DPP v Logan [2025] VCC 1726 | Case summary

County Court of Victoria|2025-11-21

Sentence: Indictment C2316156.2; sentenced to a Community Correction Order for a period of 2 years and 6 months. Indictment C2400183.2, sentenced to a Community Correction Order for a period of 2 years and 6 months.

Bridget Logan,[1] on 1 October 2025 the court granted your unopposed application for a sentence indication in relation to indictment C2316156.2. Pursuant to s 207 of the Criminal Procedure Act the court indicated that if you pleaded guilty to one charge each of false imprisonment, armed robbery, home invasion and theft, offending that occurred on 8 April 2023, the court would impose a Community Correction Order.[2]
Through your counsel you accepted this indication. You were arraigned on 13 November 2025 and entered pleas of guilty to the above charges.
You were also arraigned on indictment C2400183.2 and you pleaded guilty to one charge of false imprisonment and two charges of theft. There was also a summary-related offence of entering a private place without authorisation that you agreed for this court to deal with, and you pleaded guilty to that charge as well. This offending occurred on 11 and 12 March 2024.

Circumstances of offending CR-24-00113 - indictment C2316156.2

A summary of prosecution opening for plea dated 13 November 2025 was tendered at your plea hearing. The agreed factual basis of your offending can be summarised as follows:
You were 23 years old at the time of the offending. Your co-offender, Jules Shepherd,[3] was 29, and the victim was aged 37, who knew Mr Shepherd through his former partner, Ms Harrison.[4] The victim had never met you.
You were complicit with Mr Shepherd in the commission of the offending.
On 8 April 2023, the victim was at Ms Harrison's home in Kilsyth when Mr Shepherd contacted Ms Harrison and asked to speak with him. Shortly after Mr Shepherd arrived at the address in a Ford Ranger, which was registered to you. The victim entered the vehicle. Mr Shepherd was driving, and you were in the front passenger seat.
During the drive Mr Shepherd threatened the victim with a firearm and you produced a metal object, warning him to comply. Specifically, Mr Shepherd told the victim, 'I've a gun down my pants. If you don't do anything stupid today, you might make it home in one piece. Otherwise, I'm gonna shoot ya in the knee if you try to get away'. That is when you produced a metal object and said, 'Or we'll smack you with this if you don't listen'. When the victim attempted to escape, child safety locks prevented him from doing so. Mr Shepherd then demanded the victim hand over his wallet and work phone; you removed $600 cash from the wallet and reset the phone to erase data.
Mr Shepherd then drove to the victim's home in Croydon South. After realising the front door was dead bolted from the inside, the victim opened the side gate and entered the home via the back door and both you and Mr Shepherd followed him inside. You told the victim you intended to take everything he owned and made threats involving associates. Inside the house Mr Shepherd armed himself with kitchen knives and threatened violence while demanding surveillance equipment. You moved through the property, taking items including watches, an iPad Mini and a laptop, placing them in a bag.
Mr Shepherd demanded the keys to the victim's Harley Davidson motorcycle, which was at the property. The victim told him the keys were at Ms Harrison's residence and Mr Shepherd then called a friend of Ms Harrison's and instructed her to retrieve the keys from Ms Harrison. Later you took the victim's personal phone from him after he used it to make a call for help.
A friend of the victim attended at the address and knocked on the front door. Mr Shepherd punched the victim to the left side of his jaw. Eventually the victim was able to flee because of the visitor's arrival and police were notified. Subsequent investigation linked both you and Mr Shepherd to the offences and you were arrested on 27 April 2023, and stolen property was recovered.
The following day Mr Shepherd sent a message to Ms Harrison expressing regret for his actions, and on 15 April 2023 the victim attended Croydon police station and made an initial statement in relation to the matter.
Later that same day police accompanied the victim to his home where they photographed and seized a knife alleged to have been used during the offending.
On 23 April 2023, the victim participated in a photo-board identification procedure and identified you as Photo No.2. On the same day he also assisted in the compilation of a facial composite image of you and on 5 May 2023 the victim participated in a photo-board identification of Mr Shepherd and identified him as Photo No.5.
On 26 April 2023, the Ford Ranger used in the offending was in the vicinity of Mr Shepherd's family home. Mr Shepherd's fingerprints were found inside the vehicle. Police seized keys to the Ranger from Mr Shepherd's parents' home the following day.
On 27 April 2023 you were arrested at an address in Burwood. Police located and seized a silver HP laptop from the lounge room of that address. You informed Detective Senior Constable Craig Luscombe that Mr Shepherd had delivered the laptop and other personal items to you a few days earlier. You further stated that Mr Shepherd had made you participate in the offending saying, 'I'm small' and 'I just did what he said'. You were then taken to Lilydale police station.
On the same day Mr Shepherd was arrested at an address in Bayswater and he was also taken to Lilydale police station.

