DPP v Taylor [2025] VCC 1954

1. On 18 November 2024, the victim was walking along Racecourse Road Flemington, where she stopped and sat on a park bench outside 317 Racecourse Road near 'Pho House' restaurant. This section of Racecourse Road is lined with restaurants and is a populated area. The victim consumed port from a bottle while she sat and spoke with other unknown people who were sitting nearby.
2. At approximately 7:10PM, the victim was approached by you and Ms Reynolds. As you approached her, you were observed on CCTV footage and by witnesses as being unsteady on your feet and stumbling while yelling in the direction of the victim. You were wearing a dark coloured hooded jumper with a large red motif "Ironworks", dark coloured jeans, and grey and black runners. You were carrying an orange BWS shopping bag. Ms Reynolds is depicted on CCTV footage wearing a light-coloured woollen jumper with a loose neck, pink-coloured leggings, and light-coloured runners.
3. You and Ms Reynolds walked over to the victim and a heated discussion began between the three of you, which led to a physical confrontation between you and the victim. As a result, you and the victim stumbled and fell onto a nearby food delivery scooter causing it to fall to ground. You both landed on top of it. Ms Reynolds approached you and the victim who were scuffling on the ground. After a few seconds, the victim got up and walked away.
4. As the victim walked away, Ms Reynolds followed and swung her handbag at the victim's head which did not make contact. Ms Reynolds then punched the victim to the head causing the victim to stumble backwards.
5. You and Ms Reynolds continued to throw punches at the victim. At one stage, the victim fell to the ground again. Approximately ten (10) seconds later, the altercation stopped, and the victim went and sat on a nearby bench. A witness overhead Ms Reynolds say to the victim words to the effect, "At least I'm not a tranny".
6. You and Ms Reynolds walked away briefly, before you retrieved a full and unopened wine bottle from the bag you were carrying. You approached the victim from behind while she was seated at the bench. You raised the bottle above your head and hit the victim with the bottle with force to the back of the head, causing the wine bottle to smash. You were holding the remainder of the wine bottle in your hand. Immediately after, you thrust the broken wine bottle at the victim's face, causing a severe laceration to her chin. You continued to punch the victim before you stopped and walked away.
7. Multiple witnesses seated inside 'Pho House' by the front window with an unobstructed view observed the incident which occurred outside the restaurant window.
8. Witnesses from nearby restaurants came to render assistance to the victim who was bleeding from the head and face. A witness who observed you and Ms Reynolds walk away from the scene took photographs of them which were later provided to police. The witness observed you say to the victim as you walked off, "you fucking tranny." The victim responded, "It's okay, I'm used to it."
9. Police and ambulance services arrived at the scene shortly after.

1. Police obtained CCTV footage from the scene.
2. On 28 November 2024, police attended Blamey Street Ascot Vale to execute a search warrant. You and Ms Reynolds were not present at the time. Police located and seized a dark coloured hoodie with red motif "Ironworks" and a white woollen pullover jumper matching that depicted on CCTV footage of the incident.
3. On 2 December 2024, police reattended Unit Blamey Street Ascot Vale, where you and Ms Reynolds were located, arrested and transported to Moonee Ponds Police Station for the purpose of a recorded interview.
4. You were interviewed, where you identified yourself in photographs but denied the offending.
5. Following the interview, you were charged and remanded into custody to appear at the Melbourne Magistrates' Court on 2 December 2024.
6. At the time of providing her statement on 9 December 2024, the victim did not have a recollection of the offending.

1. Ms Sampson[1] was initially admitted to the Royal Melbourne Hospital for five (5) days between 18 and 22 November 2024.As outlined in the prosecution opening at paragraph [18] she suffered a range of injuries including penetrating injury in the left side of the neck and severe laceration and blood collection on the right ear.
2. She required multiple specialist surgeries and hospital admissions, as outlined at paragraph [19] of the opening including several hospital admissions to treat infected wounds, to remove sutures and to review under anaesthesia screw and plate fixations. She also attended several surgical reviews.
3. On 6 February 2025, a clinical review revealed some ongoing issues including compromised cognition and memory being off baseline post assault and surgery requiring occupational therapy memory assessment, ongoing pain over the coronal incision site requiring pain relief medication, reviews and CT scan in one year.
4. Dr Schrieber of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine in a report dated 27 May 2025 opined that Ms Sampson's facial fracture is significant requiring stabilising surgery with fixation device insertion. There were multiple cuts that were significant requiring surgery. He opined that the bone fracture would take weeks to months to heal and consolidate and there is a likelihood of facial scars.

