DPP v Jackson [2025] VCC 1143

1. There are three related summary offences, being:

(a) Summary Charge 20, failing to stop a motor vehicle in accordance with the direction of a police officer, contrary to s64A(1) of the Road Safety Act; Maximum for subsequent offending is 12 months imprisonment or 120 penalty units.

(b) Summary Charge 27, driving without being licensed, contrary to s18(1)(a) of the Road Safety Act; Maximum 6 months imprisonment or 60 penalty units.

(c) Summary Charge 32, being in possession of a controlled weapon without a lawful excuse, contrary to s6(1) of the Control of Weapons Act. Maximum 1 year imprisonment or 120 penalty units.

1. The offending outlined above all occurred on one day, being 22 March 2024 from about 5.54 pm to about 7.30 pm.
2. At the time of the plea, your criminal record was admitted.
3. Relevantly, you had completed a term of imprisonment of 4½ years and had been released into the community only 76 days prior to this offending occurring.

1. A prosecution opening was tendered on the plea and was accepted by you as being an accurate representation of the circumstances of the offending. As a result, I need only detail a brief summary of the offending.
2. Just before 6.00pm on 22 March 2024, you drove a Jeep Grand Cherokee, which was a stolen vehicle, and parked it on the nature strip outside 30 Victoria Parade, Frankston. (Charge 1: stolen vehicle.)
3. You removed the number plates and walked into a townhouse located at Frome Avenue in Frankston. Police officers were called to attend, and went inside the house. Senior Constable Benson and Acting Sergeant Rampal went upstairs and found you in a bedroom with a syringe. They attempted to arrest you, but you attempted to leave. Acting Sergeant Rampal attempted to stop you, but you punched her to the left side of the head, and a scuffle then ensued with Senior Constable Benson. In the course of that, punches were exchanged and you stabbed Senior Constable Benson in the leg with a box-cutter. You then fled from the premises and into the Jeep. (Charges 2 and 3: assault and cause injury to police.)
4. You began driving away in the stolen Jeep along Victoria Parade. (Summary Charge 27: unlicensed driving.)
5. Other police units were called to assist, and you and the stolen vehicle were located in the Frankston CBD where you were spotted by a police vehicle. Lights and sirens were activated, but you failed to pull over. (Summary Charge 20: fail to stop on police direction.)
6. You began driving the Jeep in a fast and erratic manner along Cranbourne Road, estimated to be travelling at around 150 kilometres per hour, regularly using emergency and bike lanes to overtake other vehicles, and driving through red traffic lights at intersections. (Charge 4: driving dangerously.) In an attempt to stop this, Acting Senior Sergeant Putson was forced to take evasive action to prevent being run over by the vehicle driven by you. (Charge 5: putting an emergency worker at risk.)
7. Shortly after, you were seen to fill small bottle with fuel from a bowser at a petrol station in High Street, Cranbourne. You proceeded to drive very erratically down the wrong side of High Street in Cranbourne. This forced other road users to slow down and take evasive action. You stopped the vehicle in Willow Glen Boulevard and threw a number of items out of the window. (Charge 8: handle stolen goods, being identification documents and gift cards of the Stephens family.)
8. You continued to drive erratically in an attempt to avoid tyre-deflation devices. This involved driving onto the footpath, median strip, at excessive speed through red-light signals, and going at speeds around 170 kilometres per hour. A vehicle-immobilisation device managed to shred the tyres, and ultimately the vehicle could not be controlled, and mounted the median strip in Cranbourne Road near a petrol station. You briefly got out of the car, and then the vehicle became engulfed in flames. (Charge 6: arson.)
9. You were chased by police, and ultimately arrested. You were found to have two box-cutters. (Summary Charge 32: possess controlled weapon.)
10. As you were being taken to the divisional van you headbutted Senior Constable Osborne to the head, causing a chipped tooth. (Charge 7: assault police officer.)
11. Senior Constable Benson was conveyed to the Frankston Hospital and required stitches to his leg. Acting Sergeant Rampal suffered bruising and swelling to her face.
12. After your arrest you were remanded in custody, and currently have 510 days of pre-sentence detention.
13. After numerous committal case conferences, which were adjourned, the matter came on for a contested committal on 14 March 2025. The matter resolved on a plea of guilty.
14. On 17 June 2025 a plea was entered.

