DPP v Ford [2025] VCC 1694

1. These were deplorable acts of family violence that have had a profound effect on your victim.
2. Moreover, this was not the only aggravated burglary you had committed on the 30 January either. You have now served almost the entirety of the three-year head sentence previously imposed on you for that other offending.
3. You present with a very complex mental health history, intertwined with drug and alcohol abuse and prior criminal offending. Your time to date in custody has been accompanied with real hardship too.
4. Proper application of the principle of totality plays such a significant role in this sentencing exercise, that I am compelled to impose a sentence that at first blush may appear benign, or out of kilter with current sentencing practices for offences of this kind.
5. I am going to sentence you to a total effective sentence (TES) of two years and 10 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period (NPP) of six months.
6. How I arrived at this sentence, and what it means in practical terms for you requires careful explanation and these reasons are designed to make it clear to those people who have an obvious and understandable interest in the case, how it was arrived at.

1. Cindy Sutton[4] commenced living at a unit in Warragul in 2020, about three years before the offending.  Since Christmas 2021, she lived in a bus parked in the driveway in front of that address because of the state of the unit and other related issues. 
2. The vehicle was a Mazda T3500 22-seater bus that was modified to accommodate a kitchen, bedroom and lounge. The vehicle was unregistered and was not being used as a vehicle at the time of the incident. The victim described the bus as her 'primary residence' and her 'home'. It was an inhabited vehicle and as such constituted a building for the purposes of the offence of aggravated burglary.[5]
3. You and the victim were in a relationship that ended at least 18 months prior to 30 January 2023 (i.e., mid 2022). She was not able to get rid of you towards the end of the relationship.  You had never lived at the unit or the bus and never kept possessions or belongings there. You would on occasions, just turn up to her place. You had not turned up to her bus unannounced for about six months prior this incident (that is to say you were last there around mid-2022).  Other contact initiated by you via Facebook messages or calls were sporadic and your former partner seldom replied.

1. At about 2.30 in the morning on 30 January 2023, the victim was asleep on the couch inside the bus near the steps of the entrance. She heard the sound of a car arrive out the front and heard a male voice, which she instantly recognised as yours. She heard you talking to someone.
2. You had arrived on a motorbike and asked Christina Jacobs if you could leave your helmet next door. Christina Jacobs lived at unit 2 on the property. You appeared to be intoxicated.
3. You started to call out for the complainant by name, before approaching the front of the bus. 
4. You suddenly barged into the complainant's bus by the front door, which she had forgotten to lock.  You were 'ranting' and speaking incoherently. The complainant never gave you permission to enter the bus.  She did not say or do anything that would give you the impression that you could enter. She had no chance to say anything as she was still waking up from her sleep. (Charge 1: Aggravated burglary - intent to assault, person present)
5. You 'stormed' up to the complainant and assaulted her. You hit her in the face, causing her lip to split and swell. (Charge 2: Common law assault - Rolled-up)
6. Your physical assault of the complainant continued. You placed one hand at her throat and your full weight on her torso.  (Charge 2: Common law assault - Rolled-up)
7. You said to the complaint, 'I'm not going to give you a chance to defend yourself'.
8. At different times you would hit the complainant and choke her while you were on top of her. Other times, you would stop and apologise before starting to assault her again by pushing, punching, slapping, and forcing her to stay. Because of this continuous physical assault she was unable to get up and leave. (Charge 2: Common law assault - Rolled-up)
9. Finally, she got up and went to her neighbour's unit to use the toilet. The victim could not call anyone whilst in the toilet because you had taken her mobile phone after you had entered the bus.
10. The victim returned to the bus after going to the toilet, followed by you. Back at the bus, you continued to rant.
11. At about daybreak, you received a phone call from someone and left. The victim heard a motorbike.  Your motorbike remained at the address for a few days until a friend of yours, whom she did not know, collected it.
12. Immediately after you left, the victim told Christina Jacobs[6] what had happened to her while you were there.
13. Ms Jacobs recalls the complainant telling her that you had assaulted her by punching her in the eye. The victim appeared to be shaken, and Christina Jacobs noticed redness around her eye that appeared to be from a recent hit.
14. The victim's chest and face developed bruises in the following days, together with a swollen lip. Her face was feeling numb and sore.
15. As a result of choking her, the victim suffered an altered tone of voice in addition to causing ongoing irritation and pain. Her throat was dry, and she had a constant feeling of needing to swallow.
16. She did not seek professional medical treatment for her injuries because she was embarrassed to go out until she had recovered.
17. Police spoke to you in later that same day at about 3.30 pm.  At the time, you were only in your underwear and were not wearing any pants. The conversation with police was recorded on Body Worn Camera footage.

1. The victim first reported the incident to Senior Constable Jonah Ferguson-Scanlon at Warragul police on 28 April, and a statement was taken from her on that day.
2. On 6 May, police crime scene officers attended her address and took photographs of the victim's home and the surrounding area.[7]
3. On 25 June, victim sent by email to SC Ferguson-Scanlon three photographs. Two photographs depicted injuries she sustained during the incident and were taken about 10 days afterwards. The complainant also provided a photo of the motorcycle because it was still parked there.

1. A victim impact statement (VIS) was provided on 26 March 2025. This was read.
2. Emotionally and socially speaking, your offending has had a persistent, negative impact on the victim's life. She is often tearful. She has difficulty trusting both new and old connections and is uneasy about their motivations. Ms Sutton is now very sensitive to even very minor behavioural changes in others (that is to say she is on edge). She has isolated except for one very close friend plus her two children and has completely moved away from Gippsland. In her words, 'I basically do not trust anyone anymore and have no interest in creating or maintaining relationships irrespective of them being old or new'. She has difficulty sleeping and profound difficulty getting out of bed for the sake of normal functioning. She no longer finds joy in what she used to, and is no longer easy-going and happy. She is stoic and is optimistic that these symptoms will abate.
3. She was simply incapable of attending work for some time and is no longer in a permanent role, and can only hold down casual work now. The mental and emotional impact has been more debilitating. Physically, she of course endured bruising and swelling to the face and chest. Financially your crimes have cost her too. She had to leave her motorhome - once a feature of her stability, and relocate which she describes as incurring a high cost.
4. I consider the impact of your crimes on your victim as severe.

1. I have listed the commission dates of this offence and noted its progress through the criminal justice system in the attached table, indicating where necessary though, the commission dates and relevant other dates for the matter you are currently undergoing sentence for, which is an important facet of the case given the application of the principle of totality.[8]

Aggravated burglary, cause injury recklessly and other offences dealt with by Judge Maidment in September 2023

(incl. charges of reckless conduct endangering serious injury, threat to commit sexual offence, sexual assault and

Victim cross examined, Accused committed on all charges

Adjourned for production of Committal transcript and Deps. Admin hearing set for 6 May 2024

Defence sought adjournment for Pros to consider their offer (single assault charge).

