DPP v Jones [2025] VCC 1323

20 November 2024 for the same offences as you to a total effective sentence of 11 months' imprisonment together with a community corrections order of

12 months' duration. Significant to his sentence was that he had undertaken to give evidence on the trial of Peters-Godden and, at that time, you, in accordance with the statement he made to the police implicating both of you. 3. You receive the benefit of your plea of guilty, albeit that it is late in time. It accepts responsibility, expresses remorse and has facilitated the interests of justice. 4. At your plea hearing, on 19 and 28 August, Mr Cameron for the Crown tendered a written prosecution opening for plea. Ms Foot for you tendered the report of consultant and forensic psychiatrist Associate Professor Rajan Darjee dated

19 October 2024 and the forensic psychological report of Aaron Cunningham dated 15 August 2025. Ms Foot provided an outline of plea submissions. Both counsel provided and relied upon cases relevant to questions of the compatibility of s5(2H), s44 and s11 of the Sentencing Act. Section 11(1) deals with the requirement of a non-parole minimum term on certain sentences. 5. The circumstances of your offending are set out in the tendered Crown opening, which is Exhibit A. My own summary may therefore be shorter. It includes matters put on your behalf not challenged by the Crown. 6. The offending occurred in the early hours of 7 July 2023 at the home of victim Anthony Lloyd, aged 53, at Nichols Point, near Mildura. As I have said, co-offenders were Brodie Peters-Godden, aged 29, and HG. You were aged 39. The three of you were using drugs, including methylamphetamine. Tiffani Mattschoss had recently separated from Lloyd and had started a relationship with you. The plan was to take or steal a dog which Mattschoss claimed as hers. 7. At one point, Peters-Godden stole a utility vehicle from a residence in the area. HG was with him but not charged. You did not know that it was stolen. The three of you drove to Lloyd's home at about 4.45 am. You gave directions to HG. You and HG are charged with and have pleaded guilty to

"trespass entry into the home, with the intention of theft. I would find, at least on first entry, theft of the dog. Peters-Godden is charged, as presently put, with intention to steal or assault. This is presumably derived from his violent behaviour, which developed inside. Neither you nor HG are accused of complicity in that. 8. On arrival, you and Peters-Godden forced your way in, making demands about the dog. Lloyd had been woken from sleep. At first, HG was outside, at or near a shed. Things developed to demands about keys to a gun safe. You and the others went to the shed in a failed search for them. You and HG are charged with two entries into the house, close in time, intending to steal. Charge 1 against you is thereby a rolled-up count. At one point, Peters-Godden produced a knife and punched Lloyd to the face. You did not know of his possession of that weapon. At a later point, Peters-Godden assaulted Lloyd with a metal bar, perhaps a handlebar to a bike found in the shed. 9. You left, with the dog. Your group also stole a number of other items; I would find an intention formed after entry. They are described at paragraph 23 of the Crown opening: 'the victim's iPhone 14 and Samsung S21 mobile phones; the victim's wallet, containing bank cards and ID cards; a 50-cent coin collection; a silver baseball bat; a Makita drill and tech screw gun; and Maggie, the dog'. Lloyd suffered serious injuries at the hands of Peters-Godden, described at paragraph 26: 'deep laceration to his forehead; a fractured skull - that is, right eye socket; a broken nose; swelling to his right eye; and initial difficulties opening his right eyelid followed by ongoing weakness in the eyelid'. 10. There is no victim impact statement. 11. You are a 41-year-old man awaiting this sentence in remand custody. You have been in custody since arrest, a period 783 days. The psychiatric and psychological evidence together with Ms Foot's outline describes a traumatic, dislocated, damaging early life, particularly featuring domestic violence perpetrated by your alcoholic father. Both of your parents are now deceased. The family - you are one of six children - settled in Mildura when you were 16. An older sister was raped and murdered when she was 17. Another older sister has died more recently. You struggled academically and left school at Year 8. You had been sexually abused by a teacher's aide during secondary school. Despite that childhood trauma, you have a relatively good employment record, working as a labourer, in farm work and in retail. Most recently, you were a manager at Cash Converters. You have poor reading and writing. 12. It is not surprising that you were introduced to drugs and alcohol during teenage. You used methylamphetamine at 19. Drug abuse has continued, but with periods of sustained abstinence, over your adulthood. Another stability was a long-term relationship of over 20 years with a woman who had two children by an earlier relationship. Your relationship with her was not without its difficulties. She died of pancreatic cancer in 2022. You supported and cared for her as she died. Her death had a major impact, and you relapsed into heavier drug use and, it is clear, its anti-social, criminogenic environment. You were dependent on methylamphetamine and were using that, with others, when you offended. The relationship with Mattschoss ended not long after. She returned to her partnership with Lloyd. You had not worked since your partner's death. 13. You can live with a brother-in-law or nephew when you leave prison. 14. Your criminal record is significant. Between 2003 and May 2023, there are multiple court appearances. Violent offences, including some related to weapons, feature prominently. There are also offences of breaching family violence intervention orders, related to drugs and driving. There is little in the way of dishonesty. In October 2018, you received a short sentence of imprisonment for aggravated burglary. There are periods substantially without offending, in 2004 to 2013 and 2013 to 2018. 15. There have been various mental health diagnoses over your lifetime. You have taken medications for over 20 years and are presently prescribed

