Crown v Accused

1 Jude Corbett, you have pleaded guilty to the attempted murder of your father, DE. The maximum penalty for attempted murder is 25 years' imprisonment.

2 On the evening of 19 October 2024, you went to DE's apartment and stabbed him multiple times with a knife. You were arrested hours later by police. You were extremely cooperative and made full admissions to wanting to kill your father. In order to place your offending in context, it is necessary to first say something about your background and personal circumstances.

3 At the time of the offending, you were 20 years old. You are the youngest of a sibship of three and have two older sisters, Lucinda (the eldest) and Tabitha. Your background, which I will come to in more detail, was dysfunctional, damaging, abusive and unstable. Your parents separated around the time of your birth, and your father formed a relationship with another man. Child Protection Services ('Child Protection')[1] had extensive involvement with your family throughout your childhood. Between the ages of approximately 4 and 16, you and your sisters were moved between foster care, kinship care and the care of your father. From at least the age of 8, you disclosed experiences of sexual abuse by your father. These disclosures were largely 'not substantiated' by Child Protection. Around 2012, your father was granted custody, and you and your sisters lived with him and his partner for approximately three years. During this time, the three of you were exposed to physical violence, neglect and drug abuse, leading to your removal from your father's care. What followed were different foster placements, and periods where you were returned to your father's custody. You were last returned to your father's care in January 2018 when you were aged 14. Two months later, you left, and were ultimately placed back with foster carers who you knew and trusted. You did not return to your father for the balance of your childhood, and there was only minimal contact between you.

4 Around January 2024, your sister, Tabitha, who had reconciled with your father, arranged for the three of you to meet. You agreed to the meeting, but found it uncomfortable and were flooded with bad memories. You did not want your father to touch or hug you. You left wanting no further contact with your father and did not see or contact him again before the night in question, other than the occasional social media message exchange.

5 In October 2024, you and your mother were living with your sister, Lucinda, and one of Lucinda's young sons, in her apartment in Croydon. Lucinda's elder son was living with his father. Lucinda does not speak to your father and has made it clear to him, since the time of her second son's birth, that he will never have any sort of relationship with her children.

6 At around 7pm on 19 October, your mother called Tabitha, who was residing in NSW, asking for your father's address so she could send him a birthday card. Tabitha provided the address via a message. The phone was on loudspeaker, and according to you, Tabitha spoke about your father, saying he had been doing a lot of counselling about his past. Tabitha, who also has a young son, said she was concerned that DE had asked to have her son stay with him, so he could teach him to be a 'real man'. This is supported by Lucinda's account of the conversation, but not by Tabitha's. According to Lucinda, Tabitha also told her that their father was using Lucinda's children's names as passwords, which infuriated Lucinda.

7 At around 8pm, you photographed the message containing your father's address in St Kilda. You then borrowed your mother's car, telling her you were going to visit a friend, and drove to St Kilda. You had two folding knives with you in the vehicle. They had been purchased weeks earlier, and it is not alleged they were purchased for the purpose of committing this, or any other, crime.

8 At around 9pm, you parked nearby and walked to your father's apartment, taking one knife with you. You climbed a fence to access an internal courtyard and banged on the front door, eventually calling out that it was you. Your father opened the door and invited you inside. The two of you engaged in small talk for around half an hour. According to DE, you told him about your grandparents passing and said you were withdrawing from ice. You told him you had purchased a knife and handed him the open knife. DE looked at the knife, closed it and handed it back to you. You then said, 'I have to do this because I know what you're planning to do to my nephews and I don't want you to do it, I'm going to stop you'. You proceeded to stab DE in the throat and arm. DE yelled and pleaded with you to stop, but you continued to stab him. At one point he crumpled in a heap on the floor, and you stabbed him in the back of the head. A neighbour heard the commotion and tried to open the front door, but you prevented him from doing so. After a while, the neighbour left and went to look for help. You asked DE what you should do, and he told you to open the door. You then left the apartment, closing the door behind you, and ran back to your vehicle. At some point, you discarded the knife.

