DPP v Zozulia & Anor [2025] VCC 1622

1. Ivan Zozulia and Tyrone Scott, on separate Indictments you have each pleaded guilty to one charge of criminal damage, one charge of aggravated burglary, two charges of false imprisonment and one charge of theft.
2. The maximum penalties are as follows:

(a) Aggravated Burglary - 25 years' imprisonment;

(b) False Imprisonment - 10 years' imprisonment;

(c) Criminal Damage - 10 years' imprisonment;

(d) Theft - 10 years' imprisonment.

1. The other offenders in this matter are David Gutierrez, Mehdi Pouransari, Andreas Castellano and Tito Daka.
2. You, Mr Zozulia, owned and managed a civil construction company, Avant Utilities. The other offenders worked for you.
3. Before the offending, thefts of machinery and vehicles (mainly excavators and trailers) had occurred at various Avant sites. Because of these thefts, Apple Air Tags were attached to trailers and other machinery so that if they were stolen, they could be tracked and located.
4. In late May 2024, an unregistered dual axle trailer with an Apple Air Tag attached was stolen from a construction site. Sometime after that, a man named Norman Frost purchased the trailer from Justin Thomas who had worked for Mr Frost in the past. Frost paid $900 for the trailer and which Thomas delivered to 68 Websters Road, Clarkefield.
5. Around 14 June 2024, the location of the trailer was detected via the Air Tag and shared in the Avant WhatsApp Group.
6. The Air Tag revealed the trailer was at Websters Road, Clarkefield, where Travis McClintock lived on a 60 acre a rural property which he co-owned with his sister. Mr McClintock is a paraplegic who requires 24-hour care. His sister is married to Norman Frost, and they employ his carers through their company First Choice Care Solutions.
7. In 2024, Erin Ivancic, a nurse, and Kylie Brown, a disability support worker were employed to provide care for Mr McClintock at the Clarkefield property. Their duties included assisting Mr McClintock through a morning care routine. Nicholas Eggleston, a carpenter was building a chicken coop roof at the property at the time the offending occurred.
8. On the morning of 14 June 2024, you, Mr Zozulia, and you, Mr Scott, and the others agreed to travel to the property and retrieve the trailer. Mr Castellano purchased neck warmers to conceal your faces.
9. Mr Zozulia, you took with you a hammer and a can of OC spray, although the OC spay was not produced during the offending. Mr Scott, you armed yourself with a small blue baseball bat. Mr Gutierrez had a metal bar.
10. Your group travelled to the property in three separate vehicles. Mr Pouransari arrived shortly before 10.05 am. He observed a CCTV camera on the property and messaged the location of the CCTV camera to the WhatsApp group.
11. At approximately 11.00 am, you and the others entered the property via a back entrance rather than the main driveway. Your faces were concealed with face coverings. You, Mr Scott, you, Mr Zozulia, and Mr Gutierrez approached the house while the others entered onto the property but did not approach.

