DPP v Jacob [2025] VCC 861

1. At the time of the offending, you were unlicensed to drive a motor vehicle.
2. The vehicle owned by Mr Klopper was forensically examined, locating your fingerprint on the rear vision mirror and driver's door.
3. Analysis of blood taken from you confirmed the presence of Methylamphetamine (at a reading of 0.17mg/L) in your system.

1. The Court received a victim impact statement from a police member, marked as Exhibit D, who was the driver of the police vehicle you collided into by contacting its rear side.
2. He indicated that he did not want his statement read out aloud and to respect this request I will not refer to it in any detail in my reasons. To the extent that he may be burdened, as the driver and supervisor on the day by a sense of responsibility for what occurred, this is entirely unwarranted. He and his colleagues acted responsibly in trying to subdue and control the extreme risk that you were presenting to the public. And it is entirely unacceptable that emergency workers are exposed to such volatile situations in the course of their employment.
3. I make clear that I have read the victim impact statement and I have taken into account the impact of your offending.

1. Your offending is serious and this is reflected in the maximum penalties. Underscoring the seriousness of the offence, the charge of aggravated offence of recklessly exposing an emergency worker to risk by driving is also a category 2 offence under the Sentencing Act. The Court is required to make an order for a period of imprisonment and is restrained from making a sentence of imprisonment in combination with a community corrections order, unless a relevant exception is applies. No exceptions were advanced on your behalf and, on my own assessment, I do not consider that any have application.
2. The charge of aggravated offence of recklessly exposing an emergency worker to risk by driving is a rolled-up charge and I take into account the full circumstances of your offending and the circumstances of your two victims. As charged, the incident involved a stolen vehicle. The charge arises in the context of two police vehicles trying to establish a blockade. You swerved to avoid the cars, but collided with the rear left side of one of the vehicles.
3. On this charge your Counsel submits that the offending falls at the lower end of the scale. The contact with the vehicle arose in the context of you trying to get around police who had blocked you, as opposed to intentionally making physical contact with the vehicle. Contact with the vehicle was made only once and not repeatedly as is common in comparable offending. I accept that you were not intentionally hitting or ramming the vehicle and that the contact arose within the context of you trying to get around the police car. While it can therefore be contrasted to other more serious examples, I do still regard the charge as a serious one. By driving the vehicle in their vicinity, as you did, you exposed these officers to real risk.
4. In respect of charge 3, this charge is comprised of your driving from approximately 7:22AM to 7:42AM.
5. Endangerment offences have a broad scope and can cover a broad range of circumstances. Your driving on the day placed other road users at significant risk. At the time, you should not have been driving a vehicle at all, as you were unlicenced, and, as particularised in the charge, you were affected by methylamphetamine.
6. In summary, the charge involves you: driving at speed in peak hour traffic; through red lights and intersections narrowly avoiding other motorists; across bicycle lanes and pedestrian walking tracks while in use; weaving in and out of traffic; driving onto the wrong side of the road and into oncoming traffic requiring others to take evasive action to avoid a collision; striking and colliding with other vehicles; crossing four lanes, tram tracks, a median section and centre divides of the Nepean Highway, narrowly avoiding traffic and running a red light at speed, losing control of your vehicle and colliding with an occupied vehicle. Relevant footage capturing part of your driving was played in Court.
7. Your Counsel highlights that the offending on this charge lacks common aggravating features. No one was injured. You did not intend to make contact with any other vehicles and you were not committing any other offences other than trying to evade police after police identified the car you were driving as stolen and initiated the pursuit. I note had you injured someone you may likely be facing other charges and that this charge is principally concerned with the danger that you posed to other road users. In all of the circumstances, I accept the prosecution submission that your offending on this charge is very serious.
8. In respect of the summary charges, I have broadly taken them into account in this episode of driving, and am mindful of the need to avoid double punishment.
9. In the lead up to the offending, your circumstances had deteriorated and you were using a combination of drugs, including methamphetamine, GHB and Xanax, daily. While this does not reduce your moral culpability it provides some context. In the material it is speculated, though certainly unclear, that you may have been experiencing a drug induced psychosis at the time exacerbating your symptoms associated with your antisocial personality disorder and your ADHD. I will return to these matters shortly.