Circumstances of offending CR-24-01413 - indictment C2400183.2

A summary of prosecution opening for plea dated 4 September 2025 was tendered in relation to this offending. The agreed factual basis of your offending can be summarised as follows:
On this occasion you offended in company with Elias Howe[5] and Russell Richards.[6] The victim, for this matter is Dennis Mendez.[7]
Mr Mendez had previously met Mr Howe through a mutual acquaintance and agreed to unlock several iPads for him. Mr Mendez took the iPads knowing he could not unlock them and he put them in a drawer at his apartment. In the weeks following Mr Howe contacted Mr Mendez about the devices.
On 11 March, 2024 Mr Mendez was at his apartment with friends when he began messaging you on Facebook. You were messaging under an alias on Facebook. You claimed to need a safe place to stay. Mr Mendez invited you to his apartment and you arrived there at around 11:13 pm. After a brief visit you left saying you would return later.
Shortly after midnight you returned with another female and met Mr Howe and Mr Richards in the plaza. Mr Howe and Mr Richards wore face coverings, and they confronted Mr Mendez in a public toilet, threatened to kill him if he did not comply, and forced him back to his apartment.
You also returned to the apartment and once inside, you searched the study and stole iPads, Mr Mendez' work laptop, phone and a light sabre, as well as a mobile phone. Mr Mendez remained under guard by Mr Richards and felt unable to leave. You, Mr Howe and Mr Richards departed after about 10 minutes, taking the stolen items and $100 cash from Mr Mendez's friend.
Police were called shortly after. Mr Mendez suffered a fractured maxillary bone and facial bruising. Neither you or Mr Howe are charged with assault or causing injury and as such you do not fall to be sentenced for this aspect of the offending.
CCTV footage captured the movements of all parties and on 26 March 2024 police executed a search warrant at an address in Blackburn South, recovering stolen property and clothing seen on CCTV. Your phone was linked to the alias. Both you and Mr Howe were arrested and declined to comment in interviews.
Although no victim impact statements were filed for either matter, I accept that your actions, together with those of your co-offenders, caused the victims fear and distress which I take into account in sentencing.

You fall to be sentenced for two serious episodes of offending. The most serious of your offending involves the charges of home invasion and armed robbery. Not only are these offences punishable by a maximum of 25 years' imprisonment but Parliament has designated them as Category 2 offences. This means that unless an exception is enlivened, the court is required to impose a custodial sentence.[8] The consequence of this categorisation reflects a clear message from the legislature as to how seriously such offending is to be viewed.[9] The maximum penalties for both false imprisonment and theft is 10 years' imprisonment.
Regarding the offending against the victim on 8 April 2023, the prosecution argued that the charges of home invasion and armed robbery were particularly serious, each carrying a maximum penalty of 25 years and being designated Category 2 offences. The prosecutor, Ms Fitzgibbon, highlighted that the victim was lured under false pretences, threatened immediately upon entering the car, detained for an extended period to extract money and property, subjected to repeated threats, including at his home, and was prevented from escaping. Further, the offences were committed in company.
The prosecution noted that while you sometimes echoed your co-offender's threats, you also played an active role, issuing your own threats, producing a metal pole during the armed robbery, taking cash from the victim's wallet, demanding his phone passcode, stealing items from his home, allowing the use of your vehicle, and later possessing stolen property.
Ms Fitzgibbon accepted that you lacked a prior relationship with the victim, that you acted under direction at times, and that the offending did not involve disguises or occur at night. Nonetheless, she submitted the home invasion breached the privacy and sanctity of the victim's home.
As to the offending against Mr Mendez, the prosecution submitted it was calculated and premeditated. You lured the victim using an alias Facebook account, gained entry to his apartment and facilitated the arrival of two co-offenders who were wearing disguises in the early hours of the morning. The prosecution contended the offending lasted about 30 minutes and the aim was to obtain property. The victim was punched and threatened, leaving him frightened and compliant.
Ms Fitzgibbon noted that the stolen items included a work laptop, Samsung A34 phone, a light sabre, a mobile phone, and that these items were later recovered during the execution of a search warrant. At the time you were subject to a Community Correction Order and two counts of bail. The prosecution contended you were complicit, and an active participant and Ms Fitzgibbon submitted your offending was brazen, violent and showed a disregard for the safety of your victims.
Your counsel, Ms Wendtland, submitted that your involvement in the offending against the victim on 8 April 2023 arose from an attempt to recover your vehicle from the co-offender. Ms Wendtland emphasised that you had no prior connection to the victim and that key actions, such as the luring the victim, demanding his wallet and issuing instructions, were initiated by your co-offender. Physical contact and direction at the victim's home were also attributed to him. Nonetheless, your counsel acknowledged that you played an active role and that the offending was serious.
Regarding the Mendez matter, Ms Wendtland argued that while there was some planning, it was relatively unsophisticated. You attended with the intention of retrieving property for a co-offender who had exhausted other options. Your counsel conceded that you initiated contact with Mr Mendez and first attended the apartment, though you did not know the victim personally. CCTV confirms your presence but shows you were not involved in the assault and the false imprisonment was brief, occurring when the victim was escorted from the lift to his apartment. Statements made in the lift, such as 'we just want our stuff back', indicate the purpose was recovery of property. The subsequent thefts were described as opportunistic.
Your counsel submitted that your involvement in both instances of offending occurred during a period of significant instability that was marked by substance abuse, homelessness and negative peer associations.
Ms Logan, your offending is very serious, and whilst both episodes involved some planning, they were unsophisticated. In the first matter you became involved because your co‑offender had your vehicle and you largely acted under his direction, though you were at times an active participant. The armed robbery and home invasion were somewhat unusual because they occurred during the false imprisonment. You and your co‑offender entered the victim's home after he unlocked it. While there was no forced entry, you entered as trespassers, and the offending was already underway.
In the Mendez matter, you were in a relationship with a co‑offender and initially believed you were retrieving his property. The offending progressed further and again you played an active role, gaining entry to the victim's home, facilitating your co-offender's contact with the victim and later taking items from the victim's home. I accept you were not the principal offender in either case, yet I do consider your involvement was active and significant.
Further, I accept that this offending occurred when you were vulnerable, homeless, struggling with mental health and addicted to drugs, and I will return to this in more detail shortly.

