DPP v Weekley [2025] VCC 1871

1. At approximately 6:00PM on Thursday 7 November 2024, members from the Special Operations Group (SOG) attended an address at Willow Grove, Wendouree to effect an arrest on you.
2. You were conveyed to the Ballarat Police Station. When you arrived at the Police Station your left eye was photographed by custody staff due to being heavily bruised and swollen, corresponding with the assault the previous day.

1. A section 465 Evidence Warrant was then executed at your address and the following items were seized from underneath your bed:

1. Further enquiries into the firearms serial number of VB123748 reveal it to be stolen. Both items were sent for forensic analysis. The results of these tests confirmed that you were highly likely to be a contributor.
2. The Weatherby rifle was tested and was able to be discharged.
3. You were remanded on the day of your arrest and as confirmed with counsel today, you have a total of 331 days in pre-sentence detention.

1. Your offending is serious, as reflected by the maximum sentences of 10 years' imprisonment in relation to charges 1 and 2 and 15 years' imprisonment on charge 3.
2. Firearm offences are, by their nature, inherently serious. The circumstances of your offending are particularly serious given you were prohibited from possessing firearms under the Fiream Prohibition Order, served on you on 1 September 2022.
3. The purpose of the scheme is to promote community safety by ensuring that weapons do not fall into the wrong hands. As the higher Courts have stated, it is important that the sentences imposed for possessing firearms in breach of a Firearm Prohibition Order are set at a level which will send a strong message to others who might be tempted to disregard an order that they are subject to[2] . Contravention of such an order is clearly a serious offence.
4. Charge 1 encompasses possession of the scoped rifle and the ammunition, being seven .243 calibre rounds. The prosecution clarified in its submission, that the prohibited person possession charge is from the day of the warrant and search, rather than for the shooting on the day prior. To avoid the 'spectre of impermissible double punishment' they encouraged the Court to effectively put aside the use of the weapon, as relevant to charge 2, and instead focus on the features of the possession itself that are relevant and aggravating.
5. In respect of the rifle and ammunition, both were found under your bed when police executed their search warrant. I take into account, as raised by the prosecution, that they were not secured and were readily accessible and capable of being retrieved and discharged. While you are not to be punished again for your prior criminal history, I also take into account that you have a relevant history for possessing firearms, in particular in 2021 and 2023.
6. On charge 2, which is also a rolled-up charge as there are two victims, in a residential area, with houses all around, you aimed at the victim's home and discharged multiple shots from where you were seated in your vehicle. You then walked up the driveway and discharged a final shot into the front of the house. Your offending was plainly dangerous and serious involving as it did you discharging, multiple times, a firearm in the circumstances already outlined. The prosecution also highlight that your victims were asleep and woke up to the bangs and that your offending was 'interruptive to the quiet enjoyment of a neighbourhood street' and 'witnessed by several people going about normal suburban life activities.'
7. In the lead up to your offending, it appears to be agreed that you were assaulted by Mr Langan. You left the scene and instead of making a complaint through lawful avenues you armed yourself with a weapon and returned to the house. The higher Courts have repeatedly emphasised that members of the community must resolve any grievances they have by lawful means rather than taking the law into their own hands and that such circumstances heighten the importance of general deterrence and denunciation. Your Counsel submits that your act in returning to the house was plainly misguided. Further, while there was approximately one hour for you to reflect after being assaulted, this needs to be considered against, or tempered by, your intellectual disability and complex mental health issues.
8. I accept your Counsels submission that your offending was not particularly sophisticated, nor did you seek to conceal your identity. Also, as she submits, while your offending plainly exposed the house occupants to risk, the incident did not eventuate in any injury.
9. You recently told Community Corrections that you and Mr Langan had been friends and that you did not know why he reacted the way he did initially. You decided to go back to the address with a firearm after speaking to an associate, who encouraged you to do so. You also stated that you were drug affected at the time of the offending. During your recent assessment with Disability Services, you also disclosed often finding yourself, in the lead up to your offending, in situations where you made decisions based on your emotions, mostly anger. You advised that you had poor decision-making abilities, which is exaggerated when you are in a social setting or around anti-social peers.
10. As I've already stated, your offending is serious. In my assessment of your moral culpability I take into account the complex issues you present with. Clinical Neuropsychologist Dr Mathew Staios summaries as follows:

"Mr Weekley's neuropsychological and psychological profiles demonstrate a highly specific, clinically valid set of impairments that collectively contribute to his criminal behaviour. His actions are not best explained by antisocial intent, but by a convergence of developmental disability, complex trauma, and chronic cognitive dysfunction. The extent and nature of these impairments significantly limit his capacity to make autonomous, informed decisions and to regulate his behaviour per social and legal norms."

