DPP v Mutapcic & Ors [2025] VCC 322

DPP v Mutapcic & Ors [2025] VCC 322 | Case summary | Zoe

Dylan Stone, you have pleaded guilty to two charges on the indictment: Charge 1, trafficking in a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence on 24 July 2023, and Charge 2, handling stolen goods arising from the discovery of a U-Haul trailer which you have admitted to knowing or believing to be stolen. The maximum term of imprisonment for trafficking in a drug of dependence that is not less than a commercial quantity is imprisonment for 25 years and the maximum penalty for the offence of handling stolen goods is imprisonment for 15 years.
You have also pleaded guilty to, and asked me to take into account in passing sentence, two related summary offences: Summary Charge 5 of breaching conditions of your parole by committing the offence of trafficking in a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence, namely 1,4-Butanediol, for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for three months, and to Summary Charge 8 of dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime, for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for two years.
In your case, Mr Mutapcic, you have pleaded guilty to attempting to traffick in a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence, for which the maximum penalty is 25 years' imprisonment. And in your case, Mr Ashby, you have pleaded guilty to trafficking in a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence. I should say that in Mr Mutapcic's case the offending is said to have occurred on one day, being 28 July 2023, and in your case, Mr Ashby, the offending is said to have occurred between 13 May 2023 and 1 August 2023 and the quantity is a commercial quantity for 1,4-Butanediol.
Each of you has admitted prior convictions. The prosecution tendered as Exhibit A on the plea hearing a summary of prosecution opening dated 6 March 2025 and I incorporate that in these reasons. I am not going to read it again or even summarise it, because it was dealt with in full at today's hearing and anybody who was interested in listening in was able to hear that in full. In relation to each of you, your counsel provided me with written submissions and also assisted me with oral submissions today.
Those oral submissions dealt with the salient points of the written submissions and drew my attention to many of the details set out in the accompanying exhibits that were relied upon in relation to each of you, including reports from psychologists, neuropsychologists and other professionals, who identified much of your relevant background history and the connection between your background history and your descent into drug abuse, the effect that that drug abuse has had on your life and the influence it has had upon your criminal histories.
Again, I am not going to dwell on the detail of those. Suffice to say, it is accepted by the prosecution that the Bugmy principles, which arise from childhood deprivation, apply in a general sense to the cases of each of you. They are relevant to mitigation of sentence in that they tend to reduce your moral culpability for your offending and help explain the connection between that background and your drug abuse, and in no small measure to your more extensive criminal history.
I accept that in each of your cases mental impairments will make it more difficult for you to serve such terms of imprisonment as you still face in relation to this matter after today. I do not think there is any dispute that in that sense Verdins principles apply in reduction of sentence that might otherwise have been appropriate. I accept that there has been delay. That has allowed demonstration of willingness to participate in rehabilitation and points in each of your cases to a willingness to accept criminal responsibility and to endeavour to self-examine the causes of your drug abuse issues and the influence that those habits have had on your capacity to stay out of trouble in the future.

[7]

