DPP v Webb [2021] VCC 431

1. One day Abraham Rich and his brother Malcolm were playing in Phillips Gardens after school. Phillips Gardens is nearby the Rich family home. You were in the gardens as well.
2. You called Abraham Rich over and asked if he wanted to make some money. You took him to a drain in a secluded area under a bridge near Inkerman Street. Malcolm was still somewhere in the gardens; you sat down on the ground and undid your victim's pants and pulled down his underpants exposing his penis. You began fondling his penis, you pulled your own pants down. You placed your hand over the victim's and showed him how to masturbate you. You then made your victim masturbate you to ejaculation and afterwards you gave him some loose change. That is Charges 1 and 2.
3. Charges 3 and 4 occurred and at your home address. You approached Abraham Rich when he was riding his bike in the street and accompanied him back to your home. You both went into the loungeroom. Nobody else from your family was present at home but there were two men sitting in the loungeroom. Abraham Rich did not know these men; they were naked and masturbating. You took all of the victim's clothes off and performed oral sex on him, that is Charge 3. You then made the victim perform oral sex on you whilst the other two men watched, that is Charge 4.
4. On this occasion you ejaculated into your victim's mouth and the two other men stood up and ejaculated onto him. You then got some towels and cleaned him before he walked home. Compelling Abraham Rich to perform oral sex is Charge 4.
5. In regard to Charges 5 and 6, on another occasion you took Abraham Rich to a house near Phillips Gardens. You introduced him to an adult male you called Brian. You performed oral sex on Abraham Rich in this man's presence, that is Charge 5. You then compelled Abraham Rich to perform oral sex on you and the other man and you and the other man ejaculated on Abraham Rich. That is Charge 6.
6. Charges 7 and 8 occurred after a trip to a hotel referred to as the Black Duck. You took Abraham Rich and his brother Malcolm to the hotel which is possibly near Creswick. Two unknown men who had been in the loungeroom of your family home were drinking at the hotel. You drank with the two men as Abraham Rich and his brother Malcolm entertained themselves elsewhere in the hotel.
7. After several hours the party left the hotel. Malcolm was told to sit in the front with the other two men. Abraham Rich was in the backseat with you. Somewhere between Creswick and Maryborough you undid your jeans and exposed your penis and you fondled the victim's penis, that is Charge 7. You told the driver to stop the car. The two men in the front seat got out of the car as did Malcolm. The three of them walked back to the back of the car, leaving Abraham Rich and you alone in the backseat of the vehicle. You picked the victim up and put him onto your lap. You pulled his pants off and forced your penis into his anus. He screamed with pain. You had one hand over his mouth and the other around his throat. You ejaculated into his anus before letting him return to his seat.
8. Your offending against Abraham Rich ceased when you were no longer able to access him effectively. On 12 June 1977, police were called to the Maryborough railway sheds due to a break in. Abraham Rich and two of his brothers were amongst a group of boys enlisted by you apparently to commit the break in and thefts. You were arrested and interviewed by police in relation to that matter. It appears from parole records and other documents, from that time, that you had committed far more serious offences on or around 12 June. You were charged with grievous bodily harm and buggery with violence amongst other charges and remanded into custody at that time.
9. You were convicted after trial on 13 October 1977 of buggery with violence and gross indecency. You pleaded guilty to theft and attempted burglary. You were sentenced to eight years imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years. Your offending in the matter before me was bookended by periods of imprisonment, first by your release on parole in January 1977 and your remand in June of that year and subsequent sentence.

1. Your offending against the victim is objectively very serious. Abraham Rich was a vulnerable child. You preyed upon him subjecting him to vile, degrading, humiliating and damaging acts. The trauma you inflicted upon him has stayed with him for his whole life. Sexual offending against children is inherently serious. Your offending was particularly serious given the nature of the sexual acts which included penetrative offending, the repeated nature of the offending, the young age of your victim, performance of degrading acts such as ejaculating on the victim and the involvement by you of other adults in the offending.
2. The victim impact statement of Abraham Rich was read aloud on the plea. I have taken into account the impact upon the victim as set out in his statement and the attached psychological report which together formed Exhibit B on the plea. The impact upon his life and his experience of it has been severe as a result of the impact of your offending.

