DPP v Lee [2025] VSC 376

2 The use of fire as a means of inflicting serious harm upon another is shocking and heartless conduct. Mr Bainbridge's son, Joshua, was working with his father on the occasion in question, and observed you set fire to Mr Bainbridge. Joshua ran to his father's assistance, and with great difficulty, and after some time, was able to douse the flames. He then waited with his father for the arrival of ambulance officers. The horror, anguish and devastation to which your conduct exposed Joshua was extraordinary, and the effects will be lifelong. So too will be the devastating loss and pain suffered by all of the family and friends of Mr Bainbridge. The pain and anguish you caused to Mr Bainbridge himself as he awaited what he soon would have realised was his inevitable death, is incalculable. According to what I have been informed during the plea hearing, whilst in recent times you have expressed some regret for the death of Mr Bainbridge, you still assert some justification for your actions, in spite of the fact that there was not the slightest justification, and even now, two years after the event, you are entirely lacking in remorse.

3 These few introductory words are sufficient to clearly demonstrate that your crime was of a very high order of seriousness, and can only be properly met with very severe punishment.

4 Colin Bainbridge was 66 years of age at the time of his death. He resided in Wheatsheaf, a small rural location near Daylesford. He lived with his wife Anita Bainbridge ('Anita'). He had three adult children; Claire, Luke and Joshua. He was a cabinet maker by trade and was the owner-operator of Bainbridge Fine Furniture, where he worked with his two sons. He also engaged in land-clearing and tree felling works in the local community.

5 Mr Bainbridge entered into an agreement with your neighbour to conduct land-clearing and tree felling at a small rural property at 150 Wallaby Road, Wheatsheaf ('the property'). This was to include the removal of a large tree branch which had fallen towards the fence separating the property from number 160 Wallaby Road, a property owned by you and at which you resided.

6 Mr Bainbridge and Joshua commenced work at the property on the morning of 13 March 2023. They worked throughout the day using a bobcat and chainsaws. During the day, you were observed by Joshua to be seemingly hanging around near the dividing fence separating the two properties, raking leaves, but behaving in a manner which led Joshua to believe you were keeping an eye on them. In a conversation you had with Frances Guerin ('Ms Guerin'), a local resident, in the middle of the day, you expressed your anger and resentment towards the owners of the property next door, and the clearing work which was going on there.

7 The work was not completed that day, and Mr Bainbridge and his son returned the next morning to continue working. They worked on the property from about 10.00 am, with Mr Bainbridge and Joshua carrying out different tasks some distance apart from each other. Mr Bainbridge worked with an excavator with a claw attachment to lift a tree which had fallen on the boundary fence and then used a chainsaw to cut it up into manageable lengths. Joshua worked with a bobcat and chainsaw about 35 metres away. Some time between 10.00am and 10.14am, he heard the noise of yelling emanating from his father's worksite, and the chainsaw operated by his father stopped. He ran towards Mr Bainbridge's worksite and observed his father standing next to the boundary fence, with his chainsaw off and on the ground in front of him. Mr Bainbridge informed Joshua that you had yelled out to him words to the effect of 'Get the fuck out of here' or 'fuck off back to Melbourne'. Mr Bainbridge told Joshua that he had told you to 'fuck off'. Mr Bainbridge said not to worry about what had occurred as you had run off. The two men returned to their work.

8 In the meantime, you ran to your home and between 10.14am and 10.17am, made five phone calls to the Daylesford Police Station using your mobile phone. The calls were unanswered. At 10.17am, you again rang Daylesford Police Station. On this occasion, the call was diverted to Bacchus Marsh Police Station and answered by Leading Senior Constable Roy Owen ('Owen'). The phone connection was poor. You sounded hysterical, which made it difficult for Owen to understand you, but he heard you yell, 'Wheatsheaf' and 'I need police here now'. Owen asked for your name and you told him. He told you to call 000 if you needed immediate assistance. You responded with words to the effect of, 'If you're not coming, I'm gunna go and murder my neighbours', before hanging up. The call lasted three minutes.

9 You then went to your garden shed and picked up a blue bucket, intending to fill it with petrol. Realising you would need something to light the petrol, you went inside your house and obtained a red gas lighter. You returned to the shed and poured a quantity of petrol from a red fuel container into the bucket.

10 You immediately proceeded towards Mr Bainbridge's location, carrying the bucket and lighter. You climbed over the boundary fence and moved towards Mr Bainbridge. Seeing you, he stopped chainsawing, and left the idling chainsaw lodged in the tree. He faced you and told you to 'fuck off'. You immediately threw the bucket of petrol over him, dousing him. You ignited the lighter and set Mr Bainbridge on fire.

11 In the process of setting Mr Bainbridge alight, your right arm also caught alight. You immediately ran towards your property. You dropped to the ground to extinguish the flame on your arm. You dropped the bucket and lighter. You fled across the boundary fence and returned to your home.

12 Your attack upon Mr Bainbridge was witnessed by Joshua, whose attention had been caught by the sound of yelling. He saw you throw the fuel and as he sprinted towards you and Mr Bainbridge, he saw his father go up in flames, screaming. Joshua took off his jumper which he used to try to extinguish the flames. This was not successful, and at Mr Bainbridge's suggestion, Joshua ran towards the house to get a garden hose, followed by Mr Bainbridge. He used a steady stream of water to extinguish the flames, and then stayed with his father to comfort him and await the arrival of paramedics.

13 Joshua observed his father to be lucid. Mr Bainbridge said to Joshua, 'I can't believe this bastard has done me in'.

14 Joshua used his father's mobile phone to contact emergency services. You called Daylesford Police Station twice using your mobile phone at 10.22am, before calling 000 a couple of minutes later. You gave your name and address and requested police attendance. You told the call taker, 'I've had trouble with my neighbours...I threw petrol over the people on the property next door, and I lit him in flames - fire'. You claimed that you had been just defending yourself, and said that Mr Bainbridge would need an ambulance urgently.

15 Ambulance paramedics arrived on the scene at 10.42am. Mr Bainbridge was sitting on the ground outside the house at 150 Wallaby Road, being cared for by Joshua and a CFA member who had attended. Mr Bainbridge was seen to have full-thickness burns to 80% of his body, and airway burns. He was transported to The Alfred Hospital by helicopter.

16 Police attended at your property and arrested you at 11.45am. You asked for treatment to your burnt right arm. You spoke to police and the conversation was recorded on a body worn camera ('BWC'). During the conversation, you said that Mr Bainbridge had threatened you with a chainsaw, and you decided that you would try to stand up for yourself. You claimed that he had told you to 'fuck off' whilst waving his chainsaw at you and revving it. Your only option to defend yourself, you said, was to use petrol. You had rung Bacchus Marsh police and begged for help, but been asked to call 000. When you realised police were not coming or going to help you, you resorted to your only option, you claimed. You admitted obtaining the bucket, petrol and lighter. You admitted jumping the boundary fence and approaching Mr Bainbridge. You said you threw the petrol on Mr Bainbridge from about two feet away and lit the fuel using the lighter.

