DPP v Solberg [2025] VCC 1393

s.20 Crimes Act 1958

s.77 Crimes Act 1958

s. 123 of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008

s. 24 of the Summary Offences Act 1966.

Persistent contravention of a family violence intervention order

s.125A Family Violence Protection Act 2008

1. You are a damaged young man. Your personal history is tragic; because of the neglect and abuse you suffered as a child and adolescent, which was compounded by the Acquired Brain Injury (ABI) you suffered in 2016 as a result of a motor vehicle accident. These matters have shaped so much of your life.
2. Sadly, you have committed offences of family violence such as these before me, many times before. In an effort to curb offending like this, and in recognition of your limitations and deficits, courts have tried where possible to assist you by way of supervisory orders in the community. You have not abided by any of them. The effect your criminality has had on your victim has been profound.
3. This present offending represents the most serious criminal conduct you have engaged in so far. Options other than a head sentence and a minimum term (but still involving imprisonment and supervision upon release) were investigated during the plea, but in the end, proved unsuitable and not sensibly open to me to impose.
4. It was conceded by Ms Swiney on your behalf that I have no choice but to impose a head sentence of imprisonment on you and was urged to set a meaningful non-parole period. I will do that.
5. This has been a difficult sentencing exercise. I want to acknowledge the assistance I was given by both counsel in this case.
6. The total effective sentence you will be sentenced to will be four years and

10 months (58 months). The non-parole period will be two years and 10 months (34 months). This non-parole period represents just short of 60 percent of the head sentence. The time that you have spent in custody to date, namely 585 days (just over 19 months), will be deducted from your sentence. 7. I will explain to you, Mr Solberg, and others who have such an important interest in this case, how I arrived at this sentence now. This will take some time, given the scope of your offending, its gravity, your complex personal history and the number of sentencing considerations that arise in this case.

1. You were 26-years old at the time of the offending. The victim/protected person is Lara Dean[1], whose name will be anonymised when these reasons are published, who was 23 to 24 years old at the time of the offending.
2. You had been in an on-again off-again intimate relationship for the preceding seven years.
3. During that time, you had four children together. The victim resided with her children in Woodend.
4. On 8 January 2024 an Interim Family Violence Intervention Order (FVIVO). was made against you at Kyneton Magistrates' Court You were present at court and received an explanation of the conditions.
5. This FVIVO listed the victim/ AFM and her four children as protected persons, with conditions prohibiting you from, in the absence of written agreement:

(a) from committing family violence or;

(b) damaging property;

(c) approaching or remaining within 5 metres of her or her children, except for Jordan and Charlie, or;

(d) going to or remaining within 200 metres of any place they lived, worked or attended school, again except for Jordan and Charlie.

1. On this same day, you entered into an undertaking of bail at the Kyneton Magistrates' Court. This undertaking included a condition to abide by FVIVO.

1. On 12 January 2024, at 4.55 pm, the victim sent a message to you stating

'I would answer if u don't want me flipping it aya.'

RSO 17: Contravene Family Violence Intervention Order

Persistent breach of FVIVO 16 January 2024 to 11 February 2024 - Charge 1

1. As permitted by the FVIVO, on 16 January 2024 you contacted the victim via text message to make a written agreement for you to see the children. You regularly contacted the victim after that point.
2. You continued to message the victim, and the majority of the contact was not relating to child arrangements.
3. You were frequently abusive.

Aggravated assault of female on 11 Feb 2024 -RSO 4 (rolled up)

1. On 11 Feb 2024, you and your victim were at her home. You became angry as you believed she was cheating on you. You called the victim a 'Slut', before hitting her to the back of her head with what she believed was a slap with an open hand. You then threw your can of coke at the wall.
2. The victim told you to leave, and that you were not welcome in her house. You initially refused, telling her that you had not done anything wrong and accusing her of running straight to the Police, calling her a 'dog.'
3. You then left shortly after, hitting the victim's loungeroom door, as well as taking her phone.
4. Ms Dean locked her front door and heard you banging on the door. You left her phone on the doorstep and then left the property.
5. Your children were in the house and heard the yelling but thankfully did not witness the assault.
6. At 2.30 pm, the victim attended the Kyneton Police Station to report the above incident and participated in a Digitally Recorded Evidence in Chief (DREC) statement.
7. After concluding the DREC, even as she walked away from the police station, you rode past on a bike and stuck your middle finger up at her.

1. A few minutes later, you called the victim from a payphone. You proceeded to threaten to kill her and Drew's biological father, who you believed she was cheating on you with. You explicitly said you were going to kill her, and then 'go to Ballarat to kill [child's father].'
2. In response, the victim told you that you were not welcome back at her house.

Aggravated burglary (intent to assault and person present) charge 3, RSO 9: Wilful damage, RSO 4: Aggravated assault (of female) - rolled up charge

1. By 5.30 pm that evening (that is to say within around three hours of the victim reporting your earlier assault), Ms Dean was sitting in her house with her friend, Megan. You arrived at the house and forced entry into it by hip and shouldering the front door, breaking the door frame in the process.
2. You entered the house screaming at the victim and accusing her of cheating and telling her that she should not have gone to the police.10
3. You hit the victim once to the head and then told her you were there to get your belongings and went into a different room. A friend of the victim saw you hit the victim multiple times.
4. At 5.36pm the victim rang Triple 0, however you took the phone off her and hung up. During this short call, the Triple 0 operator heard a female screaming in the background and heard a very aggressive dispute in the background of the call. The operator could also hear a female voice screaming and saying 'leave.'
5. You pushed the victim backwards, causing her to fall over into a chair and hit her head hit her head on a door frame. She continued to tell you to leave the house.
6. You took hold of a Fitbit Smart Watch the victim was wearing on her wrist, that you bought her for her birthday, and ripped it off her wrist. You returned it to her and left the house.
7. A friend of the victim then took the children over to the victim's father's house who lives in the same street, while Ms Dean stayed and locked the front door. Shortly after this, you returned again.
8. Eventually you left. At 5.46 pm the victim once again called Triple 0.

1. Once police arrived at the residence, the victim participated in another digital recording evidence-in-chief interview. At 7.40 pm other police attended, photographing the damage to the doorframe and the injuries to the victim's torso.