anti-depressive and anti-psychotic medication. Psychiatrist Professor Darjee, in 2024, did not find psychotic illness. He gives the opinion of moderately severe personality disorder that developed in the context of complex and chronic childhood trauma. You meet criteria for paranoid personality disorder. Psychologist Aaron Cunningham diagnoses complex post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder caused by your childhood experience. You have attempted suicide twice and have been hospitalized because of

drug-induced psychosis. You expressed to Professor Darjee a grim expectation of your future. 16. The offending of you and HG, whilst not carrying the violence of co-offender Peters-Godden, was a serious invasion of Anthony Lloyd's home and its security. It was at night and, with little doubt, a very frightening experience. Your intention to steal upon entry was perhaps informed by Mattschoss's claim of right to the dog. However, the method was of course utterly indefensible, violent in itself, and extreme anti-social behaviour. You ultimately stole in the very true sense. Whilst you are not complicit in, and not to be sentenced for the serious injuries inflicted on Anthony Lloyd, that happened after, and in the context of, your invasion into his home. You have a considerable criminal history. 17. Such circumstances make relevant sentencing considerations of moral culpability; deterrence - that is, both general and specific deterrence; the need for condemnation of the offending; and proportionate punishment of it. General deterrence is relevant to attempt deterrence of others. 18. A sentence of imprisonment is inevitable, particularly for Charge 1, home invasion. 19. However, I find in your case moderating factors which go to reduce the sentence otherwise necessary to address the objectively seen circumstances of offending. They include the following. 20. (1) Your plea of guilty.

(2) Your personal history and circumstances. This includes the circumstances of your damaging early life. I find that the principles stated in Bugmy and like cases have relevance to your sentence. Your traumatic childhood goes toward explaining both early abuse of drugs and then criminal offending. You were 19 at the time of your first court appearance.

(3) Important parts of your personal history and ongoing circumstances are your mental health conditions. I accept the expert opinion that they are also connected to the trauma of childhood. I also accept that imprisonment has and would continue to be more difficult for you than others, for example, there will be ongoing risk of self-harm, as stated by Professor Darjee.

(4) I must apply the principle of parity, at least in the sense of attempt at a just comparison with the sentence imposed on HG. A major difference, of course, is that he received a discount in sentence because of his undertaking to assist in the trial at one point of you and Peters-Godden and now Peters-Godden alone. It can also be said that he received, even in the context of that, a generous sentence for Charge 1, a very serious offence. However, it is agreed that your circumstances in role, personal background and criminal history are very similar. Ultimately, I find that a just sentence of you requires considered reference to what he received.

(5). There is also the fact of delay. It is now about 26 months since offence and your arrest. You have been in remand since arrest, and I accept that you have in that situation felt anxiety and stress over that time. You are psychologically vulnerable to that. As put by Ms Foot, assessment of your prospects for rehabilitation, or demonstration of that, is compromised. Also in your case, my ultimate sentence, for reasons I shall seek to make clear, will mean that your eligible parole date has passed over the time, albeit that you state you will not apply for parole.

(6) Your prospects for rehabilitation can be seen as no better than uncertain. I do not utterly discount them. Positive factors are a work record of some stability and those periods of not seriously offending I have identified. You will have accommodation and some family support upon release. I have come to the view that rehabilitation of you, and therefore that benefit to the community, would be best supported by release from prison on the certain, specific conditions and supervision of a community corrections order. That can and should contain further examination, support and treatment for mental health.

1. Ms Foot has put that I should impose a prison sentence on Charge 1, home invasion, and then on Charge 2, theft, a community corrections order. She points to the Court of Appeal case of Wright v The King, 12 October 2023, [2023] VSCA 243, on this. The Crown submits that I should impose a head and minimum term before eligibility for parole. As clear from discussion with counsel at the plea hearing and then on 28 August, there are questions and difficulties in the particular circumstances of your case as to the permissible structure of sentence. These arise out of what is stated in s5(2H), s11 and s44 of the Sentencing Act and how those provisions may interact.
2. I am led to make the following findings and observations.
3. (1) I have come to the view that the appropriate and correct term of imprisonment is two years and four months. This focuses on Charge 1.

(2) Without restriction by those sections of the Sentencing Act, I would see the correct sentence to be that period of imprisonment on Charge 1 and an 18-month community corrections order on Charge 2. That total sentence would in my view properly meet the relevant sentencing considerations and purposes. It would be the sentence which best meets the interests of the community. I also refer to my earlier remarks on the principle of parity or at least some necessary comparison with the sentence of HG.

