DPP v Shoul [2025] VCC 957

Incident 1 - Attempted theft at Kent Street, Richmond

1. At approximately 12.10 pm on 1 April 2024, a witness observed you and an unknown male standing near a parked vehicle in the vicinity of Kent Street, Richmond. You were holding a hammer and a Pry Bar four piece set which was still in its packaging.
2. You entered an unlocked Mazda BT-50 Ute that belonged to Mr Neil White who was working a short distance away on Kent Street. Whilst you were rifling through the glovebox in the front area of the vehicle, you looked up and made eye contact with a witness who was observing you through the windows of a nearby residence. This is the basis of Charge 1 of attempted theft.
3. You then got out of the Mazda. A man on the street approached you and you asked him if it was his car and where the keys were. He said it was his car, but he did not know where the keys were. You were still holding the hammer at this time, and you walked away towards Church Street.

Incident 2 - Attempted aggravated carjacking at Victoria Street, Richmond

1. Incident 2 occurred in Victoria Street, Richmond.
2. At approximately 12:27 pm, you were captured on CCTV walking west along Victoria Street. You crossed the road and approached two dark grey Jeep Gladiator Utes parked in tandem. The front jeep belonged to Mr Yiming Li, and the rear jeep to Mr Jye Chian Chung.
3. You walked past the two vehicles on the roadway, and you looked into the tray of the front jeep through the driver's side window. You moved onto the footpath from the road and continued to walk west carrying a grey backpack and you were still holding the Pry Bar set and the hammer.
4. A minute later you turned around and walked back towards the two jeeps with the hammer in your left hand and the Pry Bar set in your right hand. You approached the driver's side door of the front jeep and attempted to open it.
5. Around the same time, Mr Li and Mr Chung returned to their vehicles from a restaurant across the street and they saw you. Mr Li tried to avoid you by walking around to the back of the rear jeep, Mr Chung walked directly to the rear jeep and entered the driver's seat. Mr Li then continued to walk around the rear jeep and approached the driver's side window to warn Mr Chung about you.
6. Mr Chung then got out of his vehicle and started to walk towards the back of the rear jeep with Mr Li. As Mr Chung exited his vehicle, you approached the driver's side and attempted to enter the vehicle through the front door. Mr Chung blocked you with his body to try and stop you entering the vehicle.
7. You dropped the Pry Bar set on the road, but you were still holding the hammer. You grabbed Mr Chung's arm to pull him away from the vehicle. You raised the hammer in your right hand, and you told Mr Chung to 'fuck off' before striking him in the left thigh above the knee with the hammer. Mr Chung refused to move away from his vehicle, leaning on the driver's seat with his legs on the road. You again told him to move before you took hold of his shirt and pulled him out of the driver's seat into the middle of the road near the tram tracks. This is the basis for

Charge 2, attempted aggravated carjacking. 8. You got into the vehicle and closed the driver's side door. Shortly after closing the door, the rear jeep's brake light illuminated indicating that you had depressed the brake. You attempted to start the vehicle but Mr Chung, who was still in possession of the key, pressed the lock button. 9. Holding the hammer, you got out the vehicle and picked up the Pry Bar set before walking between the two jeeps, towards Mr Li and Mr Chung. They were standing on the footpath before departing to the other side of the road. 10. You approached the front passenger side window of the front jeep and struck the window with the hammer three times. The window sustained scratches but did not shatter. 11. You then casually walked away onto Little Nicholson Street and then into an unnamed laneway. Several witnesses who observed the incident called Triple Zero, providing your description and your direction of travel. 12. These circumstances are set out in the prosecution opening and they are also captured on mobile phone footage which was played to me at the plea in this matter. 13. Police located you soon after in Victoria Street. You dropped the hammer and the Pry Bar set. Ultimately, you complied with the police request to stop. 14. As you were being placed under arrest, one of the police officers remarked over the police radio that police would need to speak with witnesses to ascertain what had occurred and said, 'At this stage it sounds like a carjacking'. In response, you said, 'Attempted'. 15. You were subsequently searched, and police located the following items:

(a) In the grey backpack:

1. One Repco silver ball joint separator;
2. One EchPro air cut-off tool; and
3. One black hand torch.

These items are the subject of the going equipped to steal charge.