1. Just prior to 10 pm on the same day, members from Gisborne Police arrested you and transported you to the Bendigo Police Station.
2. During the arrest process, officers seized your mobile phone. The phone was subsequently downloaded and provided to the informant on 14 March 2024, which contained the text messages sent to the victim.
3. At 1.30 am on 12 February 2024, you participated in a Record of Interview (ROI) and made the following comments;

(a) you largely denied the offending, stating you woke up on 11 February 2024, discovered that the victim was cheating on you, that victim slapped you in the face and that you then left her house. You denied assaulting her in any manner.

(b) You then stated that later in the day you saw the victim leaving the Kyneton Police Station and the victim said, 'I love you to bits, but I've gone to the Police and found out that you wasn't even allowed to be at my house.'

(c) You denied sticking your finger up at her.

(d) You admitted to calling the victim on a payphone, but said she agreed for you to collect your phone from her house. You denied threatening to kill the victim, however admitted that you were angry on the phone call, stating you 'kept on picturing her and him, and I was just getting frustrated, but I know for a fact I did not fucking say what she's saying I said.'

(e) You stated that you went to the victim's house as arranged and knocked on the door, but that your eldest son Jordan unsuccessfully tried to unlock the door, so you 'used my shoulder to... nudge it' and inadvertently broke the door. You stated you then walked in and grabbed the phone.

(f) You stated that while you were getting the phone, the victim pushed back on her chair and started screaming 'like I was hitting her' and grabbed at your legs. You denied assaulting her.

(g) You stated you grabbed the Fitbit from the fridge, not from the victim's wrist. You claimed you were the owner of the Fitbit, as you had not yet given it to the victim for her birthday.

(h) You stated that you were aware of the Intervention Order and that you were allowed at the house if the victim told you so in writing.

1. I conclude that these were not all candid or honest answers.
2. You were remanded in custody on 12 February 2024, where you have remained ever since.
3. For clarity's sake, the persistent breach of FVIO is particularised in the following way - namely on 7 February (by committing family violence), 8 February (by engaging in text messaging that was emotionally abusive) and 11 February 2024 (by going and remaining within 200 metres of where the victim lives)
4. Yet another FVIO was issued against you. This time, an Interim Family Violence Intervention Order (P10179710) was issued and served on you on 22 February 2024.
5. The new order had full conditions this time, including prohibiting you from contacting the victim (and the children) in any way at all.
6. While at Kareenga Prison in Lara awaiting determination of the charges I just outlined, you continued to offend.

Persistent breach of intervention order 4th July 2024 - 14th July 2024

1. On every one of the days between 4 July 2024 and 14 July 2024 inclusive, you sent the victim emails via the Prisoner Email System.
2. All of these emails were in contravention of the Intervention Order. The victim replied sporadically, however did not fully engage in conversation. The victim eventually told you that the relationship was over and would not be rekindled.
3. Several (but not all) of the other emails sent by the you were of an abusive, controlling, or coercive nature.
4. Examples of the relevant emails sent include:

(a) 'Okay ur nothing but fkn crqzy if u think im talking to other females i don't anyone else email but ur the only one I know im other this shiut u act like im doing stuff wean im not I fkn love u' (Saturday, 6 July 2024 10:20 AM - 'Email 40');

(b) 'Next ur gonna be saying im toxi an im the problem wean I m trying to talk to an tell u things I have goinhgo on I don't wann sit an think u think im taking to other sluts wean im not an if u keep saying shit like I FKN WILL IVE STAY LORALLY TO FOR LONGER THEN U FGKNTINK so plz think what u say to plz lofve xxxx' (Saturday, 6 July 2024 10:24 AM - 'Email 41');

(c) 'Who the fuck but a brush on ur leg notthe one with the tat but the other one it looks like u been hit or something who the fuck em I bashing wean I get out of here an don't lie to me cause u don't wann see me get in troubleyeah plz tell me who the fuk did coz if I find out myself ill kll em love ggxx' (Saturday, 6 July 2024 at 9:46 PM - 'Email 57');

(d) 'Alright good night I guess I wont be getting any reply tonight are u workin tomorrow night I need to know the night before so I don't strees out an start thinkin u hate me or something love gg xxxxxxxx' (Monday 8 July 2024 9:28 PM - 'Email 77');

(e) 'Look I love u but can I plz get a reply so I know evething is alright so im not so worried like come on I got a few things I wanna tell u but u anit rerpling like im going for kiss bail an thing but I don't if I will get it but im gonna try so I can see u an be with my kids an that' (Friday, 12 July 2024 5:29 PM - 'Email 98'); and

(f) 'U don't hope I gt my life on tracjk wen ur the reason why life is FUCK don't tell me u care an hiope I get better u don't ur nothing but a fkn liar an u watch wean I get out im doing great u will want me back any im sorry but I wont be able to be with me . I loved u an always wuill AN u throw me away like a piss of trash at leash I know where we stand bye' (Saturday, 13 July 2024 8:38:04 AM - 'Email 101').

1. There were other messages sent that gave rise to a sense that you were imposing yourself on the victim and pressuring her. That alleged conduct originally formed the basis of a charge of attempt to pervert the course of justice, that has since been withdrawn.
2. This second spate of your overall offending was reported to police on 25 July 2024. You declined to be interviewed about it.

1. Your victim has written a victim impact statement as recently as 1 July 2025.[3] Your violence has changed the way she sees people. She worries about her safety. She does not trust people. She does not want to have anyone new in her life in case they are violent like you. Her eldest child is old enough and aware of enough of what you did. He talks of it.
2. She gets triggered by people yelling. She has panic attacks. She struggles to sleep. She sees a counsellor who believes she has depression and anxiety. She has had to move home because of you. She struggles to support herself and struggles without the support of others she once had. She believes that you will immediately track her down upon release. She says, 'I believe he will come for me and harm me as I've seen the worst of him and what he can do. I fear for my life'.
3. This is a serious victim impact. Not just on her, but I take judicial notice of the notorious effects that exposure to family violence has on children.

1. The matter has proceeded through the criminal justice system in the following way.

Offender remanded and matter listed for Committal Mention.

