Crown v Accused

1. Mr Baensch, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of manslaughter - by unlawful and dangerous act - of Mr Bryce Trower.
2. This arises from events which occurred on 11 December 2023, in Norlane, Victoria. You drove your Holden utility vehicle at Mr Trower who was riding an electric scooter. You intentionally struck him with the vehicle. Mr Trower died as a result of the impact.
3. You also failed to stop after the impact, and drove away at a fast rate of speed. For this additional conduct, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of failing to stop a motor vehicle after an accident.
4. The maximum penalty for manslaughter is 25 years imprisonment.[1]
5. The maximum penalty for failure to stop a motor vehicle after an accident is 10 years imprisonment.

1. Pursuant to s 208 of the _Criminal Procedure Act 2009 ('CPA'), y_ou applied for a sentence indication from me in relation to the two charges before the Court today.
2. On 3 July 2025, pursuant to s 207 of the CPA_,_ I indicated to you that if you were to plead guilty to these offences I would sentence you to a total effective sentence of 11 years' imprisonment and fix a non-parole period of eight years' imprisonment. This means that I cannot impose a sentence which is higher than those numbers, but the law does allow me to go lower.
3. Following that indication - on 10 July 2025 - you pleaded guilty to these two charges. You were arraigned on that date.
4. Following some adjournments at your request - to allow your counsel further time to obtain some psychological material on your behalf - your plea hearing was heard on 7 November 2025.
5. You now fall to be sentenced by me today.

1. At the time of the offending, you were 29 years old and unemployed however you have previously worked as a house painter. At the time of the collision, you were the holder of a disqualified Victorian Probationary Licence.
2. The deceased, Mr Trower was 31 years old and worked as a sub-contractor with his brother.
3. You were in a de-facto relationship and resided with Ms Stephanie Dunlop in Newcomb, Victoria.
4. You knew Mr Trower and had previously been close friends. However, there had been a breakdown your relationship after Ms Dunlop and Mr Trower had an affair in 2022 whilst you were serving an period of imprisonment.
5. This breakdown is apparent some text message exchanges between you and Mr Trower in August 2022.
6. On Monday, 11 December 2023, you were driving a Holden and Ms Dunlop was sitting in the front seat as a passenger. The Holden was owned by you but you had not transferred the vehicle registration details into your name.
7. At approximately 6.42 pm, you turned onto the street of the collision - which was a regular deviation from your usual route home - in the hope that you would encounter Mr Trower. Ms Dunlop told you not to turn onto the street as she knew that you intended to confront Mr Trower.
8. At approximately the same time, Mr Trower left his house to visit a friend. Mr Trower was riding a Segway Ninebot electric scooter. The scooter had a top speed of 25 km/hr.
9. You slowed as you passed Mr Trower's house. Ms Dunlop said to you 'Don't be an idiot, just keep driving'. You and Ms Dunlop then observed Mr Trower riding his scooter down the street. You then said 'That's Bryce, I should get out and hit him'. Ms Dunlop then replied, 'Don't be fucking stupid'.
10. Driving the vehicle you caught up to Mr Trower and intentionally manoeuvred towards Mr Trower and yelled out to him.
11. At approximately 6.43 pm, you swerved the vehicle and intentionally hit Mr Trower from behind, whilst travelling at approximately 45 km/h, inflicting fatal injuries.
12. The impact of the collision caused Mr Trower to travel up over the bonnet of the Holden and impact the windscreen causing it to shatter. Mr Trower was then thrown up into the air after he landed on the road where he then skidded approximately 7 metres.
13. After colliding with Mr Trower, you failed to stop and drove away at a fast rate of speed.
14. Residents from the nearby houses heard the collision and attended Mr Trower on the roadway. He was unresponsive. Emergency services were called and attempted to resuscitate Mr Trower. He was declared dead at the scene.
15. The collision occurred on Mr Trower's residential street approximately 400 meters from his home.

1. On 18 December 2023, Mr Trower was examined at the Melbourne Coroners Court by Forensic Pathologist, Dr Michael Duffy. Dr Duffy determined the cause of death to be, 'Head injuries sustained in a motor vehicle incident'. Dr Duffy further said:

Autopsy findings indicate he sustained high energy impacts to his head, torso and pelvis which are inconsistent with a simple fall from an e-scooter alone. The band-like soft tissue haemorrhage across the lower back indicates he sustained a high energy impact with a broad surface. Impact from a bumper of a vehicle is the most likely cause for this injury. This was approximately 103 cm from the heel (not incorporating the height of the electric scooter). These findings are highly suggestive that he was struck by a vehicle.