1. I will return to these issues shortly but I indicate here that I do accept that your moral culpability is reduced by reason of your compromised neurodevelopmental profile and longstanding, complex psychological trauma.
2. On charge 3, the prosecution accept that the charge substantially overlaps with the other charges and that, in the circumstances, concurrency is appropriate.

1. You entered an early plea of guilty which entitles you to an important sentencing discount. It was accepted between Counsel that the committal hearing achieved a forensic purpose and led to resolution of your case. Your Counsel also points to the triable issues in your case and to the potentially live issues of identification and the victim's unwillingness to participate in the process. Your plea has utilitarian value and indicates remorse and a willingness to facilitate the course of justice and accept responsibility for your offending.

1. Your personal circumstances were outlined by your Counsel and are canvassed in the earlier psychological reports of Alison Mynard (1 October 2024, 10 March 2025) and the more recent neuropsychological reports of Dr Staios (21 July 2025 and 30 July 2025).
2. In summary, you are now 21 years of age, having turned 21 in March of this year while in custody.
3. You were born in Melbourne and grew up in Ballarat. Your parents separated when you were approximately 7 years of age. Your mother re-partnered, and for a period you lived in the family home with her, her partner and your siblings. In total, you are one of eight siblings, with your younger brother being your only full biological brother. You generally get along well with your siblings and speak regularly to those who continue to live with your mother. You remain close with your mother and regularly speak to her, as confirmed in her recent letter to the Court.
4. You reported to Ms Mynard witnessing family violence perpetrated against your mother and experiencing abuse yourself as a child, as outlined in her report at paragraphs [5.3] and [5.5]. You found it distressing to speak about this. Dr Staios also makes reference to this abuse in his first report at paragraph [3.2] and describes it as having had a 'profound impact' on your emotional and cognitive development.
5. You lived with your father for a period of time in your early teens, before returning to your mother. Your mother also battled ongoing health issues which saw her in and out of hospital for heart failure. From around the age of 15 you started spending more time with your father, who was involved in the criminal justice system. You witnessed him involved in assaults and being assaulted. When you were 16 years of age your father reportedly shot a friend in the face and while you did not witness the event you did witness its aftermath. Your father was charged with attempted murder and sentenced to a substantial term of imprisonment.
6. When discussing other adverse childhood events with Ms Mynard you also disclosed that several years ago you were shot in the arm when you were 16. With reference to this incident, Dr Staios notes that you now suffer from nerve damage in the affected arm, you required a skin graft as part of your treatment and the incident 'left deep psychological scars' and you experience ongoing trauma responses, including panic, flashbacks, and sensory triggers (at [3.3]).
7. Your education history was disrupted because of your family circumstances, instability, trauma and cognitive compromise. During your first year of high school you report 'multiple things happened' but didn't want to go into further detail with Ms Mynard and were unsure if DHHS were involved at around that time. Records indicate that Child Protection were involved with you from May to June 2019. You briefly attended Berry Street school in Year 9 but ended up disengaging and left and then worked 'on and off' roof tiling. Subsequent to your schooling I note that you were diagnosed with an intellectual disability.
8. In terms of substance abuse, you tried smoking cannabis from the age of 10 to 12 years old. From the age of 15 years you commenced using methamphetamine, having been introduced to it at the time by peers. Your use quickly escalated, with you estimating that you were smoking 'a few points' each day and describing how it helps you 'block everything out'. You were using up until your remand in custody. You also report using GHB from the age of 17 years up until your remand.
9. From an early age, and while disengaging from school, you began associating with older peers. You report that some would coerce or threaten you to steal cars for them. You also offended to try and obtain money for drugs. You also report being significantly substance affected at the time of your past offending.
10. You have a relevant prior criminal history, mainly in the Children's Court. Your Counsel submits that you have limited experience in the adult system and that your prior history is consistent with someone who is young, vulnerable, compromised and easily influenced by older peers.
11. At the time of your offending you were living with your mother and younger sibling in Wendouree.
12. You have been in your current relationship for several years now and your partner, although disapproving of your offending, remains supportive of you. At the time of your offending the relationship had broken down. Prior to this you had been on a deferral of sentence and complying with CISP for a short period. In the context of the relationship breakdown and your coping difficulties, you relapsed into drug use and negative peer associations, leading into the current offending.