9 The neighbour returned, together with another resident, and saw DE covered in blood. Emergency services were called, and police and paramedics arrived. DE was rushed to the Alfred Hospital emergency department. He had suffered extensive blood loss and life‑threatening injuries. He was placed into an induced coma and administered emergency care, including massive blood transfusions. There were in excess of 30 knife wounds and, if not for the prompt emergency treatment and medical intensive care, DE would have died from his injuries. He suffered injuries to his spinal cord, neck and pancreas, and had surface injuries to all parts of his body. After 10 days, he was woken from the induced coma and transferred to a ward for further monitoring and treatment. He was finally discharged from hospital on 8 November 2024.

10 After returning to your vehicle in St Kilda, you called your sister Lucinda and told her you were ok. You then returned to her apartment in Croydon. While in the elevator, you pulled your sleeves over your hands to conceal the blood from the CCTV cameras. Once inside, you asked Lucinda to shave your head, saying it would 'make their job a lot easier if they catch me'. You placed your hair cuttings and clothes into a garbage bag, and placed the bag inside a backpack in the living room. You then went to bed.

11 Police identified the vehicle you were driving and telephoned your mother to ask whether you were home. They then arranged for you to attend at the front door to speak with them. At 4:23am, you presented at the front door with your mother and your sister, Lucinda. You were peaceably arrested and interviewed later that day. You did not request to speak to a lawyer and made extensive admissions to the offending.

12 You told police that you had been physically and sexually abused by your father since your childhood. You said you wanted to stop DE from hurting your nephews in the same way he had hurt you, your sisters and your dog. You went to his apartment intending to kill him. You felt relief while stabbing your father, and hoped he was dead. You knew the knife was very sharp, and you recalled stabbing him multiple times, including in the throat and neck. As soon as police arrived, you decided to be honest with them. You told police you needed mental health assistance.

13 You were charged with the attempted murder of DE and remanded into custody. You were granted bail on 21 December 2024, despite the seriousness of the charge and the inevitability of a custodial sentence, and remained on bail until the date of your plea.

14 DE provided a victim impact statement. He has been left hurt, angry and fearful as a result of your attack. His depression and anxiety have worsened. Physically, he is unable to walk without a crutch or aid. He is unable to effectively use his dominant right hand. He is worried he may never be able to work again and cannot manage public transport, meaning he uses taxis or Uber. This has resulted in greater costs and financial pressures. He is scared that his physical appearance means he will remain single, and he feels that his lifestyle has slowed and his injuries have aged him. He often suffers from pain, and his sleep is constantly affected by pain.

15 You were born in January 2004 and are now 21 years old. You have a very minor criminal history which is of no relevance when sentencing you today. Three reports were tendered on your behalf. In the order they were written, they were: a neuropsychological report of Ms Jane Lofthouse dated 17 December 2024; a family violence expert report authored by Dr Boxall, criminologist, dated 24 August 2025; and a forensic psychiatric report by Dr Pandurangi dated 13 September 2025. Dr Pandurangi gave evidence on the plea. Five character references were also tendered, including one co‑authored by Brian and Helen Sparrow ('the Sparrows'), who have cared for you frequently throughout your life.

16 Child Protection were involved with your family before you were born. For the first four years of your life, your mother cared for you and your sisters. Your mother had significant mental health diagnoses. Around the age of four, you and your sisters were removed from your mother's care and placed into foster care. The reasons are somewhat unclear, but include allegations of physical and emotional abuse, and neglect. In 2011, you disclosed experiences of sexual abuse perpetrated by your father, but the reports were 'not substantiated' by Child Protection. You and your sisters were interviewed by SOCIT[2] and no clear disclosures were made. Child Protection also held concerns about your mother's mental health, and whether you may have been coached to make accusations against your father. Your mother applied for an intervention order against your father, protecting both her and the children. A final order was made, by consent, in July 2011. Two months later, you and your sisters were removed from your mother's care, and you were placed into foster care placements, including with the Sparrows.