1. On 29 July 2024, a reconstruction expert - a police Detective from the Collision Reconstruction Unit - provided a statement in relation to the collision that if Mr Trower was impacted at 45km/h (as stated by you and I will return to that), he would have travelled about 11.39 metres post impact. The expert further said that Mr Trower was upright at the time of the collision, and would not have been hit if the vehicle had not swerved in his direction.
2. Mr Baensch, the cold, hard fact is, you struck Mr Trower's person directly - and intentionally - with your moving motor vehicle.

1. Following the collision, you drove the Holden to an unknown location where you left it until after sunset. Later that evening, you returned to the Holden and drove it back to your residence where you parked it in the garage.
2. The next day, on 12 December 2023, you along with the assistance of Mr Jack Mawson, removed parts from the vehicle to prevent it from being identified. Mr Mawson's wife refused to store the vehicle at her house. You and Mr Mawson then stored the vehicle in an unused garaged of a friend who had no knowledge of the offending.
3. In the period after the collision, you and Ms Dunlop also reset your mobile phones. You began using a new mobile number.
4. On 19 December 2023, Police attended your address and obtained a written statement from you. In that statement, you said that you had bought the Holden but then had sold the vehicle to a man you did not know but was named 'Jason Hart'. You produced handwritten receipts relating to the purchase and sale of the vehicle. The receipts indicated that the Holden had been sold to 'Jason Hart' on 1 November 2023 (ie, 10 days prior to the collision).
5. The police investigated Mr Hart and discovered that he had passed away on 13 November 2023.
6. The police in their investigation identified you as driving the vehicle from CCTV footage, a witness (who attended the police and reported that he had seen a Holden collide with Mr Trower), and by cell tower location mapping.
7. CCTV was footage collected from the street of the collision. In the CCTV camera from Mr Trower's residence, Mr Trower is seen leaving his residence on his scooter. Some 25 seconds later, you are captured in the same CCTV footage driving the Holden with Ms Dunlop as a passenger. Other CCTV footage in the street shows you following a few seconds behind Mr Trower. Further CCTV footage captures the sound of the collision.
8. On 3 March 2024, police intercepted a call between Ms Dunlop and her niece (having obtained telecommunications interception warrants). In the call, the niece talked about Ms Dunlop riding an eScooter and stated:

1. On 6 March 2024, you received a phone call from Mr Mawson. During the call, you and Mr Mawson joked about a person falling of a scooter by saying he had 'done a Bryce'. You also said to Mr Mawson that you had said to Ms Dunlop 'if I get done, I was just like, you're getting done as an accomplice, so you're just doing half as long as I do'.
2. On 2 April 2024, the Holden was located in the address in Whittington, Victoria. Parts had been removed from the vehicle which included the windscreen, front bumper bar, ladder racks, removeable sides from the metal tray, the toolbox from the rear tray and the VIN plates. Upon locating the Holden, the police seized the vehicle.
3. On 19 April 2024, you told Mr Mawson and your associates who had hidden the car that as soon as fingers started being pointed that you would put your hand up for everything.
4. On 20 May 2024, Major Car-Crash Collision officers attended Ms Mawson's residence. At approximately 2:11 pm, Ms Mawson called you and told you that you had one hour to hand yourself into the police because she wasn't losing her kids over you.
5. At approximately 3:46 pm, you called your friend and told him that you were going to hand yourself into the police. Your friend replied that you would be 'the boss in prison' because you had killed someone.
6. On 23 May 2024, you and Ms Dunlop were arrested and various items were seized. You have been remanded since this date.

1. On 23 May 2024, you participated in a recorded interview with police. During the recorded interview, you stated that you were unaware of the identity of Mr Trower at the time of the collision, that Mr Trower had fallen in front of the Holden and that the only reason you had fled the scene was because you were scared as you did not have a licence.
2. The police then presented you with the evidence they had gathered. The interview was suspended to allow you to have a break. After the break in the interview, you then made admissions. You admitted - and I am now going to list some of the admissions you have made:

(a) You drove onto the street hoping to come across Mr Trower and that you had recognised Mr Trower when you saw him riding the scooter.

(b) That you were travelling at about 45 km/h at the time of the collision.

(c) That you wanted to assault Mr Trower by punching him.

(d) That you had previously chased Mr Trower on foot to assault him however Mr Trower rode away on his scooter.

(e) You intended to knock Mr Trower from his scooter. You said that you did this as you were aware from the previous interaction, that if you stopped the Holden, Mr Trower would again escape.

