Peter Madul, you have pleaded guilty to two offences; one charge of common law assault, the maximum penalty for that is five years' imprisonment,[1] and one charge of theft, the maximum penalty for which is 10 years' imprisonment.
These offences arise from the events of 26 April 2023, when co-offenders forced their way into the home of the 37-year-old victim, Mr Juma Neil, where they assaulted him while armed with weapons. You arrived at the property after the attack had begun. You then joined in the assault by punching the victim. You then left the apartment having stolen the victim's Burberry satchel bag.
You were 27 years old at the time of this offending and have admitted your prior criminal history.
[2]
The circumstances of your offending are set out in the Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea dated 11 October 2024,[2] which is the agreed basis upon which you are to be sentenced.
To place your offending in its proper context, I begin by outlining the background to the events of 26 April 2023.
On 25 April 2023, at around 4.16 pm, Mr Neil invited a friend of his, Samiha Hakiem, to his apartment in Punt Road, Richmond. In turn, Mr Hakiem invited you to the apartment. CCTV footage shows you arriving at 6.30 pm. You are known by the name 'Internet'. When you arrived, Mr Hakiem introduced you as 'Peter'. Another male, Ali Sari arrived later at around 8 pm with another unknown male. After drinking alcohol at the apartment for a while, you invited Wol Akot to the apartment, who arrived at approximately 1.22 am.
During the evening, Mr Neil attempted to flirt with Mr Akot. Mr Akot took offence when Mr Neil placed his hand near Mr Akot's penis. In response, Mr Akot threatened Mr Neil with a knife. Mr Neil fled from the apartment and only returned when he understood Mr Akot had left.
The next evening, Mr Neil left his apartment to purchase some wine. He returned home at approximately 7.38 pm, at which point he saw three males hiding together in the street, wearing black clothing. The three males were 18-year-old William Mariak, 19-year-old Wol Akot, and a 17-year-old. Mr Neil recognised Mr Akot as the male who had pulled a knife on him the night before.
The three co-offenders, armed with knives, approached Mr Neil at the door to his apartment, and forced him into the apartment, grabbing him by the arm. Once inside, the group began to assault Mr Neil. Over the course of the evening, his hand was struck with a hammer, he was hit with a spoon and electrical cord and was repeatedly punched and kicked. His hair, which was braided in dreadlocks, was also cut out in patches. To be clear, it is not alleged that you played any role in these acts of violence.
Shortly after the assault began, one of the co-accused made a phone call and was heard to say, 'we got him', and 'send the other boys up'. You and Mr Sari arrived at the apartment at 8.22 pm, 44 minutes after the other co-accused had forced their way into the apartment.
Mr Neil specifically recalls that after you arrived, both you and Mr Sari also punched him. Neither you nor Mr Sari were armed. The prosecution accepts that it is possible that you only punched Mr Neil once. I have proceeded to sentence you on this basis. This act is the basis of Charge 1 - common law assault.
The three co-offenders left the apartment at 8.58 pm. You and Mr Sari left 12 minutes later. You are captured on CCTV leaving the property in possession of
[3]
Mr Neil's Burberry satchel jacket, which you had stolen. This is the basis of
[4]
Charge 2 - theft.
10. At 9.14 pm, Mr Neil left his apartment to seek assistance and was ultimately taken to the Alfred Hospital for treatment of his injuries.
11. Arising from these events, Mr Neil sustained a rib cartilage fracture, a fractured hand, a large bruise to his forehead, combined with other cuts, bruising and bleeding. His braided hair had been cut out in patches. It is important to emphasise however, that these injuries were the result of the prolonged assault by the other co-accused prior to your arrival. It is no part of the prosecution case that you caused or were complicit in the acts that gave rise to those injuries.
12. You are to be sentenced only for assaulting the victim by punching him after the earlier attack. The prosecution accepts that you may not have been aware that the co-offenders had forcibly entered the premises earlier or that you had any knowledge of the earlier assaults by the co-accused.
13. You were subsequently identified by Victoria Police through CCTV footage, and after your fingerprints were located on items at the property.
14. You were arrested by police on 23 June 2023. In accordance with your rights, you made no comment in response to questions asked of you by police when you were interviewed about this matter.
[5]
In assessing the objective gravity of your offending, it is notable that your role in this incident is far less serious than that of the co-accused. You are not to be sentenced for having caused the victim's injuries or for having forced your way into the apartment to assault him. Nor were you armed.