17 In April 2012, you and your sisters were reunified with your father. Your father and his then‑partner, Mr Ashley Sparrow (Brian and Helen's son), were granted custody and you commenced living with them full‑time. Your mother's access was limited to supervised visits, due to concerns she was saying negative and untrue things about DE. In May 2012, you disclosed that your father and his partner were sexually abusing you, but you later retracted the accusation. Child Protection remained involved, and between August 2011 and December 2013 it appears that a number of concerns arose while you were in your father's care. Some of these concerns were 'substantiated' by Child Protection, including allegations of sexual abuse or failure to protect you from harm of that type. Another area of concern was that your father was 'unresponsive' to the emotional needs of his children. You remained living with your father until November 2015, despite these concerns.

18 After three years of being in DE's full‑time care, you and your sisters all made disclosures of physical abuse, neglect, exposure to drug use and drug making, and violence between DE and Mr Ashley Sparrow. These disclosures were substantiated by Child Protection and, in November 2015, you were removed from your father's care. You were again placed in the care of the Sparrows.

19 In July 2016, when you were aged 12, Child Protection reunified you and your sisters with your father. Your father moved into a share house with two other men but this arrangement was deemed unsatisfactory. Child Protection assessed the men as being unsuitable carers due to mental health issues, criminal activity, inappropriate sexual behaviour and potential grooming behaviour. There were further allegations of neglect, abuse, and exposure to family violence and drugs. This is also when your sister, Lucinda, reported that she had had contact with the men, who told her DE wanted to have 'father‑son' sex with you once you turned 16. In November 2016 you were placed back with the Sparrows. You progressed well in this placement. You made strong connections with the Sparrows, attended school and made a positive connection with your counsellor.

20 In January 2018, aged 14, you returned to your father pursuant to a court order. Two months later, you felt unsafe with your father and left to live with a family friend. In June 2018, you were placed back in the care of the Sparrows. At your request, this arrangement was formalised and a Permanent Care Order was made, transferring parental responsibility to the Sparrows. You remained living with the Sparrows until 2022 when, aged 18, you moved into a local share house.

21 Your education was unsurprisingly disrupted. You struggled from a young age and repeated prep. During that repeated year, you were removed from your mother's care. You passed Year 9 but failed Years 10 and 11 and left school. Your behaviour at school was disruptive. You were frequently suspended for fighting, non‑attendance and engaging in drug and alcohol use. After leaving school, you enrolled in a plumbing apprenticeship. You struggled with the theory component, could not be bothered attending work and left after nine months.

22 You began drinking your father's alcohol at age 12, and drank steadily and increasingly throughout your adolescence. You stopped drinking when you were aged around 19. At age 14, you commenced smoking cannabis. Your cannabis use steadily increased, such that you were smoking approximately seven grams per day. Your use only ceased when you were remanded, and you have not used cannabis since being released on bail. Between the ages of 18 and 19, you tried many other illicit drugs but did not use any of them regularly.

23 In 2024, you were living with your mother and maternal grandparents in Wallan. Your life was going well. You had obtained an apprenticeship as a heavy diesel mechanic in Heidelberg, which you enjoyed, and were driving daily to work. Unfortunately, in July 2024, both your grandparents passed away within a week of each other, and you and your mother had to leave the Wallan house. Ashley Sparrow, your father's former partner who you saw as a step-father figure, also passed away around this time. As a result of the disruption and the need to move, you did not attend work at times and ultimately lost your job. Three weeks prior to this offending, you and your mother moved in with your sister, Lucinda.

24 Ms Lofthouse interviewed you in December 2024 in custody. In her opinion, your overall intelligence and general ability fell within the borderline range, and for the most part, fell within the lower end of the borderline range. These deficits would have been present at the time of the offending and, without appropriate treatment, will continue to impinge on your future functioning. You have long‑standing patterns of poor impulse control, ill‑considered decision‑making and rigid problem solving. Ms Lofthouse opined that your intellectual functioning, together with the psychological factors relating to your history of abuse, would have significantly contributed to your offending on this night. In combination, these matters led you to react and behave violently, in an ill‑reasoned attempt to protect your nephews from your father. Additionally, your cannabis use would have further destabilised your psychological state and adversely impacted your intellectual functioning.