(f) You stated:

• 'I was just trying to nudge him, and it didn't go to plan, yeah'.
• By nudge him, you meant 'just intentionally bump him with the scooter'.
• It was not your intention at all to hit him or to kill him.

(g) When asked what you thought would happen if you nudged Mr Trower, you stated 'Like, I don't know. Maybe just fall off his scooter, and then I'd be able to talk with him, like, not die.'

(h) You had heard rumours of Mr Trower and Ms Dunlop having a sexual relationship in 2021; but said that Mr Trower had refused to tell you if the rumours where true which upset you.

(i) You could not remember the manoeuvre you made to cause the nudge. You didn't accelerate; you may have turned. As a result of the impact, Mr Trower hit the windscreen and fell off.

(j) You stated in your record of interview that you were 'remorseful as fuck' but didn't have the 'balls or decency' to hand yourself in.

1. A number of Mr Trower's family members provided deeply moving victim impact statements to the Court. These were read to the Court.
2. Kathleen Perry - mother of Mr Trower - said in her statement that she experiences hurt, grief and a 'loneliness that no one can imagine' every day after losing her son. She expressed feeling numbness of disbelief and sadness. She understandably expressed the hurt that she is feeling and how the loss of her son has impacted her life.
3. Eric Trower - father of Mr Trower - said that a large part of himself died when his son, his best friend died. He provided the following description of the emotional impact he has suffered as a result of losing his son:

There is not a day that goes by that Bryce is not on my mind. I sit on the couch, and I see Bryce is at the other of my couch watching shows on the tv that we both liked. Every Sunday I go to the cemetery and sit with him and do word puzzles. This might be weird. When I get stuck on a word from the puzzle at the cemetery, there is a tree next to his grave site which will suddenly catch my attention and then the word comes to me. I carry a photo of him in my car it goes everywhere with me. I miss him very much ... There is not a day that goes by that Bryce is not on my mind.

1. Kathryn Bongiovanni - sister of Mr Trower - said that her life has now changed forever. She turned onto the street and saw the flashing lights to discover that her brother was gone. She said that what she has felt has been all consuming and has felt confused, angry, frustrated and anxious. Her family is heartbroken from the loss of her brother.
2. Pauline Trower - sister of Mr Trower - said that the grief she has experienced since her brother's passing has been profound and relentless. She said that she has struggled in ways that she could not have imagined and expressed in Court the following sentiments:

Losing Bryce has left a void that cannot be filled. The trauma, anxiety, and daily struggles I now live with are the lasting consequences of his loss. Life has not returned to normal - and may never fully do so. The most heartbreaking reality of all is knowing what Bryce has lost. He will never get the chance to marry, to have children, or to live out the life he deserved. That loss of future - his future - will forever haunt our family.

1. I turn now to assess the objectivise gravity of your offending.
2. In my view, your manslaughter is a very serious example of the offence of manslaughter.
3. There are a number of reasons why that is so.
4. First, you deliberately struck Mr Trower with your motor vehicle with the intention of knocking him from his electric scooter. This was the agreed factual basis of the plea. It constituted the 'unlawful act' component of the offence of manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act. Collisions involving motor vehicles and pedestrians or riders are often referred to as accidents. The collision with Mr Trower was no accident. Here, your act in driving into Mr Towers was intentional. As I have said, it is common ground that you fall to be sentenced upon that basis.
5. Second, your unlawful act - deliberately striking Mr Trower with your motor vehicle - was an extremely dangerous act. An act is dangerous if a reasonable person in the position of the offender would have realised he or she was exposing the victim to an appreciable risk to serious injury. This is an objective test. By your plea, you have accepted that this unlawful act was relevantly and objectively dangerous. In assessing the gravity of your offence, I must make some assessment of the level of dangerousness involved with this act. Mr Trower was utterly vulnerable and exposed while riding the scooter. There was no protection between Mr Trower's person and any impact from your motor vehicle. He was not wearing a helmet. The risk of serious injury was great.
6. This was a very dangerous act even if it was only your intention to 'nudge' Mr Trower. In any event, by your own admissions, you were travelling at some 45km/h. As your counsel properly accepted during the plea, this was in fact a significant impact at speed.
7. Even though you only intended to knock Mr Trower off the e-scooter (for the stated purpose of confronting and assaulting him) and that you did not intend this dreadful outcome, this is a very serious crime.
8. Third, the gravity and indeed horror of this manslaughter is self-evident. Mr Trower was thrown onto the bonnet of your vehicle, impacted with the vehicle's windscreen and then skidded for several metres.
9. Fourth, your actions are not explained in any way by the conduct of the deceased. Your actions were in no way responsive or reactive to anything Mr Trower did on that day. Indeed, you had been searching for Mr Trower with the intention of assaulting him for some time, apparently out of sense of jealously. To that end you drove into Mr Trower's street on this occasion in the hope of locating him for that purpose. There are no extenuating circumstances which immediately surrounded this episode.
10. Fifth, the offending was committed in a residential and public street. Members of the public were potentially exposed to witnessing this horrific event. Unsurprisingly, at least one saw it, and others heard it, and rushed to Mr Trower's aid who was unresponsive on the roadway. They all witnessed this awful aftermath.
11. Having regard to these matters, I accept the prosecution's characterisation of the objective gravity of this manslaughter as falling in the higher range of manslaughter offences. Your culpability is very high.
12. Of course, you also fall to be sentenced for the failure to stop after the collision. The prospect of Mr Trower having sustained a significant injury must have been evident to you. You showed a callous and total disregard for his wellbeing and chose instead to act out of rank self-preservation. Your failure to stop was disgraceful. This was a serious example of this offence.

