DPP v Sari [2025] VCC 1282

1. The circumstances of your offending are set out in the Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea dated 11 October 2024, which is the agreed basis upon which you are to be sentenced.[2]
2. In order to place your role in the offending in its proper context, it is necessary to first outline the background to the events of 26 April 2023.
3. On 25 April 2023, at around 4.16 pm, Mr Neil invited a friend, Mr Samiha Hakiem, to his apartment in Punt Road, Richmond.
4. Between 6.30 pm and 1.22 am, another four people arrived at the property, including you, Mr Peter Madul and Mr Wol Akot. You arrived at around 8.00 pm with another unknown male.
5. 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 took offence and responded by threatening Mr Neil with a knife. Mr Neil then fled from the apartment and only returned when he understood that Mr Akot had left.
6. On the following evening of 26 April 2023, 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 dark clothing. Mr William Mariak, Mr Wol Akot and a 17-year-old offender were recognised by Mr Neil, Mr Neil recognising Mr Akot as the male who pulled a knife on him the night before.
7. 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 was a spoon and an electrical cord and was repeatedly punched and kicked. His hair, which was braided in dreadlocks, was also cut out in patches. To be clear, however, it is not alleged that you played any role in these acts of violence.
8. Shortly after the assault began, one of the co-accused made a phone call and was heard to say, 'we've got him', and 'send the other boys up'. You and Mr Madul then arrived at 8.22 pm, 44 minutes after the other co-accused had forced their way inside the apartment.
9. Mr Neil specifically recalls that after you arrived, you and Mr Madul also punched him. Neither you nor Mr Madul were armed. It is not alleged that you had any knowledge of the extensive assault committed by the co-accused prior to your arrival. I have sentenced you on this basis. Your conduct in punching the victim is the basis of charge 1 - common law assault.
10. The three other co-offenders left the apartment at 8.58 pm. You and Mr Madul left 12 minutes later. You are captured on CCTV leaving the property in possession of Mr Neil's black puffer jacket, which you had stolen. This is the basis of Charge 2, being the charge of theft.
11. At 9.14 pm Mr Neil left his apartment to seek assistance and was ultimately taken to the Alfred Hospital for treatment for his injuries.
12. Mr Neil sustained a rib cartilage fracture, a fractured hand, a large bruise to his forehead, combined with other cuts, bruising and bleeding. These injuries were suffered as a result of the prolonged assault by the other co-accused prior to your arrival. It is not alleged you were complicit in the acts that gave rise to these injuries.
13. You are to be sentenced only for assaulting the victim by punching him after the earlier attack. The prosecution also accepts you may not have been aware that the co-offenders had forcibly entered the premises earlier or had any knowledge of the earlier assaults by the co-accused.
14. You were identified by police through CCTV footage and following analysis of DNA and fingerprints located on items at the property linking you to the offending.
15. You were arrested by police at your then partner's address in Port Melbourne on 29 August 2023, after attempting to flee. In accordance with your rights you made 'no comment' in response to questions asked of you by police when you were interviewed.

1. The procedural history of this matter is somewhat complicated.
2. Following a committal hearing in the Magistrates' Court on 31 January 2024, you offered to plead guilty to the charges presently before the court on 26 September 2024.
3. On 2 October 2024 another judge of this Court refused your application to have the charges remitted to be heard before the Magistrates' Court.
4. On your behalf application was then made for the plea to be heard before the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court, but on 23 January 2025 you were found ineligible for a DATC order.
5. You pleaded guilty to these charges before me on 7 March 2025 and a plea hearing proceeded on that day. The plea hearing was then adjourned for you to be assessed for a Justice Plan and a community correction order.
6. On 20 August 2025 the Disability Justice Coordinator, Forensic Disability Services with the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing, wrote to the Court to advise that they had been unable to contact you despite repeated attempts to do so, and could not assess you for a Justice Plan.[3]

