DPP v Laverick [2025] VCC 1928

co-offender Dale Morrison and you lived together at a factory in Kilsyth. 3. In the early evening of 30 November 2022, Timothy Peavey left work at a construction site in Ivanhoe. He stored his tools including, a porter cable Mortiser machine with an Apple Air Tag GPS tracking device; a DeWalt American drop saw 110V; and a DeWalt sander, in a locked shed on site. When he returned to work the following day, he discovered these items had been stolen. 4. Early in the morning on 1 December 2022, Mr Peavey tracked the Apple Air Tag secreted with his tools, to an address in Heidelberg West and he contacted the police. At approximately 8:15 am on the same day, he drove past the address, which was a commercial factory. This factory had been sub-leased by Mr Morrison earlier in 2022 and was empty when Mr Morrison moved in. 5. A blue Holden Ute was parked outside the factory. As Mr Peavy pulled up alongside the vehicle, he received a notification on his phone stating his Apple Air Tag was with him. Mr Peavey observed his DeWalt drop saw under a tarp on the tray of the Ute. Mr Peavey reported his observations to the Police, who then attended the factory. 6. At approximately 8:30 am police observed the Holden Ute drive away from the Heidelberg West factory and drive into the carpark of Bunnings, Northland. Police officers intercepted the Holden Ute in the car park. You identified yourself as the driver. (Summary Charge 5 - Drive whilst suspended). 7. You were arrested and cautioned. At this time, you told police there were drugs inside the car. Police searched the Holden Ute and found a Gold Apple iPhone; two zip lock bags containing white crystal substance; Porter cable Mortiser machine**;** DeWalt American drop saw (with 'Tim PEAVEY' written on it); and a DeWalt sander. Mr Peavy attended the Holden Ute at the Bunnings car park and identified his power tools. Further, he showed police the apple air tag in situ. These items relate to a handle stolen goods charge for Mr Morrison. 8. You were taken to the Heidelberg police station for interview. You were interviewed by police and denied knowing about the tools. You have not been charged in relation to these items. 9. In the afternoon of 1 December 2022, police executed search warrants at the Heidelberg West factory. As a result of their search, police located a large number of items, including a hard drive, several iPhones, quantities of cash, zip lock bags with white powder and white crystalline substance, a money counter, Mr Morrison's driver's licence, another licence in a different name with his photo, a black baton, zip lock bags with green vegetable matter, digital scales, TUFF-weight scale, several bullets, a folder with firearm manufacturing documents, packets of bullets, assorted ammunition, a firearm pamphlet and numerous tools with the name Moz. 10. You were not charged in relation to any of these items. Mr Morrison was charged with possession of a variety of drugs including, cocaine, methylamphetamine, MDMA, DMT, and cannabis. 11. During this search, police also located a black plastic tub with yellow handles and the words 'ezy storage' printed on the lid. The tub was on a trolley near the truck. The Clandestine Laboratory Squad ('CLS') attended and seized gloves, a broken glass elbow, plastic zip lock bag with yellow capsules, dish with traces of solid, containers, glass bowls filter papers, funnel with traces of powder, container with liquid, a glass beaker, and vesta firelighters. 12. A Forensic officer attended the Heidelberg West factory with the CLS and examined items they seized. Washings containing methylamphetamine were located on a variety of CLS exhibits. Some of the methylamphetamine was considered not in useable form. One exhibit contained a washing of Heroin. 13. You were not charged in relation to these items either. Your co-accused Mr Morrison was charged with a rolled-up count of possess equipment for the purpose of trafficking a drug of dependence. 14. CCTV recovered from the Heidelberg West factory, depicts the outside of the factory during the period of 23 November 2022 and 1 December 2022. In summary, the footage shows both you and Mr Morrison entering and exiting the factory, using a key to lock the factory and you driving a black Mazda 3. 15. The police became aware that Mr Morrison had leased a factory in Kilsyth and received the keys on 28 November 2022. The lease was in writing and your name appeared as witness to Mr Morrison's signature. You attended the first inspection of the factory with Mr Morrison and asked the factory owner about the electricity meter so you could put the electricity bill in your name. The factory was empty apart from three wheelie bins and four fire extinguishers when Mr Morrison took possession. 16. On 2 December 2022 Police executed search warrants at the Kilsyth Factory and the black Mazda 3 that was registered to Mr Morrison and parked opposite. Located and seized within the Mazda 3 was the Amex bank card in the name of Simone De Medici (Summary Charge 6 - deal with property suspected of being proceeds of crime). Police forced entry into the factory, no one was present. 17. The Kilsyth factory had two stories. On the factory floor there were numerous power tools which the police seized. Your co-offender Mr Morrison has been charged with handling stolen goods in relation to these items. 18. In the ground floor room to the right-hand side of the entry in a black bag on the floor, police found two glass jars containing a white crystal substance. 19. Also on the floor, police located various plastic bags and containers containing substances and these items were seized and labelled. They were later analysed by a Forensic Scientist and found to contain:

