Sentence: Five years imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years.
[2]
6AAA: Seven years imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years and six months.
[3]
HIS HONOUR: This plea took place on 1 September. It was mentioned again on the 3rd September. Mr Gurlal Singh was born in India in September 1994. He was 29 at the time of these offences and he is now 30 years old. Mr Cordy appeared on behalf of the Director and Mr Nibbs appeared on behalf of Mr Singh throughout these proceedings.
It is difficult to know precisely when Mr Singh arrived, looking at the documentation. One document says he arrives in 2006, and the plea was put on the basis that he arrived in 2013. At any rate, there seems to be no dispute that he came here on a student visa. That student visa was cancelled, then he was on a bridging visa, and then a protection visa, which, I understand, he is now on. He had previously been involved in construction work.
The plea of guilty was to indictment no.Q10833471, which contains three charges. Also, through his counsel, Mr Nibbs, a plea was entered to the summary charge. Mr Nibbs also acknowledged the prior criminal offences.
The first charge on the indictment is one of attempted aggravated carjacking. That is laid pursuant to s79A of the Crimes Act and 321M, which governs the attempt aspect of this offence. Because it is an attempt, the maximum penalty is reduced to 20 years imprisonment, pursuant to s321P.
This particular crime took place at 6.25 pm on the 21st day of April 2024, in Maryborough, when Mr Singh attempted to carjack a silver Mazda, owned by Crystel Cole.
Insofar as both Charges 1 and 2 on the indictment, Exhibit C was tendered, which is a CCT video, which shows very disturbing footage of the attempt to carjack the Mazda, and then, subsequently, persistent attempts to get the keys after the owner, Ms Cole, had got out of the car, when Charge 2 apparently occurred, being the intentionally cause injury. The video shows Mr Singh as being particularly persistent, in seeking the keys, until he was fended off by two other males at the petrol station.
Going back to Charge 1, insofar as the attempted carjacking, the initiating matter as to the carjacking is the attempt to steal the car pursuant to s 79(1)(a). The particular provision detailed in the Indictment of 79A(a) was that he had with him at the time of the attempted carjacking, an offensive weapon being a box cutter. That is the basis for the aggravation. There was no plea that 79A(1)(b) applied, and that is, cause injury to the owner.
The second charge was that of intentionally cause injury, an offence pursuant to s18 of the Crimes Act, for which the maximum penalty imposed is 10 years imprisonment. This injury took place outside the car, during the persistent attempt, to obtain the keys to the car, which the owner, Crystel Cole, steadfastly resisted.
The injuries were to the wrist and forearm and upper body. The hospital notes were tendered as Exhibit E. Those notes showed that there was no long-term damage to the tendons or the nerves of the arm. Ms Cole required suturing of the wrist to repair the five-centimetre full-thickness laceration. She was immunised and given medication by way of antibiotic.
Exhibit B showed photos of the injuries that I have described sustained by Ms Cole, and the further photo in Exhibit B related to the third charge, which was the theft from Ms Harding of $100.
Charge 3 is laid pursuant to s74 of the Crimes Act. The victim is listening to this sentence remotely. Pursuant to s74, the maximum penalty for theft imposed by Parliament is 10 years imprisonment.
In this matter, shortly after Charges 1 and 2 had occurred in Maryborough, as Photograph 2 in Exhibit B shows, Mr Singh had left the garage and came upon Ms Harding withdrawing money from an ATM in Maryborough, and it was that theft of $100 which makes up Charge 3.
The summary offence is also shown on the photos of Mr Singh, which was after the crime committed against Ms Harding, and relates to him being in possession of items which were criminal proceeds. In this instance, they were toothbrushes in a bag, as I have said, also shown in the photo. This is a breach of s195 (proceeds of crime) of the Crimes Act, for which the maximum penalty prescribed is two years' gaol.
What is the pre-sentence detention agreed at, Mr Prosecutor? You might not have had a chance to have it agreed.
MR CORDY: Yes, I haven't spoken with Mr Nibbs about it, but the prosecution calculates it at 512 days, not including today, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: So that was on top of the 496 on 1 September.
MR CORDY: So it's 512 now.
MR NIBBS: Yes, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Thank you. Insofar as the consequences of this criminality, there has been no victim impact statement received from Ms Harding. Insofar as Ms Cole is concerned, Exhibit D was tendered, which is her victim impact statement.
I must say, from the perusal of the video, the resistance of Ms Cole was very brave in the circumstances. Many people, like the person who was driving the car next to her, would not have got out of their car, much less fought off someone who was trying to steal her keys.
