DPP v Taufeulungaki & Anor [2025] VCC 1943

1. In short, a little after 9 pm on 29 June 2023 you both, and at least two others, forced entry into a home in Beckett Road, Donvale, intending to steal. Andrew and Pearl Koch were both home at the time. It was their home.
2. Some of you, although it is unclear exactly which of you, were wearing balaclavas and gloves. One of your group had a knife, although the prosecution do not allege that either of you were aware of this before entering. You all confronted the residents and the knife was brandished once you were inside (charge 1, home invasion).
3. During the remainder of my sentencing remarks, I will refer to 'one of you', and by that I do not mean only one of you two, but I mean one of the offenders.
4. One of you grabbed Mr Koch, dragged him off the sofa and told him that you had his wife as well. Two of you then confronted her. As she tried to run away, one of you grabbed her from behind and put a hand over her nose and mouth, threatening to hurt her if she did not stay still. One of you went to the kitchen and took a knife and brandished it at both Mr and Ms Koch, as they were tied up (charge 2, false imprisonment).
5. One of you took Mr and Ms Koch's watches and phones (charge 3, armed robbery).
6. One of you demanded the location of a safe, but both victims told you they did not own one. One or some of you kicked and punched Mr Koch when he denied owning a safe.
7. After unsuccessfully searching for a safe, one of you held a knife to Mr Koch's throat, demanding to know where the safe was, and threatened to hurt Ms Koch. Your group ransacked the house, taking a watch collection and jewellery valued at $158,000, along with $4,000 in cash (charge 3, armed robbery).
8. This all was no quick affair. You were all in the house terrifying these victims, and only left after about an hour.
9. Mr and Ms Koch have provided victim impact statements (Exhibit A and B). Mr Koch describes suffering fear and anxiety following your offending. He suffers from nightmares and struggles to leave home at night, still afraid of being attacked in the dark. He had been collecting watches for decades and so you have taken from him something that not only has a high monetary value, but a very significant sentimental value.
10. Ms Koch describes feeling unsafe even in her home and struggling to go out after dark. She feels paranoid and hypervigilant when awake and suffers sleepless nights with frequent nightmares at night. The theft of her jewellery is also both a financial and an emotional loss. Much of the jewellery she had, had been passed down by her mother, so that she in turn could pass that down to her children. It is clearly irreplaceable.

1. Police arrested you, Mr Taufeulungaki, on 26 April 2024. You lied to police in your record of interview, saying you were not involved in these offences, that you had never been to Donvale, and claiming that forensic testing indicating your presence of your DNA was a 'set up'.
2. You were remanded into custody that day and then released on bail within a couple of days on 2 May 2024.
3. You were remanded into custody again on 1 December 2025, following your plea.
4. Police arrested you, Mr Schwalger, on 2 May 2024 in Queensland. You initially lied to police in your interview although you went on to make partial admissions, saying that you had driven Mr Taufeulungaki on the day of the offences, for a job targeting a young Asian bloke who you did not know, and you did not know what happened inside the house.
5. You said you had been paid $6,000 or $7,000 to drive the getaway car. You then made further admissions to an undercover operative in the police cells, saying that there were four offenders involved, about $160,000 worth of jewellery and watches stolen and subsequently sold for a bit over $80,000. You admitted you drove the offenders away and that you made about $30,000-$40,000 from the offending, but you had spent it all.
6. You were extradited to Victoria and then released on bail on 5 August 2024.
7. You both conducted a contested committal, limited to your knowledge of the knife used in the offending, although no witnesses were cross-examined and ultimately you both pleaded guilty after a case assessment hearing in this court on 18 June 2025.
8. Overall, I find that your pleas came at a relatively early stage, not a late stage.
9. You, Mr Schwalger, were again remanded into custody on 10 October 2025 and you have remained there since.
10. I find that your pleas, both of you, demonstrate your willingness to facilitate the course of justice and your acceptance of responsibility and those things are to your credit. You will get the benefit of avoiding the cost and inconvenience of a trial and avoiding the need for the victims to be cross-examined in court. Those things are also to your credit.
11. Your pleas, I find, are an indication of at least partial remorse from each of you.

