Director of Public Prosecutions v Young

1. Lachlan James Young, on 18 July 2025, you pleaded guilty to the murder of Hannah McGuire at 8 King Drive, Sebastopol in Victoria on 5 April 2024.
2. The maximum sentence for murder is life imprisonment. The standard sentence is 25 years.[1] It is a category 1 offence and a term of imprisonment must be imposed.[2]
3. In sentencing you, the scourge of domestic violence resulting in the death of innocent and defenceless female partners is again to be addressed by the court. This case is yet another example of a male using violence and his superior strength to murder a vulnerable woman who trusted him.
4. By your guilty plea, albeit very late, you accept that you killed Hannah McGuire with murderous intent. You belatedly admitted you put your hands around Ms McGuire's neck and strangled her. As a result, Ms McGuire lost consciousness and died on the bathroom floor of the home you once shared.

1. You commenced your relationship with Ms McGuire at the end of 2021. In February 2022, Ms McGuire moved into your parents' family home, where you and your sister also lived.
2. Before long, you exerted considerable control over Ms McGuire and were often verbally abusive towards her. Over time, this developed into emotional abuse. You were brazen. Your unacceptable behaviour was frequently witnessed by others. At an early stage in the relationship, Ms McGuire's father Glenn confronted you about the way you treated his daughter. His efforts fell on deaf ears; you did not change your ways.
3. A year after Ms McGuire had moved into your parents' home, you wanted to buy a home together with her at 8 King Drive, Sebastopol. She was hesitant. This property was only 70 metres from your parents' home. Your opposing views on this issue gave rise to a serious dispute, which resulted in Ms McGuire returning to live with her parents in Clunes.
4. You were upset about this and chose not to control your emotions. Both on the day she left and the next day you engaged in aggressive and violent behaviour towards Ms McGuire. Much of your conduct was carried out in public, and was so intimidating that Ms McGuire drove herself to the local police station with you driving aggressively in pursuit, leaving her traumatised.
5. While Ms McGuire was being subjected to your dangerous pursuit, she rang her mother Debbie screaming for help. Her father Glenn was with Debbie, and called 000. In her later report to police, Ms McGuire said that she had been and remained really scared, that she was worried you would continue to harass her and that she was scared to go out of her house in case you were waiting for her. The last 2 words of her statement made on 17 February 2023 were "I'm terrified".
6. I am not going to go through the litany of individual events during which your conduct with respect to Ms McGuire was unsatisfactory, and at times totally unacceptable. You are not to be punished for your previous misconduct towards Ms McGuire. However, the background provides the relevant context in which you committed your crime.[3] Speaking broadly, your interactions with Ms McGuire had all the hallmarks of an abusive and domineering relationship. By way of example only and in no particular order:

(1) On occasions, you would not permit Ms McGuire to converse with other males; you were abusive to the male who was speaking with her, and would also remonstrate with Ms McGuire.

(2) You spoke to Ms McGuire in the most appalling terms, including referring to her as a "fat whale" and a "fat slut".

(3) You often yelled and shouted at Ms McGuire, including in her face. On one occasion when you did this in front of friends, while grabbing her arm, shaking her and talking into her face, Ms McGuire was so upset that she called a friend to collect her from the hotel where this had occurred. Her friend did so and drove her home, but you remained at the venue.

(4) You kicked, punched or banged Ms McGuire's car on at least 3 separate occasions over a period of approximately 12 months.

(5) You threw 2 cans of beer at Ms McGuire's car when both she and her mother were in the car.

(6) You chased Ms McGuire in your car and terrorised her while she was driving her car. You pursued her for around 15 minutes, honking your horn, waving your arms and tailgating her car.[4]

(7) You performed burnouts with your car outside the front of the home of a friend of Ms McGuire when you knew Ms McGuire was staying there in an attempt to keep her distance from you. As a result of this intimidation, on that same night she moved covertly from this location to stay with another friend at an address you did not know.

(8) On a number of occasions, you blocked Ms McGuire's car while she was in it by parking your car in a manner that meant she was unable to drive away.

(9) You used your telephone excessively to harass Ms McGuire. For example, between 5:33pm on 16 February 2023 and 5:07pm on 17 February 2023 you called Ms McGuire 129 times.

(10) When your phone number was blocked by Ms McGuire during this period, rather than respect her decision to prevent you contacting her, you started calling her using no-caller ID. There can be little doubt it was you calling using no-caller ID, as Ms McGuire recognised your voice after accidentally answering one of these calls. Despite her clear indication she wanted you to leave her alone, she received no-caller ID calls from you 37 times over less than a day.

(11) You sent extremely aggressive, controlling and offensive text messages to Ms McGuire, such as: "Stop ducking (sic) annoying me and pestering me then cunt how many times have you been fucking told huh its (sic) gonna be to (sic) late one day and it will all be over if you don't start listening cunt".

1. I could go on. Suffice to say that your conduct left Ms McGuire intimidated and scared on numerous occasions. One can only imagine the humiliation you must have caused her. Your behaviour also caused Ms McGuire difficulties in her relationships with some of her friends.
2. Long before the events of 2024, your unacceptable conduct resulted in you being the subject of a family violence safety notice[5] and family violence intervention orders. Your criminal history includes convictions for contravening family violence safety notices or family violence intervention orders on 19 May 2021 and 30 May 2022. Your sister has referred to the fact that there were occasions when police were called after you became "heightened", and as a result intervention orders were also put in place to protect both her and your mother from you. A family violence final intervention order was made by the Magistrates' Court of Victoria at Ballarat on 28 February 2023, naming Ms McGuire as the protected person and prohibiting you, among other things, from committing family violence against Ms McGuire. This order expired on 27 February 2024.
3. Your abuse of Ms McGuire also involved physical abuse. Although there is no evidence of any physical assault before March 2024, you accept that on 17 March 2024 you kicked and punched Ms McGuire in an altercation. Whether or not it was you who broke it, it was during this altercation that the necklace Ms McGuire was wearing was broken. The confrontation resulted in her being fearful and scared. The assault you inflicted caused Ms McGuire to send a Snapchat message to a friend of hers complaining of your assaults.[6]

