DPP v Bexon [2025] VCC 1444

life-threatening, after doctors discovered a brain bleed and several fractured bones to his ribs, sternum, and hands. Mr Bexon underwent extensive examination at the Hospital. 24. I will return to the serious injury aspect in a moment. 25. When an interview was conducted with you, you denied the allegations of the assault, saying that you acted in self-defence due to your father using his walker to push into you. You said that you simply pushed it back to protect your personal space. You said that you pushed Mr Bexon backwards, which caused him to slip over. 26. You denied further assaulting Mr Bexon but said that you tapped him with your foot to push him towards the bathroom where you could assist him to get him off the ground. 27. You said that you had been living at your parents' home since November because you had nowhere else to go, and you were caring for your mother at the address. You said that your mother had agreed for you to return, and you thought your mother had withdrawn the intervention order by telling police and the court that she wanted her daughter at home. 28. Returning to the topic of serious injury, I was told the following: 29. A Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine expert report was obtained from a Dr Maaike Moller, forensic physician. She reviewed Mr Bexon's medical records and injuries. She said the following injuries were identified upon examination by Ambulance Victoria:

(a) tenderness of the left mandible (jaw)

(b) tenderness of the sternum and left chest

(c) skin tear of the right hand

(d) skin tears left dorsum forearm.

1. Once at the Alfred Hospital, a CT scan identified the following:

(a) a left-sided subdural haematoma of 5 millimetres with midline shift (bleed on the brain causing interruption to the normal spaces within the brain)

(b) left mandibular condylar neck fracture with dislocation at the temporomandibular joint (jaw fracture)

(c) fracture of the sternal body (breastbone)

(d) left posterior ribs 8-10 acute fracture.

1. Dr Moller gave the following opinions in respect of causation of injury sustained by Mr Bexon:

(a) That he had sustained blunt force trauma to his head, face, chest and arms.

(b) That as a result, he had a fracture of his jaw, a bleed on his brain, fractured ribs, and tears and bruising on his arms.

(c) It is not possible to comment on the type of force; a blow or a fall could cause such injuries. The injuries to the arm could also be caused by forceful grabbing.

(d) It is not possible to quantify the number of applications of force; there are likely to have been multiple, and at least one in each affected part of the body.

(e) It is not possible to quantify the amount of force in view of Mr Bexon's age, his history of fractures, and possible use of anticoagulant agents, which would make him more vulnerable to sustain such injuries than other people.

(f) The distribution of the injuries on multiple body planes was more likely to be caused by an assault or complex incident than a simple fall.

1. Dr Moller opined the following in respect of the severity of Mr Bexon's injuries:

(a) That he had a bleed on the brain associated with a shift of the brain tissue and altered consciousness. It required active monitoring and seizure prevention.

(b) He required a one-week admission to the Alfred Hospital and ICU review.

(c) At the time of discharge, he was not yet at the level of his prior function.

(d) Recovery of his fractures alone would likely take at least months.

(e) By his own estimation, Mr Bexon thought he may never regain his prior function.

(f) In older people, a reduction in prior function can reduce length and quality of further life.