1. Psychological and cognitive testing in 2020 indicated overall that your cognitive functioning was in the Extremely Low range, with a full-scale IQ of 64, which is below the 2nd percentile. You met the DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria for Intellectual Development Disorder (Intellectual Disability, Mild severity). You were issued a statement of intellectual disability as defined by the Disability Act 2006 on 10 September 2020. You first came to the attention of Disability Services that month when a request for Plan of Services was received from the Children's Court.
2. You were also assessed by a speech pathologist in 2020 and presented with a severe language disorder.
3. More recently, Dr Staios administered standardised tests to examine your current level of cognitive functioning. Your overall intellectual functioning, as measured by the WAIS-IV fell within he extremely low range (FSIQ = 66, 1st percentile), with verbal reasoning abilities in the borderline range and non-verbal reasoning in the extremely low to borderline range. Your attention and working memory were impaired, with performance ranging from low average to borderline, while processing speed was also within the borderline range, indicating slowed cognitive efficiency. You demonstrated poor learning efficiency and notable forgetting over time. Your executive functioning was significantly compromised. He concludes (at [7.1]):

"Overall, the cognitive profile reflects marked deficits across multiple domains, severely limiting his ability to reason, problem-solve, regulate behaviour, and function adaptively in everyday contexts, especially under stress or without external support. These impairments are consistent with his history of intellectual disability, complex trauma, and emotional dysregulation."

1. Dr Staios opines that these cognitive impairments have 'substantial implications' for your functional independence, day-to-day reasoning, and behavioural regulation. Dr Staios considers that your pattern of offending and substance use 'must be understood within the context of [your] significantly impaired cognitive, profile, marked by mild intellectual disability, and long-standing trauma-related psychological compromise.' He considers that your offending is not the result of 'calculated intent' but rather is the consequences of impaired cognitive functioning compounded by substance use and complex trauma. Your neuropsychological vulnerabilities limit your capacity to act with foresight, restraint, or autonomy, particularly in high-stress or ambiguous situations.
2. On assessment by Ms Mynard in 2024 she was satisfied that you met the criteria for complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder ('PTSD'). She also diagnosed you with Persistent Depressive Disorder and Stimulant Use Disorder (methamphetamines/GHB) currently in remission in controlled environment. She concludes that you have had a turbulent childhood and hypothesises that the previous abuse experienced has 'led to interruptions to [your] normal developmental trajectory, including learning to emotionally regulate, learn and experience safe relationships and form a positive self-concept.'
3. In her addendum report of 2025, Ms Mynard provides an opinion as to previous (unrelated) offending and the relevance of your mental health issues and intellectual disability. She opines that these factors, along with your substance affected state at the time, exacerbated your reaction and ability to exercise self-control.
4. Relying upon the tendered reports, your Counsel submits that Verdins principles apply in your case due to your various diagnoses[3]. She submits that limbs 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are enlivened such that your moral culpability is substantially reduced, it is appropriate to significantly moderate general and specific deterrence, and your conditions lead to a more onerous time in custody with a significant risk of an adverse impact on your mental health. In relation to 1, 3 and 4 she also submits that your mental and intellectual functioning reduce your moral culpability and affect just punishment and the need for denunciation, notwithstanding the complication of illicit substances. In terms of your drug use, she submits that it can be inferred from the evidence that even if you had not used substances, your reaction would have still been compromised.
5. The prosecution accept that your moral culpability should be moderated and that Verdins is applicable however they submit that all sentencing principles remain relevant. In terms of your moral culpability they make the submission that this is 'not a case of a straight causative uncomplicated relationship between mental impairment and the offending' given the contribution of substance abuse. Given your history, particularly of violence and firearm offences, the need for deterrence 'is far from eliminated or even substantially reduced' and community protection is elevated and a 'nuanced balancing/counterbalancing is necessary as result.'
6. I have taken into account all of the submissions. I accept, as already indicated, that your moral culpability is moderated by virtue of your psychological and cognitive conditions. As canvassed in the reports, your impaired judgment, mental rigidity, and difficulty shifting attention, leaves you vulnerable to impulsive behaviour, poor emotional regulation and susceptibility to peer influence. In the weighing of this factor I do consider it appropriate to take into account your admitted substance use at the time of the offending. It is difficult to disentangle this and on the evidence your drug use worked to further impair your already compromised functioning and heighten your emotional dysregulation. As for general and specific deterrence, taken into account the nature and severity of your conditions and their impact on you, I consider that they should be appropriately moderated. Also, I accept that prison is likely to weigh more heavily on you arising from a combination of your trauma, intellectual disability, language disorder, vulnerability to exploitation and poor judgment.
7. Further, I accept that Bugmy in a general sense, as submitted by your Counsel, has application in your case given your history of instability, deprivation and trauma during your formative years[4]. I have taken this into account in my assessment of your moral culpability and in the instinctive synthesis, though recognising some degree of overlap between these matters and your mental health.
8. Your increased susceptibility to engage in high risk or criminal behaviour, when coupled with substance use, along with the nature of this offending and your prior criminal history brings into sharp focus the importance of community protection in your case.
9. You were 20 years of age at the time of your offending and you are now 21. I also take into account your young age and I apply the well-established principles that relate to youthful offenders. While serious offending and your youth needs to be balanced, to an appropriate degree, with other sentencing objectives, it remains a relevant and important mitigating factor, to be considered at all stages[5].

