DPP v Masters

3 Your trial settled to a plea soon after a County Court case conference hearing on 29 August 2024. You pleaded guilty before me on 4 June 2025 but had been arraigned and pleaded guilty on 25 November 2024.

4 You receive the benefit of your plea of guilty. That plea accepts responsibility, expresses remorse and has facilitated the interests of justice. I take into account the timing of your plea, the circumstances of negotiation and settlement of your matter including that lesser charges and/or involvement in the circumstances of offending have been accepted by the Crown.

5 At your plea hearing on 4 June, Ms Hando for the Crown tendered a written Crown opening, Exhibit A, separate to those tendered on the plea of your

co-offenders. Mr McCulloch for you tendered the forensic psychological report of Courtney Steffens dated 11 November 2024. He also tendered the police brief of evidence related to prior family violence offending by Adrian Kepa-Hull against you in 2021 to 22, the "Brock brief". He tendered your application for a family violence intervention order dated 21 November 2020. He called to give evidence Professor Patricia Easteal, an academic with accepted expertise in the area of the situation and effects of family violence upon its victims. Her report, 28 January 2025, was tendered.

6 I was provided with written submissions on sentence by both prosecution and defence.

7 The respective circumstances of offending are set out comprehensively in

the Crown openings. In your case that is Exhibit A. There is also a composite brief outline of offending provided by the Crown, Exhibit B. The circumstances of offending attributed to each of the three accused who have come before me are the product of the negotiated settlement to which I have referred. There is, I find, an unusually high level of artificiality to this. However, I bear in mind the need to sentence on the basis of what is put by the Crown and admitted by the pleas of each. Particularly, I bear in mind that, as to each accused, these are separate proceedings. That said, there is also an overarching element of joint action and complicity to what was perpetrated upon Bradley McAlister. I shall deal with that first and then established individual contribution or conduct after.

8 It is clear that McAlister, Adrian Kepa-Hull, Kane Polglase and you knew each other and, at the time of offending, did so within the drug culture of Swan Hill. There is the murky suggested background of a murder investigation and police statements made or not made by persons. I do not further speculate upon that.

9 On 24 June and into 25 June 2023, it was or had been decided that McAlister would be lured and taken to a place, taken away from there and physically assaulted. He was transported from a local football oval at Lake Boga to your home, having been forced into a car by threat and production of a weapon, a knife, or weapons. As to that, prosecution summary describes the presence and use of a firearm. Use of it and awareness of it is is not attributed to any of the three accused who came before me.

10 Another identified person, Karinda Alexander, was ostensibly involved and present at the oval. She was charged, but that has been subject to the Crown's discontinuance.

11 McAlister was taken by a car to your home, forced inside and into a bathroom. These things seemed to have happened at a time not longer after 5 am on

12 Inside the house, McAlister suffered a brutal ordeal. Throughout or at different times throughout, the three accused before me were present. Over the time, McAlister was again struck with a baseball bat, threatened with a knife, kicked and variously otherwise threatened. This included threat to electrocute him with an electric extension cord, threat of being poisoned by syringe, attempt to stab him with a syringe, threat to inject him with the drug methylamphetamine, threat to stab him with a knife and the attempt to do so. That caused a deep cut to his wrist. At one point, the electrical cord was put around his neck, placed over a door and then an attempt or perceived attempt to hang him. A theme seemed to be that McAlister withdraw or change a statement he had made to police.

13 Ultimately, he was taken by car, bound and again under threat with a knife, to his family home. McAlister was there able to escape. This was at about 9.45 am.

14 Bradley McAlister's injuries are described in relevant prosecution summaries as follows:

'The complainant was conveyed to the Swan Hill Hospital by ambulance for treatment of his injuries. Dr Michael Taylor examined the complainant in the Emergency Department. Dr Taylor observed the following injuries: Bruising and swelling to the face, laceration over posterior scalp, large skin flap on right wrist cut down to the dermis but avoiding major structures, laceration on knee, bruising to left arm and leg and reported diffuse tenderness to the chest, spine, abdomen and limbs. The right forearm wound was repaired with stiches and other open wounds cleaned. He was administered antibiotics and a tetanus shot and provided with painkillers.'

