DPP v Pearson [2025] VCC 1885

1. Aggravated carjacking offences are serious. They involve the taking of another person's vehicle through the use or threat of force, and in the aggravated form involve the use of a weapon to achieve that end. By nature therefore, it is an offence placing another person in fear of serious violence and the theft of an item likely to be of significant monetary and personal value to them.
2. These are offences which are often committed on people just going about their business innocently. They are often committed on soft targets, such as people alone in their car.
3. For those reasons, the sentence I impose must generally deter others from this sort of violence and aggression. It must denounce such behaviour, and it must aim to achieve community protection.
4. The inherent features of Aggravated carjacking are serious. In considering the offending here, in my view it is a reasonably serious offence at least in the mid‑range category of aggravated carjacking for the following reasons.
5. It was a planned act. I cannot determine over what period of time that plan occurred or who was the main driver of that plan. I estimate it was likely over a short time, as you stated to Dr Davis, and driven by your desire to obtain drugs. However, it did involve a level of pre-meditation in that the driver was lured to the address where you were at with Ms Harmann, and clearly that was with the intention of taking his car. I reach that conclusion given the immediacy with which he was set upon.
6. You were both armed for that purpose - that is part of the aggravated form of this offence. The weapons you had were menacing and weapons capable of inflicting serious injury on another person. Regardless of whether you had any intention of using those weapons, the simple act of producing them no doubt caused Mr Mohammed great fear. The risk of something occurring which might have caused you to use them, is real. Thankfully he had the sense to comply with your demands and so there was no further confrontation and he was not physically injured.
7. He was however threatened by your co-offender as she opened the door and as she was brandishing a machete. The threat was a serious threat. Again, regardless of any intention to carry out any threat to harm Mr Mohammed, I have no doubt that in the circumstances confronting him, he took it very seriously. I am conscious that I am not sentencing you for a threat to kill. The words and actions used in making that threat form part of the threat of violence used to effect the theft of the vehicle.
8. You committed the offence in company which tends to be worse for a victim given the simple fact they are outnumbered and no doubt that fact increases feelings of powerlessness and helplessness.
9. You were somewhat disguised by way of having your hood up partially obscuring your face, and by wearing a surgical mask.
10. The offence occurred at night, when Mr Mohammad was alone in his vehicle, and when he was going about his business, in fact, performing a service for other people.
11. The theft of the vehicle was an item of value. No doubt that is the case in almost all aggravated carjackings, however as a Didi driver that vehicle was an integral part of Mr Mohammed's work. Mr Mohammed has made his victim impact statement today. He writes:

I am still under stress I cannot get over, effects still lingering. This is the only work I can do and I do it minimal, just so I can stay away from the facts of it. Mentally I have been stressed because I just couldn't work at all. I couldn't even study for about a month and a half because of stress after it. I still remember the scene as they pulled it off. I still get haunted when I think about it.