1. I also take into account the principle of totality in your case. It is relevant as between charges, given the nature of the offending and their temporal connection, recognising however that each charge represents distinct criminality, as outlined. The sentence imposed needs to be a 'just and appropriate measure of the total criminality involved' and I consider this is to be achieved through appropriate orders for concurrency.
2. I also take into account that you have served an intervening sentence since your remand. On 31 March 2025 you were sentenced to a consolidation of matters in the Magistrates Court and sentenced to a term of 8 months imprisonment. The presentence detention (PSD) appears to be comprised of a portion of your current remand period. In the main it comes from your earlier period in custody. You were in custody from April 2024 until 14 October 2024. You were then remanded on 7 November 2024 on the current matters. Taking into account these calculations, it is agreed that you have 331 days in PSD available to you.
3. This is relevant to my consideration of your overall circumstances and a consideration of relevant principles, including parsimony. However, I take into account, as raised by the prosecution, that while some of those charges were overlapping in time with the current indictment, the most serious offences were disparate in time and nature with the current offending.

1. In his report, Dr Staios identifies as particularly concerning your apparent recidivism, with repeated offences occurring shortly after prior convictions or periods of incarceration. He opines that your criminal trajectory suggests a high level of criminogenic risk factors, including impulsivity and poor decision making. Overall, your criminal history suggest that you are a high-risk individual with complex needs. I also note that this offending appears to have occurred while you were on a deferral period. Dr Staios makes a number of recommendations in his report as to the future management and treatment you require.
2. Further, he states at [7.8] 'Mr Weekly's potential for rehabilitation is contingent not on punitive measures, but on the consistent delivery of compassionate, individualised and well-co-ordinated therapeutic support tailored to his enduring neuropsychological vulnerabilities.'
3. In her earlier report Ms Mynard also considered that with appropriate supports in place, your risk of reoffending may significantly reduce. In particular you would benefit from psychological therapy from a trauma informed perspective.
4. You have a current NDIS package and funding in place, as confirmed by the recent letter of your support coordinator, Lynne Hehir. Before going into custody, you engaged well but it was 'a bit up and down at times.' She states that you remain committed to working towards your goals on release and acknowledge that the supports assist you to remain on track.
5. In custody you have commenced work with an NDIS funded psychologist, Charlie Hinchen, with whom you have had weekly and then fortnightly sessions. Mr Hinchen provided a letter confirming that to date you have engaged in 12 face to face appointments. You have engaged honestly in each session, have been open and have repeatedly expressed a desire to change the trajectory of your life. You have also expressed a willingness to continue regular treatment both in custody and when released. This appears to be a very positive development. You believe that on release these sessions will continue and possibly move to monthly.
6. In custody you are currently on remand at Ravenhall. You are working in the bakery and have had no incidents in custody. You are using your time in custody as best you can; you have completed four modules of the ATLAS program and the ice and me program. You are also on the waitlist for Caraniche AOD programs.
7. You also continue to have contact with your family and your partner. On your release from custody you will live with your partner in Sebastopol. She rents a private property and is employed. You identify her as protective, as she has now never done drugs and is very condemning of your drug use.
8. You told corrections recently that you now realise that your 'friends' are not interested in your well being and want to start working again with guidance from your NIDS workers and CCS. I had you assessed for a CCO and you were assessed as suitable with a range of conditions, including a Justice Plan. You have no prior involvement with Community Correctional Services but you do have a history of non-compliance with Youth Orders.
9. The Justice Plan of 11 November 2025 confirms that you are willing to engage with the obligation of such a Plan. They make a range of recommendations to reduce the likelihood of reoffending including that you:

(a) Engage with a Disability Justice Coordinator from the Department for the duration of the order, participating in future planning as required.

