DPP v Wilson [2025] VCC 1246

Sentence: Total effective sentence of three years and six months

imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years. Driver

licence cancellation and disqualification for 30 months, 12 months

1. Dylan Wilson you have pleaded guilty to one charge of aggravated carjacking contrary to section 79A of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) which occurred on

15 January 2025. 2. You have also pleaded guilty to four related summary charges which also occurred on 15 January 2025: * Failing to stop a motor vehicle on police direction under s64A(1) of the

Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic) (summary Charge 4); * Dangerous driving under s64 of the Road Safety Act 1986 (summary

Charge 6); * Failing to stop a motor vehicle following an accident under s64(1)(a) of the Road Safety Act 1986 (summary Charge 9); and * Driving a motor vehicle while unlicensed under s18(1)(a) of the

Road Safety Act 1986 (summary Charge 10). 3. You have admitted your prior criminal history that spans the period from

1. In respect of your offending, the prosecution tendered a summary prosecution opening, which set out the circumstances of your offending and I sentence you on the basis of the facts as set out there.
2. The circumstances of your offending are as follows:
3. At 9.30am on 15 January 2025 Mr Simon Ghanbari called Mr Tyson James and invited him over. At 11.00am you arrived with Mr James at

Mr Ghanbari's residence. 4. Shortly after arriving you went into the underground carpark and entered

Mr Ghanbari's vehicle, a black BMW. 5. At 11.34am, while parked out the front of the apartment, with Mr Ghanbari in the driver's seat, you were sitting in the front passenger seat and Mr James was standing at the rear door on the passenger side, you turned to Mr Ghanbari and asked 'Did you rob Tyson?' and Mr Ghanbari responded 'No'. 6. Whilst Mr James searched the boot, you pulled out a knife with a black handle and repeatedly asked 'Did you rob Tyson?' and Mr Ghanbari kept responding 'No'. 7. Mr Ghanbari believed the search was for drugs and he and Mr James had a history with drugs and money. 8. You then turned to Mr Ghanbari and said, 'I'll fucking stab you' and pushed the knife in Mr Ghanbari's direction and held it about 30 cm away. 9. Mr Ghanbari was terrified and believed he was going to be stabbed or killed. 10. You then told Mr Ghanbari 'I'm taking the fucking car' before both of you got out of the vehicle. 11. At 11:37am Mr Ghanbari ran to the store carpark across the road and asked staff to call police and Mr James followed before returning to the vehicle and getting into the passenger seat. You got into the driver's seat and drove away. This constitutes Charge 1, the aggravated carjacking. 12. Police arrived about 10 minutes later and Mr Ghanbari provided tracking to his vehicle. 13. At 11.52am the police were notified the stolen vehicle was in the rear carpark of IGA, Essendon West. Police observed the car turn out of the carpark and immediately re-enter via another entrance, parking in a car space on the

right-hand side of the entrance. 14. A police car followed you and parked behind so your car was blocked in between two other cars. Two police officers got out yelling 'Get out of the car, get out of the car.' One of the police officers went towards the driver side and the other went to the passenger side. 15. You then accelerated and rammed through the gap between the two parked cars. This caused damage to both vehicles. This failure to stop on police direction constitutes summary Charge 4. 16. Afterwards, you drove along the footpath, narrowly missing the rear of another vehicle and accelerated south on Fawkner Street. A police divisional van activated lights and sirens to intercept. 17. A police pursuit momentarily commenced but police lost sight of you as you turned onto Tilba Street. 18. From around 12.28pm Police Air Wing footage captured you driving erratically at speed, swerving to overtake vehicles, at times on the wrong side of the road, and narrowly missing collisions and running red lights. 19. From around 12.58pm you entered the carpark at Epping Plaza and you were subsequently observed running across High Street into a Chemist Warehouse, where you were arrested. 20. Driving the vehicle in the manner in which you did constitutes summary

Charge 6, dangerous driving and Charge 10, unlicensed driving. 21. Police obtained a black handled knife from the rear passenger side footwell under the front seat of the car. 22. Your co-offender Mr James was charged and pleaded guilty to one count of theft of motor vehicle and possess identification information and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of four months.

