DPP v Whittal-Meyers [2026] VCC 373

1. The full circumstances of your offending are outlined in the prosecution opening, marked as Exhibit A. This constitutes the factual basis upon which I sentence you.
2. All of the charged offending occurred on 22 August 2024.
3. On that evening, a Mr Dober and Ms Dehoop were asleep in their Heidelberg Heights residence. CCTV showed that at 6:26am you attended at an address in Bamfield Road in a white Porshe, belonging to a Mr Gidis, with a co-offender Ms Johnston (Charge 4 - theft of motor vehicle).
4. Ms Johnston climbed through an open window to enter the address and took a number of items (Charge 1 - Aggravated Burglary), as outlined at paragraph [3] of the opening, including car keys to a Mazda and Toyota and a laptop and iPad.
5. At 6:39 am, Ms Johnston reversed the stolen Mazda out of the driveway and parked further up on the street (Charge 3 - Theft of motor vehicle). You then drove away in the Porsche (Summary charge 5 - Unlicensed driving).
6. At 6:42 am, Ms Johnston walked back towards an address on Bamfield Road and reversed the white Toyota Corolla sedan out of the driveway. She then drove off in the same direction as you had (Charge 2 - Theft of motor vehicle).
7. This incident was captured on CCTV footage obtained from a neighbouring address.
8. At 6:53 am, CCTV footage obtained from BP Heidelberg West depicts the white Toyota Corolla attending the service station. You were captured within the driver's seat of the vehicle. Ms Johnston was captured in the front passenger seat.
9. Ms Johnston exited the vehicle and was captured on CCTV footage using a bank card to process 3 transactions at the service station. Ms Johnston returned to the passenger seat of the vehicle and departed at 7:00 am. CCTV footage was obtained from the Warringal Mall depicting Ms Johnston using a bank card to process various transactions, later subsequently reported to be from Mr Dober's stolen bank card. At 7:25am, Ms Johnston is captured on CCTV footage in Heidelberg and 3 minutes later she is picked up in the stolen white Toyota Corolla.
10. At 8:38 am, Ms Johnston parked the Porsche Macan on Crissane Road in Heidelberg West and removed the registration plates using a screwdriver.
11. You arrived shortly after in the stolen Toyota Corolla, parked next to the Porsche, and placed a number of items from the Porsche into the back passenger seat of the Toyota. When Ms Johnston left, a witness called 000.
12. At approximately 9:00 am, Police attended and located the white Porsche Macan. Police conducted Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) checks on the vehicle and determined the true registration of the vehicle and that it was stolen.
13. Police subsequently located stolen number plates in the rear passenger seats of the vehicle, stolen from the CBD between 18 and 19 August 2024. Further police investigation linked both your and Ms Johnston's phones within the relevant locations at the relevant times.
14. At 9:44 am on 22 August 2024, Police observed the stolen Toyota Corolla in the car park of a Preston address. Ms Johnston was in the front passenger seat and you were in the driver's seat. It was placed under observation by unmarked police units.
15. A short time later, Ms Johnston exited and got into the driver's seat of the white Mazda.
16. Further Police members arrived at the location in an unmarked police car and DSC Yon exited the car in an attempt to use tyre deflation devices on the stolen vehicles.
17. Another member drove the police vehicle in front of the carpark exit. Ms Johnston drove the white Mazda sedan around the police car in an attempt to evade the tyre deflation device.
18. You then accelerated past DSC Yon and left the carpark in the Toyota Corolla (Charge 5 - Aggravated recklessly exposing an emergency worker to risk by driving, Summary charge 9 - Fail to stop vehicle on police direction).
19. DSGT Beames commenced pursuit of Ms Johnston along Bell Street, and shortly thereafter was struck at speed to the rear left-hand side by the vehicle that you were driving. The impact caused the police car to spin approximately 180 degrees and caused pain to DSGT Beames' back (Charge 6 - Aggravated recklessly exposing an emergency worker to risk by driving, Summary charge 10 - Fail to stop vehicle after accident).
20. Following the collision, the location of your vehicle was monitored by unmarked police vehicles and VicRoads traffic cameras. At 10:04 am, Police airwing took over aerial observation of the vehicle, which was captured travelling in excess of posted speed limits, narrowly avoiding collisions with other cars on the road and at times driving against the flow of traffic (Summary charge 6 - Drive in a manner dangerous).
21. At 10:25 am, you abandoned the Toyota Corolla in a carpark at Campbellfield Plaza. Ms Johnston arrives in the white Mazda and you entered the rear passenger seat, with co-offender Ms Sullivan sitting in the front passenger seat.
22. Police members intercepted the vehicle in a marked divisional police van, with members exiting the van and officers attempting to open the doors of the vehicle to effect an arrest. Ms Johnston reversed the car at a fast rate of speed, where DSC Julian became caught between the front passenger door and the vehicle. DSC Julian was dragged approximately 10 meters and thrown to the ground causing minor bleeding and grazing to her knee and hands. She took evasive action to avoid being struck by the car as it drove away at a fast rate of speed.
23. DSC Fitzpatrick[1] was simultaneously attempting to open the rear passenger door and also had to take evasive action while Ms Johnston was reversing the vehicle, DSC Fitzpatrick was hit on the shoulder by the car door as it reversed, causing pain.
24. Similarly, SC Singleton had attempted to open the driver's door and was also required to take evasive action.
25. The white Mazda reversed, colliding with four parked cars, causing damage to all vehicles. At the time of this collision, witness Tek[2] and her one-year-old daughter were inside one of the vehicles.
26. Members made further attempts to stop the vehicle using the unmarked police vehicle, applying positive acceleration to the right side of the white Mazda. Ms Johnston then accelerated at a fast rate of speed, nearly striking two members (including DSC Julian) in a further attempt to evade Police.
27. Ms Johnston proceeded to drive the car out of the carpark and along Sydney Road, colliding with two further vehicles on the road and causing damage to those cars, as described in the opening.
28. Ms Johnston continued driving in the opposite direction to the flow of traffic, in excess of speed limits, narrowly missing collisions with other cars.
29. Approximately 5 minutes later, Ms Johnston stopped the car, where co-accused Ms Sullivan exited from the front passenger side. Ms Sullivan was arrested at the scene by Police and conveyed to the Mill Park Police Station for interview.
30. Ms Johnston continued driving the car, eventually driving into a tree at Epping Plaza. At this time, you exited the rear passenger seat, climbing through the car to the passenger side and exiting via the door. You both abandoned the car, ran into the Epping Plaza shopping centre and were shortly after arrested, after running from police.
31. You provided an oral fluid sample, with both preliminary and secondary samples confirming the presence of methylamphetamine (Summary charge 12 - Fail oral fluid test within 3 hours of driving).
32. You were subsequently interviewed where you made admissions to driving a stolen vehicle. When questioned in relation to the collision, you stated, "I think I side-swiped the jack - I think I side-swiped the jacks as I was trying to get away from them".