The gravity of your offending lies in your role in continuing the assault on the victim after he had already been attacked by the co-offenders. At this time, the victim was particularly vulnerable having already been assaulted by the co-offenders. You then took the opportunity that presented from being in his home, after the assault had taken place, to steal his satchel bag.
It is the context in which the offending occurred which aggravates it. This was not spontaneous offending but rather involved a degree of planning and coordination. Mr Neil was entitled to be safe from any form of assault in his home. You attended at his home in company, joining others in the assault. You were not a mere bystander. For Mr Neil, this was a confronting and frightening experience, for which you played a role, and I have had regard to his victim impact statement in this regard.[3]
[6]
I now turn to your personal circumstances. You were born in Khartoum in Sudan on in August 1995. Your parents separated when you were an infant, however they subsequently re-partnered, and you became part of a blended family.
In 2005, when you were aged 10, your family was sponsored by your aunt to migrate to Australia, and you arrived with your father. Your transition to life in Australia was not an easy one. You experienced family conflict and periods of homelessness, and two years later, when you were 12 years old, you were placed in residential care by child protection services. You also experienced multiple placements in secure welfare, and due to offending in your early teenage years, periods on remand in Parkville Youth Detention.
On 8 January 2011, you were assessed to have an intellectual disability under the Disability Act 2006 with significant deficits in your general intellectual functioning and adaptive behaviour.[4] Your education was limited, and after completing
[7]
Year 10, you obtained a few jobs in unskilled areas of work. You are currently in receipt of a Disability Support Pension and other supports are available to you through the NDIS.
4. By the time of this offending, you had an extensive prior criminal history dating back to June 2012, much of which reveals a pattern of violent offending. On 7 May 2014, you were sentenced by the County Court to a 12-month community correction order for the offences of armed robbery and theft.
5. On 19 October 2017, following a trial, you were sentenced by the County Court to five years, six months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years, three months for offending that included your role in confrontational aggravated burglaries and theft of motor vehicles.
6. After that date, you have also been sentenced to various periods of imprisonment for your role in a prison riot in 2018, assaulting an emergency worker on duty in 2019, assaulting a custody officer on duty in February and May 2020 and in July 2021.
7. It is a significant aspect of your personal history that, at the age of 16, you were mistakenly treated as an adult and remanded in adult custody. It seems that on
[8]
5 July 2012 you were involved in the robbery of a pizza delivery driver. You were then arrested and remanded in custody. You were sentenced for your role in this offending on 7 May 2014, receiving a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment with a community correction order of 12 months. By that stage you had been on remand in adult custody for 617 days and were therefore released immediately.
8. No psychological or other material was filed on your behalf at this plea hearing. There is therefore no material available to me that describes the effect that that experience must have had on you however it could only have been significant.
9. You were previously assessed by forensic psychologist, Dr David Ball on
[9]
28 September 2017, at which time you were 22 years old. Dr Ball's assessment is referred to in the reasons for sentence of His Honour Judge O'Connell who sentenced you on 19 October 2017.[5] In those reasons, reference is made to the opinion of Dr Ball that you 'impressed as an immature person with limited capacity for general good judgment'.[6] Having noted a history of intermittent use of cannabis, cocaine and methamphetamine, Dr Ball assessed that you then met the diagnostic criteria for severe stimulant cannabis and alcohol use disorders, stating:
[10]
... he fell in with negative peers during his mid-teens., who introduced him to substances and crime. Mr Madul presents with a history of conduct disorder and criminality, comorbid with a raft of antisocial personality features that satisfy the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for antisocial personality disorder. I consider his disorder to be severe and chronic.[7]
[11]
The procedural history of this matter is also relevant for me to consider.
You matter resolved in September 2024, soon after the prosecution filed an amended indictment to significantly less serious charges than those initially brought against you. On 2 October 2024, an application to remit the charges to the Magistrates' Court was refused by another Judge of this Court. You were arraigned and entered a guilty plea to the two charges on 15 October 2024.
Your plea was heard before me on 12 November 2024, by which time you had served 53 days of pre-sentence detention. I adjourned the matter, and your undertaking of bail was extended, to receive a Justice Plan in anticipation of having you assessed for a community correction order.
