DPP v Goldson [2025] VCC 1284

He underwent surgery and spent two weeks in hospital.

1. You were arrested and interviewed on 6 October. Amongst other things you told police that someone in the area had been impersonating you. You denied being the assailant. You were released on 7 October.
2. Subsequent to your release more CCTV footage was reviewed. You were arrested again on 13 October and interviewed. You admitted knowing the victim and seeing him on 6 October.

1. The objective gravity of this offence is very high. You used a potentially lethal bladed weapon to attack your victim, who was asleep and presented no threat. You stabbed him repeatedly, without warning, in a prolonged and frenzied attack. You struck him with the knife to vulnerable and vital areas of the body. Your intent to cause very serious injury was manifest.
2. He required urgent medical attention. His wounds were extensive and required surgery.
3. The potential for your attack to prove fatal was high. It is likely your attack was related to your paranoid and persecutory ideation in the weeks leading up to the attack, which arose out of your relapse into methamphetamine use. There may have been other triggers, such as ideas you had about your girlfriend being treated badly, but it is impossible to have any confidence that any triggers were not the product of psychosis.
4. Your Complex PTSD arising from childhood trauma, which causes hypervigilance, dysregulation and emotional and psychological instability, was a likely ingredient of your offence also. The offence viewed objectively and assessing what you have said about it to Ms Mynard, the psychologist, has some similarities to some of the prior matters in your history.

1. You experienced a childhood that was marred by exposure to violence and alcohol abuse of others. There was instability and a lack of nurture and care in your upbringing. You experienced considerable insecurity and trauma upon learning the man you thought was your father, Graham, was actually your stepfather.
2. Graham was a poor role model and exposed you to extreme alcohol abuse, violence and fear. There is significant detail of the particulars of that in the psychological report, which I accept. You continue to regard Graham as a father figure and indeed after your mother's separation from him, you have remained in contact with him and in close contact at some stages.
3. You were 10 when you discovered that he was not in fact your father and this was understandably a significant traumatic and destabilising event for you.
4. A stepfather following Graham was also an alcoholic, and the instability and disadvantage persisted.
5. You gravitated toward drug use at an early age and it has become a major problem in your life. Your previous violent offences have involved drug induced psychosis on at least one occasion, in particular I am referring to your conviction in this Court in 2014. The 2009 matter before Kin J also had a drug background to it.
6. I have had regard to the explanations you have provided to Ms Mynard for your offending in this instance, particularly the history she took as to the lead up to the offending at paragraphs [56]-[75].
7. The drug induced psychosis that precipitated the offence before me does not provide mitigation. You present a significant danger to members of the community given your vulnerability to substance abuse and the behaviours it leads to in your case.
8. You are currently 42 years of age.
9. You are an Aboriginal man, identifying with the Gunditjmara and Wadda Wurrung peoples through your biological father, Trevor Eccles. You did not know the identity of your biological father, and your heritage, until age 10.
10. In childhood, you were exposed to regular violence from your stepfather as I mentioned, including witnessing assaults on your mother. You began using cannabis at 12, introduced to methamphetamine and heroin by the age of 14.
11. You became involved with the youth justice system and, ultimately, the adult criminal justice system.
12. Despite these obstacles and your upbringing and your exposure to drug use as a child, which is not of your own making, or at least your moral culpability for engaging in that substance abuse as a child in the context of your traumatic and disadvantaged upbringing is low compared to others.
13. Despite all of that you completed a boiler-making apprenticeship and held multiple high-risk work licences. You worked extensively on major civil infrastructure projects including the Metro Tunnel and the West Gate Tunnel. You had been working in the Metro Tunnel in the lead up to the offence before me.
14. Your decline into methamphetamine daily use coincided with your increasing paranoia, difficulties maintaining appearances and productivity at work, and eventual dismissal. These events are set out in more detail in Ms Mynard's report.
15. You have three children and you speak fondly of them, with great affection. Until your remand, you shared care of your two youngest children. You have had contact with them while in custody and you are grateful that your former partner facilitates this.

1. The psychological report of Ms Mynard has been important in assessing you as an individual and also the circumstances of the offending and your moral culpability. I accept Ms Mynard's diagnosis of Complex PTSD, Stimulant Use Disorder, Cannabis Use Disorder and Drug-Induced Psychotic Disorder.
2. Ms Mynard writes:

Mr Goldson presents with a complex and traumatic early family history that has had significant and enduring impact on his emotional development, interpersonal relationships and sense of identity.

1. I accept the matters Ms Mynard sets out at paragraph [43] of her report as to the experiences that underpin this disorder, and the symptoms she sets out at paragraphs [44]-[47].
2. All these matters and the matters relied upon by your counsel in relation to your childhood experiences afford you the mitigation recognised under the Bugmy principle, and I find that mitigation in this specific sense applies pursuant to Bugmy in your case.
3. At paragraph [48] Ms Mynard opines:

Mr Goldson presents with a clear and pervasive pattern of symptoms consistent with Complex PTSD. His history includes sustained exposure to early and repeated interpersonal trauma, coupled with lasting disturbances in affect regulation, self-concept, and relationships. These symptoms have persisted into adulthood and continue to impact his functioning, coping behaviours (including substance use), and interactions with others. His psychological profile highlights the need for trauma‑informed, long-term therapeutic interventions addressing the core domains of Complex post-traumatic stress disorder.