(b) In your pants pockets police located:

1. A Commonwealth Bank card in your name;
2. A small black leather wallet containing three small deal bags with a white crystalised substance believed to be methylamphetamine. Forensic analysis confirmed that it was methylamphetamine with a weight of 0.2 grams, so a small amount. That is the basis of Charge 4, possess drug of dependence;
3. They also located a Commonwealth Bank Visa card, a Credit Limit bank card, an ANZ Visa debit card, an ANZ Eftpos card and a platinum ANZ credit card, all in the name of Krupa Patel. This is the basis of Charge 5, handle stolen goods.

1. That property had been stolen on 1 April 2024 at about 7.20 am when Ms Krupa Patel parked her Kia Cerato in Richmond and an unknown offender broke into the Kia and stole several items, which included her wallet which contained all the items that I have just referred to, found in your possession.
2. Police confirmed your identity via LEAP and from your sister who later arrived at the scene. Your sister indicated that you suffered from mental health issues because of drug induced psychosis. You were taken back to the Melbourne West police station where a forensic medical officer decided you were not fit to be interviewed.
3. At the time of this offending, you were on bail, which is an aggravating factor of the incident. I am told that you have matters pending to be heard in the Magistrates' Court and it was one of those matters for which you were on bail at the time of this incident.
4. In relation to the physical incident with Mr Chung, he reported he developed bruising on his leg and arm and experienced some subsequent pain in his knee.

1. The maximum penalty of 20 years for the attempted aggravated carjacking reflects its seriousness.
2. The offending here was random and seemingly opportunistic. This was not really planned criminal conduct at all, but it was extremely lawless and brazen, occurring on a public street in the middle of the day.
3. You were wandering around Richmond carrying weapons, stealing as you pleased, and then your offending escalated into something altogether more serious when you tried to take Mr Chung's jeep using a hammer with which you assaulted him.
4. In my opinion your conduct reflects your dysregulated state from drug use and mental health issues, but the brazenness and disinhibition you displayed no doubt provoked genuine fear in Mr Chung, Mr Li, and anyone else who was in your vicinity in Richmond on the day of the offences. You were a frightening prospect for anyone who had the bad luck to come across you.
5. Offending like this causes substantial public disquiet. People are entitled to feel safe going about their day in public free from the risk of being confronted, assaulted and having their motor vehicles stolen.
6. These features of the attempted aggravated carjacking underpin its seriousness and the need for general deterrence, denunciation and community protection.
7. The balance of the charges are offences of lower gravity which would ordinarily be heard summarily. Having regard though to your criminal history, short prison sentences are appropriate for those offences with some modest cumulation.

1. You pleaded guilty to the charges at an early opportunity, which was in fact the seventh committal case conference. All those case conferences occurred while negotiations were taking place as to the appropriate charges. I accept your pleas of guilty indicate a willingness to facilitate the course of justice and are indicative of some level of remorse. The utilitarian value of your pleas is significant, and I take this into account, you have spared the court and the prosecution the use of the resources required for a trial and your victims have been spared the inconvenience of having to give evidence and the experience of re-living these events. You are entitled to a significant sentencing discount for your plea.

1. You came to Australia in 2008 as a dependent of your older sister, and you were then and remain on a Class BC Sub-class 100 spousal visa.
2. On 15 January 2020, after you were sentenced at the Sunshine Magistrates' Court to 18-months' imprisonment with a non-parole period, your visa was cancelled under the mandatory cancellation provisions of the Migration Act.[1] Your sentence was reduced on appeal to 10 months, hence mandatory cancellation provisions no longer applied, but your visa was then cancelled based on you failing the character test. I am told this decision was affirmed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in March 2021, and you went into immigration detention on 27 August 2020 where you stayed until December 2022 after various legal changes including the High Court decision of Pearson v The Minister for Home Affairs[2].
3. You went back into detention between February 2023 and April 2023 after the Migration Act was amended.
4. I have been told that on 15 June 2023, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal set aside the earlier decisions and so you were at that point free of the spectre of deportation. You nonetheless spent very substantial periods in immigration detention waiting for that outcome.
5. My sentence today will trigger the mandatory cancellation of your visa under the Migration Act. Of course, it must have been obvious to you that any further offending would result in cancellation of your visa having regard to your history, but I cannot ignore the uncertainty of your circumstances.
6. You have been in Australia since you were quite young, and you now face a very substantial risk of deportation and potentially a lengthy period in immigration detention. In the circumstances where you have been here for a significant period, I accept that imprisonment will weigh more heavily on you due to your concerns and uncertainty about deportation and the associated complexities of those processes for someone in your situation.
7. It is in fact a pretty bleak future, it would seem for you, Mr Shoul, in the current circumstances.

