DPP v Hayward

1. On 19 September 2023, the day following the incident, you were located by police in Sunbury and arrested on outstanding warrants for your failure to answer bail in August. You were subsequently interviewed by police for your offending against your mother.
2. During that interview you told police that you had very limited communication with your mother, that the two of you had come back into communication around the time of your father's death, but that you had then had a falling out around the time of the funeral. You said that you believed that your mother was undermining your entitlements and access to your father's estate, and that your mother and her associates were attending your house and removing your property. You also told police that you believed that your mother was trying to organise people to kill you in order to gain control of the entirety of your estate. You said that the last time the two of you had spoken was at your mother's house in Romsey in February 2023. You said that you had not seen her since that time, and you denied attending your mother's address the previous evening.
3. Following your interview you were charged and remanded into custody. You have remained in custody since that time. Accordingly, you have now served 612 days of pre-sentence detention, not including today's date.

1. On the plea, I received two victim impact statements from your mother, Mrs Tessa Hayward, which were read aloud in court by the prosecutor.
2. Your mother's words make clear the profound impact that your offending has had upon her. She said that the effects of your offending on her are constant, ongoing and severe and she described a sense of persistent dread which now accompanies her in everyday life.
3. Mrs Hayward said that she struggles to cope with the long-lasting, strong physical and mental reactions she has had to your attack. As a result, she said that she has lost friends, feels constantly physically unwell, and that she lives in a state of hypervigilance and fear. She described finding herself easily triggered into intense distress by even the smallest reminders of what took place, which has left her feeling exhausted. Further, she has felt a great deal of stress and uncertainty in awaiting the matter's resolution as it has moved through the legal system.
4. It is clear that your offending has had a significant impact on your mother. I have had regard to the admissible matters detailed in each of her victim impact statements and I have taken the contents of those statements into account in sentencing you.

1. Despite this matter having been on foot for almost two years now, your plea of guilty can still be considered to be an early plea. You were committed to this court by way of straight hand-up brief on 29 May 2024 in circumstances where you pleaded not guilty to the charges but with the issues of mental impairment and fitness to plead being raised. You then underwent a series of psychiatric and psychological assessments before ultimately indicating an intention to plead guilty to the current offences on 20 November 2024.
2. Your plea is a valuable plea of guilty for a number of reasons. It was entered at a reasonably early opportunity, you saved the victim of your offending (your mother) from having to give evidence, and your plea facilitated the course of justice in circumstances where you arguably had a defence of mental impairment.
3. Whilst you have not accepted full responsibility for your offending or exhibited any remorse, your failure to do so is consistent with the psychiatric issues which you suffer from, and which I will discuss in more detail later in these reasons for sentence. You have however by your plea, and through your counsel, acknowledged that you fall to be sentenced for this offending on the basis that the prosecution version of events is the correct one. You have also in more recent times, acknowledged that you did confront your mother and that you should have prioritised seeking legal or police assistance rather than trying to protect your property from being stolen.
4. In the circumstances, and despite your lack of remorse and still limited insight into your offending, I have given you a substantial discount on sentence for your pleas of guilty.

1. There is no dispute that the offences of aggravated burglary and intentionally causing injury are, by their nature, serious offences. This is reflected in the maximum penalties imposed for each offence by Parliament. There is also no dispute that your offending on this occasion was serious offending, consisting as it did of you entering your mother's home with a knife, confronting her, and repeatedly stabbing her. The attack was a particularly savage attack and took your mother by surprise. Unsurprisingly, she has suffered a significant impact as a result of your offending which occurred in her home, a place where she was entitled to feel safe, and should have been safe.
2. Insofar as the charge of failing to answer bail is concerned, I note that this offence pertained to your failure to appear at court in respect of your offending in February and March 2023 for which you have since been sentenced to a fine. In my view, this offence is a low-level offence which was committed at a time when your mental health issues were particularly acute. Further, it is an offence that could and should have been dealt with in conjunction with the Magistrates' Court matters to which the failure to appear pertained. The sentence I intend to impose on related summary charge 6 will be reflective of those circumstances.