1. These physical assaults and the accompanying abusive behaviour were the last straw for Ms McGuire. She decided to end your relationship. Consistent with your previous responses to her attempting to leave you, you did not make it easy for her to do so. Quite the contrary.
2. On 19 March 2024, Ms McGuire could tell from your Snapchat account that you were in Echuca. She took the opportunity to go to 8 King Drive with her parents to retrieve some of her property. She got into the house by climbing through a window. Once inside, she could see that the front door had been barricaded by a couch.
3. Later that day, Ms McGuire met with her bank manager in Ballarat and made changes to your joint accounts. This triggered email notifications to you. Soon after, you were complaining to your mother that this was occurring.
4. On 20 March 2024, Ms McGuire contacted a solicitor with the assistance of her mother.
5. On the same day, she told the business manager at her school that you were being very aggressive and were threatening to come to her workplace. In response, the external doors to the primary school were locked, and the staff were made aware of what had occurred in case there was an issue at the school.
6. After work that day, Ms McGuire went to 8 King Drive to collect her belongings. When she arrived, there was an exchange between you and Ms McGuire. After Ms McGuire returned to her parents' home, she sent you a text message stating she would not go back to 8 King Drive.
7. On 21 March 2024, Ms McGuire applied for an intervention order against you. An interim order was granted by the Magistrates Court allowing contact, but prohibiting family violence. You and Ms McGuire exchanged messages that day. In one of those messages, you stated your concern about Ms McGuire engaging a solicitor as you said you could not afford one. You also implored her to return home and said you wanted to marry her and have a baby with her.
8. In a message sent the following day, Ms McGuire stated that she wanted to park her car in the backyard when she visited 8 King Drive as she did not want her family to know she was there. The day after, Ms McGuire sent you a long message confirming the relationship was over. She asked you to give her some space so she could focus on herself.
9. You did not leave her alone.
10. On 24 and 25 March 2024, you sent her several text messages. In one of them, you stated that you would set rules for yourself if the relationship were able to continue; namely, no drinking during the week, a date night once a month and "most importantly no swearing or taking anger out on you no being violent or yelling or arguing".
11. On 27 March 2024, you were in communication with Ms McGuire. She told you that she would probably come over the next night. In one such exchange, you were overheard by a friend of Ms McGuire demanding that Ms McGuire return home to sort everything out. Ms McGuire did return for a short while that evening, but had left by 8.15pm.
12. On 28 March 2024, Ms McGuire saw a solicitor with her father. She gave a potted history of your unsatisfactory behaviour during her relationship with you. She also instructed that she wanted to remove you as a beneficiary in her will.
13. It is unnecessary to elaborate on every communication or confrontation you had with Ms McGuire or the ways in which you treated her from this time on. Suffice to say that, having viewed a video recorded on the night of 28 March 2024, when you were filmed by Debbie Maguire in the company of others, yelling abuse and strutting around your garage in an aggressive manner, your sense of entitlement and your capacity to display that entitlement in an aggressive and violent way was manifest.
14. Yet again, Ms McGuire was visibly upset with your behaviour. You later apologised to Ms McGuire and her mother for this and other misconduct you engaged in on that occasion. You told Ms McGuire she would be better off without you.
15. Your counsel submitted that it was significant that Ms McGuire was telling people the relationship with you was over, but at the same time she was still secretly communicating with you and seeing you on occasion. You informed the court through your counsel that the absence of a clean break in the relationship and the "on and off " situation caused you difficulty and resulted in you being frustrated.
16. Whatever emotions or mental state you may have experienced because Ms McGuire continued to have some contact with you, or may have even given mixed messages to you, provides no basis to consider your responsibility or culpability is somehow reduced. Intimate relationships ceasing in both uncomplicated and complicated ways is part of ordinary human experience, and must be handled by those involved without any violence. Ms McGuire's behaviour in the days leading up to her death does not give any premise to find the existence of any mitigating factor in this regard.
17. That said, it is accepted that you were struggling. You took a week off work after the breakup, during which time you sought medical attention to assist your mental health. On 29 March 2024, matters escalated to such an extent that you attempted to commit suicide. Your family called 000 and you were hospitalised.
18. On 30 March 2024, Ms McGuire stayed the night at 8 King Drive with you. Over the next couple of days, she did not visit again, but you stayed in contact by exchanging Snapchat communications.
19. On 2 April 2024, you drove to the front of the home of Benjamin O'Keefe, which was in a neighbouring street only a short distance from 8 King Drive. Mr O'Keefe lived there with his partner. He was a carpenter who was employed by the same business as you. Although you did not originally get along, from around 2022 both of you would frequently drink and socialise together.
20. The security camera at the front of the home recorded Mr O'Keefe approaching your car while you remained in it, and him walking away from the car approximately 27 minutes later. There is no controversy that Mr O'Keefe got into your car and that you both discussed something while he was in it. He gave evidence that you asked him to assist in a plan you had to "roofy"[7] Ms McGuire, to place her in her car at the top of a hill and to allow the car to roll down the hill and make it crash while she was unconscious. Mr O'Keefe gave evidence that you said you wanted to do this to scare her so that she would not take the home you owned together at 8 King Drive.
21. Your counsel submitted that Mr O'Keefe was an unreliable witness and that the court should not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to many aspects of his evidence that were contrary to your interests.
22. Mr O'Keefe was a forthright and compelling witness. There is no proper basis to reject his evidence on this topic on the basis of unreliability or lack of credibility. Your counsel made 6 points in submitting that Mr O'Keefe was an unsatisfactory witness and that the court could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you raised the matter of planning to "roofy" Ms McGuire as part of the conversation on 2 April 2024. Those points are addressed in annexure A to these reasons for sentence.
23. However, nothing of any real moment turns on whether or not the "roofy" conversation took place as deposed to by Mr O'Keefe. The finding that this conversation took place should only be viewed as further context of the nature of your relationship with Ms McGuire and another example of your general disposition not to accept the breakup of your relationship in a satisfactory manner.
24. Returning to the events on 2 April 2024, Mr O'Keefe told his partner about having agreed to help you to ditch Ms McGuire's car; though he did not reveal all the details of your plan. She admonished Mr O'Keefe, who then sent a text message to you saying that he would not be around to help. You responded in a manner that indicated to Mr O'Keefe that you were frustrated and annoyed.
25. That evening you and Ms McGuire spoke on the telephone. She stayed at 8 King Drive with you that night.
26. On each of 3 and 4 April 2024, both you and Ms McGuire went to work in the usual way. You continued to exchange messages throughout both days.
27. On 3 April 2024, the family violence order made on 21 March 2024 was emailed to you by the Magistrates' Court at Ballarat. In the afternoon, you tried to contact Mr O'Keefe by message, but he did not respond. In the evening, you forwarded the email you received from the Magistrates' Court to Ms McGuire. Later that evening, you discussed the breakup with your boss's wife. In a message, you told her "Nah fuck women they just wanna hurt you and milk you dry and still have the decency to say it was your fault".
28. On 4 April 2024, you exchanged messages with Mr O'Keefe about meeting him that evening so that he could help you with Ms McGuire's car; which he agreed to do. Mr O'Keefe told you he would set his alarm for 11.30pm that night, and then meet you at a nearby street corner.
29. At around 6.00pm, you headed off to go drinking with some friends. You were drinking both at private residences and at hotels for a number of hours. In your discussions with your friends, you referred to your relationship with Ms McGuire, including suggesting that you would be getting back together despite your concern that both sets of parents would be against it.
30. In one of the many messages you exchanged with Ms McGuire that day, you asked whether you would be sleeping in a separate room or together. She responded by saying that she assumed it would be together, unless you did not want to. Your reply was "No I do want to for the last time".
31. Ms McGuire visited you on the night of 4 April 2024, arriving at 8 King Drive at 9.47pm. She had gone to netball training and had had dinner that evening with friends at her parents' hotel in Clunes. She left the hotel at around 9.13pm. She told her parents that she was going to see a friend who was about to travel overseas, all the while she was exchanging messages with you which indicated her intention to see you instead.