1. Inside the house, Ms Ivancic and Ms Brown had just completed Mr McClintock's daily morning care routine and had returned him to bed.
2. Mr Pouransari went to the fuse box and turned off the power to the house. About the time the power was turned off, you, Mr Scott, struck the front window of the house and an external mirror at the entrance to the house causing them both to break. (Charge 1 - Criminal Damage).
3. Ms Ivancic and Ms Brown went outside to investigate and they were confronted by you, Mr Zozulia, and Mr Gutierrez. One of the co-offenders yelled out 'Get back, get back'. Mr Ivancic said 'We can't. We have someone in the bed'. One of your group replied, 'Too bad, he has to get up'.
4. Mr Zozulia, you ushered Ms Ivancic and Ms Brown inside the house.
5. You, Mr Scott, and you, Mr Zozulia, and Mr Gutierrez then entered after Ms Ivancic and Ms Brown. All three of you were carrying weapons at the time of entry and had an intent to assault occupants that you might find inside. (Charge 2 - Aggravated Burglary).
6. You, Mr Zozulia, followed Ms Ivancic and Ms Brown into Mr McClintock's bedroom. You asked Mr McClintock, Ms Ivancic and Ms Brown to hand over their phones. Mr McClintock and Ms Ivancic did but Ms Brown had hidden her phone in the bedroom.
7. Mr Zozulia, you asked who their boss was. Ms Ivancic said it was Norman Frost. You told Ms Ivancic and Ms Brown to sit down and that the police were on the way. You then closed the door and left the bedroom.
8. Because the bedroom door was closed and there were men outside the door armed with weapons, Ms Ivancic and Ms Brown felt unable to leave the room. (Charges 3 and 4 - False Imprisonment).
9. A short time later, you, Mr Zozulia, returned to the bedroom and asked Ms Ivancic to provide Mr Frost's phone number, which she did. You then had Ms Ivancic identify Mr Frost in a photograph in the house and you took a photograph of Mr Frost with your phone. You then told Ms Ivancic to return to the bedroom and said, 'Don't worry, the cops will be here soon'.
10. You, Mr Scott, and Mr Gutierrez then left the house. Outside you, Mr Scott, approached Eggleston at the chicken coop and pressed the baseball bat against his back. You told him not to turn around and to discard his nail bag.
11. You smashed the large glass entry door of a shipping container converted into a small office space with your baseball bat. (Charge 1 - Criminal Damage).
12. One of the offender group located the stolen trailer and attached it to one of the vehicles.
13. All of you walked around the property and stole equipment and tools. One or more of you located trailers, two trailers that did not belong to you or Avant Utilities and attached them to your vehicles. (Charge 5 - Theft).
14. Before leaving, Mr Scott, you returned to the house and entered Travis McClintock's bedroom. You asked if there were any electronics in the house or the bedroom and if there were any cameras. Ms Ivancic responded that there were not. You asked her to hand over her watch, which she did.
15. Mr Scott, you asked Ms Ivancic and Ms Brown for their name and address. They told you their first name and suburb. You then left the room.
16. You, Mr Zozulia, then returned to the house and entered the bedroom. You handed back Mr McClintock and Ms Ivancic's phones. She asked for her watch back and you left the house and returned shortly afterwards with the watch and returned it. You then left the house and said, 'We will be back for Norm'.
17. The two of you and your co-offenders left the property in the vehicles you arrived in. Ms Ivancic and Ms Brown left the bedroom.
18. Soon after, two police officers, Daniel Warr and Senior Constable Steven Davies, arrived. On their way to the property, they observed your vehicles driving away with the trailers.
19. Mr Zozulia, your vehicle was intercepted by Leading Senior Constable Marshall Caldwell at approximately 11.10 am. You and Mr Pouransari were arrested and taken to the Kyneton police station.
20. You were interviewed on 14 June 2024. You made full admissions to attending the property along with the co-offenders, entering the home, carrying a hammer and a can of OC spray and stealing property. You told police you had arranged for the co-offenders to attend the property with you to retrieve your trailer. You believed there may have been dangerous criminals or 'junkies' in the house, so you brought the co-offenders with you. You were intending to get your trailer and 'do a bit of retribution' if possible and 'that is exactly what happened'. You brought the hammer to protect yourself as you believed you were entering 'a thief's property'. You said you were not intending to injure anyone but rather collect your property and 'get some kind of retribution for the wrongdoing'. You intended to catch the residents by surprise entering the property through the back way and turning off the power. You described your approach as a 'blitzkrieg'.
21. Mr Daka and Mr Castellano were interviewed on 17 June 2024.
22. You, Mr Scott, were interviewed on 19 June 2024. You gave a 'no comment' interview.
23. Mr Gutierrez was arrested on 11 July 2024.
24. Mr Pouransari was interviewed on 14 June 2024. He told police his boss, 'Ivan' had arranged for the co-offenders to reclaim the stolen trailer. He also told the police that the co-offenders, including you, Mr Scott, had run inside 'like cowboys'. He provided a statement to the police.
25. The other offenders in this matter have been granted diversions for their role in this offending and it seems to me they can count themselves pretty lucky that that was the outcome here. Mr Pouransari and Mr Daka have their matters returning on 8 December 2025 pursuant to the diversion and Mr Castellano's matter returns at Melbourne Magistrates' Court on 24 November 2025. Those offenders were not charged with aggravated burglary or false imprisonment but simply with theft of the property, so considerations of parity do not apply.
26. David Gutierrez was committed for trial after a contested committal on 1 April 2025. His case is next listed for an initial direction hearing in the County Court in the coming months.
27. Mr Zozulia, you were remanded in custody from 14 June 2024 for four days before being granted bail. You, therefore, have four days of pre-sentence detention available. Mr Scott, you were remanded on 19 June and you remained in custody for 47 days, which you have available to you.

1. Kylie Brown made a Victim Impact Statement. She says the incident has left her feeling shocked, fearful and traumatised. She suffers from anxiety, intrusive thoughts and nightmares, and flashbacks of the offending. She has tried to conceal her trauma from her daughter to protect her. It has been hard for her to keep her emotions inside. She said she was in a good place before this crime, building up her ability to work more hours and gain more clients but the stress of not working has had a mental and a financial impact on her.
2. Although Ms Ivancic and Mr McClintock did not make victim impact statements, I have no doubt this would have been a very frightening experience for both of them.
3. The impact on the victims is a significant matter which informs the need for just punishment for these offences. The trauma experienced must be recognised in deciding the appropriate sentences.