You were born in Healesville and raised in Launching Place. You are now 26 years old and you were 23 and 24 at the time of the offending before the court. You have Indigenous heritage through your maternal grandmother who was a member of the Palawa tribe in Tasmania. Your connection to family history and culture has been limited due to your grandmother's experience as part of the Stolen Generation.
You were raised by both parents until their separation when you were 10. Your mother did not work, and your father worked as a sheet metal worker who owned his own business. You have one older brother, who is aged 30, and a sister-in-law, who has been a significant source of support. Your childhood was marked by your father's dependence on alcohol, which took priority over providing for the family. You have no ongoing contact with him and last saw him in 2020.
Throughout your childhood you were exposed to persistent domestic violence, both verbal and physical, primarily at the hands of your father while intoxicated. You also witnessed the suffering caused by both parents' addiction to illicit substances.
Upon your parents' separation you lived with your mother. At age 13 you were evicted from home. You were homeless for a while, living between share houses, couches and empty cars and from your mid teenage years you lived with your father until you were approximately 18 years old. Your father continued to use alcohol heavily and remained violent.
Your mother struggled with substance misuse throughout her life and passed away in 2018 from complications arising from a prescription pill dependency. Before your mother's death you often returned home to care for her and perform cleaning duties. You were 18 years old when she died. You sat with your mother's body after her death and then formally identified her for the authorities as identification documents had been mislaid. These experiences added to your history of emotional difficulties and after your mother's death you moved into her home with your brother. You both inherited the house with you eventually selling him your half.
You completed school up until Year 8. Your school years were difficult as you were targeted by another student. On one occasion your head was smashed into concrete, and your food was stolen consistently, you were bullied and you were sexually assaulted. Until that time, you had no behavioural problems but after the sexual assault your behaviour changed and you began to get involved in fights. You were suspended on more than one occasion.
Eventually you reported the sexual abuse to your mother. Your mother was supportive and acted to protect you by raising her concerns with the school and the police. Unfortunately, the school were not so supportive. The perpetrator of the bullying and sexual assault had parents of good standing in the school, and this may have played a role in the school protecting her. Rather than act to protect you, a school psychologist suggested you should try and get along with the other student. Your report to police was dismissed as there was no allegation of penetration and the perpetrator was female. You were forced to endure ongoing contact with the perpetrator through primary school and the first year of high school. Dr Lambert, opined 'the extent of these incidents was such that they led to immediate and profound changes in [your] mental state, including the onset of depression, self-harm and suicidality, marking a clear turning point in [your] life trajectory.'
As a result of these ongoing difficulties, you enrolled in a community school where you remained until 2018. You completed Year 12, earned a Certificate III in Business, and began a hairdressing course with salon placement. You later attained a certificate II in fire safety along with heavy machinery tickets and from 2019 to 2021 you worked as a heavy machine operator, a role obtained through Disability Employment Services, due to your poor mental health. During this period, you were stable and lived with your brother.
Your first relationship began at age 14 and lasted six years. From the age of 15 to 16 the relationship became characterised by significant abuse and control as your partner abused methylamphetamine and alcohol. You were the victim of considerable abuse which saw you hospitalised on occasion. You were also the victim of sexual violence. After your mother passed, you used money you had inherited to purchase a home with your partner. As a result of the ongoing abuse, you eventually left the relationship and in doing so left him your share of the house which you had bought together.
Since that time, you have had several short term, non-serious relationships and you were briefly involved with your co-offender, Elias Howe. These relationships have invariably been characterised by mutual drug addiction, abuse and the challenges of homelessness.
Your addiction to substances began with cigarettes and alcohol at the tender age of 12. Your use of alcohol became compulsive and problematic, and you had periods of sobriety but lapsed into alcohol use in your late teenage years. At the age of 13 you experimented with cannabis and sporadically used this substance, at times with your mother, until approximately five years ago. During your early teens you began occasional use of cocaine. By the age of 18 you were using cocaine daily. This pattern of use continued until you were 20 and you transitioned to the use of methylamphetamine. This drug quickly dominated your life and eventually led to daily GHB use. You described GHB to both Mr Simmons and Dr Lambert as being 'liquid confidence' and it soon became your 'weapon of choice' as it gave you confidence and provided emotional numbing. From 2021 until your remand in March 2024 your substance misuse was both considerable and persistent.
In 2021 you suffered the loss of your closest friend, who was the daughter of a former classmate from community school. At just 16 years of age your friend tragically took her own life. The grief you experienced, particularly around the first anniversary of her passing, coincided with the beginning of your offending and a marked increase in your drug use.
Your pattern of drug use and mental health struggles corresponds with your prior criminal history and the pattern of offending now before the court. At the age of 16 years, you were dealt with in the Children's Court for dishonesty offending and received probation. In April 2023 you committed the home invasion offending and you were released on bail. In June of this same year, at age 23, you pleaded guilty in the Magistrates' Court to two charges of possession of methylamphetamine for which you received an adjourned undertaking.
On 1 November 2023 you offended, and you were remanded in custody from 11 November 2023 to 12 December 2023. You accrued 42 days of pre-sentence detention before being released on CISP bail. At the time of your sentence indication and your later plea in this court, I was advised this matter had resolved, was subject of a deferral of sentence in the Magistrates' Court and you had been assessed as suitable for a CCO. The report from Warren Simmons suggests that upon release from custody you were only able to stay sober for a couple of weeks, and you returned to use of methylamphetamine and GHB.
On 4 March 2024 you were convicted of various offences including driving offences, dishonesty, bail offences, criminal damage, family violence and drug possession. You were sentenced to a 12-month CCO with treatment conditions and 80 hours of unpaid work. It was a week later that you were involved in the Mendez offending and two weeks after that you were arrested and remanded in custody. You remained in custody for nine months, or 261 days, until being released on bail with a condition to undertake inpatient residential rehabilitation at Windana. Your bail for the home invasion offending was not revoked and so this period of 261 days on remand is pre-sentence detention directly referable only to the Mendez offending. Both this period and the 42 days served in late 2023, are relevant in terms of totality.
Initially your time in custody was very difficult. You suffered significant symptoms of withdrawal, particularly withdrawal from GHB. There were periods of solitary confinement as you struggled to settle into the routine of prison life. Fortunately, you gained work as a cleaner and you began participating in programs run by Elizabeth Morgan House Aboriginal Women's service within the Aboriginal Healing Unit at Dame Phyllis Frost centre. A letter dated 25 October 2024 from Angela Heard, the Acting Manager of the Aboriginal Healing Unit, detailed your productive use of time in the AOD Therapeutic Group and noted that you presented well at other groups and engaged well with other participants.
Ms Heard also confirmed that you were able to move into the cottage accommodation linked to the Aboriginal Healing Unit in early October 2024. This required you to demonstrate you were incident free, working, providing negative screens and attending groups at the Aboriginal Healing Unit. Within the cottage environment you were provided a practitioner from Elizabeth Morgan House who was able to assist with culture and a holistic model of case management. It was at this time Ms Heard observed you really want to work on yourself and learn new strategies for custody and transition to the community.
Whilst in custody you were also able to continue your education by completing several short courses, including Certificate II in supply chain operation, Certificate II in workplace skills and use hygienic practices for food safety.
You were released on bail to Windana on 18 December 2024 and since that time you have been an inpatient at Windana.

