• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

1 Dhiraj Chand, you have pleaded guilty to four charges that at Glen Waverley on 26 July 2004 you made threats to kill Samantha Loukos and Helen Eleni Kavroulakis; that you intentionally caused serious injury to Samantha Loukos; and that you recklessly engaged in conduct that placed Samantha Loukos in danger of death by throwing a live hair dryer into a bath of water in which she stood. It is my task to impose the sentence of this Court upon you.

2 You are 24 years of age. You were born on 16 January 1981. The circumstances surrounding the commission of the offences were helpfully set out in a summary provided by the prosecutor, Mrs Quin, and which have been accepted by your counsel, Mr Lewis. It broadly reflects the depositional material with which I have been provided, and I will consider it now.

3 You first met Samantha Loukos through friends in June 2003 and formed a relationship with her soon thereafter. From the outset, the relationship between you and Ms Loukos was quite volatile, with a substantial history of violence. Neither your parents nor Ms Loukos' mother approved of the relationship and they discouraged it going on. For this reason you often met in secret and even became engaged without your parents' knowledge.

4 At the time of the offences you were aged 23 years and Ms Loukos was aged 17 years. You both lived at home with your parents. On 19 May 2004, shortly before the said offences took place, Loukos' mother obtained an intervention order against you prohibiting, amongst other things, attendance at her home in Glen Waverley. You breached this order on 6 June 2004. In early July 2004, Loukos ended her relationship with you and you did not see each other again until the time of these offences, although you had spoken on the phone on two occasions.

5 On Saturday 24 July 2004 at about 2pm, you entered Ms Loukos' house through an unlocked back door. Loukos' mother was at home at this time. You hid under Loukos' bed for a period of around seven hours until she arrived home at 9pm and discovered you. While surprised to find you in her room, you and Loukos talked and decided to re-establish your relationship. You remained hidden in Loukos' room all weekend.

6 On Monday 26 July 2004, Ms Loukos left the house for a driving lesson at about 9am. During the time she was gone, you consumed approximately four glasses of bourbon with coke and two bottles of wine. When Loukos returned, you and she argued about your relationship. During the course of the argument, Loukos became upset and attempted to slit her wrist with a small kitchen knife.

7 It was at this point that you became violent. You grabbed Ms Loukos around her neck and started to strangle her. You hit and kicked her repeatedly with your fists and feet and dragged her around the house by her hair and her jumper. You dragged her to her bedroom and tied her hands up behind her back with clothing and placed a sock in her mouth, securing it by tying a shirt around her head. You then continued to drag her around the house, threatening to kill both Loukos and her mother. It is these threats which gave rise to Counts 1 and 2 (making threats to kill).

8 You armed yourself with a large knife from the kitchen and placed it to the right side of Ms Loukos' neck and said to Loukos "I'll probably be shot by the cops today or I'll end up going to jail, but you'll be dead". You then went back to the bedroom with the knife, re-tied Loukos' hands more tightly behind her back and, with Loukos lying face down and you standing over the top of her, you said "where should I stab you on your back or on your heart". You then dropped the knife, which fell very close to her body.

9 You then left the bedroom and Ms Loukos managed to run out the front door and onto the street. You followed her and, grabbing her around the head, dragged her back into the house. Neighbours saw you with your hand around Loukos' mouth, lifting her off the ground. They observed Loukos kicking. They called the police.

10 Back inside, having dragged Ms Loukos to the bathroom, you forced her at knife point to take her clothes off and stand in a bathtub full of water that you had filled earlier. Loukos was sitting with her knees up in the bath while you continued to threaten her and tell her you were going to kill her and make it look like suicide.

11 Ms Loukos was trying to get out of the bath and you were both struggling. Indeed, it appears that at one stage both of you were in the bath. Loukos had one leg in and one out of the bath when you placed a hair dryer, that was plugged in and switched on, into the water. This act gave rise to Count 4 (conduct endangering life).