15 I have thus far described the overall picture. As I have said, there is an overarching element or background of complicity in what happened to McAlister. The Crown concedes that not all of the three accused were present or active at all times. In specifically attributing acts of the respective accused to the offences on with each has pleaded, I have been assisted by the Crown having provided the document headed 'Brief Outline of Offending', Exhibit B.

16 As to you, Charge 1 on your indictment is common assault. It is put by the Crown that you were complicit in the pre-planned arrangement (evidenced by text messaging between you and co-accused Kepa-Hull on 25 June) that McAlister be confronted at the football over and threatened with assault. It is put on your behalf that you were not part of pre-arranged plan, that you are guilty on the basis of assisting the threat and assault at the oval. Your complicity began when, under direction by him, you joined Kepa-Hull in his vehicle and went with him to the oval. Having considered the evidence (and particularly the somewhat ambiguous nature of the text messaging, seen in the context of the evidence of Kepa-Hull's previous violence against you and the impact upon you of that) I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you are complicit in the way the Crown puts. I find that you encouraged and assisted what happened at the oval, to the extent of that confrontation and threat to apply force; that is, in accordance with s323(1)(a) of the Crimes Act.

17 Charge 2, false imprisonment. It is based on your role and assistance to McAlister's forced placement into the bathroom at your home and that he was made to stay there.

18 Charge 3, reckless conduct endangering life, relates to the event, in the bathroom, of an electrical cord being placed around McAlister's neck and over a door. He was pulled off his feet in the manner and threat of being hanged there. Your role was significant. You had entered the room with the extension lead, exposed wires at one end. As McAlister's feet came off the floor, with him gasping for breath, you were heard to say 'Just hold it for another 30 seconds and he's fucked.' McAlister was released and went to the floor. You kicked him. That is Charge 4 on your indictment, common assault.

19 There is no victim impact statement. That is perhaps not surprising given the situation and circumstances of the offending. However, I should still infer considerable victim impact given what the unchallenged evidence states happened to McAlister. In this context, there was some discussion at the recent plea hearing on 6 June about the status of evidence in the Crown summaries of a firearm being presented at the Lake Boga football ground, early in the whole episode. This (on the settlement of the three indictments) is not put as relevant to any of the accused. Other than this highlighting an unusual aspect of that resolution, it is enough and appropriate to consider the broad circumstances of what is shown to be perpetrated upon McAlister and to which each accused made some contribution in the way of the conduct to which they have pleaded. I find that those circumstances have led to the physical injury impact described; but also there is the emotional impact of the very considerable humiliation and fear his ordeal must have caused. There was a quite elaborate cruelty in the treatment of him. Each accused, as I have said, contributed in their way to that. Such victim impact must be taken into account in my sentences.

20 You are a 35-year-old woman who still resides in Swan Hill. You are on bail awaiting this sentence. You were born and raised in that area, the second youngest of five children. You also have a foster brother. For some years, your parents ran a caravan park. They separated when you were about 11. After a short period with your father, you returned to your mother's care separated from your siblings. Your mother suffered poor mental health and abused alcohol. She was hospitalised a number of times. She partnered with a man who was violent to her. You witnessed this abuse. Child Protection became involved with the family. You left the home during teenage because of the violence and neglect. You lived with your grandparents, your then boyfriend, but also on the streets. You had attended little school and did not complete Year 7. You have since studied at TAFE. Your first job was at 16 in retail and fast food. You worked full-time as a teacher's aide, leaving that when you were pregnant with your first child. You have had four children aged between 14 and two years. There are two different fathers. Child Protection is involved with all the children.