1. You have a criminal history which began in 2014. However, you are not a person who has spent much time in prison. You have typically received orders for fines, community work and disqualifications from holding your driver's licence for your previous convictions.
2. Most notable from your criminal history is a conviction for an armed robbery offence. You were sentenced to a 15 month sentence with a non-parole period of 9 months. You were released from custody on parole in March 2022. You complied with all conditions of your parole (and I will return to that).
3. In 2019 you also served a second albeit brief 2 day imprisonment sentence which related to a number of offences including threat to destroy/damage property.
4. You have a number of priors for driving offences which range from driving with a disqualified licence to driving at dangerous speeds and whilst exceeding the prescribed concentration of drugs.
5. You also have multiple dispositions for drug related offences - relating to possession of methamphetamine and GHB - as well as dishonesty offences.
6. You have not always complied with the orders made by the Court. You have contravened a number of community correction orders and several interim personal safety intervention orders. In 2016, you failed to answer bail.

1. As a result of the evidence before me on the plea, I will spend some time on these issues.
2. You are now 31 years old.[2]
3. You were born and raised in Geelong as an only child.
4. Your father worked as a cleaner and maintenance worker at various schools and institutions which he continues on a casual basis. At one point in time, your father retired to provide full time care for your mother. Your mother suffered from Muscular Dystrophy and required assistance from you and your father with daily activities. Your mother passed away from a choking incident and other health complications in 2022.
5. You completed schooling to year 10 and have described some experiences of being bullied. You left school to increase your gaming hours where you would play Call of Duty in excess of 8-hours per day and watch television. Your grandmother passed away around the time you left school. You subsequently completed year 11 via other means. After your schooling, you commenced work as a painter without a formal apprenticeship.
6. You worked as a contractor under your own business name and were employed by several companies as a painter. You were also a recipient of Centrelink income.
7. You have had two serious romantic relationships. The most recent with Ms Dunlop for six years. You reported that Ms Dunlop was pregnant when you went into custody for these offences and gave birth to your son in October 2024 (and I will return to that family matter shortly).
8. You reported that you had been sexually assaulted when you were 7 years old by the parent of a friend whilst you were visiting the house and bathing. You stated that you have never disclosed this event to your parents.

1. Your counsel relied upon various materials in relation to your mental health and substance abuse history including:

(a) A report of Dr Carla Lechner, clinical psychologist, dated 19 February 2021.

(b) A Justice Health service records authored by Dr Delene Brookstein, Senior Clinical & Forensic Psychologist dated 24 September 2025 (who met with and treated you multiple times during the period of your remand).

(c) A report of Dr Mathew Staios, clinical neuropsychologist, dated 13 June 2025 followed by an addendum reported dated 5 November 2025. In the addendum report Dr Staios incorporates and examines the Justice Health Records concerning your psychological functioning while in custody.