12 Ms Loukos could feel a tingling sentation in her leg. The two of you then struggled and Loukos fell to the floor. You then placed your hands around her throat and began strangling her.

13 By this stage, having been alerted by your neighbours, the police arrived. The police heard screaming and forced entry to the house. Having entered, the police went into the bathroom and saw you kneeling over Ms Loukos with your two hands around her neck pressing down forcefully. Senior Constable Linda McDowell, one of the attending officers, testified at your committal, before the Magistrates' Court on 28 January 2005, that she asked you to get off Loukos but that you continued to strangle Loukos, only stopping once the police officer began to draw her firearm. Senior Constable McDowell said that, after being told that you were under arrest, you said "She was just having a bath, I did nothing", and that that was the only comment you made.

14 Ms Loukos was unconscious on the floor. She regained consciousness, yet still having difficulty breathing, she was taken by ambulance to Monash Medical Centre. The police who attended the scene responded in a brave and speedy manner. If not for their action, there must have been a likelihood that Ms Loukos may have been killed.

15 Ms Loukos' injuries, as outlined in the report of Dr Christina Fong, were multiple soft tissue injuries to the face, arms, legs, neck and back. The conduct constituting Count 3 (intentionally causing serious injury) is that encompassed for the duration of your assault on Loukos and the injuries suffered by her.

16 When taken into custody and interviewed by the police, you made limited admissions in your record of interview, maintaining that Ms Loukos had wanted you to stay and that you had wanted to leave; that Loukos had threatened suicide; that you had slapped her twice in the face; that you had not tied her up or strangled her; and that you had never threatened to kill either Loukos or her mother. You made no comment in relation to the occurrence involving the bath. You admitted assaulting Loukos outside and bringing her inside the house, but not to the extent reported by your neighbours. You maintained that you had blackouts and did not recall events after you brought Loukos back inside. Once the alcohol kicked in, you said, everything was a blur.

17 You have pleaded guilty to two counts of threat to kill, one count of intentionally causing serious injury and one count of recklessly engaging in conduct which places another in danger of death. These are serious offences indeed, carrying maximum sentences of 10 years (Counts 1 and 2), 20 years (Count 3) and 10 years (Count 4) respectively.

18 In relation to Counts 1 and 2, by your plea of guilty you have accepted that when through words and conduct you threatened to kill Samantha Loukos and her mother, Helen Kavroulakis, you intended to cause fear in Ms Loukos that the threat would be carried out. You did indeed cause that fear. On numerous occasions since the time of the offences, Ms Loukos has said that at the time she thought she was going to die.

19 In relation to Count 3, by your plea of guilty you have accepted that a reasonable person in your position would have realised that your conduct placed or might have placed Ms Loukos in danger of death. As it is, Ms Loukos suffered from significant physical injuries, which I have already described. She was hospitalised and was unable to walk unassisted for at least three days after the violence you inflicted upon her. No doubt the pain, discomfort and physical evidence of your violence took much longer to go away. It was submitted by your counsel that, despite the seriousness of Ms Loukos' injuries, she did not sustain any long-term injuries and that this should be taken into account when sentencing you. However, as the prosecutor, Ms Quin observed, Ms Loukos has ongoing psychological trauma and, therefore, injuries.

20 In relation to Count 4, by your plea of guilty you have accepted that you were reckless in that you foresaw that the probable consequence of your conduct in placing Ms Loukos into a bath with a live hair dryer would be that she might die. Your plea of guilty also acknowledges that you thereby engaged in conduct which a reasonable person in your position would have realised placed or might have placed Loukos in danger of death. It was submitted by your counsel that a scientific report tendered in evidence demonstrated that the way in which the electricity flowed through the human body, in that it avoided the vital organs of your victim, meant that she was in fact in little danger of death. Your counsel submitted that your primary intention was to place Loukos in a state of fear.

21 Of course, as it happened, the bath was electrically isolated and thus a circuit was not able to be completed. However, there was no issue that, if when in the bath with the hairdryer, Loukos had touched the taps - or anything that was earthed - a circuit would have been completed, which in turn could have resulted in sufficient flow (around 500 volts) to cause death. This count is not pleaded as a possibility. The danger of death was immediate and clear.

