DPP v Hoskins [2025] VCC 1930

1. You have also pleaded guilty to the following related summary offences and agreed to this court sentencing you for them:

(a) One charge of deal with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime, contrary to section 195 of the Crimes Act; which carries a maximum penalty of 2 years' imprisonment; and

(b) One charge of failing to answer bail contrary to section 30(1) of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic), which carries a maximum penalty of 2 years' imprisonment.

1. Charges 1 - 4 on the Indictment were brought by the Prosecution on a complicity basis, in that you intentionally encouraged or assisted the commission of the offences and entered into an agreement or an understanding with others to commit the offences.[2]

1. On 20 March 2024, in the Latrobe Valley Magistrates' Court, you entered into an undertaking of bail. You were required, but failed, to appear at the Court on 29 May 2024, in accordance with that undertaking (Related summary offence - failure to answer bail).

1. You have pleaded guilty to offences that have arisen from offending that occurred at Pimpala Avenue, Seaford (the house) on 17 June 2024. You were assisted by five co-accused, Peter Ulutui, Price Ulutui, Michael Pool, Shayden Hawkins and Andrew Sullivan. At the time of offending, Alan Johnson was living alone at the house.
2. At 2.16 pm on 16 June 2024, the afternoon before the home invasion, an Oppo handset later seized from Michael Pool's possession following his arrest on 4 July 2024 was used to conduct a Google search for '[number omitted] pimpala drive seaford'. The following morning, at 12.19 am, about five hours before the home invasion, a note was created on an Apple iPhone handset later seized from Mr Pool's possession, which read '[number omitted] Pinpala drive seaford'.

1. In the early hours of 17 June 2024, phone activity shows text message exchanges and phone calls between yourself and your co-accused. Just after 5 am, numerous vehicles and unidentified individuals are seen on CCTV at the Seaford Hotel. Cell towers show that all co-accused's phones were in the vicinity of Seaford.
2. At 5:13 am, the same vehicles were captured on CCTV driving on Pimpala Avenue. At 5:24 am a person wearing a dark hoodie, walked towards the house. At 5:36 am, six offenders were seen attending the house.
3. Stuart Johnson (the victim's son) awoke to a notification at 5:37 am from the house's doorbell. He then received a notification indicating the doorbell camera was offline. He checked the footage which showed a photograph of a person at the front door wearing a hoodie.
4. The CCTV cameras at the house stopped recording when the fuse box located at the front door was switched off.
5. Alan Johnson was in bed when he heard footsteps on his front decking, he went to turn on the light but there was no power. He could see two figures outside his front door with torches, dressed in dark clothing but could not see their faces.
6. He tried to leave through his rear door but as soon as he opened the door, someone came through at the same time. The offenders were also able to gain access by splintering the lock at the front door and Mr Johnson found himself surrounded (Charge 1 - Home invasion).
7. One of the intruders pushed a solid object against the back of Mr Johnson's head saying "get out, what do you think you're doing". Mr Johnson was scared, and did not know what to say so he said "I'm getting a smoke".
8. Mr Johnson went and sat down in his armchair on the back deck whilst one intruder watched him. The others searched the house which lasted for approximately five minutes.
9. Two intruders began shouting at Mr Johnson asking "where are the keys for the garage". Mr Johnson said he didn't know. The intruders were able to gain access to the garage by kicking a door and crawling through. At that time, Mr Johnson tried to escape the house through the front door but was asked by an intruder what the code was for the safe. Mr Johnson said he didn't know the code.
10. Whilst the offenders were distracted, Mr Johnson ran out the front door and across the street to his neighbour. He saw a black ute parked opposite his house with someone sitting in the driver's seat. His neighbour called triple zero with Mr Johnson as they watched the offenders steal a car with the registration 'JANET3' and a Holden Commodore (Charges 3 and 4 - Theft of Motor Vehicle).
11. Between 5:10 and 6.00 am, phones used by Price Ulutui, Mr Pool and you were connected to phone towers in proximity to the house.
12. A number of items of value belonging to Stuart Johnson, including between 80 and 100 wrist watches, 20 pieces of jewellery, clothing, tools, the car keys for 4 vehicles including JANET3, several coin tins as well as property and a number of personal items belonging to Mr Alan Johnson including his wallet, passport and birth certificate, were stolen during the home invasion.[3] The value of the items is unknown but significant. (Charge 2 - Theft (rolled up)).