1. Dr Moller's evidence as to the complainant's recovery and current level of physical function is that Mr Bexon's mobility is impacted, and he is receiving ongoing physical rehabilitation. He still needed assistance when walking up hills, which was noted by Dr Moller.
2. Dr Moller's evidence as to the link between Mr Bexon's cognitive impairment is that the subdural haematoma and brain trauma he experienced could account for some of the cognitive impairment. However, it was not possible to quantify the degree of contribution of the injury sustained with certainty. This is due to the absence of a cognitive assessment prior to the injury that could be compared with his current level of function.
3. Ms Bexon, objectively your offending is most serious and deserving of a punishment which is just in all the relevant circumstances, and your conduct must be firmly denounced.
4. You attacked a person who was already in a most vulnerable state due to his age and level of apparent frailty, in a sustained and barbaric fashion. You were heavily intoxicated at the time, and this, no doubt, fuelled the intensity of your disgusting behaviour. Your parents had given you a roof over your head at a time when you did not have one, and yet you abused the hospitality that they had given you, causing dreadful injury to your father. Not only did you throw his walking frame at him, which caused him to fall to the ground, you then embarked on a sustained and savage attack upon him when he was completely defenceless and pleading for you to stop, saying that he was sorry.
5. It was in the course of this attack that you repeatedly threatened to kill your father, so your words were of an especially frightening nature in this context.
6. Further, rather than help your father afterwards, you went out and had a cigarette, and, in a most brazen fashion, returned to the house to get into bed whilst police were there; unlike you, they were trying to help your parents, who were clearly in a distressed state, and your father was in a most precarious one in terms of the injuries you had inflicted shortly before. Your parents were entitled to feel safe in their own home, but you violated this, and, in my view, behaved in a most disgraceful and entitled fashion towards them.
7. You should not have even been at their premises, as you were subject to an intervention order at the time where your mother was the applicant. You gave an account to police whereby you assumed that the order had been lifted; whilst you might have thought this, you should have checked. Also, you knew very well that you were not to be violent toward your parents, on any view of things.
8. It is a serious aspect of your offending that this was an episode of family violence.
9. I accept that while intoxicated in the past you have not committed an offence, so I do not treat your intoxication on the occasion in question as an aggravating factor.
10. In sentencing you, I take into account the victim impact statement provided by your father, as follows:
11. He said that both physically and mentally, he was hurt by your offending, and it had an impact on him that he did not know or understand. He said that, despite the damage caused, he still loves you. He said that your drinking had been the issue for a long time - that you knew that he and your mother did not like you drinking, and you were also aware of the rules about sobering up in a motel, and not being drunk at their home.
12. He said that he was hopeful that you could turn a corner and come back home if you wished to. He said that his wife felt that he did not listen to her and her feelings; however, this was not true. He said that he and his wife were both hurting about the incident that occurred, but in different ways.
13. He said that somewhere along the line there had been mistakes that had been made in relation to parenting you. He said he had a tolerance where things should have not have been tolerated. He said that at his age he had time to reflect on how it was impossible to go back and change the way that he had parented, but he felt disappointment about this.
14. He said he had always been an active person, but was now restricted with doing things. He said that he had enjoyed activities such as raking up the leaves and pottering in the garden; however, he now needed to lean on a trolley to help with his balance, which made it hard to do and enjoy.
15. I pause here to note that Mr Bexon previously needed a walker, however, I accept that his mobility and agility have been worsened by his injuries in the way that he says.
16. He went on to say that his injuries took a lot away from him, as he was now no longer able to drive because of his brain injury. He said that the offending had taken away his ability to be independent and to go shopping or to his appointments.
17. He spoke of how lucky he was that they had fantastic neighbours who helped, but that this felt like placing a burden on them, and he did feel isolated at times.
18. He said that his mental health had declined since the incident, and he had been prescribed pills that he had to take twice a day.
19. He said that his back and knees were slowly getting better, and he was keeping himself moving and taking the pills he needed to take.
20. He was trying to remain physical and do what he could, but some parts of his body were worse than others. He said that his body took a lot on the night of the offending. He said that his wife did not know the severity of his brain injury - he did not tell her, as he knew it would upset her greatly. He said that his head had been very swollen and impacted by the attack. He could still feel lumps and bumps on his head all the time, which was a reminder of what had occurred. He said his memory was affected too, and he struggled to recall his long-term memory. He said that sometimes his short-term memory was also impacted.
21. He said he was not sure what happened to his hand, but it was smashed, as was his elbow. He could not make a fist with his hands, and sometimes experienced pain here; however, he did a lot of physiotherapy and exercises to help make it better. He can manage to do grocery shopping with some help.
22. In terms of the social impact of the crime, he said the way that he felt was like he had failed. He said that he was the one who used to get phone calls from wherever you might be, to pick you up, as you could not drive. He said he never used to mind this, knowing that by doing this for you he knew you were safe.
23. He said that the council provided them with security for their gates at the front of their house. He said that each night he goes outside to lock the gates, which makes him feel more secure.
24. He said he missed your presence at home - that you are family after all, but he said he just did not want you to drink.
25. I have taken the impact upon your father into account in sentencing you. In my view the victim impact statement is a most impressive one, which is honest, loving, and reflective. It is also forgiving.
26. I also take into account the victim impact statement of Julie Kutchel, your sister, who said that emotionally the incident was very upsetting for her. She attended the emergency ward on the morning after the incident and saw her father in a lot of pain, which was something she had never seen before.
27. She spoke of her feelings of anger that this has happened to her father. She said that she and her husband had tried to help as much as they could since the incident, visiting as regularly as they can; however, this could be a challenge, as they lived quite a distance away, and both worked full-time.
28. She said that she worried a lot more about her father and his health, frailty, and memory loss, which has been on her mind every day since the incident.

