Prosecution v Prosecution

1. PT,[1] you have pleaded guilty today to 1 rolled up charge of contravening your supervision order made on 2 February 2023, as reviewed on 31 March 2025. The rolled up charge concerns an offence that occurred between 18 March 2025 and 21 March 2025, and an offence that occurred between 22 March 2025 and 25 March 2025, both contrary to section 169(1) of the Serious Offenders Act 2018 (Vic) and to condition 6.6 of your supervision order; that is, by using a prohibited drug, namely methylamphetamine.
2. Given I am exercising summary jurisdiction, the maximum sentence for the rolled up charge is 2 years' imprisonment.

1. The circumstances of your offending were set out in a summary of facts which was read out in open court by the prosecutor, Ms Bristow. Mr McLennan has accepted on your behalf that that summary of facts is agreed. As there is no dispute, there is no need for me to go through the detail in relation to it. In short, you have contravened your supervision order by using methylamphetamine.

1. In 2013, you were sentenced to 10 years and 3 months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 7 years and 3 months, for the index offending in respect of which an interim supervision order and the supervision order were subsequently made. You served the entirety of that sentence without being granted parole.
2. For the purposes of sentencing today, the summary of that index offending, as set out in Justice Beale's written reasons for imposing a supervision order on you on 2 February 2023, is adopted.[2]
3. Prior to that supervision order, an interim supervision order was made on 21 October 2022 in anticipation of the conclusion of your custodial sentence in respect of the index offending.
4. Since the interim supervision order was made, you have appeared before this court on 8 occasions, as follows:

(1) On 10 February 2023, Justice Beale sentenced you to 14 days' imprisonment regarding 1 charge of contravention of the interim supervision order by using methylamphetamine.

(2) On 17 March 2023, Justice Croucher convicted and discharged you for 1 charge of contravention of a supervision order by using methylamphetamine.[3]

(3) On 14 August 2023, Justice Jane Dixon sentenced you to 13 days' imprisonment for 1 charge of contravention of a supervision order by using methylamphetamine.[4]

(4) On 6 September 2023, Justice Croucher sentenced you to 14 days' imprisonment for 1 charge of contravention of a supervision order by using methylamphetamine.[5]

(5) On 21 November 2023, Justice Champion sentenced you to 30 days' imprisonment for 1 charge of contravention of a supervision order by using methylamphetamine.[6]

(6) On 5 April 2024, Justice Tinney sentenced you to 60 days' imprisonment for 1 charge of contravention of a supervision order by using methylamphetamine.[7]

(7) On 23 July 2024, Justice Champion sentenced you to 75 days' imprisonment for 1 charge of contravention of a supervision order by using methylamphetamine.[8]

(8) On 12 February 2025, Justice Champion sentenced you to 63 days' imprisonment for 2 charges of contravention of a supervision order by using methylamphetamine and morphine.[9]

1. Today marks the 9th occasion upon which you have come before this court with respect to a breach of a supervision order. Each breach was of a similar nature, largely being occasioned by your use of methylamphetamine.
2. In relation to each of the sentences set out above, only 2 of those sentences imposed a term of imprisonment exceeding time already served in custody at the time of sentencing, being the sentences handed down on 21 November 2023[10] and 5 April 2024.[11]
3. Though there is very little, if any, suggestion of violence or aggression on your part in connection with the previous breaches of the supervision order set out above,[12] a recurrent theme in the prior sentencing remarks is concern as to the connection between the index offending and illicit drug use.
4. On previous attendances before this court you have received similar warnings that, while acknowledging the difficulty of recovery from drug addiction and breaking the negative cycles associated with such addiction, have emphasised the centrality of the prohibition on illicit drug use as a condition of your supervision order, as well as the paramount importance of you refraining from further use of methylamphetamine and other illicit drugs if the conditions of your life are to improve.

1. There has been no suggestion that your offending involved any harm or threats to any other person.
2. You have been in custody since 27 March 2025. Your presentence detention is 68 days, not including today.
3. It is an aggravating factor that you have numerous prior offences for similar offending. Summaries of your background and criminal history are set out in previous reasons of this court.[13] On the last occasion you were before this court for sentencing, Champion J said this:[14]

...You also need to fully understand that considerable effort, community resources, and taxpayer funding is being applied to provide you with an opportunity to overcome your drug addiction, and to become a useful member of the community. At the same time, it should be steadfastly remembered by you that each time you breach your [supervision order], your sentences of imprisonment are increasing in size. At some point, should your offending continue in this vein, you may expect that the community, and the Court, will lose patience with its efforts and contribution to your rehabilitation.