1. 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 intending to assault him.
2. The gravity of your offending lies in your role of assaulting the victim in his apartment by punching him when he was vulnerable and had already suffered a sustained attack by the co-offenders. You also took the opportunity that presented by being in his home to then steal his puffer jacket.
3. It is the context in which this offending occurs that aggravates your offending. Mr Neil was entitled to be safe from any form of assault in his home. You attended his home in company, joining with Mr Madul in this assault. You were not a mere bystander. For Mr Neil, this was a confronting and frightening experience, in which you played a role, as is borne out by his victim impact statement, to which I have had regard.[4]

1. I turn to your personal circumstances.
2. You were born in Sudan in 2000. Your family fled the conflict in South Sudan and relocated in Egypt as refugees when you were only three years old. When you were six years old, your family moved to Australia, initially settling in Sydney before relocating to regional Victoria. Your parents have since separated.
3. You have two brothers and a half-brother. You attended mainstream primary and secondary school, but required assistance from a learning aide throughout your schooling. You were diagnosed with a mild intellectual disability when you were ten years old. You did not enjoy school and struggled with reading and writing. You experienced difficulties with peers at school and were transferred to a school with a specialist disability program due to behavioural problems, including aggressive behaviour, in Year 10. You ceased all schooling at the end of that year.
4. You were led to believe that your poor behaviour put a strain on your parents' relationship. You report feeling a sense of responsibility for your parents' ultimate separation, culminating in your father telling you he no longer loved you and that he left your mother and planned to re-marry due to your behaviours. You now have no relationship with your father.
5. You have a close relationship with your mother, and she remains supportive of you, as was demonstrated by her attendance at your plea hearing. Your mother works in the aged-care and childcare sectors, and you describe her as always having 'been there for [you]'.[5] Your mother is currently the primary carer of your infant twin children, arising from child protection involvement. You share these children with an ex-partner of yours with whom you were in a relationship for approximately two years. Your former partner visits the twins regularly at your family home. Your relationship with the twins' mother has ceased and you have now entered a new, supportive relationship.
6. Your older brother has been a positive influence on you. Unfortunately, he was involved in a serious motor vehicle incident and suffered a double leg amputation in 2020. Notwithstanding this, he continues to play an active role in your life. While you have a limited employment history, you report being employed by your brother in his cabinet making business on a casual basis from time to time.
7. Unfortunately, your youngest brother became involved in the criminal justice system and tragically took his own life in February this year. Understandably, his loss has been a cause of considerable trauma for you and your family members.
8. You have a history of illicit drug use that is set out in the report of Ms Amanda Brown, a rehabilitation consultant with Lamberti and Associates, who assessed you on 6 February 2025.[6] She states you began using cannabis at the age of 13, reporting that this coincided with your return from a family holiday in Egypt during which you were attacked by a group of unknown males. You told Ms Brown that you began using cannabis to stop intrusive thoughts, flashbacks and memories of this traumatic event.
9. You began drinking alcohol from your early teens, however, you then progressed to more serious illicit drug abuse, including benzodiazepines, and from the age of 17, cocaine. You have also experimented with a range of illicit drugs and told Ms Brown that at the time of this offending you were under the influence of a mix of cannabis, cocaine and Xanax.
10. For a young man of 24 you have a concerning criminal history dating back to 2017 when you first appeared in the Children's Court. Notably, you were sentenced by the County Court on appeal in October 2017 to 18 months' detention in a Youth Justice Centre for offending that included armed robbery, unlawful assault, intentionally destroying property and theft.
11. As an adult you have two prior convictions for assaulting an emergency worker on duty and assaulting a prison officer from 2022.
12. On 12 November 2020 you were sentenced by this Court to a total effective sentence of three years, nine months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of one year, nine months for offending that included an aggravated home invasion, false imprisonment, theft and assault in company. You were 20 years old at that time.
13. You have previously been diagnosed with a mild intellectual disability. This diagnosis was confirmed by clinical neuropsychologist, Dr Laura Anderson, in October 2020, who also diagnosed you with a post-traumatic stress disorder. Although Dr Anderson concluded that you present with 'a clear intellectual disability of mild severity' she was unable to assess your full-scale IQ at that time due to the limitations of any assessment conducted over a video link.[7]
14. You have previously been assessed between the ages of 10 and 19, with a