(Pros sought more time to consider the offer, case assessment hearing listed 7 October 2024)

• Aggravated burglary (intent to Assault)
• Common Law Assault
• Threated to commit sexual offence

Matter is close to resolution and parties requested more time

Defence further plea offer accepted (importantly not containing any of the allegations related to sexual offending or intent to commit same)

Adjourned to 1 July 2025 for plea (pending neuropsychological report)

1. As one can see, the resolution of the matter took some time and I will spend some time later in these reasons explaining that for everyone.

1. You are now 47.[10] You have, as I said, a complex history in terms of cognition, mental health and substance abuse.
2. To that end, a number of reports were provided on the plea which provide a longitudinal view of your mental health and functioning. Those reports are:

(a) Blackfish medical summary; [11]

(b) Neuropsychological report of Matt Treeby; [12]

(c) Report of Senior Clinical Neuropsychologist, Bronwyn Hall dated; [13]

(d) Report of Clinical Neuropsychologist, Dr Loretta Evans;[14]

(e) Two reports, first the report of Carla Lechner dated 2 October 2025 and an addendum from the same author on 7 November 2025.[15]

1. I will refer to aspects of those reports where necessary.

1. You are the only child born to Rick (deceased) and Gail. You were raised in suburban Melbourne with a half-sister.
2. Your father worked as a labourer and did some abattoir work. He drank heavily and died at the age of 54 due to complications of type 2 diabetes. Your mother worked as a crane operator for BHP. She is now retired and lives in Poowong. Your sister resides in Langwarrin (she helps with a family business and is employed in aged care).
3. Your family background seems to be characterised by conflict within the home. You moved out of the family home at age 15 because of that conflict and experienced ongoing housing issues as a result.

1. Your schooling was beset with behavioural and disciplinary issues, and you achieved no more than a Year 9 pass at high school. You completed primary school at West Park in Hastings and obtained a Year 9 pass at Hastings. You left part way through Year 10. You report having learning difficulties at school and struggled with literacy. You also report having issues with behaviour and discipline. At this time, your family was living in government supported housing in a housing commission area of Hastings. Your parents later bought a home in Gippsland.
2. You left home after leaving school, at the age of 15 as I said in the context of conflict with your father that I alluded to earlier.
3. In your early adulthood you worked in carpentry, plastering, labouring, factory work and abattoir roles. You last worked in 2010 and have been on the Disability Support Pension since.

1. You have two children, Jessica (29) and Brodie (14).
2. Initially, Jessica was raised by both you and her mother. Upon your separation (at aged three), she was raised by her mother. However, you have had ongoing contact with her. She lives in Point Cook and has recently married and works for the Department of Family, Fairness and Housing having completed tertiary studies in Psychology.
3. Brodie is in the care of his paternal grandmother and has been since your remand. Up until this time and following the breakdown of his parents' relationship (when aged two), he lived with you and the grandmother. He is in Year 8 at Mary McKillop College, Koo Wee Rup. He spends every second weekend with his maternal grandparents.

1. You report significant long standing substance abuse issues dating to your

mid-teens until recent times. These issues commenced with cannabis. You commenced using heroin at 21 and have a history of misusing opioids. You commenced abuse of amphetamines in your late teens and have used methamphetamine intermittently. You have abused prescription medication. You have used GHB. You have used cocaine. 2. Your abuse of alcohol had increased markedly in the years prior to the offending (reporting drinking up to two bottles of spirits daily at times). It does not appear your drinking had drastically diminished prior to your incarceration, as you claimed you had reduced your intake to cider once a week. 3. I note that you told Ms Lechner quite frankly that you went on an alcohol and ice binge at the time of the present offending and simply cannot explain why you did so, or even why you offended.[16] 4. Dr Evans opined:[17]

Mr Ford advised regular illicit drug use began with cannabis, but also subsequently included Amphetamines and Heroin. Notably, his claims of abstinence for certain substances contradicted convictions for drug possession in 2021. Mr Ford also reported experimental use of GHB and cocaine, but regular use was denied, as was a history of prescription drug abuse. Finally, Mr Ford reported he had been a long standing tobacco smoker prior to his incarceration.

5. Your substance use has led to you being diagnosed with liver failure. Previously attempts (most of them court-mandated) to treat your addictions have not been enduring or particularly successful.

1. You were diagnosed with diabetes and liver disease in 2020. There have been associated hospital admissions (as well as additional attendances and admissions relating to other physical health issues) detailed as follows; [18]

(a) August 2020 - Due to hepatic encephalopathy (brain dysfunction due to liver dysfunction - (leading to build up of ammonia and other substances in brain);

(b) 4 May 2021 - 2 June 2021 - Admissions to the Alfred Hospital after seizures, fever and altered states of consciousness (subsequently admitted to ICU (principal diagnosis of hepatic encephalopathy complicated by sepsis);

(c) 24 March 2022 - Presentation following motor vehicle accident (mild traumatic brain injury suffered);

(d) 28 April 2022- 29 April 2022 - Taken to Dandenong Hospital by police following alleged assault;

(e) 25 July 2022 - 1 August 2022 - Korumburra Hospital for alcohol withdrawal.

1. You have continued to experience poor physical health in custody.
2. In September 2025 you were transported to St Vincent's Hospital for tests flowing from ongoing difficulty related to toileting (frequently toileting overnight) and concerns regarding the effects of liver disease (increased feeling of exhaustion).
3. These are apparently concerns related to prostate related issues and liver function. Whilst the overall results are outstanding - that is, they are not in yet - you have been informed that results indicate a low white blood cell count. You are uncertain as to when all of the results will be received.
4. You are awaiting surgery on your shoulder[19] and a hernia.

1. Dr Evans assesses your full-scale IQ between 80-89.[20] This is between the 9th and 23rd percentiles of expected performance compared to same-aged peers (that is to put you in the low average range).
2. Your intellectual and cognitive functioning has been assessed by three separate practitioners over the past three years;

(a) Treeby in 2022;

(b) Hall in 2023; and

(c) Evans in 2025.

1. Both Treeby and Hall's findings were broadly consistent with those of Dr Evans with minimal variations in degrees of impairment.[21] Mild cognitive decline has been indicated.[22]
2. Dr Evans assessed your specific cognitive skills as follows:[23]

(a) Literacy - reading skills consistent with a late primary school level of education or proficiency - average conversational skills.

(b) Information processing - speed of mental and psychomotor processing was slow and approaching mildly impaired ranges - dependent on manner of information delivery.

(c) Attention - functional but below average - weak higher order attentional systems.

(d) Memory - working memory bordering on mildly impaired range - recall at moderately impaired range - impulsivity impacts working memory.

(e) Executive functioning - non-verbal reasoning in the low average range - verbal reasoning at average range.

1. Ms Hall additionally assessed the following:[24]

(a) Perceptual reasoning skills, hands on constructional skills and visual integration skills in the average range.