1. You are now 22 years of age and come before the court with no prior criminal history.
2. You were born in Australia and are the only child of your parents, Hugh and Tessa Hayward. As previously noted, your parents separated when you were three years of age. Upon their separation, you lived initially with your mother in Sunbury. However, just before you commenced high school, you moved out of your mother's home and began living with your father instead.
3. I note that you have fixed beliefs that Tessa Hayward is not your biological mother. You believe that you were either adopted or abducted and you describe Mrs Hayward as your 'alleged' or 'so-called' mother. You also describe your childhood with Mrs Hayward as 'not being easy' and say that you left her home due to not being on the best terms. I note that your counsel conceded that there is no external evidence to confirm your description of your childhood and the nature of your relationship with Mrs Hayward. What is clear is that you started living with your father when you were in grade six at primary school, and you had a very close relationship with him.
4. Insofar as your schooling is concerned, you attended local primary and secondary schools in Sunbury and Romsey. You struggled with school and did not want to be there. You describe being lonely as a child and being suspended from school on a number of occasions. Ultimately, you dropped out of school before the end of Year 10 to start full-time work. Upon leaving school you gained a job working at a concreting and landscaping company. You worked there for approximately two years.
5. Then in May 2020, when you were 17 years of age, your father passed away. His death was sudden and traumatic for you. He died suddenly at home with you present. You called the ambulance and performed CPR on your father until they arrived, however you could tell that your father was already gone.
6. Following your father's death you remained living in his house, with no other supports around you. As I will come to shortly, it would appear that your mental health started to deteriorate at this time. You have told your counsel, and treating mental health professionals, that there were a number of thefts and break-ins, and that various people were watching you and had plans to kill you. You report incidents of people jumping the fence of your house and attending with weapons to obtain inheritance of your father's house, but you say that you did not report any of these incidents to police due to a lack of trust in police and a concern for your safety. You also formed a view that your mother was somehow involved in your father's death, in order that she could claim your inheritance and the estate.
7. It is notable in the seven months prior to these offences, you became involved in offending for the first time. On 2 February 2023, you stole $120 worth of alcohol from a Cellarbrations store in Sunbury. You were arrested and bailed in relation to that matter. Then on 1 March 2023, you were interrupted by a homeowner as you were 'repossessing' various items (including a boogie board, length of ramp, skate ramp and skateboard) purportedly on behalf of the Australian Tax Office. Just a few days later, you were again interrupted whilst re-possessing items purportedly for the ATO, this time the items being three SUV tyres. You were charged and bailed to appear at court on 5 March in relation to those matters, however you failed to answer bail. You were then re-bailed to appear at court on 15 August 2023, again missing that court date. It is in this context that your offending against your mother occurred.

1. I received a number of psychological and psychiatric reports pertaining to your mental health issues on the plea. Whilst you saw a psychologist for a brief period as a child, it would appear that it was not until you were remanded in respect of this offending that your mental health issues were properly assessed and treated.
2. You were initially assessed by Ms Carla Lechner, psychologist, in April 2024, at the request of your solicitor, in respect of your fitness to plead. In the opening to her report dated 15 May 2024, Ms Lechner succinctly stated:

Mr Hayward currently presents with paranoid delusional thinking, believing that his mother is not his real mother, that there are people trying to kill or harm him for his inheritance, and that the current charges were perpetrated by an imposter. Mr Hayward has a history of significant cannabis abuse and substantial trauma, specifically the loss of his father in 2021, that are likely precipitants to his psychosis. A psychiatric evaluation is urgently advised.