full-scale IQ ranging from 57 to 68. Based on your developmental background and previous formal assessments, Dr Anderson assessed your level of premorbid intellectual functioning as falling within an 'extremely low' range. 15. In her report dated 22 October 2020, Dr Anderson refers to a previous neuropsychological report of Peter Dowling dated 15 April 2019, in which he provided a diagnosis of ADHD which he concluded accounted for your behavioural difficulties in school. However, in contrast, Dr Anderson concluded that this diagnosis was of less clinical relevance in 2020 and that past behavioural difficulties were more likely attributable to your various experiences of trauma. No updated psychological report was provided at this plea hearing. 16. You have now been assessed as eligible for assistance through the NDIS. As part of this plan you have engaged in music therapy and treatment with Ms Amanda Brown for drug abuse.[8] You are presently supported through the NDIS to receive therapy including with a registered neuro-psychotherapist.[9] In a letter provided by a support worker, Mr Kenneth Ukut, provided to this court dated 7 March 2025, he states you are 'working hard to turn your life around and become a self-sufficient and productive member of society'.[10]

1. Having addressed the objective gravity of your offending, I turn now to the matters raised on your behalf in mitigation of your sentence.
2. First and importantly, you have pleaded guilty to these offences. Through your guilty plea you acknowledge responsibility for your role in this offending. Although yours is not an early guilty plea and occurred following a contested committal hearing, your ultimate guilty plea saved the court and the community the time and resources associated with a trial. I have taken your guilty plea into account in moderating your sentence. Beyond your plea there is little material before the Court to indicate genuine remorse for your offending.
3. You were 22 years old at the time of this offending and are now 24. Your youth remains relevant to your sentence. The law recognises that youthful offenders are more prone to rash, ill-considered actions and that rehabilitation should be given an important role in the sentence to be imposed; recognising that the rehabilitation of youthful offenders benefits the community as well as the offender.
4. In addition to your relatively young age, your mild intellectual disability is also highly relevant to your sentence. Dr Anderson concluded in 2020 that your working memory fell within the 'extremely low' to 'borderline' range, as did your ability to process information. Without the benefit of cues your executive functioning also fell within the 'borderline' range. In addition to the impact of your exposure to traumatic events and resulting PTSD, Dr Anderson states that your 'cognitive functioning and adaptive living skills are severely reduced from levels expected in typically developed young adults'.[11] As to the connection between these deficits and your offending in 2020, Dr Anderson stated as follows:

'The combination of Mr Sari's psychological profile and his cognitive deficits have contributed to the circumstances in which [he became] heavily reliant upon and vulnerable to the influence of his peer groups with regard to his behaviours. He is likely to be easily manipulated by others due to his reduced cognitive function and difficulty problem solving...'[12]

1. Although Dr Anderson expressed these views in the context of earlier offending, I accept that her conclusion regarding the impact of your cognitive limitations has equal application here. Consistent with the authority of Muldrock,[13] I give weight to the effects of your mild intellectual disability which I am satisfied contributed to some degree to this offending. Your moral culpability and the role of deterrence, both general and specific, is correspondingly reduced.
2. However, your disinhibition and actions on the night were also influenced by your abuse of illicit drugs that night. Dr Anderson reports that your offending up until 2020 has always occurred in the context of associations with antisocial peers and acute drug intoxication.[14] These observations appear to apply equally here. Addressing these issues will be important for you to remain offence free into the future.
3. Dr Anderson also details your difficult childhood experiences, including your traumatic exposure to a violent and abusive behaviour from your father. Dr Anderson states this contributed to you 'experiencing a significant and prolonged trauma response', leading to her diagnosis of PTSD.[15] Although Dr Anderson's report pre-dates this offending, I accept that your impaired mental health would make your time in custody more onerous than that is likely to be experienced by others without a background of trauma. I have regard to the fact that you told Dr Anderson you found your first experience of adult custody 'terrifying and traumatising'.[16]
4. Finally, you are also entitled to have previous time in custody taken into account for the sentence I impose in accordance with well-established Renzella principles.[17] Arising from an incident on 26 September 2024, you were charged with offences including armed robbery, assault and theft on 3 October 2024. You were remanded in custody on that date until being granted bail on 6 February 2025 which is a period of 126 days. Then, following a committal hearing on 6 March 2025, the prosecution withdrew all charges against you. You are entitled to have the period of 126 days in custody taken into account in a broad way in the sentence I impose, and I have done so.
5. Finally, while your prior criminal history means I remain concerned about your future prospects, there are a number of positive indications for your future. You retain the support of your current partner and mother. Your brother is a positive influence on you and is able to support you at times with casual employment. While Dr Anderson noted a pattern of offending behaviour in 2020, at that time she made a point of noting 'you did not impress as a young man with deeply entrenched antisocial or anti-authoritarian attitudes'.[18] Clearly, specific deterrence still has a role to play in the sentence I impose, but the sentence must also support and foster your future rehabilitation.