17 The facts of your crime were set out in the Amended Summary of Prosecution Opening for plea ('the SPO'). The SPO was accepted by your counsel, Ms Munster and Mr McGlone, to be an agreed summary. As the SPO made clear, your claim of having been threatened by Mr Bainbridge with the chainsaw was false. In fact, at the time that you threw petrol over Mr Bainbridge, he was in the process of completing his lawful tree-clearing work, and his chainsaw was lodged in a tree.

18 The examination of the crime scene by police revealed the presence of the melted bucket you had used to throw the petrol over Mr Bainbridge, and the lighter you had used to set him alight. A five litre red fuel container with the lid removed was found in front of the doorway to your garden shed.

19 During assessment and treatment at The Alfred Hospital, Mr Bainbridge's injuries were noted as:

a) Mixed thickness burns involving 80% of the total body surface;

b) Full thickness burns to almost all of his anterior and posterior trunk;

c) Mid/deep dermal and full thickness burns to the entirety of both upper limbs;

d) Lower limbs circumferentially involved from knees down and near circumferentially above the knees;

e) Burns to the face involving roughly 4.5% and will progress further; and

f) Perineum largely spared, some involvement of bilateral buttocks.

20 Medical staff at The Alfred determined Mr Bainbridge's burns to be unsurvivable due to their extent. He was transitioned to the palliative care unit for end of life care. He was declared deceased at 10.00pm on 14 March 2023, a little less than 12 hours after your attack upon him.

21 You participated in a police interview on 14 March 2023. You exercised your right to make no comment in response to most questions asked of you, however you gave the following relevant answers:

• When told that Mr Bainbridge was in hospital with burns to seventy percent of his body, you responded, 'I'm sorry. I'm sorry for this situation'.

• You knew who Mr Bainbridge was, having met him once many years ago. He was a local. You did not know his name. You knew that he did not reside next door to you; and

• You were sorry for all the 'stuff' that you were at the police station for.

22 You are 65 years of age. You were born in Melbourne and brought up in Essendon, where you lived with your parents and older sister. Your father ran a hamburger business and you mother was a stay-at-home parent. You were educated to what was described on your behalf as a rudimentary level at Essendon Primary School and then Strathmore High School. With your parents' encouragement, you left school after completing Year 9 to seek paid employment. You were not strong academically at school, but obtained some proficiency in music, learning the flute, which enabled you to pursue an interest in community brass bands as an adult. Your father was a strict disciplinarian and on one occasion when you were young, after he had violently assaulted you, you contacted the police. Your father was not charged, but you were not further assaulted.

23 Upon leaving school, in the hope of becoming a jockey, you worked with a horse trainer in Cranbourne. You lost your job when your employer lost his trainer's licence. You then worked in factories for several years before being made redundant after suffering an epileptic seizure at work. You then worked for Melbourne Water for over ten years in various roles, including as a storeman at Brimbank Park and then at the depot in Sunshine. In the mid-1980s, you resigned and received a payout, which you used to part fund the purchase of a 5 acre bush block in Wheatsheaf.

24 You have had one significant relationship in your life, with a woman named Julie. You met her when you were both in your teens. The relationship ended shortly after the birth of your daughter Melissa in 1980. You became Melissa's sole carer. You lived with her in Melbourne until she was about 5 or 6, before moving to the Wheatsheaf property. Initially you lived in a caravan on the property, before moving into a newly built home. Melissa attended school in Daylesford. This was a positive and stable time for you. You found meaning in being a father and established positive relationships in the community. After Melissa completed her schooling and left home, you struggled to adapt to life without her. Your mental health deteriorated, as did your relationships in the community.

25 A letter from your daughter Melissa was tendered on your behalf during the plea hearing. It set out in detail her contact with you over the years, her current level of contact with you, and her perception of your declining mental health in recent years. A letter from your friend and cousin once removed, Bruce Watt, [1] was also tendered on your behalf. I have had regard to the contents of both of these letters.

26 During your positive years in Wheatsheaf, you were employed in a horse trail-riding business in the Daylesford area before suffering a knee injury. You were then on the disability support pension for 20 years leading up to your arrest on the current charge. You served in the Army Reserve, and volunteered with the State Emergency Service.

27 You have been estranged from your father and sister for many years. Your driver licence lapsed in 2015 and was not renewed. Since that time, you have walked between Wheatsheaf and Daylesford on a near-daily basis to purchase your food and other necessities, and have otherwise rarely left the local area.

29 You have suffered from long-standing physical and mental health conditions. You suffered from epilepsy from a young age, experiencing numerous seizures. Your condition impacted your education and employment. You were on anticonvulsants, but that is no longer the case. You have lived without any teeth for many years due to them progressively being removed, because dentists would not treat you due to your epilepsy. You have undergone medical investigations for possible transient ischemic attacks and cardiac issues. Following a cardiac arrest in 2022 you were fitted with a pacemaker.

30 You first presented to the Daylesford Hospital in relation to psychiatric issues in 2002. I will later turn in some detail to the report and opinions of Dr Andrew Carroll, consultant forensic psychiatrist, but for present purposes, it will suffice to note that for several periods in the ensuing years, you have been treated as an in-patient and outpatient for psychiatric illness. In 2002, you were discharged from in-patient care on diazepam and olanzapine, an anti-psychotic, and managed by the community mental health team. You were discharged from case management in mid-July 2003. In October 2020, following an incident involving your neighbour, you were brought to hospital by the police for psychiatric review following a threat to self-harm. In January 2021, following reviews, it was determined that there was no evidence of delusions and further medical intervention was not indicated. On 3 February 2021 you were detained under the Mental Health Act 2014[2] at Grampians Mental Health Service. Delusional ideas and paranoid delusions concerning neighbours were noted. You were admitted to the Ballarat Psychiatric Inpatient Unit and prescribed the antipsychotic medication risperidone. After a week in the inpatient unit you were discharged to the community team for ongoing case management. Medical notes reported continuing persecutory paranoid delusions and conflict and concerns with your neighbours. Home visits indicated ongoing distress and anger over your interactions with neighbours.

31 Following a telephone consult with a psychiatrist in September 2021 and a case review in December the same year, Ballarat Health Services closed your case. On the very same day, you were brought in by police expressing suicidal ideation after being issued with an intervention order due to an ongoing dispute with a neighbour. You left Ballarat Hospital without being seen and there was no follow up, beyond the sending of a letter to your general practitioner. There is no further record of psychiatric treatment since that time.