3. In her report, Ms Lechner described your presentation in some detail, noting that your cognitive functioning was undermined by delusional thinking. She further noted that as the assessment progressed, your thinking appeared to decline further.
4. You told Ms Lechner during the assessment that you had been smoking cannabis daily, up to seven grams per day, for about three years before your dad died, but that about year after he passed away, you cut back your cannabis use and then stopped it completely. You also told Ms Lechner that you had tried various other substances including ecstasy, cocaine and Xanax but you reported that you had not used these substances on a regular or recent basis. You said that your alcohol consumption was limited to once a month, drinking a bottle of whiskey in a day.
5. You were insistent when speaking with Ms Lechner that prior to your remand your friends and your mother were trying to steal from you; that your mother wanted to get rid of you; that you were being controlled by someone else via telepathy when you were undertaking the 'debt collecting for the ATO'; and that the current offending was potentially done by a friend who looked like you and had set you up.
6. Ms Lechner was ultimately of the view that you were presenting at the time of her assessment of you with delusional thinking, and some ideas of reference and thoughts of mind control, indicative of an emerging psychotic illness. She suggested that your past history of significant cannabis abuse, in addition to significant life stressors, such as the sudden death of your father, were likely precipitating factors in the decline of your mental health. She noted that your narrative deteriorated as the assessment progressed, and that whilst you superficially presented as well enough, deeper discussions revealed your disordered thoughts. As a result of your presentation, Ms Lechner strongly recommended that you undergo a full psychiatric evaluation.
7. Following on from Ms Lechner's recommendation, your solicitors then organised for you to be psychiatrically assessed by Associate Professor Danny Sullivan. This assessment took place on 11 July 2024.
8. In his report dated 4 August 2024, Professor Sullivan identified that you have a significant substance use history which would meet the diagnosis of severe cannabis use and moderate tobacco use disorder in sustained remission in a controlled environment. Further, he was of the opinion that you have developed a psychotic illness which would meet the diagnosis for schizophrenia.
9. Professor Sullivan explained that you have a range of persecutory ideas which appear based on delusional reasoning and are focused upon others stealing from you or wishing to kill you. You suffer from likely auditory hallucinations. Further, despite being articulate and fluent, you have a formal thought disorder with woolly thinking and talking past the point. Dr Sullivan stated that although you report heavy cannabis use, your symptoms have persisted for eight months in prison with reported abstinence from substance use, consistent with an ongoing psychotic illness and more persistent than would be expected from a cannabis-induced psychosis.
10. Professor Sullivan was of the view that a mental impairment defence may have been available to you on the basis that you were unable to reason with a moderate degree of sense of composure about your conduct because you believed that you were under threat from your mother and would be killed. He stated that in the event of a guilty plea, or of a conviction, he would consider that your psychotic illness was directly causally associated with the offending and would have impeded your capacity to think clearly and make calm and rational choices, given your morbid preoccupation with your mother and your delusional beliefs that you were under threat from her. Professor Sullivan was of the view that this did not extend to the extent that you were disinhibited, or could not understand the wrongfulness of your actions, but rather your judgment would have been severely impaired.
11. Professor Sullivan noted that, at the time of assessing you, you denied that you had a mental illness and insisted that your beliefs were not delusional but were in fact correct. He considered your prospects of rehabilitation to be poor without treatment and recommended that you undergo a trial of anti-psychotic medication. Further, Professor Sullivan expressed concerns that in the community, you would pose an ongoing risk to your mother and potentially others, due to your delusional beliefs that you are under threat, that others are stealing from you, and that you may be killed. He explained that these beliefs are likely to increase your paranoia and potentially lead you to acting with violence in the face of what you perceive to be a threat, even if this is delusional. He was of the view that unless you were treated assertively for psychotic illness and were mandated to abstain from substance use, you would be a significant risk of further offending including violent offending.
12. Not long after Dr Sullivan's report had been completed, in early October 2024, you became subject to a secure treatment order under the Mental Health Act and were moved to the Apsley Unit at Thomas Embling Hospital. Whilst in that unit you were assaulted by another patient, without provocation, and suffered some injuries including a fractured nose. Following that assault, on 15 October 2024, you were moved to the Argyle Unit at Thomas Embling.
