DPP v Marr-Reid [2025] VCC 1264

1. I turn now to your personal circumstances which were outlined in defence submissions and various reports and character references tendered on your behalf, as well as a pre-sentence report that I ordered. I note that there are some inconsistencies between the various documents.
2. The defence reports consisted of a psychological report prepared by Andrea McNeill dated 25 January 2025 and an initial neuropsychological report and two addendum reports prepared by Martin Jackson dated 27 December 2024, 29 January 2025 and 22 January 2025 respectively.
3. Mr Jackson consulted with you in person for two-and-a-half hours on 10 December 2024 and administered various tests.
4. Ms McNeill consulted with you via video conference on 20 and 21 January 2025 for a total of three-and-a-half hours and also administered a variety of tests.
5. 27 The six-character references were written by three of your sisters, two of your brothers and your ex-brother-in-law.
6. You were born on in February 1999 and are 26 years of age. You were born in Mitcham, Victoria, and are the middle child in a sibship of nine.
7. Your father is variously described as suffering from schizophrenia and bipolar disorder (defence submissions) or schizophrenia and borderline personality disorder (Corrections assessment). In any event he has been in receipt of Centrelink benefits for your entire life. Your mother worked as a sex worker at a Boronia brothel for most of your childhood, a fact which was not hidden from you. Your father was an alcoholic, and both your parents were drug users. They stopped using amphetamines shortly before you were born but openly used cannabis in front of you and your siblings at home.
8. Your family moved to Boronia when you were four years old and stayed there for about five years. This time of your life was particularly tumultuous. You and your siblings often witnessed your father being physically and verbally violent towards your mother. You recall police and ambulance attending your home on occasions and your father being restrained and removed. You also remember your father being tied to a bed in a mental health facility. The Department of Human Services became involved, and you and your siblings were removed from your parents' care for about three to four weeks in this period.
9. When you were eight to 10 years old your parents separated because of your father's violence and your mother then re partnered. Your new family moved to Belgrave where you lived until you were 15. The six-bedroom home in Belgrave was often noisy and chaotic. Your youngest sibling was born there and two of your sisters had children whilst living there. By the time you were 14 there were as many as 18 to 20 people living at the address, including your siblings' partners. There was often conflict and there was little opportunity for you to receive attention and emotional support.
10. Unfortunately, also when you were mid-teens, your mother died of lung cancer. You told Ms McNeill that you were very close to her and that she was your main support person. After she died you became increasingly aggressive towards your siblings who consequently asked you to move out and live with your father, which you did.
11. You and your father lived in a one-bedroom rented shed in the backyard of your landlord. Your father slept on a bed whilst you slept on a makeshift bed fashioned out of cushions and blankets on the floor. There was no plumbing, but you were allowed to use an outdoor toilet and shower in the main house. You lived like this for about two years before moving into a separate tent in the backyard. After the tent was destroyed by a tree branch you and your father moved into a two-bedroom unit in Ferntree Gully, where you are still living.
12. You found school very difficult, behaviourally and academically. You repeated kindergarten and when you started school made few friends and were often in fights. You went into Year 7 at Upwey High School despite not being able to read or write. Upon realising you had learning difficulties, the school referred you to a school for children with intellectual disabilities called Heatherwood. Defence submissions indicate you left Heatherwood when you were 14 and have had no other formal education. Mr Jackson, on the other hand, noted source material indicating you went to Heatherwood at a later time, specifically between 15 April 2015 and 1 March 2017, when you were 16 to 18 years old. Either way, you cannot read or write although you can recognise traffic signs.
13. After leaving school you alternated between working and being on the disability support pension for mental health and intellectual disability reasons and more recently because in March 2024 you lost a portion of your right index finger while tree lopping. You worked at an aquarium factory on and off for five years maintaining and installing aquariums. You tried cabinet making but had difficulties because you could not read or write. You then had a series of manual jobs including gutter cleaning, roof tiling, tree lopping and restumping houses. You are pursuing compensation for your finger injury and hope to use any payment to start an excavation business.