1. You variously reported that you had used substances daily since the age of 16 excluding periods of time spend in custody and brief periods of abstinence.
2. At around age 16 you were a regular user of multiple substances including GHB, ecstasy, cannabis, cocaine, and methylamphetamines. Your polysubstance abuse has led to hospitalisation at times.
3. On 5 September 2023, approximately three months before Mr Trower's death, you were referred by Newcomb Central Medical Centre to Drug and Alcohol Services in Geelong. The referral notes indicate that you had been able to wean yourself off some drugs and alcohol. You were, however, keen to get off GHB but required assistance with this. Multiple attempts were made to contact you but they were unsuccessful and your program was closed.
4. You reported that you have abstained from drugs whilst in remand and have made attempts to rehabilitate.
5. Ms Lechner, clinical psychologist, observed that you presented with symptoms of methylamphetamine and GHB use. She was of the opinion that your problems with drug abuse were typically associated with your offending behaviour.
6. Mr Lechner was of the opinion that you did not present with symptoms of an underlying psychological or psychiatric disorder. However, she was of the view that you were quite emotionally and socially immature and prone to peer influence particularly in group settings and whilst affected by drugs.
7. Dr Staios, clinical neuropsychologist, observed that your drug use was best understood in the context of psychosocial vulnerability, trauma and susceptibility to negative peer influences.
8. Dr Staios opined that your intellect fell within the average range overall and that your psychosocial history included exposure to bullying in your childhood and adolescence. Dr Staios was of the view that it was within the context of being bullied that you appear to have commenced experimenting with substances. Dr Staios also noted that you gravitated towards unstable interpersonal relationships leading to the perpetuation of drug seeking and addiction.
9. Dr Staios diagnosed you with generalised anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, GHB use disorder; stimulant (in particular, methamphetamine) use disorder and alcohol use disorder.
10. Dr Staios's opinion was that your records (and as I noted earlier, he examined the Justice Health records) depict:

chronic generalised anxiety disorder complicated by substance dependence, poor adherence to antidepressant therapy, reluctance to engage in psychological treatment, and continued drug-seeking behaviour for benzodiazepines. His functioning appears affected by anxiety symptoms and substance misuse, though he retains insight and denies suicidality.

1. Your psychological background and drug abuse history are relevant to a number of matters which have been advanced by your counsel on your behalf at the plea hearing.
2. I now turn to examine these mitigator factors.

1. Your counsel submitted that your admissions made in your interview with police were of 'real benefit' and facilitated the course of justice. He submitted your admissions 'solidified' the prosecution case and filled in some of the important detail. In particular, there was significant utility in your admission that you deliberately struck Mr Trower and that you were driving at 45 km/h.
2. While the prosecutor did not quibble with the general tenor of this submission, he emphasised that there was always a strong case for manslaughter based upon a deliberate striking. It was argued that a cogent inference of a deliberate striking could be drawn from the evidence of animosity between yourself and Mr Trower, the fact that you were seeking him out in your car, the evidence that you were at least seeking an altercation, the CCTV footage, and your post offence conduct.
3. To be clear, your counsel did not suggest that your admissions supplied investigator's with the case necessary to obtain a conviction for manslaughter or that proof of the manslaughter charge depended entirely or substantially on your admissions. Indeed, your counsel explicitly eschewed (ie, said that he would rely upon) asking for a Doran[3] discount. So understood, I do not think there was much distance between the position advanced on your behalf and that advanced by the prosecution.
4. I generally accept the submission made on your behalf that when you did finally make admissions - after the break in the interview - they were of real value and did advance the course of justice. You deserve credit for this.

1. It was submitted on your behalf that your plea of guilty was of utilitarian benefit and demonstrates your willingness to facilitate the course of justice and that, accordingly, you are entitled to a significant discount.
2. There was some discussion at the plea about what flows from the fact that the plea has only been entered in response to a sentence indication.
3. Of course, as an objective fact, it is not a plea entered at the earliest opportunity.
4. I otherwise think the utilitarian value in this plea remains largely unaffected by the fact that it was entered after the provision of sentence indication. You have not run a committal hearing. Plainly your plea has meant that there will be no trial. The family of Mr Trower and the community have been spared the ordeal of a trial.
5. I also accept that you have taken steps to resolve the matter early on, which further evidences a desire to facilitate the course of justice. Your counsel on your behalf rely upon two matters:

(a) First, you offered to plead guilty on 22 November 2024 to dangerous driving causing death and failing to stop. That offer was rejected on 2 December 2024 by the prosecution. It is unsurprising that this offer was rejected - and that the prosecution insisted upon manslaughter - given that you had intentionally and deliberately engaged in an unlawful and dangerous act causing Mr Trower's death. That is, that you deliberately struck Mr Trower with the vehicle. Nevertheless, the offer which you made bespeaks of an attempt to try and resolve the matter.

(b) Second, immediately upon this matter being listed in the Supreme Court, you sought a sentence indication. I also this also evidences some willingness to resolve the matter.

1. There was also discussion at the plea about whether the fact that the plea of guilty was entered following the provision of a sentence indication affects the assessment of remorse attaching to a plea. In the end, I do not need to resolve this question in your case. This is because, in your case, your counsel did not really seek to establish remorse upon the basis of your plea; rather your counsel primarily sought to establish remorse from other sources of evidence, most notably the medical material, which, as will become apparent shortly, I have largely accepted.