1. The charge of aggravated burglary is an objectively serious one as reflected by its maximum sentence of 25 years imprisonment. I assess your offending against the relevant considerations as outlined by the higher courts, including in the case of DPP v Meyers [2014] VSCA 314; (2014) 44 VR 486. This offence represents a serious intrusion of a person's right to feel safe and secure in their own home. While there is no victim impact statement before the Court, I accept that such offending undermines a person's domestic security.
2. Turning to the facts of this offence, as accepted by the prosecution, you were not the principal offender. While you were complicit in the offending, you did not enter the home. Also, as characterised by the parties, the incident was 'non-confrontational' in nature.
3. Charges 2 and 3 represent the theft of vehicles from the home the subject of Charge 1. All of the offending stems from, and occurs on the one day, and while each charge represents distinct criminality, totality is an important factor.
4. On charges 5 and 6 there is a presumption of cumulation, though totality remains a relevant consideration to the exercise of the Court's discretion (s.16(3D) Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) ('Sentencing Act')). These charges are also inherently serious, as indicated by the maximum penalty and their classification as category 2 offences. No exception was advanced by your Counsel and on my assessment none is enlivened. These provisions seek to protect and uphold the safety of emergency workers. Emergency workers, who are entrusted to enforce the law and protect the community, should simply not be exposed to such recklessness and risks to their safety. Your conduct, while not sophisticated, was entirely unacceptable and general deterrence, denunciation and community protection are particularly important sentencing considerations. Turning to each charge, Charge 5 is constituted by you accelerating past the officer who had exited his vehicle to lay out the tyre deflation device. As indicated at the determination hearing, the matter has resolved on the basis that the officer was put at risk but there is little, if any, evidence showing the proximity of your vehicle to the officer or the speed at which you were travelling. There is no suggestion that you had directly driven at the officer but rather that you 'passed him'. While I will sentence you on the charge that you have pleaded guilty to, the limited facts available permit for only a very confined assessment. Charge 6 has a clear factual foundation and I assess this as the more serious of the two charges. It involved you striking the rear left-hand side of the motor vehicle driven by the officer, causing it to spin 180 degrees and causing the officer back pain.
5. I have considered the relevant sentencing landscape for offending of this nature and in particular have had regard to the prosecution's table of cases for aggravated burglary and the aggravated offence of recklessly exposing an emergency worker to risk by driving. These cases have offered some guidance but of course each case needs to be decided on its own facts and circumstances.
6. Your dangerous driving was constituted by driving at speed and narrowly avoiding collisions with other cars on the road. I accept the prosecution submission that your offending is serious on this charge given the risk posed to all members of the public. On this day, you should not have been driving at all, as you were unlicensed. This is the subject of a separate charge and I am mindful of the need to avoid double punishment.
7. I also take into account as an aggravating feature that you were on bail at the time of your offending.
8. Your Counsel concedes your offending was serious. The police were simply trying to effect an arrest and you exposed them and the public to danger through your driving.
9. As to your moral culpability, I have been assisted by the neuropsychological report of Dr Sami Yamin. Dr Yamin opines that while your acquired brain injury and mental health conditions do not, of themselves, explain your offending, they do to some extent mitigate your moral culpability. I accept, on this uncontested evidence, that you have a reduced capacity to fully appreciate the consequences of your actions to the same extent as your peers, and an increased likelihood of acting impulsively. When weighing these considerations, I also take into account your admitted drug use in the immediate lead up to the offending and its likely contributions to your actions.