1. You entered an early plea of guilty on 29 February 2024 at a committal mention hearing, with resolution on 13 March 2024. This entitles you to an important sentencing discount. Your plea of guilty has utilitarian value and demonstrates your willingness to facilitate the course of justice and accept responsibility for your offending. I also accept that your plea of guilty, along with representations you've made to others, including your mother, is indicative of some remorse. In your discussions with Clinical and Forensic Psychologist, Dr Susette Sowden you emphasised that you did not wish to hurt anyone and said that you were remorseful. You also 'recognised [you] could have killed people when [you were] trying to flee the police.' Dr Sowden considered however that the genuineness of your remorse was not clear and noted that you attempted to deflect responsibility from yourself. You need to develop further insight and understanding into your offending.

1. Briefly, as to the procedural history of this matter, when you were committed to this Court you made an application to be heard in the Drug Court. The case was listed originally for a determination hearing on 24 October 2024 which had to be adjourned. It was next listed on 19 December 2024 for a determination hearing and effectively a plea proceeded on this date. Reservations were expressed by the clinicians as to your suitability for an order, and the prosecution also opposed this course. You sought an opportunity to secure a bed at Odyssey House. To facilitate this, the Court adjourned your case for a period. The hearing resumed on 26 March 2025 and you were still on the waiting list. At your request it was adjourned again to see if a bed became available, with the Court noting its concern that you been on remand for a substantial period of time and the case required some resolution.
2. On the further resumed hearing on 18 June 2025 the Court was informed that rehabilitative services remained overburdened and that a bed was still unavailable. At that stage, on your behalf your Counsel made application to withdraw the application for Drug Court and to instead proceed with the plea and sentence. He confirmed your preparedness to have this Court determine the matter and he made further submissions on your behalf and relied upon the earlier submissions made in December 2024.
3. At the plea hearing on 18 June 2025 and with the agreement of the parties, the Court removed from the Court file the Drug Court assessment reports, which had been provided for the purpose of the Determination Hearing. The prosecution relied on its earlier submissions, both orally in December 2024 and in writing. It also amended any aspects of its submissions, such as its contention of an absence of remorse or insight on your part, that had relied on the earlier Drug Court assessment reports.

1. Your personal background was outlined by your Counsel and is canvassed in the report of clinical and forensic psychologist, Dr Susette Sowden.
2. You are now 26 years of age and you were 24 at the time of the offending.
3. In summary, you were born in India and migrated with your parents to Australia when you were one year of age, settling in Melbourne and growing up in Sunbury. You are the older of two children. For most of your childhood the family home was a hobby farm. You loved playing and working outdoors and your family were supportive and nurturing.
4. You went to several schools. You experienced some learning difficulties and at the age of 14 you were diagnosed with learning difficulties associated with mild autism.
5. You went on to complete Year 12 and then to work on the family farm. You also earned money buying and selling vehicles. You briefly studied horticulture at TAFE. When your father became seriously ill in March 2018 you took a break from studying and did not return to it.
6. From the time your father became gravely ill, things rapidly went downhill, with you spending less time at home and mixing with negative peers. Your father died when you were around 18 years old and at that stage you went completely off the rails and developed an addiction to methylamphetamine. Your first criminal conviction was several months later. You have spent much of your adult life in custody since then.
7. In terms of your drug and alcohol use, you commenced using drugs several years before your father died and only started using methylamphetamine after his death.
8. You have a relevant prior criminal history, largely for property offences. You do have a relevant prior matter for theft of motor vehicle, drive unlicensed, and reckless conduct endangering both life and serious injury. The sentence imposed on 16 August2022 attracted your most significant sentence to date of 254 days' imprisonment. As submitted by the prosecution, while your prior matters are not a basis for further punishment, they are a relevant indication of your moral culpability, prospects of rehabilitation and the need for general deterrence.
9. At the time of your current offending, you reported to Dr Sowden that you were stressed as you had just broke up with your girlfriend [15] and you recognised you were making poor choices. You had been released from jail in 2022 and had been living on your own in Preston, with some support through the DSP and NDIS. You said you were 'very sorry about what happened'. She notes further, 'he said he was driving the car, he panicked when he saw the police. He said he was not thinking. He described himself as being depressed at the time and as suffering psychosis. He repeated he had had too many drugs.'