(b) Notable areas of impairment for executive functioning in -

(i) Planning and organisation ability, as well as verbal and abstract reasoning within normal limits;

(ii) Moderately impaired idea generation; and

(iii) Ability to shift thinking between two trains of thought and ability to control automatic responses was very poor (placing you in the extremely low range).

1. That is, your cognitive profile reveals:[25]

(a) Difficulties with attention;

(b) Limited working memory;

(c) Slowed cognition processing speed;

(d) Poor executive function; and

(e) Heightened impulsivity.

1. Your cognitive profile was said to be consistent with an acquired brain injury by Ms Hall.[26]
2. Ms Lechner (clinical psychologist) cogently summarised your issues as follows:[27]

[T]his means that Mr Ford is slow to process and encode information. He struggles to retain information and responds reactively to environmental stress and internal distress, often in an impulsive way that fails to take into account the 'bigger picture'. He finds it hard to problem-solve, make decisions and exercise good judgment on account of less than optimal cognitive functioning that is overlayed by themes of hopelessness and helplessness as well as a belief he has no control over his destiny.

1. You have significant mental health diagnoses and concerns as well. Previous reports refer to a history of mental health difficulties, including diagnoses of ADHD, PTSD, depression, anxiety and panic attacks.[28]
2. More recently, Ms Lechner assessed and completed a report relating to your current psychological profile and concluded:

Mr Ford has a Stimulant & Alcohol Use Disorder - now in remission in a controlled environment (DSM 5-TR), Persistent Depressive Disorder (DSM 5-TR) and Complex PTSD (ICD-11), initially emanating from exposure to abuse in the home and aggravated by successive experiences of assault as an adult.[29]

3. Ms Lechner confirmed your diagnoses of Persistent Depressive Disorder and Complex PTSD have been present since childhood or adolescence, and have contributed to the onset of your long-term drug addiction.
4. Despite these diagnoses being present for most of your life, you reported never having been involved with any treatment programs for your mental health, which is at odds with some of the Court mandated requirements made of you in the past.
5. Dr Evans assessed your neuropsychological profile and reviewed your psychiatric history, including reports you made of auditory and visual hallucinations, as well as feelings of ongoing paranoia. You confirmed you engaged in a prison mental health service following this experience, which you say helped.[30]

1. Ms Lechner assessed you using the K10 scale, which results in indication of severe mood disorder. The same K10 scale result was reported by Ms Hall.[31]
2. During your assessment with Ms Lechner, you cited low mood and increasing anxiety, that have culminated in social withdrawal and increased paranoia, particularly regarding your safety in custody.
3. Further, Ms Lechner administered the Becks Depression Inventory on which a score of 63 is the maximum and where scores of 31 or above are considered extreme.[32] You assessment resulted in a score of 40, well within the extreme range.
4. More recently during the first two assessments of Ms Hall, you reported your mood to be 'depressed'. Ms Hall confirmed your affect was consistent with this.
5. Further, you reported to Nurse Practitioner Erika Meurs (who was responsible for the referral to the Neuropsychological Assessment) that your mood was 'depressed', with improvement seen over several sessions following the reintroduction of antidepressant medication.[33] You did deny thoughts of self-harm or suicidal ideation.

1. Ms Lechner assessed you for both using the International Trauma Questionnaire.
2. During the assessment you presented with symptoms that indicate long-term symptoms of Complex PTSD arising from exposure to Complex Developmental Trauma.
3. Ms Lechner says: '[you are] currently reporting symptoms of "severe" psychological distress, "extreme" depression and unresolved post-trauma symptoms.'

1. You reported at the time of the offending you were in the middle of an alcohol and Ice 'binge'.[35] You have not to date been able to explain this binge.[36] Ms Lechner opines that it may have been environmental stressors or internal distress, and a desire to avoid negative feelings, which led to you turning to substance use.

1. You are currently prescribed medication for your liver, heart, and blood pressure, as well as Methadone and the anti-depressant Mirtazapine.[37]

1. You have an extensive criminal record going back to 23 September 1996 at the Melbourne Magistrates Court.
2. In the 25 years between then and now, you have appeared in Court approximately 17 times.
3. You have relevant prior convictions for recklessly causing injury; burglary; intentionally causing injury and affray; reckless conduct endangering serious injury; assault in company, recklessly causing serious injury and assault by kicking.
4. You have been placed on supervisory orders in the form of a CBO in 2007, and a CCO in 2017 and another one in 2021.
5. You have been imprisoned before too. Your previous sentences range from two months to 14.
6. A total effective sentence of 14 months was imposed on 22 October 2012 (with a non-parole period of six months). Parole was granted in relation to that sentence on 19 December 2012. You were paroled in December that year and parole is marked as having been completed the following year in August.
7. Your second to last prior court appearance was on 5 November 2021 at the Latrobe Valley Magistrates' Court, where you were convicted of a number of essentially driving related offences on that day and ordered to serve a CCO for two years. This offending on 23 January 2023 breached that order.
8. On the breach you were dealt with on 18 January 2024, no action was taken.

(a) You had completed the 150 hours community work;

(b) You had successfully completed the inpatient detox (10 days - Korumburra);

(c) You had completed the ARBIAS Neuropsychological Assessment;

(d) Hospital admissions for assault and injuries sustained from motor vehicle accident had some role to play;

(e) You had attended judicial monitoring hearings as scheduled between December 2021 - September 2022;

(f) Completed a forensic assessment and engagement in episode of complex care with Gippsland Southern Health Services;

(g) Finally, your attendance on the GP, Dr Paul Cotton (Black Fish Medical Centre) as required - and you had further engaged with a Gastroenterologist (regarding cirrhosis of liver and associated treatments).

1. Your last appearance was before Judge Maidment in this Court, where you pleaded guilty to aggravated burglary, causing injury recklessly and other offences. Those offences occurred on the very same day you offended against Ms Sutton in the way that I am dealing with now.
2. His Honour's sentencing remarks[38] reveal on 30 January 2023, you approached a house where you knew the victim to be, smashed a window to get in and began demanding money (from what I gather you believe was that your wallet was in the possession of the victim). You armed yourself with a shovel from inside the house and ended up striking the victim with it. When the victim (who had armed himself by then) ran away, you armed yourself with knives. You continued to threaten and menace the victim until he called the police. You made admissions after what appeared to be quite a difficult arrest because of your own aggressiveness. You made admissions.
3. Some, but not all of the material before me was before Judge Maidment. You were sentenced to three years with a minimum of two years. You had served 231 days by way of pre-sentence detention at the time of that sentence. You are eligible for parole now (although that would not be considered until this matter before me had been determined), and have approximately two months to go before you will have served the entirety of the head sentence imposed back then.
4. His Honour had the report of Dr Treeby, which sadly on its own sheds little light upon any medical conditions or psychological or neuropsychological conditions for which you might suffer because the test were, on his analysis, invalid as a result of your less than genuine effort to cooperate with him in the assessment that he was undertaking. His Honour Judge Maidment was then not able to meaningfully consider (much less apply) Verdins considerations for this reason.
5. He indicated then that the combination of your medical and psychological issues would make your period of incarceration more burdensome. It was put by your counsel then you had pleaded guilty at the earliest reasonable opportunity and you should get a full discount for the early plea and the plea was entered back then at a time when the court was faced with a significant backlog of cases as a result of the effects of the COVID pandemic, all of which informed His Honour's sentencing discretion. He did not have you assessed for a CCO (you had breached three already by then) and nor will I. That was a primary submission, that I cannot accede to in this case, even though there are some positives to take from the last time you were on such an order.

