DPP v Hocking [2025] VCC 302

1. On Sunday 24 July 2022 a burglary occurred at Cypress Avenue, Glen Waverley. At approximately 2.00pm, CCTV cameras at the address captured you and your co-accused Nicholas Angelopoulos walking past the address. You then stopped and walked back to the address, following the gravel path up to the front door. Mr Angelopoulos knocked on the front door and waited for a short period of time before walking off. You waited at the front door.
2. Mr Angelopoulos then gained access to the back yard and walked along seeing if any of the doors were unlocked in an attempt to gain access to the house. He then used a small bar to jimmy the back door open, breaking the lock. He entered the house and unlocked the front door for you.
3. At 2:13pm, you made a phone call to second co-accused Mr Taranto. Mr Taranto drove down to the address and parked his 2007-grey Ford Territory station wagon registration ending 402 out the front of the address.
4. At the same time, Mr Angelopoulos exited via the front door carrying several bags. He placed the bags in Mr Taranto's vehicle and returned into the address. A few minutes later he left the address carrying a safe and placed it in Mr Taranto's vehicle.
5. You then exited the front door carrying several bags, also placing them in Taranto's vehicle before running back into the address. You exited again a minute later carrying another bag.
6. You and your two co-accused then left the address in the vehicle belonging to Taranto.
7. The victim, Jihong Zhong returned home a few hours later and found the front door open, the lock on the back door damaged and a large amount of her property missing which included high end handbags, jewellery, watches and personal documentation Her daughter, Minyuan Wang also had a large amount of her personal identity documents stolen. Zhong called the police assistance line and reported the burglary and later compiled a list of stolen items with a total value of approximately $35,000.

1. On Monday 25 July 2022 a burglary and theft of motor vehicle occurred at an address at Willow Avenue, Glen Waverley.
2. CCTV cameras captured co-accused Mr Taranto's vehicle driving down the street and stopping outside the address, then Mr Angelopoulos getting out from the rear passenger side seat and walking down the footpath towards a neighbouring address.
3. At 12:44pm, you got out of the passenger seat and walked up to the front door of the address, stood there for a short period of time before walking back down to the street. You then walked towards the neighbouring address.
4. Shortly thereafter Mr Taranto also exited the driver's seat of the vehicle and walked towards where you were.
5. At 12:58pm, Mr Taranto returned to his vehicle and got in the driver's seat. At 12:59pm, the victim's vehicle a black BMW sedan pulled out of the driveway of this address, turned left and drove off.
6. Mr Taranto pulled his vehicle into the street behind it and followed it down Willow Avenue. Your co-accused Mr Angelopoulos could be seen in the driver's seat in the stolen vehicle and you in the passenger seat.
7. At approximately 1:45pm the victims returned home and found the car missing as well as the front door open with obvious jimmy marks and a large amount of property stolen, including high end handbags, jewellery, watches, clothing, identification and personal documents and $1500 AUD, $40,000-$50,000 of Chinese yen and $10,000 Hong Kong dollars.
8. They compiled a list of stolen items and provided it to police, with the total of the stolen items adding up to approximately $118,272. LIU also estimated his vehicle that was stolen to be worth approximately $60,000.
9. On Tuesday 26 July 2022 at approximately 1:03am, Police were at the Knox International Hotel in Wantirna and conducted a registration check on a black BMW bearing (registration ending 038) that was parked at the hotel. The vehicle was listed as stolen from Glen Waverley on 25 July 2022.
10. Mr Taranto's vehicle (ending 402) was parked nearby. At 2:40am, the Mr Angelopoulos and Mr Taranto exited room 16, looked at the stolen vehicle and around the car park. Mr Angelopoulos opened the driver's door of the vehicle and started rummaging around and then walked over to the police vehicle and knocked on the window. He realised that it was police and turned and ran towards Mountain Highway, with police chasing him on foot. Mr Taranto walked back into the hotel room and closed the door.
11. Mr Angelopoulos was apprehended nearby in possession of a prohibited weapon and other items.
12. Police knocked on the door to room 16, which was opened by Samantha MEDINA. Police asked if Mr Taranto was in the room and was advised that he was. Police entered the room and placed Mr Taranto under arrest. You were also present in the room at the time.
13. A name check was completed on both you and Ms Medina and your identities were confirmed before you were told to leave the area as you weren't believed to be involved in any offending at that stage.
14. The room appeared to contain a large amount of property that appeared to have been stolen including handbags, different identity documents not in either accused's name, and prescription medication in the name of someone of Asian descent.
15. Police also located 2 large bags that were lying on the ground directly under the balcony of room 16, consistent with them having been thrown from the balcony of room 16. The bags contained a large number of high-end handbags, jewellery and clothing.
16. While waiting for the search warrant to be issued, checks were conducted on the property located at the base of the balcony and this property was confirmed to be stolen from the burglary at Willow Avenue, Glen Waverley.
17. A search of the room recovered a large amount of high-end clothing, handbags, watches, sunglasses, jewellery, car keys, identification, personal documentation, phones, suitcases and credit cards, along with a black Iphone belonging to Mr Taranto, the metal Safe stolen at Cypress Avenue, a bank card and passport stolen from Willow Avenue, Glen Waverley, and identity cards stolen during burglary at Cypress Avenue, Glen Waverley.
18. A further search of Mr Taranto's vehicle on 29 July 2022 located items stolen during the burglaries.
19. CCTV footage was reviewed of the burglaries and you were determined to be the female offender.
20. Enquires were made to locate you, as outlined in the prosecution opening. You were arrested at Charlotte Pass in Pakenham. Your phone was seized and interrogated recovering images connecting you to the burglaries.
21. While at Charlotte Pass, Pakenham the homeowner provided police with access to your possessions which were kept in the bedroom you were staying in. Police located in your possession 2 laptops, 2 new bank cards in another persons name, ANZ bank card in another name, prescription medication in another name, a shoebox containing a Samsung phone, a large amount of documentation and mail in the names of other people and a birth certificate in the name of another.
22. You were transported back to Ringwood Police Station for interview, where you made admissions to the two burglaries.
23. You were on one count of bail for the duration of the above offending and were bailed to live at an address at Kelburn Court, Berwick and had not been living at that address.

