DPP v Katsakis [2025] VCC 1866

Crimes Act, s 18

Resisting emergency workers SC Wright, FC Sandhu, and Constable Kayla Moore

1. In October of last year, you were actively psychotic. You engaged with Police in a violent and menacing way in public. During this offending you injured a policeman who was simply doing his job.
2. That act is represented by Charge 2: Recklessly Cause Injury to an Emergency Worker on Duty. That is a Category 1 offence under the Sentencing Act 1991, and the court must impose a term of imprisonment on you of not less than six months unless 'special reasons' exist. [1]
3. This is such a case where special reasons exist; principally related to your profound and enduring mental illness as well as other cognitive deficits.[2]
4. That finding, having been made, means other statutory provisions come into play, permitting a combination sentence of imprisonment and a mandatory treatment order (MTMO) to be imposed (in circumstances where the Act would otherwise preclude it in favour of a straight sentence or a head sentence with a non-parole period)
5. The joint position from the parties is that in this case, an immediate term of imprisonment in combination with an MTMO is both open and appropriate.
6. I will sentence you accordingly.

1. On 8 October 2024, Senior Constable Walk, Senior Constable Singh, and Constable Moore were working at Broadmeadows on watch house duties.
2. At about 11:30 am, you were walking up Dimboola Road in the vicinity of the police station. You were carrying a large rock at the time. You walked up to a marked police wagon on the side of Dimboola Road, and smashed its front windscreen with the rock, causing the glass to crack [Charge 1 - Criminal Damage].
3. Constable Farrant observed the damage, and went inside the police station to report it to SC Wright. Wright, Sandhu, and Moore went outside to speak to you and arrest you. They followed you down Pearcedale Parade.
4. As the officers approached, you took off your jacket and raised your fists in a fighting pose. You were not wearing a shirt under your jacket.
5. You kicked Wright to the left side of his body and punched him on the nose and mouth. He lost consciousness, and woke up face down on the concrete, bleeding heavily from his lips and nose. He also felt a sharp pain to his left elbow and leg, which he injured as he hit the ground [Charge 2 - Recklessly causing injury].
6. You approached Sandhu. He and Moore both activated their OC spray to immobilise you at a distance of around two metres. They sprayed you to the face and upper chest.
7. You attempted to leave by crossing the road. You walked in front of an oncoming car, which made contact with you, but you did not fall down.
8. Sandhu grabbed you with both hands and pulled you back towards the footpath. In the course of this arrest, you kicked Sandhu to the left leg [Summary Charge 4 - Assault emergency worker]. You fell down after this.
9. Moore announced you were under arrest for assaulting police.
10. Sandhu tried to hold you down by the shoulder and bring your arm behind your back, while you attempted to wrestle free with your arms by throwing your elbows around erratically. [Summary Charge 5 (rolled-up) - Resist emergency worker].
11. Wright assisted Sandhu and Moore to handcuff you. Constable Moore struck you to the back of the legs in order to gain control of you.
12. The officers walked you back to the police station. You were yelling 'Allahu Akbar' amongst other things that the officers could simply not understand.

1. You were not interviewed in relation to the incident due to your erratic behaviour.

1. On 9 October 2024, Senior Constable Wright's injuries were assessed as follows:

(a) Concussion,

(b) Trauma to the lips, causing swelling,

(c) Bruising and bleeding to the elbow,

(d) Anxiety and stress,

(e) Deviated septum, causing ongoing breathing issues, and requiring further assessment and surgery.

1. He was required to take medical leave following this incident.
2. On 15 October 2024, Victoria Police had the car that was damaged repaired. The total cost of repairs was $1,402.46.
3. On 12 March 2025, Wright underwent surgery to repair his deviated septum in relation to his ongoing difficulties breathing through his nose.
4. The surgeon encountered 'several facture lines through the nasal septum with a significant deviation'. A post-operative catch up was scheduled for June 2025, and the surgeon cleared him to resume work at full duties from 16 April.

1. Mr Wright authored a victim impact statement dated 21 July 2025.[4] He details in the weeks after the assault he was unable to eat solid food, he had difficulty breathing before his surgery, he experienced emotional stress and saw a psychologist to assist with that. He also experienced financial stress with the cost of the operation. He had to take a significant period off work. He said, 'there was a big spark in my life that was missing for a good chunk of time'.
2. The assault clearly had a profound effect upon Mr Wright. He had a cut and swollen upper lip, a grazed elbow, concussion and a deviation to his nasal passage which required surgery. The surgeon, as I said, found facture lines through his nasal septum with significant deviation. In the days following the incident, he had memory loss, dizziness, headaches and difficulty breathing through the left side of his nose.