1. In her victim impact statement Ms Elnora Sampson outlines the significant impact of your offending. It has undermined her sense of safety, confidence and independence. It has impacted her emotional state and welfare. It has affected her relationships and her enjoyment of activities she once valued. She has difficulty sleeping, is easily triggered and becomes 'hypervigilant and jumpy.' She states - 'prior to the assault I was happy, my life felt meaningful and fulfilling. I was planning to study; I enjoyed my art and volunteering. Now I am afraid to leave my house and feel sad, angry, confused, lonely and scared all the time.'
2. Ms Sampson outlines the extensive physical injuries she sustained and her significant surgery and lengthy and difficult recovery period. She still experiences pain and carries constant physical reminders of the assault. She has problems with cognition such as memory, focus, concentration and can become easily confused which is very frustrating and upsetting. In turn, this has impacted her ability to work and has also affected her relationships. She states, 'I used to talk to anyone when I was out but now I isolate myself socially to keep myself safe.'
3. I take into account the significant impact of your offending in sentencing you.

1. Your offending is plainly serious, as indicated by the maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment. General and specific deterrence, denunciation and community protection are important considerations.
2. The assessment of the seriousness of a particular instance of RCSI will involve a consideration of both the degree of probability that serious injury will result and the degree of seriousness of the probable injury.
3. The prosecution refer to cases dealing specifically with incidents of 'glassing', that is where one person strikes another with a glass or bottle, typically to the face or the head. If the glass item is not already broken, it will almost inevitably break on impact, making it a most dangerous weapon (Winch v The Queen [2010] VSCA 141, at [1]).[2] The cases indicate that what makes glassing a serious instance of reckless cause serious injury is the obvious dangerousness of a glass or bottle when used to strike a blow to the face or head. The offender who is convicted of this offence is taken to have foreseen a high probability of serious injury (Winch at [36]).[3]
4. As the Court of Appeal stated in Winch at [33] 'the consequences of glassing are, almost invariably, very serious. Striking to the face or head with a bottle or glass carries a high - and obvious - risk of serious injury. The victim of a glassing almost always suffers severe lacerations; often has permanent facial scarring; and suffers physical and psychological damage which 0s typically long-term and often permanent.'[4] The Court of Appeal in DPP v Dix [2015] VSCA 118 described 'glassing' as 'a particularly nasty form of recklessly causing serious injury' (at [1]). In that case, the respondent, who was 20 years of age at the time of offending, had a recent prior conviction for the same offence for which he was serving a suspended sentence, had launched a wholly unprovoked attack on the victim, hitting him in the face with a beer bottle and fracturing the bones of his eye socket.
5. Your offending occurred in a public and populated area, at around 7pm. Ms Sampson was not known to you and your attack was entirely unprovoked. The offending occurred in company, though, you were the main offender. I note that your co-accused has been charged with assault-related offences in the summary stream of the Magistrates which remain outstanding. The incident began with an altercation with you and Ms Reynolds at one stage throwing punches at Ms Sampson. She felt to the ground and later got up and went to sit on a bench. You then walked away and instead of leaving or desisting any further, you approached her from behind and then viciously and cowardly raised a bottle above your head and you hit her with force to the back of the head, causing the bottle to smash. You then thrust the broken bottle at her face, causing severe lacerations to her chin and continue to punched her before finally stopping and walking away. As already noted, Ms Sampson suffered significant and ongoing injuries requiring multiple specialist surgeries and the likelihood of facial scarring.
6. I accept that the offending was without planning or premeditation. However, this does not detract from its obvious seriousness. I accept that you were heavily intoxicated at the time, but again this is no excuse and is not mitigating. Finally, I note that derogatory comments also appear to have been directed at Ms Sampson but it's not suggested (and I do not find) that this sufficiently establishes a motive on your part.
7. Overall, I find the objective gravity of your offending is serious. In relation to your moral culpability it is significant though I accept that there should be some appropriate moderation to reflect the relationship between your Acquired Brain Injury and the offending.

