R v White [2026] VSC 10

1. Daniel White,[1] you have pleaded guilty to a charge of contempt of the Chief Examiner. A certificate of charge was issued by the Chief Examiner on 19 August 2025 pursuant to section 49(2)(a) of the Major Crime (Investigative Powers) Act 2004 (Vic) ("the Act").
2. Pursuant to a witness summons served upon you, you attended for examination on 3 occasions in March, April and August 2025. On the first 2 of those occasions, you refused to answer questions when directed to do so. On the third occasion, you refused to be sworn or to make an affirmation.
3. A person appearing as a witness before the Chief Examiner must not, when required by the Chief Examiner to give an oath or to make an affirmation in the prescribed form, refuse or fail to comply with this requirement.[2] Doing so without reasonable excuse is an indictable offence that carries a maximum penalty of 5 years' imprisonment.[3] The same maximum penalty applies to a person who, without reasonable excuse, refuses or fails to answer a question the Chief Examiner requires to be answered.[4] However, the Act is silent as to the penalty for contempt of the Chief Examiner. In dealing with the present charge of contempt, the 5 year maximum penalty for refusing or failing to answer a question as required, and for refusing or failing to give an oath or to make an affirmation as required, is instructive for sentencing purposes.[5]
4. Contempt of the Chief Examiner is a serious offence.[6] The ability of the Chief Examiner to obtain information about organised crime offences depends on being able to enforce the obligation imposed on witnesses.[7] This includes enforcement against a witness who is a child.[8]

1. You are 17 years old. Your very supportive mother is your primary carer. You have a close relationship with her. In contrast, you have no real relationship with your father. He was a violent presence during your upbringing. Not only did he harm you, but you also witnessed him assaulting your mother. At times, you tried to protect her. Child protection services were involved on several occasions.
2. Your father told manipulative lies to you in an attempt to alienate you from your mother. On occasion, your father abducted you and your brothers and kept you all from your mother against both your and her wishes. Your father's misconduct left you in a continual state of anxiety, which developed into you displaying signs of trauma. Indeed, your father's negative influence has been described as having a profound impact on you, your mother and the family as a whole. Your mother and father separated over 9 years ago. Your mother has obtained family violence intervention orders against your father in order to protect both herself and her children, including you.
3. Your mother has explained that because of the challenges you have faced you find it hard to communicate your feelings or ask for help. Like your brothers, you have expressed distress through outbursts, aggression or withdrawal which your mother says can be misunderstood by others.
4. You have previously spent 9 days in a youth justice detention centre in relation to other matters.
5. You have been assessed as having a full-scale IQ[9] of 79, which score places you in the bottom 8 percent when your capacity to think and reason is compared with your peers' capacities, and is attributed the qualitative description of "borderline". This means you do not think and reason as an average 17 year old would do.
6. You suffer from autism spectrum disorder (mild to moderate), post-traumatic stress disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Your disorders are at a level that you have required psychiatric intervention. You also have suffered from mild cannabis use and alcohol use disorders; recent medical reports indicate that you are in early remission for both of these.
7. You have had a very disrupted education, in part because your family relocated frequently. From 2013 to 2024, you attended 10 different schools, which does not include the period in 2020 and 2021 when you were homeschooled. You have not been able to complete your secondary education, ultimately attending supported learning for 3 hours a week before opting out altogether.

1. The relevant matters for the court to consider in sentencing you were not in issue. Although the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) does not purport to govern your sentence, the principles it contains are applicable.[10] With respect to children, further factors must be taken into account:[11]

(a) the need to strengthen and preserve the relationship between the child and the child's family; and

(b) the desirability of allowing the child to live at home; and

(c) the desirability of allowing the education, training or employment of the child to continue without interruption or disturbance; and

(d) the need to minimise the stigma to the child resulting from a court determination; and

(e) the suitability of the sentence to the child; and

(f) if appropriate, the need to ensure that the child is aware that he or she must bear a responsibility for any action by him or her against the law; and

(g) the need to protect the community, or any person, from the violent or other wrongful acts of the child -

(i) in all cases where the sentence is for a Category A serious youth offence or a Category B serious youth offence; or

(ii) in any other case - if it is appropriate to do so; and

(h) if appropriate, the need to deter the child from committing offences in remand centres, youth residential centres or youth justice centres.