1. The same day at 8:35 am, CCTV shows you driving the vehicle with registration number 'JANET3' to Bayside Shopping Centre. Your clothing was consistent with the clothing seen on the CCTV footage worn by one of the intruders at the house. You were also seen holding one of the coin tins taken from the house.
2. At 8:39 am, a Ute entered the shopping centre, followed by the stolen Holden Commodore. Peter Ulutui was driving the Ute with Mr Hawkins in the front passenger seat and Price Ulutui was driving the Holden Commodore. At 8:51 am, a van pulls into the car park, which is alleged to have been driven by Mr Pool.
3. CCTV in the shopping centre shows you and the co-accused at the shops. You attended the store JD sports at about 9.40am where you were captured on CCTV stealing a Nike hooded jacket and a pair of tracksuit pants (Charge 5 - theft).
4. Yours and the co-accused phones (except Mr Sullivan's) were connected to phone towers in the vicinity.
5. On 17 June 2024, while at the Prince Mark Hotel in Doveton, you sent a text to an unknown person saved in your phone as 'Eshaiii'. In a text message, you said: "And the fucking job we did last night is gonna be on the news for sure".
6. An unidentified number asked you 'Bro can u send me a pic I'll grab it if it's still available'. You sent a photograph of 'JANET3' and said 'cameras fucked but you get the idea'.
7. Later that evening, you drove 'JANET3' to a BP Service Station in South Morang where you stole a staff member's mobile phone off the counter and ran out (Charge 9 - Theft).

1. On 18 June 2024 at 1.40 am, you were driving 'JANET3' on Albert Street in Reservoir and attracted police attention as the number plate was hanging by one screw. Police pursued you and had to deploy stop sticks, which punctured the tyres and forced you to a stop at MacLeod Railway Station.
2. You initially ran from the vehicle, ignoring repeated instruction by police to get on the ground. When arrested, you had bank cards in the name of Mr Johnson in your possession, as well as a small number of other items stolen during the home invasion.
3. Various other items including a number of sets of car keys were located inside JANET3 (Related Summary Offence - Deal with Property Suspected of Being Proceeds of Crime). Additionally:

(a) In a backpack on the rear passenger seat, a ziplock bag containing approximately 3g of methylamphetamine (Charge 6 - Possess drug of dependence);

(b) In the centre console, three diazepam tablets (Charge 7 - Possess drug of dependence); and

(c) In the front passenger footwell, a bottle containing approximately 24ml of 1,4-butanediol (Charge 8 - Possess drug of dependence).

1. The fate of the bulk of the items stolen from the property is unclear. In particular, it is unclear what items were ultimately returned to Mr Johnson and the condition of those items upon their return.
2. Of the five co-accused, only one matter has resolved which will be discussed later in my reasons.

1. The court received a Victim Impact Statement from Alan Johnson. In it he explains that, as a result of the offending, he had to move out of the family home in which he had lived for 27 years, which resulted in him losing touch with friends and neighbours.
2. Mr Johnson has also suffered a loss of earnings as he was a self employed painter and maintenance worker. He had to take money from his superannuation to assist in moving houses.
3. I have taken into account the impact of your offending on Mr Johnson.