The impact is set out in her victim impact statement, and, unfortunately, came after an unrelated crime had been committed upon her. It, unfortunately, exacerbated the suffering that she had had from that prior crime join up with next.
There is nothing unusual in the reaction set out in the statement. She, as a result of this crime, does not feel safe; she has reduced her social life, to the extent that it has had some impact on her children; she has changed her routine, insofar as work and fitting in matters; and continually, because of the scar on her hand, relives the hijacking. It seems to me that, probably because of the impact on the children, Ms Cole should consider some professional help with the anxiety she is suffering and the difficulties she is encountering. But, as I said, clearly, she acted in a very brave way.
Coming to the prior offences of Mr Singh. Mr Singh, we rehearse these not in any way to suggest that you should be sentenced again for those, but simply to indicate the background to this criminality.
You have not got a dramatic prior history, although it is clearly consistent, as has been said in the reports, with a person who was living the life of a drug addict involved in street offences. You have not previously been sentenced to gaol.
It is difficult to understand why your criminality started in 2022, as before that no offences were recorded against you. It appears from the psychological material that it has something to do with the ending of your relationship with a person called Jackie. Up till that time, you were apparently working full time, in a hard occupation as a scaffolder. Indeed, not only did the relationship end with Jackie, but you lost a car and possessions, which apparently impacted upon your ability to work.
As I said, they are summary prior offences. In 2002 you were fined for a shop theft. In January 2023, you had an adjourned bond for dishonesty offences. In September 2023, you came before the Court for four shop thefts and, a proceeds matter, for which you were given a community correction order for 12 months. In October of 2023, you were convicted and fined $500 for a theft charge. In December 2023, you had six shop theft charges and a breach of the earlier CCO that I have mentioned, for which you had the CCO extended for some 12 months.
With this criminality, you in fact have breached CCOs on three occasions: one in September 2023, one in December 2023, and now with these offences that you committed in April 2024.
There was no written submission from the prosecutor, but in oral submission, Mr Cordy pointed to the serious offending detailed in the indictment and the need to protect the community from this type of brazen attack. That submission I agree with totally.
As indicated, Charges 1 and 2 took place at the petrol station, Charge 3 at the ATM. Mr Singh, you must, as a result of that behaviour in the community, receive punishment which effects denunciation of these crimes and, hopefully, leads to protection of the community.
In particular, you were, insofar as Charge 1, particularly persistent in seeking to obtain the keys, despite the steps taken by the owner to resist you.
Your counsel put in submission to me, at the initial plea, that a community correction order may be appropriate, given the particular matters that relate to you from a psychological nature. However, as I indicated subsequently on 9 September, having considered the matter I did not think a combined order was appropriate because of the seriousness of the offending.
Mr Nibbs, in his defence, submitted written submissions, dated 28 August, which was Exhibit 1. He also tendered a psychiatric report, dated 29 August 2025, which was Exhibit 2; a psychologist's report of Ms Lechner, dated 3 December 2024, Exhibit 3. Exhibit 4 were a number of gaol courses that Mr Singh has undertaken while being in gaol. And Exhibit 5 was a statement of Mr Singh relating to previous violent attacks that I will refer to in the psychologist's report, that he said were a background of this criminality.
As is clear, and as I have already said, the priors, albeit relatively minor in the sense that they have not led to Mr Singh being gaoled, but the persistence of them is such as to be consistent with a life that, at least when his relationship ceased, has been dominated by the impact, unfortunately, of a life with drugs.
The report of Ms Lechner I will come to first, which is Exhibit 3, the assessment took place on 13 November 2024, the report was dated December 2024.
Ms Lechner described such offending, on p1, including your prior history, as having arisen in the setting of chronic and longstanding drug addiction, with underlying mental health issues. She spoke of a history of delusional thinking, referring to the matters that I spoke about, of having been involved with other criminals, and having been chased and, indeed, tortured. Those matters are set out, as I have said, in Exhibit 5.
At p3 of the report, Ms Lechner said that Mr Singh sees things through a personal lens and very much a lens connected to that alleged incident.
MR CORDY: Your Honour, I hesitate to interrupt, but Mr Singh appears to be trying to capture someone's attention.
HIS HONOUR: Mr Singh, I will finish the sentencing, and then I will tell you what that is going to be, and then your counsel will be able to talk to you then, okay? I had noted at the plea, certainly, behaviour in Court which may indicate some form of mental issue.
At p4, it was noted, in Ms Lechner's report, insofar as his offending behaviour was concerned, the reference again to this background:
[4]
I note that in regard to the victim, Mr Singh stated, 'I feel sorry for her, but I was scared for my life. I don't feel good about it. The box cutter was to scare her, not purposely to cut her'. He admitted, he was abusing drugs at the time.
