DPP v Sindoni [2025] VCC 724

Mr Hutcheon, Mr Azzopardi, or their friends. You were not involved in the argument and, in fact, were across the road from the group. For whatever reason, you walked across the road and became involved in the argument. As

Mr Azzopardi was attempting to walk around you, you pushed him and then punched him to the face with a single strike. You then took up a fighting stance, turned around and punched Mr Hutcheon to the face causing him to fall to the ground. Others attempted to move you away but instead you shaped up, again in a fighting stance, and attempted to punch another unknown male before you were hit by that male to the face. 3. The incident was captured on CCTV recording that was tendered in evidence during the plea hearing. 4. As a result of your conduct, Mr Azzopardi suffered bilateral mandibular body fractures to the jaw and lost two teeth. His injuries required surgical intervention and fixation of internal screws and four plates. Mr Hutcheon sustained a bloody nose. 5. At the time of the incident, Mr Azzopardi was 21 years of age and Mr Hutcheon was 20 years of age. You were 24 years old. 6. Police arrived at the scene within minutes and spoke to Mr Azzopardi. You were pointed out to police by witnesses. You were spoken to by Senior Constable Minihan. You kept saying to Senior Constable Minihan that nothing had happened and that 'he fell to the ground'. Your details were taken and on 10 June 2024 you were arrested at your home address. You were taken to the Bacchus Marsh police station where you were interviewed. 7. During the interview you answered, in the main, 'no comment'. You were shown the CCTV recording and stated it did not trigger any memories for you. You did not admit to being the person shown in the recording and when it was put to you that the victim of your first punch ended up with a compound fracture of the jaw, and two fractures on either side of the jaw and a dislocated jaw, you stated 'I have no comment to how he was hit, but it's very sad'. When asked whether you knew 'that kid', you stated 'no idea. I'm very sad'. 8. When asked whether you normally drink a lot of alcohol, you told police that you do not and added that you do not go out at all. You said - 'I don't do nothing anymore, I've changed, like I used to be a big drug addict and something like that really bad, and then I've just stopped to stay at home with my kiddies'. 9. While you stated that you were sad for the victim, you did not make any admissions to having been the cause of his injuries. You did, however, go on to state 'I hate violence, I hate fight, I hate that shit, I hate going out and shit happening like that'. 10. It was agreed that the CCTV recording shows the following:

(a) You are standing on the northern side of Main Street wearing a black jumper, light coloured shorts and red shoes.

(b) Mr Azzopardi, Mr Hutcheon and their friends, Mr Le Huray and Mr Cooper, were standing on the footpath outside Flanagan's Pub.

(c) You walked across the road towards this group.

(d) Mr Azzopardi walked towards the rear of the group near you. You then pushed him and punched him with one strike.

(e) You looked around, adopted a fighting stance, and then punched

Mr Hutcheon once to the face, causing Mr Hutcheon to fall to the ground.

(f) You were ushered away by others but then walked back to the footpath, where you attempted to assault another male who retaliated against you.

1. You have admitted your criminal history set out in the Victoria Police Criminal History Report. You have relevant prior convictions.
2. On 9 December 2021, at the Werribee Magistrates' Court, you were convicted and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of seven months in relation to a charge of making a threat to kill, six charges of unlawful assault, a charge of contravening a Family Violence Intervention Order, a charge of contravening a conduct condition of bail, a charge of contravening a Family Violence Interim Intervention Order, a charge of committing an indictable offence while on bail, two charges of persistently contravening a Family Violence Intervention Order, and a charge of contravening a Family Violence Final Intervention Order.
3. You were also placed on a community correction order in respect to those offences for a period of 18 months with conditions, including that you undergo treatment and rehabilitation for drug abuse or dependency, offending behaviour programs as directed, a Men's Behavioural Change Program, and judicial monitoring.
4. On 19 September 2022 for offences of criminal damage, failing to give your name and address where property was damaged, reckless conduct endangering serious injury, and making a threat to inflict serious injury, you were, without conviction, placed on a bond for a period of 12 months and ordered to pay $1,500 to the Court Fund. Your licence was cancelled and you were disqualified from driving for a period of nine months.
5. On 23 November 2022, at Sunshine Magistrates' Court, on a charge of contravening your community correction order, the charge was found proven and the Order was confirmed.
6. On 30 May 2023, on a charge of contravening your community correction order, the charge was found proven and the Order was varied by extending it to a period of 21 months. I was informed that you completed the correction order.