1. Inevitably there has been a financial consequence for Mr Mohammed. He lost his car, which I was told was written off, and he could not work for months. He has had to pay to replace his vehicle. Insurance did not cover that cost. He had to pay even though he was not earning any money for a period of time. He says, 'to survive, had to borrow money from friends, just to survive had to borrow money'.
2. His wife and children are in Pakistan and he is the only provider for them. His family, being away from him, have been stressed out when they found out about this incident, as are his friends here.
3. Although you were not the driver of the vehicle, and I am conscious that you are not charged with any offence relating to the driving, it is of course not an unforeseeable risk that the car driven by your co-offender would be damaged in some way, particularly if avoiding arrest.
4. Submissions were made by your Counsel Ms McLure regarding how I should treat your role in this offending. Ms McLure submitted that Ms Hamann was the main player, ordering the Didi ride, going to and opening the driver's door, producing the more menacing weapon and making the threat, and then being in charge of driving the car. I was also informed that while you were remanded following this offence, she committed a similar offence on her own some days later.
5. Ms Hogan on behalf of the Prosecution submitted that any distinction is a minor one and that you are culpable for your offending.
6. I do accept that Ms Hamann was the main player on account of the matters relied on by Ms McLure. However, that does not absolve you of your responsibility for this offending. You were a willing and active participant in it and you are equally responsible for the outcome. No doubt you were going to share in the spoils, which, as you told police was going to involve you both driving to score drugs.
7. It is clear that you and Ms Hamann were not a good combination for each other. Despite her not wanting the Intervention Order, it was put in place with conditions relating to protecting her from any family violence from you, and also I expect to keep you two apart. You disobeyed that Court order. You were charged with contravening it in April and again days before this in May 2025. Breaches of such orders must be viewed seriously by the Courts.
8. I accept that the breach here was not constituted by any violence or other menacing or threatening behaviour by you towards her but rather was because of being in contact. That tends to make the breach of a lower order.
9. I also accept in relation to the Aggravated carjacking that the offence occurred very quickly, over a matter of about 10 seconds. That is more good luck than good management, however, I take it into account.
10. I also take into account that it is very obvious you would be caught and in that sense the offending was unsophisticated. Ms Hamann gave her name. She gave the address where she was residing. After taking the car initially, you and she returned to get the third person. The incident was partially caught on footage and you were bound to be identified by your association with her.
11. This carjacking and the breach of Family Violence Intervention Order offending is also aggravated by the fact that, at the time, you were on bail for other offending. You had in fact committed multiple offences related to driving and thefts and one assault throughout the course of 2024 for which you were bailed at various times, including on 2 May 2025.

1. Parliament has determined that the seriousness of the offence of Aggravated carjacking should be reflected in the maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment.
2. The seriousness of that offence is also evident from the specific Sentencing Act 1991 provisions which Parliament has determined apply to it.

(a) Under s10AD of the Act, I must impose a term of imprisonment and fix under s11, a non-parole period of not less than three years unless I find that a special reason exists under s10A.

1. I may make a finding that a special reason exists if, relevantly here, I find that there are substantial and compelling circumstances that are exceptional and rare and that justify doing so[1].
2. The existence of substantial and compelling circumstances that are exceptional and rare is a residual category of limited scope[2].
3. I must:

(a) identify whether there are substantial and compelling circumstances, which means circumstances that are sufficiently weighty and powerful to justify departing from the legislated mandate; and

(b) if so, whether the circumstances are also 'exceptional and rare' in the sense that they are 'wholly outside the "run of the mill" factors' typical of the offending or circumstances of the offender.[3]

1. In determining whether substantial and compelling circumstances exist, I must have regard to the legislative requirements that general deterrence and denunciation are to be given primacy, that your personal circumstances are to be given less weight than matters such as the gravity of the offending, and that regard must not be had to your early plea of guilty, your prospects of rehabilitation, parity with other sentences, or your previous good character other than your lack of prior convictions[4].
2. I must also have regard to Parliament's intention that a sentence of imprisonment with a non-parole period of not less than three years should ordinarily be imposed for an offence covered by s10AD, namely aggravated carjacking.
3. If I reach the point of satisfaction that there are substantial and compelling circumstances that are exceptional and rare so as to justify a departure from the legislative mandate, that is not the end of the matter.
4. Aggravated carjacking is a category 1 offence.
5. Under s5(2GA) of the Sentencing Act 1991, in sentencing an offender for a category 1 offence, if I find that a special reason exists under s10A, I must still impose a custodial sentence, not in combination with a community correction order. In other words, I must still impose a term of imprisonment but am not bound to order the three year minimum. Rather, the length of that term is at my discretion.
6. If I reach that point, and on account of your age, Ms McLure submits I should then consider s32 of the Sentencing Act 1991. Under that section, if a sentence involving confinement in respect of a young offender is to be imposed, I may make a youth justice centre order rather than imposing a term of imprisonment in adult custody.
7. A young offender is defined in the Act as a person under 21 years of age at the time of sentence. You turn 21 in two days.
8. There are two provisos to imposing youth justice detention. I must have received a pre-sentence report and on the basis of that report, along with other material, I must first be satisfied that there are reasonable prospects for your rehabilitation, and second, I must be satisfied that you are particularly impressionable, immature or likely to be subjected to undesirable influences in an adult prison.
9. In deciding whether a youth justice centre order is appropriate, I must also consider the nature of the offence and your age, character and past history.
10. But again, that is not the end of it. More pertinent, and pursuant to s32(2C), where a Court is considering a youth justice centre order in respect of a category A serious youth offence - of which aggravated carjacking is one - I must not make such an order unless I am satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist.
11. The test for exceptional circumstances is a different and broader discretion to the test for reasons which are substantial and compelling and which are exceptional and rare. Consideration of it will quite obviously rely on some of the same material relied on to found an argument regarding a special reason.
12. The maximum period of detention in a youth justice centre imposed in this Court is four years.

