DPP v Roberts [2025] VCC 982

1. The seriousness of the offence must be analysed in terms of moral culpability and outcome. Here, you were using a lethal weapon, namely a compound bow, to discharge an arrow at point blank range against the leg of the complainant. In the record of interview you admitted that you decided to 'let one go against him', thus it was a deliberate act on your part.
2. Next, you caused a significant life-threatening injury to the complainant. This is made clear from the medical report of Dr Schreiber. Thus, although you did not, by aiming at his leg, intend to inflict a life‑threatening injury to his upper torso, it is clear that you very nearly did so by reason of where the arrow hit his leg. The risk that eventuated by your action in discharging the arrow was a life-threatening injury and a serious injury as defined in the Crimes Act.
3. No victim impact statement has been filed but this was an injury that might, according to the report of Dr Schreiber, would have long-term impacts on the complainant.
4. I am satisfied that there is little premeditation in this offending. Although you had taken the bow to the caravan, as you stated your intention was to confront him over a minor matter in relation to the noise from the lawnmower. After you were turned away by his girlfriend it was then that he sought to confront you. It was then that you discharged the arrow 'as an intimidation thing', in your words.
5. I am satisfied that you were disinhibited and when faced with being confronted by him in an event that you had commenced, and you then discharged the arrow, causing a very serious injury to him. This does not excuse your conduct but as indicated by your counsel, it does help to explain your conduct.
6. Overall, I regard this offence as in the mid range of seriousness for this offence.

1. You come before the Court with no prior convictions alleged against you at age 54. This is a very significant matter. You have pleaded guilty at the first opportunity. In fact, you made full admissions as to your culpability for the offence in the record of interview, which took place a few days after the offence.
2. Your plea of guilty is significant. I am satisfied that it is some evidence of remorse.
3. Further, you have facilitated the course of justice and your full admissions have obviated the need for a committal hearing and the need to further impose stress on the complainant in this matter.
4. On the plea, your counsel tendered a reference from a personal friend, Mr Carrera. He has known you for over 25 years and was in Court to support you. You and he have attended church together and he testifies that you are a person who contributes positively to the people in your life, and he has no reason to doubt your character. He sees this as very much an out of character act.
5. There was also a reference from a former employer who indicates that you are a very reliable worker.
6. Your counsel relied on a report from Dr Cunningham, psychologist. He sets out your family background and your personal history. He notes that at the time you were abusing alcohol. He assesses you as having average intelligence. He indicates that there is no evidence of severe mental illness. He assesses your risk of further offending as being moderate. On mental state assessment, you presented with symptoms of depression and anxiety. His conclusion in relation to your offending is as follows:

At the time of the offence Mr Roberts' inhibition was decreased by his use of alcohol. In my opinion Mr Roberts offence behaviour occurred in the context of a lapse in judgement in the context of highly stressful life circumstances and general perceptions of persecution. From a psychological perspective, Mr Roberts did not present with a disposition toward a florid or aggressive behaviour and did not meet criteria for mental illness.

1. He is of the view that you would benefit from psychological intervention to improve emotional regulation and distress tolerance skills.
2. The report from Dr Cunningham, the references tendered, your lack of prior involvement with the criminal justice system, your prior good work history, and your age, all point to your prospects of rehabilitation as being very good. It is clear that this offending is very much out of character.
3. The difficult economic times that the community faces are also a matter of some relevance here. As you indicated in your record of interview, your work as a painter was drying up in your local area and you had to commute to Melbourne for work from Ballarat, which placed stress on you. In addition, there had recently been an argument with your young 11-year-old daughter, from your second partner, who you were co-parenting at the time. It was in those circumstances that you had been drinking, that led to disinhibition such that in the middle of the night you sought to confront the complainant over a trivial event the day before.

