Sentence: 16 months detention in a Youth Justice Centre
[2]
Nahom Yilma, on 22 July 2025 you pleaded guilty on indictment Q11612677 to one charge each of handling stolen goods, carjacking, robbery, armed robbery, attempted robbery and obtaining property by deception. You also agreed to this Court hearing a summary related offence and pleaded guilty to a charge of possessing a controlled weapon.
[3]
The circumstances of your offending are outlined in the Summary of Prosecution Opening dated 17 July 2025. This document was tendered on your plea. What follows is a summary.
At 2:26am on 31 July 2024 you attended 7-Eleven Taylors Lakes and used a stolen ANZ debit card to purchase items valued at $54.95 and two $100 Vanilla Visa gift cards. At 4:10am you, together with your co-offenders Alex Kala, Tristan Loffel and Moo Lweh attended a BP service station in Braybrook.
At this time, you were in Mr Lweh's car, a black sedan with a grey bonnet. You used a stolen Commonwealth debit card to purchase a Sony PlayStation Gift Card valued at $50 and Winfield Original Blue cigarettes valued at $50.55. At 4:50am you drove Mr Lweh's car into a carpark at Tarneit.
At around 5 am, Elizabeth Mayo was sitting in her Nissan Pulsar, she noticed a dark coloured sedan parked nearby. As she was about to get out of her vehicle, she saw a male wearing dark clothing standing at her driver's door. She described the male to be of African descent, thin build, 175 to 180cm tall, and wearing a black hooded jacket or jumper with the hood up, black pants and black footwear. The male opened the door and said, 'get out of the car'. The victim said, 'please don't take my handbag or car. I'm a pensioner, I don't have money, I can't afford another car'. The male said, 'get out of the car, just get out of the car'. In fear the victim got out of the car.
She observed Mr Kala and Mr Loffel with Mr Lweh standing near her car. You joined your co-offenders and said 'let her go'. You then grabbed Ms Mayo by the arm and spun her around. You grabbed her handbag which contained her Samsung mobile phone, her wallet containing a NAB credit card and Cancer Council sunglasses.
Mr Kala, Mr Loffel and Mr Lweh got into Ms Mayo's vehicle while you got back into Mr Lweh's vehicle. Both vehicles left the carpark. You assisted in the commission of these offences by encouraging the others through support in numbers during the carjacking and robbery.
At approximately 6:00am Darren Bartley was walking home along the train line near Werribee. He was approached by four men including you. One of the men had a machete and said if Mr Bartley did not give them his belongings, he would be sliced with the machete. Mr Bartley handed over the backpack which contained his wallet, some tools, a black Oppo mobile phone, 4 rings, Reebok shoes and a Harley Davidson beanie. You left with the co-accused in a vehicle.
You were complicit in this offending by agreeing to commit an armed robbery with the three other co-offenders.
You spent the early morning with the co-accused. Later at around 12 noon you and your co-accused approached Mr Uko who was walking on the footpath behind the Point Cook Library. Mr Uko was wearing headphones at the time. You and your co-accused surrounded him. Mr Loffel said, 'I want your stuff'. Another of your group searched through Mr Uko's pockets, and he ran away in fear. Mr Lweh chased Mr Uko for a short distance before he dropped a long knife that he had in his pocket. He stopped and picked it up and returned to the group.
You were complicit in this offending by being party to an agreement, arrangement or understanding to commit a robbery.
The Police were able to identify Mr Lweh's vehicle and located it in a carpark in Point Cook. Shortly after 12 noon you and your co-accused returned to the car and were arrested by police. When searched you were found in possession of a rainbow flick knife, a black disposable latex glove, three stolen debit cards, six visa gift cards, Ms Mayo's bank card and an iPhone. You were later interviewed by the police, and you made a mix of admissions and denials to the offending.
[4]
The victim impact statement from Elizabeth Mayo was tendered and was also read to the court. Ms Mayo described that she no longer feels safe and is fearful when pulling into her work carpark, where the offending occurred. Ms Mayo now sits in her car with the motor running and the car in gear until a work colleague arrives. Only then can she leave her car. She described the difficulty in leaving her house alone, and she now has a family member accompany her to everyday activities such as shopping. As a result, Ms Mayo, who was previously a very independent person, feels that her independence has been taken away from her.