1. You are a 27-year-old man of Dinka descent. You were 26 years old at the time of the offending.
2. You were born in Sudan, and you lived there until you were six to seven years old.
3. You are the sixth child of seven. Your father was killed in the Sudanese civil war when you were a small child.
4. Your childhood was marked by the chaos of civil war.
5. In 2005 (at the age of around six or seven) you fled to Egypt with your two older sisters. Thereafter, you were separated from them when they were placed in a girls' shelter, and you were placed in a boys' shelter. You were sexually abused in Egypt.
6. After three years in Egypt in a camp, you and your two sisters migrated to Australia. You were then 10 years old.
7. You had no formal schooling in Sudan. In Egypt, at the refugee shelter, you went to a school where the teaching was in Arabic.
8. In Australia, you initially lived with your two older sisters and a brother-in-law. You have four other siblings and your mother who remain in the Sudan.
9. You commenced school at St Albans Primary School. You had no English, and school was difficult for you. You struggled learning the language and you were bullied.
10. You started secondary school at St Albans Secondary College before enrolling in the Lynhall Hall Community School in 2014. You repeated Year 9, before moving to St Joseph's in North Melbourne. You were, I am told, a talented basketballer, and you had hoped that school would assist you with pursuing basketball, but the academic aspects of the school were not suitable for you and the schooling at St Joseph's did not work out.
11. I am told your home environment was volatile. You were physically and emotionally abused by your older sister. You left home when you were 14 years old and moved in with cousins in Fitzroy.
12. Eventually you disengaged with school in your mid-teens and stopped attending entirely at around the age of 15. At that point you started using drugs and abusing alcohol.
13. You had some work in demolition around the age of 19, but you were only able to hold down that job for about three months. You have had other short-term unskilled roles since your release from immigration detention. Your longest period of employment was between four and five months in 2024 when you worked as a furniture removalist. When you have not been employed, you have been relying on Centrelink benefits.
14. Your use of methylamphetamine has become an increasingly significant issue and has contributed to your offending and your mental health.
15. You have attempted to detox on several occasions and spent some time in Odyssey House for that purpose.
16. The periods you have spent in custody or in immigration detention are the longest periods you have not used drugs since your mid-teens.
17. You have had mental health issues which arose firstly in 2021 whilst you were in immigration detention. They have been ongoing.
18. In August 2023, your sister was concerned about your hallucinations, paranoia and substance abuse and organised an appointment with a doctor for you, but you did not follow that up.
19. In December 2023, you were hospitalised for psychosis and referred to community mental health services. You have had sporadic engagement with the Clarendon Clinic, through St Vincent's Hospital, and there was a previous diagnosis of schizophrenia, but whether you actually have that illness, is not clear.
20. You were prescribed the drug Aripiprazole which by March 2024 you had stopped taking. You had intermittent contact with your sister at that time and apparently, she expressed concerns as to your mental health and that you were carrying a hammer around for protection.
21. You have also reported various suicide attempts since you were aged about 25, and you have most recently been prescribed Olanzapine in custody.
22. After you were released from immigration detention you lived with a sister in St Albans, and then with another sister in Richmond at a public housing unit.
23. I am told that at the time of this offending, your mental health had declined, and you were homeless, living between friends' houses or sleeping rough. You had looked at a property with your mental health worker, but you failed to attend subsequent appointments which would have enabled you to obtain accommodation. This offending occurred some five days after that.