1. The Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) ('the Act') prescribes a number of non-exclusive circumstances relevant to determining the gravity of offending, one of which is the 'nature and gravity of the offence' under s5(2)(c). Relevantly, the Court of Appeal has noted that s5(2)(c) is directed to:

... an assessment of the objective gravity of the offence in respect of which sentence is to be imposed.

In making that assessment, the Court must consider and take into account matters such as the nature and effect of the actions of the offender and the objective circumstances of the offence.[1]

1. It is accepted by the defence that the overall offending described above constitutes inherently serious conduct. Dealing with each of the particular charges then:

(a) Charge 1 (Stolen vehicle). How you came to be in possession of the stolen vehicle is unclear from the summary; simply that you were in possession of the vehicle at the time it was parked off, and then got into it and drove it in the manner described.

(b) Charges 2 and 3 (Assault emergency workers). In relation to Charges 2 and 3, the physical altercations with Senior Constable Benson and Acting Sergeant Rampal, I consider these to be serious examples of these offences. You were in a bedroom when you were first spoken to by Senior Constable Benson. I have watched the body-worn camera footage of Acting Sergeant Rampal. It shows that both she and Senior Constable Benson gave clear instructions to you. You did not comply on numerous occasions, and, while it is true that Senior Constable Benson attempted to stop you leaving the room, it was you who then initiated the violent scuffle involving striking Acting Sergeant Rampal first, and then proceeding to strike Senior Constable Benson. In the course of that, you made a decision to use a box-cutter to stab Senior Constable Benson. These acts were, I consider, serious examples of this kind of offending, to strike officers in the course of their duties in this unprovoked and continued manner.

(c) Charge 4 (Conduct endangering persons by driving dangerously). It is accepted that this is a serious example of the offence. Not much more needs to be said, given the summary, which was accepted, and the danger to emergency workers and the public in general by this driving is obvious. At times you were at speeds of 170 kilometres an hour, on the wrong side of the road and driving through red lights.

(d) Charge 5 (Aggravated recklessly exposing emergency worker to risk by driving). This is in relation to the driving toward Acting Senior Sergeant Putson in the Jeep. Having watched the body-worn footage of Constable Stefaniw, it can be seen that the vehicle is driven at some speed towards Acting Senior Sergeant Putson in an attempt to evade those pursuing, and perhaps to ensure that you were not hindered by the vehicle-retardation device. While it can be accepted that there was no striking of Acting Senior Sergeant Putson and you did not deliberately target him, and the distance between the vehicle and him was not small, the fact that the vehicle was being driven in such an erratic and fast manner towards his location at a time when he was performing his police duties leads me to conclude that this was a moderate to serious example of this kind of offending.

(e) Charge 6 (Arson). It is to be recalled that you deliberately filled a small container with fuel, then got into the car and drove a distance. It was only then, after the tyres had disintegrated, that you made the decision to set fire to the vehicle and the fuel obtained from the service station presumably caught on fire as part of this. Your counsel accepted there was an element of premeditation given you deliberately stopped earlier to get the fuel. It was submitted that the arson was driven by panic and in an attempt to destroy evidence.[2] However, by this stage you had embarked on a deliberate pattern of behaviour and added to this by procuring the fuel before the arson which you then committed a short time later. I cannot say on the agreed summary that the fuel was used to start the fire. I specifically do not find that it was and do not take this account in sentencing you. In this circumstance, while there was a degree of reaction and panic, there was also what I consider an element of foresight and deliberate planning and execution of your course of action in setting the fire. In this circumstance, I consider this to be a serious example of the offending.