1. It is convenient then to turn to examine the question of your remorse,
2. The issue of your remorse is a mixed bag.
3. As your counsel conceded, from the moment you fled the crime scene through to the moment you were arrested, you were 'absolutely remorseless'. That is a quote from your counsel at the plea hearing which I think accurately captures the state of affairs. You took a number of calculated steps in order to conceal your involvement in this crime. You took steps to conceal your vehicle at an acquaintance's premises and removed components of the vehicle in an attempt to avoid detection. You did not come forward voluntarily. You then misled police about your possession of the vehicle. All this behaviour post the offence must be seen as having been motivated by self-preservation. It showed complete disregard for Mr Trower's welfare and dignity. It is acknowledged that your post offending conduct is inconsistent with any acceptance of responsibility or remorse, at least at during that period.
4. When formally interviewed by police in May 2024 (as I indicted above) you initially lied about what had occurred claiming that the collision with Mr Trower was a mere accident. It was only after a break in the interview that you admitted to driving into the street in hope of coming across Mr Trower. You then made admissions.
5. Your counsel made a number of submissions to the effect that the making of the admissions was somewhat of a turning point for you. He submitted that after your arrest, and after having made admissions to police, you ultimately obtained sobriety on remand. From this point onwards you began to reflect meaningfully on your conduct. In the process - and with some psychological support - you commenced to develop some remorse with respect to your offending. It is not suggested that this transformation was either spontaneous or immediate, rather it has emerged through a process of enforced detoxication, counselling and reflection.
6. Your counsel placed reliance upon the medical reports.
7. Dr Staios stated the following in his original report in relation to your remorse:

Mr Baensch expressed remorse regarding his present offending. He appeared visibly depressed during the present assessment. He reflected on how his actions have had a significant impact not only on his family but also on the victim's family. His capacity for remorse appears genuine. Mr Baensch reported that he has experienced ongoing symptoms of depression and a trauma response as a result of taking another life.

1. In the addendum report, Dr Staios expressed the view that whilst you were in custody, that the offending 'had continued to dominate [your] thinking with recurrent intrusive flashbacks, guilt and shame.' Although you did not meet full diagnostic criteria at the time of his review, Dr Staios concluded that '[you] exhibited features of post-traumatic stress but did not meet the full diagnostic criteria'.
2. The Justice Health records record that you were seeking trauma related support whilst remanded and also reported low mood and anxiety. You reported nightmares as a result of the offending.
3. You also engaged in several voluntary psychology sessions with Dr Brookstein for intervention related to trauma symptoms relating to the offence. In this respect, you were prescribed medication to treat depression and anxiety whilst in custody.
4. A letter of apology to Mr Trower's family from you was also tendered at the sentence indication hearing. Reliance was also placed upon this as some evidence of remorse.
5. Plainly enough, for a long period of time you neither showed nor experienced any remorse of any kind. But I am satisfied that you have come some way in developing real insight into your wrongdoing, and that you have been experiencing genuine grief and contrition at what you have done. In my view, your psychological response to the offending - even if it was significantly delayed - bespeaks remorse. You deserve a meaningful reduction for this. Remorse is also a factor which bears upon my assessment of your prospects of rehabilitation and some other matter to which I will turn in a moment.

1. It was submitted by your counsel that you have 'some prospects of rehabilitation' evidenced through a combination of a number of factors including:

(a) The admissions that you made in your record of interview.

(b) The fact that you have now entered a plea of guilty.

(c) The evidence of remorse.

(d) Your desire to re-establish relationships with your family including your infant son. It has been argued that you have every incentive to reform and to pursue a law abiding life upon completing your present sentence.

(e) The ongoing support and commitment you have from your father who can also provide stable accommodation.

(f) The fact that you have previously completed parole without incident.

(g) The commencement of your psychological treatment in custody and your willingness to engage in treatment to address your drug addiction issues.