14. In addition to his ongoing mental health issues, your father suffers from severe emphysema which affects his ability to perform simple household tasks. The two of you are mutually reliant emotionally and in activities of daily living. I note that he came to both days of your plea hearing. You assist him with his self-care and do household duties such as cooking, cleaning and shopping. He and your sister assist you in community aspects of daily living.
15. You have had only one romantic relationship which was when you were aged 16 and it lasted for about eight months. You told Ms McNeill that you have limited social connections and spend most days at home with your father. Although you report conflict with your siblings, it appears they are doing their best to support you as two of them attended court at your plea hearing and five of them prepared character references for you. Your sister Amber describes you as a strong, persistent and very caring person. Your sister Rhiannan says that you are an amazing uncle to her five children, particularly her 16-year-old son who has an intellectual disability. She says that you have a big heart and are always willing to help and support other people going through a tough time.
16. You have a passion for reptiles, birds and rats and talked about your collection with extreme pride and enthusiasm to Ms McNeill. In their character references, all your siblings describe your love of animals as one of your most admirable qualities. And today I was provided with a letter from the manager of a pet store who indicated that she had employed you on a casual basis, starting on 21 August, and that she believed with your passion and extensive knowledge of fish and birds and your friendly nature, that you would be an asset to her company.
17. According to your siblings your offending has had a huge impact on your mental health. Your sister Amber said that you even listed your birds for sale in anticipation of committing suicide.
18. In terms of substance use, you told Mr Jackson that you started smoking cannabis at around 13 to 14 years of age and that you use up to one gram per day, or more if you are having a 'shit day'. You said that you also smoke up to 40 cigarettes per day, but do not drink alcohol or use any other illicit drugs.
19. As for your mental health you told Mr Jackson that you have been hearing voices and experiencing 'flip outs' for some time. You said that you started experiencing episodes of intense anger a couple of years after you started smoking cannabis. You told him that you have been diagnosed with schizophrenia, but he could not confirm this diagnosis and considered your cannabis use may be at least partly to blame for your symptoms. Elsewhere in the materials your symptoms have been attributed or possibly attributed to you emulating your father. You are not seeing a psychiatrist because you say that you cannot afford one.
20. Mr Jackson noted that in order to attend Heatherwood you would have had to be assessed as having a mild intellectual disability, meaning a full-scale IQ of less than 70. After administering his tests, he found that you have a mild to moderate intellectual disability. He noted that although your full-scale IQ was 53, there was a significant disparity between the individual components of that overall score making it necessary to look at the individual components to gain a full understanding of how your intellectual disability affects your daily functioning and your driving in particular. Of relevance, your verbal comprehension score of 70 is in the borderline range, meaning you are relatively good at general knowledge and vocabulary and may impress people as less cognitively disabled than you actually are. However, your perceptual reasoning and processing speed index scores are in the extremely low range, being 54 and 50 respectively. This is significant because they are both very important skills for driving.
21. Mr Jackson also noted that you displayed attentional difficulties which appeared to affect your performance on various tests. He considered these traits to be strongly suggestive of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and provisionally diagnosed you with this condition.
22. Ms McNeil assessed you as having post-traumatic stress disorder arising from the collision, likely complex post-traumatic stress disorder arising from your dysfunctional childhood, likely autism spectrum disorder, and traits such as fear of abandonment, mood instability, a tendency to misread social cues and have interpersonal conflicts and difficulties with intimacy consistent with borderline personality disorder.