1. Mr Scott, you pleaded guilty at the third committal mention, effectively the earliest opportunity in the context of this case. You have spared the police, the court and the prosecution the use of the resources required to run a trial. Furthermore, you have spared the witnesses the experience of giving evidence and having to relive these events. I accept that your plea is indicative of remorse for the offending, and I also accept it shows a willingness to facilitate the course of justice. You must receive a significant sentencing discount in recognition of your guilty pleas in this matter.
2. Mr Zozulia, the charges against you were filed on 17 June 2024. The matter resolved prior to a listed contested committal but there were arguments about the correct charges, and no witnesses were ever cross-examined. As with Mr Scott, I take into account the utilitarian value of your plea and that it indicates a willingness to facilitate the course of justice and that your plea is indicative of remorse for the offending. You also must receive a significant sentencing discount for your guilty plea.
3. I also accept you showed remorse in the record of interview and some regret during the offending which you seem to me to have reiterated to the corrections officer who assessed you in this matter. Similarly, Mr Scott, you described this as a situation that quickly became apparent to you as very unsatisfactory as it became obvious that the people at the address were not responsible in any way. You said you realised 'it was all wrong'. Whether they were responsible for the thefts is not really the point because in this situation you did engage in vigilante conduct which I will return to.

1. The maximum penalty for aggravated burglary is 25 years' imprisonment which reflects the seriousness of the offence. In DPP v Meyers[1], the following considerations were identified by the Court of Appeal as relevant to an assessment of the gravity of an aggravated burglary offence:

(a) the offender's intent at the point of entry;

(b) the mode of entry;

(c) whether the offender was carrying a weapon;

(d) whether the offender was alone or in company;

(e) the time of day at which the burglary took place;

(f) what the offender knew or believed about who would be inside, and where the people would be;

(g) whether the offender was someone of whom the victim was particularly frightened.

1. In this case the intent at entry was to assault, an intent which it is agreed by the prosecution evaporated once you had entered. However, your conduct inside was no doubt very frightening and included relatively brief false imprisonments of Ms Ivancic and Ms Brown.
2. The offending was premeditated and planned. Once you had arrived at the property, the power was cutoff, and you wore face coverings. You brought weapons with you which were in your possession when you entered at the house. You, Mr Zozulia, had a hammer which was visible and OC spray which was not, and you, Mr Scott, had a baseball bat. You, Mr Scott, smashed a window before entry. This drew out the occupants from inside which led to you and the others gaining entry. You were told one of the occupants was in bed so you both must had an idea of his vulnerability, but you were not dissuaded from going in. The three of you entered a house with weapons when there were two women and a man in a wheelchair inside. They were all vulnerable and likely to be terrified.
3. The experience they went through at having armed men enter an isolated house where two of them were working looking after Mr McClintock who was in his home was an egregious one. People are entitled to feel safe in their places of work and their homes and this is why the sentencing purposes of denunciation and general deterrence must be given appropriate weight.
4. However, as submitted by counsel, there are other aspects of the offending which must be considered in assessing its overall seriousness. The offending occurred in the day, rather than in the night, and although you and the other offenders were initially aggressive, no assaults took place, nor were any threats made and the intent to assault did not persist once you had entered the house. Disguises were used but in an amateurish way. Mr Johnston submitted on your behalf, Mr Zozulia, that you did not wear yours for the duration of the incident. No issue was taken with that submission. Furthermore, I take into account that you, Mr Zozulia, asked Ms Brown if there was anything else she wanted and then you returned her watch at her request and apologised. Unusually, for offenders engaging in this type of offending, you displayed some humanity during the incident. The conduct inside the house was significantly less egregious than is often seen in these types of offences. In my opinion, once you realised that the three occupants of the house were not involved in the theft of the property from the business, you and the others backed off to an extent.
5. The motive for the offending was retribution for the theft of Mr Zozulia's trailer. You admitted this in your record of interview, Mr Zozulia. The offending involved you and the other co-offenders taking the law into your own hands. These were vigilante acts. You had other options. You could have told the police the location of the trailer. You could have just taken possession of the trailer and left. You did not need to go inside the house. These victims had nothing to do with the theft of your trailer. Even Mr Frost was just a purchaser and not a thief, a matter you, Mr Zozulia, acknowledged in the CCO assessment report. As is often the case when offenders commit vigilante acts, entirely innocent people are the victims.
6. Counsel for the two of you accepted that the aggravated burglary was a serious example of such an offence and that the victims were vulnerable, particularly Mr McClintock who is a paraplegic and was in a wheelchair.
7. As regards to the false imprisonment offences, in my view they do fall to the lower end of the spectrum. Here, any false imprisonment was brief and involved no overt directions to the two victims, more just the shutting of the door. It remains a serious offence but towards the lower end of the spectrum of that type of offence.
8. Mr Zozulia, I accept that over the last few years your company has been subjected to multiple thefts of machinery and damage to property. Details of those offences were provided. I also accept that these thefts have had a significant financial impact on your business. I accept that this context explains how you came to be involved in this offending and that you were understandably frustrated; but it is no excuse for you, Mr Zozulia, to take the law into your own hands and recruit your employees to assist you.
9. General deterrence is always an important sentencing principle in serious examples of aggravated burglary. Here due to the vigilante aspect of the offences, the importance of general deterrence must be further emphasised.
10. The criminal damage Charge 1 is a rolled-up charge relating to separate acts of damage to external glass. All other things being equal a rolled up charge is more serious than a single instance offence and no doubt the smashing of the glass added to the enormity of the incident for the victims.
11. Charge 5 of theft relates to multiple pieces of equipment and machinery unrelated to what was stolen and presumably important to the owners and residents of the property. I accept the prosecution's submission the motivation for the theft was also retribution.
12. You, Mr Zozulia, played the most critical role in terms of initiating this offending. You were the leader and the principal offender in my opinion. You enlisted the others, your employees, to assist you. Your moral culpability is, in my opinion, more substantial than the other offenders'.
13. However, you, Mr Scott, were directly responsible for the property damage. Your mindset during this incident is further illustrated by your conduct towards Mr Eggleston who was fixing the chicken coop. I accept the prosecution's submission that you were a key player in this offending. Your moral culpability is significant.