25 Ms Lofthouse addressed the question of whether you have an acquired brain injury ('ABI'), resulting from physical blows to the head as a child, or early drug and alcohol use, or both. Initially, she said your intellectual functioning was 'suggestive' of an ABI, and that your early drug and alcohol use would have placed you 'at risk' of an ABI. She then concluded that you are a person 'with an ABI'. I found it unclear how that conclusion was reached. However, it seemed to me that Ms Lofthouse's opinions were based on you suffering from a significant intellectual impairment, and did not depend on the precise cause of that intellectual impairment or the diagnosis of an ABI.

26 Dr Boxall addressed the impact of family violence on you as a child. Between the ages of 10 and 16, you were repeatedly placed in DE's care, despite documented concerns and reports of abuse. Dr Boxall noted that your disclosures, including about your father, were often minimised or discounted by people in authority. When your mother raised concerns, she was accused of coaching the children. These experiences likely reinforced your perception that formal systems could not be relied upon to protect vulnerable children. This context is critical in understanding your decision‑making on this night, and it is likely that you did not perceive formal help‑seeking as a viable option. This in turn contributed to your beliefs that you alone could protect your nephews, and that violent action was the only viable means of protection.

27 I note that three of the character references attest to your traumatic childhood. Ms Joyce, who has known you since you were 7, recalls your father's house was always filthy and he made the children clean while he stayed in bed. She would often arrive to find you and your sisters in tears after being punished with a wooden spoon or a belt. Ms Wilson has known you since you were 10 years old. She also recalls your father demanding you do the chores while he lay in bed, and said it was common for you to have marks on your body from being hit with a wooden spoon or a belt. The Sparrows wrote that when you were in their care, you often did not want to go to supervised visits with your father, saying you did not like him or did not feel well. You told the Sparrows about your father touching you on the bottom in a way that made you feel uncomfortable, and that your father had said he could not wait until you were old enough to have 'father‑son' sex. The Sparrows reported these concerns to Child Protection. For completeness, I note that DE, in his recorded police statement, denied ever abusing you or your sisters.

28 Dr Pandurangi diagnosed you with a Moderate Personality Disorder arising from your early life experiences, which in turn resulted in you suffering from a profound lack of sense of self. You experience poor self‑worth, difficulties forming relationships, poor emotional regulation, impulsivity, inability to manage conflict and lack of consequential thinking. You also suffer from complex post‑traumatic stress disorder resulting from your past, prolonged trauma. You are at risk of developing a depressive disorder in the future. In his opinion, there is no single isolated cause or event which can fully explain your offending. However, your mental health conditions, which existed at the time, would have impaired your capacity to make calm and reasonable decisions.

29 Ms Lofthouse, whose report was written before you were granted bail, expressed concern that your cognitive functioning may impinge on your ability to engage with treatment. Dr Pandurangi opined that, given your age and willingness to seek treatment, you have excellent prospects of rehabilitation. I note that you told police during your interview that you both needed and wanted mental health treatment. There is no evidence of past antisocial behaviours or difficulties with violent attitudes. Overall, Dr Pandurangi assessed you to be a moderate risk for future serious physical harm, and a low risk of imminent violence. Your underlying mental health conditions will likely make your time in prison more onerous when compared to a person who does not suffer from any mental health afflictions.

30 In evidence, Dr Pandurangi noted that while on bail you have attended Headspace and made good inroads into your difficulties. You have also complied with the requirements of Court Integrated Services Program ('CISP') bail. This shows you have the capacity and motivation to engage with treatment, which enhances your prospects of rehabilitation.

31 Dr Pandurangi gave evidence that you suffered from an extremely neglectful and disrupted childhood, with no opportunity to form proper attachments to caregivers. If the allegations of sexual abuse are true, that makes the disadvantage you suffered even more severe. He noted that the records indicate you repeated allegations of abuse over a long period of time, from late childhood to mid‑adolescence. You repeatedly did not want contact with your father, and did not want to be placed in his care. You have consistently and truly believed the sexual abuse occurred.