1. According to Dr Sowden you have a history of denying your mental health and developmental difficulties. Your history suggests that you have not been compliant with treatment, including with the use of prescription medications.
2. On her assessment, Dr Sowden diagnoses you with an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), ADHD, Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD), and Substance Use Disorder (SUD). She opines at paragraph [17] -

Mr Jacob has been diagnosed as having developmental and psychological conditions. His developmental conditions are considered to include: an Autism Spectrum Disorder, Level 2 severity and ADHD, Combined Type. His psychological conditions are considered to include a Substance Use Disorder and an Antisocial Personality Disorder. It is considered that Mr Jacob was suffering both his developmental and psychological disorders when the offending behaviours occurred. It is considered that his developmental disorders have been lifelong. Regarding his psychological disorders, it is considered that his Substance Use Disorder has occurred over the past ten years, while his Antisocial Personality Disorder is considered to have emerged during his late teenage years and is considered to be ongoing. It is considered his developmental conditions are permanent. It is considered that without extensive treatment, his psychological disorders will also be lifelong.

1. As to the nature, extent and effect of the condition she opines that your conditions were all adversely impacting on you at the time of the offending (at [18]). As accepted sensibly by your Counsel, while this may be so, the impact of your drug use cannot be disentangled and clearly was also impacting you at the time.
2. In terms of your ability to cope with custody, Dr Sowden opines that your diagnosed conditions have become more entrenched due to your lack of treatment and 'it is considered that these conditions (excluding your Substance Use Disorder) will deteriorate further with both lack of treatment and imprisonment' (at [22]).
3. Your Counsel submits that limbs 2, 5 and 6 of Verdins are enlivened[1]. In respect of limb 2, this appeared to have only been agitated in the context of the appropriateness of a DATO, which as already noted, has now been withdrawn.
4. In respect of limbs 5 and 6, your counsel relies on the opinions of Dr Sowden, including at paragraph [21] which she states:

'Mr Jacob's development disorders and particularly his Autism Spectrum Disorder, level 2 severity would in all probability make it difficult for him to cope with imprisonment (It is worth noting he reported having been placed in protective custody due to his difficulties with mainstream prison).

1. Consistent with this opinion, your Counsel refers to you being seriously assaulted in February 2024. You spent a night in an external hospital and approximately two weeks in the prison hospital. You have been in protection for the entirety of your time on remand and since March of this year you have been placed in isolation/management, with 23-hour lockdown.
2. The prosecution submit that it is unclear on the basis of Dr Sowden's report as to how your conditions render a term of imprisonment more onerous or would risk a serious deterioration in your mental health.
3. On my assessment, I accept that limb 5 is enlivened and should be given appropriate weight. Dr Sowden's report does not canvass in detail the symptoms of your conditions or how they relate to the custodial environment. However, she urges the need for structure and support due to a number of variables, including your considered low intelligence, ADHD and antisocial personality disorder. I consider that prison is, and will continue to be, experienced more onerously by you then someone who does not have your developmental and psychological disorders. While the precise detail or reasons for your placement in protection is not known, the difficulties and your current restrictive confinement in custody is broadly consistent with someone who is struggling to navigate the rules, structures and rigours of this environment. In respect of limb 6, I do not consider that the material before the Court supports that there is a serious risk of imprisonment having a significant adverse effect on your mental health.