1. The summary of your personal circumstances is taken from the defence submissions, a letter tendered to the court from your mother Ms Kaden and some of the tendered reports.
2. You are 28 years old.
3. Your parents had intellectual disabilities, used illicit drugs and had mental health issues. Your mother drank alcohol during pregnancy and you were born with foetal alcohol syndrome, which was diagnosed when you were an infant.
4. This is a lifelong condition associated with hyperactivity, cognitive impairment, developmental delays, memory issues, ADHD symptoms and behavioural difficulties.
5. Your first 18 months were characterised by neglect and abuse and physical attacks from one of your older brothers. You were removed from your parents' care and had 15 out of home care placements before you were 20 months old.
6. Around the age of 19 months you were fostered by Ms Nicole Kaden and

Mr Michael Wilson. 7. When you were placed with them you had a range of challenging behaviours and experienced extreme reactions to access visits with your biological family and suffered separation anxiety from Ms Kaden. 8. As a result of developmental delay and severely disordered behaviour, during early childhood you were referred to the Dandenong Challenging Behaviours Unit and diagnosed with a primary attachment disorder. Therapeutic interventions were ineffective and you were diagnosed with oppositional defiance disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and comorbid conduct disorder. 9. You struggled with school and in Grade 4, as your behaviour was untenable in the mainstream setting you went to the Frank Cheshire School. You returned to mainstream school in Grade 5 and at secondary school your behaviour was described as extremely oppositional. Ultimately you were expelled in Grade 7 and disengaged from school. 10. You started to use alcohol, cannabis and methamphetamines and Ms Kaden said your behaviour at home resulted in the need for short term foster and respite placements. 11. You underwent periods of youth detention between 2015 and 2018, and during this time you completed VCAL Year 11. 12. In 2020 you were sentenced to adult custody and in December 2022 you were placed on a County Court Drug court order to address your significant substance abuse issues. The order was cancelled in March 2023 and you completed your head sentence and other sentences, and were released on

4 April 2024. 13. Later in 2024 you were remanded for 150 days between 17 August 2024 and

13 January 2025 on charges which were later withdrawn. 14. Upon release you used methamphetamine and Xanax and within days you were arrested and remanded in custody for this offending, the subject of this sentence. 15. Whilst on remand you have been on olanzapine and opiate replacement therapy. You have daily contact with Ms Kaden and some contact with your brother Kurt and his foster mother. 16. In addition to the diagnosis of foetal alcohol syndrome you have been diagnosed with reactive attachment disorder, primary attachment disorder, oppositional defiance disorder, language disorders, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and a comorbid conduct disorder. 17. You have had episodes of suicidal ideation, and engaged in self-harming behaviour. 18. In 2006 an assessment found your cognitive functioning was in the extremely low range and a speech pathology assessment described moderate levels of language delay. In a June 2010 assessment you were diagnosed with a borderline range IQ. In 2007[sic] your attention span, working memory nonverbal reasoning memory speed of processing and executive function was assessed as consistent with borderline to low average range functioning.

1. The prosecution submitted a term of imprisonment of your head sentence and non-parole period was necessary to address sentencing purposes.
2. And the prosecution disputes the defence submission that substantial and compelling reasons that are exceptional and rare justify the making of a finding of special reasons under s10A(2)(e) of the Sentencing Act 1991.
3. The prosecution submissions included a table of relevant cases for aggravated carjacking.
4. Your counsel submitted your offending was spontaneous, noting there was no actual application of force or injury, although conceding the brandished knife and verbal threats by you would have been intimidating and frightening for the victim.
5. Following apprehension, as a forensic officer deemed you were not fit to be interviewed, substance abuse appears to have played a role in the offending.
6. Your counsel submitted a special reason exists as to why section 10AD of the Sentencing Act 1991 should not apply and that there are substantial and compelling circumstances that are exceptional and rare and that justify doing so in recognition of the significant deprivation you have endured during childhood, which has left indelible marks.[1]
7. Counsel submitted on your behalf:

'...the extreme dysfunction, neglect and violence that defined Mr Wilson's early life, and which has effectively derailed his subsequent cognitive, emotional, social and behavioural development can properly be considered a substantial and compelling circumstances which is sufficiently exceptional and rare as to restore the Court's discretion to craft the appropriate custodial term.'[2]

1. Counsel also tendered a letter from Ms Kaden dated 27 July 2025 and a number of reports.
2. In her letter Ms Kaden stated:

'The impact of substance abuse in-utero, being a child victim of domestic violence coupled with gross neglect has been a precursor to the current situation Dylan is now experiencing.'