As has been recognised by the Court of Appeal, residency at rehabilitation facilities such as Windana can significantly assist an offender's rehabilitation and serves the community's interest by promoting reform and reducing recidivism.[10] Offenders will be encouraged to seek residential treatment if it is understood that sentencing judges will acknowledge, and give credit for, the punitive nature of residency in such a facility. Where such residency involves substantial restrictions on liberty, sentencing courts should acknowledge its punitive nature and give appropriate credit as part of the instinctive synthesis. The weight accorded will depend on the severity and duration of restrictions and whether residency was voluntary or compelled. Credit cannot be quantified like pre-sentence detention under s18 of the Sentencing Act,[11] nor is it equivalent to Renzella time, but it should ordinarily be explained in sentencing remarks. Residency must post-date the offending and cannot be credited more than once.
At your sentence indication, Windana clinical team leader, Danielle Stapleton, gave evidence about the program at Windana and specifically about your journey within the program. Ms Stapleton spoke to your ongoing progression throughout the four phases and the restrictions and expectations imposed upon you at each. Following your presentation to the Windana community, detailing your commitment to recovery, you progressed to Phase 1 for some eight weeks. This involved maintaining a working role within your shared living pod and across the acreage while also focusing on your treatment through relapse prevention and forward planning. Day leave was only allowed when supported by a senior resident or family member. You have been compelled to remain at Windana throughout the course of your program with permission to leave the property increasing with your progression through the phases. Progression is dependent upon planning and paperwork with your clinician and presenting to your peers for approval. As noted by Ms Stapleton, it takes courage to choose to attend Windana due to the strict routine and the interpersonal challenges that can arise from such an arrangement.
You progressed to Phase 3 of the program, however, following a urine test returning positive for codeine, you accepted the decision made to return you to the beginning of the program. This decision was not taken lightly and involved you going through the application process again. You struggled with this and felt vulnerable at Windana.