1. Much of what occurred between you and Ms McGuire on the night of 4 April and the early hours of 5 April 2024 before she was killed is unknown.
2. At 11.28pm, you sent a message to Mr O'Keefe stating that you "had a bit on". At 1.35am, Mr O'Keefe sent a message asking you about the car. He did not receive a reply and went back to sleep.
3. At about 1.45am, you and Ms McGuire started arguing about the relationship breakdown. About 5 minutes later, Ms McGuire sent a photo of herself to a friend who worked nightshift. The image showed that she was lying on a bed, visibly upset with tears in her eyes. The friend replied that there was no need to cry. Ms McGuire did not respond, which was unusual. That message was not opened on Ms McGuire's phone until 2.37am.
4. Just before 2.30am, your argument with Ms McGuire escalated and became physical. She went into the bathroom. You followed. You started pushing and shoving her before throwing her to the bathroom floor. You then put your hands around her neck and strangled her for some time with the consequence that Ms McGuire lost consciousness and died on the bathroom floor.
5. At 2.53am, you called Mr O'Keefe and told him to meet you in 10 minutes at the corner as previously arranged. At 3.03am, Mr O'Keefe attended as you suggested, but returned to his home when you failed to arrive. You had been calling him on his telephone, but he had left it at home and it went unanswered.
6. Sometime after 3.00am, you put the body of Ms McGuire into the rear passenger footwell of her car, which was parked in the rear of the house. This was recorded on a motion-activated camera. You later used your phone to delete this footage in order to conceal what had been depicted.
7. You drove from 8 King Drive in Ms McGuire's car to meet with Mr O'Keefe. As he was not at the corner, you drove to his home. You honked your horn, and he came outside and saw you, but did not see Ms McGuire's body as it was still in the rear footwell of the car and out of view. You asked Mr O'Keefe where you should take the car and he responded that he did not know. You then told him to follow you.
8. Mr O'Keefe got in his car and followed you. Again, he left his mobile phone behind. You also left your phone behind, but had Ms McGuire's mobile phone with you. You drove for approximately 15 minutes to Scarsdale.
9. By this time, you had already decided to lie and create a false trail about how it was that Ms McGuire had died. At 3.27am, you sent a message from her phone to your phone which stated "I'm not coming".
10. Once you were in some bushland, you stopped about 300 metres from an intersection and spoke to Mr O'Keefe. You asked him if you should torch Ms McGuire's car or dump it. He said that it should be dumped because otherwise a bushfire might be started.
11. Mr O'Keefe watched you as you drove Ms McGuire's car into some trees at low speed before getting out of it. You told Mr O'Keefe to turn his car around, which he did. However, he continued to watch you in his rearview mirror and saw you holding a yellow coloured blowtorch to the front seats of the car. You did this for a few minutes to ignite the car, before walking to Mr O'Keefe's car and getting into the passenger seat. You sat there for a short while, and handed Mr O'Keefe $45.
12. You then departed the scene with Mr O'Keefe, leaving the car engulfed in flames and Ms McGuire's body in the back of it to be incinerated. Ms McGuire's body experienced severe thermal effect. Her remains only weighed 13 kilograms. There was no soot in her airways . She was already deceased at the time you lit the fire but her cause of death was not able to be determined during her autopsy examination.

1. Hannah McGuire was born on 27 December 2000. She was the only daughter to her parents, Glenn and Debbie. She is survived by 2 younger brothers, Fletcher and Jude.
2. Ms McGuire grew up in Clunes, a small and well-established country town north of Ballarat. At the time of her death, she was employed as an educational support officer at Delacombe Primary School. She coordinated before-and-after school care programs at that school. She loved working with young children. She was studying to be a teacher. She also engaged in sport and other community related activities.
3. Before moving in with you and your family, she lived with her parents, who own and operate the National Hotel in Clunes.

1. The only purposes for which a sentence may be imposed are prescribed in the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic).[8] These purposes include punishing the offender to an extent and in a manner which is just in all of the circumstances; deterring the offender or other persons from committing offences of the same or a similar character; establishing conditions which may facilitate the rehabilitation of the offender; manifesting the denunciation by the court of the conduct in question; and protecting the community from the offender.[9] In sentencing you, I must adhere to the principle of parsimony and must not impose a sentence that is more severe than that which is necessary to achieve the purpose or purposes for which the sentence is imposed.[10]
2. I must also have regard to a number of other considerations, including but not limited to the maximum penalty prescribed for the offence, the standard sentence for the offence, any current sentencing practices, the nature and gravity of the offence, your culpability and degree of responsibility for the offence, the impact of the offence on victims, and the presence of any aggravating or mitigating factors.[11] The weight and emphasis to be given to various factors is a discretionary exercise which depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.[12] Through a process of instinctive synthesis, I must balance these factors, which may point in different and conflicting directions, in order to arrive at a sentence that is just in all the circumstances.[13]
3. Cases involving domestic violence have justifiably attracted particular opprobrium.[14] Time and time again, over many years this court has articulated its intolerance of domestic violence and the need for stern punishment to be administered to disaffected partners, ex-partners or would-be partners who engage in such conduct.[15] As an extension of this, bringing violence into the sanctity of a home is abhorrent and must be denounced in the strongest terms. Outbursts of rage towards a vulnerable and trusting domestic partner are totally unacceptable, and your sentence must make this plain.[16]

1. You were born on 25 May 2002. You were 21 years of age at the time you murdered Ms McGuire and are now 23 years old.
2. Your young age is a factor to be considered in your favour, but the extent to which that is so is necessarily diminished by countervailing factors relevant to the nature and seriousness of your offending.[17]
3. Your younger sister Rebecca says you grew up in a home in which your parents were very present in your life.
4. In your early childhood you were kind to your sister. As you grew up this changed. You became angry more often and were unable to control your emotions, often "lash[ing] out and becom[ing] heightened". Your behaviour was so serious that on some occasions police had to be called. Your sister and mother had to take formal steps to protect themselves by obtaining family violence intervention orders against you. Your anger management issues meant you were also engaged in altercations at school. You stormed out of class on a number of occasions when this occurred and things did not go your way.
5. You generally struggled at school. You were often suspended. According to one of your school reports, you made "extremely inappropriate choices including use of inappropriate language and disrespectful behaviours".
6. You left school after year 8. At a very young age, you were first employed as a panel beater for 18 months. You then worked as a brickie's labourer for the father of your then girlfriend. When that relationship ended, predominantly because of your poor behaviour, you ceased working there and had no work for 6 months.
7. At the age of 17, you faced many difficulties. You would take off from the family home and go missing for weeks at a time. Because of the unsettled time you were having, you moved from Ballarat to live with your grandparents in country South Australia. You stayed in contact with your friends in Ballarat, visiting from time to time after you got your driver's licence. When you returned 18 months later, you were accepted back by your employer and completed your carpentry apprenticeship in February 2024.
8. Your father Tony had a short temper and would behave in a "heightened" manner. This was due to his mental health issues, said to have arisen from your father being seriously injured in a car accident. Your father and grandfather also "love[d] to drink". You witnessed your father attempting to commit suicide by overdosing on sleeping tablets and you had to call an ambulance to get him treatment.
9. Your father's issues with controlling his anger resulted in repeated violent outbursts and conflict in the family home. These included him pushing and shoving your mother. Your counsel emphasised the existence of violence in your own home at the hands of your father. From the age of 14 onwards, you were involved in physical confrontations with him. As an illustration of your father's aggressive behaviour, your counsel referred to a text message your father sent to you around 3 weeks before you murdered Ms McGuire. In that text, your father invited a physical confrontation between the 2 of you. Your counsel submitted that this was a matter of despair.
10. Given its timing, the terms of your father's text message are significant. Your father stated "Start acting like you are responsible and care about Hannah instead of treating her like shit every weekend, you want to have a crack come down and I will sort you out". While not in any way condoning such a means of resolving issues, it is noteworthy that even your own father was critical of your behaviour towards Ms McGuire.
11. As we have seen,[18] the very next day you physically attacked Ms McGuire.
12. Your mother and sister remain supportive of you. Your relationship with your father continues to be more complex, however each of your immediate family continue to visit you in custody.