1. Your offending is inherently serious as indicated by the maximum penalties. The burglaries you were involved in were of residential properties and involved the violation of the residents privacy and security. I take into account the value of the thefts and that charge 4 in particular involved a large quantum of stolen goods.

1. While it is clear from the circumstances that your offending involved a degree of planning, I accept that it was relatively unsophisticated and that there was no attempt to disguise yourself. In my assessment of the offending I do take into account that you were on bail at the time.
2. As for your involvement in the offending, you instruct that you had been friends with Mr Angelopoulos for years and that you tended to use drugs together. You had been abstinent from drugs for a considerable period of time but relapsed in the context of losing custody of your daughter.
3. In relation to the offending generally psychologist Ms Gina Cidoni considers that your psychological state was significantly affected by the removal of your child, which you identified as a trigger for your relapse into methamphetamine use. Your substance use exacerbated your emotional instability and also reinforced maladaptive behaviours that contributed to your offending.
4. While I accept this and that you were experiencing some distress at the time, I do not consider your drug use to be a mitigating circumstance, as advanced on your behalf.

1. Your plea of guilty entitles you to an important sentencing discount. It has utilitarian benefit and is indicative of your remorse, willingness to facilitate the course of justice and acceptance of responsibility. I also take into account that upon your arrest you made admissions to the police.

1. There has been a substantial delay in the finalisation of this matter, which I do take into account. The delay in the case has occurred in the context of your personal circumstances and challenges, including your pregnancy, the health of your children and changing solicitors. The delay remains a relevant consideration and its relevance lies in the effect that it has had, however caused. I accept that this matter has been hanging over your head now for some time.
2. It has not been contended on your behalf that there is evidence of continued rehabilitation. I note there are outstanding criminal matters, some which postdate this offending, listed for a plea hearing in the Magistrates Court.
3. I do however take into account that within this time you have made some efforts to engage with services and restore some stability in your life. In the letter of 17/10/24 the CISP clinician notes that, even though you struggled considerably, you were genuine in your attempts to engage with them and were honest and open during appointments.