1. In cases such as this involving confrontational violence, the sentencing considerations of general deterrence, denunciation and just punishment are all important. However, your mild intellectual disability moderates these considerations for the reasons I have given. Given your prior history of violent offending, community protection also remains important.
2. Ultimately, both parties submitted that a combination sentence pursuant to s44 of the Sentencing Act would adequately reflect the various relevant sentencing considerations whilst supporting your ongoing rehabilitation. I accept those submissions. Your offending, whilst serious in the context of your prior criminal history, is not as serious as that of the co-offenders, and given they were sentenced for more serious offending, including for the serious offence of aggravated burglary, the sentencing principle of parity has little relevance with the exception of the sentence of three months' imprisonment imposed on Mr Madul.
3. Given the role that substance issues, immaturity, your cognitive limitations, and a tendency to be easily led by others, have played in this and earlier offending, you and the community would clearly benefit from you addressing these issues through treatment and supervision under a CCO. At the end of the plea hearing, I ordered you be assessed for a CCO, combined with a Justice Plan, to provide supports that cater for your mild intellectual disability.
4. It is regrettable that you did not make yourself available to be assessed for a Justice Plan which would have had the potential to provide you with additional supports. Hopefully, these supports can be provided through the NDIS funded programs available to you.
5. In a report dated 26 May 2025 you were assessed as suitable for a CCO. Recommended conditions include drug and mental health treatment and rehabilitation, participation in programs to reduce reoffending, and supervision. I agree with the proposed conditions. You have consented to such an order being made.

1. Balancing the matters to which I have referred, while having regard to the maximum penalty for the offences and the Renzella time to which I have referred, I sentence you as follows:
2. On Charges 1 and 2, you are sentenced to an aggregate of 80 days' imprisonment, combined with a 12-month community correction order, subject to supervision and with conditions to engage in drug and mental health treatment and rehabilitation, and other programs to reduce the risk of reoffending.
3. I declare that the period to be reckoned as served under this sentence is 80 days and direct that this fact be noted in the record of the court.
4. Mr Sari, you should be aware that if you breach the community correction order by further offending punishable by imprisonment, or if you fail to comply with the conditions of the order, you may be required to return before me to be resentenced on this offending.
5. Had you not pleaded guilty, I indicate that the sentence I would otherwise have imposed is a total effective sentence of five months' imprisonment.

[1] s 320 of the Crimes Act 1958.

[2] Exhibit A - Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea dated 11 October 2024.

[3] Letter of Ms Amber Roberts, Disability Justice Coordinator (DFFH), dated 20 August 2025.

[4] Exhibit B - Victim Impact Statement of Mr Neil dated 12 December 2024.

[5] Exhibit 1 - Neuropsychological Report of Dr Laura Anderson dated 22 October 2020 at [5.4.3]

[6] Exhibit 3 - Report of Ms Amanda Brown, Lamberti & Associates dated 6 February 2025

[8] Exhibit 6 - NDIS approval plan 8 February 2023

[9] Letter of Ms Amber Roberts, Disability Justice Coordinator (DFFH), dated 20 August 2025.

[10] Letter of Mr Kenneth Ukut, Support Coordinator, dated 7 March 2025.

[13] Muldrock v R [2012] NSWCCA 108 ('Muldrock')

[17] R v Renzella [1997] 2 VR 88 ('Renzella').