While no further victim impact statements were tendered, I have no doubt that the offending was a frightening experience for both Mr Bartley and Mr Uko, and I have taken into account the impact of your offending upon your victims in sentencing you.
[5]
The offences of carjacking and armed robbery when committed in company with others are inherently serious offences. Not only are these offences punishable by 15 and 25 years' imprisonment respectively, but Parliament has designated them as Category 2 offences. Section 5(2H) of the Sentencing Act1991 requires the Court to impose a custodial sentence, other than a term of imprisonment in combination with a community correction order for Category 2 offences, unless one of the exceptions set out in paragraphs (a) to (e) can be established.[1] The consequence of this categorisation reflects Parliament's very real concern to protect people from violent property offences.
The prosecutor, Mr Young submitted that whilst it may be difficult in some instances to make out who uttered particular words or who took certain actions, you are each liable for the conduct of the group. He submitted that your offending was all the more serious because you acted as part of a group of four offenders and in doing so put your victims in increased fear.
Your counsel, Ms McDonald conceded the offences to which you have pleaded guilty are inherently serious. She submitted this was so as they were committed in company and against vulnerable members of the community. However, Ms McDonald submitted your offending was unsophisticated. Neither you nor your co-accused made any attempt at disguise, there was no evidence of pre-planning, and each incident was short lived.
As to your role, Ms McDonald submitted this was very limited. You were not armed with a weapon and aside from the robbery offence involving Ms Mayo you did not play any active role. In relation to the carjacking you remained in Mr Lweh's vehicle and your presence would not have been known to Ms Mayo until the carjacking was complete. At one stage you told your co-offenders to let her go and then you grabbed her handbag. In respect of the armed robbery and attempted robbery the prosecution are unable to put your role any higher than, you were present and your presence encouraged the offending. I consider your role in the two Category 2 offences and the attempted robbery to be of a very low level.
[6]
Mr Yilma, you are 20 years old and will be turning 21 soon, in October 2025. You were 19 at the time of the offending.
You are the middle child of three, with two sisters aged 24 and 14 and your parents were born in Ethiopia and moved to Australia where you were born. They have both had full time employment for as long as you can remember. Your mother has worked in aged care for over 15 years, and your father has worked in car manufacturing and more recently as an Uber driver. Your parents are currently going through a separation that began in February this year, and they, along with your sister, your aunty and an uncle have supported you in court on your plea dates and they are here again today. No one in your family has had trouble with the law.
You attended St Peter's Primary School in Hoppers Crossing through to Grade 2 and you moved to Corpus Christi Primary School in Werribee where you attended to Grade 6. Next you attended Werribee Secondary College through to Year 9. Your family then moved to Wyndham Vale where you changed schools to attend Manor Lakes College and passed Year 12 VCE. You studied business, accounting, maths, English and a VET subject of plumbing. You found school academically challenging particularly from Year 10 onwards. You were once suspended for a reason you cannot recall.
Following your formal education, you have enjoyed employment in several roles, including roof tiling, bricklaying and in manual labour at a tyre shop. Growing up in a home where both your parents worked full-time has motivated you to do the same. Earlier this year, you began full-time employment as an air conditioning apprentice, where you worked for six months. This work was terminated because of your inconsistent attendance due to court requirements and Youth Justice supervised bail. You have recently begun work in the electrical field, a job you obtained through a friend, and currently you are in a trial period but are hopeful this job will lead to an apprenticeship.
Since the age of 16 you have intermittently smoked cigarettes, you are a social vaper and an infrequent drinker. At the age of 17 you experimented with cannabis. You have not used any of these substances in a problematic way.
You enjoy playing basketball and video games and keep a small group of close friends. Importantly you have no prior criminal history and have not offended subsequently.
[7]
In his report dated 12 September 2025, Mr Jeffrey Cummins states that your offending was reflective of your psychosocial immaturity. Mr Cummins opines that through this immaturity, your perception, judgement and reasoning was impaired at the time of your offending. You were susceptible to peer group pressure. Mr Cummins regarded this negative influence of your peers as the sole precipitating factor behind your offending and you were the youngest of your co-offenders, and according to Mr Cummins you were 'out of your depth.'