1. I take into account your background, as follows:
2. You are now 65 years old and as I said you were 63 at the time of the offending.
3. You were born in England and your parents came to Australia when you were three.
4. You are a permanent resident in this country.
5. Your father worked in the sales area and was often away for 'stretches of time'. (Submissions - defence - dated 27 June 2025, p4)
6. Your mother did not work for financial gain. According to you, your father had a dominant personality.
7. You are the oldest of three children. However, you are estranged from a sister whom you have described as competing with you to obtain your parents' affection.
8. Sadly, your brother, Carl, died suddenly in September 2022 in unusual circumstances. He was found to have died in the water at the beach.
9. According to you, he had been avoiding contact with your parents for some time, although he would sporadically call you to ask after your welfare and that of your mother.
10. You report that Carl also had a difficult relationship with your father.
11. You were understandably grief stricken and distressed at the circumstances of Carl's death.
12. You were raised in Beaumaris and attended a local primary school followed by a local secondary school until Year 9.
13. In Year 9, you got into trouble at school after wagging with a friend and you report that your father decided that because you had caused him such embarrassment, you should leave school.
14. You went on to attend Stott's Business College, which you did not enjoy, but you were ordered to attend by your parents.
15. You completed Year 10 at night school, working part-time in a local milk bar, and you then enrolled in Moorabbin TAFE to continue learning.
16. Your first sales employment was at a shipping company, performing administrative work.
17. You lived at home until your early twenties, working at various jobs including secretarial work.
18. You then worked in a variety of clerical roles in other businesses, culminating in a job in telemarketing and fundraising, which you held for 23 years.
19. During this time you lived independently in rented accommodation and maintained regular contact with your parents.
20. Unfortunately, COVID-19 caused a serious decline in your personal circumstances. You lost your job due to a decline in tele-sales across the industry, which then led to the closure of the company you had worked for.
21. You were forced to vacate your rental property as it was being sold, and you were obliged to withdraw your superannuation in order to support yourself.
22. You were only able to obtain short-term rental accommodation and, with only 'Job Keeper' as your income, you could not afford the internet connection that would allow you to work as an independent contractor in sales.
23. As at the beginning of 2020, your personal circumstances were continuing to decline.
24. You had some part-time work but you were unable to earn enough to get by and it was at that point that your parents agreed that you could come and live with them.
25. The house was very small and cramped. Your parents initially arranged for you to sleep on a sofa until you persuaded them to allow you to buy a sofa bed. You had no bedroom or privacy as your parents were reluctant to clear out a room as a bedroom for you.
26. Your mother suffered a stroke in 2019 and was dependent on a walker to move around. Your father's mobility had also declined and he also needed to use a mobility aid or walker.
27. You instructed your counsel that you tried to make yourself useful around the house, helping with chores, gardening and grocery shopping. Your mother was fiercely independent despite her difficulties and refused to explore assistance from the council or others she did not know.
28. You instructed that your mother did not notice your own health difficulties or declining morale.
29. You instructed that your drinking habits fluctuated. However, you felt that your parents consistently exaggerated the situation to discount your feelings and dismiss any concerns that you raised, especially, you instructed, in relation to your father's bad temper and 'at times physical hostility towards (you) and his verbal hostility to both (you) and (your) mother'. (Paragraph 60 - sentencing indication submissions).
30. In terms of your physical health, I note that you required knee surgery when you returned to live with your parents as the cartilage in your right knee had fully worn away. However, you could not have surgery as there was no room in your parents' house to recuperate. Your knee constantly caused you pain and you were prescribed Voltaren, an anti-inflammatory medication, to assist with pain relief.
31. You were diagnosed with osteoarthritis, experiencing pain in your feet, hands and back.
32. I was told that in 2023 you suffered a fall and fractured your back. You were taken to Sandringham Hospital by ambulance, but you were discharged the next morning.
33. I sentence you, having factored in that the pain that you continue to suffer from these various physical complaints will make time in custody harder than would otherwise be the case and has done so till now.