1. There are also established principles applicable to sentencing in relation to contempt.[12]

1. You were charged with contempt on 19 August 2025 and promptly pleaded guilty. It is unnecessary to itemise each of your responses which gave rise to the contempt charge being made. The transcript of the examination demonstrates that you had a contemptuous approach to many of the questions put to you. Many of your answers were explicitly dismissive of the role of the Chief Examiner and showed a complete disregard for the process to which you were being subjected. The prosecution aptly referred to your contempt as contumacious, and aggravated by rude, aggressive and insulting behaviour. Further, it was properly conceded by your counsel that in many instances you were not making a genuine attempt to answer the questions, including with respect to your assertions that you had no memory of certain events. In addition, in contrast to the 2 earlier examinations, on 19 August 2025 you refused to take an oath or make an affirmation when required to do so.
2. I accept your counsel's submission that your conduct must be viewed through the prism of your youth, your immaturity, the diagnoses in relation to various matters from which you suffer, your lack of education and your upbringing. The objective gravity of, and your moral culpability in respect of, your conduct is diminished because of these matters. However, their significance is reduced somewhat by the fact that your conduct was engaged in on 3 separate occasions over an extended period of time. Further, on each occasion you had the benefit of the advice of counsel and an independent person.

1. The underlying "organised crime offence" concerned [redacted]. Although there is no direct evidence of this, there can be no reasonable doubt that such conduct was engaged in [redacted]. It is self-evidently a very serious offence, though the Chief Examiner acknowledged that you were only a very small piece of the puzzle.

1. The transcript of the examinations shows that your obligation to provide the information sought was clearly explained, as were the consequences of you not complying. You plainly indicated that you understood what you had been told. Indeed, on occasion you were quite provocative in your response. The answers you gave at various times indicated that you had a proper appreciation of the significance of your lack of cooperation. No doubt this was also explained to you by your counsel.

1. In explaining your position, you said that you were not a rat. In doing so, you were adhering to a code of silence that exists in some criminal circles and is the very vice to which the Act was directed.[13] In circumstances where you have given forthright and clear evidence that you are prepared to take responsibility for others involved in [redacted] and not implicate them, the conduct must be strongly denounced;[14] albeit that your youth reduces the weight to be afforded to this factor. You may have also had concerns for your own safety, but that does not provide an excuse for your approach.

1. The evidence before the court does not enable the precise impact of your conduct on the Chief Examiner's investigation to be determined. The extent to which you may or may not have had knowledge of the broader workings of the organised crime group is unclear.[15] That said, it follows that your refusal to cooperate, at least in part because you did not want to implicate another or others, has resulted in a significant and tangible interference in the administration of justice; this is particularly so in circumstances where you have pleaded guilty to the charge of [redacted]. To that extent, the prosecution has established material consequences of your behaviour to the requisite standard of proof.[16]

1. There is no suggestion that you have benefited in any way from your contempt.

1. You had a limited criminal history at the time of the contempt. The prosecution accepted that it is not relevant as you have no prior offending in relation to contempt or related conduct. Further, your prior convictions must be considered in light of the matters referred to above, including concerning your difficult upbringing.[17]
2. You have not purged your contempt nor have you apologised for it or expressed any remorse or contrition. Thus, specific deterrence is a relevant factor. Even though there is no evidence you are remorseful or contrite, none of this detracts from the utilitarian value of your guilty plea.

1. General deterrence is also relevant. Unless the court recognises the seriousness of the offending, others may not be deterred from engaging in conduct similar to that comprising your contempt.[18] Nevertheless, the weight to be given to this factor is diminished because you are a child and because of your particular conditions and challenges.[19] At such a young age, your prospects of rehabilitation must be considered at least to be good. There was no submission to the contrary. This is another matter that reduces the weight to be given to general deterrence.

D.9 Taking into account your impaired mental function

1. A number of limbs of R v Verdins[20] apply to your circumstances_._[21] The prosecution appropriately accepted the first, third and fourth limbs were enlivened. These factors result in your moral culpability being reduced, and both specific and general deterrence being given less weight. Because of your ongoing disorders,[22] I also consider the remaining 3 limbs are relevant to the question of what sentence should be imposed.