13. On the plea I was provided with a copy of the 'Report for Hearing about a Secure Treatment Order MHT 5' dated 18 October 2024 and authored by Dr Jane Jeong, a psychiatric registrar with Forensicare, under the supervision of consultant psychiatrist, Dr Sandeep Kosaraju. In that report it was noted that you had been admitted to Thomas Embling Hospital on 1 October 2024 after concerns were raised by the prison psychiatry team regarding a possible psychotic illness. Consistent with the report of Dr Sullivan, your treating team identified that you were presenting on admission as being thought disordered, and voicing beliefs that appeared to have a delusional basis. Those delusions related to paranoid and persecutory themes, including that a group was trying to harm you, and your mother was not your real biological mother but was an imposter. Additionally, you were suffering from auditory hallucinations and had been observed responding to internal stimuli, symptoms which had been noted to cause you significant distress. The report identified that upon your admission to Thomas Embling, you had been commenced on oral medication, which had then been switched to a depot injection due to your refusal to take the tablets. It was noted that you had more recently agreed to taking a ten-day course of tablets in addition to your depot. It was also noted that whilst you had been working openly and honestly with your treatment team, you still remained of the view that you did not have a mental illness and that you did not need treatment for this.
14. Subsequently, on 22 October 2024, the Mental Health Tribunal determined that you should remain on a secure treatment order. You remained on that order until early November 2024. On 7 November 2024 you were then released from Thomas Embling and returned to mainstream prison, albeit you were placed in the Erskine Unit which is the male sub-acute forensic mental health unit at Ravenhall. You were subsequently moved to St Paul's mental health inpatient unit at Port Phillip Prison where you have remained since the start of the year.
15. As at the time of your plea in February of this year, you were still undergoing treatment in custody for your mental health issues, but your counsel had had some difficulty in obtaining up to date information from the authorities as to your progress. Accordingly, I ordered a pre-sentence Forensicare psychiatric report in order to gain some additional information. You were assessed by Dr Andrew Hodder, who ultimately provided two reports to the court. The first report dated 9 April 2025 was completed at my request, whilst the second report, dated 19 May 2025, was an addendum report provided by Dr Hodder in response to some queries raised by Ms Temperley with Forensicare regarding what might occur on your release from custody.
16. In his report dated 9 April 2025, Dr Hodder expressed the opinion that you appear to have developed increasingly paranoid and persecutory beliefs regarding your mother from early adolescence, which may have represented a protracted duration of untreated psychosis. Following the death of your father, this appears to have then developed into overt psychotic delusional beliefs that your mother was an imposter, who you believed, along with previous friends of yours, engaged in theft of your property. Following your arrest, you began to experience external auditory hallucinations which continued despite receiving regular antipsychotic medications and being abstinent from illicit substances.
17. Dr Hodder is of the opinion that your persecutory delusions, external auditory hallucinations, documented thought disorder, and resultant functional decline, fulfill the criteria for a diagnosis of schizophrenia. He noted that this diagnosis is supported, over a diagnosis of substance-induced psychosis, given that your symptoms are ongoing, despite having been abstinent from substances for over a year. Additionally, Dr Hodder expressed the opinion that your delusional beliefs of your mother being an imposter, appear to be consistent with Capgras delusion, one of the delusional modification syndromes which involves the delusional belief that a known individual has been replaced by an imposter. He noted that whilst the true prevalence of the disorder is regarded as too low to provide a clear risk stratification, historically this diagnosis has been associated with an increased risk of harm to the perceived imposter. This risk has been particularly associated with that of immediate family members who are providing primary carer roles and thereby face psychosocial proximity. Dr Hodder recommended that when you are released from custody, consideration will need to be given to approaches to mitigate risk of harm to your mother, including limiting your environmental proximity to her, and being actively monitored and managed by your area mental health service for early warning signs of relapse of your psychosis.
18. Like Professor Sullivan, Dr Hodder is of the opinion that at the time of your offending you were consumed by your delusional beliefs regarding your mother and others, and that those delusional beliefs appear related to your resultant offending. Dr Hodder was of the view that you have subsequently demonstrated partial recovery from your psychotic illness following the commencement of antipsychotic medication, to which you are currently remaining adherent. He advised that your prognosis remains uncertain, but hopeful, considering your initial partial treatment response. However you do require ongoing treatment by a psychiatrist given that you are continuing to suffer from perceptual disturbance and persecutory delusional content regarding your mother. Dr Hodder expressed the opinion that if you were to cease your medication regime, you would be at substantial risk of your mental state deteriorating and could pose a serious risk of harm to others, including your mother.
19. Insofar as the impact of your mental health condition on your time in custody, Dr Hodder noted that you appear to be managing the correctional environment adequately. However, he was of the view that it would be anticipated that the correctional environment would likely weigh more heavily upon you than on a peer who does not have the same diagnostic presentation as you. This appears consistent with the observations of your treating team at Thomas Embling, who identified your distress in response to the particular mental health symptoms that you were experiencing at that time.
20. Turning to the principles in respect of the relevance of mental health issues in sentencing, in Verdins v R [2007] VSCA 102, the Court held that impaired mental functioning, whether temporary or permanent, is relevant to sentencing in at least six ways:

(i) the condition may reduce the moral culpability of the offending conduct as distinct from the offender's legal responsibility;

(ii) the condition may have a bearing on the kind of sentence that is imposed and the conditions in which it is served;

(iii) 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;

(iv) 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 sentence or both;

(v) 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; and

(vi) 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. Having regard to all of the material regarding your mental health, Ms Temperley on your behalf submitted that each of the first five principles in Verdins have application in your case. In extensive, careful, and detailed submissions, Ms Temperley submitted that:

(a) whilst you were only diagnosed in custody, there is solid evidence that your ability to exercise appropriate judgment, think clearly and appreciate the illegality of your actions would have been impaired at the time of the offending given the nature of your diagnosis and its ongoing presentation. Accordingly, reasonable moderation of your moral culpability for the offending should be accorded;

(b) your mental health issues do have relevance to the kind of sentence to be imposed, in that consideration should be given to whether a community correction order could better address the sentencing purposes of rehabilitation and protection of the community, as opposed to a period of time on parole. Ms Temperley submitted that your mental health issues militate a sentencing disposition that involves ongoing oversight and mental health support;

(c) the impact of your mental health issues upon you both at the time of your offending and currently make you an unsuitable vehicle for general deterrence. Ms Temperley submitted that it is apparent from the materials that your symptoms were severe at the time of your offending, and whilst they have now been somewhat attenuated, are still significant at this point in time. In all of the circumstances, she submitted, you are not an appropriate medium for making an example to others;

(d) the impact of your mental health issues upon you, both at the time of the offending and currently, also make you an unsuitable vehicle for specific deterrence. Additionally, Ms Temperley submitted that whilst you still have limited insight into your offending and diagnosis, that specific deterrence has to some extent been achieved given the time you have already spent in custody. Accordingly, she submitted, the weight to be given to specific deterrence as a sentencing purpose should be moderated; and

(e) whilst your mental health has arguably improved whilst you have been in custody, the burden of your imprisonment has been more onerous than for someone who does not suffer from the same condition as you, accordingly your sentence should be moderated to reflect that added burden of imprisonment.

1. Mr Cordy, on behalf of the prosecution, did not take issue with these submissions save and accept that he submitted that general deterrence should be moderated rather than eliminated as a sentencing purpose, and noted that specific deterrence does still have a role to play as a sentencing purpose given your ongoing lack of insight into your mental health issues and your offending.
2. I similarly largely accept your counsel's submissions. There is, on the material before me, a clear causal link between the impact of your psychiatric condition on your mental functioning and your offending. I accept the opinions of Professor Sullivan and Dr Hodder that your capacity to think clearly and make calm and rational choices would have been impeded given your morbid preoccupation with your mother and your delusional beliefs that you were under threat from her. Accordingly, your moral culpability for your offending is reduced.
3. I also accept that despite some amelioration of your symptoms since receiving treatment in custody, you are still suffering from the impact of the condition, and that your time in custody has been more burdensome by reason of the impact of your symptoms upon you.
4. I am of the view that your schizophrenia, both by reason of its severity at the time of the offending, and its current severity, does lead to a moderation of the weight to be given to both general deterrence and specific deterrence in the sentencing synthesis. I do not however agree that the weight to be given to either of those sentencing purposes is completely eliminated, especially in circumstances where you have been assessed as having acted without disinhibition and having retained the ability to understand the wrongfulness of your actions.
5. Finally, I accept that your mental health issues are relevant to a consideration of the type and/or conditions of any sentence imposed upon you. It is clear that any sentence imposed, whether a term of imprisonment combined with a community correction order, or a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period, needs to allow you the opportunity to engage in an extended period of supervision and rehabilitation in the community.