1. You commenced using cannabis at 13 years of age. You continued this habit, on a social basis, from this time on. At 18, you began using cocaine, speed and ecstasy. You have reported that you used methylamphetamine from the age of 20, and that you would ordinarily use 1.5 grams over the course of a week. You have also reported that sometimes you would use up to 3 grams per week.
2. It is generally accepted that using methylamphetamine may impact a person's emotional stability and behaviour. There is no probative evidence to provide any comparison between your disposition before you started using methylamphetamine and after this substance abuse commenced. That said, it must be accepted that regular use of this insidious substance may have affected your demeanour to some degree.
3. You were also adversely affected for many years by alcohol abuse. By the age of 18, your drinking was routine and entrenched. In the time leading up to your offending, you were drinking excessive amounts of beer and spirits every day. For completeness, no reliance was placed upon your level of consumption of alcohol or drugs at the time you murdered Ms McGuire as a mitigating factor.

1. You have prior convictions, including with respect to contraventions of family violence intervention orders and using a carriage service to harass. At the time you offended, you were on bail and also the subject of a family violence intervention order.
2. Your limited criminal history must be taken into account.[19]

1. Your sister provided a letter to the court. She is a teacher-aide employed at the same school at which Ms McGuire worked when you killed her. She is studying to be a teacher, just like Hannah was. She lived with you at your parents' home until you moved into 8 King Drive.
2. You met with your sister in the police cells during the trial. She says you were crying and at times were so upset that you could not speak. You told her that it was time that you owned up to what had happened and accept the consequences of your actions. You repeatedly apologised to her for everything that had happened and all that you had put "us" through. You also said that you wished that you had never put anyone, including the McGuire family, through all the heartache that you had caused.
3. Your sister has also visited you in Melbourne since then. You told her and your parents that you wished that you had never made the decisions that you made on the night you murdered Ms McGuire. Your sister says you have been remorseful and apologetic on an number of occasions.
4. Your sister describes you as a hyperactive person who enjoys keeping yourself busy. While you were employed, she believes you were hardworking and committed to your day-to-day jobs.
5. Your sister believes you are remorseful for what you have done. She also says that, when you were not in a heightened state, you would show your family that you could be lovable and kind towards people.

E.2 Nature and gravity of the offending, and your moral culpability and responsibility

1. Murder is a gravely serious offence. You brutally murdered Ms McGuire in the home she had lived in with you and which, at the time of her death, she still owned with you; a place where, as a young woman, she was entitled to feel safe.[20] It is a significant aggravating factor that your offending was an extreme act of domestic violence,[21] involving a gross breach of trust; a trust that Ms McGuire had placed in you despite your previous ongoing abusive behaviour towards her, including physical violence.
2. Objectively, the gravity of your offending could only be considered above mid-range, and significantly so.
3. Your counsel relied upon the general principle that an upbringing fraught with alcohol abuse and violence, together with drug-taking, may mitigate a sentence because the moral culpability is likely to be less than that of an offender whose formative years were not so marred.[22] This principle may be relied upon without establishing a causal link or nexus to the offending.[23]
4. Although there may have been more substantive evidence adduced to support such reliance,[24] I am satisfied that this general principle is applicable. There is sufficient evidence in the deposition materials to demonstrate that your upbringing was characterised by the abuse of alcohol and violence. Further, there was nothing to suggest that the behavioural issues you demonstrated in this environment were ever satisfactorily addressed by appropriate support.
5. That said, your moral culpability must still be considered to be towards the higher end of the scale. You strangled Ms McGuire, which means you engaged in an ongoing act to cause her death. You have admitted to engaging in this conduct after a fight broke out between you and Ms McGuire in the bathroom.
6. Given the state of Ms McGuire's remains, there was no means to independently verify the cause of death beyond your account. Thus, your belated admission remains the sole direct source upon which to assess your intention at the time that you killed Ms McGuire.[25]
7. In these circumstances, although the strangulation must have taken a not-insignificant amount of time in order to cause her death, I cannot be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you intended to kill Ms McGuire when you committed the acts that caused her death.
8. Further, I do not accept that your post-offence conduct establishes beyond reasonable doubt that you intended to kill Ms McGuire. There is no case against you that Ms McGuire's murder was premeditated. The conduct you engaged in after her death is equally consistent with you having intended to cause really serious injury and then dealing with the fact that you had killed her despite not having intended it.
9. You will be sentenced on the basis that you intended to cause really serious injury. However, the act that you engaged in which caused her death is such that this finding does not greatly diminish your moral culpability given such an intention was combined with your conduct in maintaining a stranglehold for a period of time of sufficient length to cause Ms McGuire to lose consciousness and die.[26]

E.3 Deterrence, denunciation and just punishment

1. In sentencing you, the principles of general deterrence, denunciation and just punishment must be given primacy.
2. It has long been recognised that general deterrence is an important factor in the synthesis involved in arriving at an appropriate sentence for a domestic homicide.[27] This is a factor that applies to all perpetrators, young and old.[28]
3. Specific deterrence also has a role to play in this case as you have demonstrated over many years that you have serious anger management issues that have not been addressed, despite you being aware of them. As already stated,[29] you were the subject of a family violence intervention order at the time you committed your violent crime.[30] The fact that you have had anger management issues for many years was properly acknowledged by your counsel.
4. The prosecution submitted that your murder of Hannah McGuire was motivated by male entitlement, jealousy and rage. There is no doubt that you acted with a sense of entitlement throughout your relationship with Ms McGuire, and also displayed acts of jealousy and control on numerous occasions. There also can be no reasonable doubt that you acted with rage as you killed Ms McGuire.
5. Nonetheless, although domestic violence inflicted by males towards females in our society is an extremely serious and ongoing problem, the generalised characterisation of your actions as "male entitlement" is not helpful in determining the sentence in this case. Generalised statements about males or females, or any other section of the community for that matter, are inclined to be overly simplistic and misleading. The sentencing principles I am required to impose as a matter of law compel me to consider the particular circumstances of this case, mindful that (as I have already stated) in cases involving domestic homicides, general deterrence, denunciation and just punishment are important factors to be taken into account.

1. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that, commencing almost immediately after killing Ms McGuire, you deliberately took deceitful steps to conceal your involvement in her murder.[31]
2. Far from maintaining your right to silence, in numerous ways you actively sought to deflect suspicion away from yourself in the aftermath of Ms McGuire's death.[32] Without being exhaustive, you did this by:

(1) Deciding to dispose of Hannah McGuire's body.[33]

(2) Choosing to incinerate her body in bushland in her own vehicle, driving it into the bush before setting it alight.[34]

(3) Faking that Ms McGuire was still alive after you had incinerated her, including by using her phone to transfer her funds and send heart-wrenching messages to her mother and to yourself to try and make it appear as if she had committed suicide. These included a text message exchange in the early hours of 5 April 2024 with Debbie McGuire in which you purported to respond as her daughter. Ms McGuire's mobile telephone has never been recovered.

(4) Repeatedly lying to family and friends, including initially feigning that you did not know where she was (for example, purporting to assist in ascertaining her whereabouts); and then that you were grieving for her loss because she had committed suicide. This was done in front of loved ones and close friends of Ms McGuire.

(5) Destroying or tampering with evidence and repeatedly lying to police, including under formal questioning, in an effort to make them believe that Ms McGuire had killed herself and that you had nothing to do with her death.