(a) Exhibit 31 - 102.1 grams Methylamphetamine purity 79 per cent;

(b) Exhibit 32 - 110.7 grams Methylamphetamine purity 82 per cent;

(c) Exhibit 33 - 56.9 grams Methylamphetamine purity 84 per cent;

(d) Exhibit 37 - 0.7 grams Methylamphetamine purity 68 per cent;

(e) Exhibit 38 - 14.6 grams Methylamphetamine purity 86 per cent; and

(f) Exhibit 40 - 2.0 grams Methylamphetamine purity 66 per cent.

1. The total amount of methylamphetamine weighed 287 grams. Mr Morrison has been charged with trafficking on the basis that he possessed this amount of methylamphetamine for sale.
2. You have been charged with possessing the same methylamphetamine. You fall to be sentenced on the basis that you are unable to prove on the balance of probabilities that you possessed the drug for a purpose unrelated to trafficking.
3. In another ground floor room, police located four firearms belonging to your

co-offender. You have not been charged with these firearms. 4. Level 1 of the Kilsyth factory comprised several rooms. In the front room, police observed a mattress, boxes on the floor and a black plastic tub containing personal items. Personal items belonging to both you and Mr Morrison were located throughout the factory including toothbrushes, slippers, razor, shoes and clothing. 5. Police observed numerous items suspected to be related to drug manufacturing, most of which were in the rear room and kitchen, investigators contacted the CLS, who attended. Mr Morrison has been charged in relation to possession of this manufacturing equipment which includes plastic containers with liquid, a glass dish wrapped with cling wrap, a bottle of Mount Franklin with bi-layered liquid, a diggers tin of Xylene, latex gloves, two metal gas burners, plastic funnels, a metal retort stand, a bottle labelled Mount Franklin 500 mil with handwritten label Hypo ... not water, caustic soda, clamps, glass flasks, a condenser, a fractioning column, a separating funnel, glass adaptors, a thermometer, glass stoppers, pH test strips, five plastic clips, two glass splash heads, and a plastic container with caustic soda. 6. The CLS seized these items. Drug and chemical analysis undertaken, on several of the substances revealed some of the containers contained methylamphetamine ranging from very low purity to quite high purity. 7. One of the exhibits seized was a Plastic bottle labelled Mount Franklin 500 mil, with handwritten label "Hypo...not water"84 and this was analysed and found to contain 121.9 grams of Hypophosphorus Acid. This is the basis of Charge 3. (Charge 3 - Possess precursor chemical). 8. Forensic analysis including DNA and fingerprints confirmed your DNA, and the DNA and fingerprints of Mr Morrison were present on various items seized by the police and the CLS. 9. CCTV from the Kilsyth factory depicts a Fuso truck observed by police at the Heidelberg West factory, to be present at the Kilsyth factory from 10 pm on 30 November 2022. The footage depicts you and Mr Morrison retrieving items from the Fuso truck in the hours that follow. 10. Call charge records for the period 24 November 2022 to 1 December 2022 showed your mobile phone interacting with the Kilsyth Cellular Tower on 47 occasions, and with the Kilsyth South Cellular Tower on 19 occasions.