Youth, Prospects of Rehabilitation, and the Need for Community Protection

1. As already noted, you were 20 years of age at the time of the offending and are still only 22 years of age now. Further, you have no prior convictions.
2. It was submitted by Ms Temperley, and conceded by Mr Cordy, that despite the seriousness of your offending, given your youth and lack of prior criminal history, greater weight should be given to rehabilitation in the sentencing synthesis. Ms Temperley emphasised that it is crucial that any sentence imposed provides you with appropriate support and treatment. Ms Temperley submitted that the fact that you have commenced on a path of treatment is a positive sign in respect of your prospects of rehabilitation, but sensibly conceded that both your rehabilitation and long- term community protection are dependent upon you remaining committed to ongoing treatment for your mental health issues.
3. I accept that as a youthful offender, the weight to be given to general deterrence and denunciation in your case should be moderated. Further, I agree that, despite the seriousness of your offending, rehabilitation and community protection are in your case key sentencing purposes.
4. I am told that, despite your mental health difficulties, whilst you have been in custody you have obtained and maintained a role as a billet and participated in some courses. You have commenced a Certificate II in Engineering and undertaken some metal work. You are also presently engaged in a men's mental health course, a 'Keeping the Body in Mind' course (which focuses on nutrition and general health to aid one's mental health) and another course related to managing emotions at the St Paul's mental health inpatient unit.
5. In more recent times you have been linked in with an Assessment and Transition Coordinator at the prison. That coordinator has liaised with Forensicare to ensure that you have support upon your release. I am told that as matters currently stand, upon release you are likely to be sent straight to hospital pursuant to an Inpatient Assessment Order due to your mental health. Further, you have been referred to the ReStart Program for external case management support which will include the provision of crisis accommodation, if necessary, as well as assistance with returning to work. Additionally, you are being assisted to make an application for NDIS assistance. In that regard, you have recently undertaken a functional capacity assessment with an occupational therapist to provide evidence in support of the application. I am told that you have been co-operative with each of these services and have expressed a willingness to engage with them.
6. You have also agreed, and there is in place, a full and final family violence intervention order protecting your mother until 2030.
7. Taking into consideration all of the material before me, and in particular the progress you have made whilst in custody, it is apparent that you do have prospects for rehabilitation. However, those prospects are very much entwined with you engaging in mental health supports, including medication, into the future.
8. Similarly, long-term community protection, and in particular the protection of your mother from you, is also dependent on you continuing to comply with your treatment regime on release from custody. Having said that, it is of considerable concern that despite your progress in treatment, your delusional thinking in respect of your mother is still prominent, and you continue to have limited insight into your mental health issues and your offending. In determining the weight to be given to community protection as a sentencing purpose in the sentencing synthesis, I must have regard to the nature and gravity of the offences, the circumstances in which you committed them, and any ongoing risk which you pose to the community. In this case, the gravity of your offending, and the continued presence of the underlying issues which contributed to that offending, militates that community protection be a prominent sentencing purpose in the sentencing synthesis.