32 Dr Pandurangi stated that childhood shapes our personalities, and personality disorders commonly result from problems etched in early life. People with such disorders cannot deal with difficult situations, react inappropriately to stress, and use maladaptive coping strategies, such as consuming drugs. In his opinion, your underlying mental health conditions are important when explaining why you behaved as you did on this night.

33 In cross‑examination, Dr Pandurangi agreed that your nephews were not in imminent or immediate danger, and you travelled for approximately one hour to reach your father's apartment. Neither of these matters altered his opinion that your mental health conditions are linked to the offending.

34 Your counsel submitted your moral culpability is reduced due to a combination of limb 1 of Verdins[3] and the principles found in Bugmy.[4] It is very difficult to separate out these overlapping considerations, and it is not necessary to do so.[5] My task is to assess your overall moral culpability. I accept that there is a causal connection between your offending behaviour and your background of childhood abuse.[6] Based on the material, it is likely you were sexually abused by your father, or at least exposed to situations and behaviours that made you feel sexually uncomfortable and unsafe. However, as the prosecution accept, whether the sexual abuse did or did not occur, what matters is that you genuinely believe that it did. Through no fault of yours, the abuse you experienced (or believe you experienced) from your father, and what you would have perceived as a failure by authorities to protect you, would have fostered your view that other people cannot be trusted to protect your nephews. Your background of neglect and deprivation was the genesis of your mental health conditions, and additionally, you suffer from cognitive disabilities. I accept that limb 1 of Verdins is enlivened insofar as your intellectual disability and mental health issues impaired your ability to make calm and reasoned decisions. Overall, I accept that there are good reasons to find that your moral culpability is reduced. The same factors mean the weight afforded to general deterrence will also be moderated.

35 Based on the evidence of Dr Pandurangi and Ms Lofthouse, I accept that your mental health conditions and cognitive impairments will make your time in custody more onerous than it would be if you did not suffer from these conditions and impairments.[7] This mitigates the sentence I would otherwise impose.

36 Both counsel referred me to a number of sentencing decisions, acknowledging the limitations that attach to any comparison process.[8] They were cases of attempted murder, involving circumstances of family violence and the use of a knife. I have found them helpful and they provide some general guidance, noting of course that each sentencing decision ultimately turns on its own unique facts.

37 Attempted murder is a grave offence, involving a specific intent to kill.[9] You tried to take the life of DE and, but for rapid medical intervention, you would have succeeded. Your counsel submitted your offending falls within the 'middle range of gravity' for the very serious offence of attempted murder. The prosecution warned of the need for caution when employing terms such as 'middle range', but nonetheless submitted this was a 'serious example' of the offence.

38 In my view, this is an objectively serious example of attempted murder. DE was in his own home, where he was entitled to feel safe. He was unarmed, defenceless and no doubt utterly shocked when you commenced your brutal attack. You ignored his pleas for you to stop, and prevented a neighbour from coming to his aid. I do not agree with your counsel's characterisation that, after the attack, you were asking your father for advice and permission to leave. I am somewhat unsure if this was said to be mitigating, but in my view, it is not. I accept that you asked DE what you should do, but when he told you to open the door, you walked out and closed the door behind you. This was also a crime of family violence, albeit not intimate partner violence, which is more frequently seen by this Court.[10]

39 The physical injuries sustained by a victim of attempted murder range from serious and life‑changing, such as brain damage or quadriplegia, to non‑existent, such as where a gun is fired but the shot misses. The nature of the physical injuries suffered by a victim is relevant when assessing the gravity of the offence.[11] Here, DE's injuries are not trivial, but nor do they sit at the most serious end of the spectrum. He bears the physical impact of your attack and will continue to suffer from those impacts; in particular, he has reduced mobility and an inability to effectively use his right hand.

40 The prosecution characterised your offending as 'vigilante behaviour'. I have found the label 'vigilantism' unhelpful in this case as, while not inaccurate, it does not fully capture the complex, subjective factors that are linked to your offending. You acted to protect your nephews and, while you knew what you were doing was wrong, your behaviour was affected by your own childhood trauma inflicted by the very person you attacked on this night. Your moral culpability is reduced for the reasons I have been through. Nonetheless, your crime must be condemned by the courts and you must be adequately punished. No person has the right to take the law into their own hands and attempt to kill another human being, regardless of what they know or believe that person has done in the past, or may do in the future. General deterrence remains a relevant sentencing principle.