32 In his evidence, Dr Carroll commended Ballarat Health Services for doing a very good and nuanced job of treating your mental health issues over the years, and stated that there is nothing to suggest the awful events of this case represent a failure of care on their part.

33 Your criminal history is very limited, but highly relevant. You were convicted at Ballarat Magistrates' Court in 2021 on a charge of making a threat to kill. You received a without-conviction adjourned bond for this offending. The incident in question occurred on 13 October 2020, when you became very agitated as a result of the brother of your next door neighbour on the other side, David Bull, with the knowledge of the owner, depositing some rubbish on the property. You approached Mr Bull in a highly agitated state and stated that you would throw petrol over his car and set it alight. On the same evening, you called 000 and reported that your neighbour was dumping rubbish and that you would kill him if police did not arrive within 10 minutes. You said you would get a bucket of petrol and throw it over the neighbour and set him on fire, killing him. Later on, the owner of the property, Laurie Bull, arrived home and heard you yelling outside about wanting justice. You said you would kill someone if they came onto your property. You had with you a bucket with petrol inside it and matches and a gas lighter in your pocket. When the police arrived, you yelled at them not to approach you and said you would kill your neighbour if you did not get justice. At a later police interview, you were cooperative and made full admissions. In explanation for your threats, you said you were frustrated at making reports to council and the police and not getting justice.

34 Twelve victim impact statements were filed in this case. These statements were by:

• Sarkis Aznavoorian - Friend and co-owner of 150 Wallaby Road

• Laurie Aznavoorian - Friend and co-owner of 150 Wallaby Road

35 Ms Finn and Joshua Bainbridge's statements were read by their respective authors. Ms Ellis, who appeared with Mr Bourke KC for the prosecution, then read the statements of Luke Bainbridge and Mrs Aznavoorian. The remaining statements were not read aloud in court. I have had regard to the contents of all of the victim impact statements.

36 During her plea in mitigation on your behalf, Ms Munster, who appeared on your behalf with Mr McGlone, appropriately noted that Mr Bainbridge's loss is a tragedy for all who knew and loved him. She acknowledged the courage and suffering of the victims of your crime, and correctly described the victim impact statements as heartbreaking.

37 Without descending into the details of the content of these statements, as a whole they painted a compelling picture of the almost unimaginable grief, fear and devastation brought about through the loss of a most loved husband, father, brother and friend. Mr Bainbridge was remembered as an intelligent, hard-working, loving, generous, considerate, mild-mannered, and community minded person. He was a master craftsman and a wonderful family man. The love shared by Mr Bainbridge with his wife of 44 years, Anita, is perhaps well reflected by the fact that they were accustomed to saying to each other, every single night before they went to sleep, 'I love you', and that she described them as having 'a rare gift of love, respect and trust.' You have robbed Mrs Bainbridge of experiencing that gift every day, though doubtless it lives on in her heart.

38 As touched on earlier in these reasons, Joshua Bainbridge was exposed to the complete horror of seeing his father set alight, and then attending to him in the minutes after this shocking event, where the seriousness and extent of his injuries would have been obvious. Many of the authors spoke of their recurrent unwelcome thoughts of the way in which you killed Mr Bainbridge, and their sadness regarding the pain and fear he must have felt as he faced his inevitable death. Many were present at hospital to witness Mr Bainbridge's final hours, and suffered great trauma as a result of witnessing his pain and distress. Many spoke of their sense of isolation, their ongoing fear of violent actions being inflicted upon them or other family members, and their sense of loss and disconnection from their previous lives. As Luke Bainbridge said, he became a different person on the day his father died. As he put it, 'it's as if I'm trapped in a depressing movie that has no ending. Nothing feels real and every moment seems empty.'

39 The victim impact statements paint a very eloquent portrait of the terrible loss and pain that the family of Mr Bainbridge have suffered as a direct result of your crime. Your heartless and cruel actions have damaged the family grievously and permanently.

40 I will take the profound loss and damage suffered by the many victims of your crime into account in the appropriate way in arriving at the sentence I will pass upon you. Again, as I did in person to the victims during the plea hearing, I commend and thank them for their courage in being able to put into words the devastating effects of your crime.

Psychiatric evidence and R v Verdins[3] considerations

41 Your mental health and its possible involvement in your offending was an important part of the plea conducted on your behalf. At the heart of the material relied on by your counsel was the report of Dr Carroll dated 1 April 2025, and his sworn evidence before me. I say at the outset that Dr Carroll is a highly qualified and respected forensic psychiatrist, and well known to me from previous experience. In his characteristic style, he carried out a very detailed assessment of you, and advanced carefully considered opinions which were relied upon on your behalf.

42 Dr Carroll examined you in person for 3½ hours at the Metropolitan Remand Centre on 5 December 2023. He examined you again by videolink, this time for 48 minutes, on 31 March 2025. He had been provided with substantial material to aid in his assessment, including the brief of evidence, the Ballarat Health Services records, and the Justice Health clinical file. In addition, he had a lengthy telephone conversation with your daughter, and spoke with the neuropsychologist who assessed you, Dr Laura Anderson.

43 In Dr Carroll's detailed consideration of your psychiatric history, he set out a number of occasions pre-dating the current offending on which you experienced persecutory delusions concerning the conduct of neighbours.

44 Dr Carroll set out the circumstances surrounding your current offending based upon the brief of evidence, as well as your self-report to him in 2023 about these events, which varied substantially from the objective material. In your 2023 account, you claimed that there had been an occasion in 2022 when Mr Bainbridge had been working on the property at 150 Wallaby Road with a bobcat and excavator. You had heard a bang and then had encountered Mr Bainbridge going through the shed of your property. After you had caught him red-handed, he moved some distance away and picked up a chainsaw which he then turned on and swung at you in a threatening manner.

45 In respect of the day of the murder, you claimed in your conversation with Dr Carroll that prior to your attack, you had observed Mr Bainbridge trespassing ten feet or so onto your property. When you discovered him, he went and collected his chainsaw and came back to the boundary fence and swung the operating chainsaw in your direction, threatening you with it, and saying, 'fuck off. You're a cunt'. You told Dr Carroll that you had not informed the police of this event, and could not explain why you had not.