1. The matter progressed through the criminal justice system fairly quickly, with active efforts to resolve commencing almost immediately after important psychiatric material was obtained on your behalf. That history is set out in the chart below.

Adjourned to allow Defence to obtain psychiatric reports

Adjourned to allow Prosecution to take instructions on offer to resolve

1. You have been remanded since 8 October 2024. You have accumulated 428 days not including today by way of pre-sentence detention (that is say approximately 14 months).

1. You were born in April 1987. At the time of offending, you were 37. You are single. You have no children. You have a diagnosis of intellectual disability, schizophrenia and substance use disorder.
2. Given your very poor mental health, it had been difficult for your Counsel to obtain a consistent, coherent account of your biographical details.
3. Much of what is known about you comes from reports provided on the plea, especially those concerning your psychological and psychiatric history as well as wrap around services available in the community. They come in the form of the;

(a) Psychiatric report of Dr Zimmerman[5]

(b) MHARS report [6]

(c) Letters of Ms Kaya (disability support worker)[7]

1. Some biographical material came from reviewing sentencing remarks from back in 2014.[8]
2. Greater detail became available to me through the process of having you assessed for an MTMO, which I will come to in due course.

1. You had childhood exposure to family violence and bullying at school due to your intellectual disability.
2. You are the middle of three children. You have an older half-brother. Your father was often an angry and violent man towards his family, including your mother. You witnessed this for years. Your mother had a gambling problem.
3. Your relationship with your parents has suffered due to your mental health and drug use. They have intervention orders against you, which expired as I understand it in November 2025. You were on bail at the time of these offences due to allegations that you tried to set fire to your mother's house (charges that I add in the end did not proceed)
4. Where you would live upon release remained a vexed issue, at least until a notification today.

1. You struggled at mainstream school as you had an intellectual disability and were frequently in trouble (usually for causing property damage by breaking windows or graffiti and the like). In 1996, you moved to a specialist school where you were physically abused by teachers and forced to fight another child. You report that you were molested by one of the principals.
2. In secondary school your misbehaviour continued and you frequently truanted. You were expelled for being involved in a fight that required police attendance in 2004.
3. After leaving school, you worked as a tiler on and off for about two years. That ended because of your drug use and causing damage to your employers' property.
4. You then worked as a labourer for a bricklayer for two weeks but did not perform well. You were not paid. You left at the age of 21. You have been on the Disability Support Pension ever since.
5. You report that you converted to Islam at age 18 because of your friends at the time but have recently abandoned your faith.

1. You started drinking at 17, but never heavily. You used cannabis from the age of 18 up until a few years ago. You believe that this caused your psychosis. You used amphetamines from 19 and methamphetamines since 22 (both by way of smoking and injecting). You report that that use also causes your psychosis. You have tried MDMA, ketamine, and benzodiazepines and have a history of gambling.
2. You attempted suicide in 2021 at the thought of being imprisoned.

1. You admit a long and relevant criminal history dating back to 2005.

1. You have committed offences of theft, attempted theft, burglary, robbery, armed robbery, obtain financial advantage by deception, handle stolen goods, assault, assault police officer, behave in a threatening manner, assault with a weapon, intentionally causing injury, recklessly causing serious injury, commit offences on bail, contravene Family Violence Intervention Orders, contravene bail, and contravene Community Correction Order. You were on a CCO at the time of the present offending.
2. You admit a number of dishonesty related priors, as I said, and breaches of family violence intervention orders.
3. You have been sentenced to community-based dispositions, fine, a lengthy CCO with a Justice Plan in 2013 for intentionally causing serious injury, robbery, recklessly causing serious injury and others.
4. You admit one established breach of a CCO, but as I said, this offending breaches the most recent one imposed.
5. In 2014 you were first sentenced to your custodial sentence for armed robbery and assaults. You received three years and five months with a non-parole period (NPP) of 22 months.
6. That non-parole period was increased as a result of the breach of the CCO, making it two years six months.[9]
7. You continued to offend and have received straight terms of imprisonment in 2021 and 2023. You were placed on a combination sentence for offences of violence and dishonesty of March of last year.[10] That combination sentence of one year and one month (458 days PSD) came with a 12 month CCO with a Justice Plan. By October 2024, you committed the offences before me. One can readily see why this would cause one to be concerned about your prosects on another such order.

Your experience in custody thus far has been largely in either management or psychiatric units.