41 You made full admissions to the police and pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. This entitles you to a meaningful sentencing discount. Your plea of guilty spared the witnesses in this case, particularly the victim DE, from the trauma of having to give evidence and relive the events of this night. It shows a willingness by you to facilitate the course of justice. I am less persuaded that your guilty plea provides any real evidence of remorse. The question of remorse is vexed in this case. I accept that you wish you had not done this, but as Dr Pandurangi stated, any expression of regret is heavily coloured by your early life experience and resulting mental health conditions, together with your cognitive difficulties. It could not be said that you are genuinely remorseful, but you have taken responsibility for your offending.

42 The prosecution submitted the principle of community protection in sentencing is 'particularly relevant' in this case. The submission relied on your intellectual functioning, history of substance use, and maladaptive but entrenched personality disorder. Additionally, the 'planned and unprovoked' nature of the offending elevates the importance of community protection. I note that this was not a random attack on a member of the public. Community protection is always a relevant sentencing principle, but I can find no reason to place greater or additional weight on the principle when sentencing you. You have no history of violent offending. You have not attempted to contact your father since the offending, but there have been bail conditions and an intervention order in place preventing any contact, and you have been residing a considerable distance away. I accept that the victim may remain at some risk. Specific deterrence has some relevance here, and the need to give effect to that consideration will be addressed by the inevitable period of imprisonment I will impose.

43 You are not a young offender within the meaning of the Sentencing Act,[12] having now turned 21, but the principles relevant to sentencing young offenders still have relevance here.[13] Your youth and rehabilitation assume some significance. There is great public benefit in the rehabilitation of a young offender, and maximising the prospect that they will live a productive and law‑abiding life. Additionally, youth may be mitigatory because the courts recognise that the young and immature are more prone to ill‑considered or rash decisions.[14] The decision you made on this night would fit that description. That said, the weight to be attached to your age is reduced given the seriousness of your crime.[15]

44 Your counsel also submitted that your disadvantaged background 'may' warrant the exercise of mercy.[16] The prosecution submitted that your personal circumstances are not so extreme as to warrant a 'downward departure' from the principle of proportionality. The principle of proportionality is not displaced here. However, it is well established that mercy has always been properly regarded as running 'hand in hand with the sentencing discretion'.[17] Here, on the evidence before me, your youth and traumatic background are strong mitigating factors and provide a basis to adopt a more lenient approach. Nonetheless, any punishment must be 'just in all the circumstances',[18] and such an approach cannot justify an inadequate sentence.[19]

45 Ms Joyce and Ms Wilson have known you since you were a child. They both describe you as a quiet, sweet boy who, despite the trauma, was respectful, courteous and showed kindness to others. Mrs Robertson, a qualified Men's Behaviour Change program facilitator, has known you for the past seven months. You have been working with her grandson and have regularly visited her home. In her view, you have a courteous, kind and friendly nature, and she has never observed any negative behaviour. Mr Robertson, your employer for the past seven months, described you as trustworthy and conscientious. He is prepared to employ you despite this matter. Finally, the Sparrows' reference provides considerable insight into your life. After this incident, they visited you in prison and agreed you could live with them if granted bail. Since being on bail, you have been very respectful and taken your bail conditions seriously. You have taken responsibility for what you did and wish you had taken a different course. You have struggled at times with anxiety, but overall you have remained positive and tried your best to prepare yourself for prison. The Sparrows attended the plea hearing and remain very supportive of you.

46 The final CISP bail report, dated 2 July 2025, confirms that you attended drug counselling, engaged well and reported abstinence from all drugs including cannabis. Your CISP worker found you to be personable, engaged and fully compliant. You were reluctant to consult with a therapist due to negative past experiences, but overcame this reluctance and attended Headspace. A letter from Headspace confirmed you attended counselling. You participated willingly and with a high level of engagement. In my view, your prospects of rehabilitation are very good for two main reasons: one, your youth and lack of prior convictions; two, your willingness to engage in treatment. Dr Pandurangi gave evidence that your mental health and cognitive difficulties will not prevent you from benefitting from appropriate treatment.