[5]
Ms Lechner said at p4, Mr Singh that he had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, and: 'Certainly, his behaviour during our meeting was odd, to say the least'. She suggested that psychiatric evaluation was strongly advised. At paragraph 3 on p5 of her summary, she said:
[6]
At interview, Mr Singh was quite strange, as outlined above. His ability to engage in reflective and consequential thinking is undermined by his poor mental health.
[7]
As I said, a report was called for, which was Exhibit 2 of the forensic psychiatrist and which is dated 29 August 25. It was based on two interviews with Mr Singh at Ravenhall, on 13 and 29 May 2025.
The matters that I have already spoken about by way of background are referred to. It was noted at 3.1 that: 'Mr Singh reported, he had not received any mental health care prior to entering prison'. At 3.2, that:
[8]
"He reported, he felt he had been struggling since an incident in 2022, when he alleged he was the victim of the kidnapping."
[9]
By the time of the second interview, Mr Singh had been placed, at Ravenhall, in what is called the Erskine Mental Health Unit. At 3.6 was a summary of the Justice Health file insofar as Mr Singh is concerned, in particular while he has been on remand. In that summary, in January 2025, at p5, this was said:
[10]
Mental health doctor and clinician reviews in January 25 did not detect any active psychosis, some of his reported symptoms being considered more indicative of anxiety and low mood rather than a psychosis.
[11]
The final diagnosis made by Justice Health was as follows, made in June 25, reported on p6 of the report:
[12]
In June 25, Mr Singh had a thorough review of his clinical presentation by a consultant psychiatrist and multidisciplinary team while at Erskine Mental Health Unit. Following longitudinal assessment and a review of symptoms, it was concluded that his presentation was most consistent with obsessive compulsive disorder alongside depressive symptoms in the context of an adjustment disorder, the prior history of drug-induced psychosis, and possible personality traits. A chronic psychotic illness, (schizophrenia), was ruled out.
[13]
Paragraph 4.3 on p6: 'He reported, he had continued to use drugs while in prison'. The psychiatrist was of the opinion, at paragraph 8.7, first, that there was no evidence of formal thought disorder, and nor did the psychiatrist find any evidence of delusions. In the opinion of the psychiatrist, at paragraph 9.1, she said:
[14]
There is some uncertainty in this case, exacerbated by the absence of independent collateral information and some inconsistencies in Mr Singh's account over time.
[15]
He appeared to have a somewhat unremarkable upbringing in India." And at 9.4 "He reported using drugs heavily, around 2016, and his life since that time revolved around that lifestyle."
[16]
Her opinion was that there are multiple conditions at play:
[17]
He has severe polysubstance use, with evidence of physical and psychological dependence, severe withdrawal symptoms when drugs are unavailable, and continuing drug use despite multiple negative medical, psychiatric, legal and social outcomes. This has been present since at least 2016. He also appears to have longstanding issues with poor emotional regulation and distress tolerance.
[18]
I accept the view of the treating psychiatric team in prison that his anxious ruminations and compulsive utterances are best understood by the diagnosis of obsessive compulsive disorder.
[19]
Finally, the question arose whether he has developed a psychotic illness, the finding was no pre-existing diagnosis of such, and the primary issue identified at the time was drug-taking. On p12, still in paragraph 9.5, the psychiatrist said and she thought it more likely than not that he was experiencing drug-induced psychosis at the time of the alleged offending: that is, that he was experiencing delusions about being followed. She thought the most likely explanation for the long duration of these symptoms is that he was regularly using psychoactive substances during that time, and was satisfied, the symptoms that were psychotic in nature have since resolved in prison, where illicit substances are harder to access. She was equally satisfied that his presentation during her reviews was not of someone with active psychosis.
At paragraph 9.6, she noted longstanding impulsivity, intoxication leading to impaired decision-making and drug-induced psychosis.
[20]
"Moreover, he had developed some paranoid ruminations (that he perceives as voices) and has developed some tic-like behaviour, such as meowing and saying words repetitively. It is expected that he will continue to struggle to cope with imprisonment should he remain in custody, and would be likely to experience ongoing active mental issues. His risk of offending is best managed by total abstinence from illicit substances and ongoing engagement with mental health services."
[21]
Clearly, such an inconsistent history and the reports create a difficult task in sentencing. Taking such history as favourably as I can for Mr Singh, it does not, I find on the scientific evidence, lead to any basis whereby I would reduce the factor of moral culpability or the need for denunciation or general deterrence.