1. You have an intellectual disability.
2. Documentation also reveals you have had some 15 admissions to psychiatric units between 2009-2022.
3. Dr Zimmerman assessed you as suffering from a psychotic relapse of schizophrenia characterised by hallucinations and delusions at the time of the offending.
4. She opines that you were unable to reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure as to the wrongfulness of your behaviour at the time of the offending.[11]
5. I will deal with this in more detail when assessing the application of Verdins.

1. You have had NDIS support available since 2022. Ms Kaya's letter in August this year[12] confirms just what has been done in the past to support you. Their presence and support is a key feature of your future; to assist you in obtaining accommodation, care, therapeutic interventions, improve your quality of life, and in doing so, hopefully reduce the risk that you pose of re-offending.

1. The offending is very serious and occurs in circumstances where you were non-compliant with prescribed psychotropic medication and experiencing a protracted psychotic episode. It seems I add, you were actively planning to end your life at the hands of the Police that day.
2. There are several features of the offending before the court to consider:[13]

(a) Charge 2 of Recklessly causing injury is a serious example of that offence.

(b) The assault to Senior Constable Wright involved both kicking and punching. He was punched with such force to the face that he lost consciousness and fell to the ground.

(c) The offending occurred in a public place during the day.

(d) The offending was committed while you were the subject of a CCO which was imposed as early as 22 April 2024.

(e) You were on bail at the time you committed these offences, as well.

Mandatory matters regarding category 1 offences

1. Charge 2: Recklessly Causing Injury to an Emergency Worker on Duty is a Category 1 offence.[14] For that reason, I must impose a term of imprisonment of not less than six months unless special reasons exist.
2. Section 10A(2)(c)(i) of the Sentencing Act 1991 provides that

... the Court may make a finding that a special reason exists if the offender proves on the balance of probabilities that subject to section 2A, at the time of the commission of the offence he had impaired mental functioning that is causally linked to the commission of the offence and substantially reduces the offenders culpability.

1. Under ss2A, referenced above, this special reason will not be available if the impaired mental functioning was caused substantially by self-induced intoxication.
2. Section 5 of the Sentencing Act still applies. The relevant provisions read:

(2G) Subject to subsection (2GA), in sentencing an offender for a category 1 offence, a court must make an order under Division 2 of Part 3 (other than a sentence of imprisonment imposed in addition to making a community correction order in accordance with section 44).

(2GA) In sentencing an offender for an offence referred to in paragraph (ca), (cb), (cc), (ic) or (id) of the definition of category 1 offence where the court has found under section 10A that a special reason exists and having regard to the Parliament's intention set out in section 10A(3)(aa) to (b), a court must make either -

(b) a mandatory treatment and monitoring order (whether or not a sentence of imprisonment is imposed under section 44), a residential treatment order or a Court Secure Treatment Order if -

(i) the offender proves on the balance of probabilities that, at the time of the commission of the offence, the offender had impaired mental functioning that is causally linked to the commission of the offence and substantially and materially reduces the offender's culpability; and

(ii) the court is satisfied that a mandatory treatment and monitoring order, a residential treatment order or a Court Secure Treatment Order, as the case requires, is appropriate.

(2GB) Before making an order under subsection (2GA)(b) a court must -

(a) have received a report addressing the matters in subsection (2GA)(b)(i) by a psychiatrist or a registered psychologist who has examined the offender in relation to the offending; and

(b)have regard to that report and any other evidence that the court considers relevant.

(2GC)Subsection (2GA) does not apply to impaired mental functioning caused substantially by self‑induced intoxication.[15]

1. Section 44A of the Sentencing Act 1991 provides

(1) If a court is sentencing an offender in respect of an offence referred to in sub-section 5(2GA) [and that is the case here] and the court is satisfied that under that subsection they must make an order under this section which is appropriate, the court must make a community corrections order with the following mandatory conditions attached -

(a) a judicial monitoring condition;

(i) a treatment and rehabilitation condition; or

(ii) a justice plan condition.[16]

(2) This section does not limit the conditions which a court may attach to a CCO.

(5) This section does not limit the ability for me to impose a combination sentence.[17]

The evidence and arguments with respect to a MTMO

1. Dr Zimmerman's opinions[18] provide the evidentiary basis for a special reason to not impose the minimum mandated sentence in relation to Charge 2 on the indictment.
2. Your psychosis and schizophrenia were causally connected to the offending and that operates to substantially and materially reduce your culpability.
3. Dr Zimmerman states:

"I believe that the persistence of psychotic symptoms in prison even when no longer taking methylamphetamines supports the idea that Mr Katsakis experiences psychotic symptoms even in the absence of illicit drugs. I believe that any drugs that may have been present in his system are best conceptualised as aggravating his underlying psychosis rather than primary causative factors."