46 You claimed that Mr Bainbridge's threats were what caused you to go into your house and contact the police. When help was not forthcoming, you said that you were upset, and said to yourself, 'I can't believe the cops aren't coming. That's the second time this guy's threatened me with the chainsaw.' You said you considered your options, and thought to yourself, 'I'm not going to let this guy get away with twice threatening me with a chainsaw....How can I defend myself against a guy with a chainsaw?' You said you concluded, 'The only thing I thought of was petrol. I can't let this guy go away and continue to think it's okay to threaten people with a chainsaw. I can't let it happen a third time. I felt I was out of options because the police outright refused to send anyone. I was left with no option I felt.' You indicated that you did not feel at imminent risk from Mr Bainbridge, but thought that he would likely threaten you again later in the day. You felt demoralised and let down by the non-action of the police. You told Dr Carroll that you felt that the police were not going to give you justice, so you had to step up and get justice done. As you went about the steps leading up to your attack upon Mr Bainbridge, you recalled thinking to yourself, 'if you do this, Stuart, you can spend the rest of your life in prison', but you made a decision that 'it was worth going to prison for, you've got to stop this guy'. You said you needed to teach Mr Bainbridge a lesson not to threaten people again. You didn't think he would die, but knew you would go to prison for leaving him with scars. As you threw fuel over Mr Bainbridge, including over his face, you said you knew what you were doing was wrong. You said that you were not in a state of acute fear at the time of setting him alight, but rather in a state of indignation and anger. You thought giving Mr Bainbridge permanent scars would teach him a lesson. You told Dr Carroll that Mr Bainbridge had threatened other people in the community in the past. You thought it was reasonable to deliberately injure Mr Bainbridge. You claimed that you acted in self-defence. It was either him or you. He would have killed you.

47 Dr Carroll took a further self-report from you in March 2025. You gave a similar account as to your motivation and understanding of your conduct as in the 2023 self-report. You claimed that Mr Bainbridge had been threatening people with chainsaws for years. You said you had no regrets for defending yourself from a crazy man with a chainsaw. You denied feeling guilty about what you had done. You expressed regret for Mr Bainbridge's death, but not for your actions.

48 Dr Carroll carried out an array of psychometric tests upon you, the results of which assisted in his eventual diagnosis. He assessed your cognitive capacity in 2023. Some deficits pointed to the need for more in-depth assessment. As summarised in Dr Carroll's report at [236], Dr Anderson subsequently reported that the results of a comprehensive neuropsychological assessment revealed a largely intact cognitive profile.

49 Dr Carroll was of the view that some of your childhood experiences, together with your sense of vulnerability due to your short stature, may have contributed to the development of a personality that is excessively dominated by concerns about both personal safety and justice, to a degree that is pathological. You have internalised dominant psychological scripts that you are prone to being bullied by others, may not be able to rely on protection from the police, and need to take matters into your own hands if you are to protect yourself adequately and ensure that appropriate justice is done. In adulthood, your roles as a single parent and breadwinner likely provided sufficient structure so that these personality issues did not cause major concerns for you. But challenges you faced in your thirties caused your vulnerabilities to come to the fore.

50 As is common in people with your paranoid personality type, you have had several episodes of psychotic symptoms requiring brief hospitalisation and treatment with anti-psychotics, and you show deficits in interpreting the behaviour and intentions of others, meaning that a vicious cycle has likely developed whereby your paranoid behaviour has led other people to treat you with evident suspicion, further fuelling your own suspicions as to their intent.

51 Dr Carroll also expressed concerns about the implications of your recent presentations with cardiovascular problems. Whilst your recent neuropsychological assessment does not indicate that you have dementia, since 2020:

there has been a coarsening of your already disordered personality, with increasing suspiciousness and egocentricity, further reduced capacity for empathy, and repeated instances of behaviour indicative of impaired judgment. Such coarsening of higher level cognitive functioning may in part be due to subtle brain changes due to underlying vascular disease.[4]

52 Dr Carroll indicated that in recent years, your preoccupation with the supposed misdeeds and threats by various neighbours has become more intense. You became especially sensitive to any perceived invasion of your property, which you saw as a serious threat to your personal safety. This was part of the background to the events of 14 March 2023.

53 Dr Carroll diagnosed you with Moderate Personality Disorder ICD-11 with prominent traits of suspiciousness and withdrawal. He said that this is a permanent condition which was present at the time of your offending.

At the time of the offending he was intensely preoccupied with concerns about both his own personal safety and 'justice.' This was attributable to the interplay between his long-standing condition (personality disorder), which remains in evidence at the current time, and the proximal triggers prior to the offending of:

• prior verbal conflict with Mr Bainbridge (leading to both fear of repetition of threatening behaviour by the victim and self-righteous anger);

• his belief that Mr Bainbridge had invaded his property earlier that day; and

• his sense that police were not going to come to his aid, after his calling them.

It is likely that, at the time of the offending conduct, he was in a state of mind that combined indignant anger, anxiety about his future safety (later that day) and a subjective need for retributive justice to be meted out to a man whom he felt had wronged him by threatening him and by trespassing on his property.

He described having a strong sense in the moments prior to the offence that justice ought to be done. His judgment was so impaired that he felt subjectively justified in taking an action that he expected to result in long-term scarring of the victim. His justificatory belief was that this would dissuade the victim from ever engaging in such threatening behaviour again.[5]

55 Dr Carroll expressed his opinion that your empathy deficits had a disinhibitory effect, facilitating your decision to deliberately attempt to permanently scar Mr Bainbridge. He stated that but for the presence of your personality disorder, it is very unlikely that you would have carried out the attack. It is a necessary part of the explanation for the profoundly impaired judgment and reasoning that motivated the offence, and the significant empathy deficit that disinhibited your behaviour. Thus, he opined, there is a close causal relationship between your condition and the offending.

56 Beyond the impact of your personality disorder on your perceptions, decision-making and actions at the time of the offence, Dr Carroll was of the view that your psychological condition is having no day-to-day impact on you in the relatively structured setting of imprisonment. There is little evidence that your condition has adversely affected your ability to cope in custody. Imprisonment would be unlikely to result in deterioration of your condition, but the manifestations of your condition may become more problematic in future.

57 In respect of rehabilitation, it is very unlikely that any shift in your pathological personality features can be achieved. Therefore, rehabilitation will be impeded. Your personality disorder would also be a risk factor for future offending.

58 In relation to the question of remorse, Dr Carroll stated that remorse can be usefully thought of as having three elements. Subjective guilt, shame and regret. Aside from regretting the actual death of Mr Bainbridge, when only serious injury was intended, he could find no evidence of these elements in your attitude. He stated that you had shown 'a striking, incongruent lack of emotional distress regarding your offence, evident at the time of the events and now.' Your attitude towards your offending is heavily coloured by your firmly held belief that you were under serious threat from Mr Bainbridge, and by your empathy deficits. You express regret for the death of Mr Bainbridge, but still assert justification for your actions. There is no evidence of significant subjective guilt or shame. You have little if any true insight into the gravity of your actions.

