R v Mouhamad Rajab [2026] VSC 89

1. Mr Gianluca Severino, a then-unemployed electrician, was visiting a friend at 169 Victoria Drive, Thomastown, on 11 July 2024 when two people, you, Mr Mouhamad Rajab (known as Michael) and your cousin Mr Ali Rajab, arrived by prior arrangement at the front door at about 8:25pm. You were there for two reasons: you believed that Mr Severino owed Mr Ali Rajab money for a computer of his that Mr Severino had sold at your request; and you were planning to buy some methylamphetamine. Mr Severino told you that they would have to drive to Coburg to collect the drugs. Mr Ali Rajab initiated a confrontation with Mr Severino. The two of you pushed your way inside the house. Mr Ali Rajab and you assaulted Mr Severino and then Mr Ali Rajab killed him by stabbing him in his chest. Mr Severino's friend, Mr Gerrad Van Leest, saw much of what happened. While Mr Severino was being assaulted, and in an attempt to 'bring the situation to an end', Mr Van Leest fetched Mr Severino's own laptop and gave it to you.
2. Mr Ali Rajab left while Mr Severino was bleeding on the floor but you stayed behind and called triple-zero. You told the operator that Mr Severino had suffered a stabbing injury, while not being frank about the circumstances in which he did so. You suggested that Mr Severino had had a fall and caused his own injuries by mistake. An ambulance and police arrived. In the meantime, you, with the assistance of the triple-zero operator, attempted to save Mr Severino's life by performing CPR. Later that night, at the police station, in what was otherwise a largely 'no comment' interview, you said:

I dunno. I don't know enough to know to help you, but I don't know. I don't know. I just know I didn't hurt him. I didn't do anything like that. I didn't know. That's just, that's all I know.

1. Mr Ali Rajab was charged with, and pleaded guilty to, manslaughter. On 16 December 2025, I sentenced Mr Ali Rajab to a term of eight years imprisonment.
2. You have been charged with, and have pleaded guilty to, common law assault and theft. The theft charge relates to the taking of Mr Severino's laptop.

1. On 6 November 2025, I provided you, at your request, with a sentence indication.[1] You had spent 59 days in custody before being released. I indicated that if you pleaded guilty I would sentence you to no more than eight weeks of imprisonment together with a community correction order of 12 months. You accepted that indication the same day. It was necessary for the imposition of any sentence then to be delayed pending the receipt of a pre-sentence report from the Department of Justice and Community Safety.[2] This report was received on 23 February 2026. It confirmed that you consent to the imposition of a community correction order and recommended conditions that you be subject to supervision, drug treatment including testing, mental health treatment, medical treatment and anger management.

1. The theft consisted of your taking possession of Mr Severino's laptop, when it was offered to you by Mr Van Leest, with the intention of permanently depriving Mr Severino of this laptop. As noted above, Mr Severino owed money for a laptop and prior to Mr Van Leest obtaining Mr Severino's laptop you had demanded of him where Mr Severino's 'stuff' was.
2. I am satisfied that, whilst the assault was ongoing, Mr Ali Rajab made it clear to Mr Van Leest that he wished to take possession of Mr Severino's laptop and that Mr Van Leest went and got it in the hope that this would de-escalate the situation.
3. The maximum penalty for theft is 10 years. The theft took place in circumstances where you were behaving in a threatening manner and at a time when you were trespassing at Mr Van Leest's residence. On the other hand, it relates to a single laptop and that laptop was never, in fact, removed from Mr Van Leest's premises. There is no information before me as to the value of the laptop. On balance, I do not consider this to be a serious example of theft.
4. The assault is more troubling. Mr Van Leest has given conflicting versions of your involvement. In his first statement to the police, he said that he saw both you and Mr Ali Rajab assaulting the deceased by 'pushing and punching' him, albeit that Mr Ali Rajab was 'doing it more', and that he saw you 'punch [Mr Severino] in the side with [your] fist' and hold him and 'pushing [him] through the house'. A month later, he gave a second statement in which he stated that Mr Ali Rajab 'was clearly the aggressor' and that he was 'much more physical' with Mr Severino but did not refer to any punching. In the committal, in March 2025, he said that he only saw two punches, without specifying who threw them, albeit that he also saw other 'aggressive movements' designed to 'induce fear'.
5. The Crown accepts that it was Mr Ali Rajab who produced the knife and stabbed Mr Severino, and it is not suggested that this was something that you intended or knew might happen. The autopsy report confirms that Mr Severino had no significant injuries other than the stab wound.
6. In these circumstances, I am satisfied and sentence on the basis that:

(a) You did not attend at those premises that evening with the intention of assaulting Mr Severino;

(b) Mr Ali Rajab initiated the physical confrontation and was the principal aggressor and he punched and then stabbed Mr Severino;

(c) You participated by physically manhandling Mr Severino; and

(d) You did not cause any, or any significant, physical injury to Mr Severino.