(f) Charge 7 (Assault emergency worker on duty). This is the headbutting of Senior Constable Osborne. It is put that this was an unsophisticated impulsive and brief act where you headbutted the Senior Constable in the face, chipping his tooth. I do not accept that submission. At that point it was quite clear that you were in custody and the pursuit had ended. You were being taken into the back of the divisional van for transport to another location. In those circumstances, your action was unprovoked and deliberate. It was on an officer who was unprepared to be involved in a physical altercation with you. Further, the action was to the head of the Senior Constable, and must have been known by you to have been a blow which had the potential to cause serious injury to his head. In those circumstances, I consider that your actions are a serious example of this offending.

(g) Charge 8 (Handling stolen goods). I accept that this is a low example of such offending.

1. These sentencing reasons should be read in conjunction with those of his Honour Judge Wraight in the matter of DPP v Jackson [2021] VCC 1659 and the medical material which has been tendered on the plea, being the report of Ms Gina Cidoni, 2 June 2025, and reports of Dr Hugh Kelso dated 17 July and 10 December 2012.
2. I was also assisted by the very helpful outline of submissions on plea prepared by your counsel, Ms Gillahan and the submissions of Mr Wong for the prosecution. By reason of that background material, which is largely non-controversial, the relevant background history can be dealt with somewhat briefly.
3. You were born in May 1998. Your parents had drug issues, and in fact your father spent some time in custody in relation to this. They separated when you were about six years of age. At some point you were subject to abuse, though the details of this are reasonably vague. Your time with your mother was unsettled, and this was because of your mother's drug and mental health issues. You had also attended a number of different primary schools, and were diagnosed at an early stage with ADHD; later oppositional defiant disorder; and ultimately, in 2012, with Asperger's Syndrome. Your schooling was moved at about the age of 14 to a specialised school for students who were refusing to attend.[3]
4. However, you became involved with the law and drugs at an early age. Your first recorded offending was at the Frankston Children's Court in respect of unlawful assault and unlicensed driving in 2014. Thereafter, you were regularly before the Courts for a variety of different kinds of offending such as recklessly causing injury, possessing prohibited weapons, making threats to kill, unlawful assault, and resisting emergency workers.
5. You dropped out of school completely at the age of 16 and have largely been homeless since that time.
6. You accepted the criminal history as put to you, and it is most relevant for the frequency of your offending since 2014. You were presented at court on a very regular basis, and were attempted to be dealt with by way of community correction order or fine. However, this did not seem to deter you, and you were first incarcerated for very serious offending in 2019, the subject of sentence before his Honour Judge Wraight on 22 October 2021. That offending involved aggravated reckless and intentional exposure of an emergency worker to risk by driving, criminal damage, and related offending. You were imprisoned for a period of 4½ years, with a non-parole period of 2½ years.
7. Ultimately you served all 4½ years, and were released into the community on 7 January 2024. You were released into the community with no home and with no supports. It is accepted that you quickly relapsed into methamphetamine use, sometimes using between 1 and 2 grams per day. The current offending occurred on 22 March 2024, which is the subject of the plea before me. At the time of the offending you had been in the community for just 76 days.
8. It is accepted by the defence that the illicit substance use that you are engaging in in the community is a substantial factor in your reoffending.
9. The medical material called in aid was first from Dr Kelso a paediatrician in a report of 10 December 2012 (when you were aged 14). In that report he commented on three appointments that he had had with you. He diagnosed you with Asperger's Syndrome and considered you had associated high levels of anxiety. He opined that this led you to cope poorly with crowds, unfamiliar places and unexpected changes.
10. The report of Ms Cidoni is more comprehensive. She took a history from you that you had been diagnosed with ADHD and an auditory processing disorder at about the age of 8.[4] You were referred on for further assessment and were diagnosed with learning and behavioural difficulties shortly thereafter. You described to Ms Cidoni numerous incidents of head trauma and concussion.
11. As indicated above you left home at about the age of 16. You had a period of time of significant self-harm, involving slashing yourself with a box cutter to the arms and legs.[5] This phase lasted some two years and then subsided. During this time you also experienced a terrifying event when you were kidnapped, put into the boot of a car and threatened with very significant harm. In 2019 you were in a car that was shot at by two armed men.
12. Your drug use started with cannabis at the age of 13 and continued until your first jail term. You did not return to it after release. Your methylamphetamine use escalated rapidly and by adolescence you were using it intravenously. It often led to psychotic symptoms and paranoia, being awake for days at a time and leaving you psychologically and physically exhausted.
13. In the lead up to the current offending you were using heavily and on an almost daily basis. You also occasionally were using heroin and GHB. You described yourself to Ms Cidoni as being "cooked" at the time of the offending and in an unmanageable state.[6]
14. Ms Cidoni also repeated some history taken by a psychiatrist Dr Turnbull. She seems to have had a report that he prepared in 2021 (presumably for the purposes of the sentencing before Judge Wraight). In that report Dr Turnbull appeared willing to accept a diagnosis of ADHD on proper neuropsychological testing, however broadly considered your primary issue was chronic substance misuse, not an underlying psychiatric disorder.
15. On questioning as to your symptoms you told Ms Cidoni that you experience "significant mood fluctuations, emotional reactivity and difficulty regulating responses to authority".[7] She also took a history of flashbacks, panic episodes and a strong startle response particularly in the presence of police.
16. Ultimately she diagnosed you with C-PTSD, ADHD and features of ASD. This is on a background of neurodevelopmental trauma caused by earlier abuse,[8] head trauma, homelessness, chronic drug use and institutional victimisation which has compromised your emotional regulation and behavioural control.
17. She considered you a high risk of reoffending, but with a fair prognosis for rehabilitation with appropriate supports.