1. The learned prosecutor, Ms Pezzimenti, read to the Court the Victim Impact Statement of Adam Azzopardi. I have had careful regard to the impact of your offending as was clearly articulated by Mr Azzopardi. He writes of how his life was changed 'in an instant'. He had to support his jaw for some 40 hours while awaiting an available surgeon, after attending at three different hospitals. He speaks of the pain the fractures caused, and still occasionally cause pain. He has a jaw full of metal and lost two teeth. He has incurred significant cost in dental procedures and will require dental implants in the future. He was unable to chew for six weeks and could only swallow mashed or pureed food. He had to forgo his sporting activities and exercise until such time as he was cleared by his surgeon. He states that he is angry, sad, and at times in pain and should not have to feel that way. Rather movingly he states that he is 'young and wants to enjoy (his) life'.

1. A medical report of Dr Sanjeev Gaya, dated 21 January 2025, was filed pursuant to a Notice of Additional Evidence. It is a report that is based on medical records concerning Mr Azzopardi's injuries.
2. Dr Gaya writes that initial assessment at the Bacchus Marsh Hospital and St John revealed injuries to the:
   • left side of the jaw being swollen and bruised, with bleeding noted from the mouth;
   • difficulty closing the jaw, affecting speech, and exhibiting limited jaw opening and noticeable tilt to the right;
   • displacement noted in alignment of the lower teeth, a tear under the tongue, and marked restricted jaw movement.
3. Radiological findings indicated significant bilateral mandibular fractures, that is, breaks in the lower jaw. A CT scan confirmed a mildly displaced fracture on the right side and a more significant displacement on the left side, accompanied by soft tissue swelling. The imaging revealed the presence of pockets of air within the soft tissue, raising the suspicion of an open fracture, that is, a fracture that communicates with the oral cavity.
4. Mr Azzopardi underwent surgery known as 'bilateral open reduction and internal fixation' of the fractured lower jaw. This involved repositioning the fractured segments of the lower jaw into their correct anatomical alignment and, once aligned, plates and screws were used to secure the fragments in place. Two teeth were removed as they were at risk of becoming infected due to their involvement in the fracture line. Dr Gaya states that the extent of the victim's injuries, the need for surgical intervention, and extensive treatment signifies that his injuries were substantial. Mr Azzopardi faced significant medical care to ensure proper healing and alignment of the fractures. Moreover, the effects of his injuries are expected to be prolonged. He will require ongoing treatment, including orthodontics, to address dental issues resulting from the fractures. A lengthy process of recovery is suggested.