When the matter returned before me on 7 March 2025, Ms Stafford of Counsel appeared as a friend of the Court to confirm that you had withdrawn your instructions for your solicitors to continue to act on your behalf. The matter was adjourned to enable you to obtain new legal representation. On 11 April 2025, you failed to appear and on 15 April 2025 a warrant was issued for your arrest.
On 28 April 2025, you were arrested and remanded. On that date, you refused to appear in Court and the matter was adjourned to the following day for you to make any application for bail. On 29 April 2025, solicitors appearing on your behalf confirmed that you were not seeking to make an application for bail. You have remained on remand for this matter and other pending matters since 28 April 2025.
On 22 May 2025, the matter was further adjourned for you to engage with new solicitors. The matter was then listed for further plea before me on 27 June 2025.
[12]
I turn now to the matters that were raised on your behalf in mitigation of your sentence.
First and foremost, you have pleaded guilty to these offences and did so at an early opportunity. Through your guilty plea you acknowledge responsibility for your role in this offending. There is utility in your early guilty plea. I have taken these matters into account in moderating your sentence.
At the age of 27 at the time of this offending, you are at the outer reaches of the age to be considered a youthful offender. However, your mild intellectual disability remains highly relevant to your sentence. The Disability Overview Report provided by the Disability Justice Coordinator dated 15 January 2025 refers to an assessment of Dr Yasmin Baliz, a clinical neuropsychologist dated 17 June 2011. In Dr Baliz's assessment you struggle with language comprehension and information processing speed, often leading to misunderstandings, frustration and disengagement. At that time, Dr Baliz assessed that your difficult childhood experiences, your disrupted education and history of drug and alcohol use, all contributed to your cognitive limitations which in turn, influence your behaviours.
It is well-established that an offender's intellectual disability moderates the extent to which a sentence should operate as a general deterrent. However, given your prior criminal history, specific deterrence still has a role to play in the sentence I impose.
On your behalf it was submitted that a sentence not exceeding time served be imposed for this offending. This submission is not opposed by the prosecution, having noted the additional time now served since this plea was originally listed. Although I had proposed to have you assessed for a community correction order subject to a Justice Plan, you have not consented to such an order being made.
I turn now to the question of parity with the sentences imposed on the co-offenders. On 15 October 2024, I sentenced Mr Akot to three-years' detention in a youth justice facility for his role in the offending. The child accused was sentenced in the Children's Court, where different sentencing considerations apply. The other
[13]
co-offenders are yet to be sentenced. Given Mr Akot was sentenced for far more serious offences - aggravated burglary and intentionally causing injury - the sentencing principle of parity has little role to play in the sentence I impose on you.
7. I have also had regard to your more recent circumstances in custody. You report that you tested positive for COVID-19 after you were most recently remanded. As a result, you were place in isolation and continue to be confined to your cell for all but 1-2 hours each day. You instruct that this situation has continued despite having recovered from your illness. These are onerous conditions, particularly for a person with a mild intellectual disability.
8. Finally, since this offending on 26 April 2023, you have subsequently served a total of 300 days in custody, including 118 days by way of pre-sentence detention on these charges. I have regard to the sentencing principle of totality and the impact of that time in custody in deterring you from future offending. In addition, once released you have stable accommodation available to you through your family and have been assessed as suitable for significant supports through the NDIS. Nonetheless, I remain guarded about your future prospects of rehabilitation at this time.
[14]
In cases such as this involving confrontational violence, the sentencing considerations of general deterrence, denunciation and just punishment are all important matters to which I have regard. However, your mild intellectual disability moderates these considerations for the reasons I have given. That said, community protection also remains important given your prior criminal history of violent offending.
[15]
Balancing the matters to which I have referred, while having regard to the maximum penalty for these two offences, I sentence you as follows. Mr Madul, if you could please stand.
On Charge 1 - unlawful assault, you are convicted and sentenced to three months' imprisonment.
On Charge 2 - theft - you are convicted and sentenced to one weeks' imprisonment.
I direct that the sentences imposed on Charges 1 and 2 be served concurrently.
This gives a total effective sentence of three months' imprisonment.
I declare, pursuant to s 18 of the Sentencing Act 1991, that your presentence detention of 91 days be reckoned as already served under the sentence I have imposed.
Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act1991 I indicate that if you had not pleaded guilty, the sentence I would otherwise have imposed is a sentence of five months' imprisonment.