1. Ms Richwol for the prosecution identified that your offending occurred over five days and involved the possession of 287 grams of high purity methylamphetamine. This, she submitted, was a significant and serious amount of the drug. Further, Ms Richwol noted you possessed a pre-cursor chemical being Hypophosphorous Acid in an amount well over the prescribed quantity of 25 grams. This is a known ingredient used to produce methylamphetamine.
2. Ms Richwol submitted the fact you offended in company with Mr Morrison was an aggravating feature. Further she submitted that a degree of pre-planning could be inferred given the illicit and restricted nature of the substances and their different manner of storage. Overall, Ms Richwol contended your offending falls in the medium range.
3. Your counsel Ms Ljubicic submitted the seriousness of the offences for which you fall to be sentenced is underscored by the maximum penalties prescribed by Parliament, which are intended to capture the most egregious examples of such conduct. Ms Ljubicic submitted your offending arose from your association with the co-offender, who is identified as the principal offender. Your plea was advanced on the basis that your role was limited.
4. Ms Ljubicic pointed to several relevant considerations including the fact that you were found in possession of 287 grams of methylamphetamine of relatively high purity and 121.9 grams of hypophosphorous acid, a precursor chemical. However, you did not hold exclusive possession of these substances; rather, you were aware of their presence while they remained under the control of the co-accused. It is not alleged that you procured the substances, and the offending occurred on a single day. Considering these circumstances, Ms Ljubicic submitted that your conduct represents a mid-to-low level example of the offences, reflecting your complicity through cohabitation and association with the principal offender.
5. I accept the submissions of your counsel and her categorisation of your offending, save to say that my reading of the indictment was that the offending occurred over a period of five days. Clearly, Mr Morrison had a far greater role in this offending, and this has been reflected in the more serious and greater number of charges that he faces. However, you have involved yourself in the possession of significant quantities of methylamphetamine and a precursor chemical for which you now must be sentenced.