It was the opinion of Mr Cummins that you had a very unsophisticated level of insight into the concept of victim empathy. You expressed to Mr Cummins that you felt guilty and that you regret your offending. You appreciate the problems it has caused your parents. You have experienced negative, ruminative thought regarding the likely sentence and the prospect of spending time in either a Youth Justice Centre or adult prison. This has been compounded by stress and anxiety surrounding your parents' separation and the impact of this on your family. As a result you have experienced disturbed sleep and obsessive thoughts.
Using the Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20 tool, Mr Cummins assessed you as a low-moderate risk of reoffending. It was his recommendation that you participate in a Men's Behaviour Change program and he considered you required one on one mental health treatment to help you better understand you own psychological functioning.
[8]
Mr Cummins opined that your rehabilitation would be significantly challenged by further time in a Youth Justice Centre or adult prison. The conditions of either environment are likely to exacerbate your mental health symptoms to the point of a Major Depressive Disorder diagnosis. Your time in custody would be more onerous as you have already begun your path to rehabilitation. You are also concerned that your parents could physically separate during this time and you would not be free to speak to them during this significant life event. I have taken the opinions of Mr Cummins into consideration.
[9]
You have pleaded guilty to these charges at a reasonably early stage following a contested committal where just the Informant was cross-examined. No civilian witnesses were required to give evidence at committal or trial, sparing them the need to relive what would have been a traumatic experience. Additionally, you have saved the court the time and expense of a trial. In these circumstances, I accept that your pleas have considerable utilitarian value and demonstrate your desire to facilitate the course of justice. I propose to allow an appropriate discount for your plea of guilty.
Your plea of guilty is also demonstrative of remorse. Further you have conveyed your remorse to the psychologist Mr Cummins, the assessors from Youth Justice and Corrections and MHARS. I consider your remorse to be genuine.
[10]
The Court of Appeal in Azzopardi v The Queen summarised the three considerations which underlie the general primacy afforded to an offender's youth as a sentencing consideration.[2]
[11]
a) Firstly, young offenders are often more prone to impulsive and ill-considered decision making. They may lack the insight and self-control of adults and may not fully appreciate the nature, seriousness and consequences of their criminal conduct.
>
> b) Secondly, that courts recognise the potential for rehabilitation in young people because they are at an earlier stage in their mental and emotional development. They therefore may be more open to positive change than adults with entrenched anti-social behaviours. Further, the community has an interest in such rehabilitation as in the long term it is protective from the impacts of future offending.
>
> c) Thirdly, the incarceration of young offenders is more likely to hinder rather than improve their prospects of rehabilitation. Young people in custody are likely to be exposed to corrupting influences which can entrench criminal and anti-social tendencies. These effects have detrimental flow-on consequences in the community.
[12]
In situations of particularly grave offending or offender characteristics, considerations relating to youth may give way to varying degrees to considerations such as general and specific deterrence. Though your offending is serious, I do not consider yours to be such a case where I am required to significantly displace youth in favour of other factors. I consider your psychological presentation and what Mr Cummins refers to as psychosocial immaturity to be the central reason for your offending and in these circumstances I consider your youth is an important factor and should have a moderating effect on the sentence.
[13]
Two Youth Justice supervised bail reports were tendered on your plea. These reports speak positively of your engagement and progress on youth supervised bail. It is noteworthy that you completed an episode of engagement with Project Sunrise for AOD support whilst employed and working sporadically. Given your demonstrated understanding of the impact of alcohol and other drug use you were able to use these sessions to focus on coping mechanisms for stress and anxiety. The facilitator of that program stated you showed a desire to improve your life and make healthier choices. Given the sporadic nature of your work at the time you accepted a referral to reconnect in an effort to obtain more consistent work or an apprenticeship. You were successfully discharged from the Youth Supervised Bail conditions.
I consider you have demonstrated strong compliance with your bail. Your pursuit of work, your commitment to maintaining work and your engagement with services is something not often seen in your cohort and something I consider to be a significant and protective factor in your rehabilitation.
In my view, based on your solid performance on Youth Justice bail, the support you have in the community, your low-moderate risk of re-offending as assessed by Mr Cummins and your work ethic I find that you have very good prospects for rehabilitation. Further, I consider the fact that you have engaged in this way over a reasonable period of time, is something I can take into account in relation to the length and terms of the sentence I am about to impose.