1. Your personal circumstances were canvassed by your Counsel and in the report of Ms Cidoni of 1 March 2025.
2. You are now 30 years of age. You were raised by both parents as an only child. Growing up you had a closer relationship with your father. Your mother worked long hours and became distant. You spent some time on the streets when your mother didn't want you to be at home.
3. You first moved out of home at the age of 15 and thereafter shifted between friends houses until you were 18. You then went to live with an uncle for 12 months in NSW. You returned to Melbourne, briefly stayed with your parents again and then moved out.
4. In terms of schooling, you completed Year 10 and left school to enrol in TAFE. You describe your academic performance as average. You completed a Certificate III in Hair and Beauty and a hospitality course through TAFE. You undertook mental health units 2 and 3 as part of a TAFE program, relating to working in a rehabilitation setting but never achieved this goal.
5. Your first paid job was at KFC restaurant where you worked for 12 months. You later worked in pizza restaurants for several years. Your most significant role was as a manager and area manager at a retail store in Geelong, a position you held for 3 years after spending time in a residential rehabilitation facility. Currently you are unemployed and in receipt of Job Seeker payments.
6. Your first significant relationship lasted for seven years. Over time, conflicts regarding drug use escalated, ultimately leading to family violence intervention orders and the end of your relationship. You disclosed to Ms Cidoni instances of domestic violence that were fuelled by drugs.
7. During this period your daughter was born in August 2012. Child protection became involved due to concerns about substance abuse. Your daughter was placed in the care of her paternal grandmother and given your fraught relationship with her this has impacted your ability to have consistent contact with her your daughter.
8. You also have another daughter, currently aged 13, from a previous relationship. Upon that relationship ending, your daughter was placed in the care of your parents and you have regular contact with her. While you have not spoken to your mother for some time, you speak to your father daily.
9. You are presently in an intimate relationship and you both have a history of substance use and experienced relapses following the birth of your twins in July 2024. Child Protection became involved and the children are currently in the care of their paternal grandmother in Berwick. The birth of your children occurred in quite distressing circumstances. You apparently did not know you were pregnant for most of your pregnancy; they were born and then had Covid and spent some 7-8 days in hospital.
10. In terms of drug use, you first started using cannabis at the age of 14. You continue to use cannabis, although you instruct that your consumption is not as bad as what it used to be. You also first used methamphetamine at this very young age, smoking it with peers.
11. In the past you have managed to achieve abstinence for some time, in the context of a residential placement and also your pregnancies. Typically after giving birth, you have relapsed into drug use, due to various stressors and triggers. Most recently, after the birth of your twins, you instruct that you remained abstinent for several months and relapsed, citing stress linked to child protection involvement. You provided clean urine samples for a period but told Ms Cidoni that you lost your housing and your circumstances further deteriorated. There's also a suggestion on the material that you may have suffered post-natal depression (see CISP report).
12. Up until recent times you have continued to use substances. I note that while you dispute this and attribute your behaviour to distress, Ms Cidoni considers that you presented as under the influence of substances during the assessment. You reported to the MHARS assessor recently that you had maintained abstinence for a few days.
13. In the past, you completed a three-month rehabilitation program through Recover Oz and remained abstinent. This is at the time that you moved to Geelong and stayed drug free for some two years.