1. Against this I must weigh the following factors:
2. First, while the offending in this matter was not directly drug related, the offending occurred during a period of instability in your life. This instability was compounded by your long standing drug seeking behaviour and addictions. Your counsel submitted that when you were released from prison you are initially sober and seemed to cope with being told about your partner's relationship with Mr Trower. Sadly, your mother then died. This led to your recommencement of substance abuse. From there, your life unravelled. Tragically, this culminated with these events.
3. I accept your counsel's submission that your rehabilitation, to a large extent, will turn upon your capacity to remain drug free once you are released from prison. As your counsel submitted, if you are substance free, your prospects of rehabilitation are significantly increased. Given your history drug abuse, there is some uncertainty about whether you can achieve this.
4. The second factor, which tells against your prospects, is that unfortunately you have a number of prior convictions going back approximately a decade. You have had many chances, and have not taken them. Your criminal history culminated with armed robbery for which you served a period of imprisonment. While you successfully completed the parole for that particular sentence, and even though the armed robbery is the only prior matter where you have been required to serve a significant period of imprisonment, the fact remains that this sentence did not deter you from committing the very serious offending which brings you before me.
5. Overall, I accept your counsel's submissions that you still have some genuine prospects of rehabilitation. While I am somewhat guarded, there remains some legitimate room for reform. So much depends upon your attitude, and your willingness and capacity to avoid falling back into a drug and negative peer milieu upon your eventual release.
6. Your counsel urged me to make allowance for your rehabilitation in particular in relation to the fixing of your non-parole period. Given my hopeful - albeit qualified - findings with respect to your rehabilitation, and the fact that you are still a relatively young man, I have endeavoured to accommodate that request to some degree.

Burden of imprisonment, Verdins principles 5 and 6

1. Your counsel submitted in light of the opinions provided by Dr Staios, principles 5 and 6 of Verdins[4] have been enlivened namely:

(a) Your mental health conditions mean that a sentence of imprisonment will weigh more heavily upon you than it would on a person in normal health (ie, Verdins principle 5);

(b) There is a serious risk that imprisonment will have a significant adverse effect on your mental health (ie, Verdins principle 6).

1. Reliance is place upon addendum report of Dr Staios - which I have indicated before is based in part upon the clinical observations made in the Justice Health of you during your incarceration. In particular reliance is placed on the opinion of Dr Staios that your longstanding generalised anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder 'substantially heighten your vulnerability in a custodial setting.' These conditions are 'likely to intensify under the stress, sensory deprivation, and social isolation of imprisonment.' Dr Staios concludes that, taken together, these conditions 'indicate that Mr Baensch's mental impairment would make imprisonment disproportionately harsh and pose a serious risk of psychological decline.'
2. Both of these are - according to Dr Staios - linked to trauma from the offending in question and from other events earlier in your life. As I have said, you have exhibited features of post-traumatic stress which your offending has produced. This trauma does not arise from the discovery of your offending or from the prospect of a lengthy period of incarceration. On the evidence - which I accept - it is largely related to your shame and guilt which you now experience about the gravity of what you have done. In the circumstances, the prosecution accepted - based upon authority - that this factor was relevant and is relevant to the issue of Verdins principles 5 and 6 (as well as remorse which I have already discussed).[5]
3. I accept Dr Staios' opinion that, taken together, these conditions will make imprisonment disproportionately difficult for you. I accept that this evidence enlivens Verdins principle 5.
4. In support of Verdins principle 6, reliance is placed upon Dr Staios's conclusion that incarceration will 'pose a serious risk of psychological decline'. I infer that this conclusion is based upon his opinions that incarceration will exacerbate and increase your conditions and sense of hopelessness. While it seems that most of Dr Staios' evidence is directed at Verdins principle 5, some benefit is warrant under Verdins principle 6.
5. In addition to Verdins principles 5 and 6 it was submitted that imprisonment will weigh heavily upon you for two other reasons.
6. First, in relation to your previous offending where you were sentenced for armed robbery, you provided a statement against your co-accused and you were placed in protective custody during your sentence. You have again been placed in protective custody after being remanded for this offending.
7. Second, as I have said earlier, you have a young son who was born in October 2024. Ms Dunlop - your partner - is the son's mother. At the sentence indication hearing back in July last year I was told that you had not had a visit with your son. At the plea hearing your counsel confirmed that you had still not had any visits. It would seem from what your counsel said is that your relationship with Ms Dunlop is strained. I note that Dr Staios opined said in his report that ongoing contact with your immediate family, including your infant son, would assist with moderating your level of depression and other mental health concerns. The absence of any visits from your son, and any ongoing involvement in his life, will weigh heavily upon you.
8. I take those burdens into account.

