1. The applicant was 26 when he offended and 28 at the time of the plea. He had no prior convictions. There were allegations of further offending, however, that were still yet to be dealt with. The applicant had rather an impressive history. He was born in Western Australia into difficult circumstances. And yet - at age 15 - he took himself to Melbourne and established an impressive history of employment over an eight or nine-year period. He had obtained a forklift driver's certificate and a crane driver's certificate. For some reason the applicant then fell into the grip of drug addiction.
2. The applicant qualified, according to a clinical psychologist, for diagnoses of anxiety, depression, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, substance abuse issues and adult Attention Deficit Hyperacitvity Disorder.
3. The applicant did not offer an early plea but it was submitted by the applicant that there was an explanation for this: the Crown had alleged that he was guilty of the more serious offences of aggravated burglary and attempted aggravated burglary. These offences were no longer alleged by the Crown.
4. The applicant was remorseful for what he had done.

The sentencing judge's reasons for sentence[7]

1. After outlining the relevant offending, the judge accepted that the applicant was 'genuinely remorseful'. The judge noted that the applicant had been 'on [his] own in the world since aged around 15' and had a 'significant employment record'. The judge considered that the applicant's 'insight is a significant matter for a person of [his] age' and that the applicant's prospects of rehabilitation were 'good'.[8]
2. The judge considered that totality would 'come into play' but that denunciation and general deterrence were also important. Nevertheless, the judge indicated that in all the circumstances he would 'accord [the applicant] significant leniency'.[9]

1. As can be seen, the applicant - it seems - began offending at age 26. This offending spanned a number of days. The offending was, at least to some extent, quite out of character for the applicant and at odds with his hitherto determination to work hard, look after himself, and stay out of trouble (notwithstanding the difficulties that had attended his upbringing). It seems that drug addiction had got the better of him.
2. The applicant pleaded guilty in circumstances of genuine remorse. The plea was not early, but there was some explanation for this.
3. The sentencing judge said that he would factor into account totality and, in my respectful view, there can be no doubt that his Honour did do so. The orders for cumulation all appear quite modest. So long as the base sentence is thought to be within range, no complaint could be made about the orders for cumulation; nor in light of those orders - given the terms of section 280(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 - could the lengths of the individual terms other than the base sentence be thought to present a compelling case for the grant of leave.[10]
4. But that leaves for consideration the base sentence - a sentence of two years' imprisonment (where the applicable maximum is 10 years' imprisonment) for the commission of charge 4.
5. All things considered, it seems to me that it is at least reasonably arguable that this sentence is manifestly excessive having regard to the applicant's plea, remorse, significant work history, prospects of rehabilitation and lack of prior convictions. The applicant had - it seems - shown a degree of fortitude and industry from a young age.
6. It may be that with the benefit of full argument it will be shown that this sentence is not manifestly excessive; alternatively it may be established that even if the base sentence is manifestly excessive there should still be no reduction overall. That said, I consider that at this stage a grant of leave is warranted.

1. There will be a grant of leave to appeal against sentence.

[1] Contrary to s 74(1) of the Crimes Act 1958.

[2] Contrary to s 74(1) of the Crimes Act 1958.

[3] Contrary to s 321M and s 76 of the Crimes Act 1958.

[4] Contrary to s 76 of the Crimes Act 1958.

[5] Contrary to regulation 65(2) of the Road Safety (Vehicles) Regulations 2021.

[6] Contrary to s 5AA of the Control of Weapons Act 1990.

[7] DPP v Culibrk & Anor [2024] VCC 141 ('Reasons').

[10] In the sense that given the modest orders for cumulation, any error in the length of an individual term (other than the base sentence) would be unlikely to permit of a 'reasonable prospect that the Court of Appeal would reduce the total effective sentence'.