1. Upon placement with her, she described you presented with malnutrition and your conduct included inflicting lock bites, large calluses from head banging, smearing, spitting, hitting, throwing toys aggressively, running tears without noise or facial expressions, excessive drooling when distressed, distressed and aggressive outbursts, hiding from visitors and severe separation anxiety.
2. She noted your schooling was severely disrupted. During your teenage years, your difficulties living at home led to multiple out of home placements.
3. She noted your behaviour as an adult is impulsive, thoughtless, you are difficult to reason with, you are impatient, anxious, you have low frustration levels, require constant attention, embark on risky behaviour, have a lack of persistence, and low higher order thinking skills, you struggle to focus, you live in the moment, you are in receipt of the DSP and are vulnerable.
4. Her letter was realistic and heartfelt. She was not seeking to excuse your offending but that she spoke:

'As a mum with a son who has such a high level of need for a supportive targeted treatment plan [to] intervene and divert as otherwise predictable

poor-quality life ahead. Dylan and I are both at the mercy of the court, imploring for empathy and positive change.'

1. An early childhood development report was also tendered by your Counsel, dated 29 June 2010 by Denise Molloy, a school guidance officer/ psychologist at Casey Central, prepared when you were in Year 7 at Kambrya College. She noted that foetal alcohol syndrome is not curable and the effects remain with the affected individual through life. She noted that you presented with severe behavioural difficulties ever since infancy, and presented with major behavioural difficulties at every school you attended.
2. A report by consultant paediatrician, Dr Barry Kras dated 25 June 2014 was also tendered by your Counsel.
3. A neuropsychological court report by Dr Sara Fratti, a Clinical neuro psychologist at ARBIAS dated 28 December 2017 was prepared in anticipation of an earlier court appearance was also tendered.

1. I turn to the factors I must have regard to in section 5(2) of the Sentencing Act 1991.
2. The maximum penalty of 25 years for aggravated carjacking reflects its seriousness. Section 10A sets a mandatory non-parole period of three years in the absence of special reasons also underlines the inherent seriousness of the offence.
3. The main sentencing purposes in your case are general deterrence, punishment and community protection.
4. The CCTV footage of the incident shows the three of you around the car and there being some sort of argument. Mr Ghanbari, who had been in the driver's door, quickly closes the door and leaves the scene followed by Mr James. In his absence you get into the driver's seat and Mr James returns to the scene.
5. The prosecution concedes you did not know the victim and although you attended with the co-accused with a knife which you used to menace the victim by threatening to stab him and demand his car, the act was spontaneous and there was no prior agreement with the co-accused.
6. Your offending was unplanned and I accept it developed spontaneously from your dispute with Mr Ghanbari where you brandished a knife and made verbal threats. After the carjacking and driving offences you were not fit to be interviewed as you were substance affected.
7. This is an inherently serious offence. It occurred in broad daylight and escalated within minutes whereby you threatened Mr Ghanbari with a knife. In my view it is a medium to moderate example of an aggravated carjacking.
8. The balance of the charges are the driving offences. The CCTV footage shows you driving through red lights at excessive speed, continually overtaking and dodging and weaving around other traffic. I accept the prosecution submission that your driving offences spanned approximately one hour. Your driving was erratic, at speed, on the wrong side of the road and you failed to observe traffic signals. It was submitted the risk of a collision was significant, although no one was hurt. I agree with that assessment. You failed to stop, ignored police warnings to get out of the car and escaped police.[3] You were not licenced to drive.
9. You exposed the public to danger and risk by your driving. Punishment, deterrence, both general and specific and protection of the community are relevant sentencing purposes for these offences.
10. As this is a category 1 offence, aggravated carjacking, I must impose a period of imprisonment and fix a non-parole period of less than three years unless a 'special reason' exists.
11. I may find a 'special reason' exists if 'there are substantial and compelling circumstances that are exceptional and rare and that justify doing so.'
12. In DPP v Lombardo the court identified two steps when applying this test.[4] First, the court must identify whether there are 'substantial and compelling circumstances'. In that context, 'substantial and compelling' means that the circumstances are weighty and forceful or powerful. The second critical step, if the circumstances are substantial and compelling in the sense described, asks whether they are also 'exceptional and rare'. In the court's view this was to be regarded as a composite phrase imposing a single test, rather than two discrete tests.
13. In Farmer v The Queen[5] the applicant pleaded guilty to armed robbery. He was 18 at the time of the offence and had no prior convictions. The armed robbery was committed on a petrol station with two co-offenders aged 18 and 16. The Court of Appeal held the sentencing judge was correct in concluding the young offender vulnerable in custody who suffers from anxiety but who has committed a very serious offence is not rare or unforeseen. However the court found the accumulation of detail was exceptional,