1. Mr Taufeulungaki, you were 22 at the time of the offending and you are now 25. You have a large family of Tongan heritage. You moved with your family from New Zealand to Australia when you were young, although you are not an Australian citizen.
2. You enjoyed school but began getting into trouble in about Year 9 and you left after completing Year 11, working in concreting, soil testing, and warehousing at various stages.
3. When you were 18, you went to live with your then partner and her family. You have two children with her, but you do not see them very often.
4. When you were 20, your brother died in very tragic circumstances which understandably had a great impact on you. You began drinking heavily and using drugs, mainly cocaine and prescription medications.
5. Your relationship with your partner ended soon after that.
6. Your relationship with your parents became tense as they blamed you for what happened to your brother - because of the poor company you kept - culminating in you being kicked out of home.
7. You were couch surfing for a couple of years following this, during which time your drug use escalated and you began to associate more frequently with negative peers.
8. You then met your current partner with whom you have a child.
9. Following this offending you report having reconnected with your family, attending church with them weekly. You were working at a warehouse to provide for your partner and child. You also report that you have remained drug and alcohol free since the recent birth of your child.
10. You do not have a criminal history although you have one subsequent matter of negligently dealing with proceeds of crime, relating to driving a stolen vehicle - the one used in this offence. You were placed on a good behaviour bond without conviction for that.
11. You were assessed by psychologist Carla Lechner and in her report dated 19 September 2025 (Exhibit T1) she stated you had some symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, largely tied to the death of your brother, but your symptoms appear to have largely dissipated. She also found that you have a drug use disorder and an alcohol use disorder. In light of your reported abstinence, recent employment, and support from your partner and family she assessed your rehabilitation prospects as positive, but wholly dependent on your ability to stay away from drugs. She did not perform a formal risk assessment.
12. Concerningly, you told her that you are unlikely to engage with health professionals, including drug and alcohol treatment. She also found that you were unable to express any remorse or empathy for the victims.
13. I received character references from your partner, her brother and your sister (Exhibit T2). They all describe you as a loving and devoted father and family member, who in their view has turned his life around following the offending.
14. I note the discrepancies between the report of the psychologist and the references from your family and accept that sometimes different points of view are reflected in those documents. I rely on the report of the expert.
15. Mr Schwalger, you were 21 at the time of the offending and are now 24. You had an unstable upbringing. Your mother alone raised you since you were four and she struggled financially. You moved frequently until settling in Sunbury and you had a volatile relationship with your mother, as she frequently disciplined you. Your relationship with her remains strained although you enjoy a positive relationship with your older sister.
16. You struggled with behavioural issues during your childhood, displaying aggression, abusing drugs, running away from home and hanging out with negative peers.
17. You were bullied at school and so you would often fight back. You changed schools but ultimately left early.
18. Around that time, when a teenager, your mother also asked you to leave home. You then lived for a while with family friends, but also at times were homeless.
19. You have had two significant relationships that bore two children, although you have no contact with them now. You acknowledge that your drug use has negatively impacted both relationships. Your current partner nevertheless remains supportive of you.
20. You completed an apprenticeship in roof tiling and worked in that role for several years, although your drug use and offending got in the way of your ability to keep up work.
21. You have an extensive history of substance abuse, beginning drinking and smoking at about age 15. That escalated, and from 16 or so you began using methamphetamine, speed, MDMA and cocaine. You report using significant amounts daily during the time leading up to this offending.
22. You have participated in drug treatment through a Magistrates' Court Integrated Services Program for about eight months in 2024, which you found useful, although you continued to drink and use drugs during that time.
23. You have a relevant criminal history. In 2022 you received a term of imprisonment for various offences including assault and criminal damage. In custody this time, you have been working in horticulture and landscaping.
24. You were assessed by psychologist Dr Mathew Barth and in his report dated 19 November 2025 (Exhibit S1) he stated you likely have an antisocial personality disorder, along with an alcohol and stimulant use disorder. He also assessed you as being a high risk of violent offending, noting your history of substance abuse, your peers and your personality, and your history of violence and lack of insight into your behaviour. Without significant psychological treatment, he assessed your prospects of rehabilitation as being very guarded. I accept that.
25. Finally, he found that your insight into your substance use is at only a formative level, and that insight into your offending behaviour is limited. Nevertheless, he noted you expressed remorse for what you did.