1. I now turn to consider the purposes of sentencing. The basic purposes for which a court may impose a sentence are punishment, deterrence both specific and general, rehabilitation, denunciation, and protection of the community. In sentencing I must have regard to a range of factors such as the seriousness of the offence, your relevant culpability for the offence, your personal circumstances and those of the victim, if any. I am required to balance the interests of the community in denouncing criminal conduct with the interests of the community in seeking to ensure that as far as possible, offenders are rehabilitated and reintegrated into society.
2. On the plea, your counsel submitted that the only sentence available to the court was a sentence of imprisonment and that he could not rely on the matters set out in the Sentencing Act 1991 s5 that would obviate the need for such a mandatory sentence. He referred the Court to a decision from another Judge that imposed a community corrections order for the offence of recklessly causing serious injury.
3. I do not regard that sentence as being of any assistance. The maximum penalty is different and Parliament has mandated a sentence of imprisonment for this offence, except in very limited circumstances.
4. In his submissions, your counsel sought the exercise of mercy. I took this as a submission that the Court should exercise parsimony, which I do. For a mature individual to come before a court at your age with no prior convictions does call for maximum leniency. On the other hand, the offending here calls for significant denunciation. It is the availability of lethal weapons in circumstances of personal confrontations, often over the most trivial of matters, that leads to devastating outcomes. That is the situation here.
5. Although you have been a law abiding citizen to date, and you have been involved with your three children from two relationships, you have been in the workforce for the course of your adult life, you were in possession of this compound bow, admittedly for recreational purposes. Your conduct in taking it to confront the complainant in the middle of the night, over effectively a trivial personal difference, and then to discharge the arrow at his leg, is to be absolutely condemned. Considerations of denunciation therefore must be given significant weight.
6. Similarly, although you are a mature adult with no prior convictions, you did have access to a lethal weapon and thus considerations of general deterrence have some salience. Given the circumstances of the event and your lack of prior criminality, specific deterrence carries less weight.
7. I have already indicated I regard your prospects of rehabilitation as good. Here, from the report of Dr Cunningham, he notes that you would benefit from psychological therapy to give you the relevant skills to address stressors in your life. Given your lack of prior offending, I accept the submission that a longer than usual period, where you will be eligible for parole, is appropriate here.
8. At your age you will find imprisonment more onerous than a younger individual. Also your personality features, as set out in Dr Cunningham's report, will also make it more burdensome. You will be separated from your 11-year-old daughter, which is a factor, although there is an intervention order in place, but all these matters do call for some leniency.
9. The learned prosecutor referred the court to a number of cases, including the case of Mark, Tesescki and Carbas in the Court of Appeal and also the relevant Sentencing Snapshots. As Nettle JA noted in Tezeski, this offence can occur in a very wide range of context, and thus other sentences are of little assistance in indicating a sentencing practice.
10. Similarly, the Sentencing Snapshot, which does indicate the median sentence or the average sentence for this offence over the relevant four-year period, is five and a half years' imprisonment.
11. So each matter is to be dealt with on its own facts, having regard to the maximum penalty and also to current sentencing practices, so far as they can be discerned.
12. The learned prosecutor in his closing submissions indicated the salient matters here were a lack of prior convictions, your early plea, your admissions in the record of interview. This was a single incident. It was not a vehicle for other offending. So all those matters do depress the relevant sentence in this matter. But at the same time this does carry a 20-year maximum penalty. It is, in a sense, the second most serious penalty in the criminal calendar. It was a deliberate act. It was a lethal weapon. It did cause serious injuries to the complainant in the matter, albeit that there is no VIS.
13. I have got to give some signal to the rest of the community that they are not entitled to take the law into their own hands over trivial differences with neighbours, fellow residents in a caravan park, whatever.
14. Weighing all the competing considerations and they are incommensurable, on the charge of intentionally causing serious injury you are sentenced to three years and nine months' imprisonment.
15. I order that you serve two years' imprisonment before being eligible for parole.
16. I declare that had you not pleaded guilty I would have imposed a sentence of five and a half years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 3 years and 9 months.
17. There is a destruction order or a forfeiture order for the bow and the arrows.
18. I've made the disposal order for the bow and arrows.
19. I thank both counsel for their assistance. I thank the supporters for Mr Roberts for coming up to the court.