Matter listed for Sentence Indication Application Hearing

1. The offending the subject of the first indictment occurred on 11 February 2024, when you attended at the premises of Ms Dean.
2. Your presence at the house in contravention of the IVO was never in issue, however your intentions upon entering the house led to the matter taking some time to resolve. You wished for the matters to resolve without recourse to trial. It did so to a charge of aggravated burglary put on the basis that you entered with intent to assault and knew or were reckless as to the presence of a person inside.
3. The second indictment relating to the contact via email from custody resolved with the Crown withdrawing the attempt to pervert the course of justice charge. You never contested the contact via email from prison being in contravention of the Intervention Order.

1. The following material was tendered and relied on this plea

(a) Outline of Submissions, 9 July 2025;[4]

(b) Clinical Neuropsychologist, Dr Matt Treeby, 11 June 2025;[5]

(c) Psychological Report, Gina Cidoni, September 2022;[6]

(d) Neuropsychological report, Associate Professor Warrick Brewer, 4 October 2017;[7]

(e) Clinical Neuropsychological report, Dr Renee Lichter, 27 January 2016;[8] and

(f) Further submissions, 3 September 2025.[9]

1. You have a childhood history of trauma, neglect, abuse, poly substance abuse and a number of self-harm and suicide attempts, (the latter commencing as early as age eight).
2. Your schooling was severely compromised, and you did not reach Year 7 level of education. It is tragic, even when measured against the disadvantage that this court routinely sees. That will be evident in the reports I am about to come to.
3. You were raised in multiple homes across the country. Your childhood included extensive Child Protection intervention and being placed into Foster Care with a neighbour. Your mother was an intravenous drug user who was routinely beaten by the men in her life. You were beaten and abused yourself. You sought refuge in drugs from an early age. Your childhood provided anything but a sound foundation upon which to build a life.
4. As a result of a motor vehicle accident in December 2015, aged just 16, you suffered a severe life changing traumatic brain injury (in the form of frontal lobe damage), that compromised your functioning even further.
5. You were, as I said, in a relationship with Ms Dean for seven years, commencing when you were around 20. Much of your identity is bound up in the idea that you are a partner and a father.
6. Your counsel described this relationship as volatile. You have three children together who are between the ages of three and seven that I have mentioned above.
7. Intervention orders being imposed and contravened or ignored were a common thread in the years leading to this offending. Despite the centrality of your relationship with the victim in your life, you seem unable to function in that relationship without causing damage to her - either physically or emotionally.
8. You have matters pending in the Magistrates court listed on 9 October 2025. These included two CCO contraventions (two informants - a single charge of Unlicensed Driving proceeding and a single charge of Contravene Interim Family Violence Intervention Order proceeding). These matters will proceed as pleas of guilty on the return date.

1. You admit a number of prior convictions between 2016 and 2023.[10]
2. You have committed a number of violent offences in the last seven years including assaults, aggravated assaults, home invasion, aggravated burglaries, threats to kill, and too many breaches of intervention orders or personal safety intervention orders to count. Most of this prior offending I am told, relates to the same victim.
3. You have received CCO's the majority of the time (2017, 2018, 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023), with some of these CCO's being imposed for breach of previous CCO's. You received a justice plan in 2020.
4. You were first imprisoned in 2020, when you received 15 months (with 422 days reckoned as served) for offences of home invasion.
5. Courts have persisted with you with non-custodial penalties for years afterwards for offences in the same vein as those I just mentioned. You continued to breach orders, including intervention orders, CCO's and bail.
6. On 6 December 2023, you were sentenced to offences of damage property, contravene IVO, aggravated assault of a female, persistent contravention of IVO, commit offence on bail, assault, threat to kill, and stalking (as well as driving offences) You were sentenced to 80 days reckoned as served.
7. You offended again as early as the second week of January 2024 in a similar vein - and that offending is represented in the first indictment before me.
8. You are not to be punished again for that criminal history, but this lamentable history is relevant in assessing the risk you present to the community (thus increasing the need for community protection) and your capacity to reform.

1. Your sad and complex history means that a number of reports have been prepared over the years, mostly in order for courts to understand you and your past offending, or to manage your affairs on your behalf because you are unable to. I will turn to the relevant parts of them now.

1. Dr Renee Lichter, Clinical Neuropsychologist, provided a report dated 27 January 2016. This report was written for the Guardianship List of VCAT. It discusses the traumatic brain injury you acquired after a horrific car crash on 21 December 2015. You received 'traumatic brain injury in the 'severe range'. This report also reflects on your 'Pre-morbid history of severe early childhood trauma and neglect, reduced educational opportunities and early onset drug and alcohol abuse may not only contribute to [your] current presentation but may further compromise [your] potential for optimising recovery'.

1. In 2017 Associate Professor Mr Warwick Brewer undertook a comprehensive neuropsychological assessment and subsequent report written for sentencing purposes in the Magistrates Court. Those offences were contravention of an IVO with the same complainant. Associate Prof Brewer's insights remain valid in that:

(a) At the time of that offending you 'had a long standing intellectual disability (ID) and substance abuse disorder, a significant acquired brain injury (ABI), symptoms of untreated post-traumatic stress and drug-induced psychosis, all overlay(ing) a long-standing highly compromised developmental history of attachment formation'[11] and he goes on to opine that the ID and ABI are permanent and that 'substance abuse and associated cognitive and socio-emotional and attachment vulnerabilities are likely to remain ongoing in the near to at least the mid-distant future.

(b) Significantly for the court's consideration Assoc. Prof. Brewer describes the impact of your mental capacity as 'making you significantly disinhibited and less able to control your emotions or faculties, mildly effect your ability to understand the wrongfulness of your actions, significantly affecting your ability to think clearly, make calm and reasoned decisions and appropriate judgements. [12]

1. In September 2022 a report was obtained from Ms Gina Cidoni, psychologist. She assessed you with the benefit of Dr Lichter's 2016 report.
2. Ms Cidoni opined that you 'met the full diagnostic criteria of a major neurocognitive disorder due to traumatic brain injury (TBI)[13] and went on to say that '[you] exhibited executive and attentional impairments that caused clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. This was apparent in repeated breaches of FVIOS and CCOs despite clear consequences and issues with poor frustration tolerance and impulse control that led to adverse behaviours such as drug taking'
3. Ms Cidoni also diagnoses you with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), persistent depressive disorder, and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity (ADHD).