1. At the time of the offending you were living with your mother in Poowong (and had been for about 10 years).
2. At the time of your arrest you had been drinking alcohol and been using 1 to 2 grams of methamphetamine a day. Those facts are not mitigatory, but they might explain some of your aggressive conduct towards the police and your initial victim in the case of Judge Maidment's matter (but perhaps less so here).

1. The sentence imposed in September 2023 was the longest imposed on you to date and the current period of incarceration represents the longest time you have spent in custody.5
2. You have been held largely at Port Phillip[39], Loddon[40] and Ravenhall[41]
3. Whilst in custody, you have endeavoured to apply yourself by doing courses and training. You struggle with ongoing issues regarding your shoulder (following a motorbike accident), concerns regarding a bleed to the brain and have been monitored regarding ongoing liver related health issues. You have been transported to Bendigo Base Hospital and St Vincent's on occasion for treatment and testing.
4. You engaged with a Forensicare Neuropsychologist for assessment in June of last year and upon the recommendation of the Neuropsychologist, you have recently been assisted to apply for support through the NDIS (through worker in custody), which can only improve your prospects. I am told this application has yet to be determined.[42]
5. On 17 March 2025, an adjournment of the plea was sought part heard pending receipt of further plea material. Specifically, a further neuropsychological assessment was scheduled for 16 May (based on testing conducted by Forensicare during your current sentence which indicated results consistent with a permanent acquired brain injury)1. This is consistent with the way in which your representatives went about informing the Court as best they could of your constellation of issues.
6. You have, as I have said, been in regular contact with your mother and son (speaking multiple times per day).
7. On 15 September 2025 it was noted that you remain at Ravenhall in the Bolinda Unit - having been transferred there in early 2024.
8. In late 2023 you were assaulted by a fellow inmate in Loddon. You were struck to the head and lost consciousness (and were transported by ambulance from Loddon to Bendigo Hospital). You did not disclose the circumstances of this to authorities, for fear of consequences within prison. Medical records confirm that you suffered a complicated mild Traumatic Brain Injury in this event.[43]
   1. Further, whilst at Ravenhall, you were the victim of an attempted rape perpetrated by an inmate whom you were sharing a cell with. That prisoner was subsequently transferred to Thomas Embling Hospital. You have since been placed in a cell alone and have engaged with counselling support. You have been significantly impacted by this event and are fearful.[44]
   2. Dr Evans opined that owing to memory difficulties, slow processing speed, limited working capacity, and underlying paranoia, in the absence of adequate treatment (with benefit), you are likely to experience difficulty in your ability to maintain attention, absorb and retain new information, mix with other inmates, or demonstrate an appreciation for perspectives other than your own.
   3. Further, that, 'in this sense, [your] capacity to successfully integrate with others, engage in prison based programs, follow lengthy conversations, or complete tasks in a timely manner, may be impacted'.[45]
   4. These are weighty matters in the sentencing calculus. They increase the burden of imprisonment, which is already punitive in nature, meaning the weight I need to give to achieve these purposes of sentencing - that is to punish you - is reduced correspondingly.

Sentencing principles regarding family violence and aggravated burglary

1. This offending is properly described Mr Ford as family violence.
2. I am informed at that the time of the offending you had relapsed regarding the use of methamphetamine and were drinking heavily. I do not consider that to be mitigatory in any way.
3. Family violence is a matter that resonates deeply in our community for good reason. Growing recognition of the seriousness and impact of family violence on its victims means that your own offending is serious and damaging. Offences like this disproportionately affect women. This behaviour must be denounced and recognised for the fear and the harm that it causes. The effects of family violence are inescapable and enduring and are not confined to physical injury.
4. General deterrence, protection of the community and punishment, must be salient sentencing considerations.[46]

The key to protection lies in deterring the violent conduct by sending an unequivocal message to would-be perpetrators of domestic violence that if they offend, they will be sentenced to lengthy periods of imprisonment so they are no longer in a position to inflict harm.[47]

5. As a general proposition, where the offence of aggravated burglary occurs in the context of family violence, it is not considered any less serious because the offender is known to the victim. Indeed, the criminal law now gives greater recognition to the devastating effects of family violence and recognises the fundamental importance of general deterrence in cases such as this.
6. Aggravated burglary is an inherently serious offence. Parliament has set a maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment for this offence as a measure of how seriously it is viewed.
7. This, Mr Ford, is a serious version of aggravated burglary. Whatever difference might exist between a 'confrontational', or 'intimate relationship' (and I do not think there is one, aggravated burglary) is illusory or immaterial.
8. Both are essentially grievance-driven; both involve confronting the person against whom the grievance is held; and, in both cases, the aggravated burglary is typically accompanied by violence or threats of same. That is the case here. It is the type of intimate partner aggravated burglary that the Court of Appeal was at pains to make clear is particularly serious not just in R v Meyers[48] in 2014_,_ but more recently in DPP v Kurtaj[49] and DPP v Perry.[50]
9. Both cases were successful Crown appeals where aggravated burglaries (amongst other allied offences) were committed in circumstances of family violence. The statements of principal in those cases are timely and forceful.
10. Not only is the gravity of this type of offending re-enforced, but so too are the important considerations when dealing with family violence more broadly.
11. The principles as emphasised in Kurtaj are worthy of repetition and I repeat them here in full:[51]

In 2023, this Court in Skeates (a pseudonym) v The King referred to the 'unequivocal message' that it had sent in its 2014 decision in Pasinis v The Queen. That message related to the 'prominence deterrence must achieve in sentencing conduct in the context of family violence'.50 The Court in Skeates also listed the repeated statements of this Court that had been made, since Pasinis, which dealt with the 'need for condign punishment to denounce and deter family violence ... because of its prevalence and the seriousness of its consequences'. > > In Skeates, this Court declared that '[f]amily violence is contemptible'. The Court emphasised the importance, when sentencing an offender for offences committed in the context of family violence, of deterrence (both specific and general), denunciation, protection of the community, 'condemnation' and 'appropriate punishment'. The Court went on to observe that: > > "offence committed in the context of family violence, the surrounding behaviours of the offender must be considered to assess the true gravity of the offending and for 'the sentence to vindicate the dignity of [the] victim'." > > In Sepehrnia v The King, a case where an offender had raped and threatened his intimate partner, Priest and Niall JJA cited Skeates, and observed that: > > "If ever there was a time in which the volatility and imperfection of human relationships provided some moderating context to crimes of violence occurring within a domestic setting, that time has long passed."