1. The maximum penalties for Charge 1, home invasion and 3, armed robbery is 25 years' imprisonment each. For Charge 2, false imprisonment, it is 10 years.
2. Charges 1 and 3 for each of you are both category 2 offences under the Sentencing Act 1991, which means you must be imprisoned for those charges, which is not in dispute.
3. The objective gravity of your offending, I find, to be high. Home invasion and armed robbery are both inherently serious, it goes without saying. In this case, you both entered a stranger's home at night, in company, using disguises, and violently confronted two victims who were at home, where they should have been safe.
4. The victims were treated by your group with abhorrent threats and actual violence, holding them at knife point, tying them up, punching and kicking them, and with a knife being held at least to Mr Koch's throat, whilst threats were being made to harm his partner.
5. These are the things nightmares are made of. You should be ashamed.
6. After entering the house you all became aware that at least someone in your group had a weapon or weapons. They were then deployed to engage in the armed robbery and to give effect to the imprisonment that you forced the victims to undergo. That false imprisonment was protracted in a place where they should have been safe, and you remained in their home for about an hour.
7. Your offending also involved planning and premeditation. You went to the house with a particular purpose in mind. You believed or you had been told that there was a safe there containing valuables and you had a purpose of stealing that safe or from it, which means you had gathered information and prepared for what you did. That is also demonstrated in the use of gloves and balaclavas.
8. In all these circumstances, I find the moral culpability of what you did, that is your personal blameworthiness for this, to be high.
9. While it is unclear precisely what role you each played in what I have described, I accept that you were each aware of what was going on, and with that knowledge continued to offend whilst you were in the home, effectively adopting the conduct of each other.
10. Having said that, I will not sentence either of you on the basis that you personally engaged in making the threat with the knife, or any act of specific violence; rather you were present and supportive of those acts.
11. Mr Schwalger, you were on a CCO, a community correction order at the time and that elevates your moral culpability somewhat. Conversely, I accept your counsel's submission that the principles in the case of Bugmy about your upbringing and the lack of support and learning that that engaged, have general application here and so tends to reduce your moral culpability somewhat. Ultimately, however, I find that your blameworthiness remains high.
12. The sentence I impose on each of you must deter others from similar offending and must send a message that this kind of conduct will be punished harshly.
13. I also intend to impose a sentence that expresses the community's denunciation for what you did.
14. Mr Schwalger, given your criminal history, I have given weight to the need to deter you specifically from further offending.
15. For you however, Mr Taufeulungaki, I have given this consideration less weight given your lack of criminal history.
16. Clearly the community must be protected from such violent interference with their safety and your sentences aim to achieve this. I will make orders for some concurrency, given each offence occurred in the one, albeit relatively protracted, incident. Nevertheless, each offence constituted distinct criminal conduct, which will be reflected in the total.
17. I am unable to meaningfully distinguish between your roles in the offending, such that I must sentence you on the basis that you played relatively equal roles. As such, parity requires that your sentences should be similar, although a degree of distinction is required to account for your different personal circumstances and histories.
18. Mr Taufeulugaki, I find you to have a moderate prospect of rehabilitation. While you have managed to turn your life around to a degree since your offending on bail, in my view you have not properly grappled with the issues which led you to offend in the first place, namely your substance abuse.
19. Ms Lechner noted that you did not believe in mental health and you said it was unlikely you would engage in treatment for that or your substance abuse. This means your risk of future offending, in my view, is very real.
20. Mr Schwalger, I find your prospects to be guarded. You have limited insight and remorse into your offending, although you have done little to progress your rehabilitation.
21. Both of your counsel submitted that your relative youth at the time of the offending elevates the weight to be given to your rehabilitation. I accept that submission to some degree at least, but the seriousness of your offending means that deterrence, denunciation and punishment nevertheless attract significant weight.
22. I have taken your age and other personal matters into account when arriving at your non-parole periods as well as your head sentence.
23. Mr Taufeulungaki, I accept your counsel's submission that the prospect of your deportation will bear upon the impact that a term of imprisonment will have on you and will likely result in you losing your opportunity to settle in Australia.
24. The prosecutor submitted, and both of your counsel conceded, that a head sentence with a non-parole period was the only appropriate sentence.
25. The prosecutor referred me to the case of Raux & Talanoa[1], which I have had regard to, although I am not bound to decide this case in accordance with the facts of that one, and I find that this case is a more serious example of the offences in question.
26. Mr Taufeulungaki, I sentence you as follows;

On Charge 2, false imprisonment, 2 years 3 months; and

1. Nine months of the sentence on Charge 2, and 1 year 3 months of the sentence on Charge 3, are to be served cumulatively upon each other and upon the sentence on Charge 1.
2. Your total effective sentence is 7 years' imprisonment.
3. I fix a non-parole period of 4 years and 3 months.
4. I declare you have served 23 days and direct that this be reckoned as a period already served under this sentence.
5. In accordance with s6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, but for your guilty plea I would have imposed 9 years 6 months and fixed a non-parole period of 6 years 6 months.
6. Mr Schwalger, I sentence you as follows:

1. On Charge 3, armed robbery, 4 years 9 months.
2. One year of the sentence on Charge 2, and 1 year 6 months of the sentence on Charge 3 are to be served cumulatively upon each other and upon the sentence on Charge 1.
3. Your total effective sentence is 7 years 9 months.
4. I fix a non-parole period of 5 years.
5. I declare that you have served 165 days and direct this be reckoned as a period already served under this sentence.
6. In accordance with s6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, but for your guilty plea I would have imposed 10 years 6 months and fixed a non-parole period of 7 years 3 months.

[1] [2025] VSCA 258.