1. Ms McLure on your behalf submitted that in your case there is a special reason which means I should depart from the mandated three-year non-parole period, and further which found exceptional circumstances which should also lead me to conclude that detention in a youth justice facility is appropriate in your case.
2. She relies on a combination of factors to found those submissions.
3. The Prosecution submit the legislative test is not met here and therefore I must impose a term of imprisonment with a head sentence and a minimum term of at least three years in adult custody.
4. Before I come to those matters, I will outline your personal circumstances.

1. In assessing your personal circumstances I have had regard to the submissions of your counsel Ms McLure, a Pre-Sentence Report - Suitability for Youth Justice Centre Order dated by 7 November 2025, the Psychological report of Dr Michael Davis dated 24 November 2025, and a number of testimonials from your family, I was also assisted by the sworn evidence of your mother, Ms Kelly Russell. I found her to be an honest, candid and compelling witness. She was frank in describing your background and in making no excuses for your behaviour, or the trajectory of your family and upbringing.
2. Your personal circumstances are as follows. You are the middle child of three, and have one older brother, and one younger sister.
3. You and your family lived in Arthurs Creek on the northeastern outskirts of Melbourne near St Andrews and Hurstbridge. Your parents owned a Construction company which your father operated, while your mother was a stay at home parent.
4. When you were about eight years old your home was burnt down as a result of sparks from a Carrara heater. According to your mother, within six minutes the house was engulfed. By good fortune you and your brother were sleeping over at your aunt's. No one was injured in the fire, but nothing was salvageable - your family lost everything. Despite insurance, the bank claimed money to cover the outstanding mortgage and as a result there was no money left.
5. Your family moved between your uncle's house and a friend's house for several months before managing to secure their own rental. Your mother described you as pretty devastated.
6. Not long after, the construction business dissolved, and your parents faced bankruptcy.
7. And so, a family which was secure in its income and in its family home was suddenly left with next to nothing. Within 12 months of the fire your mother had to return to work outside the home.
8. She described that period of time as extremely difficult. In the aftermath of those events both of your parents turned to substance abuse. Your mother described reaching a point of drinking a bottle of wine a day, before your father and then she turned to methamphetamine. That addiction grew quickly and became a daily habit. She said it 'absolutely' affected their parenting of you and your siblings.
9. Meanwhile you were starting to struggle with the upper years of primary school. You report multiple suspensions. According to Dr Davis you meet criteria for a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. That condition has not been previously diagnosed. Your mother says she is not surprised by it, and your drug and alcohol worker who has been working with you for nearly two years, also endorses that finding. By Year 5, your behaviours were becoming 'challenging' and you were starting to make some poor choices.
10. You were clearly aware of the alcohol and drug use by your parents, although you told Dr Davis they hid it well. Your mother said you had a lot to contend with at home. According to her, drug use led to family violence perpetrated by your father against her. She described this escalating over time and occurring approximately weekly where she would be left with visible injuries. She told Dr Davis that during this period you were cutting your clothes and bedsheets, as I understand it as a reflection of your anxiety and distress about what was happening in the home.
11. When you were in Year 8, Child Protection became involved with your family on account of what your mother believes were neighbours reporting the problems. Your mother and father separated, and your mother took you and your siblings to live with her brother. She was required to engage with Child protection regime including undergoing drug screens so that you would not be removed. She was successful despite a period of relapse and your parents reunited when you were about 15 and remain together today.
12. Meanwhile, she and your father were aware that you had commenced experimenting with alcohol and drugs yourself. You say you were drinking alcohol by age 12 and using cannabis around the same time. In Year 7 your parents were informed by another parent that you had been smoking cannabis. By Year 9 you were losing interest in school and using cannabis more often and by Year 11 using daily. You estimate having had two or three hundred ecstasy tablets from around the age of 14 and trying MDMA, cocaine and ketamine over time. You report using methamphetamine daily by age 16.