1. Your lack of remorse in the immediate aftermath of the murder is further evidenced by the lies you told family, friends and police.[35] The prosecution fairly summarised the position in submitting that you were willing to lie to anyone who would listen. The additional confusion, heartache and pain you caused by this conduct affected many people. These factors are not only reflective of your total lack of remorse at that time, but are also aggravating features which make your offending more serious than it otherwise would have been had you not engaged in this conduct.[36]
2. Perhaps your level of self-interest and the callous state of mind you had at the time, which show your complete lack of remorse in the days that followed your crime, are best demonstrated by a comment you made to your cousin.[37] On the night that everyone was mourning Ms McGuire on the false assumption that she had committed suicide, your cousin commented that you used to say she was beautiful and hot. You looked her in the eye and said "Well she's hot now, isn't she".
3. You also sent numerous social media messages that you believed were in your interest as part of the ruse you attempted. In some of those messages you suggested that Ms McGuire had passed away peacefully. In addition, you exerted a false bravado when speaking to a number of friends by threatening to "ruin this town" or "end their life" if someone had done something to Ms McGuire, even though you had killed her yourself earlier on the same day.
4. Conduct demonstrating your lack of remorse continued. Around 3 months after you had been taken into custody, you wrote a letter blaming your boss's wife for your breakup with Ms McGuire and for her death. You also threatened her brother and said you would pay him a visit when he least expected it if he provided a statement to police. Naturally, this conduct also raises issues concerning community protection and safety.
5. Your counsel submitted your attempts to conceal your crime were amateurish and were bound to come unstuck. So much may be accepted, which also demonstrates a lack of premeditation. Be that as it may, the steps you took after Ms McGuire's death were multifarious, cold and calculating; they were utterly disrespectful to both the memory of Hannah McGuire and to the suffering her family and friends were going through.

E.5 Admissions, guilty pleas and their utilitarian value

1. On 5 April 2025, you offered to plead guilty to the less serious crimes of manslaughter and destruction of evidence. The prosecution rejected this offer.
2. Shortly after, a defence response was filed on your behalf. You admitted you were present when Ms McGuire's car was set alight with the body inside, that you had possession of her phone when you travelled to Scarsdale and sent text messages to yourself and her mother, and that after Ms McGuire's death you made bank transfers using that phone.
3. Further, on the seventh day of pre-trial argument, your counsel stated in open court for the first time that he had been instructed that you would plead guilty to manslaughter, because you admitted you had committed a conscious, voluntary and deliberate act of an unlawful and dangerous kind that caused Ms McGuire's death. This admission was subsequently affirmed in writing, including with respect to the approximate timing of Ms McGuire's death. Furthermore, upon your arraignment at the start of the trial you pleaded guilty to manslaughter. This was immediately rejected by counsel for the prosecution.
4. You maintained you were not guilty of murder until the eighth day of the trial, when you pleaded guilty to that charge.
5. The plea of guilty to murder undoubtedly has utilitarian value as there were still a significant number of witnesses to be called in the trial. It also provided a level of finality and closure to the criminal process that was not previously present, including because you accepted responsibility for your crime by pleading guilty as you did.[38]
6. However, the extent of the utilitarian value must be considered in the context of its timing and what had occurred in the proceeding before then.
7. You were charged on 8 April 2024. The indictment was filed in this proceeding on 7 March 2025. As is your right, all issues were at large for a substantial part of the proceeding.
8. Pre-trial examinations were conducted in December 2024 and March 2025 of more than 20 witnesses over a total of 7 days,[39] including cross-examination of Debbie McGuire and a number of Hannah McGuire's friends. When the court was told on the seventh day of pre-trial argument that you would plead guilty to manslaughter, this was only shortly before the trial was scheduled to commence. Pre-trial argument then continued and was held over a total of 9 days.[40] There was also an application to suppress the reporting of this proceeding that was heard and determined in the 2 days before the trial commenced.[41] Some further pre-trial steps were taken over these 2 days as well.
9. Thus, in connection with this proceeding, a considerable amount of time had transpired and resources had been expended before you pleaded guilty in front of the jury on the eighth day of trial. The extent of the utilitarian value of your guilty plea, and the admissions and pleas that preceded it, must be viewed in this light.

1. Your offers to plead guilty to manslaughter, your guilty pleas to manslaughter and murder, and what you have stated to your sister all indicate some remorse.[42] However, there is no evidence beyond this of any other expressions of remorse by you. Further, your conduct immediately after Ms McGuire's death showed no remorse whatsoever.[43]
2. Nevertheless, the matters that indicate a level of remorse in more recent times will be taken into account.

E.7 Standard sentence and current sentencing practices

1. With respect to the standard sentence of 25 years, this serves as a guidepost[44] and is one of the factors the court must take into account in sentencing you.[45] The standard sentence applies to a hypothetical offence in the middle range of seriousness, taking into account only the objective factors and without referring to matters personal to a particular offender or class of offender.[46]
2. In sentencing you, regard must be had to current sentencing practices.[47] I was referred to a large number of sentences for murder imposed by this court since the standard sentence of 25 years was introduced. I have considered each of these sentences, only some of which involved domestic homicide.
3. While they have been taken into account, the range of sentences imposed in these cases only goes to emphasise that each case must be considered based upon its own particular facts and circumstances.[48]

1. The level of emotion and heartache that you have caused to Hannah's family, to Hannah's friends, to Hannah's work colleagues, and to the communities of Ballarat and Clunes more generally cannot be overstated.
2. From all the accounts of those who gave statements to this court on the impact of Hannah McGuire's death, she was obviously a very special, warm, talented, giving and thoughtful person who lived her life with the interests of others around her at the forefront.
3. I have read each of the moving victim impact statements and also listened to each statement that was read in court in the most trying of circumstances.
4. The suffering of Hannah's parents is hard to comprehend. Her aunty could hardly deliver her statement such was her distress. The immense suffering of so many others whose lives were deeply touched by Hannah's murder was stark and is still raw, including because of the trauma you caused by lying about the circumstances of her death.
5. Every one of the impact statements was a true reminder of the grief and pain that has resulted from your crime. The victim impact statements are relevant to the sentence to be imposed on you as part of the instinctive synthesis in applying all the relevant sentencing principles to the facts of this case. They are a record of the serious effects of your offending; deep and lasting effects that will continue to be suffered long after this case is over.

E.9 Conditions while in custody and rehabilitation

1. From shortly after your arrest, you have been held in protective custody. You have been free to partake in prison activities from 8.30am to 4.30pm each day, but otherwise have been confined to your cell. You work as a unit billet, which is a position of trust and responsibility, and also assist with maintenance of your unit.
2. It was submitted that your time in custody, both to date and in the future, has been additionally burdensome because of the notoriety of this case and the extensive media coverage it has received. In the absence of any evidence that this has been a consequence of the publicity surrounding this proceeding, I do not consider there is any proper basis for treating it as such so as to give rise to a mitigatory factor.[49]
3. In relation to the assessment of your prospects of rehabilitation, again your age is relevant.[50] The prosecution submitted that your prospects are reasonable. Your counsel contended that they are good.
4. In the past you have demonstrated a number of characteristics that point towards good prospects of rehabilitation. You have a trade and a strong work history. It may be anticipated that you will be able to use your skills in this regard in the future.
5. Before being taken into custody, you had had no meaningful treatment for your obvious problems over many years with alcohol and drugs. More recently, you have twice attended 6-hour programs while on remand; one for issues relating to alcohol abuse and the other regarding the use of methylamphetamine. Further treatment, coupled with supervision on your reintegration into the community at a much older age if you are granted parole, are likely to be positive factors.
6. You have now accepted responsibility for your crime. You also have the ongoing support of your family.
7. In all the circumstances, I assess your prospects of rehabilitation as good.