1. The prosecution submit that the court cannot be satisfied on the basis of the report that the psychosis was not partly self-induced through drugs, given your previous history with substance abuse, and the observations by police on the day, that you appeared drug affected.
2. However, Ms Hogan sensibly concedes that you have an underlying, enduring serious mental illness namely schizophrenia and an intellectual disability, and that while drugs may have played a part in the psychosis, it was not only caused by drugs.
3. Thus, it cannot be established that the psychosis was not partly drug induced but it was not caused substantially by self-induced intoxication, and it was your underlying schizophrenia that was the substantial cause of your psychosis.
4. That is the position too the Crown very fairly took relating to the application of Verdins.
5. Once so satisfied of the special reason required under s10A(2)(c)(i) I have gone on to consider the application of s5(2GA), which itself requires satisfaction of essentially the same test as under s10A(2)(c)(i) regarding reduced culpability due to impaired mental functioning (not caused by self-intoxication).
6. I had the benefit of submissions from both parties urging me to consider a MTMO (as part of a CCO monitored and administered through the Department of Community Justice and Safety (DJCS)).
7. I had you assessed accordingly.

The MTMO assessment (part 1)

1. The DJCS engaged in a thorough assessment for an MTMO. The initial Extended Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) was dated 20 October,[19] but regrettably, the DJCS assessor Ms Antonio did not have the benefit of the following:

(a) the Disability Overview Report of Ms Devine of 5 November 2025;[20]

(b) the Justice Plan[21] provided on the same date;

(c) the Special Forensic Disability Accommodation referral letter from Ms Devine dated 21 November 2025;[22]

(d) the letter of your Hand2 Hand support co-ordinator of Ms Kaya dated 24 November 2025[23]; or

(e) the confirmation of a significant NDIS package confirmed in writing whilst you were in custody dated 12 November. [24]

1. The assessment I am about to summarise needs to be read with that in mind.
2. You were described as performing poorly consistently across your last CCO; unable to engage or participate meaningfully with sessions.
3. The Extended PSR also identifies institutional behavioural issues.[25] You were the subject of multiple frightening, violent and disturbing incidents in custody, such that you are seen as a real potential risk to CCO-MTMO staff and otherwise be scaffolded by structured supervision. They are understandably concerned that they simply cannot manage you safely or effectively in the community.
4. You were assessed as either a high risk of reoffending or a very high risk of offending in every domain that is measurable. It was observed the risk arose because of your drug and alcohol use, your pro-criminal attitudes or orientation, companions and a lack of any real protective factors. Quite the contrary, you presented only with responsivity issues in terms of your mental health, and accommodation, the latter meaning almost insurmountable issues would arise.
5. The PSR raised several sentencing challenges linked to your complex mental health presentation and prospects of achieving stability in the community, which did not have the benefit of consideration of the full suite of services that may be deployed to treat you.
6. You were made aware of the proposed conditions and appeared to be willing to comply with the conditions of the order. Nonetheless you were assessed as unsuitable.[26]

1. The Disability Overview Report though dated 5 November confirms that you have an intellectual disability[27] relevant to sentence not least of all because of the Verdins principles.
2. The Overview Report also contains encouraging signs of your insight you're your own offending and goals to achieve stability in the community.[28]
3. Sensibly, its author said that access to stable housing and assistance from the NDIS plan[29] may assist you with compliance with community-based programs.
4. Enquiries were made prior to the further hearing of this matter back on 24 November 2025 as to the availability of further services than those identified in the Outcome Report and Justice Plan, and I can deal with those now.
5. The DFFH noted the tremendous difficulties in sourcing accommodation for an individual such as you with both high needs and dual diagnosis. Ms Lawrence, senior practitioner for Forensic Disability Statewide Services says the following:

(a) The ACSO Intake recommended that Clinical Residential Rehabilitation Services may be an appropriate accommodation option to explore your complex needs.

(b) Further recommendation was for you to ensure accommodation needs are mental health focused such as Ermha or Alfred Health Community Care, with consideration to explore a referral to the Assertive Outreach and Support Program on release from custody to support with reintegration into the community.

1. Ms Devine notes what is available with the support offered NDIS Support Coordinator Ms Kaya at Hand2Hand. Ms Kaya prepared a report for court dated 22 August 2025.
2. Following release from custody, as I understand it, you will be supported by Ms Kaya who will assist with the following:

(a) Submit a change of circumstances application upon release to activate additional budget funding;

(b) Initiate housing referrals and application for long-term stable housing solutions (this has now occurred and been actioned in a positive way);

(c) Commence allied health and therapeutic supports under Improved Daily Living;

(d) Support you in accessing safe and appropriate housing upon release, including referrals to, Supported Independent Living (SIL). Again, I repeat what I said earlier;

(e) Ensure regular communication between you, your family, allied health providers, and legal supports to maintain consistent support;

(f) Monitor and manage NDIS funding to ensure supports are used effectively and aligned with your goals;

(g) Work in collaboration with all stakeholders.