[14]
In a thorough and well prepared plea, your counsel, Ms McDonald relied upon sub-s5(2H)(e) submitting there are a combination of substantial and compelling factors in your case that are exceptional and rare, the cumulative impact of which would justify departure from s5(2H).[3]
In determining whether this subsection has application, I must regard general deterrence and denunciation of your offending conduct as having greater importance than other sentencing purposes set out in s5 of the Sentencing Act.[4] I must give less weight to your personal circumstances than the nature and gravity of the offending and I must not have regard to your early guilty plea, your prospects of rehabilitation or parity with other offenders. Further, I must not have regard to your previous good character other than an absence of prior convictions, I must not have regard to your early guilty plea, your prospects of rehabilitation or parity with other sentences.
I have reflected upon several Court of Appeal cases where this test has been considered, particularly the cases of Farmer, Fariah, Lombardo and Dabaja. [5] In the cases of Farmer and Fariah the very high threshold was met. However, in the case of Dabaja it was not. The Court of Appeal did however consider that 5(2H)(c)(i) had application in that case. Each of the cases, Farmer and Fariah involved young offenders who had a particularly profound childhood difficulty that had impact into adulthood.
For Farmer, this was the condition of alopecia that resulted in him being severely bullied and socially cast away where he had fallen into an offending peer group grateful for anyone who would befriend him.[6] This significantly reduced his culpability with respect to the offending whilst also making him extremely vulnerable in custody. For Fariah, this was his exposure during childhood to the atrocities of civil war in Somalia that resulted in the loss of several family members, including his mother and father, prior to his coming to Australia at the age of 15 years,[7] along with his youth, remorse and risk of deportation.
In Dabaja the Court of Appeal agreed with findings of the sentencing judge that although the combination of factors relied upon were substantial and compelling, they were not exceptional and rare.[8] To be considered exceptional and rare would require something 'wholly outside the run of the mill factors typical of the relevant kind of offending'.[9]
In your case, Ms McDonald submitted that there were several factors that combined to satisfy the test of substantial and compelling reasons that are exceptional and rare. In summary these factors include; your youth, your lack of prior history, your limited role in the offending, your plea of guilty, your compliance with Youth Justice Supervised Bail, your employment history, your reduced risk to the community, the fact that the community protection is best served by you remaining in the community, your severe psychosocial immaturity, your remorse and relative insight, your ongoing employment, the effect of a term of imprisonment on your rehabilitation and Verdins limb 6.
Mr Young on behalf of the Prosecution referred to the case of the DPP v Kenneison and quoted the Court of Appeal:
[15]
Acknowledging both that s.5(2H)(e) establishes a very high hurdle that will not often be surmounted a requirement that is no doubt quite deliberately - almost impossible to satisfy and that such observations must not be treated as a substitute for the statutory language it is plain that the words substantial and compelling circumstances that are exceptional and rare have real work to do. The circumstances must be both sufficiently weighty and powerful to justify not imposing a custodial sentence and wholly outside the ordinary factors typical of the relevant offence.[10]
[16]
Mr Young submitted that when appropriate weight is given to relevant matters and when matters are appropriately disregarded, the high hurdle required for a finding pursuant so s. 5(2H)(e) has not been achieved in your case.
[17]
Of the factors relied upon by Ms McDonald your youth and immaturity are very important. This is particularly so given the well-established principles for dealing with youthful offenders and the findings of Mr Cummins in relation to your psychosocial immaturity. I also consider your very low-level role in the offending to be a weighty consideration. Specifically, regarding the two Category 2 offences you were merely present and your presence encouraged the offending. This in my view is significant.
The other factors relied upon combine as powerful mitigatory factors particularly your employment status, your demonstrated reform and your lack of prior history, which in turn I consider also reduce the weight to be given to specific deterrence and community protection. I consider your vulnerability in custody as an important factor.
I accept the combination of these factors relied upon by Ms McDonald are substantial and compelling. That is, I consider them to be weighty, forceful and powerful reasons that justify departure from the imposition of a custodial sentence.
However, I do not find these factors in combination are exceptional and rare. It is not uncommon in cases of this nature to see the combination of factors relied upon by your counsel. In my view, they do not rise to meet the necessary threshold which is set at a very high bar. These factors of course are relevant to the sentence I will impose. In addition, I take into account the other mitigatory factors relied upon in your case.