204 days, is time that is reckoned to have been served on the sentence that I am about to impose. 13. Your pleas of guilty are consistent with remorse. I take that into account and have endeavoured to give proper value to the various submissions that have been made on behalf of each of you. I am not one who is particularly impressed generally by an application for a sentence indication from the court in advance of a plea of guilty. However, I think in this case it has served some useful purpose, whilst one of the reasons I am not a fan of it is that it tends to undermine the degree to which one can discern genuine remorse usually associated with a plea of guilty. 14. However, I give you full credit for your pleas of guilty and there are factors in this case which seem to me to justify the application for a sentence indication hearing because the cases involving Mr Mutapcic and Mr Stone were complicated by other sentences. I am doing the best I can to achieve parity of sentence, and to marry up the various sentencing principles which arise generally, and in particular in relation to drug trafficking offences. The community can rightly be concerned about the adequacy of sentences in deterring others from committing offences of that kind, which tend to drag other people into use of drugs which in turn frequently leads them to criminal conduct of the kind demonstrated in the criminal records of each of you. 15. There is an element of individual deterrence that needs to be given proper weight, as well as denunciation and just punishment. However, I think that given the indications that I have already referred to, which suggest that each of you in your own way has realised the importance of dealing with your own long-term drug habit and addressing the underlying issues, I have some confidence that the sentences that I am about to impose are not too lenient and are consistent with a desire to promote as far as possible your continued rehabilitation. 16. So dealing with each of you in turn, starting with you, Dylan Stone. On Charge 1 of trafficking in a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence, you are convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two years. On Charge 2 of handling stolen goods, you are convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of nine months. In relation to the related Summary Charge 5 of breaching your terms of parole, you are convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of one month. In relation to Summary Charge 8 of dealing with property suspected of being stolen, you are convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for four months. 17. I order that three months of the sentence on Charge 2 be served cumulatively upon the sentence of two years on Charge 1. So the total effective sentence is two years and three months' imprisonment. 18. I fix a non-parole period of 14 months. 19. I declare presentence detention of 32 days as time to be reckoned as served on the sentence that I have imposed. 20. But for your pleas of guilty, I would have sentenced you to imprisonment for three years with a non-parole period of two years. 21. I make the ancillary orders that have been provided to me in draft form and which I have already signed. 22. In your case, Mr Mutapcic, on Charge 1 of attempting to traffick in a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence, you are convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two years and three months. 23. I fix a non-parole period of 16 months. 24. I declare 602 days as time to be reckoned as served on the sentence that I have imposed. 25. But for your plea of guilty, I would have sentenced you to imprisonment for a period of three years with a non-parole period of two years. 26. I make the ancillary orders that have been provided to me in your case. 27. In relation to you, Mr Ashby, on Charge 1 of trafficking in a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence, you are convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of two years and nine months. 28. I fix a non-parole period of 20 months. 29. I declare 204 days as time to be reckoned as served on that sentence. 30. But for your plea of guilty, I would have sentenced you to imprisonment for three years and six months with a non-parole period of 28 months. 31. I make the ancillary order that I have been provided with in draft and which I have also signed in your case. 32. Are there any other matters, counsel, that I have forgotten about? 33. DR GUMBLETON: Not for Mr Stone, may it please the court. 34. MS BYRT: No. 35. MS SEOUD: No, Your Honour. 36. HIS HONOUR: Ms Byrt, are you anxious to get to your feet again? 37. MS BYRT: No, Your Honour. I just want to note in relation to Mr Ashby - I note that Your Honour corrected it. He wasn't on parole, he just served out his entire sentence that he was sentenced to. 38. HIS HONOUR: Yes, maybe I misspoke there. 39. MS BYRT: No, that's okay. 40. HIS HONOUR: He has served his entire sentence. I should have made that clear. I apologise for that. 41. MS BYRT: Thank you, Your Honour. 42. HIS HONOUR: Yes. His entire sentence finished on 28 August of last year. That is right is it not? 43. MS BYRT: I think that ‑ ‑ ‑ 44. HIS HONOUR: Therefore, the 204 days since is the time to be reckoned as served. 45. MS BYRT: Yes. 46. HIS HONOUR: I tried to correct that. I probably did not do it adequately. 47. MS BYRT: No, I just wanted to make it clear for the record. Thank you. 48. HIS HONOUR: Thank you very much. Yes. Ms Seoud, have I got anything wrong? 49. MS SEOUD: No, Your Honour. 50. HIS HONOUR: Thank you. That is good. And so Ms Overend, I do not know whether you want the last word. Have I got anything wrong or are you happy with the way I have expressed the sentence? 51. MS OVEREND: One moment, Your Honour. That's fine, Your Honour. 52. HIS HONOUR: It is all right? 53. MS OVEREND: Yes.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (7 paragraphs)

Parties