1. The Justice Plan prepared especially for you is equally thorough. Ms Devine recommends:

(a) That you engage with a Disability Justice Coordinator from the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing (DFFH) for the duration of the order;

(b) That you agree to participate in a referral to area mental health services and abide by treatment and recommendation as directed by treating professionals;

(c) If sentenced to a CCO, that you are referred to undergo an assessment with Australian Community Support Organisations (ACSO) - for their Community Offenders Advice and Treatment Service (COATS) treatment and follow up treatment recommendations made. It should be noted that ACSO-COATS will only accept a referral if it is listed as an assessment and treatment condition of a community-based disposition.[30]

1. She concludes 'the department recommends the above available services to reduce the likelihood of [your] reoffending. The department will monitor your participation in the services recommended in the justice plan and will advise appropriate authorities if the justice plan requires review.'

1. The one-page professional summary provided by Ms Kaya[31] on the last occasion confirmed the efforts made to assist you upon your release from custody. Put simply:

(a) There has been NDIS plan access and liaison actioned;

(b) There has been coordination with disability Justice Services;

(c) There was an ACSO and SFDA referral follow up.

1. Put bluntly, the above represents a serious, integrated and co-ordinated effort by multiple agencies to provide supports and services for you to be managed with your difficulties in the community.
2. In light of the above, on the 24 November, both Mr Oldham and Ms Hogan urged me to ask the Department to reconsider their position as to your suitability on an MTMO in light of that new information. I did so.

The MTMO assessment (part 2)

1. Having then been provided with the information I have noted above, I received an updated report on 8 December.[32]
2. It simply said this:

"While the Justice Plan outlines disability related supports available to Mr Katsakis, this service notes that similar interventions have been available to him before on previous community-based orders. Despite the provision of these supports, Mr Katsakis has demonstrated minimal engagement, failed to comply with core conditions, and did not meaningfully participate in recommended interventions or programs. On this basis, the re-imposition of another Justice Plan does not provide sufficient evidence that his capacity or commitment to adhere to a

"Similarly, although Mr Katsakis has now been approved for a comprehensive 12-month NDIS plan which incorporates housing support, a support coordinator, and a psychosocial recovery coach and behaviour supports, these supports are not new as Mr Katsakis has had provided NDIS support previously, during which he continued to reoffend and remained unable to maintain abstinence from illicit substances in the community. His history reflects the mere availability of supports does not translate into engagement, compliance or mitigation of risk of

re-offending and as such, the existence of an updated NDIS plan does not sufficiently mitigate the concerns previously identified."

1. The Department was unwilling to change their view.

1. Both parties submitted that notwithstanding you were found unsuitable, I still ought to impose the MTMO.
2. I acknowledge the concerns that are real of the Department of Justice and Community Safety.
3. The risks you present simply by virtue at the time prior to today, of not having accommodation available, has been resolved in these terms. It was confirmed to me today the following.[33]
4. That you have been approved for SDA/SIL Accommodation in Beveridge. This accommodation is classified as Robust SDA and is designed for participants with complex behavioural, mental health or cognitive needs. It is a three bedroom property with one bedroom for Mr Katsakis, one bedroom designed for relatives who may stay on occasion to provide support and one for support workers who will be providing an ongoing support. Ms Mel Kaya will be present in court to give further evidence in relation to the accommodation if need be.
5. Having said that, it is obvious it is important for me to consider the effect of ongoing imprisonment on you given your cognition and poor mental health. I am well aware of the risk of institutionalisation that can occur with serious psychiatric illness during both long and short sentences, as a 'revolving door' phenomenon of quick returns to custody that can be coupled with positive thinking about imprisonment combined with fatalism about coping with obstacles such as homelessness or substance abuse, or distrust of 'helping' professionals.[34]
6. The issue of community protection is squarely raised in your case, and I have had regard to the infractions incurred whilst you were remanded in custody for which you have already been punished only for the purposes in assessing the risk that you pose in the community.

1. You entered a plea at an early stage in proceedings. The early plea in this matter provides the utilitarian benefit of early resolution of the matter and relieves the complainants from having to further participate in the criminal process.
2. You indicated an intention to plead at the committal mention on 8 May.