21 You have suffered two badly abusive relationships. The first, in your early 20s, ended when you fled into respite care with your children. That partner was subsequently imprisoned for unrelated violence. In more recent years, you have been in a relationship, also abusive, with your co-accused,

Adrian Kepa-Hull. Forensic psychologist, Courtney Steffens, state that you reported to her "severe abuse which formed the subject matter of multiple prior family violence intervention orders". That included assault on you and of your son. In May 2022, Adrian Kepa-Hull was sentenced to imprisonment for offending, which included a breach of family violence intervention orders protecting you. Part of a police brief related to family violence against you in 2020 to 2021 have been tendered. Beyond physical abuse, you report to Ms Steffens other coercive and controlling behaviour. Her report states as follows at p37,

22 'She', meaning you, 'also explained instances of stalking whereby he broke into her sister's house and bashed Ms [Masters] after the birth of her youngest child and another incident where he cut all off the cords in her house while she was away. She also reported that Adrian contributed to the reason her children were removed from her care following a medical incident after her eldest son trying to protect Ms [Masters] was injured in the process. She describes severe coercive control whereby Adrian would control Ms [Masters'] money, minimise or deny his abusive behaviour while blaming Ms [Masters], use emotional abuse including insults and degradation and saw and tried to isolate Ms [Masters] from friends and family members. Ms [Masters] was unable to explain the on and off nature of this relationship, but appeared to be driven by significant issues with attempting to please or appease the other. Low self-esteem meant difficulties with tolerating being alone.'

23 A short time prior to this offending, you had reconciled and reunited with him. This was in the context of his father's sudden death. There was some improvement in the relationship, but also frightening episodes of property damage and verbal abuse.

24 You began using alcohol and cannabis when only 12. Your main drug dependence became methylamphetamine. This escalated in your relationship with Adrian Kepa-Hull and progressed to daily use when your children were removed from your care in 2023. You have begun drug counselling through the Salvation Army in early 2024. Ms Steffens finds a stimulant, methylamphetamine, intoxication at the time of offending. I have presumed this to be on the basis of your report to her. It is also consistent with the situation and circumstances of the offending period.

25 I agree with the submission put on your behalf that you have, at 35, a relatively limited criminal history. There are four recorded court appearances between January 2018 and April 2023. However, these include those for breach of earlier orders. There are drug offences, dishonesty offences and what seems one occasion of intentionally causing injury. However, it is also relevant that you have breached community corrections orders.

26 Forensic psychologist, Courtney Steffens, identified multiple mental health symptoms. These include symptoms of or consistent with post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, dissociation and borderline personality traits. She diagnoses stimulant use disorder. There are provisional, therefore not conclusive, diagnoses of post-traumatic stress disorder and disssociative disorder. Certain diagnoses of borderline personality disorder would require further assessment.

27 Ms Steffens states dissociative symptoms and what she terms 'emotional numbness' to be a defining feature of your presentation. She makes the point that such symptoms include, among others, tendency or need to appease others, difficulties with self-assertion and identity confusion (for example, she says, 'behaving in a way which a person would normally find offensive or abhorrent.') She states that your clinical presentation was consistent with such features, that dissociative symptoms typically develop in response to trauma and can be more severe when there is exposure to relationship trauma over multiple years.

28 Risk of your reoffending is assessed as low to moderate.

29 I repeat what I stated in sentencing your co-offenders yesterday. Simple description of what happened to Bradley McAlister states that this was very serious offending indeed. In an environment of a drug and criminal culture, your victim was subjected to an extravagantly brutal and cruel ordeal. As I have said, each of the three accused before me contributed to this in their respective ways. Such circumstances of offending, as to each, make relevant sentencing considerations and purposes of moral culpability, deterrence, strong condemnation of what was done and proportionate punishment of it. Drug dependence and intoxication cannot be seen as mitigating.

30 There are a number of matters that have been raised in your case said to mitigate your criminality and to moderate or reduce your sentence. They include the following:

32 (2) Your lesser role in the circumstances of offending and the need for disparity in sentence.

33 (3) Related to that, your personal history and circumstances. This includes the evidence of your mental health symptoms and conditions. Put on your behalf is that the Bugmy and Verdins principles apply, particularly that your moral culpability is lesser and general deterrence a less important sentencing purpose.