1. You have a significant criminal history now, although perhaps not so surprising for someone with your background. You have not had a great deal of supervision through the courts other than in 2016 when you were placed on a Youth Supervision Order, with drug and alcohol treatment for offences which included resisting police, refusing to state your name and address, and indecent language. That Youth Supervision Order was for a period of six months.
2. You were subsequently convicted in 2017 at the Sunshine Magistrates' Court of assault offending including intentionally causing injury, for which you received a fine.
3. In 2019, you were sentenced to 18 days' imprisonment which was time already served, for contravening bail conditions.
4. Then in 2020, you received a sentence of 18 months in the Magistrates' Court for affray, assaulting emergency workers and PSOs, and resisting police. Ultimately, the County Court Judge who heard that appeal sentenced you to 10 months.
5. Those prior convictions do reflect a concerning involvement in violent offences. This offending was an escalation of the pattern of offending established by those prior convictions. They are relevant to considerations of community protection and specific deterrence and the assessment of your prospects of rehabilitation. I do not consider them particularly significant to your moral culpability having regard to the issues relating to your mental health and your background, which I will now go to.

1. You were assessed by psychologist Ms Gina Cidoni in June 2025.[3] She considers you meet the criteria for the following psychological conditions: Substance/medication-induced psychotic disorder; post-traumatic stress disorder; Major Depressive Disorder (severe) with mood-congruent psychotic features.
2. She says that you presented with persistent symptoms of depression and anxiety, which she attributed to both emotional stress and the conditions of incarceration.
3. Ms Cidoni considers your mental health and substance use 'cannot be separated' from your experiences as a child, the disruption of your formative development stages and developing maladaptive coping strategies which have been reinforced through drug use and high-risk environments. She refers to institutionalization in custody and in immigration detention and how this has produced a chronic state of psychological distress.
4. Ms Cidoni considers your prospects of rehabilitation as 'guarded but not without potential'; however, she also considered your risk of violent recidivism as high.

1. Your counsel, Ms Gillahan, submitted that limbs 1, 3, 4 and 5 of Verdins[4] are enlivened.
2. Ms Gillihan submitted your moral culpability is reduced due to the impacts of your mental health and substance use at the time of the offending. Ms Cidoni said this:

The offending behaviour occurred in the context of significant intoxication with methamphetamine and alcohol, followed by a prolonged period of substance dependence and psychiatric deterioration. On the day of the offence, he had reportedly been awake for two days and was experiencing a state of heightened agitation, paranoia, and disorganised thinking ... [she went on] .he had a diagnosed mental disorder that predated the offence and was exacerbated by substance use, including PTSD and a provisional diagnosis of MDD with psychotic features. His ability to think clearly, form rational judgments, and restrain his impulses was significantly impaired at the time of the offending, and these impairments were causally related to his diagnosed conditions. As such, his mental illness, aggravated by drug use, appears to have materially contributed to his disorganised and violent behaviour.

1. Ms Gillihan submitted that these conditions are sufficiently connected to the offending to attract a level of moderation of both general and specific deterrence.
2. I accept that your moral culpability is reduced by your mental state, as described in the report of Ms Cidoni. No issue was taken with these passages of her report. I also accept that I should moderate general deterrence and to an extent specific deterrence, having regard to your mental health conditions. However, the extent to which I moderate general deterrence and specific deterrence is limited by the very clear connections between your drug use and the offending.
3. In relation to custody being more burdensome for you, Ms Cidoni says:

Mr Shoul's experience of incarceration has been psychologically burdensome and insufficient in addressing his complex needs. He has a long history of imprisonment dating back to adolescence, with multiple custodial episodes failing to interrupt his pattern of polysubstance dependence, trauma-related symptoms, and unstable living conditions. While enforced abstinence in custody has temporarily halted his use of methamphetamine, cannabis and alcohol, and reduced exposure to immediate community risks, the prison environment has exacerbated his mental health symptoms. He described a noticeable decline in his emotional wellbeing during periods of isolation, including a two-week placement in isolation, and continues to report symptoms of depression, anxiety, and somatic distress.