You have seen three mental health professionals. Two reports from Warren Simmonds, psychologist, a report from Dr Kelly Sinclair, neuropsychologist, and a report from Dr Sally Lambert, consultant psychiatrist, were tendered on your plea.
You were assessed by psychologist Warren Simmons on 22 October 2024 while on remand at Dame Phyllis Frost Centre. He noted your long-standing involvement with mental health services since age 13, when you were diagnosed with depression, anxiety and borderline personality disorder. More recently you were diagnosed with PTSD following the traumatic experience of discovering your mother's body. At assessment, Mr Simmons considered that you displayed clear PTSD symptoms as well as depressive features such as low mood and helplessness.
Mr Simmons opined that your history of emotional difficulties and experiences of abuse left you vulnerable to substance misuse. Mr Simmons drew a correlation between your sexual abuse and the deterioration of your behaviour at secondary school and your subsequent diagnosis of anxiety and depression. Further, he considered your exposure to parental substance use normalised drug taking behaviour, and you began using cannabis at 13 and alcohol at 14. Mr Simmons noted that by 2021 cocaine use escalated from occasional to daily, followed by methamphetamine use which you described as 'taking over.' Prior to your first remand you were also consuming up to 30 ml of GHB daily. Although you briefly abstained after release you soon resumed methamphetamine and GHB use. You have also used ecstasy opportunistically and misused Valium in the past.
At the time of the offending, you were substance-affected and Mr Simmons identified a clear link between your drug use and the offending. He recommended referral for drug and alcohol counselling focused on self-efficacy, harm minimisation and relapse prevention, alongside an intensive residential rehabilitation program. For mental health he advised therapy targeting PTSD and associated personality issues. Although he identified your mental impairments, he did not comment upon any nexus between such impairments and your offending.
Dr Sinclair's report outlined your history of early childhood trauma, parental substance dependence, family violence, bullying and sexual assault. She detailed that you began self-harming in primary school and attempted suicide twice, a drug overdose in childhood and an attempted hanging in early 2024. Further, she noted you received hospital care for mental health issues and started psychiatric medication in March 2024 while on remand. Dr Sinclair noted that your offending occurred during daily drug use, unstable housing and unemployment, compounded by a violent relationship with a co-accused. You expressed remorse, stating the crimes were 'stupid stuff' and that would not have happened without drugs. Dr Sinclair noted that since bail in December 2024, you have engaged in residential rehabilitation and set goals for sobriety, mental health treatment and youth support work. Further, she confirmed that recent assessments confirmed PTSD, depression and substance use disorders as at the time of your remand.
Dr Sinclair undertook neuropsychological testing which indicated your intellectual ability fell within the borderline to low average range. Weaknesses included working memory, processing speed for novel material and verbal/nonverbal reasoning, with isolated moderate deficits in general knowledge and verbal abstract reasoning. Learning efficiency for abstract information and phonetic fluency were also mildly impaired. In Dr Sinclair's opinion these weaknesses likely reflected longstanding neurodevelopmental factors influenced by trauma and early adverse experiences, rather than acquired brain injury or acute substance effects.
The testing undertaken by Dr Sinclair revealed strengths including vocabulary, semantic fluency, immediate auditory attention and verbal memory for structured information. This means you can generally follow and recall conversations and function well in familiar environments. However, reasoning and problem-solving in complex or unfamiliar situations may be challenging, requiring support and extra time. You may struggle with visual information and complex written material, benefiting from verbal instruction and repetition.
In the opinion of Dr Sinclair your cognitive weaknesses may have contributed to your offending by limiting your ability to reason and problem-solve. According to Dr Sinclair this would further be compounded by substance use. It was Dr Sinclair's opinion that your cognitive weakness did not impair your ability to understand the wrongfulness of your actions.
Dr Lambert prepared her independent medico-legal report on 31 July 2025, and the report was commissioned by Yarn Legal for your impending civil claim for damages. Notwithstanding the report was requested for a different jurisdiction, I consider that Dr Lambert has provided several findings and opinions that are of relevance to this sentencing task.
Dr Lambert considered your psychiatric history reflects severe and enduring consequences of early trauma. From documentation and interview, Dr Lambert noted that following the sexual assault at age 10 or 11, you developed major depressive disorder, marked by pervasive low mood, anhedonia, insomnia and early suicidality. This progressed to recurrent self-harm by cutting and multiple suicide attempts, necessitating frequent, approximately 15 to 20, involuntary hospital admissions during your adolescence. You were seen by various psychiatrists and prescribed antidepressant medications. Further, Dr Lambert noted your history includes transient hallucinations, an eating disorder with significant weight loss and persistent emotional dysregulation. It was her view that you exhibit core features of trauma-related psychopathology, nightmares, flashbacks, hypervigilance and dissociation, alongside maladaptive coping through substance use. These symptoms have persisted into adulthood, compounded by impulsivity, poor self-identity and abandonment sensitivity, consistent with complex trauma and borderline personality traits.
Dr Lambert noted that substance use began within and a year or two of the assault. It started with cigarettes and alcohol at around the age of 12 but experimentation escalated quickly and there was daily use as a coping mechanism to deal with emotional pain and profound feelings of shame about what had happened. Dr Lambert stated that you relied on substance use as a means of managing or escaping trauma-related symptoms. Your use of methylamphetamine in the opinion of Dr Lambert was associated with impairments in functioning, legal difficulties, contributed to your mental health problems and played a role in your history of seizures. GHB use caused significant problems for you including impaired judgment, involvement in unhealthy relationships and criminal activity driven by the substance's effects of liquid confidence and emotional numbing.
Notwithstanding your abstinence for over 12 months, Dr Lambert notes that you still continue to experience emotional dysregulation with your mood being flat or numb and you being emotionally fragile. It was Dr Lambert's opinion that currently you suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder, borderline personality disorder and substance use disorder.
As to the connection between your mental health challenges and criminal offending, Dr Lambert opined as follows:

'Based on my clinical assessment and review of Ms [Logan's] developmental history, it appears that the marked deterioration in her life trajectory following the index traumatic incident significantly contributed to her later involvement in criminal behaviour. Prior to the assault, Ms [Logan] was generally well-adjusted academically and exhibited no history of serious disruptive behaviour, however, following the incident her onset of PTSD, major depressive disorder and borderline personality features, compounded by escalating substance use, created a vulnerability that adversely affected her impulse control, emotional regulation and decision-making. > > These impairments have substantially increased her risk for engaging in maladaptive and, in some instances, criminal behaviours. > > While acknowledging that Ms [Logan] had pre-existing psychosocial stressors such as domestic instability and early exposure to violence, the evidence suggests that sexual assault acted as a critical catalyst that altered her developmental course. > > The findings from research from Shrivastava et al. (2017)1 support the understanding that childhood trauma, particularly sexual abuse, can lead to long-lasting neurobiological and psychological effects, increasing the risk of various psychiatric disorders in adulthood. This aligns with the evidence presented in the report which indicates that Ms [Logan's] experience of sexual trauma has led to significant emotional and cognitive impairments. The neurobiological changes associated with her experiences, such as alterations in brain structure and function, further exacerbate her psychiatric symptoms and contribute to her ongoing challenges in achieving stability and well-being. > > In addition to empirical evidence, I observed that her brother, raised in the same home environment as Ms [Logan[, lives in his own home, has a full-time job, a wife and young children, with no history of mental health disorders or substance use disorders. > > In my professional opinion, but for the traumatic incident and the profound psychobiological and social impact that ensued, is more likely than not that Ms [Logan] would have pursued a more adaptive trajectory with a reduced risk of criminal conduct. Consequently, although a precise quantification is inherently challenging, the index event appears to have been a pivotal factor in setting her on a path toward the criminal behaviours observed in adulthood.'

I accept the unchallenged opinions of Mr Simmons, Dr Sinclair and Dr Lambert.

