile suggests longstanding difficulties with emotional regulation and impulse control, rooted in early developmental experiences marked by parental substance dependence, domestic violence and instability.[4]
[5]
This opinion is at odds with the submission by Mr Teo on behalf of the prosecution, that your deprived childhood has had no real impact on you. He submitted that there is no evidentiary basis linking your childhood deprivation with your offending.
I accept Ms Cidoni's opinion in this regard, and will apply some moderation to your sentence.
Ms Cidoni considered your prospects for rehabilitation were then moderate to good because of the protective factors such as your participation in residential rehabilitation reflecting a commitment to behavioural change. She said this indicates growing insight into your substance abuse and its role in your offending.
She also outlined the likely effects of imprisonment on your rehabilitation, given the interruption to your treatment. She considers that your progress would be significantly undermined, which would increase your risk of relapse, as has happened previously, and prophetically, what happened again.
As I said, Ms Cidoni's initial report was written just as you were completing the program at The Cottage. You commenced the 12-week program by enrolling in a TAFE course due to start on 5 July, but following a relapse and further offending you were remanded before that date. You were charged with possessing a firearm and possessing methylamphetamine.
In a further assessment on 5 August 2025, you told Ms Cidoni that having relapsed into drug use owing to a difficult relationship, you had returned to your mother's home in a depressed and suicidal state. She became concerned and called police, resulting in the charges, and the revocation of your bail. Ms Cidoni set out these matters in her Supplementary Report.
While in custody since then you have attended Narcotics Anonymous meetings and hope to be able to return to The Cottage and resume the 12-week program. You are disappointed in your failure to heed the instructions given to you at The Cottage, to avoid romantic involvement during early recovery, and you have found it difficult coming to terms with your relapse.
All other aspects of Ms Cidoni's opinions remain the same, except for the assessment of the risk of re-offending, which she now estimates as moderate to high, noting your rapid decline after discharge from the program. She said this emphasises the need for sustained community structure and close clinical oversight.
Whilst in custody this time you have completed two further courses, in addition to the two completed in 2024. It has been reported by the program facilitator that you engaged well, promoting a positive example to your peers. You are on a waiting list for other programs, and you remain motivated to change.
Your criminal history discloses breaches of Community Correction Orders, in the context of serving short combination prison sentences for a range of offences. When you were 19 you were dealt with for your first adult offending, and thereafter for a further set of various offences, as I said earlier. All of these were heard in the Magistrates' Court between 2014 and 2018, and were followed by the attempted aggravated burglary for which Judge Smallwood sentenced you in 2021.
Your adult life, and indeed your adolescent years have been marked by drug abuse, offending and incarceration. Ms Cidoni's observations and opinions drawn from your history bring into play the effects of your childhood deprivation and your recent attempts at drug rehabilitation indicating what I accept as your genuine motivation to change. It would appear that you are still strongly motivated, but the hurdles to achieving that are considerable. Your commitment to your drug treatment is at the higher level of engagement seen in cases involving drug dependence.
Your plea of guilty means you are entitled to a discount on your sentence, for having avoided a trial and spared witnesses from having to give evidence, which is also of assistance to the criminal justice system more broadly. Such a plea may be accepted as an indication of remorse, which may be relevant to your prospects for rehabilitation. You certainly expressed remorse for the harm caused by your driving, but not specifically in relation to trafficking. Nonetheless I must pay due regard to the remorse you have expressed, and I accept it as genuine, as well as being an acknowledgement of your responsibility for it and for the harm caused.
Mr Lewis submitted that a combination sentence of imprisonment followed by a Community Correction Order is open, taking into account your mitigating circumstances. He submitted that general deterrence and protection of the community have been partially addressed by your long period on remand, including the time spent at The Cottage where limitations on your freedom and other restrictions were imposed, and which you accepted voluntarily. I accept that this type of commitment can be recognised as the informal equivalent of custodial time, and I take that into account.
Mr Lewis conceded that a combination sentence is unusual in this type of case, but he said there are precedents for it.
Mr Teo on behalf of the prosecution submitted that a head sentence with a
[6]
non-parole period should be imposed. He submitted that the Bugmy principle did not apply, that there was no remorse for the charge of trafficking a relatively high amount of drugs, that you had failed your opportunity to rehabilitate yourself, and that as a result your prospects for rehabilitation must be very guarded.