1. Dr Matt Treeby, Clinical Neuropsychologist, was engaged by your current solicitors in relation to this matter. His report is dated 11 June 2025. Specifically, he was engaged to address the issues as to whether you may be eligible for a JP to assist upon release.
2. Dr Treeby opined that 'on neuropsychological assessment [you] performed in the Low Average range on an overall measure of his intellectual function (FSIQ = 88, 21st percentile)'.
3. Such an assessment does not disclose an intellectual disability or impairment that would make you eligible for a JP. So much was made clear when I adjourned the matter to have you assessed for a Justice Plan as a potential condition to attach to meaningfully structured lengthy combination sentence.[14]
4. The court received the letter from the Department of Justice and Community Safety (DJCS) of Helen Mahar on 21 July 2025,[15] indicating that you are not eligible for a Justice Plan because you did not meet the criteria (you have an ABI not an ID). You were, though, eligible for voluntary services with Forensic Disability Programme.
5. You are also apparently eligible for NDIS support, which most regrettably does not seem to provide any assistance for you in prison as a stand-alone service or even a transitional one as you eventually prepare to re-integrate back into the community.

1. The charges do not fall within the definition of Category 1 or 2 offences, per section 3 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic). Nor are the Charges standard sentence offences per s5A of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic). Provisions regarding imposing a minimum non-parole period under Division 2 of Part 3 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), do not apply.
2. The serious offender provisions do apply to the charge of threat to kill (Charge 2), which I will come to in due course.

Sentencing principles regarding family violence

1. All of this offending is properly described as family violence.
2. Family violence is a matter that resonates deeply in our community for good reason. Growing recognition of the seriousness and impact of family violence on its victims means that your offending is serious and damaging. Offences like this disproportionately affect women. This behaviour must be denounced and recognised for the fear and the harm it causes. The effects of family violence are inescapable and enduring and are not confined to physical injury.
3. General deterrence, protection of the community and punishment, must be salient sentencing considerations.[16]

'The key to protection lies in deterring the violent conduct by sending an unequivocal message to would-be perpetrators of domestic violence that if they offend, they will be sentenced to a lengthy period of imprisonment so that they are no longer in a position to inflict harm'.[17]

1. As a general proposition, where the offence of aggravated burglary occurs in the context of family violence, it is not considered any less serious because the offender is known to the victim. Indeed, the criminal law now gives greater recognition to the devastating effects of family violence and recognises the fundamental importance of general deterrence in cases of domestic violence.
2. Aggravated burglary is an inherently serious offence. Parliament has set a maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment for this offence as a measure of how seriously it is viewed.
3. This is a serious version of aggravated burglary. There is no difference between 'confrontational', or 'intimate relationship' aggravated burglaries in this context. Both are essentially grievance-driven; both involve confronting the person against whom the grievance is held; and, in both cases, the aggravated burglary is typically accompanied by violence or threats of violence. That is the case here. It is the type of intimate partner aggravated burglary that the Court of Appeal was at pains to make clear is particularly serious not just in DPP v Meyers in 2014,[18] but more recently in DPP v Kurtaj[19] and later in DPP v Perry.[20]
4. Both of those recent cases were successful Crown appeals where aggravated burglaries (amongst other allied offences) were committed in circumstances of family violence. The statements of principle in those cases are timely and forceful.
5. Not only is the gravity of this type of offending underscored, but so too are the important considerations when dealing with family violence more broadly.
6. The principles as emphasised in Kurtaj are worthy of repetition and I repeat them here in full (with some citations omitted):

[100] In 2023, this Court in Skeates (a pseudonym) v The King[21] referred to the 'unequivocal message' that it had sent in its 2014 decision in Pasinis v The Queen.[22] That message related to the 'prominence deterrence must achieve in sentencing conduct in the context of family violence'. The Court in Skeates also listed the repeated statements of this Court that had been made, since Pasinis, which dealt with the 'need for condign punishment to denounce and deter family violence ... because of its prevalence and the seriousness of its consequences'.

[101] In Skeates, this Court declared that '[f]amily violence is contemptible'. The Court emphasised the importance, when sentencing an offender for offences committed in the context of family violence, of deterrence (both specific and general), denunciation, protection of the community, 'condemnation' and 'appropriate punishment'. The Court went on to observe that:

offence committed in the context of family violence, the surrounding behaviours of the offender must be considered to assess the true gravity of the offending and for 'the sentence to vindicate the dignity of [the] victim'.

[102] In Sepehrnia v The King,[23] a case where an offender had raped and threatened his intimate partner, Priest and Niall JJA cited Skeates, and observed that:

If ever there was a time in which the volatility and imperfection of human relationships provided some moderating context to crimes of violence occurring within a domestic setting, that time has long passed.

1. It is in that context, informed by decisions such as Meyers, Hogarth[24] and Brown[25] that I assess the particular seriousness of aggravated burglaries involving former domestic partners with the following in mind from Meyers [26]
   • Violence of this kind is alarmingly widespread, and extremely harmful. Statistics about the incidence of women being killed or seriously injured by vengeful former partners are truly shocking. Although the cases under consideration do not fall into that worst category, they are symptomatic of what can fairly be described as an epidemic of domestic violence.
   • In cases such as these, those who might, in a mood of anger or frustration or bitterness, contemplate this kind of violent entry into the home of a former spouse or partner must realise that, if they do so, they will almost certainly spend a long time in prison.

1. This offending encompasses persistent breaches of intervention orders over five days in the first instance and 10 days in the second, (even whilst you were in prison for persistently breaching an intervention order), threats to kill (which in the context of your history were terrifying) and aggravated burglary - specifically to assault your partner. You achieved your purpose and did assault her.

1. Having given attention to the broader principles involved at play, I turn now to specific features of the seriousness of this offending.
2. When considering the offence of aggravated burglary, then, the specific features identified in Meyers are relevant to the assessment of its seriousness;

(a) You were not armed;

(b) You were alone;

(c) Your intent upon entry was to assault a known female victim who was your former domestic partner;

(d) Entry was by 'barging' through the door, breaking it (thus committing criminal damage - RSO 17); [27]

(e) You knew or were reckless that the victim was in the house; and

(f) You knew not only that you were not welcome there, but she was very much afraid of you.