1. Taking each of the matters referred to above into account including those in your favour, and balancing the factors set out in the Sentencing Act as best as I am able, for the murder of Hannah McGuire, I sentence you to 28 years' imprisonment. I fix a period of 22 years and 4 months' imprisonment as the period you must serve before you become eligible for parole.[51]
2. I declare that, but for your plea of guilty, if you had been found guilty of murder after pleading not guilty, I would have imposed a sentence of 30 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 24 years.[52]
3. Pursuant to section 18 of the Sentencing Act, I declare that 590 days of imprisonment, not including today, have been served by way of pre-sentence detention. This period is to be reckoned as a period of imprisonment already served.[53]

1. Disposal orders will be made substantially in the terms sought by the prosecution. These orders were not opposed by your counsel.

1. For the first point, your counsel submitted that the fact that Mr O'Keefe did not mention the "roofy" conversation to others on a number of occasions meant the prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the conversation occurred.
2. Your counsel referred to the conversation between Mr O'Keefe and his partner after the "roofy" conversation. In that later conversation held almost immediately after the conversation with you, it is not surprising that Mr O'Keefe would not mention to his partner his intention to assist in the sinister act of drugging Ms McGuire and crashing a vehicle with her inside. He disclosed to his partner enough of your plan to get her reaction that she thought he should not be involved, and he acted accordingly. Further, it is of little moment that the first occasion on which Mr O'Keefe sought to explain his non-disclosure to his partner, by stating that you had told him not to say anything, was during cross-examination at trial. In pre-trial examinations, Mr O'Keefe was not asked a question directed to that matter. Further, it seems highly likely that this would be something you would have said, given the nefarious intention disclosed in the discussion.
3. Next, the fact that, after being told of the "roofy" conversation, Mr O'Keefe did not contact the police, the McGuire family or anyone else to warn them of what might happen to Ms McGuire, was said to be material. This point has no substance. In light of the fact that Mr O'Keefe had initially agreed to go along with the plan, he had every reason not to disclose it beyond partially telling his partner. Further, soon after the "roofy" conversation he indicated to you that he would not be assisting and there was no response from you that you would be going ahead with the plan regardless. For completeness, although the circumstances were clearly different, it is not insignificant that after the events of early 5 April 2024 Mr O'Keefe had avoided going to the police for over 2 days by the time he was arrested and questioned, including when he had been urged to do so by his friends.
4. Next, you relied upon the fact that Mr O'Keefe did not confront you with the "roofy" conversation on the night of 5 April 2024. This was at a time when Mr O'Keefe knew Ms McGuire was dead. It is entirely unremarkable that Mr O'Keefe did not refer to a conversation 3 days earlier when he was asking you directly about what had occurred giving rise to her death. It is also noteworthy that he remained unsure of the true position, including because you were giving inconsistent accounts on different occasions on 5 and 6 April 2024.
5. Next, you referred to the fact that it was not mentioned when Mr O'Keefe went camping on 6 April 2024. Again, this is unsurprising. At this time, it was known that Ms McGuire had been incinerated in the back of her car. By all accounts, the evidence of his 3 friends who went camping with Mr O'Keefe was that he appeared to be in a state of shock or of subdued demeanour. This state was undoubtedly because of his involvement in the events that took place in the early hours of 5 April 2024; and not because of your plan that you disclosed to him some 3 days before that had never been implemented.
6. The fact that he gave evidence under cross-examination at the trial that he did tell these 3 friends of the "roofy" conversation while on the camping trip was plainly incorrect. The making of this error demonstrates that Mr O'Keefe was unreliable in this regard, but does not go to the heart of whether or not the "roofy" conversation took place. Further, it is more likely that when Mr O'Keefe gave this evidence he was mistaken about a relatively minor detail concerning very stressful events, that occurred more than a year before he was in the witness box, rather than being intentionally untruthful.
7. Next, it was submitted that Mr O'Keefe would have told the police of the "roofy" conversation when he was arrested on 7 April 2024. The failure to mention the "roofy" conversation was submitted to be all the more implausible because Mr O'Keefe told police he was on his oath when talking to them. This submission takes the matter no further. Mr O'Keefe was told he was being arrested for the murder of Ms McGuire. He responded by giving details of the events in the early hours of 5 April 2024 when her car was dumped and set alight. These were the matters that were directly relevant, and far more so than a discussion in relation to the plan that had never been put into action.
8. It is unremarkable that he did not bring this earlier conversation to the front of his mind at that time. Further, when interviewed he initially said there was no prior conversation, but then immediately recalled the "roofy" conversation and gave details. There was nothing out of the ordinary with this recounting of the events. Further, this was stated by Mr O'Keefe in a time of utmost seriousness and even though his participation in the conversation and agreeing to go along with the "roofy" plan was plainly contrary to his own interests. He also gave a formal statement to police which included this conversation.
9. Secondly, it was submitted it was implausible that Mr O'Keefe would agree to assist with such a plan in circumstances where you and he were not very good friends. However, only 3 days later, Mr O'Keefe went to extraordinary lengths at all hours to assist you in dumping Ms McGuire's car: see further pars 46, 49, 51 to 52, 54 to 56 above. Although I accept the submission that the circumstances were different when matters were discussed on 4 April and the early hours of 5 April 2024 because there was no discussion about taking any step to "roofy" Ms McGuire, the conduct contemplated and then carried out was of a very serious nature in any event and Mr O'Keefe still agreed without hesitation to assist.
10. To the suggestion that Mr O'Keefe attended 8 King Drive in the early hours of 5 April 2024 (and accordingly Mr O'Keefe knew at that time that you had killed Ms McGuire), there could be no reasonable doubt that this did not occur. In addition to the convincing evidence of Mr O'Keefe to this effect, there were multiple residences near 8 King Drive with street-facing closed circuit television cameras, and Mr O'Keefe would almost certainly have passed one or more of these cameras if that had occurred. The police reviewed the footage obtained from cameras in the area as part of their investigations and none of them disclosed Mr O'Keefe travelling to 8 King Drive in the early hours of 5 April 2024, prior to dropping you home from Scarsdale.
11. Thirdly, it was submitted that Mr O'Keefe was not telling the truth in relation to the events at Scarsdale; and therefore the court could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he was honest in relaying the "roofy" conversation. Contrary to this submission, Mr O'Keefe's evidence in relation to Scarsdale was convincing and I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was accurate in all material respects.
12. I accept Mr O'Keefe's evidence that he did not get out of his car. In circumstances where Ms McGuire's body was hidden in the back of her car, you had every reason not to encourage Mr O'Keefe to get out of his car. If he had done so and discovered her body located where it was, he may not have agreed to continue to assist you by allowing you to dump and ignite the car, and then returning with you to Sebastopol after you had torched the car. Further, he had no reason to do so - it was not necessary in order for you to dump the car or for you to ignite it. On the contrary, it was in his interests not to partake in either of these activities beyond simply driving to and from Sebastopol to give you a means of returning.
13. In relation to the issue concerning the inability to move a log that was partially blocking access to the rear passenger door of the car, the simple response is that the log could have been there when you dumped the car as you did. In relation to the other log hard up against the driver's side of car, Mr Parker's evidence (that he could move it and did so without help, but got others to assist to move it away further) only goes to support the conclusion that you would have been capable of putting that log there yourself. Mr Parker is an elderly man. You are a young and physically strong man.
14. As to Mr O'Keefe's evidence that you crashed the car, although this was not accurate there are reasonable explanations for why he may have thought this. It was night. The car was only being driven slowly by you. It came to a stop in the bush. It may have appeared to Mr O'Keefe that some form of collision had occurred. In short, his evidence on this point does not suggest he was being untruthful.
15. With respect to the submission that it was laughable that Mr O'Keefe did not believe Ms McGuire was in the car, there are at least 3 answers to this. First, Mr O'Keefe had indicated to you that he would not participate in the "roofy" plan to discard her car with her being in it and unconscious. Secondly, you never told him she was in the car. No such suggestion was ever put to Mr O'Keefe during his cross-examination. Thirdly, when you suggested that you were going to torch the car without making any reference to her being in it, it would be highly unusual, to say the least, for anyone to assume that there must be a body in the car.
16. Fourthly, it was submitted that Mr O'Keefe acted inconsistently with finding out for the first time that Ms McGuire was deceased and had been in the vehicle when he was informed of her death on the night of 5 April 2024. It was also suggested using "some sort of code" to contact you before this occurred was also inconsistent with a lack of knowledge. As to the latter point, the code of suggesting to have a beer to talk about things is entirely consistent with Mr O'Keefe having covertly participated in the serious crime of torching Ms McGuire's car in the bush. As to the former point, this has already been addressed in part above in dealing with the first point.[54] Further, Mr O'Keefe did in fact confront you by stating "Hannah better not have been in that fucking car". There was no apparent need to refer to the "roofy conversation" as part of this exchange when he first learned that Ms McGuire had been killed. Furthermore, there were also other people nearby at the location where he was told by you that Ms McGuire had been suffocated. He had participated in disposing of the car and must have been concerned about how his conduct would have been viewed by others if he had stormed out when it was still generally thought by all except you and Mr O'Keefe (after you had suggested she had been suffocated) that Ms McGuire had committed suicide.
17. The fact that Mr O'Keefe chose to return to see you a second time is also not inconsistent with the "roofy" conversation having taken place or him not knowing that she was in the car when you set it alight. It is notable that on this occasion you falsely said to Mr O'Keefe that Ms McGuire was in a different vehicle and thus disassociated both your and his conduct from the incineration of her body.
18. Further, the fact that Mr O'Keefe did not go to the police at this point of time or any later time does not give rise to doubt of the veracity of the evidence concerning the "roofy" conversation. As discussed above,[55] he must have been very concerned about his own position given his involvement.
19. Fifthly, the fact that Mr O'Keefe deleted footage of his movements from his home security system that had been captured on this camera was relied upon. Such conduct is entirely consistent with Mr O'Keefe wishing to conceal that he had anything to do with the disposal of Ms McGuire's car and does not make it any less likely that the "roofy" conversation took place.
20. Sixthly, your counsel referred to that fact that Mr O'Keefe has not been charged with any offence arising out of his conduct on 5 April 2024. Although no charges have been laid, Mr O'Keefe had received no assurances from police in that regard at the time he was interviewed or provided a statement.
21. As part of this submission, your counsel contended that if the trial had proceeded to a conclusion it would have been necessary for the court to give an unreliability warning. Accepting this for the sake of argument,[56] the mere fact that such a warning may have been appropriate does not mean the court should not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt in relation to the facts in issue; just as a jury may also be so satisfied after receiving a reliability warning.
22. Finally, more generally, there is an inherent implausibility that Mr O'Keefe would fabricate the "roofy" conversation if it had not occurred. At the time he disclosed it, he knew that Ms McGuire was dead and that the police were carrying out investigations with respect to her murder. The fact that the conversation occurred only 3 days before Ms McGuire's death, that Mr O'Keefe had participated in that conversation, that he had agreed to assist, that he had not reported it to the police or anyone else (other than privately and in a limited way to his partner) and that Mr O'Keefe knew Ms McGuire had been incinerated in the back of her car all mean that his disclosure of the conversation was not in his self-interest in any way.