4. Nothing I am about to say is intended to detract from that observation.
5. At a directions hearing on 8 April 2025, your counsel confirmed that you would plead guilty. The prosecution accepted that you indicated an intention to plead guilty and did so at an early opportunity. Notwithstanding this early guilty plea, your counsel acknowledged that a term of imprisonment was open to the court and an appropriate sentencing disposition.
6. The Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) requires me to take into account numerous factors.[15] Included in the factors I have taken into account is the protection of the community, which is a particularly important factor in this context. However, it warrants repetition that you did not harm or threaten to harm anyone as part of your offending. The prosecution does not allege you have committed a violent act of any kind.
7. As for general deterrence, this must be considered a significant factor to the extent that serious offenders must be deterred from breaching supervision orders. That said, your circumstances are quite unique. On 17 March 2023, Justice Croucher referred to the tragic circumstances in which you were separated from your birth parents upon leaving Vietnam to come to Australia when you were around 10 years old, as well as the challenges you have faced after your arrival here.[16]
8. Those challenges include the breakdown in your relationship with your foster mother, to whom your parents entrusted your care, the consequent instability of accommodation you have experienced, your disrupted education, difficulty securing employment and your long-standing mild intellectual disability. There has also been reference in the past to your drug taking being connected with your desire to alleviate pain associated with your chronic back condition.[17] During the hearing today, your counsel confirmed that back pain remains a condition from which you suffer.
9. On several of the previous occasions on which you have been sentenced for breaching the supervision order, you have had available to you a place of proposed residential rehabilitation.
10. On the question of rehabilitation, it has been addressed repeatedly by this court in previous rulings. It is fair to say that there is still some considerable way to go in this regard. It is clear that you need to address this issue in order to be able to be assimilated back into our community without breaching your supervision order.
11. A representative of the Post Sentence Branch gave evidence today that services in disability employment and in relation to drug rehabilitation will be made available, and you expressed your willingness to participate in both regards. It is a very important factor in relation to the sentencing and the sentence I propose to impose upon you today.

1. In the circumstances, I consider it is appropriate to impose a sentence of 68 days' imprisonment, which you have already served by way of pre-sentence detention.
2. I declare your presentence detention of 68 days as time already served.[18] Pursuant to section 6AAA of the Sentencing Act, but for your guilty plea, I would have imposed a sentence of 90 days' imprisonment on you.

[1] A pseudonym has been used to ensure compliance with an order made pursuant to s 279 of the Serious Offenders Act.

[2] Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety v PT [2023] VSC 64R, [2].

[3] Director of Public Prosecutions v XG [2023] VSC 127.

[4] Director of Public Prosecutions v XG [2023] VSC 489.

[5] Director of Public Prosecutions v XG [2024] VSC 82.

[6] Director of Public Prosecutions v PT [2023] VSC 677.

[7] Director of Public Prosecutions v PT (No 2) [2024] VSC 160.

[8] Director of Public Prosecutions v PT (No 3) [2024] VSC 470.

[9] Director of Public Prosecutions v PT (No 4) [2025] VSC 44.

[10] Director of Public Prosecutions v PT [2023] VSC 677 (Champion J).

[11] Director of Public Prosecutions v PT (No 2) [2024] VSC 160 (Tinney J).

[12] For a possible exception see ibid, [11]. Justice Tinney accepted, however, that whatever level of aggression may have been displayed by PT did not aggravate the seriousness of offending in that case.

[13] See, for example, Director of Public Prosecutions v PT (No 4) [2025] VCS 44 (Champion J); Director of Public Prosecutions v PT (No 3) [2024] VSC 470 (Champion J); Director of Public Prosecutions v PT (No 2) [2023] VSC 677 (Champion J); Director of Public Prosecutions v XG [2023] VSC 127 (Croucher J).

[14] Director of Public Prosecutions v PT (No 4) [2025] VSC 44, [38].

[15] Sentencing Act, s 5.

[16] Director of Public Prosecutions v XG [2023] VSC 127 [35] -[41]. See also Director of Public Prosecutions v PT (No 2) [2024] VSC 160, [20] (Tinney J).

[17] See, for example, Director of Public Prosecutions v PT [2023] VSC 677, [5] (Champion J).

[18] Sentencing Act, s 18.