1. You were born in Melbourne and raised in Melton by your parents, who are of Italian background. They are married and your father operates a restoration company and your mother works in that business. You described your childhood as happy, loving, stable, and with traditional values. You have an older brother and sister, both of whom are employed, and live independently with their own families. You maintain regular contact with your siblings.
2. Your counsel, Mr Gilfillan, informed me that you left high school at the age of 16. Thereafter followed a troubled period in your life involving drug and alcohol abuse.
3. You began using cannabis at the age of 14, and methylamphetamine and GHB at the age of 17.
4. At the age of 19 you entered a relationship that was described as tumultuous and marked by mutual drug use, unemployment, and difficulties arising, you instruct, through your former partner's mental health. That relationship ended in 2022 when a Family Violence Intervention Order was taken out against you. It was put that your substance abuse peaked during this relationship, leading to paranoia and reckless behaviour.
5. You have two daughters aged four and five from that relationship. Concerns about their welfare led to them being placed in your sister's care before you were able to obtain full custody through proceedings in the Family Court in 2023. The children are now in your full-time care, in good health, and do not have contact with their mother.
6. You met your current partner, Kiara, when you were both teenagers. You became reacquainted after meeting at church in 2024. You were married on 18 March 2025. Kiara has two daughters of her own aged seven and five. You all live together at the home of your parents.
7. By way of education, you attended the Penleigh and Essendon Grammar School for your primary education and later transferred to Melton Christian College and Staughton College for your secondary education. You completed Year 9. You state that you disliked school, rarely put in an effort, and you received suspensions due to fights and arguments.
8. After leaving school you were unemployed due to your drug use. Your first paid job, which was in 2023, was in panel beating. You held that job for approximately one year. I was told that you are currently focused on parenting and receive Centrelink payments. I was also told that your partner Kiara does not work. It is your long-term plan to work in your father's business, as a bricklayer.
9. You have been in relatively good physical health but you have suffered a number of injuries in your late teens and early adulthood, including having been stabbed and attacked with a baseball bat. You instructed your counsel that those incidents were related to your drug use and negative peer associations.
10. You further report that you were diagnosed with anxiety and depression at the age of 17 and prescribed antidepressants. I was informed that you have never engaged in counselling, and you describe your current mental health as 'up and down'. A report from Dr Fahad Ahmed, dated 17 January 2025, states that he saw you on that day and prescribed Lumin 20 milligrams for your depression. He notes that you have seen a psychiatrist in the past. Dr Ahmed also states that your mental health is stable, but you may need psychiatric review.
11. You instructed your counsel you have been abstinent from drugs and alcohol since the offending before me, save for a brief relapse in drinking in late January 2025. That relapse led to your voluntary admission to Habitat Therapeutics, a residential drug and alcohol rehabilitation centre on 5 January 2025. You remained there for a period of 30 days, discharging yourself on 6 March 2025. You report total abstinence from all drugs and alcohol since your discharge. A letter from Habitat Therapeutics, dated 6 February 2025, tendered on your behalf, notes that it was their understanding that you would complete their 90-day program. However, you discharged yourself after completing 30 days.
12. I was also informed that since your offending, you have commenced regular attendance at your local church which you instruct has been a helpful avenue for you to reflect on your behaviour and its underlying causes. Your counsel put that you are focused on your role as a full-time caregiver of your children, and your relationship.

1. Tendered on your behalf was a psychological report, dated 27 December 2024, of Gina Cidoni. Ms Cidoni assessed you on 17 December 2024.
2. Ms Cidoni has diagnosed you with a substance use disorder (in sustained remission). In her opinion you do not currently meet the diagnostic criteria for other conditions such as anxiety, depression, or post-traumatic stress disorder. You exhibit some maladaptive personality traits but these do not reach the threshold for a diagnosable personality disorder.
3. Regarding your substance abuse, you reported to Ms Cidoni cannabis use from the age of 14 and methylamphetamine and GHB use starting at 17. Your substance abuse significantly interfered with your social, familial and occupational functioning, contributed to relationship breakdowns and involvement in criminal behaviour including reckless conduct and road rage incidents. You also described to her periods of extreme drug use, including staying awake for multiple days and becoming increasingly paranoid. You reported having been sober for the last

12 months following a wakeup call after your daughters were placed in your sister's care. I should note, however, these offences occurred in June 2024, after you obtained full custody of your daughters in 2023. 4. Ms Cidoni considers that your prospects for rehabilitation are positive, however, to ensure long term progress, you require comprehensive substance abuse treatment, relapse prevention, and emotional regulation interventions. An anger management program, she said, would also assist in addressing your reactive behaviour and improving your emotional regulation, particularly given your history of impulsivity.