47 The different purposes of sentencing frequently pull in different directions, as this case highlights. DE had, and has, every right to live a peaceful and safe life. Fortunately, he survived your attack, but the real gravamen of your crime is that you intended to kill him. However, there are also substantial matters in mitigation, including your cooperation with police, guilty plea, youth, reduced moral culpability, lack of criminal history and positive prospects of rehabilitation.

48 On the charge of attempted murder, you are sentenced to eight years' imprisonment. I fix a non‑parole period of four years and three months' imprisonment.

49 I declare you have served 93 days by way of pre‑sentence detention, not including today, and such period is reckoned as time already served under this sentence.

50 I make the forfeiture order sought by the prosecution.

51 Pursuant to s 6AAA, but for your plea of guilty, the sentence I would have imposed is 10 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of seven years' imprisonment.

[1] For ease, I will use the umbrella term 'Child Protection' throughout these reasons, as the various services and departments have had different names throughout the relevant period.

[2] SOCIT are the Sexual Offences and Child Abuse Investigation Team of Victoria Police, who specialise in investigating child abuse and sexual crimes.

[3] R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269; [2007] VSCA 102 ('Verdins').

[4] Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37 ('Bugmy').

[5] DPP (Vic) v Herrmann [2021] VSCA 160; (2021) 290 A Crim R 110, 128 [84] (Maxwell P, Kaye, Niall, T Forrest and Emerton JJA); [2021] VSCA 160 ('Herrmann').

[6] See Bugmy, 594-595 [43]-[44] (French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ), where the High Court set out the two ways childhood deprivation are potentially relevant when sentencing. One is in a 'general' sense, meaning the moral culpability of an offender is likely to be less than an offender who had the advantage of a stable and regular home environment. The second is in a specific or 'causal' sense, where there is a link or nexus between the offending and childhood abuse or disadvantage which the offender experienced. See also Herrmann 118-120 [36]-[42] (Maxwell P, Kaye, Niall, T Forrest and Emerton JJA).

[8] The cases referred to were DPP v Cigercioglu [2023] VSC 772; R v Mikhail [2020] VSC 681; R v Hannarong [2017] VSC 264; R v Tedford (2020) VSCA 476; Chey v The King [2022] VSCA 262; DPP v Chambers [2025] VSC 63; DPP v Boodhoo [2016] VSC 458; R v Sandhu [2016] VSC 516.

[9] Hudson v The Queen; DPP v Hudson [2010] VSCA 332; (2010) 30 VR 610, 628 [69] (Ashley, Redlich and Harper JJA); [2010] VSCA 332 ('Hudson').

[10] Of the eight cases referred to, seven involved intimate partner violence.

[11] See Hudson 629 [72]-[73] (Ashley, Redlich and Harper JJA) where the Court differentiated between the sentences on two charges of attempted murder for a number of reasons, including that the injuries suffered by one victim were more serious that those suffered by the other victim.

[12] See Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 3(1) (definition of 'young offender').

[13] R v Mills [1998] 4 VR 235.

[14] R v McGaffin [2010] SASCFC 22; (2010) 206 A Crim R 188, 210 [69] (White J).

[15] Azzopardi v R [2011] VSCA 372; (2011) 35 VR 43, 57 [44] (Redlich JA); [2011] VSCA 372.

[16] Counsel relied on DPP (Vic) v Snow [2020] VSCA 67, 25 [86] (Maxwell P, Beach JA and Croucher AJA).

[17] R v Miceli [1997] VSC 22; [1998] 4 VR 588, 592 (Tadgell JA). Further, at 594, Charles JA observed that the task of the sentencing judge was to consider whether, on the evidence before him or her, 'a reasonable basis existed in well‑balanced judgment for adopting a course which might bear less heavily on the applicant than if he were to receive his just deserts'.

[18] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 5(1)(a).

[19] Adams v The Queen [2011] VSCA 77, 15-16 [70] (Nettle, Redlich JJA and Kyrou AJA).