59 In his sworn evidence before me, Dr Carroll described your mental health history as lengthy and reasonably complex. Underlying it all is the personality disorder from which you have suffered since adolescence. You have also suffered episodes of psychotic illness in the context of a 'delusional disorder'. Dr Carroll reached the firm conclusion that you were not psychotic at the time of your offending, but that your personality disorder was relevant to you conduct. He explained the difference between your moderate personality disorder and those which are severe or mild. The features of your disorder include suspiciousness, a distorted appraisal of threat, and a low threshold for feeling endangered, encroached upon or bullied. Subjectively, you may feel that you are being mistreated or bullied when no objective information would support that. These false beliefs, however, are not delusional. Rather, they are a psychological manifestation of you personality disorder.

60 Dr Carroll posited the view, consistent with those expressed in his report, that there is a realistic connection between your personality disorder and the offending behaviour. As he put it, the offending 'only makes sense with reference to the personality disorder'.[6] It is a necessary part of the explanation. The connection stems from the pathological suspiciousness that led you to harbour a grievance and sense of threat from Mr Bainbridge, and your empathy deficit, which would have otherwise acted as an inhibitory mechanism.

61 Dr Carroll expressed the view that your personality disorder also played a similar contributory role in your conduct in connection with the 2020 event.

62 When asked to comment on whether you had genuine beliefs about the triggering events in this case, Dr Carroll prefaced his answer by conceding that psychiatrists are not lie detectors. However, his view was that you genuinely believed these things, and in support of that contention, he noted that one of the things that struck him was how much you had said in your interviews with him and the police which was contrary to your own interest.

63 Specifically, Dr Carroll stated his belief that at the time of your attack upon Mr Bainbridge, you did feel under threat, as well as feeling angry and diminished.

64 During lengthy cross-examination by Mr Bourke KC, Dr Carroll stood steadfastly to the opinions he had earlier expressed. He acknowledged discrepancies between claims you made to him in his interviews with you, and the objective facts, as well as what you had previously told the police. Notwithstanding this, he maintained that you genuinely believed that the events you related, of having been threatened by Mr Bainbridge on the day of the offending and earlier, had occurred.

65 Dr Carroll repeatedly indicated that his formulation of what occurred on the day in question was that you acted out of both fear, albeit misplaced, and anger. When it was put to him that his reliance upon your accounts of having acted in fear when you attacked Mr Bainbridge was misconceived, he denied the contention.

66 Dr Carroll pointed to the making of several telephone calls to the police, including the content of the call with Owen, as supporting the contention that you acted, in part, out of fear.

67 In questioning from me, Dr Carroll indicated that his conclusion about the role of fear in your conduct was based not just on what you told him, but on a synthesis of all of the data, including your phone calls to the police. He maintained that what you said in the call answered by Bacchus Marsh police was indicative of your fear, notwithstanding the fact that you said nothing at all in that call to expressly indicate fear, as opposed to anger. He made the same point in respect of your dealings with the police during the 2020 event.

68 Dr Carroll accepted that his formulation including fear in the mix of your emotions at the time of your offending was based to a significant extent on your self-reports, but stated that the formulation would not collapse if it turned out that your reports were knowingly false.

69 Dr Carroll did indicate that your personality disorder, including its resulting lack of empathy, would not have prevented you from having a full understanding of the consequences of pouring petrol over Mr Bainbridge and setting him alight.

Respective positions of the parties about your personality disorder and its role in your offending

70 In her written and oral submissions, Ms Munster submitted that there was a realistic connection between your personality disorder and your offending, such that your moral culpability is reduced. Your pre-existing mental illness had the effect of impairing your ability to make calm and rational choices and think clearly, enlivening Verdins principle 1, and hence leading to a diminution of your moral culpability.

71 In addition, it was submitted that your personality disorder had a bearing upon the question of just punishment and general and specific deterrence, both of which should be moderated, enlivening principles 3 and 4.

72 Ms Munster submitted that I should accept Dr Carroll's opinion that you were both fearful and angry at the time of your call to the police preceding the offending, and at the time of the offending itself. I should be slow to reject the opinion of Dr Carroll in this regard. As for your claim after the event that you had been threatened by Mr Bainbridge with a chainsaw, I should accept that although this was not borne out by objective facts, this was not a deliberate lie.

73 Ms Munster submitted that even were I not satisfied as to the involvement of fear in your conduct, if I accept that your offending could only be explained by reference to your personality disorder, then that should have the effect of reducing your moral culpability, pursuant to principle 1 of Verdins. She submitted that that acceptance by me would also lead to moderation of the roles of general and specific deterrence, while accepting that your mental condition, which still persists and will into the future, might properly have a counterbalancing effect on the need for protection of the community, and your prospects of rehabilitation.

74 Mr Bourke, on the other hand, submitted that it was unacceptable for Dr Carroll to accept your self-report as reflecting your honest perception of events, and then factor those perceptions into his assessment and analysis of the role of your personality disorder in the offending. The causal link proffered by Dr Carroll between the disorder and your offending was problematic and flawed. All that really remained was the matter of anger. I should not be satisfied that fear played any role in your conduct. Indeed, I should not be satisfied that your personality disorder played a role in your offending.

75 The prosecution's central contention was that the relevant Verdins limbs are not enlivened in your case. In the alternative, Mr Bourke submitted that if the Verdins limbs are to be given any weight in respect of moral culpability, general deterrence and specific deterrence, then that weight should be much reduced.

76 Mr Bourke conceded that even if Verdins principles were held to be inapplicable, the fact that you suffered from a personality disorder at the time of your crime would still be something to be taken into account in a general way, because you were not a normal-functioning person at the time.

77 At the heart of Dr Carroll's conclusion that there was a realistic connection between your personality disorder and your offending was his acceptance of the proposition that, as you perceived it, there had been an instance in the past in which Mr Bainbridge had trespassed upon your property and threatened you with a chainsaw, and an occasion in the immediate lead-up to your attack in which he had repeated that conduct, leading you to fear an attack by him upon you, later in the day. Those claims made by you to Dr Carroll, as he himself acknowledged, were not based in reality.

78 It is important to understand that based on the objective material, there was no truth to the claim you made to Dr Carroll of Mr Bainbridge having, on an occasion before 14 March 2023, been caught red-handed by you in your shed, and then having waved an operating chainsaw towards you in threatening fashion. Nor was there any truth to your claim that on 14 March, Mr Bainbridge again trespassed upon your property and threatened you with an operating chainsaw. Indeed, there is no evidence that on any occasion, on 14 March or previously, Mr Bainbridge behaved towards you in a threatening or inappropriate way.

79 For the purpose of arriving at his eventual formulation, to which, as I have said, he adhered strongly throughout his evidence, Dr Carroll considered, notwithstanding the lack of any objective evidence in support of your claims of previous threatening conduct by Mr Bainbridge, that you did, at the time of your offending, and at the time you described the events to Dr Carroll, have an honest though misguided belief in the truthfulness of these descriptions.