Being as generous as I can to Mr Singh, clearly, the totality of his issues do impact on the type of sentence that I should impose, and I do take those into account in the sentence, in the manner as set out in Verdins[2007] VSCA 102, principle 4, in particular, at [32]. I also take into account that the totality of his symptomology, albeit difficult to diagnose, is such that will weigh more heavily upon him while in gaol, and may well, as is indicated by the psychiatrist, lead to some form of exacerbation, especially if he maintains drug-taking while imprisoned. The totality of those matters pursuant to Verdins I take as requiring a moderate mitigation of sentence.
In submission from Mr Nibbs, he pointed to the fact that this was the first violent offence that Mr Singh has been before the courts on, albeit that he has been associated with drugs, and albeit the symptomology that I have referred to. In submission, he accepted the evidence that I have read out that, clearly, this criminality was due to him being under the influence of drugs and being florid on that night.
As I have said, initially, Mr Nibbs sought a combined order under s44, and as I indicated to Mr Nibbs on 3 September, given the totality of the circumstances, I took the view that that was not appropriate.
Mr Nibbs submitted that a plea of guilty in this case must be seen as utilitarian, which I accept, that it must be seen as assisting the victims, who have not been called upon to come to court to give evidence, and I accept that as part of the utilitarian benefit.
Mr Nibbs also submitted, I should accept it as evidence of remorse. It is difficult, in the circumstances as described by the specialists, to necessarily accept that, given the impact of the circumstances that he refers to that I have read out which led to this criminality, according to Mr Singh. But I do accept, in the report and history given to Ms Lechner, he did express sorrow for the victims, at p4 of that report, which is Exhibit 2.
I also accept that this is the first time that Mr Singh has been in custody, and, as I say, I take into account principles 4, 5 and 6 of Verdins in this sentence.
As to such sentence, Mr Singh, as the High Court have said in DPP v Dalgliesh [217] [2017] HCA 41; 91 ALJR 1063, at [1075], [64] and [65], is entitled to individualised justice in regard to each charge and a just sentence based on the facts which make up such charge.
Mr Singh, you need not move from where you are. Just stay there. I will pronounce sentence. And I am sure, in due course, you will hear as to that sentence from Mr Nibbs.
Insofar as the first charge, of attempted carjacking, I order that Mr Singh serve a period of imprisonment of four years.
Insofar as to the second charge, of intentionally cause injury to Ms Cole, I order that a period of imprisonment be imposed of two years.
In regard to Charge 3, the theft charge, relating to the victim Ms Herbert, I impose a period of imprisonment of nine months.
Using Charge 1 as the base sentence, which is four years imprisonment, I cumulate nine months from the sentence of Charge 2 and three months from the sentence of Charge 3 with each other and Charge 1, making, therefore, a total aggregate sentence of five years.
Insofar as that sentence is concerned, I order that the Mr Singh must serve a period of three years before being eligible for parole. I declare that 512 days, which has been agreed, which Mr Singh has served on remand be deemed service of this sentence; and that a record of such declaration be placed on the records of this Court.
I am required, on the basis of the plea of guilty entered by Mr Singh, pursuant to 6AAA, to indicate to Mr Singh the benefit of your plea of guilty. Mr Singh, had you not pleaded guilty, I would not have given you a sentence of five years, with three years to serve by way of non-parole period, but I would have given you a sentence of seven years, with a non-parole period of four years and six months.
Hence, Mr Singh, the period that you must serve before being eligible for parole, as I have indicated, is three years, of which you have already served approximately one and a half years.
Clearly, Mr Singh, you are going to continue to have difficulties if you continue to consume drugs to the extent as indicated in these professional reports. No doubt, Mr Nibbs, to the extent that you can, you will emphasise that factor.
HIS HONOUR: Any issues?
MR CORDY: Just one, Your Honour, the related summary offence of proceeds.
HIS HONOUR: Sorry, I haven't done that.
MR CORDY: And I anticipated that Your Honour probably, given the sentence on the other matters and the relative lack of serious - intended to perhaps convict and discharge, but ‑ ‑ ‑
HIS HONOUR: I thought, in the circumstances, I would impose a period of two months' gaol.
MR CORDY: Absolutely concurrent, Your Honour?
HIS HONOUR: Given that he had a prior offence for it.
MR CORDY: Yes. Okay. Two months ‑ ‑ ‑
HIS HONOUR: But certainly, that will be served concurrently.
MR CORDY: Concurrent. Yes, thank you, Your Honour. That was the only matter.
HIS HONOUR: Thank you. Yes, thank you, Mr Singh. Mr Nibbs will be in touch with you. Yes, thank you.