Current sentencing practices and comparable cases

1. Both parties referred me to a number of cases which they submitted were comparable or at least informed current sentencing standards.[6]
2. For many years, the authorities have recognised that the sentencing range for the crime of manslaughter is 'strikingly wide as is the range of criminal conduct that can cause the relevant unlawful killing.'[7] This means that much will turn upon the facts of each manslaughter case.
3. And so it is here. The cases relied upon involved cases of manslaughter where the deceased was killed by a motor car collision or impact, usually with pedestrians.
4. What marks your case out from these examples is that in your case, you drove at the deceased in a deliberate, calculated manner with the intention of striking him. This went beyond erratic or criminally negligent driving, or driving aimed at merely scaring a pedestrian. This is one of the main reasons why it is that I have concluded that your manslaughter is such a serious example of manslaughter. Indeed, this central fact explains why it is that you fall to be sentenced for manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act rather than manslaughter by criminal negligence.
5. As a broad observation, what current sentencing practices for manslaughter tend to show is that manslaughters falling in the higher range of manslaughter offences, following a plea of guilty, tend to attract sentences into the low double figures_._[8]

1. I turn to the question of totality.
2. In fixing the sentences I am conscious of several matters:

(a) First, while I am sentencing you for two offences I must ensure that the total sentence properly reflects your total criminality. I apply the principle of totality accordingly in my orders with respect to concurrency and cumulation.

(b) Second, I am mindful that as you are to be separately punished for failing to stop a motor vehicle after an accident, I must not use this conduct to aggravate your manslaughter. I am mindful of not double punishing you.

(c) Third, I consider that the failure to stop a motor vehicle after an accident constitutes serious and separate wrongdoing. The sentence for that particular offence must carry some weight in the overall sentencing outcome. This is achieved by accumulating part of that sentence upon the manslaughter sentence.

Balancing sentencing considerations and conclusion

1. I return to where I began in these remarks. Notwithstanding the matters personal to you, Mr Baensch, you must be punished for your grave criminal wrongdoing. I am conscious that my sentence cannot bring Mr Trower back. But my sentence must carry the denunciation by the Court of the conduct which you have engaged in which involved the unlawful taking of a life.
2. The principles of just punishment, general deterrence and protection of the community all play a significant role in my sentencing task.
3. While you have made progress with respect to remorse and rehabilitation you still have some way to go. Specific deterrence must therefore also be given some weight.
4. I must weigh all these considerations together with those matters personal to you which I have discussed.

1. I turn now to sentence you. Please stand, Mr Baensch.
2. In relation to charge 1 - the offence of manslaughter - you are convicted and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. This is the base sentence.
3. In relation to charge 2 - failure to stop after a motor vehicle accident - you are convicted and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.
4. I direct that 6 months of the sentence imposed on charge 2 be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed in charge 1. This results in a total effective sentence of 10 years' and 6 months imprisonment.
5. I fix a non-parole period of 7 years' imprisonment. This means Mr Baensch that after serving 7 years' imprisonment you become eligible to apply to be released upon parole. Whether you are released on parole will be a matter solely for the parole board at that time.
6. I declare that your pre-sentence detention not including today as 617 days.
7. Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 were it not for your pleas of guilty, I would have imposed a total effective sentence of 14 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 10 years' imprisonment.
8. As you have been convicted of the offence of failing to stop, where a person has been killed or suffers serious injury, then pursuant to s 61(6)(a) of the Road Safety Act 1986, the court must cancel all driver's licences or permits held by you and disqualify you from obtaining any such licence or permits for at least 4 years. I make that order.
9. There is also a mandatory licence cancellation and disqualification provisions for manslaughter which is defined as a serious motor vehicle offence by s 87P(a) of the Sentencing Act which requires the court to make a licence cancellation and disqualification order of not less than 24 months pursuant to s 89(1) and (2).
10. I grant leave (which is required from me as the application has been made more than 6 months after arraignment) and have signed the forfeiture orders which I understand are agreed.

[1] Manslaughter is a category 2 offence under s 3(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991 ('the Act'). This means that pursuant to s 5(2H) of the Act, in sentencing I am required to impose a sentence of imprisonment in the absence of the application of one of the stated exceptions. It was not submitted on behalf of you that I should do anything other than impose a term of imprisonment and set a non-parole period.

[2] Mr Baensch's date of birth is 11 December 1994.

[3] R v Doran [2005] VSCA 271

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

[5] Singh v The Queen [2021] VSCA 161, [42]-[55].

[6] The defence referred me to: DPP v Costanzo [2025] VSC 421; R v Scott [2012] VSC 514; R v Sharif [2020] VSC 226; The Queen v Sheen [2016] VSC 235; R v Borthwick [2010] VSC 613; Borthwick v The Queen [2012] VSCA 180; The Queen v Drago [2015] VSC 291. The prosecution referred me to Saleh v The Queen [2012] VSCA 210; R v Mark Sheen [2016] VSC 225.

[7] Vu v The Queen [2020] VSCA 59, [32]-[33].

[8] For example, such an observation was made in Vu v The Queen [2020] VSCA 59, [50].