16. I was referred to the sentence in Navaratnam v R[5], where the offender was badly injured in a high-speed collision caused by his own dangerous driving, in an attempt to end his life. Another driver was slightly injured. There was no trafficking charge, as there is in this case. Other differences were the COVID conditions in prisons at that time, the extra-curial punishment through the occurrence of his injuries and his prior knowledge of the effects of alcohol upon him. This also tended to negate any mitigation due to his depressive disorder.
17. However, it appears that the deprivations of his childhood were taken into account as having caused him to be vulnerable to anxiety and less able to cope with stressors, such as the marital difficulties which had led to heavy drinking. This did not amount to express acknowledgment of the Bugmy principles, but which nonetheless played some role.
18. That offender was sentenced to two years' imprisonment for reckless conduct endangering life, with a one year non-parole period. On appeal the sentence was held to be within range.
19. In your case, the Bugmy principle should be expressly recognised, as I said earlier. At the same time, your instructions are specifically that you wish to take responsibility for your offending, and you do not seek to justify it in any way.
20. I have also had regard to the relevant sentencing statistics which indicate most sentences for these offences are in the range of two to three years.
21. The two most serious charges in this matter are Charges 1 and 2, trafficking and the driving charge, conduct endangering life. I will be sentencing you to terms of imprisonment which will not allow the imposition of a Community Correction Order. However, I have applied considerable leniency in the individual sentences, the head sentence and the non-parole period, in recognition of your considerable efforts towards rehabilitation, even while your prospects appear somewhat guarded.
22. The need for general deterrence in respect of such serious offending, including the protection of the community, means that the undeniable importance of your rehabilitation must be put on hold.
23. Mr Hall, I sentence you to the following terms of imprisonment:
* For Charge 1, two years
* For Charge 2, three years
* For Charge 4, three months
* For Charge 5, 12 months
* For summary Charge 10, one month
* For summary Charge 12, three months
* For summary Charge 13, four months
* For summary Charge 15, three months
* For summary Charge 20, nine months.
24. For Charge 3, a fine of $300 and for summary Charge 19, a fine of $1,000. That is a total of $1,300.
25. The sentence for Charge 2 is the base sentence for the purposes of cumulation I order that six months of the sentence for Charge 1, three months of the sentence for Charge 5, one month of the sentence for summary Charge 13 and two months of the sentence for summary Charge 20, be served in cumulation upon the base sentence.
26. This results in a total effective sentence of four years. I order that you serve two years before being eligible for parole.
27. You have been in pre-sentence detention for 337 days. I declare that time to be reckoned as already served and I shall note that on the court record.
28. If you had pleaded not guilty to these charges I would have sentenced you to five years with a non-parole period of three years.
29. Your licence to drive is cancelled and you are disqualified from obtaining any further licence or permit for two years from today's date.
30. The prosecution seeks an order for the disposal of drugs and other items, and a forfeiture order in respect of the cash. Is there any objection to me making those orders, Ms Fastuca?
31. MS FASTUCA: Your Honour, just in relation to the forfeiture order, that is yes, not opposed. Just in relation to the pre-sentence detention - - -
32. HER HONOUR: Is my calculation wrong, 337?
33. MR CESCATO: Yes, Your Honour. You might have heard me whispering while Your Honour was sentencing and I apologise for that because we were discussing the pre-sentence detention.
34. HER HONOUR: Yes.
35. MR CESCATO: My understanding is it is now 359 days not including today. I don't think Your Honour has taken into account the days since the plea hearing.
36. HER HONOUR: I see, no, apologies for that. I have changed that now. Pre-sentence detention 359 days and that will be noted on the court record.
37. MS FASTUCA: Thank you.
38. HER HONOUR: Thank you for bringing that to my attention.
39. MR CESCATO: Thank you, Your Honour.
40. HER HONOUR: Are there any other matters?
41. COUNSEL: No, Your Honour.
42. HER HONOUR: Thank you.
• A penalty of not more than 30 penalty units or Level 8 imprisonment (1 year maximum) - if the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the offence was not committed by the person for any purpose relating to trafficking; or
[14]
• A penalty of not more than 400 penalty units or Level 6 imprisonment (5 year maximum)
[15]
• The accused was in possession of over 4.5 times the traffickable quantity of MDMA.