1. In respect of the immediate context leading to your offending, I was told that in 2023, after a family argument, the police were called and you were obliged to move out of your parents' house.
2. You instructed that you were initially aware of a Family Violence Intervention Order against you. However, you thought that if your parents allowed you to return to live with them, there would be no further consequences for you. Apparently, you did not turn your mind to confirming with the court or police about the status of this order.
3. After leaving your parents' home at this time, you found accommodation for a few days in St Kilda then took a train to Warrnambool, where you found accommodation in a hotel for a week. The accommodation was basic and you did not feel safe. You then returned to Melbourne and stayed in Sandringham for a number of days. You instructed that your mother then suggested you return home during a phone call between she and you. You instructed that, by this time, it was obvious that you had nowhere else to go and your parents did not want you to be living on the streets.
4. On the morning of 18 June 2024, as I have said you were brought by ambulance to the Alfred Hospital, having been seen by a passerby lying on the road, as previously referred to in these sentencing remarks.
5. Your counsel, in her written submissions for the sentence indication hearing, referred to this incident and said that you had been reported in the hospital notes as being found intoxicated on tram tracks, which was consistent with the prosecution opening.
6. Whilst at hospital, you were offered Naltrexone, which you accepted. You were also offered some follow-up care at 'Southside', which is another hospital facility as I understand it. However, you told hospital staff that you would prefer to return to your parents' place in Beaumaris. You were prescribed Diazepam.
7. Your counsel set out the progress note in respect of your mental health state from the hospital records, which recorded that you were reporting worsening mental health and suicidal ideation. You reported being stressed in caring for your elderly mother. Your counsel indicated that the notes confirmed your report of worsening depression.
8. Your counsel indicated in the written submissions that when you were released from hospital you sat in the park opposite and bought some lunch, which you ate there. You also bought two beers, which you drank there. You stayed at the park for most of the day before returning home.
9. You accepted that the argument in which you attacked your father occurred as he was trying to dissuade you from setting up your foldaway bed to go to sleep.
10. It does concern me that despite evidence that you suffer from an alcohol abuse disorder and you have been a heavy drinker for many years and were said to be heavily intoxicated at the time of this offending, that you seemed to minimise how much you had to drink prior to the offending in this matter.
11. You have no criminal history, which is a matter in your favour. I accept that you are of otherwise good character, with some qualification, in that you were the subject of an intervention order at the time of this offending at the instance of your mother.
12. It was submitted that you pleaded guilty at the earliest reasonable opportunity, however I am unable to accept this. You pleaded guilty after a sentencing indication given by me, which was preceded by another step you chose to undertake, being a s198B hearing, where Dr Moller was extensively

cross-examined on your behalf by Ms Lamovie. The cross-examination essentially challenged the causation of injuries suffered by your father, with the suggestion that they were caused by him falling, albeit, apparently with the suggestion that you initially pushed him. 13. However, I accept that you entered pleas of guilty in circumstances where there was not a contested committal hearing and a trial date had not been set in this court. Therefore, in taking the course that you have, you saved the witnesses the time and trouble of giving evidence at a committal hearing, and at trial, save for Dr Moller, who gave evidence at the s198B hearing. You saved the community the time and expense of a contested committal hearing and a trial. In these circumstances, I allow for a fairly substantial discount in the sentence you will receive, as your pleas of guilty do have considerable utilitarian benefit in all the relevant circumstances. In this regard, your counsel submitted that there were triable issues in respect of your intentionality concerning the offending. She told me that you were prepared to plead guilty to recklessly causing serious injury from an early stage. She submitted that the fact you chose to forgo such an issue at trial was a powerful indication of remorse and also reflected your willingness to facilitate justice. It is also apparent that your parents may have been reluctant to engage in the proceedings as witnesses against you, which would have made it more difficult for the Prosecution to run the trial. However, ultimately, you decided not to exploit this, which is to your credit. As I have said, I have allowed for a fairly substantial discount in the sentence you would otherwise receive for your facilitation of justice. 14. In view of the issues raised in cross-examination at the s198B hearing, the question of remorse is somewhat complicated. To suggest that your father may have sustained the injuries by way of falling, rather than at your hands, albeit it seems that the push was allowed for, does not indicate remorse to me. This issue must also be seen in the context of what you told psychologist, Ms Mynard, where you were very critical of your father and at times what you said bordered on victim blaming, which is most concerning. However, your ultimate acceptance of responsibility after this, and after a sentence indication hearing took place, does indicate some remorse. You also wrote a letter to the Court which sets out that you are sorry for what you have done. Such expressions of remorse can be regarded as somewhat self-serving, however, I understand that you wrote this after reading the victim impact statement- in all the relevant circumstances, I accept that you are sorry for what you have done insofar as you are able to feel this, especially insofar as your relationship with your father is concerned from your point of view. Your remorse and insight are very much works in progress in my view, and you have a good way to go in this respect, 15. In sentencing you, I factor in that your parents are still supportive of you. This is a positive factor in respect of your rehabilitation and is also relevant to the impact of your offending on them. 16. As I have said, you are not an Australian citizen, having been born in England and never taking on Australian citizenship. I have read and taken into account the affidavit of Lawson Bayly, sworn 25 August 2025. He is a public defender with Victoria Legal Aid and an accredited specialist in immigration law. He said that, if you were to serve any part of a custodial sentence of twelve months or more, the inevitable legal consequence would be that your permanent residency visa would be mandatorily cancelled. 17. He went on to say that whether your visa was reinstated because there was 'another reason' under the legislation why the cancellation would be revoked would depend on the decisionmaker's assessment of various factors which were set out at paragraph 22 and in other places in his affidavit. I note that the five primary considerations to which a decisionmaker must have regard pursuant to s8 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ('the Act') is whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence, and another is the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia. Mr Bayly was of the view, that even if the cancellation was ultimately revoked, there was some risk that you might be deprived of your liberty while the assessment took place, because your visa may not be cancelled until close to the end of your sentence and a decision on revocation may take a significant period of time. 18. He said, at paragraph 39:

While it is difficult to predict the outcome of any revocation request, in Ms Bexon's case the nature and seriousness of the charges alone creates a substantial risk that both a delegate and a tribunal may decide not to revoke the cancellation. As stated, it will be inherently difficult for her to 'prove herself' by not re-offending in the community, as she cannot be released unless and until the cancellation is revoked.

1. He also said that even if you are ultimately successful in revoking the cancellation of your visa, there is a risk that you will be deprived of your liberty whilst assessment of your appeal is conducted and these can take a significant period of time, as I previously said.
2. I accept that you have and will suffer a good deal of anxiety in relation to your situation and the prospect of deportation, albeit that it is somewhat speculative as to whether you ultimately will be deported. If you were to be deported, I accept that your lack of connection with the United Kingdom, as well as your age and reduced physical and mental health, would make deportation to this country most difficult for you, and there is some prospect of you being deprived of your liberty, beyond your sentence, whilst you await the outcome of any appeal against revocation of your visa-so, this is all relevant to your level of anxiety and will make time in gaol harder than it would otherwise be and has otherwise been.

1. It was submitted by your counsel that Verdins considerations were relevant in your case so as to reduce your moral culpability and impact the weight that would otherwise attach to relevant sentencing considerations.
2. Ms Lamovie referred to evidence given by Ms Mynard by way of written report and in person at the initial plea hearing, highlighting the following passages insofar as written submissions are concerned-(in this regard I have corrected the spelling of your surname as it had been misspelt by Ms Mynard, but I refer to the following quotes):
   1. ... Ms Bexon does not report hallucinations, perceptual disturbances, or dissociation. She perceived herself as a victim in most situations, which may suggest cognitive distortions related to chronic stress and unresolved trauma. There were no indications of psychosis or perceptual abnormalities. However, her interpretation of events appears skewed by interpersonal mistrust and resentment, leading to a pattern of interpersonal conflict and defensiveness.
      1. 43. Ms Bexon's concentration appears mildly impaired, possibly due to anxiety, stress, and preoccupation with grievances. She reported that she enjoys crosswords and reading, which suggests some ability to focus on structured tasks. However, her difficulty managing frustration suggests potential impulsivity and emotional dysregulation, which may interfere with sustained attention. Ms Bexon's insight was limited, particularly regarding her alcohol use, emotional responses, and role in conflicts. She denied having an alcohol problem and minimised the impact of her drinking on her physical health, legal issues, and relationships.
      2. 44. Ms Bexon's judgment appeared impaired in emotionally charged situations, particularly regarding the violence and interpersonal conflict in her offending behaviours. Her history of drinking-related falls and injuries suggests poor

decision-making regarding self-care and safety. She also lacks full acknowledgment of the consequences of her actions, particularly in relation to her father's injuries and her legal charges. 3. 45. Ms Bexon's thought process was logical but rigid and

self-justifying, with a tendency to externalize blame. She exhibited limited insight into her role in conflicts and minimizes the impact of her drinking. Clinically, she displays traits consistent with Alcohol Use Disorder (pre-contemplation stage), Borderline Personality Traits (emotional instability, impulsivity, and unstable relationships), and chronic anxiety. Further assessment and motivational interviewing may be beneficial to increase insight and willingness to engage in treatment for alcohol use and emotional regulation. (Initial report dated 1 March 2025) [scil Bexon] 3. I note that the extract taken from paragraph 42 to which I have just referred is preceded by the following:

... She exhibited a tendency to ruminate on past grievances, which appears to reflect underlying resentment and unresolved emotional distress. Ms Bexton's thought process was logical but self-justifying. She frequently minimized or deflected responsibility for past events, particularly regarding her alcohol use and her mother and father's injuries. She showed limited insight into the impact of her behaviour on others, which aligned with the pre-contemplation stage of change regarding alcohol abuse. Ms Bexon does not appear to exhibit formal thought disorder, paranoia, or delusional thinking. However, her perception of events is highly subjective, with a tendency to externalize blame (e.g., attributing her father's hostility to his own character rather than acknowledging any role she may have played in their conflicts). [scil Bexon]

1. Defence also sought to rely on the following passages from an addendum report provided by Ms Mynard dated 20 March 2025 as follows:
   1. From a psychological perspective, there is strong evidence that Ms Bexton meets the diagnostic criteria for Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD), despite her denial of such traits. Her pattern of unstable relationships, emotional dysregulation, impulsivity, and difficulty managing anger aligns closely with BPD symptomatology. The police footage of the offending, her history of interpersonal conflicts, and hospital records indicating suicidal ideation and impulsivity all point toward chronic emotional instability and difficulty coping with stress. Ms Bexon's narrative reflects frequent interpersonal conflicts, and intense emotional reactions, yet she struggles to acknowledge or reflect on these emotions. She reports episodes of panic, unstable interpersonal relationships, emotional dysregulation, and exhibits impulsive behaviour, which are hallmark features of BPD. Although she denies struggles with anger, her behavioural history suggests otherwise, with documented incidents of aggression, frustration, and retaliatory behaviour towards her father. Overall, while Ms Bexon does not explicitly recognize these traits, her offending history, hospitalizations, and emotional instability suggest a significant underlying personality disorder that exacerbates her vulnerability to stress, interpersonal conflict, and impulsive decision-making.
   2. 25. Diagnosing a personality disorder is a complex and nuanced process that requires longitudinal assessment, rather than relying on limited observations from two assessment sessions. Personality disorders are enduring patterns of behaviour, cognition, and emotional regulation that develop over time and cause significant distress or impairment across multiple areas of life. Given the complexity of Ms Bexton's mental health history, trauma, and current legal situation, prematurely assigning a Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) diagnosis could lead to misdiagnosis, stigma, and inappropriate treatment recommendations. Whilst Ms Bexon's reported history documentation and presentation does strongly indicate a personality disorder, the writer would recommend deferring a diagnosis to a psychiatrist or a psychologist who can conduct a more comprehensive, long-term evaluation. Personality disorders require persistent, long-standing patterns of dysfunction that must be observed over time and in various contexts. Two assessment sessions that the writer conducted, provide only a snapshot of Ms Bexon's emotional state, which may be influenced by situational stressors (e.g., custody, deportation concerns, grief) rather than a stable personality pathology.
   3. 26. Many features of BPD (e.g., impulsivity, emotional instability, anger, self-harm, interpersonal difficulties) overlap with

trauma-related disorders (PTSD, Complex PTSD), mood disorders (Depression, Bipolar II), or even unresolved grief and need to be explored. Ms Bexton has a history of complex grief, childhood adversity, and emotional dysregulation, which could explain her intense emotions, fear of abandonment, and interpersonal instability without necessarily meeting the criteria for BPD. Ms Bexon's current legal proceedings, family conflict, and unresolved trauma could temporarily amplify symptoms such as mood instability, impulsivity, and interpersonal difficulties. Given these complexities, Ms Bexon should be referred to a psychiatrist or a psychologist for ongoing evaluation and treatment. This would reduce her risk of reoffending, and assist her to develop self-awareness, motivation for change, and increase her emotional literacy. [scil Bexon] 2. At the further plea hearing, Ms Lamovie referred to some of the evidence given by Ms Mynard at the previous plea hearing, emphasising Ms Mynard's evidence that even if you were in the pre-contemplative stage concerning your alcohol-use disorder, there was always treatment available to assist you in dealing with such a condition. She also referred to Ms Mynard's evidence that without treatment in respect of your difficulties, you would continue to lack insight; however, it was possible for you to change and move forward. 3. Ms Lamovie referred to Ms Mynard's evidence that there were some 'really good therapies' that were used for borderline personality disorder, whether these be traits or the full disorder, as they were still treating the same thing. In this regard, Ms Mynard referred to the use of schema therapy and dialectical behaviour therapy. 4. Ms Lamovie referred to Brown v The Queen [2020] VSCA 212, where the Court of Appeal considered the application of Verdins to personality disorders. The full quote that she referred to is as follows, just noting that she extracted some of this and I am going to indicate the full quote:

A point of particular emphasis in Verdins was that the sentencing court should not be concerned with diagnostic labels which, by themselves, could provide no assistance in assessing the impact of the relevant condition on the offender at the relevant time(s). Instead, the court's assessment should depend upon, and be informed by, what the expert evidence showed. [21]

1. She referred to Brown where the Court further referred to Verdins, where that Court said that the sentencing court should not have to concern itself with how a particular condition is to be classified, recognising that there were difficulties of definition and classification in the field which were notorious and referred to the following extract:

There may be differences of expert opinion and diagnosis in relation to the offender. It may be that no specific condition can be identified. What matters is what the evidence shows about the nature, extent and effect of the mental impairment experienced by the offender at the relevant time. [22]

1. I note that in her evidence, Ms Mynard said the following:

... I do think that her traits of borderline personality, the emotional instability and the impulsiveness, particularly had played a part in her offending because ... not everyone who's intoxicated will act out to the extent, with everyone or especially with elderly parents, that she did, so I believe that these traits of borderline personality have ... played out to be quite impactful and the alcohol use has exacerbated that. (T47.27−48.12)

1. The learned prosecutor then asked whether Ms Mynard was saying that the offending only happened because alcohol was involved, or only because of erratic behaviour. Ms Mynard answered this was impossible to answer, but that:

... the thing ... I'm thinking about and that I have a suspicion about, is this relationship that she has with her father that's been complicated over time and has involved ... physical - she alleges that he's been physically abusive towards her and I think that often with borderline personality traits, it often comes out of trauma or often comes out of [a] difficult sort of history ... - I believe that there's more to Ms Bexon's story that needs to be understood, in terms of a therapeutic relationship to help explain this further. (T48.19−49.2)

1. When asked if she was of the view that you were being untruthful when speaking with her - that is Ms Mynard - in respect of the alleged offending, she said that she was not sure if 'untruthful' was the right word, but said that she thought perhaps a lack of insight 'maybe untruthful, ... I don't know, it's hard to describe exactly what, denial, minimisation.' She went on to say that it could be that you were denying or minimising in relation to other matters which you spoke to her about.
2. Ms Lamovie submitted that on the basis of the evidence before me, there ought be some reduction in your moral culpability because of the impact of your purported impairment of mental function on your ability to exercise appropriate judgment, make calm and rational choices, and to think clearly. I note that this is not how Ms Mynard expressed her opinion, from what I can see, or not in those terms at least. In any event, Ms Lamovie submitted that your reduced moral culpability ought affect the punishment which was just in all the circumstances, and that denunciation was less likely to be a relevant sentencing objective.
3. Ms Lamovie acknowledged that if I were of the view that there was a relevant impairment of mental function operating on you at the time of the offending, she could not say where the impact of this ended and the impact of you being affected by alcohol began.
4. Ms Dane for the Prosecution submitted that as there was no confirmed diagnosis by Ms Mynard of a particular mental health condition relevant to your offending, I ought not be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that you were labouring under an impairment of mental function at the time you committed the offences before me. Ms Dane urged me to closely consider the high calibre of the expert evidence in Brown and the degree of rigour required to establish a relevant nexus between an impairment of mental function and offending for the purposes of limb 1 of Verdins. Ms Dane submitted that, even if I were of the view that you were suffering from an impairment of mental function at the time of the offending, there was insufficient evidence to establish a relevant nexus between your impairment of mental function and the offending.
5. I have closely considered this matter, as I am required to do. In view of the evidence of Ms Mynard, it appears to me that on any view of things, she regards you as having suffered from an impairment of mental function at the relevant time but is unable to say for certain whether the diagnostic label of borderline personality disorder is appropriate. However, she is of the view that you are and were exhibiting strong traits of such a disorder, albeit that these may be traits relating to some other impairment of mental function.
6. She refers to the relevant symptoms that appeared to be present at the time of your offending, albeit that these were mixed with alcohol consumption, and, as I understand her evidence, she also refers to symptoms or traits that you exhibited with her, when not alcohol affected.
7. In the end, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that at the time of the offending you were suffering from an impairment of mental function consistent with strong traits of borderline personality disorder which contributed to your offending in a relevant way, noting that the nature of your offending involved a good degree of impulsivity and emotional dysregulation. However, such traits were exacerbated by your alcohol use, and it is impossible to untangle to what degree each of these contributed to your offending. However, in view of the fact that you have no prior convictions, it seems to me that such traits as you have possessed of a borderline personality disorder have been containable by you in the past, allowing that there was an incident between you and your parents giving rise to an intervention order in more recent times, but, it appears that this may have occurred when you were consuming alcohol as well.
8. In all of the relevant circumstances, I make marginal reduction in your moral culpability for the presence of an impairment of mental function which contributed to some extent to your offending, and I marginally reduce the weight which would otherwise apply to just punishment, denunciation, and specific and general deterrence.
9. In view of your anxiety, proneness to experience panic attacks, and other evidence in relation to your mental wellbeing, I accept that time in custody has been and will be harder for you than for someone without these difficulties. I also accept that there is some risk of your mental health deteriorating whilst you are in custody. I do hope that you are open to appropriate treatment to develop insight in respect of your mental health as well as your dependence on alcohol, as this will assist you in your path towards rehabilitation.
10. In sentencing you, I take into account your age and that you have been offence free for your entire life until this offending.
11. It was submitted by your counsel that the circumstances of your current offending were unlikely to occur again, as you would not be residing with your parents in the future and you have said that you intend to remain sober once released into the community. I will refer to this aspect further a little later on.
12. Your counsel spoke of the consequences of your offending being so difficult and isolating for you as a remanded prisoner who is in late middle age. I factor in this submission and that this is your first period in gaol, which is harder for you than it would be for someone who is more seasoned in this regard.
13. In all of the relevant circumstances, I find that your prospects of rehabilitation are guardedly good. Much will depend on your willingness to engage in appropriate mental health and alcohol abuse treatment. You really need to address these issues to maximise your chances of not re-offending. However, there are matters in your favour that I have referred to in these remarks such as having no prior convictions and having a strong work history, as well as support from your parents that ought stand you in good stead in the future. Having said this, if you are released into the community, I note the arrangements that would be made in respect of your accommodation and that this will not and ought not be with your parents.
14. I place fairly minimal weight on specific deterrence and protection of the community after having made marginal allowance in your favour due to Verdins. I attach fairly strong weight to general deterrence, just punishment, and denunciation after making marginal reductions due to Verdins.