[18]
I consider the relevant sentencing principles that must be applied in your case are general and specific deterrence, albeit moderated to a degree because of your youth, denunciation, protection of the community and just punishment. I must also be mindful of the principles of parsimony and proportionality. I am of the view that community protection in your case can best be achieved by your rehabilitation. Mr Yilma, I can indicate, but for your age, plea of guilty, and the significant matters in mitigation, I would have imposed a period of imprisonment, involving a head sentence and non-parole period.
I have taken into account the sentencing guidelines referred to in s 5 of the
[19]
Sentencing Act where relevant to your case.[11] I have also taken into account, as far as possible, the current sentencing practices for the offences, particularly the charges of carjacking and armed robbery to which you have pleaded guilty. In fixing the sentence, I have had regard to the principle of totality and considered the entirety of the criminality involved in your offending.
3. I ordered assessments from Community Corrections and Youth Justice. You have been assessed as suitable for both a community correction order and a youth justice centre order. However, in the absence of a finding of special reason, I must impose a custodial term. I consider that you are a young offender who has reasonable prospects for rehabilitation and I also consider that you are a young offender who is particularly impressionable, immature or likely to be subjected to undesirable influences in adult prison. I therefore find you are a suitable candidate for a Youth Justice Centre Order.
4. Mr Yilma, you are convicted of each of the charges before the court, including the summary related offence of possess a weapon, and you are ordered to serve an aggregate term of 16 months in a Youth Justice Centre. In relation to s 6AAA, but for your plea of guilty, the sentence I would have imposed is a three year Youth Justice Centre order.[12] I will reckon that one day of pre-sentence detention is time already served, and it will be deducted from the period of Youth Justice. I propose to make the ancillary orders for forfeiture and disposal. Okay. Is there anything further?
5. MR YOUNG: Nothing further for the prosecution.
6. MS McDONALD: No, Your Honour. Just to note on the custody management that it's Mr Yilma's first time in custody.
7. HER HONOUR: First time in custody. Yes. Mr Yilma, I just want to talk to you for a minute and I'll also let your parents say goodbye, but you'll be taken out to probably Parkville, and you'll settle in there. It's really important. There's lots of different things that you can be doing at Youth Justice. They have got offending behaviour programs. They have got mental health programs. They have got YSAS, which is, , AOD, alcohol and drug stuff. I don't know, you have probably put that behind you. They have also got mentors and Parkville College, which is there for your education. Theywill be able to help you get into apprenticeships, and there will be lots of courses that you'll be able to do, and the focus is very much about rehabilitation and about setting you up for when you're released into the community.
8. Now, I've given you a period of 16 months, and because it's a Youth Justice centre order, I don't actually put a non-parole period on it So that's something that's determined by the Youth Parole Board So although you've got 16 months, you can expect to be released part-way through that term. And it might be that Ms McDonald and the representative from Youth Justice is here, and they'll be able to talk to you about what that looks like.
9. But I can say to you, the better you do, and the more you apply yourself to the counselling and the programs and the things that are available for you - there will also be cultural programs as well, the better you apply yourself, the more likely you are to get out. They also have things like pre-release, so there's a potential that you can get out on pre-release and be working in the community whilst you're still undergoing sentence.
10. So there's lots of different options. So even though I've said 16 months, you're not likely to do 16 months in custody; okay? There will be a time when you get released out into the community, and there'll be lots of supports and lots of help to get you work and get you on your feet so that you don't get into trouble again; okay? So although it's probably not the result you wanted, there's lots of opportunities for you. And I really impress upon you that you should take them up; okay? Because it can really help you into the future. So Ms Glennon, will you go and see Mr Yilma now, or will he see somebody when he gets out to Parkville to explain sort of how things work?
11. MS GLENNEN: We prepared him last week, Your Honour.
12. HER HONOUR: Yes. Very well.
13. MS GLENNEN: So we have talked about it, but he will get seen pretty quickly when he's entered into custody by the staff.
14. HER HONOUR: Yes. Very well. Thanks. All right.
15. MS GLENNEN: But I might just have a quick chat with him.
16. HER HONOUR: Yes. Thanks. Thanks very much to counsel for the very helpful, thorough submissions. Adjourn the court.