1. You have instructed your Counsel that at the time of your offending you were in what you describe as a 'toxic' relationship with your co-accused. You had relapsed into drug use and had stopped taking your depot medication.

1. You entered a plea of guilty at an early opportunity. Your plea entitles you to an important sentencing discount. It has utilitarian value, facilitates the course of justice and indicates your willingness to accept responsibility. Also, I consider that it is indicative of some remorse on your part though this issue is, in your case, more nuanced. I take into account the letter you provided to the Court wherein you express remorse for the "pain and suffering" inflicted (Exhibit 4). You also expressed remorse to Dr Yamin for your part in the offending however he considers that your "understanding of perspective was simplistic". While your ability to express remorse was intact, your understanding is influenced by your mental health, moderately reduced intellectual function and acquired brain injury.
2. I also take into account the procedural history of your case and the delay involved in its finalisation, and the uncertainty as to outcome that accompanies this. On 23 August 2024, you were initially remanded in custody, representing your first custodial experience. On 24 September 2024 you were bailed, with conditions. On 1 October, you were again remanded in custody for lack of compliance with your bail conditions, including with Court Integrated Services. On 12 November 2025, your case was initially listed for a determination hearing. On this date, your matter was adjourned for further submissions. On 1 December 2025, your Counsel indicated that a likely referral was to be made for a residential placement at Odyssey House. Your case was again adjourned to allow for this to be explored. On 27 January 2026, the paperwork required by Odyssey had not yet been finalised and a further short adjournment was sought and granted. On 18 February 2026, the Court was told that a bed was available and your case was briefly adjourned to obtain written confirmation of this. At the next hearing on 20 February, a letter was received from Odyssey House confirming they were able to offer you an admission to the program on 26 February 2026. At this hearing, you indicated that you no longer consented to a residential placement and wished to withdraw your application for a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order. On 25 February 2026, your matter proceeded as a further plea hearing.