1. Your parents separated when you were 18 months old, and you lived primarily with your mother. Your earliest memory of your father was on your first day of school. For much of your childhood, your grandmother cared for you while your mother worked in bookkeeping and administration. Your mother, now 64, remains employed but plans to retire soon. Your father passed away last year at the age of 69 from prostate cancer. You moved in with him in 2020 following his diagnosis and became close during that time, despite a historically inconsistent relationship.
2. Your relationship with your mother has been tumultuous. You describe her as unemotional and pragmatic, focused on financial provision rather than affection. As a child, you felt more comfortable at your grandmother's home, which provided a sense of security. Your mother later remarried and had two children with your stepfather. While you recall him as fun, he was inconsistent and strict over trivial matters. You maintain occasional contact. Your mother and stepfather separated when you were 21.
3. You have a half-brother and a half-sister, 11 and 12 years younger than you. You generally get along with both, though your relationship with your brother deteriorated in 2023 after he began using cannabis. You had a falling out with your sister in 2022 and now see her only at Christmas.
4. You report no exposure to family violence but describe a childhood lacking warmth or affection. Your mother was serious and transactional in her approach, and you cannot recall moments of genuine fun together. You lived in Bayswater and Croydon until age 15, then moved in with family friends, and later with your daughter's father at 17.
5. Your daughter, now 21, is not working or studying. She has experienced difficult relationships and recently returned from Tasmania with addiction issues, which she is currently addressing.
6. You attended primary school in Bayswater, which you did not enjoy and recall having few friends. After moving to St Benedict's in Burwood, you found the environment better but continued to struggle socially. You enjoyed learning, had difficulty with reading and writing, though you excelled in mathematics and sports. In high school, you were diagnosed with ADHD and commenced medication, which provided little benefit. You continue to experience challenges with written expression and long-term memory retention. Your brother also has ADHD, and your younger brother has an auditory processing disorder.
7. During high school at Siena College, you experienced social isolation and strict parental control, which limited your freedom. You struggled academically and eventually disengaged in Year 12, though you completed Year 11.
8. From age 14, you worked various jobs, including hairdressing assistance, babysitting, retail, and hospitality. After finishing school, you worked full-time at a sandwich bar before joining the National Australia Bank for five years. Following your manager's resignation, your mental health declined, and you left the bank, which marked the beginning of your drug use.
9. After leaving the bank, you worked in adult entertainment for approximately 10 years. You were incarcerated in 2020 and, upon release, moved to East Warburton to live in your late father's home. Your last employment was in retail in 2022.
10. You began experimenting with illicit drugs at 16 and escalated to regular use at 26. In late 2011, you were introduced to methylamphetamine, which significantly worsened your addiction. Subsequent relationships were marked by violence and instability, during which your drug use intensified, and your mother assumed care of your daughter.
11. You met your co-offender, Mr Morrison, in 2016. After his release from prison in 2022, you relapsed following two years of abstinence. Your methylamphetamine use escalated to several grams per week. In this context you were arrested and remanded in December 2022. During your incarceration, you reflected on your circumstances. After release, you remained abstinent until your father's death, which triggered a brief relapse in January 2023.
12. Your son, Angus, was born in June 2023. You have a strong bond and care for him appropriately. You are no longer in a relationship with Mr Morrison, who has returned to custody. You have resisted his attempts at reunification and feel stronger without him.

1. A psychological report authored by Pamela Matthews dated 24 November 2025 was tendered on your plea. Ms Matthews considers that your long-standing difficulties with attachment and illicit drug use stem from low self-esteem linked to learning challenges and an insecure maternal bond. It was the opinion of Ms Matthews that you meet the DSM-5-TR criteria for borderline personality disorder, presenting with a pervasive pattern of instability in interpersonal relationships, self-image, mood, and marked impulsivity across multiple contexts.
2. Ms Matthews opined that your borderline personality disorder is closely linked to your offending through several interconnected psychological and behavioural patterns. Ms Matthews highlighted the following:
   1. Instability in Relationships and Attachments: your persistent history of dysfunctional attachments and unstable interpersonal relationships is a core feature of borderline personality disorder. These unstable relationships have contributed to your involvement with partners who engage in criminal and substance-related activities, increasing your exposure to offending behaviour.
   2. Impulsivity and Self-Damaging Behaviours: Borderline personality disorder is characterised by impulsivity in areas that are potentially self-damaging, such as substance abuse and criminal activity. Your impulsivity has manifested in drug use, participation in illegal activities with your partner, and other risky behaviours.
   3. Emotional Dysregulation and Reactivity: The emotional instability and intense reactivity to interpersonal stressors associated with borderline personality disorder have led you to use substances as a coping mechanism during times of distress (e.g., after the death of your father or the loss of a relationship), which has, in turn, contributed to your offending.
   4. Low Self-Esteem and Identity Disturbance: Your low self-esteem and unstable self-image, both features of borderline personality disorder, have made you more susceptible to maladaptive coping strategies, including drug use and criminal conduct, especially when facing personal or relational crises.
3. In summary, Ms Matthews opined that your offending should be viewed as a consequence of the pervasive instability, impulsivity, and maladaptive coping strategies that characterise your borderline personality disorder. In this way Ms Matthews considered your offending to be related to your disorder.
4. Ms Matthews noted that you are currently abstinent, caring appropriately for your son Angus, who is healthy and meeting developmental milestones. In her view, disrupting this progress would be detrimental. Separation from Angus would risk severe harm to his attachment development and future relationships and would likely cause significant deterioration in your mental health. If imprisonment is imposed, immediate arrangements for Angus to remain with you are strongly recommended by Ms Matthews.
5. From a rehabilitative perspective, Ms Matthews recommended that continued counselling, regular urine screening, and structured social support are advised, alongside skill development to assist your return to work when Angus begins school.