1. Mr Zozulia, turning to your personal circumstances. You are now 43 years old. You are single and you have no children. You live with your housemates in a rental premises at Point Cook.
2. You were born in 1982 in Vladivostok in Russia. Your father was a cargo freight ship captain and your mother a gynaecologist. They are both retired. You have one brother Boris who provided a letter of support for you and I believe attended court, has attended court to support you.
3. You had a happy childhood in Russia and completed the equivalent of Year 10. You report that you were a good student, and you studied English at school. You migrated to Australia in 1999 when you were 17 years old, to live with an older cousin while you were on a student visa. Your brother arrived two years later and your parents some six years after that.
4. You attained the equivalent of a Year 12 education once you had arrived and you then went to RMIT and completed a business information technology course.
5. You met a woman in Columbia in 2012, who you later married. You were divorced a year-and-a-half ago, but you remain on good terms, and your former partner also attended to support you at the plea hearing.
6. Your parents also live in Point Cook. Your brother is married, and he lives with his wife and two children.
7. You have a long and stable employment history. You worked initially at a software development company, but you started your own business in 2009. The company was originally called Avant Media, but you changed the name to Avant Utilities in 2019.
8. Your company provides horizonal directional drilling and hydro-excavation services. The company rents a large storage facility in Hoppers Crossing, which houses equipment including trucks, trailers, drills and excavators.
9. You would like to expand to Regional South Australia and to Western Australia. You are the sole director of the company which employs eight people full time.
10. Since the offending, you have continued to run Avant Utilities, and you have complied with strict bail conditions. Your business has been the victim of further thefts which you have reported to police.
11. It was submitted that if you are imprisoned your business will be in jeopardy and consequently the jobs of your employees. No submission was made that there are exceptional circumstances allowing me to take into account the impact on your employees, rather it was submitted, and I accept, that this is a factor which will increase the weight on you of any period of imprisonment.