'What makes this a most unusual case in our view, is the physical disfigurement'[6] from which the applicant suffers, and the profound impact which it has had on his life. It significantly reduced his culpability with respect to the offending while also making him extremely vulnerable in custody.'[7]

'pointed irresistibly in favour of a non-custodial disposition... The considerations were, plainly, substantial and compelling. Equally plainly, the particular combination of physical and psychological conditions - and their direct connection to the offending was found to be exceptional and rare.'[8]

1. In Fariah v The Queen, noting every case will necessarily depend on its particular facts, the court found the applicant's appalling childhood experiences (he was born in Somalia during the civil war, both parents were killed, his uncle was killed when he was nine, and he lived in constant fear of his own death, violence was a pervasive aspect of his existence and robbery and theft were normalised and highly prevalent), coupled with his youth and other factors relied on were sufficient in combination to engage substantial and compelling and exceptional and rare circumstances.[9]
2. Your personal circumstances are of a most mitigating kind given your significant history of neglect and abuse as a child.
3. In submissions your counsel submitted the

'dysfunction, substance abuse, violence and neglect to which Mr Wilson was exposed in his early life - including while in utero - and the extent to which it has defined his social, emotional, cognitive and behavioural development is extraordinary.'

1. Your counsel relied on the general principles in Bugmy that your moral culpability is reduced because of your foetal alcohol syndrome, which is a lifelong condition and makes you less a candidate for general deterrence. The prosecution conceded that R v Bugmy applied, however submitted that lessening of weight given to moral culpability must yield to the sentencing purpose of community protection.
2. I note there has been no reference in the materials to your work history or relationship history. Your history illustrates the continuing reverberations of your deeply deprived childhood.
3. I take into account the extreme deprivation of your childhood as noted by