1. Your personal history was outlined by your Counsel and in the neuropsychological report of Dr Yamin.
2. You are currently 26 years old. You are a Wurundjeri woman from your mother's side.
3. Your parents separated when you were a child. Your father died sometime in 2015 from lung and liver cancer as a result of alcohol abuse. You were around 16 years of age at the time of his death. You describe him as your best friend. You have grieved the loss of your father, and in more recent times also the loss of a close friend and the father of your child.
4. You have an older stepbrother and stepsister. Your stepbrother has a criminal history and your stepsister is living in regional Victoria with her partner and their children.
5. You report having an extremely difficult childhood and I note you were reluctant to fully discuss the details of this with Dr Yamin. In the context of abuse as outlined in your Counsel's submissions at paragraph [43], you have been transient and out of the family home since the age of 15 years old. As a consequence, you ended up moving from house to house and started associating with, and gravitating towards, drug users.
6. You completed Year 10 and you were expelled in Year 11.
7. You went on to undertake a year of further education and completed your VCAL studies.
8. In terms of your employment history, you worked at Master and Home Improvements for over a year. You then went on to work as a nanny/personal assistant for another year. You also worked in a bookstore for another 6 months and then a Fish and Chips store in Mildura for 3 months.
9. You have a daughter who is now approximately 5 years of age. You gave birth to her at around the ages of 21 to 22 and she currently resides with your mother.
10. You have endured significant family violence in the past. You were abused at the hands of multiple partners. The Drug Court report has recorded you as both an applicant and respondent on several family violence orders.
11. You have a documented history of sustaining several injuries to the head. You have had to attend hospital to remove an abscess from your arm via surgery and you were on a lot of pain killers and other medication at the time that you entered the Hader Clinic between April and May 2025.
12. You have a lengthy history of substance abuse. You started drinking around the age of 15-16 years old.
13. You began using a variety of drugs at the age of 15 years old. You started using ice and became a daily user almost immediately and used every day except for when you were pregnant. You started using GHB 3-4 years ago and also heroin in more recent times. I note that the Drug Court clinicians found that you meet the criteria for Substance Abuse Disorder, with severe symptoms.
14. You were consuming substances prior to being remanded on 23 August 2024 and then again prior to the 1 October 2025.
15. You have a very limited prior criminal history, attracting 'without conviction' dispositions.

1. You were formally assessed by Dr Yamin over the course of 2 sessions. You stated that you had significant difficulty with concentration and difficulty in focusing. You also noted that you had deficits in memory and learning, planning and organisation and processing speed.
2. Overall, your cognitive functioning was in the very low range, full scale IQ of 72. In terms of executive functioning, you demonstrated "significant executive dysfunction both qualitatively and quantitatively". Your performance deteriorated rapidly when tasks were more complex; you had reduced problem solving, severe difficulty planning for problems, demonstrated some impulsivity and your ability to divide and switch your attention was also severely reduced.
3. Dr Yamin concludes that you have moderately reduced intellectual functioning and impaired memory but you do not meet the criteria for an intellectual disability, noting however that:

"... individuals with her level of function will have many of the same difficulties in reasoning, problem solving, planning, abstract thinking, judgment, learning from instruction and experience, and practical understanding. Furthermore, they have deficits in areas of more complex adaptive function such as self-management across life settings, including personal care, school/job responsibilities, money management, recreation, and self-management of behaviour that are experienced by those who have an intellectual disability."

1. Dr Yamin considers that your "underlying aetiology is likely to be multifactorial and secondary in part to the head injuries described but perhaps more significantly due to your ongoing drug use", particularly from such a young age, when the brain is still developing and maturing.
2. From a psychological perspective, Dr Yamin also opines that you are "experiencing significant amounts of depression and anxiety", meeting the diagnosis for a Major Depressive Disorder of moderate severity and Anxiety Disorder of moderate severity. I also note previous records (Forensicare) that refer to one previous admission in August 2023 at Orygen Youth Health Inpatient Unit, as follows - "emotional unstable person, borderline personality, mental and behavioural disturbance due to GHB, alcohol use withdrawal".
3. While Dr Yamin does not consider that your brain injury and mental health conditions account for your offending, they do impact your ability for consequential thinking and elevate your impulsivity. Also, Dr Yamin opines:

"given her acquired brain injury and significant mental health conditions, she will have difficulty in managing some of the challenges associated with imprisonment, thus there is a risk that this will have a significantly adverse impact on her mental health".

1. I accept that you have suffered past significant trauma including the assault and abuse referred to as a child and within the family home. I accept that the Bugmy principles in the general sense have application and operate in particular to moderate your moral culpability.[3] However, as raised by the prosecution, these considerations also increase the importance of community protection.
2. Relying on Dr Yamin's report, your Counsel also submits that Verdins principles 1, 3, 4 and 5 have application in your case.[4] The prosecution concede that your acquired brain injury, mental health conditions and psychopathological profile is relevant to the Court's instinctive synthesis and in the overall assessment of your moral culpability. However, given your admitted drug use in the immediate lead up to the offending, the prosecution submit that the mitigating effects of this should be moderated, and in my assessment of these matters I have taken this into account.
3. In sentencing you, I have considered all of the matters canvassed in Dr Yamin's report. I accept that your conditions moderate your moral culpability and should also moderate the weight to be given to general and specific deterrence. I also accept, on the evidence, the application of limb 5. On my assessment, not that it was advanced, I am not satisfied on the evidence that limb 6 has application.