Objective Gravity of your offending and moral culpability

1. The objective gravity of offending and an offender's moral culpability are of central importance in determining any sentence. In simple terms, how bad was your offending and how much are you to blame?
2. Causing the death of another person by driving dangerously is inherently serious. In other words, anyone who commits that offence has committed a serious offence. The sentencing mandates applicable to the offence make that perfectly clear as does its maximum penalty of 10 years.
3. That said, the offence covers a wide range of conduct from momentary inattention to intentional risk-taking behaviour but always involving a serious breach of the proper management or control of a vehicle so as to be in reality, not just speculatively, potentially dangerous to others.[5]
4. As I have already explained, the dangerousness of your driving comprises your inattention and consequent failure to give way. Whilst the precise duration of your inattention is not known, it is agreed that it was brief, even if not momentary, and further, that both the objective gravity of your offending and your moral culpability are low.
5. When Mr Jackson was first asked to consider the effect of your intellectual disability on your offending, he relied on the account you gave to him and in your record of interview as to what happened. As I have already said I do not accept that account. Mr Jackson was subsequently asked to give his opinion based on the version you gave at the scene, that you did not see the motorbike until the last second, and even though you hit the brakes it was too late to stop. His fundamental opinion was that your intellectual disability would have had a significant effect in both scenarios.
6. He noted that attention to visual detail, processing speed, visual logical thinking, motor sequencing and attentional and impulse control are all very important skills for driving, and you have major deficits in all those areas. Your impairments mean - and I am now referring to Mr Jackson's addendum report - that:
   • Your attention to visual detail is poor and you will miss important details in your environment.
   • You will be slow to process information, and even with basic processing are likely to make multiple errors.
   • You are distractable and make rule-break errors so that you will lose track of what you are doing and will not necessarily follow rules.
   • You are disinhibited and will act impulsively.
7. Mr Jackson further noted that your perceptual impairments would be exacerbated on unfamiliar roads, which it appears that this was, and at night, which this also was, when there would be less meaningful and clear information for you to rely on. Specifically, he believed your impairments would have affected your ability to see the motorbike in the first place and then to respond in a timely manner. He estimated it would take you twice as long as the average person to process and react to information. He therefore considered your intellectual disability to be causally linked to your failure to give way to Mr Burkett. I accept that opinion, and Mr Jackson's further opinion that you would have been completely unaware that your intellectual disability was affecting you in that way.
8. Given the evidence of Mr Jackson, I am satisfied, not just that your moral culpability is reduced because of your intellectual disability, I am satisfied that it is substantially and materially reduced. The prosecution conceded that I could be so satisfied provided I found the necessary causal link, which I have. This means both that Limb 1 of Verdins is enlivened, but more significantly, that I am no longer required to impose a term of imprisonment on you. In other words, I have found that one of the exceptions to the mandatory sentencing regime is made out.
9. To be clear, I have found that your moral culpability, which would have been low in any event, to be even further reduced because of your intellectual disability. Given that finding, there seems little point in considering whether the principles in Bugmy also apply to reduce your moral culpability.

1. In arriving at an appropriate sentence for you, I must have regard to current sentencing practices which may be gleaned from statistics or sentences imposed in other cases or both.
2. Since the offence of dangerous driving causing death was introduced into the Crimes Act in 2004 its penalty has changed several times. First, in March 2008 the maximum penalty was increased from five to 10 years. Then on 28 October 2018 it became subject to the mandatory sentencing regime, to which I have already referred.[6] Any consideration of statistics or sentences imposed in other cases of dangerous driving causing death must take into account where they fit in the chronology of penalties applicable to the offence.
3. Even prior to mandatory sentencing our Court of Appeal made it clear that

non-custodial sentences for offences of dangerous driving causing death should be exceptional and that courts were, in essence, sentencing too leniently for the offence.[7] Only cases of low moral culpability such as momentary inattention or misjudgement were regarded as suitable for non-custodial dispositions. As I have said, even if one of the exceptions to the mandatory sentencing regime is made out, it may still be appropriate to impose a custodial sentence on ordinary sentencing principles. 4. I have had regard to the most recent Sentencing Advisory Council statistics for the offence and the cases to which I was referred by the prosecution, noting that at least one of them was prior to the application of mandatory sentencing to the offence. Of course, no two sentences are ever truly the same. Ultimately my duty is to impose a just and appropriate sentence on you in the unique circumstances of this case.

Impact of your offending and circumstances of your victims

1. I am required to take into account the impact of your offending on your victims and their personal circumstances, and I have already referred to the victim impact statement of Mr Burkett's daughter.[8] As I said during the plea, it is a pity that I do not have more information about Mr Burkett. Even though your moral culpability is low, the fact remains that your driving caused the death of an innocent person. That Mr Burkett died unnecessarily in this way will profoundly affect all those who loved him.

1. You are entitled to a significant discount in your sentence for your plea of guilty which I treat as an early plea given you offered to plead to that charge at the committal mention stage.
2. In pleading guilty you facilitated the course of justice and took legal responsibility for your crimes. Moreover, I accept that your plea of guilty is accompanied by genuine remorse which entitles you to an even greater discount. You were remorseful at the scene, and I accept that you have been remorseful ever since.