1. Your plea though is also indicative of remorse, and I am prepared to treat it as such. There are no overt expressions of remorse to the psychiatrist, Dr Nina Zimmerman, but one must bear in mind that that was a report to see if you were so compromised in your thinking as to be mentally impaired or not.
2. There are insightful comments made to the disability overview report writer. You told Ms Devine you were profoundly unwell and thought Police were agents of the devil who were going to kill you. You said that you would apologise to the police officer for doing his job.

1. You have disclosed childhood exposure to family violence and bullying at school due to your intellectual disability. You appeared to witness significant domestic violence at home from a young age. [35]
2. In Bugmy v The Queen[36] the High Court held that the effects of profound childhood deprivation, particularly exposure to violence, do not diminish over time and may bear significantly on an offender's moral culpability2.
3. The Court held that such experiences may inform both the offender's moral culpability and likelihood of rehabilitation.
4. This is different of course to the heads of mitigation raised under the cover of Verdins.[37]
5. In DPP v Herrmann[38], the Court said at [46]:

"It is the mark of a humane society that the moral judgment expressed through sentencing should take account of the lifelong damage that may result from exposure to violence or abuse or parental neglect in an offender's formative years. As the present case graphically illustrates, childhood trauma can permanently damage - and seriously distort - a person's view of the world around them and their understanding of social norms. " (emphasis added)

1. In Black v The Queen [39] the Court said at [25]:

"...childhood deprivation could, as a stand-alone factor, operate to diminish the appellant's moral culpability insofar as both charges were concerned, and that it was unnecessary to demonstrate any causative nexus between the relevant deprivation and the offending conduct."

1. Dr Zimmerman's report evidences your childhood experiences that warrant the Court considering the extent to which those experiences diminishes your moral culpability in a general sense. Mr Oldham argues that this principle applies, and Ms Hogan agrees that this is so.
2. I am mindful that protection of the community may be elevated in such a case as yours where your history of deprivation makes you more of a danger to the community.

1. You have both an intellectual disability and schizophrenia. These raise different considerations from Bugmy. [40]
2. No specific reliance was placed on Muldrock v The Queen [41], although I have accommodated those principles in my sentence whereby your culpability is by necessity reduced somewhat given the ongoing enduring nature of such a deficit.
3. Dr Zimmerman assessed you as suffering from a psychotic relapse of schizophrenia characterised by hallucinations and delusion at the time of the offending.
4. I repeat, your presentation was so severe that Dr Zimmerman opines that you were unable to reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure as to the wrongfulness of your behaviour at the time of offending.[42]
5. At underscore this, you were on a Temporary Treatment Order under the Mental Health and Well-being Act 2022 as a means to force you to be treated.
6. You told Dr Zimmerman that prior to the alleged offending you were taking your prescribed antipsychotic medication, 'now and then'.
7. In the immediate lead up to the offending you described hearing voices and told Dr Zimmerman that you wanted to get the attention of police and provoke them so that you would die.[43]
8. You were assessed by the Mental Health Advice and Response Service (MHARS) the day following the offending)[44]. That report writer noted that you, 'displays symptoms of delusional belief, of a paranoid nature ... with command hallucinations hearing voices that [you] believe is God. . . He has no insight and has recently refused prescribed fortnightly risperidone intramuscular due to his delusional beliefs that his spirit is not in his body. He attempted suicide through a plan to fight the police and cause them to kill him and only stopped due to the pain of the capsicum spray'.[45]
9. Dr Zimmerman formed the opinion that you were actively psychotic. She stated that you denied using drugs in the weeks prior to the offending, but that, '[she had] no collateral confirmation there were no drugs in [your] system at the time'.
10. She goes on to state, 'while Mr Katsakis denied using drugs in the lead-up to and on the day of offending, I have got no collateral information confirming this to be the case. It is possible his psychotic state was in part the result of ingestion of Ice. He has a long history of relapses occurring in the context of non-compliance plus or minus substance abuse'.
11. The findings of Zimmerman demonstrate at the time of the commission of the offending you had an impaired mental functioning as a result of your mental health condition. I repeat, whilst it is open to find that self-induced intoxication played some role in that impairment, as one can see from my earlier findings, there is material before the Court that sets out your long-established history of an intellectual disability as well as various mental health issues that found the mental impairment report authored by Dr Zimmerman.
12. Furthermore, the persistence of psychotic symptoms when you are not taking methamphetamine supports the proposition that you experience psychotic symptoms even in the absence of illicit drugs.
13. With the above in mind, it is submitted (and I formally find) your underlying mental impairment reduced your ability to exercise appropriate judgment, appreciate the wrongfulness of your conduct and contributed causally (and for that matter realistically) to the commission of the offence. That finding makes you less morally blameworthy (Limb 1 Verdins).
14. Your condition also necessarily has a bearing on the type of sentence to be imposed (Limb 2).
15. There is a causal relationship between your mental impairment/functioning and the offending to the extent that you are not an appropriate vehicle for general deterrence. It will be slightly moderated for this reason (Limb 3).
16. The Crown also agree there is some basis for me to moderate the need for specific deterrence in accordance with (Limb 4).
17. Both parties agree that Dr Zimmerman's opinion provides a basis to enliven Limb 5 as you continue to labour under the symptoms of schizophrenia (that is, that you are resistant to take medication for) and sense that you are still being persecuted. You seem to instigate incidents in prison to ensure that you are separated from others. This creates both isolation and additional hardship, and that condition is likely to worsen.