[1] Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s 3(2)(b).

[2] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), ss 3, 5(2G).

[3] See, for example, Rickerby v The King [2025] VSCA 252, [55] (Priest, Osborn and Kaye JJA).

[4] See further par 9 above.

[5] Issued by Victoria Police at Ballarat on 17 February 2023, naming Ms McGuire as the protected person and referring in the statement of reasons for issuing the notice to the incidents summarised above at par 10(6), (9)-(10).

[6] The message allegedly stated that Ms McGuire had been kicked, punched and thrown to the ground by you. That communication has not been produced as it is no longer available. Other accounts were given by Ms McGuire to other friends that did not include an allegation that you had thrown her to the ground. In these circumstances, I cannot be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you also threw her to the ground. That said, nothing really turns on this as punching and kicking Ms McGuire demonstrates in itself that you seriously assaulted her.

[7] This referred to you sedating Ms McGuire by giving her flunitrazepam, a benzodiazepine commonly known by the trade name "Rohypnol".

[8] Section 5(1).

[9] See also Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465, 476.8 (Mason CJ, Brennan, Dawson and Toohey JJ).

[10] Sentencing Act, s 5(3).

[11] Ibid, s 5(2). See also R v AB [2008] VSCA 39; (2008) 18 VR 391, 405 [45]-[46] (Warren CJ, Maxwell P and Redlich JA).

[12] Director of Public Prosecutions (Victoria) v Dalgliesh [2017] HCA 41; (2017) 262 CLR 428, 434 [7] (Kiefel CJ, Bell and Keane JJ), 452 [79] (Gageler and Gordon JJ); Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357, 371 [27] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne and Callinan JJ).

[13] Director of Public Prosecutions (Victoria) v Dalgliesh [2017] HCA 41; (2017) 262 CLR 428, 434 [5] (Kiefel CJ, Bell and Keane JJ), 452 [79] (Gageler and Gordon JJ), citing Wong v The Queen [2001] HCA 64; (2001) 207 CLR 584, 611 [75] (Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne JJ). See also Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357, 373-375 [37]-[39] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne and Callinan JJ).

[14] Dragovic v The King [2024] VSCA 95, [32]-[33] (Kennedy and T Forrest JJA); Freeburn v The Queen (No 2) [2020] VSCA 176, [45]-[47] (Kyrou, Kaye and Emerton JJA); Director of Public Prosecutions v Ristevski [2019] VSCA 287, [10] (Ferguson CJ and Whelan JA); Felicite v The Queen [2011] VSCA 274; (2011) 37 VR 329, 333 [20] (Redlich JA, with whom Harper JA and Robson AJA agreed).

[15] See, for example, Skeates v The King [2023] VSCA 226, [55]-[62] (Emerton P, Niall and Taylor JJA); Clarke v The King [2023] VSCA 103, [63] (Niall and Hargrave JJA); Director of Public Prosecutions v Reynolds [2022] VSCA 263; (2022) 71 VR 336, 345 [21]-[22] (Priest JA, dissenting), 352 [71]-[77], 355 [95], 355-356 [101]-[103] (T Forrest JA and Kidd AJA); Edward-Hayes v The Queen [2022] VSCA 76, [29] (McLeish JA); Packard v The Queen [2021] VSCA 56, [29]-[30], [37], [45], [56] (Kaye JA); Shau v The Queen [2020] VSCA 252, [47] (Niall JA, with whom Priest JA relevantly agreed); Hill v The Queen [2020] VSCA 220, [5], [45] (Maxwell P and Niall JA); Director of Public Prosecutions v Meyers [2014] VSCA 314; (2014) 44 VR 486, 496-497 [42]-[43], 498 [46] (Maxwell P, Redlich and Osborn JJA); Anderson v The Queen [2014] VSCA 255, [31] (Weinberg and Santamaria JJA); Filiz v The Queen [2014] VSCA 212, [21]-[23] (Maxwell P and Redlich JA); Pasinis v The Queen [2014] VSCA 97, [57] (Neave JA and Kyrou AJA); Director of Public Prosecutions v Derby [2007] VSCA 92; (2007) 171 A Crim R 302, 303 [2] (Vincent JA).