1. I turn now to your character and risk of reoffending. You have no prior criminal history or even driving history. You were dealt with for some offences when you were 14 years old, but they are of no consequence. Your lack of criminal history is surprising given your background and cognitive profile, which according to Mr Jackson is associated with a high risk of future offending. Mr Jackson also remarked that as far as your driving is concerned it could be argued that you were 'an accident waiting to happen'.
2. You are to be commended for keeping out of trouble and also for seeking out and engaging in paid employment despite all the challenges you have faced.
3. Your siblings all speak favourably of you in their character references and emphasise your deep remorse.
4. It is concerning that you have a longstanding cannabis dependence, and you must try to address this to have the best chance of achieving a worthwhile and fulfilling life. Although you obviously feel that cannabis assists you to cope, and indeed claim that you are in the process of having it legally prescribed for you, any illicit use is almost certainly not helping your mental health or your cognitive functioning.
5. I will be making an order against your licence and VicRoads will no doubt also review your licence given this incident and the three reports of Mr Jackson which should be conveyed to it. And I trust they will be conveyed to it by someone involved in this case, that is, either of the lawyers or indeed the police. I know you enjoyed having your licence and that it gave you a sense of freedom, but you will have to resist the temptation to drive when you are not entitled to. If you do not you may end up receiving a term of imprisonment, or worse, injure or kill someone else.
6. Significantly, Mr Jackson notes that you have the capacity to be actively involved in counselling and to learn new skills and that appropriate assessment and treatment may result in significant improvement in your behaviour and cognition. He considered that a Justice Plan, in conjunction with an NDIS plan, would be the best way of ensuring you get the help that you need.
7. Ms McNeil assessed you as being at moderate risk of reoffending if you do not engage in appropriate psychological interventions and alcohol and drug counselling. Similarly, the pre-sentence report authors assessed you as being a moderate risk of general re-offending, largely due to your currently untreated mental health issues and cannabis use.
8. As best I can determine, taking into account your lack of criminal history so far, including since this offence, your relative youth, your remorse and the support you have from your family, I consider your prospects of rehabilitation to be reasonable so long as you engage with treatment.

1. I turn now to the burden of imprisonment. Ms Ashmore is the clinical director, Adult Health Services of Justice Health. She gave evidence, in essence, that upon your reception into custody you would be assessed and all necessary mental health services would be provided, although she acknowledged that effective counselling would be more difficult in custody. She could not speak to how your intellectual disability would be managed specifically as that was a matter for Corrections.
2. Ms McNeill gave evidence that you would be extremely vulnerable in prison due to your intellectual disability and mental health and personality traits. Although you would cope with routine you would struggle with the inevitable changes in routine that would occur, and your mental health would deteriorate. She believed you would be seen as aggressive and socially withdrawn and would be behaviourally managed, such as being put in isolation, rather than treated, and further, that you could be easily manipulated. Based on her own experience of working within the prison system many years ago and treating prisoners currently, she said there is a vast difference between the mental health treatment theoretically available in prison and that which is actually delivered due, at least in part, to significant waitlists.
3. Similarly, Mr Jackson's evidence was that you will be easily overwhelmed in prison and fail to understand instructions and interactions and will almost certainly get into trouble with other prisoners and staff. He considered there was a significant risk of your mental health deteriorating.
4. The prosecution accepted that the evidence of Ms McNeill and Mr Jackson enlivened Verdins Limbs 5 and 6. Limb 5 is concerned with whether a sentence would weigh more heavily on you than a person of normal mental health and Limb 6 is concerned with the serious risk that your mental health will decline in custody. The prosecution did not, however, accept that the relevant exception to the mandatory sentencing regime had been established, that being that your mental impairment would result in you being subject to substantially and materially greater than the ordinary burden or risks of imprisonment, a stricter test than Verdins. Given that I have found that one of the other exceptions is made out, it is not strictly necessary for me to determine this issue, however, I agree with the prosecution's analysis.