General and Specific Deterrence, and Denunciation

1. General and specific deterrence and denunciation. These are highly relevant sentencing considerations for recklessly causing injury, especially in circumstances where the victim is an emergency worker.
2. Punching a police officer to the head (while he was doing no more than discharging his duties) such to cause concussion, attracts considerable general deterrence and denunciation.
3. The Prosecution further submit that specific deterrence is relevant given your lengthy and relevant prior criminal history, and that you have been given rehabilitative sentences in the past and continue to offend both publicly and violently.
4. I accept that this is so, noting the amelioration of these principles in accordance with Verdins that I have announced earlier.

1. Objectively, your prospects for reform are pessimistic; taking into consideration your age, prior history, the lack of success of rehabilitative sentences in the past, ongoing substance abuse, your intellectual disability and schizophrenia.
2. Thankfully, there are services available for you that persist with you. They are invested in you and diligently attempt to provide supports necessary so that you may live in the community.

1. Protection of the community is highly relevant to my sentencing exercise given the seriousness of the offending, your criminal history, your diagnoses of intellectual disability, schizophrenia and substance abuse disorder, especially in circumstances when you have not been compliant with your medication.
2. It is intended that with the benefit of a known, certain release date and an impressive array of services available for you upon your release, not least of all a home to go to, there is proper scaffolding and supports for you upon your release that act as protective measures.

1. I am mindful of the significance in this case of the application of the principle of totality that requires me when sentencing you for multiple offences to ensure that the aggregate term I impose is a just and appropriate one.

1. It was submitted on your behalf that when one balances the appropriate sentencing considerations (many of which pull in different directions), a term of imprisonment in combination with an MTMO was within range. The Crown accepted the merit of this disposition.
   1. In my view, having weighed and balanced the necessary consideration, the appropriate sentence is one whereby you receive a term of imprisonment followed by a community correction order. This provides a flexible sentencing option, enabling both punishment and rehabilitation purposes to be served together.[46]
   2. It appears to me that I can denounce your conduct, punish you, deter others as well as foster conditions that will assist your reform by imposing such an order.
   3. The duration of the order will extend well into the future whereby you will be treated and monitored. There will be further consequences for you if you do not comply.
   4. I consider the community is best protected by your reform if possible and that reform has the greatest prospect of success in the community with tailored treatment.
   5. There is merit in imposing a disposition that ensures that you will know when you will be released (so that services can prepare for it), to a known purpose structured accommodation, and know who exactly will be supervising you and supporting you, as well as ensuring that such a period of lengthy tailored supervision will be there to ensure that you properly engage in it, noting that there will be significant consequences for you if you breach it.

1. Provided you consent, what I intend to do is sentence you to a term of 14 months' imprisonment (noting that you have served 428 days), followed by a two-year community corrections order with conviction.
2. Every community corrections order, including this one, contains core conditions and they would be as follows:

(a) You must not commit another offence punishable by imprisonment during the order.

(b) You must comply with any obligation or requirement prescribed by the regulations.

(c) You must report to, or receive visits from, the Secretary during the period of the order.

(d) You must report to Coolaroo Community Correctional Services within two working days of the commencement of the order;

(e) You must notify the Secretary of any change of address or employment within two working days after the change;

(f) You must not leave the State of Victoria, except with the permission from the Secretary;

(g) You must comply with any direction given by the Secretary necessary for the Secretary to give, to ensure that you comply with this order.

1. In addition to those core conditions, I would impose special conditions:

(a) That you be the subject of supervision of the Office of Corrections;

(b) That you undergo mental health assessment and treatment as directed;[47]

(c) That you must comply with the conditions of the Justice Plan as recommended;[48]

(d) I will order judicial monitoring, the first date to be determined approximately three months from now.