1. Mr Zozulia, you have a prior conviction at the County Court on 6 February 2015 for obtaining financial advantage by deception and several drive while suspended offences. The financial advantage offence was serious and sophisticated. I have read the sentencing remarks of Judge Stuart in that case. You were placed on a Community Correction Order for a period of four years to perform 400 hours of community work. You were also convicted and fined $20,000.
2. The prior convictions record that you were dealt with on 9 June 2020 for breaching that order and although the breach was found proven, the Community Correction Order was confirmed. I was told and I accept you complied with the conditions of the order.
3. You have another prior conviction in November 2019 for refusing to undergo a breath test and other driving offences and you were also placed on a Community Correction Order with 200 hours of unpaid community work and supervision. For that offence, you had rehabilitation conditions in respect of alcohol abuse which has been a problem for you and mental health conditions.
4. Although the financial advantage offences are not the same type of offences as this offending, there is a common thread of dishonesty between that offence and the current matter, and the priors suggest a willingness to break the law. You cannot claim an unblemished record. You have previously been sentenced to two community correction orders. You were very close to being imprisoned for the financial advantage offences which is apparent from the sentencing remarks and the stringency of the conditions and the substantial fine, and yet, here you are again before this court in relation to a serious offence. Given your previous experience with the criminal justice system, it is surprising and concerning that you decided to engage in this offending
5. In the circumstances, your prior convictions have some relevance to the assessment of your moral culpability. They are also relevant to the need for specific deterrence, and they must be considered in assessing your prospects of rehabilitation. They also undercut to an extent the character material tendered.

1. Mr Zozulia, a letter of support was tendered from your brother, Boris. He speaks about your personal and professional qualities. He describes your leadership as a small business owner and that you are highly regarded by your clients as professional, respectful and reliable. He says you have always treated your employees fairly and supported their work. This last aspect is undercut to an extent by the fact that you involved your employees in this offending. Your brother described you as a dedicated family man and a much-loved uncle to his children. He says you understand the impact of your offending on the victims and that you are determined to learn from the offending and move forward. He describes you as a devoted family member and a responsible business owner and a loyal friend.
2. Another reference was provided from Meh Ling Teoh who has known you since you arrived in Australia in 1999. She describes you as generous, hardworking and optimistic. She says you have gone out of your way to help family and friends. She also says you regret any emotional distress you caused to the victims of this incident.
3. You had a large group of friends and family in court to support you.

1. In respect to your prospects of rehabilitation, notwithstanding your serious prior conviction and demonstrated willingness to break the law, you have several matters in your favour. You have stable housing and employment, support in the community, your criminal history does not indicate recidivism, you have complied with bail, and you have not offended since these matters, and you have shown a degree of insight and remorse. Your risk of reoffending as per the CCO assessment report I ordered is regarded as low. In the end, in my opinion, you have good prospects of rehabilitation.

1. Turning then to your personal circumstances, Mr Scott. They are set out in the psychiatric report which was tendered from forensic psychologist Jane Bidjossian.
2. You are an Indigenous man. You were born in Narromine. Your family lives in that area.
3. You are now 26 years old. You have two sisters aged 24 and 22.
4. Your parents separated when you were three years old. You describe your relationship with your father as 'non-existent' and say you have only met him five times.
5. You describe your mother as having been violent at times and you say she mistreated you in your younger years, you felt neglected, and she favoured your sisters and you felt overlooked.
6. You often chose not to go home and stayed with friends to avoid being around her. Your relationship has improved which you believe is because you have less contact with her. You have a strong relationship with your sisters who provide you with important support.
7. You were in a significant intimate relationship from the age of 22 which you say turned toxic.
8. You did not want to talk to the psychologist about this relationship, beyond saying it was toxic and that it contributed to some of your legal difficulties. Some of the matters dealt with in the Magistrates' Court after this offending are breach of intervention order offences, presumably arising from that relationship.
9. By way of education, you completed the equivalent of Year 10 in New South Wales, in VCAL as I understand it. Your high school experience was challenging, and you felt that the teachers were unsupportive. You experienced some bullying in Year 7 which prompted you to retaliate, and you were suspended. You were involved in several fights during high school. You ended up leaving in Year 11, attributing your declining grades and decreasing engagement with school to the deteriorating relationship with your mother.
10. You have a sporadic work history. You worked in a harvesting role at the age of 16 and worked there for several years.
11. Following that, you had a period of unemployment from the age 18 to 20. You moved to Melbourne at the age of 21 and worked in different roles supplying toilet paper to supermarkets, furniture delivery and warehousing. You then worked in concreting on both commercial and residential projects. You worked for several concreting companies before taking a year off due to your previous offending and its consequences, I am told. You are currently working as concreter for the East2West Project with hopes of one day obtaining your own truck and starting your own business.
12. You have a long history of drug abuse. You started using cannabis at the age of 13 and you experimented with MDMA from the age of 15. At the age of 16, you started using methamphetamine and within six months you were a daily user. Before you moved to Melbourne, you were using about 1 gram of methamphetamine per day.
13. After you moved to Melbourne, you stopped using and abstained for years but you relapsed six months after the separation from your partner. You stated using methamphetamine daily and you were also using GHB. You say that this offending occurred against a background of methamphetamine and GHB use.
14. You seem to have been abstinent from drugs since October 2024, and I am told you have cut ties with drug-using peers. That seems consistent with the fact that you have been able to comply with a community correction order in that time.
15. You have a criminal history. You have prior convictions for offences dealt with by the Dubbo Local Court on 5 December 2018 for offences of entering a dwelling with intent to steal and a theft; you received community work orders. Those matters are obviously relevant although some years have passed since you committed those dishonesty offences.
16. You also have subsequent convictions. On 8 August 2024, you were placed on an adjourned undertaking for 12 months with a condition to attend a doctor for depression and anxiety. That was for the offence of a persistent contravention of a Family Violence Intervention Order.
17. Then on 12 September 2024, you were placed on a 12-month Community Corrections Order with supervision, treatment and rehabilitation for drug abuse or dependency, mental health treatment as directed and other programs to reduce your offending. You have complied with that order. I am told that you have almost finished the order and that what remains is for you to complete a Men's Behaviour program.
18. You were also placed on another adjourned undertaking for an unlawful assault and that order was made on 21 February 2025. The conditions were that you were to comply with your Community Corrections Order and any intervention orders where you were the respondent.
19. Two of the offences for which you were subsequently sentenced occurred after the offending in this case. They were the contravention of intervention order offences from 7 August 2024 and an unlawful assault and assault by kicking which occurred on 16 August 2024. They were dealt with on 12 September 2024.
20. Your subsequent offending is concerning but you have not offended whilst you have been undertaking the Community Corrections Order imposed last September.