1. The fact that you are a child is highly relevant to the question of whether a term of imprisonment is appropriate.[23] Notwithstanding this, leaving aside the question of whether any sentence should be suspended, it was common ground that a custodial sentence was both open and appropriate. This was plainly correct.
2. For the offence of contempt of the Chief Examiner, I sentence you to a period of 3 months' detention in a youth justice centre, wholly suspended for a period of 6 months on condition that you are of good behaviour for that period.[24]
3. But for your plea of guilty, if you had been found guilty after pleading not guilty, I would have sentenced you to a period of 3 months' detention in a youth justice centre.

[5] R v Hopkins [2018] VSC 756, [3] (Taylor J) and the cases there cited.

[6] R v DF (No 2) [2014] VSC 213, [6] (John Dixon J).

[7] R v Murray [2018] VSCA 144, [78]-[79] (Whelan, Beach and Niall JJA).

[8] R v Hopkins [2018] VSC 756, [19] (Taylor J).

[10] R v Hopkins [2018] VSC 756, [26] (Taylor J).

[11] This is extracted from s 362(1) of the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (Vic), which Act does not apply directly but these principles are plainly relevant: ibid, [23]-[25].

[12] See also Wood v Staunton (No 5) [1995] NSWSC 61; (1996) 86 A Crim R 183, 185.3 (Dunford J). For more recent cases applying these principles see R v Hopkins [2018] VSC 756, [42] (Taylor J) and the cases there cited.

[13] R v Murray [2018] VSC 133, [27], [51] (Riordan J).

[14] Chief Examiner v Camilleri [2006] VSC 442, [9] (Teague J).

[15] Compare R v QF [2014] VSC 81, [22] (Croucher J).

[16] R v Storey [1998] 1 VR 359, 369.6 (Winneke P, Brooking and Hayne JJA and Southwell AJA), cited with approval in R v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; (1999) 199 CLR 270, 281 [27] (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Hayne and Callinan JJ).

[17] Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571, 594 [40] (French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Keifel, Bell and Keane JJ).

[18] Chief Examiner v Camilleri [2006] VSC 442, [9] (Teague J).

[19] R v Hopkins [2018] VSC 756, [31] (Taylor J).

[20] (2007) 16 VR 269, 276 [32] (Maxwell P, Buchanan and Vincent JJA).

[21] The 6 limbs by which impaired mental functioning, whether temporary or permanent, are relevant to sentencing were articulated in R v Verdins at 276 [32] as follows: (1) The condition may reduce the moral culpability of the offending conduct, as distinct from the offender's legal responsibility. Where that is so, the condition affects the punishment that is just in all the circumstances; and denunciation is less likely to be a relevant sentencing objective; (2) The condition may have a bearing on the kind of sentence that is imposed and the conditions in which it should be served; (3) Whether general deterrence should be moderated or eliminated as a sentencing consideration depends upon the nature and severity of the symptoms exhibited by the offender, and the effect of the condition on the mental capacity of the offender, whether at the time of the offending or at the date of sentence or both; (4) Whether specific deterrence should be moderated or eliminated as a sentencing consideration likewise depends upon the nature and severity of the symptoms of the condition as exhibited by the offender, and the effect of the condition on the mental capacity of the offender, whether at the time of the offending or at the date of the sentence or both; (5) The existence of the condition at the date of sentencing (or its foreseeable recurrence) may mean that a given sentence will weigh more heavily on the offender than it would on a person in normal health; (6) Where there is a serious risk of imprisonment having a significant adverse effect on the offender's mental health, this will be a factor tending to mitigate punishment.

[22] See par 10 above.

[23] R v Hopkins [2018] VSC 756, [32].

[24] Pursuant to rule 75.11(4) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2025 (Vic), the court may make an order for punishment of contempt "on terms, including a suspension of punishment." See also Zhang v Shi (No 6) [2022] VSC 271; (2022) 67 VR 469, 503 [149] (Delany J); R v Hopkins [2018] VSC 756, [67] (Taylor J).