1. Under the Sentencing Act 1991 the only purposes for which a sentence may be imposed are just punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation and protection of the community.
2. Generally, a court must not impose a more severe sentence than is necessary to achieve those sentencing purposes. A custodial sentence must only be imposed as a last resort and then must be the absolute minimum required. In the case of the offence of dangerous driving causing death, those principles, being the principles of proportionality and parsimony, are qualified by the terms of the mandatory sentencing scheme.
3. The importance of general deterrence and denunciation in sentencing for offences of dangerous driving causing death cannot be overstated. Members of the community must understand that if they drive dangerously, with consequent loss of life or serious injury, significant punishment will follow. Further, the sentence must manifest the community's disapproval of dangerous conduct which results in the loss of human life. Such conduct not only harms the innocent victims, it harms the community as a whole.
4. In your case, however, your intellectual disability and complex mental health picture means that the principle of general deterrence must be moderated, not eliminated but given less weight than it would otherwise.
5. While I do not consider it a high need, there is also some need for my sentence to specifically deter you from driving irresponsibly again and to protect the community.
6. Your continued rehabilitation is very important. Indeed, it is the best way to protect the community.
7. Finally, my sentence must be just and take into account the mitigating factors I have outlined in detail. These include your low moral culpability, your disadvantaged upbringing, your early plea of guilty and remorse and the likely burden and effects of a term of imprisonment on you given your intellectual disability and mental health. In the very unusual circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that all the relevant sentencing principles can be met by the imposition of a non-custodial sentence.
8. As I mentioned, I had you assessed for a community corrections order and Justice Plan by way of an extended presentence report, statement of intellectual disability and plan of available services.
9. It is well recognised that in appropriate cases community corrections orders can achieve all the sentencing purposes, including punishment, denunciation and general deterrence whilst also promoting rehabilitation. The suitability of properly conditioned community corrections orders of lengthy duration for serious offences has been affirmed by our Court of Appeal in the past.[9]
10. You were assessed as suitable for a community correction order and a Justice Plan and also indicated your consent.
11. Nothing I say or do can bring back Mr Burkett or alleviate the pain and suffering of his friends and family. I cannot undo what happened that day. The sentence I impose is not to be taken as a measure of his life, it is not. His life was precious, and no value can be placed on it. Rather, my duty is to impose an appropriate and just sentence at law taking into account all relevant matters and the applicable sentencing practices. That is what I now proceed to do.
12. Mr Marr-Reid, could you please stand.

1. On the single charge of dangerous driving causing death, I convict and sentence you to community corrections order. The order will last for two and a half years, that is 30 months.
2. You are to report to: the Ringwood Community Correctional Service Centre within two working days of today.
3. Now there are certain mandatory terms that apply to all Corrections orders - they apply to all orders so they will apply to you, and that is that you must not commit another offence for which you could be imprisoned during the term of the order. You must not leave Victoria without first getting permission to do so; you must obey all lawful instructions from and directions of the Secretary; you must report to and receive visits from the Secretary or delegate; you must let a Community Corrections officer know within two clear working days of you changing your address or job.
4. Now, that is an inclusive list, there are other mandatory conditions, but they are going to be set out on the order. But as well as the mandatory conditions, I am imposing some other special conditions, and they are:
   • You are to be under the supervision of a Corrections officer for the duration of the order;
   • You are to perform 350 hours of unpaid community work over the period of the order - so that is over the two and a half years that the order is in force;
   • You are to undergo assessment and treatment, including testing for drug abuse or dependency;
   • You are to undergo mental health assessment and treatment as directed;
   • You are to participate in the services of the Justice Plan which is dated 21 August 2025;
5. It was recommended that I direct that some of the hours of rehabilitation and treatment that you undertake get credited to the 350 hours. I am going to do more than that. I direct that all of the hours that you satisfactorily undertake in treatment and rehabilitation, either directly under the Corrections order or specifically under the Justice Plan, are to be counted towards the 350 hours of unpaid community work. So, in other words, any treatment and rehabilitation that you do, any hours that you do, will come off the 350 hours.
6. Now, Mr Lewis will explain the order to you in more detail, but you must make sure you comply with that order because breach of the order is an offence in itself, and in addition, you are liable to be re-sentenced for the original offence. I have imposed a long Corrections order because of the inherent seriousness of your offending and because I think having you supervised for that length of time and treated for that length of time is the best way of promoting your rehabilitation. You do realise, I am sure, that a Corrections order is an exceptional sentence for this offending and I am giving you an opportunity. If you breach the order, re-sentencing you on the original offence is a real option, and that includes the real possibility you may receive a term of imprisonment.
7. So do you understand how important it is to obey the terms of that Corrections order.
8. ACCUSED: Yes, Your Honour.
9. HER HONOUR: Now, on the charge of using an unregistered motor vehicle, and as I say it was only unregistered by a day and I accept it was purely because of inadvertence, I convict and discharge you. So that means there is no fine attributed to that offence.