1. Your defence counsel, Mr Rofe, concedes that the home invasion is a serious example of this type of offending. Mr Rofe also acknowledges that there was a degree of planning involved as the address was shared earlier in the day.
2. However, your counsel submits that, as you are being charged on a complicity basis, the Prosecution cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were one of the principal offenders who went inside the home. Correspondingly, it was argued that this should reduce your moral culpability.
3. The Prosecution contends that this is a mid-range example of the offence of home invasion having regard to the following features:

(a) Six offenders were involved;

(b) There was a significant degree of pre-planning involved, including:

(i) The use of clothing and gloves to obscure the offender's identity;

(ii) The cutting of the power;

(iii) The use of multiple vehicles to attend and depart from the location;

(iv) The targeting of that particular location;

(c) the time of day (the early hours of the morning);

(d) The offending was not fleeting; and

(e) The modes of entry were violent - offenders forced their way in through both front and rear doors.

1. There is no evidence that you or any of the other men were armed. The case was brought under s 77A(1)(c)(ii) of the Crimes Act. However, it must be acknowledged that the mere presence of so many men at that time of night, a number of whom were disguised could be just as frightening for someone such as Alan Johnson would have been, had there been fewer invaders who were armed.
2. Essentially for the reasons advanced by the prosecutor, I would assess this home invasion as a mid-range example of the offence.
3. Turning to the thefts from the premises, other than to observe that a lot of property was stolen and much of it was either valuable in a monetary sense or in a personal sense or both, it is difficult to assess the gravity of the thefts. This is especially so when the court was not informed of the value of the property or whether it was recovered and returned to Mr Johnson and, if so, in what condition. The value of the two cars that were stolen is unknown to the court. The Commodore was 16 years old; the age of the Prado is unclear.
4. Because charge 2 is a rolled up charge, it is clearly more serious than the other theft charges. The drug possession charges are lower examples of personal use possession although the quantity of methylamphetamine was a traffickable quantity.
5. The summary offence of failing to answer bail is concerning in light of the 7 previous occasions on which you have been sentenced for similar offending.

1. You are currently 31 years' old. At the time of this offending you were 30.
2. You are the eldest of three siblings. You were born and raised in England in a family that was not marred by violence, addiction or criminal activity. You often felt excluded, unvalued and unimportant in your family which led to rebellions and anti-social behaviours.
3. Your family moved to Australia when you were 15 years old due to the neighbourhood and your problematic behaviours. In Australia, you began to use substances, which resulted in your father evicting you from the family home.
4. Your mother and father divorced when you were 21. Your father remarried and you have a strained relationship with your step-mother and her children. Your relationship with your mother has been strained due to your criminal activities and substance abuse. You would like to resolve the conflict with her but acknowledge there is an expired intervention order in place, which has prevented you from contacting her.
5. You have maintained a positive relationship with your sister, aged 16 and your brother, aged 25.
6. You completed school in England until Year 9. Your schooling was marred by fighting and other behaviours that resulted in suspensions and detentions. You were expelled from one school after a security guard accused you of trying to set her on fire after playing with a deodorant can and a cigarette lighter.
7. You completed Years 9-11 in Australia. However, within 6 months of arriving you had befriended the wrong crowd and were getting into trouble, resulting in detentions. You were expelled in Year 11 after making a smoke bomb and setting it off.
8. You began working as a painter for two years, then worked in industrial spray painting for several years. You began working intermittently in concreting amid periods of incarceration and unemployment. Between the ages of 20 and 22 you were homeless.
9. Your longest relationship and period of abstinence from drugs was when, at age 26, you met Elizabeth, who had no dependencies or criminal issues. You were together five and half years, ending in January 2024. Following the separation, you began living on the street and were unable to stay with either of your parents due to familial conflicts.
10. You were diagnosed with depression when you were 17 years' old and believe you have ADHD. You have attempted suicide on three occasions. You have been in contact with counsellors and psychologists intermittently but tend to disengage after two or three sessions.
11. You have been a drug user since you were 18, and you recall overdosing three times on GHB, the most recent occurrence being in March 2024. You have completed programs such as 'Ice and Me' whilst incarcerated but have not completed any programs whilst in the community.
12. Your criminal record dates back to 2016 when, as a 23 year old, you were sentenced to a community correction order by the Dandenong Magistrates' Court for criminal damage, commit indictable offence on bail and other offences. Since then you have been before the courts on a number of occasions for offences including family violence, theft, burglary and drug possession. While you have been imprisoned more than once, I note that you did not offend between early 2019 and the current offending. Further, this is your first time in this court.