(3). I agree with the submission that such a structure is permitted by authority of the case of Wright. I find that the prohibition in s5(2H) of a combined sentence and a community corrections order on a charge does not prevent it, given a separate sentence on a separate charge. Section 44 requires that the sum of all terms of imprisonment does not exceed 12 months, but with that entailing, effectively, deduction of the

pre-sentence detention period. This does not affect my sentence.

(4) s11(1)(b) requires that I set a non-parole period when the head sentence, as I propose here, is two years or more. Section 11(1)(b) states exceptions where the court considers that the nature of the offence or the past history of the offender make the fixing of such a period inappropriate. I was directed on this to the case of Tannous v The Queen, 2 May 2017, [2017] VSCA 91. Arguably, this case suggests a broadly less strict interpretation of that requirement, enabling a term longer than two years to be imposed together with a community corrections order and without a minimum term. A more conservative view is that Tannous dealt with a sentence on which the majority of charges were arson, which raised other considerations, for example, under s44(1A) of the Sentencing Act. Accordingly, the refusal to a set a non-parole period in that case met the exception under s11(1)(b), being the nature of offence. I have decided to sentence under the strict language of s11(1)(b) and set a minimum term.

(5) Tannous makes reference to 'practical difficulties which may arise' in having a parole release order running at the same time as a community corrections order. I sought, in court, advice on this by a senior officer of community corrections in Mildura. That advice persuades me that in practice there are no such significant difficulties. Both orders can be managed appropriately, and that happens.

(6) Overarching these matters I raise, the case of DPP v Rivette, 22 June 2017, [2017] VSCA 150, speaks against a sentencing judge tailoring or manipulating a sentence to avoid the effect of Sentencing Act legislative provisions.

(7) I am going to impose a sentence of two years and four months on Charge 1 and a community corrections order on Charge 2. I am going to set a minimum term on Charge 1 of one year and eight months. This period is less than the pre-sentence detention of 783 days, which will be declared. Delay in the proceeding has brought that about.

(8) This is a particular case in which the practical likelihood, if not certainties, can play a role. On your behalf, Ms Foot has argued for a straight sentence, indicating that you will not apply for parole. In any event, given the timing of things, parole would not be considered before your head sentence ends. Upon release on that head sentence for Charge 1, you will be required to commence a community corrections order on Charge 2. I do not see reference to these matters to offend against the provision in s5(2AA)(a) of the Sentencing Act.

I have received the report of Glen Bellini of Community Corrections. You are found suitable for a community corrections order in the circumstances envisaged.

1. After considering what I see to be the relevant matters, I sentence you as follows. Stand up please. On Charge 1, you are sentenced to imprisonment for two years and four months. I declare pre-sentence detention of 783 days. On Charge 2, you are convicted, and I impose a community corrections order of 18 months' duration to commence on release from that imprisonment. The usual terms apply. I impose the additional conditions that you perform community work of 150 hours over that time, but hours of the program work can be deducted from that. Further conditions are that you be under supervision, that there be assessment and treatment for mental health, that there be assessment and treatment for drug dependence as directed and that you participate as directed in programs to address the particular offending. All right, if you take a seat now, and we will have that order printed out. I need to state a s6AAA. I will do that in a moment. Had you not pleaded guilty, I would have imposed a sentence of four years with a minimum term of two and a half years. Are there other orders, Mr Wingrove?
2. MR WINGROVE: No, there are no other orders sought for this matter,

Your Honour. 3. HIS HONOUR: Stand up please. Now, on Charge 2, you are sentenced to a community corrections order commencing upon your release from imprisonment, which I calculate to be about two months from now, but people better able will be able to indicate that to you. Community Corrections will be in contact with you as your release date approaches. The usual terms are these, that upon release you must attend at the Mildura community corrections office at Madden Avenue in Mildura within two working days; you must not commit another offence for which you could be imprisoned during the time of the order; you must comply with a regulation that you do not attend any workplace, appointment or program affected by alcohol or drugs or in possession of illegal drugs; you must report to and receive visit from

Community Corrections; you must let Community Corrections know within

two days of a change of address or job; you must not leave Victoria without first getting permission to do so from Community Corrections. Mildura is in a special situation, so you will need to have some discussion with Community Corrections about it. They can accommodate the need to travel at least short distances into New South Wales for necessary purposes; you must obey all lawful instructions and directions of Community Corrections. 4. The additional conditions are you perform 150 hours of unpaid work over that period of 18 months; All hours of program work can be set off against that - that is, deducted; further, you must be under the supervision of a community corrections officer; you must undergo assessment and treatment for drug abuse or dependency; you must undergo mental health assessment and treatment as you are directed; and you must participate in programs that address factors related to this offending as you are directed. Do you understand all of that? 5. OFFENDER: Yes. 6. HIS HONOUR: Do you agree to it? 7. OFFENDER: Yes. 8. HIS HONOUR: Well, I will get you to sign the order, and then I will sign it. All right. Now, copies of that can be given to the relevant people. All right. All right, nothing else needs to be done or said? 9. MR CAMERON: No, Your Honour. 10. MR WINGROVE: No, Your Honour. 11. HIS HONOUR: Good. Thank you for your assistance today. You can take a seat.