1. Your counsel submitted that limbs 1 and 5 of the principles in R v Verdins applied in your case. [1] In relation to limb 1, your counsel submitted that Ms Matthews drew a connection between your borderline personality disorder and your offending which she submitted were relevant to the Court's assessment of your moral culpability on the basis that the condition impaired your ability to exercise appropriate judgment.
2. The prosecution submitted that limb 1 was not engaged as Ms Matthews was somewhat unclear with respect to the impact of your borderline personality disorder and your relationship with Mr Morrison and its connection to the offending. Ms Richwol conceded that limb 6 of Verdins was enlivened in that there is a serious risk that imprisonment will have a significantly adverse impact on your mental health.
3. The effect of impairment on moral culpability is a matter of degree. To determine the extent of the impairment's contribution to the offending it is necessary for the court to consider, with the assistance of expert evidence, your conduct before, during and after the offending. The relevant question is whether the evidence establishes the impairment contributed in a way that made you 'less blameworthy as a result'.
4. Where mental impairment and substance abuse are independent, the Verdins principles will continue to have full force. Similarly, where the substance abuse is caused by impairment, moral culpability may be reduced and the need for general and specific deterrence may be moderated. It is not sufficient to establish the impairment led to the substance abuse. The defence must also establish that the impairment was connected to the offending.
5. On my assessment of the evidence, Ms Matthews makes clear the connection between your borderline personality disorder and your offending. I accept that limb 1 of Verdins is enlivened in your case. I accept that your impairment contributed to your offending in a way that made you less blameworthy. Your moral culpability ought to be reduced because the impairment from which you suffer reduced your capacity for reflective thinking and impulse control. I consider that your borderline personality disorder is to some degree independent from your substance abuse issues. Moreover, these factors appear to have resulted in your pronounced substance misuse and considerable risk-taking behaviour such that your decision-making skills were seriously compromised. It is my view that these factors have contributed to your offending.
6. In relation to limb 6, I accept the opinion of Ms Matthews that if you were imprisoned and separated from your son your mental health would significantly deteriorate.

1. I accept your plea of guilty entitles you to a meaningful sentencing discount. Through your plea of guilty you have saved the court time and the cost of a trial. Your plea also provides evidence of your desire to facilitate the course of justice, accept responsibility for your offending and is somewhat demonstrative of your remorse. I propose to allow an appropriate discount.

1. I accept the opinions of Ms Matthews that both you and your son would suffer significantly were you to be separated at this crucial time in his very young life. I note this concession is also made by the prosecution.
2. Further I accept that any term of imprisonment imposed upon you would weigh more heavily on you than on another person who would not be subject to the same separation. I accept this hardship would be experienced through your sense of responsibility for your son and your anguish at being unable to care for him. This in my view would make imprisonment more burdensome for you.

1. Your counsel submitted you have very good prospects for rehabilitation based upon your plea of guilty and acknowledgement of responsibility for the offending, your strong connection to your young son and your newly established identity as a mature and involved mother, the 173 days you spent in custody and its deterrent effect upon you, your demonstrated compliance with court orders previously, the fact that you have not offended subsequently in the context of a three year delay and importantly you have cut all ties with your co-offender.
2. I accept the submissions of your counsel and consider that there are several reasons to assess your prospects for reform as favourable, including your engagement in psychological counselling with Dr Georgina Giorgio, which is currently funded through Orange Door. In this regard MHARS clinician Gregory Lane recommended continuity of care with Dr Giorgio if at all possible in addition to substance use counselling to support your goal of ongoing sobriety.