1. I can only make such an order, Mr Katsakis, if you consent to it being made. Do you consent to it being made?
2. OFFENDER: Yes.
3. HIS HONOUR: I need to warn you that the offence itself of breaching a community corrections order carries with it a maximum penalty of three months' imprisonment. If you were to breach the order, you would need to come back to court, you would be sentenced for that breach offence, and I would have to resentence you for these offences. I suggest that you do not find yourself in that position.

1. I will declare that you have served 428 days by way of pre-sentence detention and that will be entered into the records of the Court.

1. But for your plea of guilty, I would have sentenced you to two years and nine months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months.

[1] Sentencing Act 1991 s.10AA(4).

[2] Sentencing Act 1991 s.5(2G).

[3] Taken from Exhibit A: Summary of Prosecution Opening dated 29 July 2025.

[4] Exhibit B: Victim Impact Statement of Jack Wright dated 21 July 2025.

[5] Exhibit AK-3: Nina Zimmerman report dated 13 April 2025.

[6] Exhibit AK-4: MHARS report dated 9 October 2025.

[7] Exhibit AK-7: Report of Mel Kaya Hand2Hand Disability dated 22 August 2025.

[8] DPP v Katsakis [2014] VCC 966 - sentencing reasons of Judge Hampel.

[9] DPP v Katsakis 30 June 2014 - sentencing reasons of Judge Hampel.

[10] DPP v Katsakis [2024] VCC - sentencing reasons of Judge Quin.

[11] Though you have not availed yourself of a defence of mental impairment, this does not mean your profound mental illness or cognitive limitations are irrelevant (see Lucas v The Queen [2012] VSCA 245).

[12] Exhibit AK-7: Report of Mel Kaya Hand2Hand Disability dated 22 August 2025.

[13] Taken from Exhibit C: Crown Submissions on Sentence dated 27 August 2025.

[14] Sentencing Act 1991 s.10AA(4).

[15] See Dabaja v The King [2023] VSCA 209.

[17] Concerned with combination sentences.

1. [18] This report satisfies the requirement of Sentencing Act 1991 s.5(2GB) (a).

[19] Exhibit AK-8: Extended Pre-Sentence Report.

[20] Exhibit AK-9: Disability Overview.

[21] Exhibit AK-10: Justice Plan report.

[22] Exhibit AK-13: Ms Devine further letter dated 21 November 2025.

[23] Exhibit AK-14: Hand2Hand letter of Ms Kaya 24 November 2025.

[24] Exhibit AK-15: NDIS Plan dated 12 November 2025.

[25] Exhibit AK-8: Extended Pre-Sentence Report, p.4

[26] Exhibit AK-8: Extended Pre-Sentence Report dated 20 October 2025.

[27] Exhibit AK-9: Disability Overview, p.2.

[28] Exhibit AK-8: Extended Pre-Sentence Report dated 20 October 2025, p.5.

[31] Exhibit AK-14: NDIS Plan dated 12 November 2025.

[32] Exhibit AK-16: Addendum to Pre-sentence Report. I do note that the supervisor from DJCS attended the link on the day of sentence to assist.

[33] See Exhibit AK-17: Letter of Offer, 6 Canary View Beveridge VIC 3753.

[34] Amanda Howerton et al, 'The Consolations of Going Back to Prison: What "Revolving Door" Prisoners Think of Their Prospects' (2009) 48(5) Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 439 cited in "Institutionalisation" by Dr Robyn Shields AM and Dr Andrew Ellis in a 2024 report for the Bugmy Bar Book Project Committee at [10], p.4.

[35] Exhibit AK-3: Nina Zimmerman report dated 13 April 2025 at [107] and following.

[37] R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; (2007) 16 VR 269.

[38] [2021] VSCA 160.

[39] [2022] VSCA 125.

[40] I have made an earlier reference as to how this ought to be treated in accordance with R v Lucas

[41] (2011) 244 CLR 120.

[42] Though you have not availed yourself of a defence of mental impairment, this does not mean your profound mental illness or cognitive limitations are irrelevant Lucas [2012] VSCA 245.

[43] Exhibit AK-5: MHARS report dated 13 February 2024, [92].

[44] Exhibit AK-3: Nina Zimmerman report dated 13 April 2025.

[45] Exhibit AK-4: MHARS report dated 9 October 2024.

1. [46] Boulton v The Queen (2014) VR 308.

[47] This is intended to include ACSO COATS as the Justice Plan contemplates.

[48] ss 47(2)(b), [28](https://jade.io/article/80(1).