1. Your assault of the victim (Charge 4) is shameful. The maximum penalty is six months' imprisonment.
2. This is a rolled-up charge of assault. 'A rolled-up count is a collection of counts bundled together into a single count...the sentence on a rolled-up charge must take into account all of the individual offences it comprises.'[28] A 'significantly higher sentence is justified on a rolled-up charge than would be the case for a single offence'.[29] The rolled-up charge comprises all of the application of force you engaged in on the day.
3. The gravity of the assault is reflected in the following features:

(a) It was prolonged;

(b) You struck her many times;

(c) You struck her in the head;

(d) It occurred even as she was telling you to leave;

(e) It occurred in her own home where she was entitled to feel safe (obviously making good the intention you possessed at the time you committed Charge 3 - aggravated burglary); and

(f) It occurred soon after you told her you were going to kill her (conduct which obviously overlaps with Charge 2).

Persistent (and other) breaches of intervention order

1. The maximum penalty for persistent breach of an FVIVO is five years, and two years for the single charge of contravening such an order.
2. All of the offending in one way or another contravenes an FVIVO. I have been careful in this regard not to doubly punish you by treating each of the other offences as being aggravated by that fact as well.
3. The judicial importance of intervention orders is well-known. It has been recognised that breaching an intervention order must carry with it stern punishment, particularly in circumstances where the accused/appellant continually commits offences against the same complainant, protected by an intervention order, as is the case here.
4. Your conduct in prison is unsophisticated in that you used your own email address to contact the victim.
5. Not all of your unlawful contact with the victim was menacing. Some are conversational, requesting photos of her and the children and lamenting the state of your relationship. This is not quite to the point. Some of the contact was indeed menacing. What is more, knew you were prohibited from either committing family violence or any contact with her at all - after all, breaching such an order is one of the reasons you were in prison in the first place.
6. Your persistent contravention of court orders demonstrates a continuing attitude of disobedience for the law and as such community protection is of real importance. At risk of labouring the point, not even being remanded for family violence offending and breaching a FVIO could deter you from breaching a further FVIO.

1. Making threats to kill carries a maximum penalty of 10 years. You are no stranger to making such threats to this victim either.
2. I have had regard to the nature of your threat to kill in that that it occurs in a context of many other threats historically, how detailed it was and what effect you intended it to have on your victim.
3. Having been sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a Serious Violent Offence, namely make threat to kill on 6 December 2023, you fall to be sentenced as a Serious Violent Offender. That charge is a Serious Violent Offence under the Sentencing Act 1991.
4. In sentencing on that charge, the protection of the community must be regarded as the principal sentencing purpose. Unless otherwise ordered, any sentence of imprisonment must be served cumulatively upon the sentences imposed on other charges.
5. This does not mean, however, that the other sentencing purposes have been excluded. Other sentencing purposes are still applicable and operative. The legislative intent is that the prison term is long enough to protect the community from the risk posed by the offender, but how long that is depends on the assessed risk of re-offending. If it is considered that the risk of offending is low, the protection of the community will weigh less heavily than it would if it was otherwise assessed as high.
6. The aim of the requirement that a court regard protecting the community as the predominant purpose is to ensure that it gives proper consideration to the question and undertake a 'requisite risk assessment'.
7. Your risk of re-offending is high, and protection of the community is very important, but the Crown does not invite me to impose a disproportionate sentence in order to facilitate that sentencing objective. I have not done so.

Comparable cases, current sentencing practices

1. I was not provided with any cases said to be truly comparable,[30] though I did familiarise myself with the Judicial College of Victoria (JCV) case collection for aggravated burglary,[31] the most recent sentencing snapshot for that offence,[32] the JCV case collection for offences involving threats, [33] the JCV case collection for breach of family violence intervention order.[34]
2. This material was instructive and helpful, but are not a controlling factor in my decision by any means. They do not set a numerical limit on the upper and lower limits of the appropriate sentence in any particular case.

1. It is submitted, and I accept, that the plea of guilty in this matter was offered at a relatively early time. The issues between you and the prosecution were narrow. The negotiation between the parties centred around other charges which have not, in the end, proceeded.
2. By resolving this matter, you have spared the victim and other witnesses from giving evidence and being cross-examined at trial.
3. Guilty pleas in high impact crimes spare victims the ordeal of giving evidence and may assist them to put their experiences behind them and to receive vindication and support. No witness has been cross-examined and in that way at trial there is a real human saving to the course you have taken.
4. You have acknowledged your wrongdoing and demonstrated a willingness to facilitate the course of justice.
5. Your plea, in my view, warrants moderation of the sentence that would otherwise be imposed.
6. Accordingly, the plea comes with very significant utilitarian value. That will be evident when I make a declaration under s6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic).
7. The issue of remorse is vexed. As one can see from the OOC PSR, you fluctuate about your response to your own criminality. I am prepared to find that you are to some extent remorseful (so far as your limitations allow you to be at least), even as you justify some of your behaviours still.

1. In Bugmy v the Queen,[35] the High Court enunciated a number of principles relating to the relevance of a person's deprived background in the sentencing task, particularly with respect to the assessment of moral culpability.
2. The effects of profound disadvantage do not diminish over time and are to be given full weight in the determination of the appropriate sentence in every case. That is so here.
3. In the Victorian context, an offender's deprived background is also relevant to sentencing by reason of s5(2)(d) of the Sentencing Act 1991, which requires the court to address 'the offender's culpability and degree of responsibility for the offence'.
4. In DPP v Herrmann[36] the court reaffirmed the need for an appropriate evidentiary foundation before an offender's disadvantaged background can be taken into account.
5. There is no factual dispute about your upbringing. Your traumatic background is such that Bugmy principles assist the court in sentencing a person who seems to not learn from his mistakes. Sadly this offending is remarkably similar to your previous matters. It is clear that there are situations of heightened emotions where you will struggle to regulate emotions and actions.
6. Your background of abuse, neglect, trauma and brain injury apply in mitigation. Your early descent into polysubstance abuse (entirely normalised at home it seems) too adds to your mental health issues. Those features of your personality make you more impulsive, erratic and not in control of your emotions. Your moral blameworthiness is reduced as a result.
7. Having said that, you are very difficult to deter or place restrictions on. Without a way to manage your behaviour, the tragic way in which you were made makes you more dangerous.
8. Seen this way, the disadvantages of the kind I have just referred to leads to an increased need for community protection. This does not swamp the mitigatory effect though of your upbringing and its contribution to the present offending. In that sense, the principles in Bugmy are double-edged: even if there is a reduction in moral culpability there can be a heightened need for community protection given your criminal history and the circumstances of the present offending.
9. I still regard protection of the community to be an important sentencing consideration, and one that I have strived to facilitate both by your immediate removal from the community for a period of time where you can do no harm, but also by permitting a meaningful parole period in order to facilitate your re-integration back into the world, under supervision and with treatment when and if the Adult Parole Board (APB) permits it.