1. I accept that there has been an early plea. It is put by the defence that you have pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, but it seems like you went through a contest, so I do not consider this was the earliest opportunity, but rather simply an early plea which demonstrates some remorse. I moderate your sentence accordingly.

1. I accept that the principles in Bugmy have a role to play. The situation of having a disrupted home, significantly marred by drugs and parental separation; the fact of your early abuse leading to traumatic impairment; homelessness and lack of schooling, indicate a situation of profound disadvantage. The Courts have recognised that the effects of such disadvantage do not necessarily diminish with time. I find that the principles of Bugmy are enlivened and operate to reduce your moral culpability.[10]

Application of Verdins[11] principles

1. Defence put that the chronic post-traumatic stress disorder that you have, in the context of your neurodevelopmental delay and trauma-related impairments, result in you reacting to law enforcement in a way which does not conform with societal expectations.[12] Particularly in the offending before this Court it was submitted that the psychological impairments led to emotional dysregulation and inability to conform to police requests to comply. Having regard to the evidence of Ms Cidoni at [140] of her report, I accept that submission, and consider that Limb 1 applies because the relevant link between the psychological impairments and the offending has been made out.
2. The prosecution submitted no such link is established because of the opportunities to stop the offending behaviour at various points. These were the picking up of the petrol, the stopping to throw out the stolen goods, the hosing down of the vehicle during the pursuit and the setting of the car on fire. Each was said to represent a point which showed the behaviour was not chaotic and reactive but deliberate and calculating. I do not accept that characterisation of most of the incidents. The throwing out of the stolen goods and hosing down of the vehicle are highly illogical and irrational acts, occurring in the course of a police pursuit. Similarly the firing of the car. I accept the stopping to get fuel displays some rational thought but only to the extent it demonstrates your coping mechanism of using fire.
3. However I am mindful that there must not be an undue reduction in your moral culpability for offending given that I have accepted that the principles in Bugmy are also enlivened. I have kept a firm eye on the most just and appropriate sentence related to your offending and your particular history, and circumstances.

Limbs 3 and 4 - general and specific deterrence

1. Argument was made in similar terms that the chronic PTSD affects the applicability of general and specific deterrence. Given the matters that I have set out in relation to Bugmy and your past history and neurodevelopmental issues, I consider that there is some need to sensibly moderate general deterrence in this case. However, given the repeated pattern of behaviour over the course of your offending, and noting your prior offending I consider that there is a limited role for Limb 4 in this matter.