1. As you have pleaded guilty to a serious motor vehicle offence as defined in the Sentencing Act, I am obliged to cancel your licence and disqualify you from driving for at least 18 months on that offence.
2. You were issued with a notice of immediate driving ban, in other words a suspension, on 13 February 2023, and you have not driven since then. That is a total of 929 days, in other words two and a half years.
3. Submissions were made to me that s85P of the Road Safety Act 1986 allows me to backdate the period of disqualification that I impose to the date of that suspension, being 13 February 2023. Section 85P states that I must take into account in fixing the period of any disqualification the period of suspension.
4. Section 89B of the Sentencing Act provides that any period of disqualification that I make under s89(1) of the Sentencing Act commences on the day that the order imposing it is made or on any later day that the court specifies.
5. Mr Lewis submitted that there would be no work for s85P to do if I were not able to backdate the period or the date of cancellation and disqualification.
6. As I said to Mr Lewis, there is work in the sense that obviously I have to take into account the period of suspension when I decide how long to cancel and disqualify you for. As I also said to Mr Lewis, I was always intending to exceed the mandatory minimum of 18 months. I would not necessarily have imposed a period of disqualification that would have meant you were disqualified for a further 18 months from today, however.
7. It seems to me that s89B of the Sentencing Act is very clear and s85P of the Road Safety Act does not entitle me to direct that a period of cancellation and disqualification commences prior to the date on which it is imposed.
8. I do, however, take into account that you have now been suspended for more than two and a half years, and because of that I am going to impose a lesser period of disqualification than I would otherwise have done. I am going to direct that you are disqualified for the minimum period of 18 months effective from today.
9. I am also obliged to indicate what sentence I would have imposed if you had not pleaded guilty. It is a difficult sentencing exercise in this particular case because of the complexities involved in terms of your mental health and intellectual disability, but I can indicate that if you had been found guilty after a trial then I would have imposed a term of imprisonment, and I will not go any further than that.
10. Are there any other matters that I need to address.
11. MR LEWIS: No, Your Honour.
12. MR McCARTHY: No, I don't believe so Your Honour.
13. HER HONOUR: I will have the Corrections order printed out - I'll hand it to you. Mr Marr-Reid, have a seat. All right, I have signed this order, I'll get it handed down to counsel to check and then Mr Marr-Reid you have to sign the order as well.

[1] Summary based on the agreed facts set out in the Summary of Prosecution Opening and marked as Exhibit A.

[2] Section 89 of the Sentencing Act 1991, the charges being 'serious motor vehicle offences' as defined by s.87P of that Act.

[3] Since 28 October 2018 Dangerous Driving Causing Death has been a category 2 offence subject to section 5(2H) of the Sentencing Act 1991.

[4] Section 5(2) of the Sentencing Act 1991.

[5] In assessing offence gravity and moral culpability the extent of the risk posed by the driving, the potential harm from that risk, the objective dangerousness of the driving and the driver's state of mind are all relevant, see Stephens v the Queen [2016] VSCA 121 at [20] and DPP v Neethling [2009] VSCA 116

[6]Since 28 October 2018, any special circumstances relied upon to constitute an exception to mandatory sentencing must not only be 'substantial and compelling' so as to justify the imposition of a non-custodial sentence, but also 'exceptional and rare'. Further, the Sentencing Act says that in determining whether such circumstances exist a court must regard general deterrence and denunciation as having paramount importance, give less weight to an offender's personal circumstances, disregard certain other mitigating factors (previous good character [except absence of prior criminal history], early plea of guilty, prospects of rehabilitation and parity) and consider Parliament's intention that the offence should ordinarily attract a custodial term.

[7] Stephens v The Queen [2016] VSCA 12 at [21] referring to DPP v Oates [2007] VSCA 59; (2007) 47 MVR 483 which noted that except in cases of low moral culpability, such as momentary inattention or misjudgement, custodial sentences will usually be appropriate. Also DPP v Neethling [2009] VSCA 116; (2009) 22 VR 466, 472 at [29].

[8] Section 5(2)(daa), (da) and (db).

[9] See for example Boulton v The Queen [2014] VSCA 342; (2014) 46 VR 308 and Borg v The Queen [2020] VSCA 191