12. It is in the above context, informed by decisions such as Meyers, Hogarth and Brown[52] that I assess the particular seriousness of aggravated burglaries involving former partners with the following in mind from Meyers:[53]

Violence of this kind is alarmingly widespread, and extremely harmful. Statistics about the incidence of women being killed or seriously injured by vengeful former partners are truly shocking. Although the cases under consideration do not fall into that worst category, they are symptomatic of what can fairly be described as an epidemic of domestic violence. > > Those who might, in a mood of anger or frustration or bitterness, contemplate this kind of violent entry into the home of a former spouse or partner must realise that, if they do so, they will almost certainly spend a long time in prison.

1. Having given attention to the broader principles involved at play, I turn now to specific features of the seriousness of this offending.
2. When considering the offence, the specific features identified in DPP v Meyers[54] are relevant to the assessment of its seriousness:

(a) You were alone;

(b) You were not armed;

(c) Your intent upon entry was to assault a known victim who was your former domestic partner;

(d) Entry was made by 'barging' through the door of the bus that was her home and the door that the victim had forgotten to lock;

(e) The entry was at about 2.30 am, whilst the victim was in the bus half-asleep; and what is more

(f) You knew the victim was in the bus as you had visited the bus previously and called her out by name before you entered.

1. Your assault on the victim too is anything but low level. The maximum penalty available is five years.
2. Charge 2 is a rolled-up charge of assault which is ' a collection of counts bundled together in a single one...the sentence on a rolled-up charge must take into account all of the individual offences it comprises'.[55] A 'significantly higher sentence is justified on a rolled-up charge than would be the case for a single event'.[56]
3. The rolled-up charge comprises the following assaults over an extended period of time from 2.30 am until your victim was allowed to go to the toilet at her neighbour's unit. The features of the assault also reflect its gravity and there will be a measure of cumulation in the sentence I impose on this charge to reflect the harm done.

(a) It was prolonged;

(b) It occurred in the victim's own home (making good your intention to assault her which forms part of the aggravated burglary);

(c) You hit her to the face, causing her lip to split and swell;

(d) You continued the assault by placing one hand at her throat and your full weight to her torso;

(e) At different times you would choke her while you were on top of her;

(f) In between stopping and apologising, you would continue assaulting her by punching, pushing, slapping, and forcing her to stay;

(g) The level of physical force used prevented her from defending herself or getting up and leaving;[57]

(h) The level of force was such that a neighbour observed redness around her eye later that morning and the victim's chest and face developed bruising the following day, together with a swollen lip. Her face was feeling numb and sore.

(i) As a result of you choking her, the victim suffered an altered tone of voice in addition to causing ongoing irritation and pain. The victim's throat was dry, and she had a constant feeling of the need to swallow.

1. While each case must, of course, be assessed on its own facts and circumstances, other sentencing cases may be of assistance in guiding the Court where there be similar features or where cases deal with relevant principle.[58]
2. I have familiarised myself with the Judicial College of Victoria (JCV) case collection for both aggravated burglary,[59] and the most recent sentencing snapshot for that offence.[60]
3. The Crown table of comparative cases for aggravated burglary was of some utility in this case.[61] I was referred to:

(a) Matthews v The Queen [2021] VSCA 20

(b) Newton v The Queen [2021] VSCA 207

(c) Schembri v The Queen [2022] VSCA 40

(d) Hill v The Queen [2020] VSCA 220

(e) Longhurst v The Queen [2021] VSCA 179

(f) Laa v The Queen [2020] VSCA 136

(g) Stapleton The Queen [2020] VSCA 147

1. I repeat the cases of Kurtaj and Perry provide useful guidance in this exercise as well.
2. The cases referred to focused on aggravated burglary or home invasion in the context of family violence, or furthering some sort of grievance. The individual sentences imposed for offences of that kind in those circumstances ranged from three to six years.
3. The material was instructive and provides something of a yardstick by which the Court might sentence you in this case.
4. Whilst they are helpful, they are not a controlling factor in my decision by any means. They do not set a numerical value upon the upper and lower limits of the appropriate sentence in any particular case.
5. The cases are of limited utility given none of them were fashioned to conform with the principle of totality in quite the same way that I have to do here. Ms Rolfe submitted that many of the examples referred to above were objectively worse than yours in any event.

1. It is submitted, and I accept, that the plea of guilty in this matter was offered at a relatively early time. The issues between you and the prosecution were narrow. The negotiation between the parties centred around what other charges which have not, in the end, proceeded.
2. By resolving the matter, you have spared the complainant and other witnesses from giving evidence before a jury at trial.
3. Guilty pleas in high impact crimes spare victims the ordeal of giving evidence and may assist them to put this experience behind them and to receive some vindication and support. In that way, there is a real human saving to the course you have taken.
4. You have acknowledged your wrongdoing and demonstrated a willingness to facilitate the course of justice.
5. Your plea, in my view, warrants moderation of the sentence that would otherwise be imposed.
6. Accordingly, the plea comes with very significant utilitarian value. That will be evident when I make a declaration under s.6AAA.
7. There is some evidence of emerging remorse too, which I accept is developing, not least of all because of your deficiencies. Ms Lechner says you accept your former partner's account, expressing regret and shame for your actions, and I add, as you should. You fully understand that she would have felt frightened and traumatised by your actions.

1. Your counsel disavowed any specific reliance on the principles of Bugmy v the Queen[62] in mitigation of sentence, but did note the contextual significance of your troubled upbringing.[63]
2. Your childhood was marred by periods of significant hardship, such as homelessness at a young age, and it is an important framework to understand how you were made, and the maladaptive strategies (least of all substance abuse) that you developed as a means of managing negative emotions.

1. It is submitted you were suffering from a 'mental disorder or abnormality' or 'impaired mental functioning' at the time of the offences which falls within the scope of 'the wide variety of impaired mental functioning or conditions' as contemplated by the leading judgment in R v Verdins.[64]
2. In Verdins, the Court of Appeal said impaired mental functioning, whether temporary or permanent ('the condition or impairment'), is relevant to sentencing, and outlined six ways in which that was so.
3. Specifically, your counsel relied on the reports that I have already referred to in order to establish that you have such a relevant condition(s) or impairment(s):
4. Your mental health conditions have been appraised by four psychologists and neuropsychologists against five reports. It is uncontroversial that your current presentation is incredibly complex.
5. Your Counsel submitted that the 'Verdins' principles are enlivened in the present case based on your Acquired Mild Brain Injury (plus the reported associated deficits) and the impact of the following diagnoses:[65]

(a) Persistent Depressive Disorder;

(b) Complex PTSD;

(c) Mood Disorder; and

(d) Stimulant & Alcohol use Disorder (in remission in controlled environment);

1. Ms Rolfe submitted that Limbs 3-6 (inclusive) of Verdins are enlivened, thus moderating specific and general deterrence and addressing the increased burden of imprisonment due to your mental health conditions.[66]
2. Mr Hardjadibrata on behalf of the Crown pointed to the observations of Ms Evans:

... under normal circumstances, Mr Ford is capable of insight, reasoning, and problem solving, so it is my opinion that such inefficiencies were not causal factors underpinning the offending. By his own account, he was acutely alcohol and methamphetamine affected at the time of the offending; which were, on balance, most likely to have been the major contributors to his judgement and poor behaviour.'