22 I have spoken briefly of the physical impact of your offences on the victim. But this is not where it ends for her. Samantha Loukos has been significantly affected by the event in her day to day life. Specifically, she says in her Victim Impact Statement that she had to leave her employment and that she has been left with little interest in the things she used to enjoy. After a year has elapsed, Ms Loukos says that she remains extremely anxious and depressed. She suffers from low self esteem. She is afraid to be alone and does not feel safe in her own home. She has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and referred to a psychologist.

23 There is another victim of your conduct. In particular, Ms Loukos' mother, Helen Kavroulakis, has been deeply traumatised by the event. She continues to be afraid for her daughter's life and for her own. It pains her to see her daughter so depressed. She lives her life on full alert to the possibility of anything happening to her daughter or to her.

24 I now turn to matters relating to your background and the mitigating circumstances on your part. Your background and relevant circumstances were largely described in the psychiatric report of Dr Walton.

25 You were born in Fiji in 1981. You are of Indian heritage. Your father works as an adviser with the Australian Trade Commission. Your mother is a nurse. You have one sister who was born in 1991. Your relationship with your parents has, in the past at least, been unstable, it seems as a result of their strict attitudes and high expectations of you.

26 Your family lived in Fiji until you were five years old. At that time, your father was sent by his then employer, the Fijian Government, to New Zealand. You followed him there soon after. After about two years, your family returned to Fiji and lived in several places as your father's employment continued to dictate significant travel around the Fijian islands.

27 In 1987 there was a coup in Fiji and, as a young boy, you were witness to much violence and disruption. Your counsel indicated that this was particularly significant for you, given the political climate of the time and your Indian heritage, since the clash of the Fijian and Indian cultures was central to the coup itself.

28 In 1989, your father left Fiji again and moved to Orange, in country NSW, to study. You and your family followed him there. Then in 1992, you and your family returned to Fiji. In 1997, you and your family again moved to Australia, this time to Melbourne, where you and they have remained.

29 Upon moving to Melbourne, you attended school at Glen Waverley Secondary College. You were subsequently expelled from that college as a result of your criminal conduct at that time. This conduct specifically related to you breaking into your school, causing damage and being intoxicated on the premises.

30 You subsequently went to Forest Hill Secondary College and completed your VCE, attaining an ENTER score in the 70th percentile.

31 In 2000 you enrolled in and attended the Holmesglen TAFE, but after a short time chose to defer while you decided what you wanted to do with your life. It was at this time that you started with your drinking in earnest. You showed signs of depression. You committed burglaries to fund your drinking habit. This resulted in a period of imprisonment in 2002 for three months. On release, you took up a job as a spot welder, but after about a year you were laid off.

32 In July 2003 you met Samantha Loukos. You were working at the time in a stationery shop and had a cleaning job. You and Ms Loukos were both drinking a lot. As already observed, your family was not happy with your relationship with Ms Loukos.

33 Shortly before the offences which are now before this Court took place, you went to see your General Practitioner about the fact that you were having blackouts, probably induced by your heavy drinking. Your doctor suggested that the combination of heavy drinking and depression had accumulated to psychosis and referred you to a psychiatrist. You were given a referral but did not follow this up.

34 From the moment you went to jail, you expressed regret and remorse. You gave an apology in open court at your committal. At your plea, your counsel again conveyed your remorse. You gave an early indication of a guilty plea once the charges against you were resolved with the prosecution.

35 You have been in custody since 26 July 2004. You have experienced no problems as a prisoner at Port Philip Prison, in fact you have made the most of your circumstances by taking up positions as a "prison listener" and as a "prison mentor". Ms Anne Hooker, Youth Development Officer, gave evidence in Court that you had completed approximately 20 courses and that you are currently in the midst of a Certificate of Business Management 2 under the auspices of the Young Australian Achievers' Award.