1. Turning now to the sentencing submissions made by each counsel. Mr Cordy, on behalf of the prosecution, submitted that the only appropriate disposition in this case would be a term of imprisonment with a head sentence and a non-parole period. He submitted that, despite the mitigating factors in your case, a sentence which combined a community correction order with a term of imprisonment would not meet all of the relevant sentencing purposes given the incredibly serious nature of your offending. Mr Cordy conceded that whilst general deterrence is ordinarily a sentencing purpose carrying great weight when the court is sentencing for the offence of aggravated burglary, given your mental health issues, general deterrence is of lesser relevance in your case. However, Mr Cordy submitted that each of general deterrence, specific deterrence and community protection still have a role to play in sentencing you. He contended that whilst there is a real tension in the sentencing exercise given that you are a young man with no prior convictions and significant mental health issues, the very serious nature of this offending must be reflected in any sentence imposed.
2. Ms Temperley, on your behalf, submitted that the interplay between the seriousness of your offending, community expectations, and your vulnerabilities (both emerging and established) make sentencing you a complicated task.
3. Ms Temperley submitted that whilst deterrence remains a relevant sentencing purpose, your emerging mental health diagnosis makes you an unsuitable vehicle in terms of both general and specific deterrence. Additionally, she contended that just punishment and denunciation are similarly ameliorated. Ms Temperley submitted that to the extent that the sentencing purpose of specific deterrence does play a role, it has already been achieved through the time you have already spent in custody. She submitted that whilst you do appear to have a rather delusional take on the offending itself, you have nevertheless connected the offending with your time in custody and are motivated not to return to prison. Further, Ms Temperley submitted that the time you have already spent to date in custody serves to meet the sentencing purpose of just punishment given the particularly onerous nature of your time in custody to date.
4. In terms of the remaining sentencing purposes, Ms Temperley submitted that protection of the community in your case is dependent on your prospects of rehabilitation. True community protection will only result from your rehabilitation and continued engagement with treatment. Ultimately, Ms Temperley submitted that given the significant mitigating factors in your case, including your youth, the impact of your mental health issues upon you, and your plea of guilty, it would be open for the court to impose a sentence upon you which combined a term of imprisonment with a community correction order. She submitted that such a disposition would reflect the seriousness of the offending, but would be no more severe than is necessary for someone with your diagnosis and its consequent complications.
5. In support of her submission that a combination sentence would be open, Ms Temperley provided a table of nine comparative cases where accused persons had been sentenced on a plea of guilty for the offences of aggravated burglary committed in conjunction with an injury offence.[4] The sentences imposed in those cases ranged from a combination sentence of 10 months' imprisonment with a community correction order for two years, through to a term of imprisonment of six years and six months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years and nine months. The range of sentences imposed in those cases reflects the vast array of circumstances of both the offending and the offenders involved. Each of the cases turn on their own facts, which are different from the facts in your case, and the sentencing Judges' intuitive synthesis of those facts in light of the applicable sentencing principles. At best they can be used as yardsticks that may be able to illustrate (although not define) the possible range of sentences available, and as examples of the application of the relevant sentencing principles applicable in the area. Ultimately, whilst I have had regard to previous sentences imposed and the issue of comparative sentencing and current sentencing practices more broadly, I have sentenced you in this case on the basis of the application of the principles to the specific facts of you and your case.

Availability of a Community Correction Order as a Sentencing Disposition

1. Following the initial plea in this matter, I had you assessed for your suitability for a community correction order, noting that I had not reached a conclusion at that stage as to whether a community correction order in combination with a term of imprisonment would be an available disposition in this case.
2. I received an Extended Pre-Sentence Assessment Outcome Report, dated 14 April 2025, just prior to the second listing of the plea. The author of that report, James Kapodistrias, assessed you as being a suitable candidate for a community correction order with reservation. He noted that you presented as motivated to comply with any order imposed by the court and recommended that if an order was put in place that appropriate conditions would include assessment and treatment for drug abuse or dependency, assessment and treatment for alcohol abuse or dependency, mental health assistance, programs to reduce re-offending, supervision and judicial monitoring. Mr Kapodistrias also made suggestions about available accommodation and supports which may be available to you upon release which would assist in providing you with some stability in the community. However, he raised concerns about your ongoing mental health issues and the risk which you pose to your mother on release into the community.
3. I note that I have taken the contents of this report into account in determining an appropriate sentence in this matter.