1. The offence of recklessly causing serious injury carries a maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment. This maximum reflects the seriousness with which Parliament, on behalf of the community, views this offence. The offence of unlawful assault has a maximum penalty of three months' imprisonment.
2. In my opinion, the offences to which you pleaded guilty are serious instances of such offences. Your assaults upon Mr Azzopardi and Mr Hutcheon, strangers to you, I accept, were unprovoked. You punched each victim to the head.
3. The punch to Mr Azzopardi was delivered with such force that it resulted in fractures to his jaw on both the right and left sides, as well as soft tissue damage. The force of the punch you delivered to Mr Hutcheon was sufficient to cause him to fall to the ground immediately and sustain a bloody nose. The impact of your assault upon Mr Azzopardi is well articulated in his Victim Impact Statement.
4. By your plea of guilty to Charge 1, you accept that you had foreseen the probability that punching Mr Azzopardi to the head would cause him serious injury and, regardless of that probability, you proceeded to punch him.
5. In DPP v Betrayhani,[1] the Court of Appeal accepted that a forceful punch to the head is highly dangerous and a person delivering such a punch is taken to have foreseen a high probability of serious injury. The Court went on to state that the impact on the victim is also a key consideration in sentencing for this offence.[2] I must have regard to what the Court of Appeal there said in my assessment of the gravity of your offending.
6. The fact that you were highly intoxicated and profess little memory of the incident does not, in my opinion, mitigate the seriousness of your offending. It was not suggested that it did. Furthermore, I find your answers to police when interviewed, to be disingenuous. You denied that you were the offender, even when shown the CCTV recording, and you professed to hate violence and fighting. Your actions on this night appear to suggest otherwise.
7. As I earlier stated, this was an unprovoked assault upon two strangers. The assaults occurred in public. Furthermore, having viewed the CCTV recording, it is clear that you went out of your way by crossing the street and walking some distance to become involved in what was then taking place.
8. You told Ms Cidoni, when interviewed by her, that the group began picking on someone you had met that night and had threatened to stab your friend. You told her that this triggered you, due to an incident in the past where you had been stabbed. You further said that you 'passed out and started hitting, it was self‑defence'. This is not consistent with what you told police, not consistent with your professed lack of memory of the incident, and not consistent with your plea of guilty. In the absence of evidence, I reject it as an explanation for your conduct.
9. Mr Gilfillan, who said just about all that could be said on your behalf, submitted that your offending against Mr Azzopardi falls at the lower end of the scale of seriousness. In support of that submission, he stated that the injury to

Mr Azzopardi was the result of a single punch, it was not a life-threatening injury, your assault upon him was not sustained, and it did not involve a weapon. He further submitted that the injuries sustained are not analogous to the worst category of cases involving catastrophic physical injuries. Notwithstanding his submissions, I do not accept that the gravity of your offending falls at the lower end of the spectrum, for reasons to which I have already referred. In my opinion, your assault on both Mr Azzopardi and Mr Hutcheon were, to the extent that it is helpful to classify them, 'mid-range' instances of the charged offences. 10. Another matter relevant to my assessment of the seriousness of your conduct is your level of moral culpability. In my opinion it is high. As I earlier mentioned, you went out of your way to cross the road and become involved in whatever it was this group of young people were discussing. You had no business getting involved and your offending was unprovoked. Nothing has been put to me that would reduce your level of moral culpability. I do not regard your level of intoxication to reduce your level of culpability. 11. Your assault upon two young males, standing outside of a hotel with their friends, requires that significant emphasis be placed on general deterrence. That is, others who are minded to engage in similar violent conduct should be made aware, through the sentencing process, that they risk condign punishment. Your conduct must also be strongly denounced by the Court, and you must be justly punished. It was accepted during the course of the plea hearing, that drunken violence, especially drunken violence committed by youthful offenders in public, is prevalent in our community. 12. In DPP v Russell,[3] the Court stated:

Random street violence is a scourge on our society. Typically, the violence is brief and unpremeditated but it has profound and enduring consequences. Innocent people are killed or seriously injured; their families are devastated; their communities disrupted. And the outburst of violence is ruinous for the offender, too. Imprisonment with all its destructive consequences is virtually inevitable, as is the shame and embarrassment felt by the offender's family.