1. You were assessed by psychologist, Ms Jane Bidjossian.
2. You told her you had been diagnosed for Major Depressive Disorder following an admission to the psychiatric unit of the Werribee Hospital in 2023 after a suicide attempt and that you were placed on an Involuntary Treatment Order.
3. She described your formative years as being marked by significant adversity including emotional neglect, parental absence and instability. She described the difficulties in your relationship with your mother. She says that these adverse experiences appear to have had a lasting impact on your emotional development and interpersonal functioning.
4. Ms Bidjossian says you meet the criteria for:

(a) complex post traumatic stress disorder;

(b) persistent depressive disorder with major depressive episodes;

(c) stimulant use disorder;

(d) sedative, hypnotic or anxiolytic use disorder;

(e) cannabis use disorder.

1. She says there is a relationship between your complex post-traumatic stress disorder, your persistent depression and your substance abuse which exacerbates your emotional instability and impulsivity which increases your risk of offending. She says your conditions interact to cause emotional dysregulation and impulsivity, hypervigilance and aggression, and disassociation and impaired judgement.
2. Ms Bidjossian says that a prison sentence will weigh more heavily on you due to your significant mental health issues as described because these conditions impair your ability to manage stress and regulate your emotions and, therefore, you are likely to respond emotionally or impulsively rather than with thoughtful reasoned decision making. She also says that there is a serious risk that a prison sentence would have a significant adverse effect on your mental health. She says your ongoing struggles with emotional control and impulse regulation could worsen in a prison environment where the lack of mental health support, the isolation and the stress could impair your capacity for rehabilitation leading to a deterioration in your mental health rather than meaningful progress towards recovery.
3. She describes your current employment as a protective factor which provides stability, routine and a sense of purpose. The loss of this stability would have a destabilising effect on your mental health.
4. She makes various recommendations as to your treatment for your mental health and substance abuse and comments that you may benefit from engaging with Indigenous or culturally sensitive support services.
5. Your counsel, Mr McLaughlin, submitted that the principles enunciated in the case of Bugmy[2] are enlivened. The prosecution submitted that the evidence in respect of your background falls short of the type of deprivation which Bugmy dealt with. However, the prosecutor accepted that personal circumstances are always relevant in assessing various sentencing principles. I have decided that in your case it is appropriate to apply the Bugmy principles in this sense. Your moral culpability should be seen as lower than someone who did not endure the instability growing up that you did during your formative years.
6. As regards to the Verdins[3] principles, I am not satisfied that Ms Bidjossian has articulated a realistic connection between your mental state, and this premeditated deliberate offending or that your mental state issues justify any real moderation of general and specific deterrence. It is also impossible to disentangle your mental state issues from your drug use. I am also not satisfied that the statements of Ms Bidjossian about imprisonment and your mental health satisfy the criteria limb 5, that a sentencing disposition may weigh more heavily on the offender due to mental health issues, or limb 6, that there is a serious risk that imprisonment will have a significant adverse effect on your mental health.
7. It seems to me what Ms Bidjossian is really saying is that imprisonment will affect your rehabilitation and I certainly take that into account and the matters she has raised in her report.