(b) Agree and participate in any support and treatment that are identified by Disability Justice Coordination.

(c) Participate in a referral to the Forensic Disability Clinical Services team, or engage with a suitably qualified psychologist, and participate in the assessment process and any offending behaviour programs or treatment as recommended.

(d) You be referred for, and undergo an assessment with ACSO COATS and follow treatment recommendations made.

(e) You continue engaging with your psychologist for ongoing psychological support.

1. The purposes for which sentences may be imposed are just punishment, general deterrence, specific deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation and protection of the community. I have already canvassed their application in your case.
2. I take into account the sentencing guidelines referred to in s5 of the Sentencing Act 1991, where relevant. I have had regard to the general sentencing landscape for offending of this nature, though as suggested by Counsel, it is challenging to a find a case similar to yours, given the significant mitigating factors that have been raised on your behalf.
3. The prosecution submit that the most appropriate sentence is a head sentence with perhaps a 'lenient' or generous non-parole period.
4. Your Counsel accepts that 'community protection is a genuine sentencing consideration in this case.' She submits that protection of the community would be 'best served by a sentence which assists [you] to become and remain drug free and link [you] to appropriate medical and mental health services with ongoing and appropriate intervention, thus reducing [your] likelihood of relapsing and reoffending.' She submits that it is open to the Court to impose a combination sentence.
5. The sentencing task in your case is a challenging one. As already stated a number of times now, the offending is serious, you have a relevant prior criminal history and community protection is very important. However, you are youthful and you present with a complex psychological and neurocognitive profile. I accept that your offending requires the imposition of a substantial term of imprisonment and I note that you have already served a substantial period on remand. I consider that the punitive and deterrent aspects of sentencing can be achieved by way of a combination sentence (see s.44 of the Sentencing Act). Once you have completed the further custodial component of your sentence, your rehabilitative prospects will be best advanced through the imposition of a Community Corrections Order and Justice Plan. This will support you in your transition back into the community and provide the specialist structure, supervision and treatment that you require. In the long term, I also consider that this will better serve and protect the community interest.

1. Synthesising all relevant factors, you are convicted and sentenced as follows:
2. On Charge 1 and I note again Charge 1 and 2 I have taken this into account, are rolled up charges, Charge 1, you are convicted and sentenced to one year and one month's imprisonment, so 13 months. Charge 2, you are convicted and sentenced to one year and four months imprisonment. In other words, 16 months. This is also combined with both charges so far with a community corrections order of 18 months.
3. Charge 3, convicted and sentenced to 10 months imprisonment along with a community corrections order I have just referred to. Charge 2 is the base sentence. I accumulate two months on Charge 1 on the base sentence which arrives at a total effective term of imprisonment of one year and six months. in other words, 18 months' imprisonment, with a community corrections order with a number of conditions that I will go through now and a justice plan of 18 months.
4. I declare pursuant to s18 that there is 331 days of pre-sentence detention. I declare pursuant to s6AAA that but for Mr Weekley's plea of guilty I would have sentenced him to some three years and eight months imprisonment with a