1. There is also a strong need for the sentence to deter you from further violent conduct. It is most concerning that you have prior convictions for violence and have previously served a term of imprisonment for violent and other offending. You have also contravened community correction orders that were imposed in December 2021 and November 2022, although you did ultimately successfully conclude the final order in September 2023. The offences before me occurred some nine months after that order expired. Although you are not to be punished for earlier offences, I may have regard to them in my assessment of the need for specific deterrence, of your prospects for rehabilitation, and in the need to protect the community from you.
2. Mr Gilfillan relied upon your youth as a matter in mitigation. He relied, in particular, on the well-known decisions of the Court of Appeal in Mills[4] and Azzopardi,[5] submitting, at least in his written submissions, that your rehabilitation ought to be given more weight than general deterrence.
3. Ms Pezzimenti submitted that your age was towards the upper end of what may be regarded as youthful offending. While some consideration, she submitted, ought to be given to your youth and rehabilitation, Ms Pezzimenti also submitted this was serious offending, and that weight needed to be given to denunciation and deterrence.
4. In R v Bell,[6] Batt JA stated:

As regards youth, I would add - and this is relevant also to the ground of manifest excessiveness - that it seems necessary to state again that the general propositions accepted in R.v Mills. [1998] 4 V.R. 235 at 241 are just that - general propositions. They are, as their terms show, not of universal or automatic application. True it is that they may apply not infrequently, but each case depends upon its own circumstances, including, it is to be noted, the circumstances of the offence as well as those of the offender. Youth cannot in all cases keep an offender from gaol. ....

1. In R v Tran,[7] Calloway JA stated:

The rehabilitation of youthful offenders, where practicable, is one of the great objectives of the criminal law, but it is not its only objective. It is not difficult to cite cases where other objectives have had to prevail. It is true that, in the case of a youthful offender, rehabilitation is usually far more important than general deterrence, but the word I have italicized is there to remind us that there are cases where just punishment, general deterrence or other sentencing objectives are at least equally important."

1. The, at times, conflicting sentencing considerations of youth and rehabilitation and those of deterrence and denunciation were also considered by the Court of Appeal in Russell.
2. In that case the respondent, Mr Russell, had been sentenced at first instance to a term of imprisonment of 12 months on a charge of recklessly causing serious injury. He was also sentenced in relation to a charge of recklessly causing injury and affray. His conduct, that resulted in the serious injury, was a single punch to the victim's jaw, causing the victim to fall backwards ending up on the footpath. The victim suffered a 'green stick' fracture of the jaw, pain and emotional trauma. Surgery was not required to fix the fracture.
3. The Court of Appeal considered that although a weapon was not used, a clenched fist can be extremely dangerous when used to deliver a hard punch to a person's head. The injury caused, the Court considered, fell within the mid-range seriousness for the offence.[8] The Court also considered it particularly significant that Mr Russell had a prior conviction for recklessly causing injury for which he received a substantial fine.
4. Mr Russell was 21 at the time of the offending and 22 at the time of sentence.
5. The Court in Russell stated:

Cases such as these involve conflicting sentencing considerations. On the one hand, as this Court has emphasised, there is great public benefit in the rehabilitation of an offender - and of a young offender in particular - and in maximising the prospect that the offender will carry on a law-abiding life in the future. At the same time, the prevalence of street violence is such that general deterrence must, of necessity, be a significant sentencing consideration.