Your counsel submitted that your experience of childhood deprivation operates in a general way to reduce your moral culpability relative to an offender whose formative years have not been marred in that way. [12] The prosecution accepts that the principles in Bugmy are engaged in the general sense.
In assessing your moral culpability or degree of blameworthiness to be attached to you for your offending conduct, it is necessary to closely examine your personal circumstances and background and an exploration of factors which may explain the offending conduct. To the extent that the offending conduct is due to factors beyond your control, the harshness of the moral judgment is likely to be moderated.[13]
An examination of your personal history reveals that you suffered significant childhood neglect and deprivation. You were exposed to family violence, parental substance abuse, instability, abandonment and other abuse for many, if not all, of your formative years. Each of the reports tendered on your plea canvass the experiences you endured in significant detail. I accept in the circumstances of your case that to some extent your offending conduct was influenced by these factors which were beyond your control. Accordingly, I consider your moral culpability ought to be appropriately moderated.

In her report Dr Lambert opined diagnoses of PTSD, major depressive disorder, borderline personality disorder, were indicated in accordance with the DSM-5. Your counsel submitted that Limbs 3 to 6 of Verdins[14] applied in your case. Dr Lambert drew a connection between your poor mental health difficulties and your offending, whilst Dr Sinclair drew a connection between your compromised cognitive functioning and the offending. These opinions are relevant to the court's assessment of the extent to which general and specific deterrence should be moderated or eliminated as sentencing considerations. Your counsel submitted there was a realistic connection or nexus such that less weight should be attached to each of these sentencing purposes.
The prosecution submitted that whilst these limbs of Verdins had some application, your drug use complicated and was inextricably connected with your mental health difficulties such that it was appropriate to limit the effects of the principles identified in Verdins. The prosecution submitted the fact that your drug taking was a consequence of your mental health condition did not establish a sufficient nexus.[15]
On my assessment of the evidence, your mental health difficulties have contributed to your offending in a way that enlivens Limb 1, in addition to Limbs 3 and 4 of Verdins. This is because your impairment contributed to your offending in a way that reduced your ability to exercise appropriate judgement, make calm and rational choices and think clearly. However, you were able to appreciate the wrongfulness of your conduct. Also I consider general and specific deterrence to still have application in your case, albeit moderated. I do not accept that you are an inappropriate vehicle for general deterrence and further, it is my view that you can be specifically deterred.
Relevantly, your role in the offending was to some degree directed by your male co-offenders. The opinion of Dr Sinclair was that your cognitive weaknesses may have contributed to your offending by limiting your ability to reason and problem solve. The opinion of Dr Lambert was that the index event (the sexual abuse) appears to have been a pivotal factor in setting you on a path towards criminal behaviours. I consider these aspects of the evidence establish that your impairment contributed in a way that makes you less blameworthy for the offending. As such I consider your moral culpability ought to be reduced.
I have assessed and taken into account your difficulties with PTSD, major depressive disorder and your overall disordered personality as a consequence of your abusive and emotionally neglectful experiences in childhood, including experiences of sexual abuse. These difficulties existed prior to your substance abuse and are somewhat independent from your substance abuse issues. These disorders have also persisted in circumstances where you are now abstinent. This includes the nine months you were in custody and the 11 months you have been an inpatient at Windana. Moreover, your mental health issues appear to have resulted in your pronounced substance misuse as a form of self-medication and emotional numbing.
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, and I am satisfied on balance that the defence have discharged this onus.
In relation to Limb 5, I accept the evidence of Mr Simmons that you will likely find any period of incarceration more onerous given that you are suffering from depression. The symptoms of which impact your ability to adapt to daily living and mean that you may find imprisonment more difficult. Further, I accept the opinion of Dr Sinclair that prison adjustment may be harder for you initially due to slower adaptation to routines and complex demands.
I do not consider there is sufficient evidence to make a finding that Limb 6 of Verdins is enlivened.
In the circumstances of your case, I am mindful that there is some degree of overlap between the application of Bugmy and the limbs of Verdins, and I have therefore been careful to place appropriate weight on these mitigatory factors.

In thorough submissions at sentence indication and plea, your counsel, Ms Wendtland, argued the exception in s5(2H)(e) of the Sentencing Act [16] was enlivened in your case. Pursuant to this section the court must evaluate whether there are substantial and compelling circumstances that are exceptional and rare that justify not making an order for imprisonment.
In determining whether there are substantial and compelling circumstances that are exceptional and rare under s5(2H)(e), I must regard general deterrence and denunciation of your offending conduct as having greater importance than the other sentencing purposes set out in s5(1) of the Act.[17] Further, I must give less weight to your personal circumstances than the nature and gravity of the offences and I must not regard your early guilty plea, your prospects for rehabilitation or parity with other co‑offenders.
The Court of Appeal has given guidance on the application of these provisions on numerous occasions.[18] Such guidance can be distilled as follows:

(a) The court must determine whether there are substantial and compelling circumstances**,** meaning circumstances that are weighty and powerful enough to justify not imposing a custodial sentence.

(b) If such circumstances exist, the next question is whether they are exceptional and rare**,** and this phrase should be treated as a single test, not two separate ones, because the meanings of 'exceptional' and 'rare' overlap. 'Exceptional' means unusual or out of the ordinary, which includes rarity. The requirement is therefore that the circumstances be wholly outside the usual factors typical of the offence.

(c) This is not just a description of common sentencing outcomes; it is a threshold that must be met before a non-custodial sentence can be imposed. Parliament has stated that imprisonment should ordinarily be imposed for Category 2 offences, which suggests that 'exceptional and rare' means something closer to 'out of the ordinary.'

(d) Earlier case law supports this interpretation, describing the test as requiring circumstances wholly outside 'run of the mill' factors. In short, 'exceptional and rare' refers to circumstances that are entirely beyond what is typical for the offence.