1. This matter has been pending for three years and as such has been hanging over your head. No doubt it has been a source of considerable anxiety for you and has affected your ability to seriously plan for your future. Despite this, you have remained offence free and it has provided you an ability to demonstrate that you are able to foster rehabilitation.
2. The fundamental purposes of sentencing include just punishment, general and specific deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation and protection of the community. You have been incarcerated for a significant time, that is 173 days in total. This, in my view, represents just punishment and appears to have deterred you personally. It goes some way to satisfying the need for general deterrence and in your case, I consider that the community protection will most effectively be achieved through your rehabilitation, supported by supervision, and participation in programs delivered by Community Corrections.
3. The sentencing principles of proportionality and parsimony are also important considerations. They require me to make sure the punishment imposed fits the crime committed and that I do no more than is necessary to punish you for your offending. I have taken these principles into consideration in fixing the sentence I will now impose.
4. I also take into account sentencing guidelines referred to in s5 of the Sentencing Act 1991, where relevant in your case.[2]
5. Your counsel submitted that a combination penalty is the appropriate disposition in your case. Ms Richwol, on behalf of the prosecution, submitted that it was open to the Court to impose such a penalty; that is, a term of imprisonment and a community correction order.
6. Drawing on the guidance provided by the Court of Appeal in Boulton,[3] I make the following observations which I consider have relevance to the sentencing exercise in your case. A CCO is a flexible sentencing option that can be imposed for relatively serious offences that would have previously attracted substantial terms of imprisonment. A CCO is intrinsically punitive and depending on the length of the order, and the nature and extent of the conditions imposed, it is capable of being highly punitive. A CCO can provide substantial general and specific deterrence through the imposition of restrictive, coercive and prohibitive conditions. And a CCO demands an offender take responsibility for their behaviour, engage in treatment, and positive activities and refrain from undesirable conduct.
7. Ms Laverick, you are convicted of each of the charges. In relation to the charge of possess drugs and possess the precursor chemical, I impose an aggregate term of 173 days imprisonment.
8. Now in addition on all of the charges - so that is including the two summary related offences - you are ordered to undertake a community correction order for 10 months. The conditions of the community correction order include:

a) Supervision; > > b) assessment and treatment for drug abuse; > > c) assessment and treatment for mental health; and > > d) judicial monitoring.

9. In addition to the conditions that I have imposed, there are standard conditions that you must comply with.

a) The first and foremost is that you are not to commit any offences punishable by imprisonment during the 10 month period of the community correction order, and this order will hang over your head for the next 10 months. > > b) You need to report within two working days to your nearest Corrections office which is Lilydale Community Corrections. > > c) You are required to advise your supervising Corrections office of any change of address of where you are living or working, within two clear working days. > > d) It is a term of all community correction orders that you must submit to visits as directed, and obey the instructions and directions of the Corrections officer. > > e) You cannot leave the State of Victoria without their permission.

10. Ms Laverick, if you reoffend you will breach the CCO. You will also breach the CCO if you do not comply with the standard condition, or those conditions that I have imposed.
11. Do you understand what is involved in a community correction order?
12. OFFENDER: I do.
13. HER HONOUR: Do you agree to undertake such an order?
14. OFFENDER: I do.
15. HER HONOUR: Yes. You are welcome to be seated again. We will print that out and we will get you to sign it.
16. Further, I declare that you have served 173 days in custody by way of pre-sentence detention and this will be declared as time served and entered into the records of the Court.
17. Pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991,[4] if you had not pleaded guilty and been found guilty after trial, I would have imposed a total effective sentence of two years with a non-parole period of 12 months.
18. HER HONOUR: In terms of the judicial monitoring I have put that down for 3 March 2026 at 9.30 am.
19. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms Margaritis, thank you Ms Copini.

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

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

[3] Boulton v The Queen [2014] VSCA 342.

[4] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 6AAA.