1. It is submitted that you were suffering a 'mental disorder or abnormality' or 'impaired mental functioning' at the time these offences were committed which falls within the scope of 'the wide variety of impaired mental functioning or conditions' as contemplated by the leading judgment in R v Verdins.[37]
2. In Verdins, the Court of Appeal said impaired mental functioning, whether temporary or permanent ('the condition or impairment'), is relevant to sentencing, and outlined the six ways in which it could be used. This is a different head of mitigation than that which operates via the Bugmy principle.[38]

1. Your counsel relies on the findings that you meet the full diagnostic criteria of a major neurocognitive disorder due to permanent acquired traumatic brain injury to establish that you have such a condition (or impairment), and that consequently all the limbs of Verdins apply to you.
2. There is evidence of continuing ice use in the lead up to this offending, that must have contributed to the offending in some way, or confound the symptoms of your already compromised mental functioning.
3. Given the totality of your deficits and the way drug use is one unhappy manifestation of your already established permanent diminished capacity, I do not consider it truly causative here. Your impairment by way of an ABI is permanent. It permeates all areas of your life. Your drug use is connected to that impairment. The impairment is directly connected to the offending.
4. Dr Treeby puts it this way[39]

'Mr Salberg's brain injury has resulted in substantial damage to his orbitofrontal cortex, a key frontal lobe brain structure which is involved in impulse control, the cognitive process of decision-making, and emotion regulation. Damage to this area of the brain typically results in a pattern of disinhibited behaviour including poor social interaction, compulsive behaviours, drug misuse, and a poor ability to learn from mistakes. There was evidence of an impulse control disorder on neuropsychological assessment and owing to a combination of his complex trauma history and acquired brain injury, Mr Salberg has marked and severe difficulties with regulating his emotions and behaviours.'

1. Dr Treeby goes on to note the many and various diagnosis previously your presentation has attracted over the years. He opines you likely have complex PTSD,[40] and stimulant use disorder.
2. He says this:

Various sources of information indicate that Mr Salberg has longstanding aggressive behavioural tendencies, he is prone to quarrel, and he has difficulties with managing anger in a socially appropriate manner. His difficulties with managing and regulating anger were regrettably made worse following his brain injury. Owing to his poor impulse control, Mr Salberg may act on the spur of the moment without due consideration of the consequences. He may also engage in behaviour before adequately weighing up the pros and cons of courses of action. This executive dysfunction may compromise his ability to make reasoned and appropriate judgements in some circumstances and this would have been evident at the time of the alleged offending. His ability to exert control over his emotions and behaviour would be even more impaired when he is substance affected.

1. Ms Cidoni says, in a way I am minded to agree with, that [41]

'[your] complex conditions are causal factors to the offending in that they cause neurocognitive dysfunction and behavioural effects relating to erratic, impulsive acts, clouded judgment and reduced moral culpability where the application of Verdins should be considered.'

1. Turning now to the application of the principles of Verdins:

Limb 1: The condition may reduce the moral culpability of the offending conduct, as distinct from the offender's legal responsibility. Where that is so, the condition affects the punishment that is just in all the circumstances; and denunciation is less likely to be a relevant sentencing objective.

1. Associate Professor Brewer's report (in conjunction with that I have just quoted from Ms Cidoni) addresses the issues of your moral culpability as your impairments simply reduce your ability to understand the wrongfulness of your actions and think calmly.
2. This offending occurred apparently when your emotions were high with real or imagined infidelity of your long-term partner. Your outbursts are just as Associate Professor Brewer outlines-where your mental capacity makes you disinhibited and less able to control your emotions.[42] This does in my view reduce your culpability.

Limb 2: The condition may have a bearing on the kind of sentence that is imposed and the conditions in which it should be served.

1. This limb has application but not to the extent that it permits me to impose a sentence that sees you released immediately or even shortly. Though suitable for a CCO in combination with prison, you are unsuitable for a JP.

Limb 3: Whether general deterrence should be moderated or eliminated as a sentencing consideration depends upon the nature and severity of the symptoms exhibited by the offender, and the effect of the condition on the mental capacity of the offender, whether at the time of the offending or at the date of sentence or both.

1. Given your deficits and the connection to your offending, it is submitted that the moderation of general is warranted. You are not a terribly suitable vehicle through which to deter others.

Limb 4: Whether specific deterrence should be moderated or eliminated as a sentencing consideration likewise depends upon the nature and severity of the symptoms of the condition as exhibited by the offender, and the effect of the condition on the mental capacity of the offender, whether at the time of the offending or at the date of the sentence or both.

1. It is also submitted that moderation of specific deterrence is warranted. You can understand to some extent the wrongness of your conduct. The evidence points overall to a reduced capacity for you to realise the wrongness of your conduct. Specific deterrence has demonstrably been hard to achieve with you. It is worth persisting with, of course, and the weight to be given to it will moderate the sentence I impose.

Limb 5: The existence of the condition at the date of sentencing (or its foreseeable recurrence) may mean that a given sentence will weigh more heavily on the offender than it would on a person in normal health.

1. Associate Professor Brewer also notes that you would be vulnerable in prison, although ironically the structure and enforced sobriety would potentially have some beneficial impacts. Dr Treeby makes similar observations.[43]
2. Ms Cidoni outlined in some detail[44] how onerous prison would be on you back in 2022‑ - a fact that is unlikely to have changed. Dr Treeby [45] also noted that

'Mr Solberg's mental health difficulties may compromise his ability to manage adversity in the custodial setting'.[46] 3. The state of the evidence on this point means I am not prepared to find that this limb applies. There is a serious argument to be made that both enforced sobriety and structure may be beneficial to you.

Limb 6: Where there is a serious risk of imprisonment having a significant adverse effect on the offender's mental health, this will be a factor tending to mitigate punishment.

1. The argument relating to limb 6 of Verdins is to some extent bound up in the material relied on in support of limb 5. For the same reasons, I am not inclined to reduce the sentence based on this factor either.