1. You entered an early plea of guilty which entitles you to an important sentencing discount. No witnesses have been cross examined. Your plea of guilty has utilitarian value and indicates a willingness to facilitate the course of justice and accept responsibility for your offending.
2. When asked by Dr Evans what you would say to the Court if given the opportunity, you said, 'I'm sorry. I'm giving the drink away. Sorry to my victim ...' You also made comments which tended to minimise the extent of your problematic alcohol consumption and indicated an absence of any preventative strategies to help you remain abstinent in the community. As I will return to in a moment, I consider that your impaired functioning likely accounts for your presentation and impacts your insight. Your replies were also noted to lack empathy and reflected 'a basic understanding only about the concepts associated with the capacity for remorse.'

1. Your personal circumstances were outlined by your Counsel and are canvassed in the reports of Dr Evans.
2. You are a Yamatji man, born in Three Springs, Western Australian.
3. You are the middle child of a sibship of 13 born to John William Taylor and Angeline Rose Gentle.
4. Both your parents have passed away and all your siblings reside in Meekatharra and Port Hedland in Western Australia.
5. You find it very difficult to discuss your childhood, referring to it during your assessment with Dr Evans, as 'nasty'. As a child you were exposed to considerable instability, trauma and abuse. Your family resided in what you refer to as 'an old tin shack house' in which you and your siblings shared one small room. You recall being exposed to considerable violence and that you and your siblings were often left alone to care for yourselves and were without food most days.
6. Your father was employed as a shearer but did not work consistently due to his alcohol use. Your relationship with him was poor and you were often physically punished.
7. As you recall it, from the ages of 6- and 9-years old you ran away from home and eventually encountered welfare authorities who removed you from your parents' care. You were then placed into the care of your paternal grandmother and resided with her in Port Hedland until around the age of 16.
8. You first came in contact with the criminal justice system at the young age of 10. Your Counsel tendered a full copy of your history which documents the Children's Court appearances. The first one is in February 1981 and there are also a number of 'in care' orders and applications. At 14 years of age you were sentenced to your first custodial sentence, 3 months detention at Longmore Remand and Assessment Centre. At age 16 you were sentenced to 3 months detention at Riverbank Detention Centre. You have spent much of your adult life in custody or otherwise in contact with the justice system. You estimate having spent nearly half of your life in custody.
9. You completed primary school and went on to complete Year 9.
10. You started drinking alcohol at the age of 14 and for decades thereafter you have continued to drink daily. You instruct that prior to your remand you would consume a bottle of Jim Beam and half a dozen beers each day. You have used heroin in the past but instruct that you were not using this prior to your remand. Dr Evans opines that your chronic alcohol use has likely resulted in 'progressive damage to cortical circuits'. You reflected to Dr Evans that alcohol use "made me delusional. I feel sick and crave for more. I became a weapon ... a burden".
11. You have some employment history. In WA you worked as Jackaroo. This including seeding, ploughing, harvesting and mustering sheep. You have also worked in a number of labouring positions. You have not been employed for years now and more recently have been supported by a Disability Support Pension.
12. You moved from Western Australia to South Australia in 2015 and then New South Wales for a short period. In around 2017, though you cannot be sure, you relocated to Melbourne where you have remained since. You arrived in Melbourne with no accommodation or supports.
13. You are presently single, though you did make reference to a recent relationship. You have no children or dependents.
14. Prior to your remand you were residing in supported accommodation through Sacred Heart Mission.
15. You are diagnosed with high blood pressure, hepatitis C and diabetes for which you are prescribed insulin.
16. Shortly before this offending, you were admitted to the Alfred Hospital psychiatric unit in the context of acute methamphetamine intoxication. When assessed you appeared to be responding to visual hallucinations and were disorientated, agitated, grandiose and hostile with the need for chemical and mechanical restraint in the Emergency Department. You were treated with risperidone and haloperidol and your mental health stabilised and you were discharged a couple of days later on 14 November 2024. No other presentations, admissions, treatment or outpatient appointments to the Alfred were indicated on the records (at [15], Dr Evans report).
17. As noted, you have a relevant and an extensive prior criminal history. Your history includes various violence-based offences including assaults occasioning bodily harm, common assault, unlawful assault, assault police and disorderly fighting. It further includes various breach offences, including the breach of family violence safety notices, intervention orders and bail conditions. You have received a range of dispositions with the most significant term being 8 years imprisonment in 2003 for armed robbery. I accept the prosecution submission that while you are not to be resentenced for your prior history, they are relevant to specific deterrence, protection of the community and an assessment of your future risk of reoffending and prospects of rehabilitation.