Ms Molloy's report the features of foetal alcohol syndrome do not improve or dissipate and the effects remain with the affected individual throughout life. This was a principle reason relied on by your counsel in support of there being a 'special reason', and I accept it constitutes substantial and compelling circumstances. 4. However in my view there is not the 'accumulation of detail' in your case that enables me to find the circumstances are also exceptional and rare. As has been noted by the Court of Appeal, Parliament has intended to make the test 'almost impossible to satisfy.'[10] You are 28 years old, have a significant prior criminal history, and unfortunately, with the exception of Ms Kadel and your brother Kurt, you had few community supports. When considering whether the circumstances exist under s10A(2)(e) I am required by section 10(2B) to give more weight to general deterrence and denunciation of your conduct. I am required to give less weight to your personal circumstances than to the nature and gravity of the offence, and I must not have regard to your early plea, prospects of rehabilitation and parity. Weighing these factors in the circumstance of this case I do not find a special reason is satisfied. 5. Mammoliti v The Queen_[11]_ noted the mandatory minimum non-parole period operates as a 'yardstick' as a guide post for sentencing however established that sentencing principles in accordance with the instinctive synthesis sentencing still apply. 6. I have noted the maximum penalty and the nature and gravity of the offences previously. There is no impact statement but I take into account the impact of your conduct on the victim and on other road users. 7. I take into account your childhood deprivation and note counsel's submission of general reliance on Bugmy. As indicated it reduces your moral culpability and I have moderated the weight I give to general and specific deterrence which is reflected in the sentence I impose. I also note other factors in your cognitive profile and mental health. 8. I note your counsel submitted the carjacking incident 'developed spontaneously amid a drug fuelled dispute.' It was submitted that following your release from custody on 13 January 2025 you used methamphetamine and Xanax and within days you were arrested and remanded with respect to this offending. I consider your drug use at the time has impacted your judgment, lowered your inhibitions causing you to act impulsively when the aggravated carjacking occurred. You gained possession of the car and then took the car on a long joyride and your journey was caught on footage by the police airwing. Your drug use and its connection to your offending has an impact on the extent to which I moderate sentencing purpose of deterrence. 9. You have pleaded guilty at the first committal mention which has saved significant court time and both court and public resources associated with a committal and trial. You have spared witnesses having to come to court to give evidence. 10. I accept it also demonstrates ownership of responsibility for your actions and your remorse. I give full weight to your plea of guilty. 11. In your prior history I note you have had various dispositions including Community Corrections Orders, a Youth Supervision order,

Youth Justice Centre, imprisonment and a County Court Drug Court order. You have relevant priors and a prior conviction for attempted carjacking. I note during your time on remand you have been prescribed olanzapine and opiate replacement therapy but have been unable to access your ADHD medication. 12. Your prospects for rehabilitation are guarded, but I note the continued support of your mother Ms Kadel who wrote a very detailed and loving letter in your support and attended the original hearing by video link. I note she is in contact with you daily whilst you have been in custody. 13. I have taken into account the table of comparative cases noting current sentencing practices is a consideration to which I must have regard to under section 5(2) but also noting that every case will necessarily depend on its particular facts. 14. Having regard to all the circumstances and weighing the sentencing considerations including denunciation of your conduct and protection of the community, I am of the view a sentence is required of imprisonment with a head sentence and a non-parole period. 15. With respect to presentence detention I note you have spent 224 days excluding today in custody and I add the 150 days of Renzella time as 374 days of pre-sentence detention.

3 years six months with a non-parole period of three years

12 months imprisonment, or 120 penalty units, or both

Convicted and sentenced to four months imprisonment.

2 years' imprisonment, or 240 penalty units, or both

Three years and six months, with a non-parole period of three years

Pre-sentence detention declaration pursuant to s 18(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991:

6AAA Statement: But for your plea of guilty I would have imposed a term of imprisonment of six years with a four year and six month non parole period.

Driver licence cancellation and disqualification:

Charge 1 all licences held by you are cancelled and you are disqualified from driving for 30 months.

Charge 4 all licences held by you are cancelled and you are disqualified from driving for 12 months.

Charge 6 all licences held by you are cancelled and you are disqualified from driving for 24 months.

1. Are there any further orders that I need to make?
2. MS JEONG: Just the disposal order for the kitchen knife Your Honour.
3. HER HONOUR: All right. Yes I make the order. Is it a forfeiture and disposal or?
4. MS JEONG: It's just a disposal Your Honour.
5. HER HONOUR: All right. I make a disposal order in respect of the knife that was seized by the police from the car. Is there anything further?
6. MS SHANAHAN: No.
7. HER HONOUR: All right. Thank you. We'll take a short adjournment.

[2] Defence submissions on plea, [46].

[3] Prosecution submissions on plea, [14].

[4] [2022] VSCA 204. Lombardo concerned section 5(2H)(e) of the Sentencing Act 1991 which mirrors the test in section 10A, [66]-[68].

[5] [2020] VSCA 140.

[7] [2020] VSCA 140, [56].

[8] [2020] VSCA 140, [66].

[9] Fariah v The Queen [2021] VSCA 213, [25].

[10] Buckley v The Queen [2022] VSCA 138, [44-45].

[11] [2020] VSCA 52.