3. In the course of acknowledging the complexity and nuance of this exercise given the intertwined, multi-faceted aspects of your make up and presentation, the Crown quite fairly agreed there is room in this exercise for the application of the above principles, though of course not to a uniform degree.
4. I agree.
5. I turn now to the application of the principles in Verdins.

Limb 1: The condition may reduce the moral culpability of the offending conduct, as distinct from the offender's legal responsibility. Where that is so, the condition affects the punishment that is just in all the circumstances; and denunciation is less likely to be a relevant sentencing objective.

1. Your counsel did not make any submissions that Limb 1 was enlivened.[67]

Limb 2: The condition may have a bearing on the kind of sentence that is imposed and the conditions in which it should be served.

1. Your counsel did place partial reliance on Limb 2 this way_;_ by arguing that sentencing you to a combination sentence involving a CCO was the only disposition which would provide certainty about the availability of supports.[68] To that extent it was said to have a direct bearing on the kind of sentence I ought to impose.
2. She submitted that:[69]

[Your] rehabilitative needs are significant (and brought into sharper focus given the deleterious impact and experience of prison in the present case) and the interests of [you] and the community, must be targeted in the ultimate disposition imposed.

3. Ms Rolfe submitted in the alternative that a term of imprisonment with a short

non-parole period (appropriate having regard to totality) would also be appropriate.[70] 4. Whilst your aforementioned conditions (and the resultant rehabilitative needs) are obviously relevant, the gravity of offending is simply too high for the imposition of a non-custodial combination sentence in the circumstances.

Limb 3: Whether general deterrence should be moderated or eliminated as a sentencing consideration depends upon the nature and severity of the symptoms exhibited by the offender, and the effect of the condition on the mental capacity of the offender, whether at the time of the offending or at the date of sentence or both.

1. It is submitted that you were not a suitable candidate for general deterrence due to your mental health diagnoses and acquired brain injury. Put another way, you are (thankfully) not truly representative of the broader community such that it would be improper to make an example out of you in the hope that it might deter others from like offending.
2. The report of Dr Evans is relied on insofar as the conclusion is drawn you were labouring under your mental health diagnoses at the time the offending took place, and that these conditions have remained present but untreated for the majority of your life.
3. As such, it is submitted general deterrence would be an inappropriate sentencing condition, or alternatively it should be limited in its application.
4. As I said, the Crown initially contended that Limb 3 of Verdins should not apply in light of Dr Evans' report[71] and the quote that I referred to earlier.
5. They submitted that your circumstances at the time of offending were not so compromised by your mental health condition that the sentence imposed on its own on should not serve to deter others from similar offending.
6. However, as I have noted, after the argument was developed more fully it was conceded during oral submissions that your complex presentation means that there may be a place for a modest reduction of the application of general deterrence.
7. Given your deficits and the connection to your offending I conclude that moderation of general deterrence is warranted to some extent, but I stress that that reduction is a modest one.

Limb 4: Whether specific deterrence should be moderated or eliminated as a sentencing consideration likewise depends upon the nature and severity of the symptoms of the condition as exhibited by the offender, and the effect of the condition on the mental capacity of the offender, whether at the time of the offending or at the date of the sentence or both.

1. For reasons echoing the above, this factor will also be moderated, however to a lesser extent.
2. It is submitted there should be a modest reduction to the weight afforded to specific deterrence. The mental health conditions you have been recently diagnosed with, as well as your ABI, have remained untreated again for most of your life.
3. As Counsel submitted, Dr Evans did confirm the presence of these disorders for the past 30 years. The impacts of these diagnoses are compounding and had a direct connection with your offending and decision making.
4. For reasons already advanced by the Crown, they correctly submit too has limited application. Your disorders are not so burdensome as to completely inhibit your ability to be specifically deterred. I find you can learn from punitive experiences as consequences for your actions. You can be specifically deterred and as such this sentence will serve to specifically deter you to a moderate degree.

Limb 5: The existence of the condition at the date of sentencing (or its foreseeable recurrence) may mean that a given sentence will weigh more heavily on the offender than it would on a person in normal health.

1. Your counsel argued (and the Crown conceded) Limb 5 of Verdins was enlivened.[72]
2. Ms Rolfe submitted, 'it is plain on the symptoms reported that imprisonment will weigh more heavily [on you] than on an offender in normal health (or has not been subject to the trauma [you have] experienced)'.[73]
3. Limb 5 ought to operate in mitigation of a sentence to a much greater degree than the limbs I have just dealt with, and I agree.

Limb 6: Where there is a serious risk of imprisonment having a significant adverse effect on the offender's mental health, this will be a factor tending to mitigate punishment

1. Your counsel further submitted Limb 6 was enlivened[74] and the Crown once more sensibly agreed that this was so.[75]
2. Ms Lechner opined that ongoing imprisonment will significantly adversely impact your psychological health.[76]
3. Limb 6 also operates in mitigation of sentence - again, to a much greater degree though than that in relation to limbs 2, 3 and 4.

1. You have been the target of both physical and sexual violence during your current sentence, which represents a significant increase in the hardship of your confinement. This represents additional punishment, beyond that which I have just dealt with under the cover of Verdins Limbs 5 and 6.
2. I have touched on this already. The nature of the events that have occurred during your confinement means that less weight needs to be given to the punitive aspect of sentencing you.