1. The Court also stated that the more serious the offending, the less relative weight can be given to the need to rehabilitate the young offender.
2. The Court in Russell also referred, with apparent approval, to the Court's decision in Mogoai v The Queen, in which both Redlich and Priest JJA referred to the remarks of Winneke ACJ in Wright, that 'youth and rehabilitation must take a "backseat" to specific and general deterrence where crimes of wanton and unprovoked viciousness are involved, particularly where the perpetrator has been given previous chances.'[9] The Court of Appeal in Russell increased sentence on the recklessly causing serious injury charge from 12 months to two years and six months' imprisonment.
3. I accept that weight should be given to your relatively young age and the need for rehabilitation in my consideration of an appropriate sentence. However, I do not accept that your relative youth is the primary sentencing consideration. Your offending against both Mr Azzopardi and Mr Hutcheon was serious. It was 'wanton and unprovoked' street violence. You were 24 years of age at the time. You were not a first-time offender and had in fact served a seven-month sentence for offences including violence. Furthermore, while on the community correction order that expired on the 8 September 2023, an Order you successfully completed, you were also required to undergo drug treatment, a Men's Behaviour Change program, and programs to reduce the risk of you re-offending.
4. Regarding your prospects of rehabilitation, Mr Gilfillan submitted that you have taken steps towards your rehabilitation while on bail; that you have the strong support of your partner and family; and that you are motivated by your commitment to your children and stepchildren to stay out of trouble. Furthermore, you have not committed any further offences since the date of this offending, almost 12 months to the date, and you voluntarily admitted yourself to the Habitat Therapeutics Private Hospital. This admission occurred following a relapse in late January this year. Mr Gilfillan submitted that your prospects of rehabilitation are strong.
5. Ms Pezzimenti submitted that your prospects of rehabilitation must be considered guarded. She points to the fact you have previously breached community correction orders and that there is no evidence to confirm your asserted abstinence from substance abuse. Furthermore, she submitted, you have a history of relevant offending.
6. I consider, with a degree of caution, that your prospects, at this time, are 'fair'. I cannot be more optimistic than that given Ms Cidoni's opinion that you need further treatment; her assessment of the risk of you re-offending is a medium risk; your relatively recent relapse into drinking; and the fact that you have been given previous opportunities to address your issues.
7. You have pleaded guilty to the charges, and it is accepted that your pleas of guilty were entered at an early time. You have saved the Court and the community the cost of a trial and spared the victims of your offending the ordeal of having to give evidence at a trial. You are entitled to a reduction in penalty by reason of the utilitarian benefits arising from your pleas of guilty. I have more difficulty accepting that you are remorseful for your conduct. As I earlier stated, I consider that your answers to police when interviewed were disingenuous. However, I have regard to the character references tendered on your behalf, and your current efforts at rehabilitation, as indicators of an emerging remorse for your conduct.
8. I am also required to have regard to current sentencing practice. I was referred to a number of comparative cases by both counsel. I have had regard to each of those cases as well as the Sentencing Advisory Council's Sentencing Snapshot for the offence of recklessly causing serious injury for the period 2018-19 to

2022-23. Sentences passed in other cases may provide some assistance in informing the instinctive synthesis, but they are not precedents that must be followed. For the offences to which you have pleaded guilty, it is apparent that sentences vary widely, no doubt taking into account the myriad different circumstances in which such offences are committed and the circumstances of each offender. Each case must ultimately be decided by reference to the circumstances personal to the offender, the circumstances of the offending, and the aggravating and mitigating features present in the case. 9. Although your offending was directed against two victims, I consider it occurred during the course of one episode of violence. Accordingly, the totality principle of sentencing applies to ensure that the total effective sentence is proportionate to the overall criminality. 10. In this case, the learned prosecutor, submitted that a combination sentence was open. This means, under the provisions of the Sentencing Act, that a sentence greater than 12 months' imprisonment cannot be imposed if I am to place you on a combination sentence. Your counsel submitted that I should place you on a community correction order. While fixing the appropriate sentence is ultimately a matter for the Court, had it not been for the concession of the learned prosecutor, I might have imposed a sentence longer than 12 months' imprisonment. However, there is sense in imposing a combination sentence, particularly as your rehabilitation may be better achieved with the services available under a community correction order, particularly the programs that I am able to mandate.