34 (4) The main submission put for you, and one connected to those just identified, is that of the longstanding impact of the relationship with Adrian Kepa-Hull and his abuse of you. This, I accept, entails consideration of your history, earlier relationship abuse of you, your mental health symptoms as well as your experience of the relationship with him. It is a question of combination and interaction of these things.

35 A difficult sentencing task is raised. After what I feel is careful consideration of the evidence (and particularly the expert evidence of forensic psychologist, Courtney Steffens, and that of Professor Easteal presented and called on your behalf) I make the following assessment and findings.

36 (i) There are perceptible weaknesses in that evidence, as identified by the prosecution arguments: for example, that Professor Easteal has not consulted with you (although Ms Steffens has and there is reliance by Professor Easteal upon her findings); that some of the evidence of both depends upon what you have falsely stated in police interview; that you had not given evidence to particularly explain your feelings and effects upon you at the time of offending (The written Crown submission raised and argued need for that and I presume a forensic decision not to call you); related to this, Professor Easteal's evidence stands as what is typical of abuse victims rather than direct personal assessment of you; diagnosis of relevant mental health conditions are or tend to be inconclusive. As put by the prosecution argument, objectively seen features of the offending without further or closer consideration speak against the submission and mitigation put for you.

37 (ii) However, I found the evidence presented for you persuasive in a number of ways. Professor Easteal has long-term experience in the study and observation of the features of abusive relationships. Her qualifications were not challenged, nor were many of the propositions she stated about victims of violent and oppressive relationship abuse; for example, a sense of embedded fear, powerlessness, loss of real choice and a felt need to forgive, appease and agree. Her evidence before me was persuasive on this. It is consistent with your description of two abusive relationships, including of course that with Adrian Kepa-Hull. It is consistent with the unchallenged findings of forensic psychologist, Courtney Steffens, and how you presented to her. It is also consistent with our communities' growing understanding of such relationships.

38 (iii) Although the evidence carried gaps or weaknesses, some just earlier described, I have ultimately found that there are significant and relevant effects of your relationship victimisation experiences together with the vulnerability of your mental health symptoms, at least some related to your damaging background and those relationships. This should be seen as reducing the moral culpability or criminality of your contribution to the episode of offending on this night.

39 (iv) This finding sits best with Charge 1 and 2 on your indictment. Your role appears relatively passive; for example, in the way of assistance by support, by allowing or making available your home for what happened. It is

Charge 3 and, marginally relevant, Charge 4 which creates difficulty. On the evidence, and resolution between you and the Crown, you played an active role in initiating a cruel, threatening episode. You added to it during the event. Upon McAlister's release to the floor, you kicked him, endorsing what had happened and showing no decent respect for his and his situation. These circumstances state serious offending.

40 I am at least guarded about the extent of Professor Easteal's explanation posited for your behaviour in Charge 3, a state of mind akin to Stockholm Syndrome. I find the expert evidence not sufficient to establish the likelihood of that.

41 This is not to say that the influence of your co-offender and relationship with him did not affect you on Charge 3. However, that must be balanced against the serious circumstances of the offence and the sentencing considerations and purposes which flow from that. The matters raised on your behalf, including relationship abuse, go to moderate such considerations as moral culpability and general deterrence. They do not remove them. There must still be just and proportionate punishment.

42 Ultimately, I find that the objectively seen seriousness of Charge 3 and your role in it cannot be addressed without a period of imprisonment.

43 I have also taken into account such matters as delay and totality in a way similar to that applied to your co-offenders.

44 You should be seen as having genuine prospects for rehabilitation. As stated, you have a limited criminal history. You have taken some steps to address your drug dependence. You have the ambition of reclaiming your children. I see you as a person who can benefit from the therapeutic assistance of a community corrections order.

45 I have decided to impose a sentence of imprisonment combined with such an order. The length of that imprisonment is reduced by those matters, personal to you, which have been raised on your behalf. Your sentence is markedly different to that of your co-accused. I find that justified by your lesser role and by those personal moderating factors raised.