1. Your Counsel also relies upon your youth, as you were 24 years of age at the time of the offending and are now aged 26. He submits that the principles generally applicable in the sentencing of youthful offenders have application in this case. Your youth operates in two important respects - to reduce the impact of general deterrence as a sentencing consideration; and to elevate the function of rehabilitation in the sentencing process. He refers to the well known authority of Azzopardi[2] and the principles endorsed in that case. As the level of seriousness of the criminality increases there will be a corresponding reduction in the mitigating effects of an offender's youth. Your Counsel submits, and I accept, that while relevant, this is not a case where the offending is so serious that the relevance of your youth is extinguished.

1. The prosecution submit that your prospects of rehabilitation are not good. Your Counsel submits that they should be assessed in light of your youth and the ongoing supports that you have.
2. In all the circumstances, I consider that your prospects depend on you receiving and engaging in intensive supports and treatment. You expressed to Dr Sowden a desire to change and a willingness to engage in rehabilitation programs, although she notes some resistance to engaging in treatment. She considers that it is critical that you receive structured supports and treatment to address your complex issues and mitigate the risk of future offending. I note that Dr Sowden has an ongoing relationship with your mother and is able to continue to offer you support. Dr Sowden recommends a detailed treatment plan in her report, at paragraph [27].
3. In my assessment I also take into account your relevant prior criminal history. Also, I take into account your relatively young age, your plea of guilty, that you have demonstrated some remorse, to the extent possible you have engaged in some programs in custody ('Ice and me'), the ongoing family support that you have and the assistance that you are likely to receive from NDIS. In respect of NDIS, the court received a letter confirming your NDIS plan but apparently, as submitted by your Counsel, in your case, they are unable to engage with you until you are released from custody.
4. I have also considered the letter provided to the Court by your mother, where she refers to your growing maturity and insight. She states, 'he realises that he needs support and therapy to break this cycle and turn his life around'. She also offers her continued support in ensuring that you will attend and participate in treatment and rehabilitation and assist in arranging you suitable accommodation upon your release. Your mother has attended Court now several times and clearly remains very supportive of you.

1. The purposes for which sentences may be imposed are just punishment, general deterrence, specific deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation and protection of the community. In this case, general deterrence, denunciation and community protection loom large.
2. I take into account the sentencing guidelines referred to in s5 of the Sentencing Act 1991, where relevant in your case. I take into account the principles of proportionality and totality, particularly given that all charges occur on the one day, 2 November 2023.
3. I have had regard to the general sentencing landscape for such offending. In particular, I have considered the table of cases referred to by the prosecution involving cases of aggravated reckless exposure of emergency worker to risk or reckless conduct endangering life, where the conduct is erratic driving while substance-affected. I have also considered the table of cases referred to by your Counsel in his written submissions. These cases are of assistance but of course there are similarities and differences. For example, and briefly, I note that in respect of the charge of aggravated reckless exposure of emergency workers to risk by driving in the case of Nelson v the Queen[3] there were 6 officers or victims who were the subject of the charge and in McKay v the King[4] there were 4. In respect of the charge of conduct endangering life the case of Sadiq v the Queen[5] involved colliding with a vehicle and causing serious injury to the victim. I have also had regard to the cases referred to by Counsel, mostly in this jurisdiction. The circumstances in those cases also vary, some involving one off, as opposed to protracted incidents of driving. The personal circumstances of the accused also differ. Briefly for example, in the case of DPP v Taylor[6] the accused had participated in Koori Court and had significant Bugmy[7] considerations and the Covid-19 pandemic; and in DPP v Audino[8] the accused had underlying mental health conditions and a moderate intellectual disability. Each case of course needs to be considered on its own facts and circumstances.
4. There was no dispute between Counsel that a term of imprisonment, structured with a non-parole period is the appropriate sentence. I consider that the only just and appropriate sentence in your case is one of imprisonment.
5. You have been on remand now since your arrest and you have a total of now 596 days in pre-sentence detention.