1. You present with a complex and multifaceted neuropsychological profile.
2. Dr Evans conducted two assessments with you in 2019 and more recently on 6 November 2025. In her most recent assessment she undertook a range of tests, as outlined at paragraph [32] of her report. Your performance in some domains varied and she noted that there was some improvement in general intellectual functioning from 2019. Overall intellect was typically within Low Average ranges. In the context of enforced abstinence for almost 12 months, attentional capabilities were adequate at a basic level only yet the speed at which you process incoming information was normal in rate. By contrast, bilateral memory and new learning skills are significantly impaired and although you declare adequate awareness and reasoning, as well as generally intact problem solving skills, you are unable to plan or independently organise information in a purposeful or goal focused manner. She states further, 'most importantly, Mr Taylor does not demonstrate sufficient insight about his actual cognitive limitations on his ability to function independently, nor the perceptive capacity for true empathy, or genuine remorse, and generally regrets his behaviour from an egocentric perspective' (at [40]).
3. The DASS-23 administered indicated severe to extremely severe levels of depression, anxiety and stress over the preceding weeks (at [18]).
4. Dr Evans diagnoses that your neuropsychological profile is consistent with an alcohol-related acquired brain injury primarily impacting on memory as well as executive aspects (to a moderate degree).
5. Your memory is poor and presents daily challenges. You are heavily reliant on others to assist with your day-to-day living. Whilst in custody you rely on other prisoners to remind you to attend appointments and obtain your medication.
6. Dr Evans also states that you appear to display a tendency for self-sabotaging behaviours and self-medication with alcohol and illicit drugs, possibly in response to your abusive and neglectful upbringing and the emergence of post trauma symptoms. She also considers that psychological distress can be further exacerbated by alcohol intoxication. An additional complicating factor to your presentation is your vulnerability to psychotic episodes and tendency to demonstrate highly aggressive and volatile behaviours in response. Hence, she states, you present as 'psychiatrically unstable and poorly compliant with mental health treatment or recommendations when in the community'.
7. At paragraph [42] of her report, Dr Evans opines that at the time of the offending you were 'experiencing alcohol-related changes to cortex primarily affecting memory and aspects of executive functions, that were likely to have been exacerbated by acute alcohol intoxication, and potentially, underlying trauma symptoms.' She notes your admission to the psychiatric unit in the days prior to your offending and further states that 'owing to diminished judgement secondary to excessive alcohol consumption, and possibly a re-emergence of psychiatric symptoms, together with the nature of [your] alcohol acquired brain injury, [you were] rendered unable to appreciate the consequences of [your] actions, recognise valid alternatives, or inhibit impulsive tendencies'.
8. She does not consider that your cognition is likely to deteriorate in custody, and notes it is an opportunity for sustained abstinence, but considers that there's potential for 'psychological decompensation' unless closely monitored.
9. Your Counsel submits that the Verdins[5] limbs 1, 3 and 4 are enlivened in your case. She submits that your impaired ability to apply reasoning and adapt thinking in order to modify your behaviour, along with your intellectual limitations, causally contributed to your offending. Your mental condition reduced your ability to exercise appropriate judgement and to make rational choices, think clearly, or appreciate the wrongfulness of your conduct.
10. The prosecution accept that there ought to be some reduction in your moral culpability given the evidence of Dr Evan's as the nexus between your ABI and the offending. However, they submit, and I accept, that given the contribution of acute alcohol intoxication to the offending, the mitigatory effect ought to be reduced on this basis.
11. I accept, on the evidence, that there should be some sensible moderation of general and specific deterrence but consider that these purposes still have an important role to play in your case.
12. Your Counsel also relies upon, and I accept, that the Bugmy[6] principle in the general sense is enlivened. You have experienced profound disadvantage and your background, as already canvassed, is one marred by exposure to alcohol abuse and violence from a young age, neglect, poverty, and dislocation.
13. Your Counsel submits that your early exposure to alcohol use and violence as a young child goes part to explaining his recourse to criminal offence and she submits that it reduces your moral culpability.
14. The High Court in Bugmy[7] stated the following at [44], which I consider has full application in your case -