46 I have received the Community Corrections assessment report of Ty Broderson dated 5 June 2025. You are found suitable for a community corrections order.

48 On Charge 3, reckless conduct endangering serious injury, you are sentenced to nine months' imprisonment.

49 On all charges, that is, Charges 1, 2, 3 and 4 you are convicted and I impose a community corrections order of two years' duration to run from time of release from that sentence.

50 The usual terms apply. The additional conditions are: That you be under supervision by a

Community Corrections officer, that you perform unpaid community work of

250 hours, that there be treatment and rehabilitation for mental health, that there be treatment and rehabilitation for drug dependence, that you participate in a program or rehabilitation specifically directed at this offending. All hours of program or rehabilitation work can be set off against community work hours.

51 Had you not pleaded guilty, I indicate under s6AAA that I would have imposed a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment and a community corrections order of considerably longer duration.

52 Yes. Is there anything else I need to say, Ms Harris?

53 MS HARRIS: Your Honour, there is just a disposal order that that - - -

54 HIS HONOUR: Yes. It is there, is it? Yes, thank you.

55 MS HARRIS: So, the bindings from McAlister, the clothing - - -

56 HIS HONOUR: These are orders made in relation to all accused.

58 HIS HONOUR: I do not think I have made them in relation to the other two.

59 MS HARRIS: No, you have not. It is just because the items came from

61 MS HARRIS: - - - for the most part, from her rubbish bins.

62 HIS HONOUR: I will make the order. I am just reflecting on whether these items are in any way in a strict sense related to specific offences. After all, the resolution did focus on individual conduct. But I will make the order I think is the best way to practically deal with it. So, I will sign that now.

64 HIS HONOUR: I said a community corrections order on all Charges 1, 2, 3. I should have said one, two, three and four.

65 Charge 3 is the reckless conduct endangered serious injury. The event with the electrical cord over the door in the bathroom. That is right, isn't it?

68 MR McCULLOCH: There just requires Your Honour to confirm Ms Masters' consent to the making of the order.

69 HIS HONOUR: Yes, I am about to do that now. We are just printing it out.

71 HIS HONOUR: Thank you. Yes, now, stand up please. My sentence is there be nine months' of imprisonment, but upon release, you, if you agree to it, will be placed on a community corrections order. You heard me speak about that. I need to set out for you formally the requirements of that order.

72 It will last for two years and will start upon completion or release form imprisonment. The usual terms are: That you not commit another offence for which you could be imprisoned during the period of the order, you must comply with a regulation which prohibits you from attending any workplace or program affected by alcohol or drugs or in possession of the illegal drugs. You must report to and receive visits from Community Corrections. You must report to Community Corrections within two days of the order starting. That is within two days of release from prison, you will be contacted about that. You must let Community Corrections know within two days of a change of address or job. You must not leave Victoria without getting permission to do so. Given that Swan Hill is placed on the border, no doubt there will be a need to have some discussion and understanding of what that means with the Community Corrections people. You must obey all lawful instructions and directions of Community Corrections.

73 The additional or special conditions are that you perform 250 hours of unpaid work over that two years. All hours of treatment and rehabilitation that you undertake satisfactorily can be set off against those hours. Further conditions are that you be under supervision of a Community Corrections order, that you undergo assessment and treatment for drug abuse and dependency as directed, that you undergo mental health assessment and treatment as directed, that you participate in programs or causes that address factors specifically relating to this offending.

78 HIS HONOUR: I will get you to sign the order and then I will sign it. Is there anything else I need to say or do?

80 HIS HONOUR: Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

83 HIS HONOUR: You've got to be somewhere else, don't you?

84 MR McCULLOCH: Well, I do. Yes, I do. I was just waiting for Ms Masters before I say anything. As I read the application that was filed by Ms Bull - - -

85 HIS HONOUR: I'll just let her know what this is about. We overlooked dealing with the original application for suppression and there was also an application for the court to be closed. Well, it's been effectively closed in the event.