1. In sentencing you today, I have also taken into account the principles of totality and parsimony. The principle of parsimony requires me not to impose a particular sentencing disposition if a lesser sentencing disposition would meet all of the purposes of sentencing. As applied to your particular case, the principle of parsimony requires me to consider whether a term of imprisonment combined with a community correction order could adequately address all of the sentencing purposes, or whether a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period is the only suitable disposition.
2. In making this determination, it is important that I bear in mind that I am not simply making a decision as to which form of sentence would provide you with a more comprehensive wrap around set of supports. Rather, I am determining whether the various sentencing purposes, including general deterrence, community protection, just punishment and denunciation, can be met through the imposition of a combination of a term of imprisonment and a community correction order in light of the various sentencing factors in this case.
3. Ultimately, having had regard to all relevant matters in this case, I agree with Mr Cordy's submissions that the only appropriate sentence in this case is a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period. Such a sentence allows for a balance to be drawn between the weight (albeit moderated) which needs to be given to general deterrence, denunciation and just punishment due to the nature and gravity of the offending; the weight (albeit moderated) which needs to be given to specific deterrence given your ongoing issues with your insight into your mental health issues and your offending; the weight which needs to be given to community protection given the ongoing impact upon you of your delusional beliefs and the risk this raises for those in the community including your mother; and the countervailing weight which needs to be given to rehabilitation as a result of your youth and the need for ongoing treatment of your underlying issues. Any lesser sentence would fail, in my view, to adequately address the sentencing purposes of general deterrence, denunciation, just punishment and community protection.
4. Despite the need to impose a total effective term of imprisonment upon you which is lengthier than that which could be attached to a community correction order, I do recognise the need for any term of imprisonment I impose upon you to carry with it the opportunity for a lengthy period of time on parole in order that you do have an opportunity for an extended period of supervision and treatment in the community upon your release from custody. I have, accordingly, endeavoured to impose a sentence which will provide you with an opportunity for an extended period on parole whilst bearing in mind that the overall sentence must still be appropriate if you are required to serve every single day of the sentence I impose.

1. Mr Hayward, you will be sentenced as follows.
2. On Charge 1, aggravated burglary, you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three years and six months. That is the base sentence.
3. On Charge 2, intentionally causing injury, you are convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 18 months.
4. On related summary Charge 6, you are convicted and discharged. That is, there is no penalty relating to that charge.
5. I direct that six months of the sentence imposed on Charge 2 be served cumulatively on the sentence imposed on Charge 1.
6. That makes a total effective sentence of four years' imprisonment.
7. I direct that you serve a minimum term of imprisonment of two years and three months before becoming eligible for parole.

1. So what all that means, Mr Hayward, is that you have a total sentence of four years, but you will be considered to be eligible for parole after you have served two years and three months. You have already done 612 days of that two years and three months. So you need to do the remainder of that period and then you are eligible for parole and it is a matter for the Parole Board whether they then release you, and at what point they release you and with what conditions. Does that make sense?
2. OFFENDER: Yeah it does, yeah.

1. Pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act, I indicate that had you pleaded not guilty - so if you had gone to trial on these offences and been convicted of them, you would have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five years and nine months with a non-parole period of three years and nine months. So you have saved a considerable amount of time in custody by reason of that plea of guilty.

1. Pursuant to s78(1) of the Confiscation Act 1997, I make a disposal order for the following items:

(a) Brief exhibit 7: knife blade;

(b) Brief exhibit 8: knife tip (fragment); and

(c) Brief exhibit 17: folding knife.

1. All right counsel, are there any matters which you wish to raise at this stage about the sentence or the reasons for sentence?
2. MS TEMPERLEY: Nothing arising, Your Honour.
3. MR CECIL: No, Your Honour.
4. HER HONOUR: No, and there are no other ancillary orders that are sought? That has covered everything?
5. COUNSEL: Yes, Your Honour.

[4] DPP v Wells [2020] VCC 1160; Adrian Stapleton v The Queen [2020] VSCA 147; Hill v The Queen [2020] VSCA 220; DPP v Gruber [2022] VCC 599; DPP v Fulton [2021] VCC 290; Nick Kiezenberg v The Queen [2017] VSCA 235; DPP v Clarke [2016] VCC 735; DPP v Shanks & Anor [2016] VCC 2004; DPP v Calvert [2016] VCC 866.