1. I agree with the prosecution submissions that your prospects of rehabilitation are overall difficult to assess. You have special needs and according to Dr Yamin you require ongoing assistance managing your mental health and structured and consistent access to drug and alcohol counselling. This is also essential to mitigating the risk of future offending. Dr Yamin makes a number of useful recommendations at the end of his report.
2. As already canvassed, the offending is serious. In my assessment of your rehabilitative prospects, I also take into account your acceptance of responsibility and your insights. I take into account that you are still relatively young and that you have a very limited prior criminal history and that this represents your first experience in custody. As outlined by your Counsel, I note that you have had some subsequent appearances, attracting an adjourned undertaking to be of good behaviour (7 July 2025) and a fine (7 November 2025).
3. In custody in more recent times you have undertaken courses, including drug courses, and are working in horticulture. You are presently medicated with both anti-psychotic and anti-depressant medication. You also take pain medication for an injury sustained prior to your remand.
4. You are exploring and developing cultural connections, including through painting. You are keen to further reconnect with your culture which I consider will assist in enhancing your rehabilitative prospects.
5. You have some supports in the community, including that of your mother though I recognise that the relationship is a complex and fraught one. You also have the motivation of your young daughter. As you state in your letter, "I have a beautiful 5-year-old little girl and I want to be a role model for her so I will continue to work towards a better future."
6. As already canvassed, your case was initially listed in the Drug Court and you ultimately withdrew this application. The prosecution opposed the making of an Order, for several reasons. You were assessed by Drug Court clinicians as a suitable candidate, though residential rehabilitation was first recommended given the complexity of your needs. When a residential bed became available, you declined it and essentially opted out of Drug Court. In the lead up to that particular hearing, you expressed grave concerns that you may not succeed at Odyssey and that you didn't want to fail and would rather complete your sentence. To be clear, while this may have represented a lost opportunity, I don't consider that it adversely reflects on your rehabilitative prospects. You present with complex needs and your reluctance is likely to be informed by a range of issues and is not necessarily indicative of your motivation or your future prospects.

1. Your co-accused Ms Johnston was sentenced by His Honour Judge McInerney on 19 August 2025 in the Melbourne County Court. Ms Johnston received a sentence of 8 years and 3 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 and a half years.
2. The principle of parity is well-established and is based on the proposition that equal justice requires, all things being equal, like co-offenders should be treated equally, subject to the qualification that relevant differences between the culpability of the offenders, and matters personal to them, be properly accommodated in the exercise of the sentencing discretion (Postiglione v The Queen [2024] VSCA 269; Rose v The King [2024] VSCA 296).
3. While parity is a relevant consideration that I have considered, I assess that there is a clear basis for differentiation between you and your co-accused. As submitted by your Counsel, on the aggravated burglary, you were not the principal offender. While you were complicit, your role was a less active one. Also, Ms Johnston was sentenced on a greater number of charges, both arising from this particular incident and other earlier ones. Further, her endangerment charges were put on a different, and more serious, factual basis than yours, involving as they did recklessly exposing to risk officers who were on foot, with one officer getting stuck and dragged - or as the learned sentencing judge referred to it, "propelled" for a distance. As to her personal circumstances, I also take into account that she was 29 years of age and that you, while not a young offender, were 25 years of age, with, as already canvassed, low level functioning. While Ms Johnston had some matters of significance advanced on her behalf, she did not have a diagnosed mental illness or the unique complexities of your personal circumstances and factors in mitigation. Importantly, she also had a more extensive and relevant criminal history when compared to your limited one. In the past, she been sentenced to a range of dispositions including community corrections and terms of imprisonment.[5] On my assessment, these factors all combine to justify the imposition of disparate sentences.

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 the application of these principles in your case.
2. I take into account the sentencing guidelines referred to in s.5 of the Sentencing Act 1991, where relevant in your case. As indicated, I have also taken into account the general sentencing landscape for the offending, including the cases referred to by your Counsel.[6] I have also had regard to the maximum penalties that apply to each charge. I take into account the principles of parsimony, proportionality and totality, and have already referred to the legislative scheme that attaches to some of the charges. Beyond the temporal connection between the charges themselves, I must also ensure that the overall sentence impose is a just and proportionate one.
3. Against the body of very compelling material in your case remains the gravity of the offending and the continued importance of general deterrence, denunciation and community protection.
4. I consider that the only just and appropriate sentence in your case is a term of imprisonment, structured with a non-parole period. Given the complexities of your case, including your acquired brain injury and significant mental health conditions, vulnerabilities, relatively young age, very limited prior criminal history and your pertinent treatment needs, as identified by Dr Yamin, I consider that it is appropriate to set a longer than usual parole period. You require structured and targeted supports to assist with your reintegration back into the community, which will both enhance your rehabilitative prospects and better serve the community.