1. The most important matter is your plea of guilty. By your pleas, you acknowledge your responsibility for the offending. There is some evidence of remorse beyond your guilty pleas. You told psychologist Ms McNeil that you accept that Mr Johnson likely felt fearful, scared and distressed and you accept your part in the lasting impact your offending is likely to had.[4]
2. The resolution of your case saves witnesses the anxiety, inconvenience and stress of giving evidence at your trial. Your pleas were entered at a very early stage. The community is saved the expense of a trial. You are entitled to a significant discount on sentence.

1. Your defence counsel submitted that the Bugmy[5] principle in general applies to reduce your moral culpability by virtue of your upbringing. Mr Rofe submitted that while your upbringing may not have been a significantly deprived one, 'it appears to have had a profound effect on Mr Hoskins and his subsequent criminal offending'.[6] Reference is made to paragraph [30] of the report of Ms McNeil where you described the harsh discipline you experienced as a child.
2. The Prosecution conceded that the general principle of Bugmy does apply however, any reduction in sentence should be very modest. I accede to this submission. Any deprivation that you suffered as a child is qualitatively different to the profound deprivation described by the High Court in Bugmy.
3. Your counsel relied upon your 'CPTSD, BPD, DPD traits and ASPD personality disorder' as set out in the report.[7] It was submitted that these disorders must be given some weight in relation to Verdins, as they will cause increased hardship in relation to your custodial sentence. I accept this.

1. Your co-accused Peter Ulutui has accepted a sentence indication of 6 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years. His case must be differentiated from yours as he faced additional charges of home invasion, robbery and theft, which are not applicable to your sentence. Further, his personal circumstances are quite different to yours. It is therefore of minimal assistance to the court, in determining the appropriate sentence here.

1. Given your history of offending, ongoing struggles with drugs, lack of support in the community and poor work history, your counsel quite properly conceded that you do not have good prospects for rehabilitation. However, Mr Rofe submitted that the court should have regard to your sustained drug abuse and need for rehabilitation in that aspect. Further, it was contended that the court should consider a lower than usual non-parole period to facilitate this.
2. Ms McNeill opines that you have a very high risk of general re-offending without treatment.[8] Concerningly, Ms McNeil concludes that you have 'minimal empathy or concern for harming others...'.[9] Further, your 'perpetuating antisocial associations further increase [your] offending potential'.[10] It is hard to be optimistic about your future.
3. On the positive side, Ms McNeill considers that your willingness to engage in residential AOD treatment, current abstinence from substances, albeit during incarceration and prosocial family support are protective factors. Ms McNeill considers that it is 'essential to note that Mr Hoskins desisted from crime since 2019...'.[11]
4. On balance, I assess your rehabilitation prospects as no higher than poor. The picture, as is so often the case, is mixed. Ultimately it is up to you to decide whether you want to turn your life around and become a productive member of the community. The supports will be there if you want them.