13. You were expelled in Year 9 on account of drug use. To your credit, and despite being given the option to leave school, you moved schools and your mother described you as 'hell bent' on completing Year 12. You undertook a VCAL Year 12, and alongside that you maintained a job with Jim's Mowing and on a local building site.
14. After Year 12 you obtained a carpentry apprenticeship, but after about 10 months that ended because by that time you were engulfed in using methamphetamine.
15. At age 17, your parents involved the CATT team and you began seeing a youth alcohol and drug worker in Eltham. When you were 18 your mother found a suicide letter. You were referred to Headspace and Northern Mental Health.
16. In February 2024 you crashed a car while driving under the influence of methamphetamine. You were charged over that offending including driving in a dangerous manner and were referred to youth support and advocacy service YSAS. According to your YSAS Youth Outreach Worker, Mr Walter Dowie, a therapeutic treatment plan was developed with you and you engaged positively in one detox program and were starting to look at inpatient rehabilitation. You were linked to an employment agency and assisted to gain full time work as an apprentice carpenter. A period of stability ensued and by agreement you disengaged from YSAS.
17. Later in 2024 age 19, you met Ms Hamann. Your mother became aware of that relationship at the start of this year. She said her observations were that your drug use had gone to a whole different level, 'It was indescribable'.
18. At times in 2024 you were couch surfing. You report using methamphetamine intravenously. More recently you report using heroin.
19. According to your mother, and reflected in the medical records seen by Dr Davis, in late 2024 and early 2025, you were in and out of psychosis and regularly overdosing. In that period she estimates you had about 18 overdoses.
20. Over 2024 your drug use escalated and your behaviour became violent, aggressive and unpredictable to the point you were no longer able to live in the family home. In September 2024 your father was forced to take out a family violence order against you, with him as the protected person.
21. In October 2024 you reached out to YSAS requesting to be referred to a youth detox facility. You completed seven days stay at a residential withdrawal unit in December but after discharge quickly descended into drug use again.
22. It is clear the state of play when you were 19 and turning 20 at the end of 2024 and into 2025 was such that your drug use and its impact on your mental state was significant. Indeed, one of the matters with which you were charged in April 2024 related to an incident where you were found on train tracks at 4 am and behaving erratically. Your mother says your parents were essentially waiting for a phone call from police to tell them you were dead.
23. You were homeless between October 2024 and January 2025 before your parents took you and Ms Hamann in to live with them. This was unsuccessful due to your mutual ongoing drug use. This offending of course occurred in May and you were remanded.
24. According to Dr Davis, you are a diagnostically complex young man. In his opinion you have faced 'a remarkable number of difficulties in [your] young life.' In his opinion you have experienced reactive symptoms of depressed mood and anxiety responses to various stressors through your life, and it is possible you would meet criteria for a traumatic disorder.
25. He says you clearly meet full diagnostic criteria for the neurodevelopmental disorder ADHD. He notes your early substance use reflects at least to some degree 'the sensation and stimulus seeking behaviour inherent to people with untreated ADHD', and suggests in addition, that childhood trauma is likely to have played a part in your addictions. Interestingly, he notes that your pattern of responding to testing 'suggests that his use of drugs has had many negative consequences on his life at a level that is above average even for individuals in specialised treatment for substance use problems.'
26. In addition, he says you have some maladaptive personality features which have been complicated by compromised childhood attachments and early-onset chronic substance misuse. Diagnosis of a personality disorder is 'highly likely'. In his view, your current offending occurred in the context of considerable

poly-substance intoxication in a young man with untreated ADHD and burgeoning maladaptive personality features. He assesses you as a moderate to high risk for general reoffending and a moderate risk of violence. 27. I take those matters into account. In summary it seems the series of events in your early life had a domino effect resulting at a very early stage in your alcohol and drug use with the strength of that addiction resulting in psychosis and suicidality. Although no mental impairment exception is available to you[5], in my view that sequence of events helps to explain where you are and I take those matters into account. 28. I am encouraged in that conclusion by the letter from your brother who states, 'I believe my brother's exposure to my parents' drug use at a young age and his own drug addiction has played a substantial role in pushing him to make poorly thought through decisions and they do not represent who my brother truly is.'