1. Synthesising all relevant factors, you are convicted and sentenced as follows -
   • Charge 1, aggravated burglary, you are convicted and sentenced to 2 years and 7 months' imprisonment.
   • Charge 2, theft, you are conviction and sentenced to 5 months' imprisonment.
   • Charge 3, theft, you are convicted and sentenced to 5 months' imprisonment.
   • Charge 4, theft, you are convicted and sentenced to 5 months' imprisonment.
   • Charge 5, aggravated offence of recklessly exposing an emergency worker to risk by driving, you are convicted and sentenced to 1 year and 4 months' imprisonment.
   • Charge 6, aggravated offence of recklessly exposing an emergency worker to risk by driving, you are convicted and sentenced to 1 year and 6 months' imprisonment.

1. In respect of some of these matters I have concluded that a term of imprisonment is not appropriate and have imposed fines only, taking into account the matters already canvassed and in particular your limited history and the maximum available penalties. I have substantially moderated the fines to also reflect the principle of totality and your current circumstances. I sentence as follows on the summary charges:
   • Summary Charge 5, drive unlicenced, you are convicted and sentenced to a fine of $200.
   • Summary Charge 6, drive dangerous, you are convicted and sentenced to 3 months' imprisonment.
   • Summary Charge 9, fail to stop motor vehicle on police direction, you are convicted and sentenced to a fine of $200.
   • Summary Charge 10, fail to stop motor vehicle after an accident, you are convicted and sentenced to a fine of $100.
   • Summary Charge 12, fail oral fluid test within three hours of driving, you are convicted and sentenced to a fine of $300.
2. Orders for cumulation are made as follows:
   • Charge 1 is the base sentence.
   • Charge 2, 1 month cumulation.
   • Charge 4, 1 month cumulation.
   • Charge 5, 3 months cumulation.
   • Charge 5, 5 months cumulation.
   • Summary Charge 6, 1 month cumulation.
3. This arrives at a total effective sentence of 3 years and 6 months' imprisonment and a total of $800 in fines. For the reasons I've already canvassed, I consider that justice requires you serve a minimum term of 1 year and 11 months imprisonment.
4. Pursuant to s.18 Sentencing Act, I declare that you have served 206 days pre-sentence detention.
5. Pursuant to s.6AAA Sentencing Act, but for your plea of guilty, I would have sentenced you to 5 years and 4 months with a non-parole period of 3 years and 4 months.
6. In relation to your licence, I order as follows:
   • Charges 5 and 6 are serious motor vehicle offences pursuant to s.87P Sentencing Act. On both charges, with conviction, I order that all Victorian licences and/or permits held by the offender be cancelled and that the offender be disqualified from obtaining any such licence or permit for a period of 24 months from date of sentence.
   • On each of Charge 2, 3 and 4, theft of motor vehicle, with conviction, I order that all Victorian licences and/or permits held by the offender be cancelled and that the offender be disqualified from obtaining any such licence or permit for a period of 3 months from date of sentence.
   • On Summary Charge 6, drive dangerous, with conviction, I order that all Victorian licences and/or permits held by the offender be cancelled and that the offender be disqualified from obtaining any such licence or permit for a period of 6 months from date of sentence.
   • On Summary Charge 9, fail to stop motor vehicle on police direction, with conviction, I order that all Victorian licences and/or permits held by the offender be cancelled and that the offender be disqualified from obtaining any such licence or permit for a period of 12 months from date of sentence, which is the mandatory disqualification term for a subsequent matter.
   • On Summary Charge 12, fail oral fluid test within three hours of driving, with conviction, I order that all Victorian licences and/or permits held by the offender be cancelled and that the offender be disqualified from obtaining any such licence or permit for a period of 6 months from date of sentence.
   • To be clear, all these licence disqualification terms commence today and will operate concurrently.

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

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

[5] See DPP v Johnston [2025] VCC 1261.

[6] Hutchinson v The Queen [2021] VSCA 235, Nelson v The Queen [2020] VSCA 219.