1. You have been in custody for almost three years. That is by far the longest time you have been removed from the community, and you have served it in the difficult circumstances I have just mentioned
2. You pleaded guilty after a negotiation with the Crown as to precisely what charge would proceed, and having resolved the matter, it took time to gather important material regarding your mental health and functioning. None of this was done as a way to delay the inevitable or prolong your victim's anguish. There was no cynical forensic benefit to delaying the finalisation of your matter either. Important information was diligently and quite properly requested and provided to the Court. This took time. In the process, your opportunity to have an appreciable part of this sentence run concurrent with the previous sentence imposed was lost to you.
3. Not only have you had the uncertainty of what might happen to you hanging over your head, you have endured that period of waiting in what I emphasise have been difficult circumstances.
4. Delay operates here in a way where the unfairness occasioned to you needs to be reflected in the total sentence imposed.[77]

1. I am mindful of the significance in this case of the application of the principle that requires me when sentencing you for multiple offences to ensure that the aggregate term I impose is a just and appropriate measure of the total criminality involved.
2. That applies both when I consider the interaction between the charges on the present indictment as well as considering the way that the sentence I impose will interact with the sentence that you have to date been undergoing.
3. You have served the non-parole period with respect to the previous 2023 offence and are fast approaching serving out the head sentence in full.
4. I am going to impose a head sentence and non-parole period for this offending, but the timing of the imposition of this sentence means that s14 of the Sentencing Act 1991 does not apply.
5. Rather, totality requires me to have regard to the time already served on the present sentence and take that into account by reducing the sentence that would otherwise be imposed (particularly in circumstances where all of the offending occurred within hours of each other and a crushing sentence must be guarded against).
6. A further term of imprisonment with a non-parole period to commence from today's date brings in operation s15 and 16 of the Sentencing Act 1991, with respect to the order of services of sentences and the presumption of concurrency.
7. In order to conform with the principle of totality I have had to moderate both the sentence I impose and the orders for cumulation. I have attempted (as artificial as this process may be) to assess what sentence you would have received had you been sentenced for both sets of offences (that is to say those both before me and before Judge Maidment) at the same time.
8. I say it is artificial as obviously I know more about your circumstances than he did by virtue of the recent reports, and he was not to know what the future would hold for you in prison. Further, the effluxion of time means that almost any chance of totality being honoured by way of imposing a more serious or severe sentences on each count and making them partially concurrent with his sentence is now effectively lost.[78]

1. Notwithstanding the objective gravity of the offending and your prior criminal history, it is submitted, and I accept, that your prospects remain having regard to the following:

(a) Ongoing family contact and support;

(b) An opportunity to live with your supportive mother upon release;

(c) Protective factor of your teenage son;

(d) Positive engagement on Corrections Order prior to remand;

(e) Engagement as best you can with literacy programmes in prison;

(f) An absence of similar prior offending; and

(g) Accessing and engaging with supports while in custody (levelled at the NDIS support package including engagement with Forensicare Neuropsychological Assessment).

1. You have reasonable prospects of rehabilitation as a result of the above, but your deteriorating health and the difficulty in rehabilitating yourself from severe alcohol use over the years will be one of the biggest issues you face once you are free to enter the community again.
2. This brings me to the manner in which you will be released and supervised on Parole if so granted.

1. I will, of course, permit the possibility of parole for you. The Sentencing Act 1991 mandates that one be imposed on sentences greater than two years and there must be at least a six month disparity between the head sentence and non-parole period.[79]
2. It appears to be accepted that the proper application of principle results in head sentences and non-parole periods that fall within a commonly proportional range and that comparisons to these ranges is permissible in exercising the sentencing discretion. While courts have been at pains to say there is 'no usual non-parole period', the empirical observation that non-parole periods usually fall between the 60 per cent to 75 per cent range still 'informs the sentencing task by providing an important guide to sentencing judges'. I note that Judge Maidment allowed for the possibility that you may be eligible for release having served 66 per cent of your head sentence and that in my view is a realistic and reasonable differential reflective of your prospects.
3. You will undoubtedly require supervision, monitoring and assistance upon release. In affixing an appropriate sentence for you and allowing for a parole eligibility component, I have had regard to the principle of parsimony.
4. The period I have set pays due regard to your prospects for reform (such as they exist), whilst maintaining appropriate weight to be given to necessary and important countervailing factors when sentencing. I have allowed for a measure of mitigation of punishment in favour of reform through conditional freedom.[80] It may be close to after years of treatment, and the advancement of age, you can develop insights and strategies and be capable of supervision in the community, but that will be for the Adult Parole Board to determine when; that is, the determination of the question when and under what circumstances, you are to be released, if at all.
5. For completeness I add this. You have several significant health issues that need to be addressed by a medical team. Psychological supports that are sensibly advised by Ms Lechner include, psychotherapy that assists you in developing improved mood and stress management, Alcohol & Other Drug (AOD) counselling, in addition to attendance at a Men's Behaviour Change Group Programs. You are also likely to benefit from trauma informed psychotherapy that assists you in better identifying maladaptive patterns of behaviour that emanate from early trauma with a view to developing improved social relationships, intimate relationships and improved self-esteem.

1. Given the objective gravity of the offending in this case, denunciation, general deterrence and just punishment are very important sentencing considerations.
2. The mitigating matters set out above, together with the applications of the principles of parsimony and totality, operate to moderate the length of sentence (both as to the head sentence and non-parole period.
3. There are unusual features of this case that warrant the imposition of a term that may, at first glance, appear to be completely out of kilter with current sentencing practices.
4. The principal reason for the imposition of the sentence I impose is shaped very much by the operation of delay and the application of the totality principles.
5. I come now to the portion of my sentencing remarks where I pass sentence.
6. As I said, there is no alternative but to impose a head sentence and a non-parole period.
7. You are formally sentenced you as follows

Intent to assault and knew or reckless a person present

s.77 Crimes Act 1986

1. The total effective sentence is thus 24 months' imprisonment (two years and 10 months) and I fix a non-parole of six months.
2. That sentence commences today, and for the sake of clarity it is my intention that it be served concurrently with the balance of the sentence that you are presently undergoing.
3. The practical effect of my sentence as I see it is this:

(a) You are presently serving a head sentence of 36 months, of which you have served 34

(b) I have sentenced you to 34 months to commence today.

(c) The effect of part of my sentence being served concurrently is the head sentence that you are now serving is effectively in the region of 68 months, that is five years and eight months from the date of your arrest back in January 2023.

(d) Judge Maidment had ordered that you serve 66 per cent or 2/3 of his sentence before being eligible for parole, but you are now serving that term in prison.

(e) I have ordered that you serve a further six months from today before you are eligible for parole.

(f) Viewed globally, this means that 'new' non-parole period[81] is one that requires you to serve three years and four months (40 months) from the date of your arrest before you are eligible for parole. That period is 59 per cent of the head sentence.

1. There is no pre-sentence detention to be declared in this matter_._

1. The exercise of declaring the sentence that a prisoner would have received but for their plea can be challenging at the best of times, but in this instance, it is especially hard.
2. But for your plea of guilty, I would have sentenced you to three years eight months with a non-parole period of 16 months.

[1] A pseudonym has been applied to prevent identification.

[2] Section 320 Crimes Act 1958.

[3] Taken from Exhibit A (Summary of Prosecution Opening dated 26 March 2025).

[5] Section 76(2) Crimes Act 1958.

[7] Exhibit 1 (Defence Submissions dated 26 March 2025); Depositions p55-65.

[8] Of particular note is the offending that is lightly shaded of the same day, which resolved to a plea of guilty before Judge Maidment in September 2023.