1. You have a relevant though relatively limited prior criminal history, which I accept is reflective of your substance addiction and circumstances. Your last prior matter was in 2017 for which you received a Community Corrections Order (CCO).
2. Your counsel refers to previous periods you have served in custody at paragraph 27 of her submissions and submits that it is not clear if these periods of time were accounted for or taken into consideration by a sentencing court. She does not submit that it should be taken into account as Renzella time and the prosecutor, Ms Holmes, makes the point that all these periods are quite removed in time, and it is highly likely that they would have been taken into account previously.
3. I am not going to, as indicated to counsel, speculate about that and I do not necessarily consider that the date of the previous terms served is determinative of the issue however, as also discussed given the evidence and the circumstances, I consider the situation to be entirely unclear to take it into account in the exercise of the sentencing discretion. I think I have made that plain in my exchange and discussions with counsel.
4. As for your mental health, you do not report any mental health diagnoses in childhood. You reported to Ms Cidoni persistent symptoms of depression in adulthood, including feelings of guilt, inadequacy as a mother, and feelings of hopelessness. You also described experiencing high levels of anxiety.
5. On assessment, Ms Cidoni diagnoses you with Stimulant use disorder (severe) and Cannabis use disorder (moderate). She also opines that 'there is evidence to suggest that [you] may meet the criteria for adjustment disorder with depressed mood and anxiety' (at [66]), though she considers that further assessment is required (at [68]). You have experienced multiple significant life stressors, including the removal of your children by Child Protection, unstable housing and ongoing legal issues. You have reported persistent feelings of guilt, inadequacy as a mother, and hopelessness, which are consistent with depressed mood. Additionally, you described high levels of anxiety, rating it as 10/10 and noted difficulties engaging with services and leaving your house, which is suggestive of heightened distress in response to your circumstances.
6. Ms Cidoni considers that imprisonment will adversely impact you. Without structured interventions or psychological therapy you would remain vulnerable to resuming drug use upon your release. Also, your 'symptoms of anxiety and depression, which have been exacerbated by significant life stressors, are likely to intensify in custody, particularly in the absence of appropriate mental health support.' Further, the rigidity and isolation of prison may 'further heighten [your] distress, particularly given [your] history of emotional instability and reliance of substances to cope with adversity.' She also considers that imprisonment would further distance you from your children, which is likely to intensify your emotional distress and exacerbate your existing mental health symptoms (at [76]).
7. In respect of your circumstances, your Counsel submits that some aspects of the Bugmy principle may apply to your circumstances, given Ms Cidoni's indication that your background of instability, disrupted familial relationships and early exposure to substance use is likely to have shaped your capacity to regulate your emotions and manage adversity[1].
8. I take into account your challenging circumstances growing up and your early exposure to drug use however I don't consider, on the evidence before me, that this amounts to 'profound social deprivation' of the kind contemplated in Bugmy. I accept, and do take into account, that you have struggled with addiction from a young age, conflictual relationships, unstable housing and that you have experienced profound grief and guilt as it relates to your children.[2] (Your Counsel also contends that Verdins principle has application in that it bears upon the relevant sentence to be imposed and invokes limbs 5 and 6.[3] As the Court of Appeal stated in Verdins:

The sentencing court should not concern itself with how a particular condition is to be classified but rather consider what the evidence shows about the nature, extent and effect of the mental impairment experienced by an offender at the relevant time.

1. Here, Ms Cidoni considers that you present with symptoms consistent with an adjustment disorder with depressed mood and anxiety. However, given your symptoms extend beyond a typical adjustment period and appear to be compounded by your substance use disorder, further assessment is required.
2. I do accept that you present with symptoms consistent with depressed mood and heightened anxiety which are likely to intensify and be exacerbated in custody. To this extent, I accept that a term of imprisonment may bear more heavily on you then someone not suffering from these conditions.
3. I am not satisfied on the evidence before me, that there is a serious risk of imprisonment having a significant adverse effect on your mental health. I do accept that further distancing you from your children may intensify your emotional distress and exacerbate your mental health symptoms.

1. I consider your rehabilitative prospects will be enhanced if you engage in structured support and treatment, develop insight into the impact of substance use on your life and maintain stability and abstinence. With appropriate supports, you are clearly capable of achieving this given your ability to maintain abstinence in the past. Your children also no doubt provide significant motivation for change and you told the Corrections assessing officer that your goal was to regain contact with them. You need to be supported in this and in particular you need assistance to address your complex emotions of grief and guilt that have contributed to your drug use over the years.
2. Ms Cidoni currently assessed your risk of reoffending as moderate to high given in particular your history and long-standing addiction. She considers that your prospects of rehabilitation depend on your capacity to engage in a structured treatment program and address the underlying emotional and environmental factors that contribute to substance abuse. Ms Cidoni recommends a residential rehabilitation program and psychological counselling with a review on your mental health.
3. You need to accept available supports and interventions. Your recent history with CISP indicates that you have a capacity to do this but that you have struggled and you must stay focused and committed to your rehabilitation. You recently reported to the MHARS assessor that you are prepared to engage in mental health treatment. The assessor describes you as an 'emotionally vulnerable woman who appears to have neglected her underlying emotional issues and self-medicated using illicit substances.' You are also described as reasonably self-reflective and forthcoming. I note you have ambitions of becoming an AOD counsellor and to complete a diploma in Community Services.