80 I do not accept that that is so. I do not accept that when you embarked upon your brutal criminal conduct on 14 March 2023, you had the perception or belief of having been threatened in the past, or earlier on that day, by Mr Bainbridge. Had there been any truth to your claims, I have no doubt that you would have made them when you spoke to the police. Although you did claim to the police that you had acted in self-defence, and falsely claimed in the BWC conversation that Mr Bainbridge had threatened you with a chainsaw immediately prior to your making the phone calls to police, at no time did you suggest to the police that Mr Bainbridge had threatened you with a chainsaw during a previous incident.

81 When the formulation advanced by Dr Carroll in justification for his conclusion as to the connection between your personality disorder and your crime is considered, it is perfectly clear that fear is at the heart of it. It is equally clear that Dr Carroll's acceptance, at face value, of your description of your feelings on that day, and your perception of events which had occurred that day and previously, was integral to his formulation.

82 I consider, as asserted by the prosecution, that Dr Carroll's formulation of the link between your personality disorder and your offending is flawed, because he acted upon material which was unsatisfactory. There was no truth to the claims you made to Dr Carroll about Mr Bainbridge's previous threatening conduct, and nor do I accept that you honestly believed there was any truth to the claims. I am satisfied that you fabricated those events in order to make your conduct seem more understandable, or to make yourself feel better about what you had done, or for some other reason.

83 I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the human emotion underlying your terrible conduct was anger. I do not accept that you were ever in fear. As to why you became angry to the extreme extent you did, in the absence of any provocation, and why you did not pull yourself back from the brink of your shocking crime, there is no question that your personality disorder played a very important role. For many years, you have had a disordered personality which has caused you difficulties. You were, and are, a person with a sad and unfortunate view of the world. For some years leading up to the critical events, your mental health was worsening, and your resentment and anger apparently found particular focus in petty grievances with neighbours, based more in your imagination than in reality. The letter from your daughter tendered on your behalf indicated that your problems with neighbours was one of the important factors in her decision to leave home at the age of 16. She is now in her 40s.

84 On the day in question, I am satisfied that you took exception to the noise that was being created quite unavoidably by Mr Bainbridge and his son as they went about the lawful task which had been assigned to them of clearing the property next door. You saw this as an unwarranted interference with your quiet enjoyment of your solitary bush block. You contacted the police in the belief and hope that you could shut Mr Bainbridge down, and when met with no satisfactory response from the police, as you saw it, your indignant anger overcame your clear understanding of the wrongfulness of your intended actions, and you committed murder. When you acted as you did, you were far from being a normal person with normally regulated emotions, and the normal feelings of empathy towards your fellow man. You were a sad, angry, embittered person who felt he had had enough, and was going to strike a blow, no matter the consequences.

85 In this sense, there undoubtedly was a causal link between your personality disorder and your offending, but not in the way posited by Dr Carroll, and relied upon by Ms Munster. Your moral culpability was not the same as would be the case with a normal-functioning individual. However, it was still high. You fully understood that to set fire to another human being, as, disturbingly, you had threatened to do only three years earlier, was a shocking and unjustifiable thing which would result in terrible consequences for your victim and a long term of imprisonment for you. You had been able to negotiate the challenges of your life to that point without ever having surrendered to your extreme emotions. You had shown yourself to be generally capable of dealing with your personality deficiencies in a way which complied with the requirements of a civilised society, but on this occasion, unrestrained by normal human empathy, you surrendered to your extreme anger, and committed an unthinkable crime.

86 As I have indicated, I do consider that your moral culpability is reduced due to the connection of your personality disorder with the offending, but the reduction is not as substantial as it may have been. You were not psychotic at the time, and had a full understanding of the nature and seriousness of your conduct, and the devastating effect it would inflict upon the life of Mr Bainbridge. You had been able, generally, to avoid infractions of the criminal law over the years, notwithstanding your personality disorder. Although your crime was not long in the planning, yours was not a momentary and ill-considered response to a frightening or challenging event which unfolded suddenly before you. Rather, it was the culmination of a welling of resentment and anger in your heart which had commenced the previous day, when you had made known to Ms Guerin your anger towards Mr Bainbridge and his son. Your anger caused you to contact the police, and when you were dissatisfied with their response, you embarked upon a number of discrete steps towards your ultimate aim of maiming Mr Bainbridge and teaching him a lesson he would never forget. You had ample opportunity to reflect upon your intended course, including as you gathered the items which you would ultimately use in your terrible crime. You chose not to do so.

87 In my view, the other limbs of Verdins relied upon by your counsel - specifically, limbs 3 and 4 - are not enlivened in your case. Sad and limited though your life may have been, burdened by the personality disorder from which you suffer, there is no reason why you should not be viewed as an appropriate vehicle for a sentence with a general deterrence aspect to it. Members of the community who might be minded to engage in the sort of outrageous conduct to which you descended on 14 March 2023 must understand that such behaviour will be met with a strong response from the Court.

88 As for specific deterrence, the circumstances of this crime, those of your prior conviction, the enduring nature of your personality disorder, and your complete lack of remorse in this case, dictate that there is a strong need for you to be deterred from future criminal offending.

89 You entered your plea of guilty to this charge on 12 February 2025, shortly after the case conference which was held in this case. Until that time, your case had been listed for trial, and your defence, as indicated in the defence response, was lack of murderous intent. You had offered to plead guilty to manslaughter some time before the case conference, but not surprisingly, that offer was rejected.

90 Ms Munster submitted that your plea of guilty should be considered to have been entered 'relatively early'.[7] Whilst acknowledging the absence of remorse in your case, she submitted that your plea of guilty facilitated the course of justice, saved considerable resources, and had considerable utilitarian value.

91 I do not accept that your plea of guilty should be considered to have been entered relatively early. You were charged with murder on 14 March 2023. Almost two years passed before your plea of guilty, during which time you were maintaining your innocence of murder. The case had been set down for trial in March 2025. Preparatory cross-examination had been conducted on your behalf of witnesses including Joshua Bainbridge, the son of Mr Bainbridge and an eye-witness to your crime. Your continuing denial of guilt for almost two years after your crime no doubt caused the loved ones of Mr Bainbridge ongoing anxiety and distress.

92 I do take into account your plea of guilty, and the time at which it was entered. There was some utilitarian value to the plea, including the saving of the substantial resources required in conducting a trial in this court, and belatedly, some easing of the ongoing pain and concern of the family members of Mr Bainbridge. I take these matters into account in your favour. In your case, the weight to be attributed to your plea of guilty, particularly in light of the absence of any remorse, is not as great as would often be the case. Having said that, the s 6AAA declaration[8] I will make in passing sentence upon you will make it clear that I have significantly reduced your sentence in light of your plea of guilty.