1. Synthesising all relevant matters, you are convicted and sentenced as follows.
2. Charge 1, which is the theft charge, six months' imprisonment.
3. Charge 2, which is the aggravated offence of recklessly exposing an emergency worker to risk by driving, two years and three months' imprisonment.
4. Charge 3, conduct endangering life, two years and five months' imprisonment.
5. Summary Charge 9, failing to stop at police direction, one month imprisonment.
6. Summary Charge 10, unlicenced driving, one month imprisonment.
7. Charge 3 is the base sentence. I cumulate on Charge 1, one month. And on Charge 2, nine months. Just give me one moment. That should arrive at three years and three months as a total effective term.
8. Now I have considered the appropriate parole period in your case, and I recognise in setting a parole period Mr Jacob the need to reflect general deterrence, also the gravity of the offending. In setting the non-parole period I have also taken into account your relative youth and the challenges that you present with and the supports that you require in the community, which are best received for your ongoing rehabilitation and ultimately community protection. I have decided that the term required, so the non-parole period that I set is a period of two years.
9. Pursuant to s18 I declare that you have served 596 days as pre-sentence detention.
10. Pursuant to s6AAA, I indicate that but for your plea of guilty I would have sentenced to you some four years and six months' imprisonment, with two years and 11 months' parole. The parole period's an estimate. Orders for disqualification of your licence are as follows; they are mandatory on the following charges.
11. Charge 1, you are convicted and you - all licences are disqualified and you are prohibited from obtaining any licences for a period of three months.
12. Charge 2, which is a serious motor vehicle offence and prescribes a period of at least 24 months. On that charge you are disqualified for a period of

24 months. 13. Charge 3, pursuant to s89A and in the exercise of my discretion, that is discretionary, I disqualify you from driving for a period of 12 months. 14. Summary Charge 9, I disqualify you for the prescribed minimum term of six months. 15. Summary Charge 10, which is also discretionary, I disqualify you from driving or obtaining a licence for a period of three months. 16. Can I indicate the following? First of all, counsel, no notices have been served on Mr Jacob, is that correct? 17. MR TAMBURRO: That's correct, Your Honour. 18. HER HONOUR: Thank you. I proceeded on that basis in setting these terms, I have also taken into account that Mr Jacob now has been in custody for a substantial period of time and I've factored that time period in effectively setting what I consider to be appropriate disqualification periods. 19. The operate concurrently, Mr Jacob. What you need to understand is you are disqualified from driving, you cannot drive, you cannot get into a motor vehicle when you ultimately are released. Now you will be eligible for parole at some point now whether or not, some point approaching because you have been on remand for a considerable period of time. Now whether or not you are granted parole is entirely a matter for the Parole Board, not this court. I have sentenced you to a total effective term of three years and three months' imprisonment. Now whenever you are released you need to understand that you cannot get behind the wheel of a car. No matter what your interest in a vehicle might be, you cannot do that. Do you understand? 20. OFFENDER: Yes Your Honour. 21. HER HONOUR: All right. Now would you like the link to continue Mr Mitchell to speak to your client? 22. MR MITCHELL: Yes Your Honour. 23. HER HONOUR: Any ancillary orders, can you remind me please? 24. MR TAMBURRO: No ancillary orders Your Honour. 25. HER HONOUR: No. Anything further? There is something further because my associate's looking at me? All right, that was Summary Charge 12 - - - 26. MR TAMBURRO: In that case, that's withdrawn Your Honour. I wasn't aware that was - - - 27. HER HONOUR: All right. It's still in our system though, so are you content for me to mark it as struck out, withdrawn and struck out? 28. MR TAMBURRO: Yes, Your Honour. 29. HER HONOUR: Thank you. That will be marked as withdrawn and struck out. All right. Counsel thank you very much for your assistance in this matter. 30. MR MITCHELL: Your Honour pleases. Thank you. 31. HER HONOUR: There have been a number of appearances so it is appreciated. Mr Jacob could you just wait, allow those who are present in court to leave the court and for Mr Mitchell to be able to converse with his client in private for a moment. All right, thank you counsel.

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

[2] Azzopardi v The Queen [2011] VSCA 372; (2011) 35 VR 43.

[3] [2020] VSCA 219.

[4] [2023] VSCA 8.

[5] [2017] VSCA 64.

[6] [2021] VCC 287.

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

[8] [2022] VCC 438.