(E) And finally, applying these two steps requires the sentencing judge to make an evaluative judgment based on the established facts. A combination of factors may satisfy the exception even if individual factors are relatively common.

In your case Ms Wendtland submitted the cumulative impact of several factors in combination justified departure from an order for a term of imprisonment. These included:

(a) Your relative youth;

(b) Absence of prior convictions within the adult jurisdiction;

(c) Significant background of disadvantage;

(d) Significant exposure to trauma (within school, within familial relationships and intimate relationships);

(e) History of employment and training, notwithstanding considerable background of disadvantage;

(f) Evidence of concerted and impressive engagement within custodial environment within the Aboriginal Healing Unit;

(g) Excellent engagement in residential rehabilitation over a sustained and lengthy period from December 2024 until 21 November 2025, and that you hold a position of responsibility and opportunity for continued targeted support;

(h) Strong engagement in culturally specific supports;

(i) Significant mental health diagnoses;

(j) Increased utility of plea having regard to the position of the victim in the matter; and

(k) Significant remand periods served in relation to separate matters where submissions for Renzella time or totality arise.

Ms Fitzgibbon on behalf of the prosecution submitted that a head sentence and a non-parole period must be imposed in your case. She referred to the cases of Farmer, Lombardo and Kenneison[19]. Ms Fitzgibbon submitted that the inquiry under 5(2H) was a two-step process requiring first, a consideration of whether there were substantial and compelling circumstances and secondly, whether such circumstances could be considered exceptional and rare. Further, she submitted that it is relevant that in construing the phrase 'exceptional and rare' in the context of substantial and compelling circumstances, the court should bear in mind Parliament has stated its intention that imprisonment should ordinarily be imposed for Category 2 offending.
Ms Fitzgibbon submitted the circumstances must be both sufficiently weighty and powerful to justify not imposing a custodial sentence and wholly outside the ordinary factors typical of the relevant offence. In relation to the factors raised by Ms Wendtland, she submitted that those identified at (f) and (g) should be disregarded given the prohibitions within the Act. Further, she submitted the court must give less weight to your personal circumstances in favour of the nature and gravity of the offending and that the offending in this instance was objectively serious. Ms Fitzgibbon conceded that the factors raised by your counsel may be compelling. However, she submitted they were neither' exceptional' nor 'rare', individually or in combination. As such she submitted 5(2H)(e) was not enlivened in the circumstances of your case.

I accept that the combination of factors relied upon by Ms Wendtland are substantial and compelling. That is, I consider them to be weighty, forceful and powerful reasons.
In addition, I find these factors in combination are exceptional and rare. It follows that I find there is a reason or a combination of reasons that justifies a departure from the imposition of a term of imprisonment.
The factors that take your case out of the ordinary include the significant childhood deprivation, abuse and neglect you suffered and your demonstrated efforts to overcome the effects of such abuse, that is, the misery, mental illness and substance addiction it caused. You have used your time in custody and your time at Windana to demonstrate you are a person who can reform and your efforts in this regard are relevant to my assessment of the weight to be placed on specific deterrence and protection of the community. You have not escaped punishment, rather, you have spent nine months in custody, initially in very difficult circumstances, and then in the Aboriginal Healing Unit. You have spent 11 months at Windana which has necessitated you engaging in very difficult trauma informed counselling whilst being subject to the restrictions and punitive aspects involved in residential rehabilitation.
Your experience of childhood sexual abuse had a profound and significant impact upon you and acted to destabilise and change your life trajectory. This is thoroughly and graphically documented by Dr Lambert, and I am mindful of what our Court of Appeal has said about the devastating impacts of sexual abuse upon young people.[20] You were only 10 or 11 when you were offended against.
To this I add another very important consideration that has led me to the conclusion that your circumstances are exceptional and rare, and that is the family violence offending that you have endured. Our Court of Appeal has also repeatedly recognised the devastating impacts of such offending, and there are numerous examples of that in the cases of Pasinis, Reynolds, Kalala, and Evans.[21]
I consider the other factors relied upon by your counsel add to and fortify my finding that your case is one where the very high hurdle has been satisfied.
In making this finding I have not had regard to your early guilty plea, your prospects for rehabilitation or parity. Further, I have weighed up the importance of general deterrence, denunciation and the nature and seriousness of the offending as best I am able, in light of what I consider to be the extraordinary and exceptional circumstances of your case.

Having found a special reason exists in your case, I must go on to consider what the appropriate sentence should be. In this regard I take into account that you pleaded guilty; your plea has facilitated justice in that you have spared the court the time and expense of two trials. Importantly, you have also spared the victims the need to come and relive what was a harrowing and traumatic experience for each of them.[22]
Further, your plea of guilty is evidence of your remorse. Your remorse was evident from a number of sources, including the reports of Dr Sinclair and Mr Simmons in particular. I accept that your remorse is genuine.
I consider that you have good prospects for rehabilitation as demonstrated by all you have achieved. You are still young and have the support of your sister-in-law and your brother. You have continued to work on your education; you have an employment history and stable accommodation.
Further, it is my view that your experiences in custody will act as a reminder of where you could end up should you reoffend.