1. It is broadly stated that you have had difficulties accessing appropriate treatment in custody, such as medication, access to NDIS workers, occupational therapy, or Forensicare assistance. I am unclear of any of the facts surrounding these assertions, and in that circumstance I cannot place much weight on them. However, it is also said that Ms Cidoni, at paragraph [147], sets out the basis on which prison would be more burdensome for you, given your psychological profile. I accept that evidence as founding Limb 5, and will moderate the sentence as a result.
2. The relevance of your drug use depends on the extent to which your decision to begin using drugs is properly described as voluntary. As noted by Buchanan JA in R v McKee,[13] in the context of drug addiction:

The extent to which a decision to experiment with drugs is freely made, in my view, bears upon the moral culpability of the offender who commits a crime as a consequence of addiction to drugs. Age is relevant to the question ... I would add that in the case of adults, despair and low self-regard may also play a significant part in the decision to use drugs and that condition may be the result of social or economic disadvantage, poor education or emotional or physical abuse.[14]

1. I am satisfied that despair and low self-regard, social disadvantage, poor education and emotional and physical abuse all contributed to your decision to commence using drugs as an adolescent, and your subsequent development of a major drug dependency.[15]
2. Overall, particularly noting your age, and your enforced abstinence from drugs during your 4.5 years of incarceration, your decision to resume drug use at the level you did so soon after your release does not, I find, lead to a reduction in the moral culpability ascribed to your offending.
3. However I do not regard your drug use as diminishing the application of Verdins Limb 1, given the nexus of that drug use to your traumatic history and psychological impairments which were operative at the time of your offending.[16]
4. Overall then I find a reduction in your moral culpability given the acceptance of Bugmy principles and Verdins Limb 1.

1. I accept that your plea of guilty carries utilitarian value, as it has spared the time and expense of a jury trial and cross-examination of witnesses. It also evidences some remorse.
2. You are no longer a youthful offender, but rehabilitation remains an issue given your age. General and specific deterrence, denunciation of your conduct, and community protection, must carry weight in the sentencing discretion.
3. Bearing those matters in mind, I note that Ms Cidoni considers you to remain a risk of reoffending in the community without appropriate drug rehabilitation and also without stable housing and supports. With such support however she considers you to have fair prospects for rehabilitation. At present however she considered you have very guarded prospects of rehabilitation.[17] I consider community protection must be given significant prominence because (i) the opinion of Ms Cidoni as to potential for re-offending without treatment for your addictions (ii) the failure of incarceration to help you get off drugs last time and (iii) similarly the failure of incarceration to deter you from re-offending especially given you re-offended so soon after release and (iv) the very dangerous way your offending occurs i.e. against emergency workers in numerous situations and as a danger to the public, both by dangerous driving and use of fire
4. As for general deterrence, I have sensibly moderated that, given I do not consider that you are an appropriate vehicle to impose a sentence which the rest of the community will be consider an example. In this regard the matters I have considered in respect of Bugmy and Verdins Limb 1 have relevance as I have found that you have suffered profound disadvantage which sounds today and further have a range of psychological deficits as diagnosed by Ms Cidoni.
5. Specific deterrence, however, in your case, plays a significant role, given your history of past offending. That reveals a pattern of behaviour over many years where members of the police and also general members of the community have been injured or put at very significant risk by your activities. Your offending occurred after a period of 4½ years of incarceration and only 76 days in the community. It very strongly suggests that there is a need to send a strong message to you that such behaviour will not be tolerated. I repeat what his Honour Judge Wraight said when quoting from the Court of Appeal in The Queen v Jaeger in relation to driving offences placing police and community at risk:

"[t]he message needs to be sent clearly and unequivocally to like-minded individuals that conduct such as the applicant's simply cannot - and will not - be tolerated. "[18]

1. In that circumstance, specific deterrence must be given significant weight in your case. Similarly, community protection looms large, given Ms Cidoni's comments and the fact of your repeat behaviour and the comments of the Court of Appeal in Jaeger.
2. My attention was directed to s6D(b) of the Act in respect of Charge 6. The prosecution relied on The Queen v Harvey[19] at [15]-[18]. Defence relied on R v Connell.[20] I have had regard to those cases. I make it clear that I do not propose to impose a disproportionate sentence as I do not consider it necessary to impose a sentence that was longer than that which was proportionate to the gravity of the offence.[21] I am also mindful that, in sentencing you, I must impose a sentence which is not more severe than is necessary to achieve the overall purpose in your sentence. That is, that the term imposed must be a just and appropriate measure of the total criminality involved.
3. Community protection also involves those workers such as police officers who are placed in harm's way in the course of attempting to deal with your criminality.