Mr Goldson's history of childhood trauma, particularly his experience of being unable to protect his mother from domestic violence perpetrated by his stepfather, appears to have contributed to his offending behaviours. This early exposure to traumatic violence, combined with a perceived sense of helplessness, has contributed to the development of post-traumatic stress symptoms, including heightened physiological reactivity and intrusive emotional responses in perceived threat situations.

1. I am nowhere near as confident as Ms Mynard appears to be at paragraphs [67]-[70], [75] and [77] as to the trigger for the offending, or that it has a basis in reality. I am prepared to accept on balance your functioning arising from Complex post-traumatic stress disorder, in all of the circumstances that were present at the time, played a role in your offending behaviour. It moderates moral culpability to some degree.

1. In respect of Ms Mynard's conclusion as to hardship in custody you experience due to the symptomology of Complex post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental health vulnerabilities, you are entitled to mitigation of sentence in that regard in the sense understood by Verdins and other authorities as to hardship in custody.

1. Your guilty plea has significant utilitarian value, it facilitates the administration of justice and serves as an expression of contrition and remorse, and I find that you did express remorse particularly through the Koori Court Sentencing Conversation, but evidence of remorse can also be found elsewhere including in the report of Ms Mynard.

1. You participated fully in the Koori Court Sentencing Conversation with Uncle David Farrall and Uncle Trevor Gallagher.
2. It was far from easy for you. You became highly emotional, particularly when your childhood trauma was discussed. You expressed genuine remorse. You spoke meaningfully and with insight as to how you can improve your prospects of rehabilitation. You spoke about your engagement with Aboriginal culture when you had the opportunity to and clearly your connection to Aboriginal culture is a protective factor for you and the loss of connection in your childhood years is something you feel keenly, and the sense of purpose you can gain with engagement with culture is a positive thing in your case.
3. Uncle Trevor spoke to you about that childhood trauma and the difficulties you faced, but emphasising it is up to you to, at this age, drag yourself away from the lifestyle that has led to offending in this case and in your past, it would seem.
4. You have had periods in the community where you are working and involved in important and gainful employment, and also being a good parent and role model for your children.
5. Your brother Grant, who participated in the Sentencing Conversation, spoke in that regard as well and gave some unique insights into your positive functioning in the community, and your love and care for your children.
6. Uncle David spoke to you in the Sentencing Conversation about the power of the smoking of the court room and the cleansing and spoke to you about your self‑reflection and what you have been doing in custody. You have done courses. I have now received certificates in respect of the courses, the cleaning job you have been involved in, the other activities you pursue in custody including the self-catering, the working in a positive sense towards your rehabilitation for when you are eligible for parole.
7. You have engaged in courses to address your drug vulnerability, particularly in relation to methamphetamine or ice.
8. It came through very clearly in the Sentencing Conversation that connection with your children and an ongoing relationship with them is perhaps the best motivating factor for you, to make sure that this is the last time you engage in such senseless violence and the last time you are incarcerated as a consequence.

1. As I mentioned at the outset, the Serious Violent Offender provisions apply and one of the requirements in respect of that is the community protection is the principal purpose. The sentencing maximum and scope and circumstances in this case do not call for a disproportionate sentence to give effect to that purpose.
2. Your past criminal history, in particular matters of violence are relevant to my assessment of your prospects of rehabilitation. Your history is relevant to my consideration of community protection and it limits the opportunity for leniency significantly.

1. I do find that your prospects are reasonable and base that on your conduct in custody and the courses you have done. It is also provided for urine screens. The protective factor of your daughters; I accept you have a genuine desire and you are genuine in your desire to make them proud of you, to beat your substance use once and for all and to return to productive work.
2. Also the recommendations from Ms Mynard give me some confidence that when you are eligible for parole and granted parole, you have a reasonable chance of rehabilitating.
3. General deterrence and denunciation are also very important factors in the sentencing exercise in this case. I have mentioned community protection also. They are all prominent factors and they along with the maximum penalty demand a significant sentence in your case.

1. In relation to the charge of intentionally causing serious injury, Mr Goldson, you are sentenced to eight and a half years' imprisonment.
2. I set a non-parole period of five years and nine months.
3. Pre-sentence detention is 692 days. Is that right?
4. MS CAUST: (Indistinct words.)
5. HIS HONOUR: Sorry?
6. MS CAUST: Yes, Your Honour, that's what I get.
7. HIS HONOUR: That's correct, 692 days I declare as pre-sentence detention.
8. Pursuant to s6AAA, were it not for your plea of guilty, I would have sentenced you to a total effective sentence of 10 years with a non-parole period of seven years.
9. There were no other orders sought?
10. MS CAUST: Your Honour, just a forfeiture order (indistinct words).
11. HIS HONOUR: Yes, I will make that order for forfeiture.
12. MS CAUST: And just the recording pursuant to s6F of the serious offender (indistinct words) ‑ ‑ ‑
13. HIS HONOUR: Yes. Yes, I have sentenced you as a Serious Violent Offender and that will be entered into the records of the court.
14. MS CAUST: Thank you, Your Honour.
15. HIS HONOUR: We will adjourn the court.