1. I am mindful of the significance in this case of the application of that principle which requires me when sentencing you for multiple offences to ensure that the aggregate term I impose is a just and appropriate measure of the total criminality involved. I have noted the interrelationship between the charges earlier, and I am mindful of not doubly punishing you.

1. You have been in custody for around 19 months. That is the longest time you have been removed from the community.
2. While you have been able to work on your literacy in custody, I am concerned that you report having no psychological or psychiatric treatment in custody.
3. It is obvious that you will require significant supports upon release. You intend to live with your mother in Melton.
4. Admirable efforts are being made by your lawyers to have your NDIS package initiated in custody and being able to transition in the community. One can see what other treatment programs may be possible for you upon your release into the community under supervision when I turn to the CCO assessment in a moment.

1. Your Counsel, in her submissions filed before the plea noted that:[47]

'Mr Solberg has considered the issue of Corrections Order - and feels he would be better served to remain offence free with a parole period and NDIS support.'

1. At that point it was said that you have enough insight to know that a CCO is not likely to assist you.
2. During the plea, though, the focus shifted somewhat and the potential benefits of you having a certain release date from prison in the future and being supervised once more on a CCO (with a JP component as you had before) could not be ruled out. This was so given it was still open to me to impose 12 months' imprisonment from the date of sentence, in combination with a CCO for years after that. On that analysis you could serve close to two and a half years in custody (incorporating up to 12 months from the sentence date) before being released on a structured CCO for years after that.
3. Quite properly the Crown agreed that there would be no disadvantage in investigating just how much scaffolding and tailored structure the OOC could offer as a means to break this cycle of offending and protect the community. You being suitable for a JP was a central plank in that position or concession then held by the Crown.
4. In the end, you were not suitable for a JP and it was sensibly put by Ms Swiney that you would be better enabled to remain offence free with a parole period and NDIS support. The timely reminder of important matters of principle of the Court of Appeal in Kurtaj reinforced the wisdom of this decision.
5. That is not to say that the assessment process was of no utility‑ - far from it.

1. I had you assessed for a CCO and JP. As noted earlier, you are not suitable for the latter.
2. I received an extended PSR from the OOC on 26 August 2025.[48] It was extremely thorough and helpful.
3. You display fluctuating insight into your behaviour. At times you have expressed real remorse for the impact your crimes had on your former partner and children, but struggled to grasp that even 'non-threatening' contact was in breach of the IVO. This is perhaps consistent with entrenched behavioural patterns.
4. You are certainly volatile in emotional circumstances. You can be controlling, coercive, accusatory, and violent.
5. You could not clearly articulate a plan to manage future interpersonal conflict. You could express your intentions, but none of the practical steps that would translate those good intentions into better conduct.
6. Your history with the Corrections is poor. You have had multiple opportunities to complete your most recent CCO's and failed. You are in breach of the last two by this offending. You continued to offend. Your treatment for previous daily ice use was short lived as you commenced on 3 January 2024 and were remanded in custody shortly after.
7. Your mental health condition remains outstanding, as you failed to provide details of your psychologist as required.
8. You were eligible for programs designed to reduce the risk of re-offending but were removed as you were remanded.
9. You are not suitable for a JP, but expressed a willingness to engage with treatment and structured supervision - however this comment troubles me[49]

'There are significant concerns regarding Mr Solberg's ability to comply with the conditions of a further CCO, given his recent history of non-compliance with previous community-based dispositions. Records indicate repeated breaches, missed appointments, and difficulties sustaining consistent engagement with mandated programs and supervision. These patterns raise questions about his capacity to manage the requirements of community-based sentencing without additional supports and close monitoring.'

1. In terms of risk assessment, you are at a high risk of re-offending. On seven out of eight criteria used to measure the same, you are assessed as very high risk. On the remaining criteria you are high risk.
2. This is because you have a longstanding issue with alcohol and drug use, which contributes to your emotional dysregulation and judgment. You have brief periods of sobriety linked to employment.
3. Though you have limited education (often a barrier to employment), you have shown a capacity to engage and maintain semi-skilled employment - giving you structure and prosocial identity. You would need intense and structured vocational support.
4. Your family/marital situation is sad and complex. Despite the instability of your early years, your mother is prepared to have you live with her. The author considers this to be protective, but I am concerned about the somewhat fixed focus you place on your relationship with the victim here even still.
5. I do not doubt your strong and consistent desire to maintain safe and meaningful contact with your children. You described your parental role as your 'biggest motivation' for rehabilitation, identifying fatherhood as a central protective factor.
6. Your leisure activities, such as they are, involve drug taking. It heightens your risk and contributes to impulsiveness and offending. You need assistance in finding pro-social outlets.
7. You do have responsivity issues: you have attention difficulties and slower processing speed, and a preference for structured, concrete learning. You benefit most from practical, hands-on material supported by visual aids rather than theory-heavy or abstract discussions. You receive information best when delivered in smaller components, and perhaps group programs with high cognitive demands or fast-paced delivery styles may overwhelm you and reduce participation.
8. You are highly sensitive to perceived criticism, rejection, and interpersonal conflict. You tend to disengage or become reactive when placed in environments that feel confrontational or unpredictable. You need careful management in this regard to foster trust and consistency. You also need predictable routines, to reduce idle time, and provision of prosocial outlets (not disconnections and drug taking).
9. Thoughtfully, it was said in the event you were placed onto a CCO following a term of imprisonment, CCS would initiate the following transitional support/planning, appropriate transitional meetings and referrals would be made well before your release. There is no reason to think the APB would not be as diligent when and if the need arises.
10. You can leverage some protective factors, such as the desire to change for your children, the support of your mother, your capacity to be in gainful employment and what appears to be a genuine desire to engage.
11. You do demonstrate the ability to engage with treatment when interventions are tailored to your learning style and cognitive needs. You have shown improved participation in settings where program delivery is structured, supportive, and practical, suggesting that adapting interventions to your capabilities will maximise outcomes and encourage sustained engagement.
12. Together, these protective factors (strong parental motivation, consistent family support, vocational capacity, and demonstrated treatment responsiveness) provide a foundation for your rehabilitation. Leveraging these strengths within a structured, supportive framework will be critical in promoting positive behavioural change and reducing long-term risk.[50]
13. After careful consideration, the author said you were suitable with a number of conditions.
14. I am not persuaded that a combination sentence is appropriate, but I stress the assessment exercise was of real utility.