[16] The prosecution's submissions referred to the Royal Commission into Family Violence, a national emergency declared by the Prime Minister in April 2024 and various statistics (including from a webpage which cited a paper providing details in relation to monitoring homicides in 2023-2024). In light of the authorities referred to, it is unnecessary to elucidate further.

[17] Azzopardi v The Queen [2011] VSCA 372; (2011) 35 VR 43, 53-56 [34]-[40] (Redlich JA, with whom Coghlan and Macaulay AJJA agreed).

[18] See par 13 above.

[19] Sentencing Act, s 5(2)(f).

[20] Director of Public Prosecutions v Ristevski [2019] VSCA 287, [10] (Ferguson CJ and Whelan JA); Director of Public Prosecutions v Zhuang [2015] VSCA 96; (2015) 250 A Crim R 282, 301 [53] (Redlich, Priest and Beach JJA).

[21] Director of Public Prosecutions v Ristevski [2019] VSCA 287, [78] (Priest JA, with whom Ferguson CJ and Whelan JA relevantly agreed). See also fnn 14 and 15 above.

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

[23] Director of Public Prosecutions v Herrmann [2021] VSCA 160; (2021) 290 A Crim R 110, 121 [45] (Maxwell P, Kaye, Niall, T Forrest and Emerton JJA).

[24] Compare ibid, 121 [44], referring to Director of Public Prosecutions v Terrick [2009] VSCA 220; (2009) 24 VR 457, 469 [46.7] (Maxwell P, Redlich JA and Robson AJA).

[25] In one of the many inconsistent accounts you gave as to how Ms McGuire died, you told Mr O'Keefe that she had been suffocated.

[26] Compare Walters v The Queen [2013] VSCA 164, [6]-[9] (Coghlan JA, with whom Maxwell P agreed), [25]-[27] (Priest JA, with whom Maxwell P agreed); Barrett v The Queen [2010] VSCA 133; (2010) 27 VR 522, 528 [24]-[27] (Maxwell P and Neave JA, with whom Nettle JA agreed). See also R v ST [2025] VSC 227, [11], [59] (Croucher J).

[27] See, for example, R v Mulhall [2012] VSC 471, [33] (King J).

[28] Azzopardi v The Queen [2011] VSCA 372; (2011) 35 VR 43, 56 [39] (Redlich JA, with whom Coghlan and Macaulay AJJA agreed), quoting Director of Public Prosecutions v Lawrence [2004] VSCA 154; (2004) 10 VR 125, 132 [22] (Batt JA, with whom Winneke P and Nettle JA agreed) (see also 133 [25], Winneke P).

[29] See par 40 above.

[30] See Director of Public Prosecutions v Paulino [2017] VSC 794, [11] (Bell J).

[31] 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) 199 CLR 270, 281 [27] (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Hayne and Callinan JJ).

[32] Compare Director of Public Prosecutions v Ristevski [2019] VSCA 287, [6]-[7] (Ferguson CJ and Whelan JA).

[33] This may also be indicative of a lack of remorse (R v Kellisar [2001] VSCA 224, [9], [12] (Brooking JA, with whom Winneke P and Buchanan JA agreed)), remorse being something you plainly lacked at the time you decided to dispose of Ms McGuire's body: see further pars 101-103 below.

[34] R v Giles [1999] VSCA 208, [19] (Batt JA, with whom Phillips CJ and Chernov JA agreed).

[35] Director of Public Prosecutions v Ristevski [2019] VSCA 287, [75] (Priest JA, with whom Ferguson CJ and Whelan JA relevantly agreed).

[36] Ibid, [6]-[7] (Ferguson CJ and Whelan JA), citing Director of Public Prosecutions v England [1999] VSCA 95; [1999] 2 VR 258, 263 [17] (Brooking JA, with whom Batt JA relevantly agreed and Chernov JA agreed).

[37] Your counsel submitted that the court should not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that this was said, or, if it was said, that it did not reflect your true state of mind because you had been drinking excessively at the time the words were uttered. The statement made by your cousin in early July 2024 recording this conversation was in clear and unequivocal terms, your cousin having a specific recollection of you looking her in the eye when you said it. Further, although she was made available for cross-examination, your counsel declined the opportunity to challenge the evidence. The many statements you made to others in the days after you murdered Ms McGuire do not suggest that this statement was inconsistent with your approach at that time. In short, there can be no reasonable doubt that this was said by you and that it was a true reflection of your attitude when you said it.

[38] Director of Public Prosecutions v Tan [2023] VSC 416, [43] (Fox J).

[39] Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), s 198B.

[40] Director of Public Prosecutions v Young (No 2) [2025] VSC 405.

[41] Director of Public Prosecutions v Young (No 3) [2025] VSC 423.

[42] Phillips v The Queen [2012] VSCA 140; (2012) 37 VR 594, 600 [17] (Nettle JA), 614 [68]-[69] (Redlich JA and Curtain AJA, with whom Maxwell P agreed), 620-622 [95]-[106] (Harper JA).

[43] See par 100 above.

[44] Brown v The Queen [2019] VSCA 286; (2019) 59 VR 462, 464 [4], 468 [19] (Maxwell P, Priest, Kaye, T Forrest and Emerton JJA).

[45] Sentencing Act, s 5(2)(ab), 5B(2). See also Director of Public Prosecutions (Victoria) v Dalgliesh [2017] HCA 41; (2017) 262 CLR 428, 434 [9], 444 [47]-[48], 445 [50], 450 [68] (Kiefel CJ, Bell and Keane JJ), 453-454 [82]-[84] (Gageler and Gordon JJ).

[46] Ibid, s 5A(1)(b), (3). See also Brown v The Queen [2019] VSCA 286; (2019) 59 VR 462, 479-480 [57] (Maxwell P, Priest, Kaye, T Forrest and Emerton JJA).

[47] The Term "current sentencing practices" as referred to in section 5(2) of the Sentencing Act is intended to refer to sentencing practices at the date of sentence: see Stalio v The Queen [2012] VSCA 120; (2012) 46 VR 426, 432-433 [9], [11] (Neave and Osborn JJA and King AJA).

[48] Including that some of the sentences were imposed at a time when the effect of the pandemic in this State in the early part of this decade was a factor that reduced some sentences.

[49] This case is markedly different to the "unprecedented media coverage" to which the trial of another recent case was subjected: see R v Patterson [2025] VSC 557, [94] (Beale J).

[50] Azzopardi v The Queen [2011] VSCA 372; (2011) 35 VR 43, 54 [35], 55-56 [37]-[38] (Redlich JA, with whom Coghlan and Macaulay AJJA agreed.

[51] Sentencing Act, ss 11(1)(b), 11A(4)(b).

[52] Ibid, s 6AAA.

[53] Sentencing Act, s 18(1) and (4).

[54] See par 4 above.

[55] See par 3 above.

[56] See Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic), s 31(c) concerning evidence given by a witness who might reasonably be supposed to have been criminally concerned in the events giving rise to the trial. See also R v Stewart [2001] NSWCCA 260; (2001) 52 NSWLR 301, 308 [37], 321-322 [99] (Hulme J) concerning witnesses who may have a motive to lie.