1. In all of the circumstances, I propose to sentence you to a total effective term of imprisonment of 12 months and, upon your release, place you on a community correction order for a period of 12 months. The community correction order will have the mandatory conditions that apply to all such orders, and additional conditions which I will outline shortly. Before I may sentence as I have proposed, you must agree to being placed on the community corrections order. The conditions are as follows, please listen carefully to these conditions:

(a) The order will last for 12 months and commences upon completion of the term of imprisonment.

(b) You must attend at the Ballarat Community Correctional Services within two clear working days after the commencement of this order.

1. The mandatory terms that apply to all community correction orders are:

(a) You must not commit another offence for which you could be imprisoned during the time that the order is in force.

(b) You must comply with any obligation or requirement prescribed by regulation 15 of the Sentencing Regulations 2021. That means you must not attend at the Office of Corrections or any place to which they direct you, under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

(c) You must report to and receive visits from the Secretary or his or her delegate.

(d) You must let a Community Corrections officer know within two clear working days of you changing your address or job.

(e) You must not leave Victoria without first getting permission to do so from the Secretary or his or her delegate.

(f) You must obey all lawful instructions from and directions of the Secretary or his or her delegate.

(a) You must perform 100 hours of unpaid community work over a period of 12 months as directed by the Regional Manager. I order that all hours of treatment and rehabilitation satisfactorily undertaken are to be counted as hours of unpaid community work for the purpose of the unpaid community work condition. If you fail to comply with this part of the order the Secretary to the Department of Justice or his or her delegate may give you a direction to perform additional hours of unpaid community work in accordance with the provisions of the Sentencing Act.

(b) You must be under the supervision of a Community Corrections officer for a period of 12 months.

(c) You must undergo assessment and treatment including testing for drug abuse or dependency as directed by the Regional Manager.

(d) You must undergo assessment and treatment including testing for alcohol abuse or dependency as directed by the Regional Manager.

(e) You must undergo any mental health assessment and treatment and that may include psychological, neurological, psychiatric or treatment in a hospital or residential facility as directed by the Regional Manager.

(f) You must participate in programs and/or courses that address factors relating to the offending as directed by the Regional Manager.

1. I am also required to warn you that should you breach the conditions of the Order you may be charged with an offence and brought back before the Court to be sentenced on the breaching offence as well as being resentenced on the original charges.
2. Mr Sindoni, do you understand the conditions of the community correction order? You are nodding yes. Would you like to speak to your counsel to ensure that you understand the conditions of the order?
3. OFFENDER: Yeah.
4. HIS HONOUR: All right. Mr Malone, you may approach Mr Sindoni.
5. MR MALONE: Thank you, Your Honour. Your Honour, I am instructed to agree to the terms that Your Honour is proposing.
6. HIS HONOUR: Thank you. Mr Sindoni, please stand up. You consent to being placed on the community correction order as I have indicated?
7. ACCUSED: Yeah.
8. HIS HONOUR: Very well.
9. On the charge of recklessly causing injury, you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months, and you are to be placed on a community corrections order in the terms I just read out to you.
10. On the charge of unlawful assault, you are convicted and sentenced to two months' imprisonment. This sentence is to be served concurrently with the sentence imposed on the charge of recklessly causing serious injury.
11. Pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, had you not pleaded guilty to the offences, the sentence I would otherwise have imposed is one of two years and six months' imprisonment with a minimum term of 20 months' imprisonment.

[1] [2019] VSCA 150

[3] [2014] VSCA 308 at [1]

[4] R v Mills [1998] 4 VR 235

[5] Azzopardi v The Queen [2011] VSCA 372 [34]-[36]

[6] [1999] VSCA 223 [14]

[7] [2002] VSCA 52 [14]