1. Your prospects on the face of it initially look quite poor, but having had the benefit of the CCO assessment I think it is fair to say I can take a better view of your prospects because of the assessor's recommendations and comments I have just recited.
2. Your prospects may be fair, especially after a substantial term of imprisonment and actual engagement in programs designed to reduce the risk of re-offending and mental health treatment.
3. Just punishment and protection of the community must be balanced against the risk that a crushing sentence may ultimately do more harm to the community than good. I have tried my best to balance those matters.
4. It is obvious that you require intensive supervision, monitoring and assistance. In affixing appropriate sentence for you and allowing for a parole eligibility component, I have had regard to the principle of parsimony; that is, the requirement not to impose a sentence that is more severe than that which is necessary to achieve the purposes for which the sentence is imposed.
5. The purpose of parole is to provide for mitigation of punishment in favour of reform through conditional release when and if appropriate. A non-parole period is the minimum time that I determine justice requires you must serve, having regard to all of the circumstances.
6. I have attempted to allow you a meaningful parole period that may commence (if the APB grant it) in the not-too-distant future. You may yet be in a position to re-enter society with NDIS supports, and a sensibly structured sentence would serve the interests of the community in minimising the risk of further offending following the completion of the sentence.[51]
7. I have considered the material carefully, and the relevant authorities relating to the imposition of CCO's such as in Boulton.[52]
8. I agree with Mr Cordy (and Ms Swiney's concession) - the offending is simply too serious for a combination sentence. Your history counts against you. Such an outcome would be well out of kilter with established sentencing practices for offending of this kind.
9. Principles of deterrence (even modified in the way I have mentioned above), denunciation and just punishment are very important considerations in cases such as the present, and in order for them to be given proper weight, a sentence beyond the range of a combination sentence must be imposed.
10. I am persuaded to permit a meaningful parole period for you. It is in intended in more than a year's time you will be eligible to apply for parole. If paroled when eligible (and I do not assume you will be - I approach this exercise mindful that you may serve every day of the head sentence), you would be subject to intensive supervision for up to two years.
11. This calibration of your sentence pays due regard to your prospects for reform whilst maintaining appropriate weight to be given to necessary and important countervailing factors when sentencing.

Persistent contravention of a family violence intervention order

Section 125A Family Violence Protection Act 2008

s.20 Crimes Act 1958

s.77 Crimes Act 1986

12 Jan 2024 s 123 of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008

s 24 of the Summary Offences Act 1966.

Persistent contravention of a family violence intervention order

Section 125A Family Violence Protection Act 2008

1. It is my intention to impose a total effective sentence of four years and 10 months (58 months) with a non-parole period of two years and 10 months (34 months). The non-parole period represents just less than 60 percent of the head sentence.

1. You have accrued 585 days of pre-sentence detention, from 11 February 2024 to 19 September 2025, not including the date of the sentence. That is reckoned as having already been served in satisfaction of the sentence I just imposed. It is important that you know how much the plea of guilty reduced your sentence,

1. But for your plea of guilty I would have sentenced you to a total effective sentence of six years and six months with a non-parole period of four years and two months.

1. I declare that you are sentenced as serious violent offender on charge of Threat to kill (Charge 2) and that will be noted in the records of the Court.
2. HIS HONOUR: Thank you very much, everyone.

[1] A pseudonym has been applied to her as the victim of domestic violence, and other people (such as children) and details to prevent her from being identified.

[2] Taken from Exhibit A: Summary of Prosecution Opening (CR-24-01806) dated 14 July 2025 - which was taken to be an agreed factual basis upon which to sentence you.

[3] Exhibit C: Victim Impact Statement of Lara Dean.

[10] You did not admit the interstate prior criminal history I had initially viewed, and I have no regard to it.

[13] Exhibit 3: Report of Gina Cidoni dated 27 September 2022, at [94]

[14] Of the kind contemplated by s.44 Sentencing Act 1991.

[15] Exhibit 7: Letter from DFFH dated 21 July 2025. Anecdotally, the assistance provided in Court on the day of the plea by Ms O' Neill from the Office of Corrections strongly suggested that you had never been properly assessed for such an order. This of course is not your fault.

[16] R v Henderson [1998] VSCA 83 at [44]; R v Cotham [1998] VSCA 111.

[17] Pasinis v The Queen [2014] VSCA 97. This doesn't mean the Court imposes a sentence for the purposes of preventative detention of course.

[18] [2014] VSCA 314 (Meyers).

[19] [2025] VSCA 203.

[20] [2025] VSCA 217.

[21] [2023] VSCA 226.

[22] [2014] VSCA 97.

[23] [2024] VSCA 149.

[24] Hogarth v The Queen [2012] VSCA 302.

[25] Brown v The Queen [2021] VSCA 204.

[27] I will not doubly punish you for this offence given it is so substantially subsumed in the aggravated burglary.

[28] DPP (Vic) v Conos [2021] VSCA 367 at [74].

[30] Though there were obvious comparisons to be made regarding this case and that of Kurtaj - where I agree in that the case the offender was a decade older, and objectively his offending more grave than here.

[31] 6.4.1.1 Court of Appeal sentence overview.

[36] [2021] VSCA 160 at [44].

[37] [2007] VSCA 102; (2007) 16 VR 269.

[38] Ellis v The Queen [2021] VSCA 229, [63].

[39] Exhibit 2: Report of Dr Matt Treeby dated 11 June 2025 at [63].

[40] Confirming Ms Cidoni's impression at [75] and Associate Professor Brewer's view too.

[41] Exhibit 2: Report of Gina Cidoni dated 27 September 2022 at [102].

[42] A point of distinction I might add with Kurtaj.

[43] Exhibit 2: Report of Dr Matt Treeby dated 11 June 2025 at [72].

[44] Exhibit 3: Report of Gina Cidoni dated 27 September 2022 at [106].

[45] Exhibit 2: Report of Dr Matt Treeby dated 11 June 2025 at [73].

[47] Exhibit 1: Plea submissions dated 9 July 2025 at [30].

[48] Exhibit 8: Office of Corrections Report.

[50] I also note the raft of similar suggestions made by Dr Treeby in Exhibit 2, under 'Summary and Opinion'.

[51] Mohamed v The Queen [2022] VSCA 136 [66].

[52] [2014] VSCA 342.