93 In respect of the obvious lack of remorse in your case, I note that the absence of remorse is not an aggravating feature, but rather, represents the absence of what might otherwise have been a significant mitigating feature.

94 Ms Munster submitted on your behalf that, objectively grave though your crime was, it was a crime the objective circumstances of which are in the middle of the range of seriousness. In support of that contention, she noted many possible aggravating circumstances which were not present in this case.

95 The somewhat optimistic submission of your counsel as to the objective seriousness of your crime can be readily rejected. The recitation of some of the aggravating features of your offending set out in Ms Munster's own written submissions, along with other matters already dealt with in these reasons, indicate that your crime was towards the very upper reaches of the spectrum of seriousness.

96 As submitted by the prosecution, you made a deliberate and calculated decision to initiate an entirely unprovoked attack upon Mr Bainbridge. Your attack was aggressive, incredibly violent, and ruthless. The manner in which you chose to attack your completely innocent and unsuspecting victim was fairly described by the prosecution as 'barbarous.' As was stated by the Court of Appeal in Hopkins v The Queen:[9]

[I]t would be a futile exercise to attempt to imagine a death that more appals the conscience than death by burning. It is a form of death likely, in common knowledge, to be accompanied by extreme pain...In Director of Public Prosecutions v Alipek, Nettle J, as he then was, aptly described it as a form of death 'so brutal as to be beyond the understanding of most civilised human beings'.[10]

97 Mr Bainbridge remained conscious throughout the horrible ordeal you deliberately inflicted upon him, and for some time thereafter, and no doubt experienced great pain and emotional suffering as he lived through his remaining hours.

98 The absence of some of the possible aggravating features in the case of your crime, as outlined by Ms Munster, says nothing at all about the seriousness of your offending. Your crime is to be judged on all of its circumstances, including the aggravating circumstances present, rather than on the basis of those circumstances which are absent.

99 On any sensible analysis, the circumstances of your crime dictate its extreme seriousness, and it could not possibly be considered to be in the middle of the range. It is right towards the very top.

100 Murder is a category 1 offence pursuant to s 3 of the Sentencing Act 1991 ('the Act'). Section 5(2G) of the Act requires the sentencing court to impose a term of imprisonment when sentencing for this crime.

101 As your crime was committed after 1 February 2018, the standard sentence scheme applies to the offence of murder of which you have been found guilty. The standard sentence for murder is 25 years.

102 Pursuant to s 5A(1)(b) of the Act, the period of 25 years is the sentence for an offence of murder that, taking into account only the objective factors affecting the relative seriousness of that offence, is in the middle of the range of seriousness.

103 The standard sentence scheme was the subject of consideration by the Court of Appeal in the decision of Brown v The Queen ('Brown').[11]

104 I have had regard to the standard sentence for murder as one of the matters to be taken into account in arriving at the appropriate sentence for you on the charge of murder by the process of instinctive synthesis. In doing so, I have applied the law as explained in Brown.

105 I have endeavoured, in these detailed reasons for sentence, to comply with the requirements set out in s 5B(4) and (5) of the Act.

106 In arriving at the sentence I will shortly pass upon you, I can indicate that I have taken into account all of the matters I am required to consider under s 5(2) of the Act, including the standard sentence for murder. I have taken into account any mitigating factors which apply to your crime. By the process of instinctive synthesis, I have arrived at the sentence I will announce.

107 The requirement in s 5(2)(b) of the Act for me to have regard to current sentencing practices remains, but s 5B(2)(b) dictates that I:

must only have regard to sentences previously imposed for the offence as a standard sentence offence in relation to the sentencing for which this section applied.

108 This change in the law does not preclude me from having regard to sentencing principles established in previous cases.[12]

109 Both the prosecution and the defence provided to the Court lists of cases involving the use of fire to kill or cause serious injury. I have considered all of the cases brought to my attention by counsel. I note that several of the decisions concerned sentences passed before the standard sentence scheme came into effect.

110 I made the observation at the plea hearing, and I repeat now, that it is a very disturbing thing that the parties were able to come up with lists of cases where people have killed other people by setting fire to them. Of course, each offender ought to be sentenced on the unique circumstances of his or her offence (including personal circumstances), and I have in no way considered the apparent prevalence of murder or killing by fire as an aggravating factor in your sentence, albeit of course that the use of fire to carry out murder is a very serious method of killing.

111 In terms of the way that I should use the comparative cases to inform the sentence in this case, Mr McGlone submitted that the circumstances here are different from those in most fire cases, where there is often a real or desired romantic relationship at play, meaning that this case has the same mechanism as comparable fire cases, but without comparable circumstances.[13]

112 I do not accept that contention. Many cases of murder or assault by fire have no domestic or relationship connection. In any event, I do not accept that the absence of such a connection would take away from the seriousness of the crime. I refer to my earlier comments at [98] of these reasons.

113 I have had regard to sentences passed in previous cases of murder as a standard sentence offence in understanding current sentencing practices. I have also had regard to sentencing principles canvassed in other cases.

114 I make it clear that no individual sentence passed in any other case is in any way a precedent for the sentence I must pass.

115 As I have already indicated, the murder which you carried out was exceedingly grave, and at the upper end of the spectrum of seriousness. Colin Bainbridge was a loving and decent family man who, in the company of one of his sons, was in the process of carrying out a lawful task. He did nothing at all to warrant your wrath. Having selected the vicious and barbarous method of attack of using fire aided by an accelerant, a method of assault and murder almost beyond human contemplation, you set him alight, in the knowledge, and with the intention, that he would suffer shocking pain and really serious injury, including permanent and severe disfigurement. Having killed Mr Bainbridge in that entirely heartless way, you maintained your actions were justified, and amazingly, continue to do so, notwithstanding your plea of guilty. You have shown no remorse at all.

116 To my mind, the important purposes for which sentence must be passed on you are just punishment, denunciation, general deterrence, specific deterrence, and protection of the community.

117 Notwithstanding your personality disorder, it is clear that strong punishment constituted by a lengthy term of imprisonment is required to reflect the great seriousness of your crime. Nothing less would be an appropriate response, as was conceded by Ms Munster, who acknowledged that both the head sentence and non-parole period in your case would need to be very substantial. As conceded by Ms Munster, Mr Bainbridge died an horrific death. His loss is a tragedy for all those who knew and loved him, and the community in Wheatsheaf of which he was an important part. You are answerable for this tragedy.