1. The prosecution accepted, based on this passage, that principle 5 of Verdins applies in sentencing you.
2. I accept that imprisonment is a greater burden for you than it would be for someone without your complex psychological and trauma related conditions.
3. There is in this case obvious overlap between your background, your mental health and your abuse of illicit drugs. Nonetheless, I will analyse Bugmy as a separate mitigating factor in this case.
4. Your childhood was marked by exposure to war, death and violence, in Sudan, sexual abuse Egypt and family instability in Australia. I accept the deprivation you experienced as a child has had lasting consequences on you and in accordance with the principles enunciated in the High Court case of Bugmy[5], I accept the circumstances of your upbringing reduce your moral culpability to an extent. These principles are really adopted by Ms Cidoni in her report. Those circumstances are also relevant in assessing what weight I should give to your prior convictions. They explain, it seems to me, your offending as set out in the criminal history and your failure to rehabilitate. Based on your upbringing it is also necessary in my view to moderate general deterrence. There is significant overlap between the Verdins principles and the Bugmy principles as they apply in this case.
5. Of course, the other side of the Bugmy principles is that they can mean community protection becomes a more significant matter in sentencing, and I think that is relevant to you. You have entrenched mental health issues and drug problems and overall, it is difficult to be anything more than guarded about your prospects of rehabilitation.
6. The prosecution referred me to a comparative case of Mikael v The Queen[6]. There were some similarities in that case to the facts of this matter. The Court of Appeal in that case considered that a sentence of four years for an attempted aggravated carjacking was a very stern sentence but could be understood in light of the offender's prior convictions in that case. The Court of Appeal ultimately said in respect of that four-year sentence ' ... although we regard the sentence imposed on the first charge as stern, we consider it to be within the bounds of sound discretionary judgment'.
7. There are several differences that I need to consider, not that Mikael is a precedent or that current sentencing practices are determinative of the sentence to be imposed. The plea in that case was very shortly prior to a trial. The offender had much more significant priors. There were no Verdins and Bugmy principles enlivened in sentencing. So, there are differences, but pandemic discounts and Worboyes[7] applied. Nonetheless, it was considered to be a stern sentence.
8. I have also considered some of the cases in the Sentencing Manual Case Summaries, so I have an awareness of current sentencing practices for this type of offending, which are of course no more than a guide, they are not a controlling factor.

1. In respect of sentencing you for this offence, general deterrence still has a role to play, although significantly moderated. Your moral culpability, while reduced, is still significant in this case. Furthermore, I am not of the view that specific deterrence is exhausted in this matter, and community protection must be given some weight.
2. Furthermore, for offending such as this, which causes substantial public disquiet, I must denounce the type of conduct that you engaged in, committing the attempted aggravated carjacking.
3. On the other hand, there are in my opinion some very significant mitigating factors that apply to your circumstances that require significant moderation of the sentences to be imposed. As I said earlier, your future in this country is quite bleak. You are certainly a very high risk of being deported because of the sentence I will impose today.

1. In the circumstances, the sentences I impose are as follows.
2. Charge 1, attempted theft, you are convicted and sentenced to three months' imprisonment.
3. Charge 2, attempted aggravated carjacking, you are convicted and sentenced to 26 months' imprisonment.
4. Charge 3, criminal damage, you are convicted and sentenced to three months' imprisonment.
5. Charge 4, possessing methamphetamine, I could fine you but I cannot see any utility in giving you a fine for that offence, so I will convict and discharge you.
6. Charge 5, handling stolen goods, you are convicted and sentenced to four months' imprisonment.
7. Summary charge of going equipped to steal, two months' imprisonment.
8. I will make the following periods of cumulation. One month on Charge 1 of attempted theft, one month on Charge 3 of criminal damage; and one month on Charge 5 of handling stolen goods are cumulative on each other and on the base sentence, which makes a total effective sentence of 29 months in this matter.
9. I fix a minimum non-parole period of 19 months. Whether you ever get parole in your circumstances I do not know. I cannot take into account any executive action on deportation, but the reality may well be you are never paroled.
10. I have sentenced you as I must, anticipating you might serve every day of the head sentence that I have imposed.
11. 385 days is deducted from the sentence that I have imposed.
12. Pursuant to s6AAA I indicate that but for your plea of guilty, the sentence imposed would have been 40 months with a minimum of 30 months.
13. MR TAMBURRO: As Your Honour pleases.
14. HIS HONOUR: All right, nothing else needed? Were there any other orders?
15. MR TAMBURRO: The disposal order was made last Friday, is my understanding.
16. HIS HONOUR: Yes, I made that last time.
17. MR TAMBURRO: Thank you, Your Honour.
18. HIS HONOUR: Ms Gillahan, any queries from any of that?
19. MS GILLAHAN: No, Your Honour.
20. HIS HONOUR: No, all right. Thank you very much.

[2] [2022] FCAFC 203

[4] R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269

[5] Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571;

[6] [2022] VSCA 119.

[7] Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169.