1. Since your arrest, and during your remand, your mother said she and your dad have spoken to you about where your life has got to. She said there is disbelief that you have reached this low point. She described you as distressed during your remand, 'not in a great space', and 'reaching out for help'.
2. She also said 'he felt really awful about what he had done and what he had become.'
3. You were bailed to Youth Justice in June, and I have received a number of progress reports. According to your Youth Justice Worker Ms Iacopino, you attended all appointments and were engaging well. You managed to remain drug free for three months on your release which was the longest period of abstinence you had had in six years. According to your mother, she felt she had her son back and your brother too reports more positive behaviours. Ms Iacopino says they have faith in your ability to succeed.
4. You have twice entered inpatient rehabilitation during your five months on bail. Neither of those periods were entirely successful, with discharge on one occasion due to being found with Valium and another after seven days. You remained in one residence for 31 days and at another for 11, so a total of 42 days. I take that into account in the sense that any inpatient rehabilitation is a quasi-custodial, restricted environment.[6]
5. Unfortunately, in September you relapsed to drug use over a period of about three weeks, resulting in a hospital admission at the mental health unit of Royal Melbourne hospital. I note you told Dr Davis at your 14 November assessment that you last used drugs 'about two weeks ago'.
6. You have re-engaged fully with your family who support you. Your parents and siblings are all present today. You are living with them and your mother describes you as 'not withdrawing, but being around', talking to them and doing more positive things. You have joined a gym and go with your brother. Your parents are in a unique position to assist you and to recognise relapse.
7. You have not committed any further offences since May. Although on its face that is a relatively short period, that is in stark contrast to your repetitive and regular offending in 2024 and as such is reasonably significant.
8. You are voicing goals to return to a carpentry apprenticeship and expressing motivation for your life. Ms Iacopino says without substances 'he's got a bright future ahead of him... he's faced a lot of adversity for someone so young... when he's sober I don't have any concerns... (he has) got a lot of self awareness... a lot of accountability... not blaming anyone else.'

1. You pleaded guilty very early to this offending and you receive the benefit of that plea. Your plea saves the court and the community the cost and time of a jury trial. Importantly it saves the victim Mr Mohammed from having to give evidence and relive this traumatic event.
2. In matters where a plea reflects genuine remorse, that is an additional consideration given it is usually reflective of some insight into the offending and a positive marker towards rehabilitation and away from the need for specific deterrence.
3. I accept in your case, Mr Pearson, that your plea does reflect genuine remorse. You have repeatedly expressed your remorse and your empathy for Mr Mohammed to a number of people, and your understanding of the impact of your behaviour on him.
4. You expressed a desire to apologise to him, and I note that since the initial plea hearing you have written a letter of apology. I take those matters into account.

1. I also take into account your age which is the most significant feature in mitigation on your plea.
2. Despite the usual punishment for offending like this, the consideration in the circumstances of a young offender are radically different. As higher courts have made plain, there are very particular features which a sentencing judge must take into account when dealing with a young offender. Those considerations are not abrogated by mandatory sentencing.
3. There is an acute conflict between sentencing considerations when sentencing a young person for serious offending. 'On the one hand, conventional considerations of just punishment and denunciation point towards a custodial penalty, because serious offences are seen to require the uniquely punitive sanction of a loss of liberty. On the other hand, the public interest in the rehabilitation of an offender is never greater than in the case of a young offender'.[7]
4. In sentencing young offenders, courts are cognisant that the effects of incarceration in an adult prison on a young offender will more likely impair rather than improve their prospects of successful rehabilitation. Courts recognise the potential for young offenders to be redeemed and rehabilitated, and that potential exists because they are typically still in a state of mental and emotional development and may be open to influences designed to positively change their behaviour.
5. In my view, without drugs your prospects of rehabilitation are extremely positive. In the shadow of your addiction and repeated relapse they are still very good. They obviously depend on your ability to abstain from drug use. However, the following features support my conclusion that they are still very good: you have a proven capacity for work - namely during your final year at school where you completed VCAL while maintaining employment; the fact you obtained an apprenticeship twice and undertook a portion of it even though you were drug dependent; the fact you have made efforts at inpatient rehabilitation including self‑referral only a year ago; you pleaded guilty and have expressed remorse and insight into your offending; you have stable accommodation and a family who love and support you, along with a range of support workers who see your capacity to succeed.