118 The sentence must communicate in clear terms this Court's condemnation and disapproval of your violent and extreme conduct. As was said by the Court of Appeal in Fares v The King:[14]

[I]t was of primary importance that the sentence imposed by the judge constitute an unambiguous condemnation, by the Court, and as such by our society, of the total and utter disregard displayed by the applicant...for the sanctity of human life, which is the most fundamental value of our community.[15]

119 In respect of general deterrence, the sentence I pass must bring it clearly home to any person who might be minded to carry out a murderous attack upon another person, through the most malevolent means of the use of an accelerant and a flame source, that such conduct will be met with very strong punishment.

120 In your case, it is clear that you must be deterred personally from any future violent actions to which you may be disposed. Three years before you murdered Mr Bainbridge, you threatened to kill another entirely innocent person with the use of fire. And whether or not you actually intended to act on that threat on that earlier occasion, you had taken steps towards it's fulfillment, by having in your possession the necessary materials at the time the police attended. The personality disorder which, as I have concluded, had a causal connection with your offending, will probably always be with you. You must be deterred from ever again surrendering to its influence.

121 As for the protection of the community, that purpose will largely be met by the imposition of the long sentence of imprisonment which is inevitable for offending of this seriousness. However, protection of the community remains an important consideration.

122 In respect of rehabilitation, I do not entirely ignore this as a sentencing consideration, but I must say that there is no reason for optimism in your case. You are, as I have already noted, entirely lacking in remorse, and still try to justify what you did, which is quite troubling. If you maintain your current feelings about what you did, your prospects of rehabilitation will be very poor. Additionally, two aspects of your mental condition/state reflect the limited weight to be placed on rehabilitation in your case. First, your empathy deficit, which is a feature of your personality disorder, will likely inhibit your progress towards rehabilitation, because it was disinhibitory to your terrible actions in this case, and likely shapes your ongoing perception and appreciation of the significance of these actions. Secondly, Dr Carroll opined that you are showing early signs of vascular dementia, which might well unfold in the next decade or so, which will reduce your ability to rehabilitate and ever live independently in the future. Hence, it is obvious in this case that the desirability of rehabilitation must very much take a back seat to more important sentencing objectives.

123 In terms of the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on your experience of imprisonment, Ms Munster submitted that prisons were still operating under COVID-19 restrictions and lockdowns when you were first remanded in March 2023, and that this is relevant for sentencing,[16] albeit conceding that the impact was fairly modest. [17] Mr Bourke submitted that if there is any consideration given to this issue, it should have little effect. [18]

124 In my view, the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic had largely passed by the time of your incarceration, and in the context of the period of time you will be required to serve under the sentence I pass, COVID-19 considerations are of very little significance.

Question whether term of life imprisonment appropriate and length of NPP

125 The Crown indicated at the outset of the plea hearing that it would not make a submission that a sentence of life imprisonment was warranted in this case. Notwithstanding that fact, I indicated to Ms Munster that the question of a possible life sentence was a live issue in my mind. She submitted that the objective and subjective circumstances of your case can be distinguished from cases in which sentences of life imprisonment have been imposed. She submitted that a sentence of life imprisonment would not be warranted.

126 Although I think that a head sentence of life imprisonment may well be within the range of appropriate sentences in your case, having carefully reflected on the circumstances, including the fact that the prosecution did not urge the imposition of a life sentence, I have decided that your case can appropriately be met with a sentence measured in years. In light of the importance of the principle of parsimony which underlies the Act,[19] I will not impose a life sentence upon you.

127 Upon the passing of a head sentence in excess of 20 years upon you, I am required by s 11A(4)(b) of the Act, unless I consider it is in the interests of justice not to do so, to fix a non-parole period of at least 70% of the head sentence. The head sentence in your case will exceed 20 years.

128 The High Court in Power v The Queen,[20] explained the purpose of parole as:

to provide for mitigation of the punishment of the prisoner in favour of his rehabilitation through conditional freedom, when appropriate, once the prisoner has served the minimum time that a judge determines justice requires that he must serve having regard to all the circumstances of his offence.[21]

129 As Winneke P explained in R v Mulvale:[22]

The fixing of a minimum period is no sinecure but requires discrete consideration of those factors which exist in the material before the court which bear upon the question of when the prisoner should be eligible for mitigation of confinement and, in turn, rehabilitated under conditional supervision.

130 The non-parole period I will pass on you will itself be very substantial, and will exceed the minimum period arrived at by the application of s 11A(4)(b). I indicate that I am conscious of the ratio of the non-parole period to the head sentence, and that it will represent about 77% of the head sentence. The assessment of the length of a non-parole period will depend on all of the circumstances of each case. I will fix as the non-parole period the shortest term of imprisonment which, in my view, would meet the needs of justice in this case. It is important that the non-parole period adequately reflect the gravity of your crime and meet the important sentencing purposes in this case.

131 In arriving at the head sentence and non-parole period, I have had regard to all of the matters relied upon on your behalf in the written and oral submissions, including matters to which I have not specifically referred in these reasons.

132 I acknowledge that the length of the non-parole period I will fix will mean that there would be a considerable prospect that that you will die in custody, although I was informed that your father is still alive in his 90s and in reasonable health. At the very least, there is no doubt that you would be very elderly before you would be entitled to apply for parole. That is an unavoidable consequence of the extreme gravity of your crime, and your age when you committed it.

133 Stuart Leslie Lee, for the murder of Colin Bainbridge, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for 35 years.

134 I fix a period of 27 years during which you will not be eligible to be released on parole.

135 I declare a period of 835 days up to and including yesterday, 25 June 2025, as being a period already served under this sentence. I direct that the fact of the making of that declaration and its details be noted in the records of the Court.

136 I state pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 that, but for your plea of guilty, I would have sentenced you to be imprisoned for life with a non-parole period of 35 years.

[1] Mr Watt is the cousin of your father, Kenneth Lee.

[2] Since repealed by the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022.

[3] R v Verdins & Ors [2007] VSCA 102 ('Verdins').

[4] Report of Dr Carroll, 1 April 2025, [248] ('Carroll report').

[5] Carroll report (n 4) [254]-[256].

[7] Outline of Defence Submissions for Plea, 17 April 2025 [57]; Transcript 150.

[8] Sentencing Act 1991 ('the Act').

[9] [2015] VSCA 174, [28] per Redlich JA, with whose judgment Ashley JA agreed (citation omitted).

[11] [2019] VSCA 286 (Maxwell P, Priest, Kaye, T Forrest and Emerton JJA).

[12] R v Brown [2018] VSC 742 [111] (Champion J).

[14] [2024] VSCA 108 (Orr, Kaye and T Forrest JJA).

[16] Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169.

[19] Section 5(3).

[20] [1974] HCA 26; (1974) 131 CLR 623 (Barwick CJ, Menzies, Stephen and Mason JJ).

[22] (Victorian Court of Appeal, Winneke P, 20 February 1996).