36 Ms Hooker told the Court that you completed the prisoner mentor course which involved the undertaking of considerable training and required you to demonstrate exemplary behaviour within the prison, since you act as a role model for other young prisoners. Indeed, Ms Hooker said that you undertook a further 75 hours of training to become a prisoner listener, a role that meant that you may be called out for advice by any prisoner throughout the entire prison.

37 Ms Hooker further and especially noted your current role in the sales and marketing team of the "Hard Yards Company" at the prison, which is a private company incorporated within the prison, with the prisoners as shareholders, wherein you learn the process of running a small business and, in this case, sell T-shirts to the public, essentially through word-of-mouth to other prisoners and their visitors.

38 Ms Hooker further said that you had permanent employment in the prison as a billet and that this was a "highly trusted and respected position" with an "extremely high" security clearance required.

39 While your counsel did not seek to rely on Ms Hooker for any medical diagnosis (Dr Walton would be relied on for that), the witness was led to opine in this Court that you had expressed "ongoing and continuing remorse and sadness in relation to the entire event" and that you "appeared to present as being ashamed of [your] actions" and "very concerned" for the victim and the victim's family, as well as for your own family. Ms Hooker said that she saw many prisoners who frequently say sorry when they are caught, but that your level of remorse was "very unusual".

40 You were examined by consultant psychiatrist, Dr Lester Walton, in the Melbourne Assessment Prison on 26 October 2004 and again in Port Phillip Prison on 12 August 2005. A report from Dr Walton, dated 15 August 2005, has been provided to this Court in evidence. Dr Walton stated that, in his opinion, you were suffering from a "chronic low-grade depressive disorder" and that the principal contributions to your condition were the difficulties that you have had with your family and with Ms Loukos. Dr Walton further opined that while you have been an abuser of alcohol, he would not describe you as "substance dependent".

41 Dr Walton also stated that you "freely acknowledge [your] wrongdoing" and that you "accept responsibility" for it. Dr Walton regards you as "expressing appropriate remorse" for your wrongdoing. The doctor further considered that your "rather tortured and tumultuous frame of mind preceding [your] offending" - and what he described as your "dramatic misconduct" - serves to reflect your "psychological turmoil". In Dr Walton's opinion, your conduct was the result of this "emotional turmoil" rather than "more serious criminality" or the result of a "major psychiatric condition".

42 Dr Walton believes that your incarceration has "changed" you and has had a "salutary effect" on you. This effect is, in his words, of a "striking degree compared to many young violent men whom I assess". In conclusion, Dr Walton's opinion of your prognosis is favourable. Dr Walton made this assessment, firstly, with regard to your mental state, mindful of the "ongoing development of your psychological maturity"; and secondly, with regard to the prospect of recidivism, given the doctor's belief that you have "a lack of a solidly-established history of violence".

43 As I have said, you have clearly conducted yourself well at prison and have made significant efforts at reform. It would appear that your prognisis for recovery and rehabilitation are favourable.

44 There appears to be little doubt that your relationship with Ms Loukos was - and apparently still is - complex and tortuous. With respect to the contemporary status of your relationship with Ms Loukos, your counsel provided the Court with several letters that Loukos had written to you in prison, subsequent to your assault on her. In these letters, Ms Loukos variously says that "she can't stop loving you"; that she "cut [herself] over you" because she missed you; and that she had "bought a wedding ring" and was telling people that she was married to you. In a letter written to you dated 9 Februay 2005, Ms Loukos signs off as "Samantha Chand" and says that she forgives you and has "decided to wait for you", since you are "everything" to her.

45 Counsel for you submitted that these letters demonstrated the very difficult relationship that existed between you and Ms Loukos wherein there was "tremendous attraction and affection" between you and her; but nevertheless, the relationship ended up in serious conflict. Your counsel also said that you did not reply to Ms Loukos' letters, not because you intended any "rudeness or hurt" to Ms Loukos, but because you had been following advice not to do so. In support of that particular contention, Ms Hooker said in her evidence that she had advised you not to reply to Ms Loukos' letters since she felt that it would be "detrimental to [your] rehabilitation and [your] future", and because she felt that you needed to be "future orientated and not look back towards the past".