1. You were born in Australia and are 47 years old. Although there was some conflict between your parents, and you suffered from some bullying and corporal punishment, you retain close bonds with your siblings and parents and did not have a deprived childhood. You completed year 12 and started tertiary education before you stopped and started full-time work in sales and then as a finance manager for a major bank and then, from about 2015, worked in construction.
2. In late 2010 you had a son with your 'childhood sweetheart', but in 2012 you separated and thereafter shared custody of their son. You are currently engaged to be married.
3. You started taking methylamphetamine in your late teens or early twenties and were doing so daily by your mid-thirties. You were able to abstain for some time following some treatment in 2014 but resumed consuming illicit substances after suffering an injury at work in 2017 and then an injury while cycling in 2019, which caused some physical pain and associated worsening of depression and anxiety. You told the author of the pre-sentence report that you had consumed methylamphetamine on the day of the offending.
4. In 2024, at the time of the offending, you were in conflict with your siblings and had lost contact with your son after his mother obtained an intervention order. As noted, however, you continue to enjoy the support of your parents and siblings and are, I am told, taking steps to resume contact with your son.
5. The incident the subject of these charges has profoundly affected you. You administered CPR on a bleeding and dying man for approximately 20 minutes, for much of which time you were alone. I accept that this has resulted in a post-traumatic stress disorder and that you continue to suffer the symptoms of that condition such as rumination, nightmares, flashbacks, and feelings of guilt.
6. The only victim impact statements before me relate to the impact of Mr Severino's death. Accordingly, I do not consider them relevant to your sentencing.
7. I do not accept that you had a mental impairment such that the moral culpability for your offending was reduced to any significant degree or that your circumstances are such that your punishment may not operate as general deterrence. I do accept, however, that your current mental state is such that you would find imprisonment more burdensome than somebody without your post-traumatic stress disorder.
8. You have a relevant criminal history. You received suspended sentences in September 2009 and May 2010 and November 2013 and August 2014 for driving offences. You received a community correction order in June 2015 for further driving offences. In May 2016, you received another community correction order for, among other things, threatening to inflict serious injury and contravening a family violence intervention order. In April 2018, you were convicted of contravening that community correction order. In November 2021, you were given a further community correction order for, among other things, theft and drug possession. In May 2024, you received yet another community correction order for, among other things, theft, contravening a family violence intervention order, unlawful assault, driving offences and drug possession. Indeed, at the time of these offences, you were subject to a community correction order.
9. There is little information before me as to the details of the contraventions of the family violence intervention orders or assaults but I accept the assertions made on your behalf, which were not challenged, that none of them involved the infliction of any physical violence.
10. I accept the opinion of the psychologist Ms Sandra Cokorilo, who has assessed you for the purposes of your plea, that you have 'fundamentally pro social attitudes and values' and 'intact moral framework', as demonstrated by your commendable conduct following the stabbing, and that your risk of violent recidivism is low.
11. You were arrested on 11 July 2024 and, as I have said, spent 59 days in custody before being granted bail; that period of time was your first significant period of time in custody. I accept that you have abstained from illicit drug use during your period in custody.
12. I consider that you are genuinely remorseful.
13. You are entitled also to a utilitarian discount for your plea. There is a need for some general and specific deterrence, although I consider your actions after the stabbing, as I have said, reflect well on you and your prospects of rehabilitation.
14. Your counsel submitted that I should not impose a term of imprisonment, as it had the potential to lead to a worsening of your mental health, and that the need to punish you is met by you having already served a period of pre-sentence detention. Reliance was placed on the opinion of the psychologist Ms Cokorilo that any period of imprisonment (including your experience on remand) would be 'more psychologically burdensome' for you than it would be for someone without your chronic anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. It would also mark the first occasion on which you would be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, that was not suspended, and, as I understood it, you are concerned about the impact this would have upon your criminal record.
15. The Crown submitted, as I understood it, that I should not depart from the sentence indication and impose a lesser sentence because your circumstances had not materially changed between the application for a sentence indication and the plea hearing. I do not accept that there is any principle that the Court should not depart from a sentence indication by imposing a lesser sentence unless a change in circumstances can be demonstrated. As the authorities make clear, consistently with the text of the legislation, a sentence indication does no more than 'constrain the sentencing judge from imposing a more severe sentence than the maximum total sentence indicated' - it provides a ceiling.[3] If, after hearing a full plea, a sentencing judge considers on reflection that a lesser sentence is appropriate than that earlier indicated, then that lesser sentence should be imposed. Indeed, it would be contrary to the parsimony principle, enshrined in s 5(3) of the Sentencing Act 1991, that the court 'must not impose a sentence that is more severe than that which is necessary to achieve the purpose or purposes for which the sentence is imposed.'
16. That said, you forced your way into somebody's home and assisted in an assault, at a time when you were already on a community correction order including for contravening a family violence intervention order and assault. I consider specific deterrence to be a significant sentencing consideration in your case and note that the existence of this prior community correction order did not prevent this offending. I consider that the giving of proper weight to the need for specific deterrence, in light of the nature of your offending and your criminal history, does require a period of imprisonment, notwithstanding your psychological conditions.
17. Mr Michael Rajab would you please stand.
18. For the theft of the laptop, you are convicted and discharged.
19. For the assault of Mr Gianluca Severino, you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of eight weeks and a further community correction order of 12 months. I consider that the term of imprisonment provides sufficient punishment such that it is not necessary to require community service as a condition of the community correction order. In forming this view, I have also taken into account the three days' difference between your time in pre-sentence detention and your sentence. The community correction order will instead be directed at requiring that you participate in treatment for drug abuse or dependency, including drug testing, and for medical and mental health concerns, and participate in programs and courses to address the underlying causes of your offending. But for your plea of guilty, I would have sentenced you to a term of imprisonment of three months.
20. I declare that you have served a total of 56 days of pre-sentence detention and I direct that this be reckoned as time already served under this sentence.

[1] See Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), Part 5.6.

[2] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), s 37(b).

[3] Greenaway (a pseudonym) v The King [2025] VSCA 280, [12]; Karam v The King [2024] VSCA 164, [42].