1. This Court sentenced your co-accused Mr Angelopoulos and Mr Taranto on 28 November 2023. Mr Angelopoulos was sentenced to a total period of 2 years and 9 months imprisonment and Mr Taranto was sentenced to a CCO of 15 months duration.
2. The principle of parity is always a relevant consideration when dealing with co-accused but I do accept that in this case there are a range of factors that differentiate you from your co-accused. First and importantly, they were both also dealt with for additional offending, which you do not face. Also, there personal circumstances were different to yours. Mr Angelopoulos had an extensive prior criminal history. Mr Taranto I note had no prior criminal history and I assessed favourably his prospects of rehabilitation.

1. The purposes for which sentences may be imposed are just punishment, general deterrence, specific deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation and protection of the community.
2. I take into account the sentencing guidelines referred to in s5 of the Sentencing Act 1991, where relevant in your case. I have also considered the general landscape of sentencing in cases of burglary and theft.
3. Further, I take into account the principles of parsimony and proportionality. Also, I take into account the principle of totality, noting that while each charge represents separate criminality, there is a temporal connection between the offending on the indictment and also that summary charges 23 and 24 both arise from the search on your premise and the overlap in the remaining charges.
4. Your Counsel submits that a community corrections order ('CCO') could address the principles of sentencing, namely, punishment, deterrence, denunciation and rehabilitation. The prosecution submit that a combination sentence is appropriate.
5. You were assessed for a CCO and assessed as suitable. The writer notes that you've previously been subject to two orders, in 2015 and 2017 and that you were forthcoming with information.
6. I consider that a CCO is capable of both adequately punishing and rehabilitating you. Taking into account all the circumstances, including the gravity of the offending and the matters advanced on your behalf in mitigation and your vulnerabilities, as canvassed in the report of Ms Cidoni, I consider a CCO is the just and appropriate sentence.

1. Synthesising all relevant factors you are convicted and sentenced as follows - on all charges on the indictment and summary charge 23 and 24 you are convicted and sentenced to a CCO of 15 months duration, with the following conditions -

(a) Supervision

(b) Treatment for drug use

(c) Treatment for mental health

(d) Community work - 120 hours and I offset 60 hours against treatment

1. Judicial monitoring: I did not seek Corrections view about that and that was an omission on my part, but I am firm in my view that I require you to attend before me for monitoring. I am going to list the first monitoring for a period of three months, to allow you to commence and well and truly start your order. So I am going to require you to attend before me on 18 June at 9.30 for a review.
2. On summary charges 27, 28 and 32 - are you convicted and sentenced to an aggregate fine of $300, which I consider reflects the gravity of these charges, totality, the consideration I've already given to your bail status in the substantive offending and your financial circumstances.
3. In respect of your licence, I am required, and I must interfere with it. I propose, taking into account that you are licensed and the structures and interventions that will be put in place to assist in your rehabilitation, along here with the delay even though as I have already canvased largely attributable to you, I am going to keep it to a minimum and I will suspend you for a period of one month, given that I consider that there is an importance of being licensed to rehabilitation.
4. Ms Holmes, I am not proposing to make a s6AAA declaration. I don't consider I am required to, so it's simply for that reason that I am not going to.
5. HER HONOUR: Ms Holmes, can you remind me, are there any ancillary orders, anything I have missed? There were some, weren't there?
6. MS HOLMES: Now that you mention it, Your Honour, I believe there were
7. HER HONOUR: Yes. The matter, I mean in fairness it has a protracted history so
8. MS HOLMES: The items in the schedule for the indictment, I'm just double checking that. I just wonder if they were dealt with, with the co-accused.
9. HER HONOUR: I can have a look at that actually, I have got their sentence here.
10. None filed with us. 'You have both got the forfeiture orders for each and also the disposal orders. I will make them in the terms sought', is what I said in

Mr Taranto and Angelopoulos' case. That might explain it then. 11. MS HOLMES: I think that takes care of everything. 12. HER HONOUR: All right, look if it doesn't, your instructor can always contact the court, but that might be the explanation. 13. MS HOLMES: That's the answer I think, yes. 14. HER HONOUR: Thank you.

[1] Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37.

[2] Ross v The Queen [2022] VSCA 149

[3] R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102.