1. This was serious offending committed as part of a large group. Mr Johnson's house appears to have been targeted by the group for reasons that have not been explained. The ordeal that he suffered must have been very frightening. If anything, he appears to understate the impact in his victim impact statement.
2. The most serious offending was the home invasion. This court sees far too many of these mindless, violent invasions of the security and sanctity of people's homes. The community is sick of it.
3. The Court of Appeal has recently observed that:

'... home invasions ... committed in company are inherently very serious offences. Such offending involves a very serious assault upon the personal safety and sense of security and personal integrity of both victims and the community generally. > > In consequence, a relative increase in the prevalence of home invasions in recent years is a matter of serious community concern. > > In response to the seriousness of offences of this kind, Parliament has imposed a maximum term of 25 years' imprisonment for [the] offence of home invasion .... This penalty underlies the gravity of [the] offence.[12]

4. For these reasons, general deterrence and community protection are the principal sentencing purposes in cases such as these. People must realise that, if they engage in this type of offending, it will result in severe penalties.
5. In your case, your history of offending, and the matters personal to you that Ms McNeil considers are relevant to your future risk of offending, make specific or personal deterrence also a significant sentencing consideration.
6. Further, it is necessary within those parameters to give effect to your future rehabilitation. The court hopes that you can build on the positive protective factors identified earlier in these reasons to make a positive contribution to the community.
7. I have taken into account the principle of totality as urged by your counsel by making appropriate orders for cumulation and concurrency so as to reflect the overall criminality of your offending.
8. I have also moderated your sentence to a modest extent as a result of the application of Verdins[13] limbs 5 and 6. The evidence of Ms McNeil is that you remain vulnerable to 'deteriorated mental states during incarceration'.[14] I accept that your experience of the custodial environment will be more difficult than it would be for a person of normal mental health.

1. On charge 1, home invasion, contrary to section 77A of the Crimes Act, you are convicted and sentenced to 3 years and nine months' imprisonment;
2. On charge 2, theft contrary to section 74 of the Crimes Act, you are convicted and sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment;
3. On charge 3, theft of a motor vehicle, contrary to section 74 of the Crimes Act, you are convicted and sentenced to 9 months' imprisonment;
4. On charge 4, theft of a motor vehicle, contrary to section 74 of the Crimes Act, you are convicted and sentenced to 9 months' imprisonment;
5. On charge 5, theft contrary to section 74 of the Crimes Act, you are convicted and sentenced to 3 months' imprisonment;
6. On charges 6-8, possessing a drug of dependence, contrary to s 73(1) of the Drug, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic), you are convicted and sentenced to an aggregate of 1 month's imprisonment;
7. On charge 9, theft contrary to section 74 of the Crimes Act, you are convicted and sentenced to 3 month's imprisonment;
8. On summary charge 2, dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime contrary to section 195 of the Crimes Act, you are convicted and sentenced to 3 months' imprisonment; and
9. On summary charge 6, failing to answer bail contrary to section 30(1) of the Bail Act 1977 (Vic), you are convicted and sentenced to 3 months' imprisonment.
10. The charge 1 sentence is the base sentence.
11. I order that 6 months of the sentence on charge 2; 2 months of the sentence on charge 3; 2 months of the sentence on charge 4; 1 month of the sentence on charge 5; 1 month of the sentence on charge 9; and 1 month of each of the sentences on related summary charges 2 and 6, be served cumulatively with the base sentence and each other. The remaining sentences are to be served wholly concurrently.
12. The total effective sentence is therefore 4 years and 11 months.
13. You will be eligible for parole when you have served 3 years in custody.
14. Pursuant to section 18 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) ('Sentencing Act'), I declare that the period of 183 days (not including today) you have served on remand is to be reckoned as time served in respect of this sentence.
15. Any driver licences you hold are suspended for 3 months.[15]
16. I make the order sought by the prosecution.
17. Pursuant to section 6AAA of the Sentencing Act, had you pleaded not guilty, the head sentence would have been 6 years and 6 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years and 8 months.

[1] Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic) s 73(1)(b).

[2] Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 323.

[3] The complete lists are in schedules A and B to the indictment No C2400548.A

[4] Psychological Report written by Andrea McNeil dated 24 July 2025, 9 [99] ('Exhibit D1').

[5] Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571.

[12] DPP v Raux [2025] VSCA 258, 3-4 [19]-[21].

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

[14] Exhibit D1 (n 4) 19 [186]-[187].

[15] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 89(4).