87 HIS HONOUR: Now, what do you want to say about suppression?

88 MR McCULLOCH: Just for the record, the closed court application falls away, so it's abandoned.

91 HIS HONOUR: There was some discussion about it. It didn't just fall away in silence. There was some discussion, but I think at that stage - - -

92 MR McCULLOCH: As I read the application and the submissions filed by

Ms Bull, it's sought a more nuanced version of suppression, not that

Your Honour's reasons weren't published, but that various certain aspects would be not - - -

94 MR McCULLOCH: In my respectful submission, it's just really not until

96 MR McCULLOCH: In effect, yes, where it could be pointed specifically, a redacted, a marked-up copy could be provided to Your Honour saying, well, these aspects should be omitted.

97 HIS HONOUR: Yes. I would consider suppression of those aspects of my reasons that detail the history of the abusive relationship between Ms Masters and the co-offender. That seems to me to lie at the heart of the original application.

98 MR McCULLOCH: I think that's right, Your Honour. Your Honour's - - -

100 MR McCULLOCH: Well, there's an application on foot - - -

101 HIS HONOUR: Well, at the moment, there's nothing to stop the press or the media publishing it.

102 MR McCULLOCH: I could seek an interim order, but unless, Your Honour, I don't see any media present and if - - -

103 HIS HONOUR: They become present in mysterious ways. I'll ask my associate. Was there a request? There was no request and it's not a case in which, I don't know if it happens anymore. You used to make the sentencing reasons available on some form of a blog. What was that called? We don't do it anymore. No, we don't do that. My memory of suppression orders is that you certainly can't make a final one until a media representative is notified. Is that right?

104 MR McCULLOCH: That process has occurred through the filing of the formal application. So, if Your Honour were minded to make an order today,

105 HIS HONOUR: Well, I'll make an interim suppression order until I have an opportunity of hearing from the parties as to what parts of my sentencing reasons I should or should not finally suppress.

106 MR McCULLOCH: It may be that once I've read those reasons and not relying solely on my notes, it may be that there's no application. But if Your Honour makes an interim that covers the reasons as a whole now - - -

107 HIS HONOUR: Yes, well, I'll make it then. Do you want to say anything about that?

108 MS HARRIS: Your Honour, the Crown did make some submissions in relation to the suppression.

110 MS HARRIS: We opposed it on the basis it's not necessary. You need to be satisfied on material that it's necessary. In this case, the ground is that it's necessary for the safety of Ms Masters.

112 MS HARRIS: So, I think that you would need to assess whether whatever basis that you make a suppression order, that it is necessary and, look, it may be the case of redacting your sentencing reasons may cause more speculation and potentially more harm than not redacting them.

113 HIS HONOUR: You do it readily enough. For example, when a prisoner sentenced has given assistance to the police, you either redact or you suppress. An order is made preventing publication of that, isn't it?

116 MS HARRIS: That's usually a blanket and that would be - - -

118 MS HARRIS: That would legitimately be the safety of a person because their safety would no doubt be at risk.

121 HIS HONOUR: I'll try and move quickly. I understand your difficulty,

Mr McCulloch. I presuming you're not objecting to an interim order subject to what I need to hear and decide upon before I make a final order.

123 HIS HONOUR: Yes. I would've made an interim order in the face of opposition in any event I think because I mean, otherwise I can't achieve my ability to decide.

124 MS HARRIS: Yes, Your Honour. As Your Honour pleases. Yes, and as I said, you need to be satisfied.

125 HIS HONOUR: I'm back in court I think on 1 July, is that right, Fran? Today is the 24th. So, I'll grant an interim suppression order as to all of the evidence and my reasons in the case until 1 July when I will review it and make another order. You're telling me, Mr McCulloch, that notice to relevant parts of the media or the representative has already been brought about or will be brought about by me making of the interim order?

126 MR McCULLOCH: Well, it's a function of the application having been made and the interim order will provide further notice.

127 HIS HONOUR: Is it. All right, well, I'll let you go now. All right, so that's what's happened. All right.