[9] Taken from Exhibit 1 (Defence Submissions dated 26 March 2025).

[11] Exhibit 3 (Blackfish medical summary dated 25 October 2022).

[12] Exhibit 2 (Neuropsychological report of Dr Matt Treeby dated 28 October 2022).

[13] Exhibit 7 (Neuropsychological Report of Dr Hall dated 17 June 2024).

[14] Exhibit 6 (Neuropsychological Report Dr Evans dated 16 May 2025).

[15] Exhibit 9 (Psychological Report of Ms Lechner dated 2 October 2025 and Addendum 7 November 2025).

[16] Exhibit 9 (Psychological Report of Ms Lechner dated 2 October 2025 and Addendum 7 November 2025) at [5].

[17] Exhibit 6 (Neuropsychological Report Dr Evans dated 16 May 2025) at [8].

[18] Exhibit 2 (Neuropsychological report of Dr Matt Treeby dated 28 October 2022) at page 2.

[19] Justice Health records confirm limitations in function of shoulder - unable to lift left arm.

[20] Exhibit 6 (Neuropsychological Report of Dr Loretta Evans dated 16 May 2025) at [29]. See also Exhibit 7 (Neuropsychological Report of Bronwyn Hall, Forensicare dated 17 June 202) at p5 (full-scale IQ estimated to be between 76-84) and Exhibit 2 (Report of Dr Matt Treeby dated 28 October 2022) at p4 (full-scale IQ estimated to be between 82-92).

[21] Exhibit 2 (Neuropsychological report of Dr Matt Treeby dated 28 October 2022) at pp 3-4; Exhibit 7 (Neuropsychological Report of Dr Hall dated 17 June 2024) at pp 5-7.

[22] Exhibit 6 (Neuropsychological Report Dr Evans dated 16 May 2025) at [40].

[23] Exhibit 6 (Neuropsychological Report Dr Evans dated 16 May 2025) at [32]-[38].

[24] Exhibit 7 (Neuropsychological Report of Dr Hall dated 17 June 2024) at pp 5-7.

[25] Exhibit 7 (Neuropsychological Report of Dr Hall dated 17 June 2024) at p7.

[27] Exhibit 9 (Psychological Report of Ms Lechner dated 2 October 2025 and Addendum 7 November 2025) at [19].

[30] Exhibit 6 (Neuropsychological Report Dr Evans dated 16 May 2025) at [17].

[31] Exhibit 7 (Neuropsychological Report of Dr Hall dated 17 June 2024) at p5.

[32] Exhibit 9 (Psychological Report of Ms Lechner dated 2 October 2025 and Addendum 7 November 2025) at [27].

[33] Exhibit 7 (Neuropsychological Report of Dr Hall dated 17 June 2024) at p5.

[34] Exhibit 9 (Psychological Report of Ms Lechner dated 2 October 2025 and Addendum 7 November 2025) at [22].

[36] Exhibit 9 (Psychological Report of Ms Lechner dated 2 October 2025 and Addendum 7 November 2025) (Addendum Report) at [6].

[37] Exhibit 9 (Psychological Report of Ms Lechner dated 2 October 2025 and Addendum 7 November 2025) at [24].

[38] Exhibit F.1 (Sentencing Remarks dated 18 September 2023).

[39] 3 February 2023 to 27 September 2023 and 3 January 2024 to 19 January 2024.

[40] 27 September 2023 to 3 January 2024.

[42] NDIS Access Request Form completed on 6 March 2025.

[43] Exhibit 7 (Neuropsychological Report of Dr Hall dated 17 June 2024) at p3.

1. [44] Consistent with reports during assessment whereby you communicated concerns for your safety. See Exhibit 6 (Neuropsychological Report Dr Evans dated 16 May 2025) at [8].

[46] R v Henderson [1998] VSCA 83 at [44]; R v Cotham [1998] VSCA 111.

[47] Pasinis v The Queen [2014] VSCA 97. This does not mean the Court imposes a sentence for the purposes of preventative detention of course.

[48] [2014] VSCA 314.

[49] [2025] VSCA 203.

[50] [2025] VSCA 217.

[51] DPP v Kurtaj [2025] VSCA 203 [100]-[102].

[52] [2021] VSCA 204.

[53] Meyers [2014] VSCA 314.

[54] [2014] VSCA 314 at [48]. I have had regard to the general principles in Hogarth without being overly prescriptive of categorising the type of aggravated burglary that occurred here into a rigid category of seriousness.

[55] DPP (Vic) v Conos [2021] VSCA 367 at [74].

[57] Though I do not sentence you as though this constitutes the additional offence of false imprisonment.

[58] Cutri Fruit Pty Ltd v The King [2025] VSCA 173.

[59] 6.4.1.1 Court of Appeal sentence overview.

[61] Exhibit E (Table of Comparative Cases).

[63] Oral Submissions on Further Plea Hearing 11 November 2025.

[64] [2007] VSCA 102; (2007) 16 VR 269.

[65] Exhibit 5 (Defence Further Submissions dated 15 September 2025) at [28]; Exhibit 8 (Defence Further Submissions dated 10 November 2025) at [8].

[66] Exhibit 5 (Defence Further Submissions dated 15 September 2025) at [29]; Exhibit 8 (Defence Further Submissions dated 10 November 2025) at [14]; Oral Submissions on Further Plea Hearing 11 November 2025.

[67] Exhibit 5 (Defence Further Submissions dated 15 September 2025) at [28]-[29]; Exhibit 8 (Defence Further Submissions dated 10 November 2025) at [14]-[15]. The Defence also explicitly disclaimed any reliance on Limb 1 of Verdins during the Further Plea Hearing 11 November 2025.

[68] Oral Submissions on Further Plea Hearing 11 November 2025; See also Exhibit 8 (Defence Further Submissions dated 10 November 2025) at [21].

[69] Exhibit 8 (Further Defence Submissions dated 10 November 2025) at [20].

[71] Exhibit 6 (Neuropsychological Report Dr Evans dated 16 May 2025).

[72] Oral submissions on Further Plea 11 November 2025.

[73] Exhibit 8 (Defence Further Submissions dated 10 November 2025) at [14].

[75] Oral submissions on Further Plea 11 November 2025.

[76] Exhibit 9 (Psychological Report of Ms Lechner dated 2 October 2025 and Addendum 7 November 2025) (Addendum) at [7].

[77] R v Merrett [2007] VSCA 1; (2007) 14 VR 392.

[78] R v Mendoza - Cortez [ 2016] VSCA 302; R v McIntosh [2005] VSCA 106.

[79] Section 11(1) and section 11(3) Sentencing Act 1991.

[80] Power v The Queen [1974] HCA 26; (1974) 131 CLR 623..

[81] Bearing in mind I have not set a new NPP under section 14 of the Sentencing Act 1991, I am simply stating the practical effect of this sentence.