1. And so, I return to the legislative provisions and the consideration of 'a special reason'. Ms McLure on your behalf submitted that in your case there is a special reason which means I should depart from the mandated three-year non-parole period, and further which found exceptional circumstances which should also lead me to conclude that detention in a youth justice facility is appropriate in your case.
2. She relies on a combination of factors namely:

a) Your limited role in the offending; > > b) Your age; > > c) Your early exposure to substance use and family violence in the home; > > d) Your own early use of substances commencing when you were a child; > > e) The trauma of losing your family home and all their possessions at the age of eight; > > f) The impact of your undiagnosed ADHD and it's interaction with your illicit drug use; > > g) Your remorse for the offending and early acceptance of responsibility; > > h) Your engagement in rehabilitation and supports on bail including residential programs;

1. The reunification with your family and your strong family support; and

3. Ms McLure drew my attention to the comments of the Court of Appeal in Fariah v The Queen_[8]_ to the effect that although some of the individual circumstances may be commonly encountered, that fact alone will not necessarily deprive them of their character as substantial and compelling and exceptional and rare. Every case will necessarily depend on its particular facts. Circumstances which individually are relatively common may in combination enliven the [relevant] exception.
4. The Prosecution submit that nothing about those factors either by themselves or in combination can lead me to conclude that a special reason exists, and as such I am bound by the legislation to impose a term of imprisonment with a mandatory minimum period of three years' imprisonment.

1. I have had regard to current sentencing practices for this offending, having been assisted by Counsel in their submissions. There are a number of cases dealing with this offence and these provisions, and the mirror provisions in s.5. I have given those consideration along with a summary of matters in the Court of Appeal decision of Lombardo [9].
2. As always there are similarities and differences between both offending and offender. Aggravated carjacking can involve a range of circumstances including different weapons and levels of violence. Ultimately, I am required to impose a just sentence in all the circumstances and that is what I have endeavoured to do.
3. I have given anxious consideration to your case, Mr Pearson. It has been a difficult task given the serious nature of aggravated carjacking offending and given your age and early plea.
4. Is there a special reason to depart from the mandated minimum term?
5. First, looking at the constellation of some of the factors outlined by Ms McLure I am satisfied that they are substantial and compelling. Specifically, I take into account the following:

(a) your young age - 20 years and four months at the time of the offending and the particular considerations which apply to sentencing a young person;

(b) the chronology and sequence of difficult events in your life, including the fire which destroyed your family home, followed by financial ruin and the resulting impact on your parents - including instability, homelessness, drug addiction, family violence, and Child Protection involvement - and the impact of that same sequence of events on you as a child and teen. Although you were young at the time of the fire and ensuing instability, I am mindful that given your current age, those matters are in fact not many years ago. Those matters clearly impacted you and in the largest part led to your drug addiction;

(c) consideration of those matters must occur through the additional prism of undiagnosed and therefore untreated ADHD;

(d) the fact that your recent period of addiction leading to this offending has been severe, leading to psychosis and approximately 18 overdoses, suicidal ideation and planning, and some mental health inpatient admission;

(e) your repeated efforts to rehabilitate yourself from a long-term addiction despite your young age, including self-referral to inpatient treatment prior to and then referral since this offending. In addition, your engagement with supports during your time on bail;

(f) your plea of guilty and expressions of remorse and insight into the impact of your offending on Mr Mohammed and your apology to him; and

(g) your lack of prior criminal history.