1. Charges 1 and 2 are prescribed serious violent offences under the Sentencing Act 1991. As I intend to impose a gaol term in respect of each of these offences, this means that upon sentencing you on Charge 2, you are to be sentenced as a serious violent offender which will be noted in the Court records and there is a presumption of cumulation in respect of Charge 2. Protection of the community is the principal purpose for which the sentence is imposed in relation to this charge, however, it is not necessary to sentence you to a disproportionate sentence in order to achieve this.
2. I accept that the principle of totality applies in your case and that while a level of cumulation as between Charges 1 and 2 is warranted, this will be to a fairly moderate extent, quite minimal in fact, in view of the threats to kill being all part of the one continuous event.
3. You accepted a sentencing indication that I gave of a maximum of three years and six months' imprisonment, which is also a matter to which I must have regard.
4. I am of the view that it is desirable for you to receive a lengthy gap between the head sentence and the non-parole period.
5. You are convicted of each of the offences.
6. You are sentenced to the following periods of imprisonment:
7. Charge 1: 3 years
8. In relation to Charge 2 you are to be sentenced as a serious violent offender which will be entered into the records of the Court.
9. Charge 2: 6 months
10. Charge 3: 1 month
11. I direct that one month of the sentence on Charge 2 be served with the sentence on Charge 1 but that otherwise, the sentences be served concurrently, producing a total effective sentence of 3 years 1 month.
12. You are to serve 18 months before becoming eligible for parole.

1. I declare that you have already served 468 days by way of pre-sentence detention.
2. If not for your pleas of guilty, I would have sentenced you to a total effective sentence of 5 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years.
3. Is there anything arising from those remarks, Counsel?
4. COUNSEL: (Indistinct words.)
5. HER HONOUR: On Monday is was 467, the first day of sentence today.
6. COUNSEL: Yes, so it should be four sixty - - -
7. HER HONOUR: Eight.
8. COUNSEL: Yes, that's fine, Your Honour.
9. HER HONOUR: All right, very well. Did you want to have a word with your client over the video?
10. MS LAMOVIE: Yes, just a quick word, Your Honour, if I may.
11. HER HONOUR: Very well. Yes, thank you. We will now adjourn.