Because the effects of profound childhood deprivation do not diminish with the passage of time and repeated offending, it is right to speak of giving "full weight" to an offender's deprived background in every sentencing decision. However, this is not to suggest ... that an offender's deprived background has the same (mitigatory) relevance for all of the purposes of punishment. Giving weight to the conflicting purposes of punishment is what makes the exercise of the discretion so difficult. An offender's childhood exposure to extreme violence and alcohol abuse may explain the offender's recourse to violence when frustrated such that the offender's moral culpability for the inability to control that impulse may be substantially reduced. However, the inability to control the violent response to frustration may increase the importance of protecting the community from the offender.

1. You participated in the Koori Court Sentencing Conversation. In accordance with the principles outlined in Honeysett v The Queen[8] in assessing the weight to be given to this mitigating factor I have considered a range of matters including your participation in the conversation; your reflections on your life; the shame you feel for your offending; and your wish to get your 'life back on track.' You were challenged during the conversation, with visible impact, and encouraged to also consider the community, cultural and personal implications of your offending. You shared that you have been participating in AA on the weekends and contributing to the torch program. You stated that you had taken the Elders reflections 'all on board' and implicitly acknowledged the need to heal, reconnect with culture and lean on others for support.

1. Turning to your prospects of rehabilitation, I take into account your current motivations.
2. In your discussions with Dr Evans you claimed the current period of remand had offered the opportunity to 'learn and go over your mistakes' and participate in programs in order to 'change your behaviour.' By contrast, you cited the negatives of gaol to be a 'no-win situation if you don't want to help yourself' and when asked why prison had not been a preventative factor for past re-offending, you replied, 'now I'm more older. I see the bigger picture. There's more to life than this' (at [23]). While these may represent genuinely held insights or motivations on your part, it is clear that you will need significant support in the community to help you achieve sustained stability in your life.
3. I take into account that whilst in custody you have been engaged with Amy Howell, Nexus Program Team Leader. They can provide you with some pre and post release support. You have been working as a kitchen billet and engaging in courses including Alcohol and Me and attends AA meetings each Saturday. You are also participating in the Torch program and you paint seven days a week.
4. You have expressed a wish to return to Western Australia to be with family and resume farming work.
5. As already noted you have an extensive criminal history across four states and have served substantial terms of imprisonment.
6. On Dr Evans formal assessment, you presented with 'significant factors associated with risk of re-offending' (at [20]) and she assesses the risk of re-offending as high (at 42(iv)).
7. Dr Evans considers that ongoing management and stabilisation of your mental state is critical if your risk of recidivism is to be mitigated. Dr Evans expresses some pessimism as to your capacity to benefit from therapeutic programs on a permanent basis. She considers it unlikely that you will be capable of independently adapting your behaviours in the absence of intense structures and supports.

1. The purposes for which sentences may be imposed are just punishment, general deterrence, specific deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation and protection of the community. I have already canvassed many of these purposes and how they apply in your case. Given the serious nature of this offending, coupled with your prior criminal history and vulnerabilities, I do regard community protection as important.
2. I take into account the sentencing guidelines referred to in s5 of the Sentencing Act 1991, where relevant in your case. I have considered the relevant sentencing landscape for this offence. I have considered sentencing statistics and cases, including those referred to by Counsel, noting that statistics have their limitations and each case ultimately must be decided on its own facts.
3. There is no dispute in your case that the only appropriate sentence is a term of imprisonment structured with a non-parole period. Given the seriousness of this offence and the significant victim impact I consider that this is the only appropriate sentence. I have also taken into account all of the mitigating factors advanced on your behalf and the opinions of Dr Evans, in determining both the head sentence and the non-parole period.

1. Synthesising all relevant matters, you are convicted and sentenced to 3 years and 9 months imprisonment with a minimum NPP of 2 years and 6 months.
2. Pursuant to s.18 I declare that you have served 373 days in pre-sentence detention.
3. S.6AAA but for your plea of guilty 5 years and 3 months imprisonment with a minimum term of 3 years and 7 months.

[2] Winch v The Queen [2010] VSCA 141.

[3] Winch v The Queen [2010] VSCA 141.

[4] Winch v The Queen [2010] VSCA 141.

[5] R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102

[6] Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37.

[8] Honeysett v The Queen [2014] HCA 29