Parity is a relevant issue in your case and the principles that govern parity are well established and equal justice requires that like offences be treated alike, but also that relevant differences between offenders be capable of being treated as justifying different outcomes. The prosecutor, Ms Fitzgibbon, has detailed the circumstances as between you and your co-offender Mr Shepherd. Mr Shepherd was sentenced on 29 August 2024 for false imprisonment, armed robbery, home invasion and common law assault, and an uplifted charge of driving whilst disqualified. He was sentenced to a total effective sentence of two years and nine months' imprisonment and was ordered to serve a minimum of 23 months before being eligible for parole. Mr Shepherd was 28 years of age at the time of the offending. He came before the court with a more substantial prior history including a prior term of imprisonment and two prior convictions where community correction orders were imposed. His matter resolved at a slightly earlier stage following the contested committal. Bugmy principles were enlivened in his case in the general sense. Mr Shepherd's matter resolved on broadly the same factual basis, although the armed robbery charged involved separate conduct involving threats made with the kitchen knife at the victim's home and a common assault where he punched the victim when at the front door. Otherwise, Ms Fitzgibbon submitted that both yourself and Mr Shepherd played active roles in the offending.
I have weighed these considerations into the sentence I intend to impose, noting that there are important differentiating factors in each of your cases that justify a significant degree of disparity. These include your mental health issues and my findings pursuant to Verdins, your age, your lesser prior history and your very significant demonstration of reform.

The basic purposes for which a court may impose a sentence are punishment, general and specific deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation and protection of the community. I am mindful of the altered weight to be placed on certain principles given the restrictive sentencing regime that applies in your case and my findings pursuant to Bugmy and Verdins.
Given your youthfulness and background circumstances, general deterrence, to some extent, must give way to the promotion of your rehabilitation and the weight to be given to specific deterrence must also be moderated in light of your experiences in custody and your efforts toward rehabilitation. In your case, I regard protection of the community to be a relevant consideration, but I consider this is best achieved by not interrupting the rehabilitation you have undertaken. The supports and interventions I intend to impose will address any ongoing issues that you have. In your case, this is what will reduce the risk of future offending.
I take into account the sentencing guidelines referred to in s5 of the Sentencing Act,[23] where relevant to your case. In particular, I have had regard to the sentencing landscape to the offending before me, particularly the offences of home invasion, armed robbery and false imprisonment. Ultimately the sentencing exercise requires that I balance all relevant factors and make a judgment as to the appropriate sentence in the circumstances of your particular case.
The principles of totality, proportionality and parsimony are also important considerations. They require me to make sure the total sentence is appropriate for the total criminality, and I have taken these principles into account in fixing the sentences and the structure of the sentence that I will now impose.
By weighing up all relevant matters in what I consider a difficult sentencing task, I consider the factors of general deterrence, just punishment and denunciation can adequately be addressed by the imposition of a community correction order for each of the matters before the court.
In coming to this conclusion, I have considered all the matters raised by both prosecution and defence and all the matters that I have gone through today. I am mindful that since you have been at Windana that you have undertaken the previous CCO that was imposed upon you. I am also mindful of the guidance given by the Court of Appeal in Boulton v The Queen,[24] that is:

'A community correction order may be suitable even in cases of relatively serious offences which might previously have attracted a medium term of imprisonment.'

'A CCO is likely to be a particularly important sentencing option in the case of a young offender where there may be a perceived conflict between the need to punish the offender and the importance, both to the community and to the offender, of rehabilitating the offender. > > Since the CCO can be used to rehabilitate and punish simultaneously, the conflict is likely to be reduced. Instead of needing to give less weight to denunciation or specific or general deterrence, in order to promote the young offender's rehabilitation, the court will be able to fashion a CCO which adequately achieves all of those purposes at once.'

Ms Logan, you are convicted and you are sentenced as follows:
In relation to Indictment C2316156.2 you are convicted of false imprisonment, armed robbery, home invasion and theft and you are sentenced to a community correction order for a period of two and a half years.
The conditions of this community correction order include that you perform:
280 hours of unpaid community work over that two and a half year period;
You must submit for assessment and treatment for drug abuse;
You must submit for treatment and rehabilitation programs to reduce re-offending;
You must also submit for assessment and treatment for mental health issues;
You are to attend for supervision.
With regard to the community work, I propose to offset 150 hours of community work with counselling. That means if you perform 150 hours of counselling, that will be deducted from the 280 hours.
In relation to Indictment C2400183.2 you are convicted of false imprisonment and two charges of theft. In addition, you are convicted of the summary related offence of trespass. You are ordered to perform a community correction order of two and half years with the same conditions as I have just detailed.
These two orders will run concurrently.
In addition to the conditions that I have imposed, there are standard conditions that you must comply with.
First and foremost is that you cannot commit an offence punishable by imprisonment in the next two and a half years. If you do so, you will be in breach and will be brought back before the Court.
You need to report within two working days to the Office of Corrections, your nearest office will be Lilydale Community Corrections.
You are required to advise your supervising Corrections office of any change of address where you are living or working within two clear working days. And it is a term of all community correction orders that you must submit to visits as directed and obey instructions and directions of the Community Corrections. You cannot leave the State of Victoria without prior permission. So, do you understand all of that.
ACCUSED: Yes
HER HONOUR: And do you consent to doing the community correction orders. ACCUSED: Yes
HER HONOUR: Your case has presented a challenging sentencing exercise. In all the circumstances I do not consider that a term of imprisonment is required, however, you have served a term of 261 days on remand. Had your bail been revoked on the home invasion offending, this time would have been referable to both matters. Pursuant to s18 of the Sentencing Act,[25] It is only referable in relation to the Mendez matter.
I consider that this period of time has an over-riding relevance and I have taken this time into account in sentencing you for each of the matters before me. I consider that time in custody, the nine months that you served, to be very important. As I said before, you have not escaped punishment.
Pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act,[26] but for your plea of guilty, the sentence I would have imposed is a combination penalty of 12 months and a community correction order in the same terms as imposed today, and that would be relying on all of the factors that I have taken into account.
MS NOONE: Your Honour, there's two ancillary orders with respect to the first matter, a disposal order and forfeiture order.
HER HONOUR: I'll make those orders.