1. Mr Scott, you participated in the Koori Court process. In my opinion, you participated sincerely, and you expressed remorse, and you showed insight regarding this offending. You also showed insight into your personal situation and how you might address the issues that underly your offending. Koori Court is a voluntary process which was no doubt a confronting one for you and this is a matter in mitigation that I take into account.

1. Regarding your prospects of rehabilitation Mr Scott, you still have considerable work to do to address your underlying drug issues and related psychological issues, but it seems to me you have made some substantial steps in that direction.
2. In the CCO assessment report which I ordered, your risk of reoffending is assessed as high. The prosecution submitted that although the psychological material describes you as having a 'very high' propensity for aggression, you have performed well on bail, you appear committed to rehabilitation and future stability and it was accepted you have managed to remain abstinent from substance use for around a year now.
3. In my opinion, you have started a process of rehabilitation, and I was impressed by your sincerity and insight during the sentencing conversation. There is uncertainty in assessing your prosects of rehabilitation but you are still a young man and there are reasons for optimism. In your case, I must be astute not to destroy the steps that you made in the last year.

1. The prosecution, emphasising the serious aspects of the offending, submitted a head sentence with a non‑parole period was within the range of appropriate sentences in relation to both of you. This morning, Mr Lew has clarified that the prosecution position is that only a head sentence and a non‑parole period is appropriate.
2. In relation to each of you, both counsel, for you, Mr Zozulia and you, Mr Scott, relying on the decision of the Court of Appeal in Boulton[4] in respect of the availability of a community correction order for serious offences, submitted that a community correction order without any period of immediate imprisonment was in range for this offending.

1. The principle of parity in sentencing requires that like cases should be treated alike, and different cases differently, to avoid unjustifiable disparity in sentence.
2. In this case, as I have already observed, you, Mr Zozulia, were the principal offender. The motivation for the offending was yours and you were the leader and organiser, and you recruited the others who were your employees. Mr Scott participated in Koori Court which has been held to be a basis upon which there can be some disparity.
3. On the other hand, Mr Scott, your prospects of rehabilitation are less certain than those of Mr Zozulia.
4. Taking all matters into account, I have determined that given the role played by you, Mr Zozulia, a more substantial sentence is necessary than is required for Mr Scott who was working for you at the time and who you recruited to be involved in this offending.