1. I find those matters to be substantial and compelling. They are powerful, some in isolation but particularly in combination. They are weighty and significant.
2. Next, I must consider whether they are exceptional and rare. This additional phrase was introduced by Parliament with the intention that a more stringent application of these legislative provisions would result. That expression connotes something rare and unforeseen where it would be clearly outside the intention of Parliament that a sentence of imprisonment be imposed.
3. In this Court we see many people who come from difficult, traumatic backgrounds. That is a sad fact. Those other stories do not negate yours. However, in my evaluation, the fact that your particular circumstances involving difficulties for your parents which affected your family and had a knock-on effect on your formative years, are not so out of the ordinary as to be properly characterised as exceptional and rare.
4. Your young age is sadly not a feature which is rare in the commission of this type of offending and nor is your struggle with drug addiction. Your efforts to beat it are commendable, but there is more work to be done, and a serious commitment is needed from you.
5. The fact that your first conviction will be for this very serious offence, is somewhat unusual and sits with your lack of prior criminal history, however it also sits against a background of 12 other police briefs where offending occurred and occurred repeatedly between February 2024 and as recent as two days before this offending. Those incidents provided opportunities for you to reform, but instead your offending escalated to this point. Equally, it appears opportunities on bail were not fully grasped by you.
6. What is unusual in this court is the commitment and care of your family. Not everyone has that benefit. But that of itself does not meet the legislative requirements.
7. In those circumstances I do not accept that the legislative test is met, namely I do not conclude that these circumstances here are exceptional and rare and allow me to depart from what the legislature requires.
8. As a result of that conclusion, I am mandated to impose a term of imprisonment with a minimum term of three years. That will be served in adult gaol. In addition, by virtue of s 11, I must allow for a six month difference between the head sentence and that non-parole period.
9. If you could stand please, Mr Pearson.

1. On Charge 1 of Aggravated Carjacking you are convicted and sentenced to three years and six months' imprisonment.
2. On summary Charge 5 of contravening the Family Violence Interim Intervention Order you are convicted and sentenced to two months' imprisonment.
3. On summary Charge 6 of Committing a schedule 1 offence whilst on bail you are convicted and sentenced to seven days' imprisonment.
4. I make no order for cumulation.
5. The total effective sentence therefore is three years and six months' imprisonment.
6. I direct that you are to serve a minimum term of three years' imprisonment before you become eligible for parole.
7. I declare that you have served 29 days of pre-sentence detention and that that period should be reckoned as having been served under this sentence.
8. In addition, in relation to your driver's licence, there is mandatory disqualification on Charge 1 and I make that order for the period of 24 months.
9. But for your plea of guilty, so if you had not pleaded guilty, it is obviously difficult given I expect you would have been beyond 21 at a time of sentence, but doing the best I can, had you not pleaded guilty the sentence I would have imposed would have been a term of four years and six months' imprisonment with a minimum term of three years and eight months.
10. Are there any other matters, counsel?
11. MS HOGAN: Just during your reasons, Your Honour said 28 days PSD, rather than 29.
12. HER HONOUR: I am sorry.
13. MS HOGAN: Your Honour did declare the 29 but during your reasons it was 28.
14. HER HONOUR: Twenty-nine, I will correct that. All right.
15. MS HOGAN: Other than that, nothing else from the prosecution.
16. HER HONOUR: All right, thanks very much. Thanks very much counsel for your assistance in a difficult matter.
17. I would ask that Mr Pearson's family be given a moment with him before he is removed. Thanks very much.

[1] Although there was initial reliance on the Sentencing Act 1991, s10A(2)(c) that was not pressed in oral submissions.

[2] Farmer v The Queen [2020] VSCA 140 [51]

[3] DPP v Lombardo [2022] VSCA 204 [71]

[4] DPP v Kenneison [2023] VSCA 321 [37], citing the Sentencing Act 1991, ss5(2HC)(a)-(c), 5(2I)

[5] Although included in written submissions, Ms McLure disavowed reliance on legislative exceptions based on mental impairment

[6] Akoka v The Queen [2017] VSCA 214

[7] Webster (a Pseudonym) v The Queen [2016] VSCA 66

[8] Fariah v The Queen [2021] VSCA 213 [25]

[9] DPP V Lombardo [2022] VSCA 204