non-parole period of two years and four months. 5. I am going to go through the conditions of the corrections order. Ms Anderson, I am going to do that in some detail because I will have to have Mr Weekley consent online. I am proposing to add judicial monitoring. As I calculated very roughly and it is a matter for those that will calculate this sentence, that he has approximately seven months also left on the order. Bearing that in mind, I am suggesting a judicial monitoring date of 17 August at 9.30. 6. That seems to me to allow for a transition time but it is probably the correct nominated time. Does that sound right to you? 7. MS ANDERSON: So about six weeks or so? 8. HER HONOUR: Yes, that is right. 9. Now, Mr Weekley, I am going to go through the conditions of the order that I am imposing. In total, as I have indicated, you have received 18 months imprisonment so you still have a period to serve. You have at least around seven months or so in custody. But you will be told what that date is and once you have served your time you will be released on a community corrections order. 10. Mr Weekly, as I indicated, 18 months with a corrections order. The conditions of the order are as follows, it will commence on the day of your release. After you have served your time and you are released on the order, that is when it starts. Do you understand? 11. OFFENDER: Yeah. 12. HER HONOUR: There are core conditions that apply to every corrections order. You must not commit another offence punishable by imprisonment while the order exists which is 18 months from the date of your release. You must comply with any obligations or requirements of Corrections. You must report to and receive visits from corrections. You must report to them within two clear working days of coming out of custody. 13. So you get out of custody within two days, you need to go and report to the local Corrections Office which is Ballarat. Is that right? 14. MS ANDERSON: I believe that's correct, Your Honour, I'll just double check. 15. HER HONOUR: You must let a - - - 16. MR LAIDLAW: It is Ballarat, Your Honour. 17. HER HONOUR: It is Ballarat, thank you. You must let a community corrections officer know within two clear working days of any change of address or change of job. You must not leave Victoria without first getting their permission. You must obey all lawful instructions from them. Now, do you understand those conditions? 18. OFFENDER: Yes, I do. 19. HER HONOUR: They apply to all corrections orders. In addition, Mr Weekley, I am going to impose the further conditions, that you are under the supervision of Corrections for 18 months. So that means going in for supervision appointments. You must undergo mental health assessment and treatment. You must undergo treatment for drug and alcohol, so counselling or treatment to address your drug issues and - just one moment. You must re-appear at this court for judicial monitoring. 20. What that means is some date in August. You will get this in writing so that you remember. 17 August at 9.30 you will need to come along to court. You can do it by video link. Sometimes people go into the office with their Corrections worker, so it can be a link, but you need to attend before me. I need to see you because I will be told how you are going since your release from custody and it is basically a check-in. 21. The lawyers do not come. Your Corrections officer does, you do, and I am there and I am told about how you are going. It is a check-in. Does that make sense? 22. OFFENDER: It makes sense. 23. HER HONOUR: All right. So you are required to come along to judicial monitoring and you are also required to participate in a justice plan for the period of your order, so 18 months. All right. So just to go through those conditions one last time. Treatment and rehabilitation for drug use, treatment and rehabilitation mental health, treatment and rehabilitation for any programs, supervision, judicial monitoring and justice plan. All right? 24. OFFENDER: Yeah. 25. HER HONOUR: Now, do you understand those conditions? 26. OFFENDER: I do, yes. 27. HER HONOUR: The way in which you can breach an order, Mr Weekley, is if you commit an offence punishable by imprisonment while the order exists, or if you fail to comply with it without a reasonable excuse. All right. If you breach the order then you come back to court. You can be dealt with for breaching and it is open to the court to re-sentence you. All right. So that is what could happen on a breach. Do you understand how you could breach the order? 28. OFFENDER: Yeah. Yes, I do. 29. HER HONOUR: All right. Understanding what the conditions are, understanding how you can breach it and what might happen, do you consent to this order being made? 30. OFFENDER: Yes, I do. 31. HER HONOUR: All right, thank you. Now, counsel, were there any ancillary orders, I cannot recall? 32. MR LAIDLAW: There's an order for forfeiture, Your Honour. There's a draft order that I filed. 33. HER HONOUR: All right. Is that opposed or unopposed? Have you seen it, Ms Anderson? 34. MS ANDERSON: Maybe early on, Your Honour, I'm sorry, I don't recall. 35. MR LAIDLAW: Yes. I can forward it to everyone. It's for the rifle and the ammunition, Your Honour. 36. HER HONOUR: Yes. I cannot imagine it will be an issue. 37. MS ANDERSON: I don't think there'll be any issue with that, Your Honour. 38. HER HONOUR: Yes. Perhaps you can confirm by email? 39. MS ANDERSON: Thank you, Your Honour. 40. HER HONOUR: All right. So Mr Weekley, I think I have dealt with your matter now. You can have a word. No doubt Ms Anderson will contact you. If the link remains for a couple of minutes you can have a quick word with her now, but as indicated, I have sentenced you to a combination sentence. More time to serve but then you will come out on this 18 month order and I will check in with you. 41. OFFENDER: No worries. 42. HER HONOUR: All right, thank you. Thank you, counsel. 43. MS ANDERSON: As Your Honour pleases.

[1] I note as explained by your Counsel that this surname is derived from a previous partner of your mothers and you have also been known by other names; some of which are referred to in the documents before the Court.

[2] Bruce v The Queen [2022] VSCA 100.

[3] R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102.

[4] Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37.

1 [5] Azzopardi v The Queen [2011] VSCA 372.