46 You are, of course, not without prior offences. On 23 October 1998, when aged 17, you appeared at the Magistrates' Court in Dandenong on one charge each of burglary, theft and criminal damage. These charges related to your breaking into your high school, as I have referred to earlier. The charges were found proven without conviction and you were sentenced to be released on entering into an undertaking to be of good behaviour for a period of 12 months.

47 Then, on 18 December 2001, you appeared again at that same Magistrates' Court, this time facing four charges of aggravated burglary, one charge of assault with a weapon, and one charge of theft. On this occasion, the charges were similarly found proven without conviction. You were released on a Community Based Order for a period of 12 months. However, that order had several conditions attached to it, and on 22 April 2002, you were subsequently brought up before the Magistrates' Court in Dandenong for breach of the said order and, such charge being proven, you were sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment for a period of six months, with three months of that sentence being partially suspended for a period of two years.

48 Further, on 17 March 2004, you were convicted at the Magistrates' Court in Ringwood of possession of a controlled weapon without excuse and you were sentenced to pay a fine of $300.

49 In addition, on 4 February 2005, you were dealt with by the Melbourne Magistrates' Court on two counts of burglary and two counts of theft dating from 2003 and for failing to answer your bail by attending court as required in January 2004. You had in fact travelled to Sydney and your family went there and brought you back. Counsel also told the Court that you were additionally dealt with by the Magistrates' Court at this time, namely on 4 February 2005, for breach of an intervention order taken out by Ms Loukos' mother, which (as I have referred to previously) occurred on 6 June 2004. That matter is to be taken into account, as agreed between counsel, in the determination of pre-sentence detention days with respect to any custodial sentence I may impose with respect to the present offences.

50 Despite your prior offences and the grave matter of your criminal conduct that is before me now, I accept that your prospects of rehabilitation are very good. The commendable rehabilitative actions that you have taken in prison are apparent through the evidence of Ms Hooker and the numerous certificates which you have obtained.

51 Weighing all these matters up there are mitigating factors that operate in your favour, in particular, your remorse, your prospects for rehabilitation, your youth combined with a supportive family, your general history of non-violence and your eventual pleas of guilty. On the other hand, there are matters that weigh against you. The offences were violent, threatening and frightening and, in part, pre-meditated (through the filling of the bath in advance). It is no answer to say that Ms Loukas' injuries were of limited impact. The fact is they were not. Your conduct has not been satisfactorily explained - the attack was unprovoked notwithstanding the peculiar and immature conduct of Ms Loukas.

52 It is necessary that I take account of specific deterrence and in that respect I consider your rehabilitation to date and those prospects reduce the likelihood of your reoffending. However, the sentence I impose on you must act as a general deterrent. The community will not tolerate such violence.

53 Weighing all these matters up I am satisfied that you should serve a custodial sentence but that it is appropriate to make allowance for your youth and rehabilitation by way of a longer parole period than might ordinarily be the case.

54 I sentence you to be imprisoned for 12 months on each of counts 1 and 2, five years on count 3 and one year and six months on count 4. I direct that the whole of the sentences on each count are to be served concurrently upon each other, by operation of law, making a total effective sentence of five years' imprisonment. I fix a non-parole period of two years.

55 It is declared that the period of 294 days in this matter is to be reckoned as already served and it is ordered that there be noted in the records of the Court the fact that the declaration was made and its details.

56 It is further declared that you are a serious violent offender pursuant to the provisions of the Sentencing Act 1991. In all the circumstances, I have taken account of those provisions for the purposes of imposing the sentences and directing that the sentences be served concurrently and, in particular, s.6E of that Act. I direct that the declaration be noted on your records and those of the Court accordingly.

57 No other orders or declarations were sought by the prosecution.