1. There are a number of mandatory sentencing schemes that apply in the course of determining a just and appropriate sentence for you:

(a) Charge 3 (recklessly causing injury) carries a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of six months. Defence does not seek to make out any relevant exception.

(b) Charge 5 (aggravated reckless exposure of an emergency worker to risk by driving) is a category 2 offence. Accordingly, a custodial sentence (other than a combination sentence) must be imposed. Defence does not seek to make out any relevant exception. Any term of imprisonment imposed must, unless otherwise directed by the Court, be served cumulatively on any other sentences of imprisonment imposed.

(c) In respect of Charge 6 (arson), you are to be sentenced as a serious arson offender. Any term of imprisonment imposed must, unless otherwise directed by the Court, be served cumulatively on any other sentences of imprisonment imposed.

1. Bearing those matters in mind, I now sentence you as follows.
2. On Charge 1; 6 months to be served cumulatively with the base sentence.
3. On Charge 2; 12 months of which 4 months is to be served cumulatively with the base sentence and 8 months served concurrently with Charge 4.
4. On Charge 3; 14 months of which 4 months is to be served cumulatively with the base sentence and 10 months served concurrently with Charge 4.
5. On Charge 4; 18 months which is the base sentence.
6. On Charge 5; 14 months of which 6 months is to be served cumulatively with the base sentence and 8 months served concurrently with Charge 4.
7. On Charge 6; 8 months, sentenced as serious arson offender, to be served cumulatively with the base sentence.
8. On Charge 7; 12 months to be served cumulatively with the base sentence.
9. On Charge 8; 4 months to be served cumulatively with the base sentence.
10. On Charge 20 (RSO);[22] 7 months of which 4 months is to be served cumulatively with the base sentence and 3 months served concurrently with Charge 4.
11. On Charge 27 (RSO); 6 months of which 3 months is to be served cumulatively with the base sentence and 3 months served concurrently with Charge 4.
12. On Charge 32 (RSO); 3 months to be served cumulatively with the base sentence.
13. I have not allowed for significant concurrency on the majority of the charges because I consider so much of the offending constituted disparate acts. I have also sought to balance the principle of totality so as to arrive at a just and proportionate sentence.
14. As you have pleaded guilty at an early opportunity, I am required to make a declaration under s6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991. But for your pleas of guilty, I would have imposed a sentence of 94 months.
15. Accordingly, your total effective sentence is 6 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years.
16. See table of sentences.

Recklessly exposing emergency worker to risk by driving

Ancillary Orders: Serious Arson Offender, Forfeiture orders, Disqualification orders

[1] Director of Public Prosecutions v Herrmann [2021] VSCA 160 at [9]- [10]

[2] See psychological report of Ms Gina Cidoni dated 2 June 2025 at paragraphs [122]-[124]

[3] See report of Ms Gina Cidoni dated 2 June 2025 and reports of Dr Hugh Kelso dated 17 July and 10

[4] Report of Ms Gina Cidoni dated 2 June 2025 at [46]

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

[10] DPP v Herrmann [2021] VSCA 160 at [79]

[11] The Queen v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; (2007) 16 VR 269

[12] Defence outline of submissions on Plea dated 14 June 2025 at paragraph [46]

[13] [2003] VSCA 16; (2003) 138 A Crim R 88

[15] Director of Public Prosecutions v Vaisey [2021] VSC 584

[17] Report of Ms Gina Cidoni dated 2 June 2025 at [146]

[18] The Queen v Jaeger [2020] VSCA 116 at [36]

[19] [2007] VSCA 127

[20] [1996] VicRp 30; [1996] 1 VR 436

[21] The Queen v Harvey [2007] VSCA 127 Nettle JA at [18]