1. In sentencing both of you, I must give emphasis to general deterrence, that is to the need to deter others from engaging in this type of offending.
2. My sentence must reflect just punishment, particularly given the impact this offending had on the victims and in that regard, I refer to the victim impact statement of Ms Brown.
3. Furthermore, I must on behalf of the community denounce this type of offending where a group of armed men attended an isolated house and entered in circumstances where those insides were in fact entirely innocent of the suggested theft in this case.
4. However, I have found in each case that you have good prospects of rehabilitation and then in your case, Mr Scott, your prospects although uncertain are supported by a process of rehabilitation that has already commenced and the need to facilitate rehabilitation is also a significant matter.
5. In the case of Bolton, the Court of Appeal said that a sentencing judge must ask the question as to whether there are any aspects of the offence or the offender that require a period of immediate imprisonment, rather than a community correction order, having regard to the disadvantages of a period of imprisonment. In this case, given the seriousness of the offending and the aggravating features which I have tried to outline, I have formed the view that in each case there needs to be a period of imprisonment imposed which will require each of you to serve further imprisonment.
6. Mr Lew, in these circumstances there's no reason I couldn't impose an aggregate sentence is there?
7. MR LEW: Yes, Your Honour, there are some exceptions but none of the exceptions appear to apply. These are standard sentence offences, they are not being sentenced as a serious offender, and the offences were not committed whilst either offender was on parole.
8. HIS HONOUR: Yes. No, no none of the exceptions apply so I've, yes all right.
9. MR LEW: Correct, Your Honour.
10. HIS HONOUR: Mr Zozulia, in this matter I intend to impose an aggregate sentence of imprisonment. I can do that where the offences are related. They are plainly all related. There is a common motive across all the offences and even if I had not done that, I think I would have imposed concurrencies for all offences with the base sentence on the aggravated burglary, but I have decided to impose an aggregate sentence. That means it is one sentence rather than an individual sentence for each charge on the indictment.
11. The sentence I impose is as follows. You are convicted and sentenced to an aggregate period of imprisonment of 26 months. I fix a non‑parole period in this matter of 13 months. I declare four days of pre-sentence detention to be deducted from the sentence that I have imposed.
12. In your case, Mr Scott, I have decided to take a different course of action. In my opinion, you are a young man who has commenced a process of rehabilitation which I do not want to interrupt unduly, and, in my opinion, a correction order would support your rehabilitation. It has proven to be the case thus far. Furthermore, you were recruited into this by Mr Zozulia and as I have already said I intend to impose a lesser sentence on you than I did on Mr Zozulia.
13. The sentence I impose though will require you to serve a further period of immediate imprisonment. The sentence I impose is a period of nine months' imprisonment with a community correction order to follow for a period of 18 months. The conditions of that order will be 150 hours of community work, treatment for drugs as directed, drug abuse as directed, mental health as directed, programs to reduce offending and supervision, 40 hours of, devoted to programs can be deducted from the 150 hours' community work that I have imposed.
14. In your case, Mr Zozulia, but for your plea of guilty, I would have imposed a base sentence of three years and four months with a minimum parole period of 26 months. And in your case, Mr Scott, I would have imposed a sentence of 30 months with a minimum non‑parole period of 18 months. Those are the 6AAA statements in this matter.
15. Mr Scott, 47 days of presentence detention will be deducted from the sentence that I have imposed in this matter.
16. Was there a forfeiture order sought in this matter?
17. MR LEW: No forfeiture order, Your Honour.
18. HIS HONOUR: Sorry? Disposal order?
19. MR LEW: No there shouldn't be any orders, Your Honour, because the co‑accused matter hasn't been disposed of yet.
20. HIS HONOUR: I see, all right, no orders.
21. Mr Zozulia can go into custody now, I need to speak to Mr Scott about the correction order. So, Officer, if Mr Zozulia could go into custody please.
22. OFFICER: Yes, Your Honour.
23. HIS HONOUR: All right, Mr Amad, you want to be excused, you can be.
24. MR AMAD: Thank you, Your Honour.
25. HIS HONOUR: Yes. Now, Mr Scott, I place you on another community correction order. You will be released in nine months minus 47 days. Do you understand that?
26. OFFENDER SCOTT: If I - - -
27. HIS HONOUR: You'll be released.
28. OFFENDER SCOTT: Yeah.
29. HIS HONOUR: I have sentenced you to nine months minus the 47 days' pre‑sentence detention. Then you will be on a community correction order for 18 months.
30. OFFENDER SCOTT: Yeah.
31. HIS HONOUR: Now that correction order will have the core conditions, you know what they are because you have done them before. You are not able to, if you commit any offences punishable by imprisonment during the period of the correction order, you are in breach. If you change your address or your job without telling Corrections, you are in breach. You have to abide by your lawful directions of Corrections and accept visits as required as well. You also have to comply with all the specific conditions that I have just outlined. Do you understand?
32. OFFENDER SCOTT: Yes.
33. HIS HONOUR: And if you do not do any of that well you can be breached, you will be brought back before me and if that is what happened then I would have no real choice but to sentence you to a head sentence and a non‑parole period. As I have said, you need to serve some further period for this serious offending because of the matters that I have outlined and in particular the progress you made, I have tried to ensure minimal interference with your process of rehabilitation in all the circumstances and yet the structure of a sentence that adequately reflects the more punitive sentencing principles. Do you consent to a community correction order?
34. OFFENDER SCOTT: Yes.
35. HIS HONOUR: All right, can we give Mr Scott the document and get him to sign it.
36. MR McLAUGHLIN: If I might approach my client, Your Honour, to assist?
37. HIS HONOUR: Yes. Thank you, Mr McLaughlin.
38. While that is being done, Mr Scott, the other condition is that within 48 hours of your release from prison you will need to attend I think it is Werribee Corrections is it not? That is the first condition and you will need to do that.
39. All right well those are the orders I make. No other orders I need to make, Mr Lew?
40. MR LEW: No, Your Honour.
41. HIS HONOUR: All right now that is an aggregate sentence of imprisonment also for Mr Scott in these circumstances.
42. MR McLAUGHLIN: Yes, Your Honour.
43. HIS HONOUR: All right, thank you, Mr McLaughlin, thank you, Mr Lew. Mr Scott can go into custody.
44. MR McLAUGLIN: If I may quickly approach, Your Honour.
45. HIS HONOUR: Very quickly, yes. All right.

[1] DPP v Meyers [2014] VSCA 314.

[2] Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 ("Bugmy").

[3] R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269 ("Verdins").

[4] Boulton v The Queen [2014] VSCA 342; 46 VR 308 ("Boulton").