1. You were born in Maryborough in 1949. You are 71 years of age. At the time of the offending you were 28 or 29 years of age. You were raised in Maryborough, the second-eldest of six children. Your younger brother, Warren, who I have referred to, was 15 years younger than you. Your mother Nancy Webb was a stay at home mother. She was an asthmatic apparently and received the pension from a young age I was told. Your relationship with your mother was a good one. You kept in contact with her and would write to her during periods when you were in prison.
2. She passed away in 1994 aged around 73 I was told. You were in New South Wales serving a sentence when she passed. Your father was Arthur Webb. He worked as a factory hand and tool maker until around the age of 65 when he retired. You have also reported he was a firewood collector and junk collector at various times. Your father died of emphysema at around age 86 in 2016 in a nursing home in Maryborough.
3. You did not have much contact with your father in his later years other than at the nursing home about two years before he died. I was told that you have not had contact with your siblings for several years. You did not see much of your father growing up due to you being in institutional care for periods which I will come to. You have described your father as an alcoholic bully. You witnessed your father being physically violent towards your mother and siblings who would go to school at times, I was told, with bruises and welts on their back, legs and buttocks. This would happen frequently apparently.
4. You have stated that one of your sisters disclosed being sexually abused by your father when she was young. You spent your early childhood up until the age of 10 in Maryborough. Between the ages of 10 and 13 you were sent to boys' homes in Royal Park, being Turana Boys' Home and Box Hill, which was a Salvation Army run boys' home. Tragically you were sexually and physically abused at both institutions. You have vivid memories of the individuals who abused you sexually and physically. You were a ward of the State at the time.
5. At age 13 you returned home to Maryborough where you stayed until the age of 17. At age 17 you started getting into trouble for relatively minor things initially, more serious offending and gaol terms followed. Up until the age of 17 or so, it is no exaggeration to describe your childhood as extremely deprived and you were exposed to dysfunctional and violent behaviour. You also experienced significant trauma whilst a ward of the State.
6. It also appears from the historical records and the more recent materials filed on your behalf that your personality and psychological structure was perhaps shaped or at least distorted by these experiences. As was recognised by the High Court in Bugmy those experiences,[3] none of which were of your making, all played a significant role in shaping your personality and responses. As I observed during the plea hearing, it is not a stretch to conclude that your subjective culpability for the offending before me could not be equated with that of a person who committed the same offences but had had the advantage of a normal, stable and regular home environment during her or his childhood years.
7. I was told that you have had two significant heterosexual relationships. The first was around the age of 17. You followed a girlfriend to Western Australia. You moved there, I was told, because you were getting into trouble in Maryborough. There was a child of that relationship, a daughter who was adopted when you were placed in custody, or when you were in custody at least. You have not had any contact with this daughter.
8. The second relationship I refer to was with another woman who I will simply refer to as Carole[4]. That relationship concluded when you were sentenced to gaol for sexual offending against children. There were three children of your own of that relationship. CV died from a blood clot sometime around 2006. You last had contact with your daughter from that relationship on the day of the verdict and I was told you were having telephone contact with her prior to the trial.
9. You have not had contact with the other children for approximately 12 months prior to trial. You have reported that you had some other short-term relationship which lasted a couple of months and you have also described being in two problematic same-sex relationships. You finished school at age 14 but were only at grade six level. You reported to psychologist, Mr Candlish that you repeated grade four on four occasions. You had literacy problems during school and literacy has continued to be a problem for you throughout your life. At 14 you worked on a farm until the age of 17 when you moved to Western Australia. You have worked in Mildura picking grapes, at a water treatment plan and on a cattle station in Catherine in your late teens and early 20s.
10. You spent a large portion of your 20s in prison. In your 30s and 40s you completed some work fruit picking in the summer periods but also spent a significant time in gaol. You lived in Renmark, South Australia from around the age of 50. You commenced work at a farm that had fruit picking all year around. You held various positions at the farm during that time including picking as a block hand and a water joey which I was told involves looking after the running of the irrigation.
11. You worked seven days per week for a long period before experiencing what was described to me as a breakdown. You were made redundant just before retirement in 2014 at 64 years of age. You owned a caravan and returned to Victoria staying at Waanyarra in North Central Victoria. From 2014 to 2018 you were gold prospecting there. In relation to substance use of significance is you commenced drinking alcohol in primary school and your use of alcohol became heavier at a young age between the ages of 14 to 17.
12. Throughout your 20s, heavy drinking was a significant feature of your life and the materials contemporaneous with the offending in this matter or from around that time, reflect that that is the case. You have a long and documented history of poor mental health. You have described multiple breakdowns, a number of which have involved self-harm, suicidal ideations and suicide attempts.
13. These incidents have been triggered by various events including relationship breakdowns, interpersonal conflict and reflection on the abuse suffered by you as a child.
14. In 1970 and 1971 you attracted a diagnosis of impulsive personality disorder as well as diagnoses which were referred to then as 'criminal psychopath' and 'psychopathic personality.' In 1973 and 1974 you were transferred to Ararat mental Hospital for six months and were in psychiatric care for a further nine months. In 1975, 1976 and 1977, reports reveal that you were considered borderline psychotic and to have a grossly disturbed personality. In 1975 when you were in custody in Western Australia you engaged in an incident of self-harm in which your stated motivation was to affect a sex change.
15. You have experienced poor mental health during this most recent period of remand. You have been assessed as experiencing severe depression and anxiety. I received two helpful reports that were tendered on your plea, the report of psychologist Simon Candlish, dated 9 January 2021 and the neuropsychological report of Laura Scott. Mr Candlish provides the following opinions.
16. You were assessed under the PCLR which relevantly is the psychopathy checklist, scoring in the high range at 15. He opined that you present with severe impairment in your personality functioning and problematic personality traits and that you meet the definition of antisocial personality disorder and likely to have had a conduct disorder as a child. You most accurately assessed as having another specified personality disorder which is described as mixed personality features, antisocial and borderline. Mr Candlish opined that you appeared to meet the criteria for paedophilic disorder exclusive to male children and hebephilia.
17. In relation to your cognitive functioning, Ms Scott opines that it is likely that you have sustained an acquired brain injury as a result of chronic exposure to alcohol and solvents during your 20s and 30s. You becoming addicted, effectively to solvents during times of incarceration and that continued for some time. A diagnosis of dementia is also a possibility but required further testing according to Ms Scott. She opined that while the acquired brain injury is unlikely to have a relationship with the offending before the court, her report detailed a number of areas in which you experienced either severe or mild impairment and identified how your cognitive limitations impact upon your daily life, including information processing, impulsive behaviour and reduced self-regulation.
18. At the time of the offending before me, you had no prior convictions of a sexual nature, although you did have a significant criminal history. You had a criminal history which included being sentenced for a significant period of imprisonment in 1970. As I have indicated you were on parole in January 1977 in the lead up to and at the time of this offending.
19. You have struggled with the transition of a return to custody at your age after so many years managing to avoid reoffending. You told Ms Scott, 'I can't cope with the fucking place'. You went on to talk about your experiences of suicidal and homicidal ideation in the weeks and months prior to the assessment. You reported that you were placed under observation on several occasions and there had been arguments with other prisoners which had escalated and required intervention from the correctional officers. You have experienced suicidal and homicidal thoughts and have attended prisoner mental health services when available. You have been placed under observation in safe cells due to your mental health.
20. There are a number of other matters in the Candlish report which go into great detail about not only your personality makeup and your psychological makeup but its relationship to your offending and your prospects of rehabilitation. You were extremely frank and candid when being assessed. I will refer to some passages from the Candlish report. At paragraphs 3 to 8, Mr Candlish writes:

'Mr Webb spoke at a normal rate and in a coherent manner. He expressed some concerns about how he might respond to any in-depth questions regarding his childhood abuse. He explained that he had been placed in a wet cell for four days after previously speaking with his lawyer about his childhood sexual and physical abuse. He explained that he had experienced suicidal ideation and alluded to not being able to guarantee safety during this period...

Mr Webb presented as generally candid, showing a willingness to discuss some of his childhood behavioural issues and his prior sexual offences, albeit in a limited manner. He vehemently denied his current sexual offence charges. He presented as emotionally detached and at times callous, with limited emphatic regard. His candidness appeared in part related to his detachment. He also presented as having poor coping skills, with some difficulties managing his responses to negative memories and thoughts. Mr Webb expressed considerable anger in relation to his current charges and the jury's verdict'.

'Mr Webb's presentation appeared consistent with poor educational attainment, including an absence of any secondary education. He revealed a concrete thought process, poor self-awareness and poor perspective-taking. He seemed to have issues with recall. He did not, however, present as intellectually disabled. The author had some concerns about possible signs of confabulation at times during the interview....

Mr Webb appeared oriented to time, place and person and did not demonstrate any evidence of a thought or perceptual disturbance during the interviews....

He referred to having experienced visual and auditory hallucinations in the past, on several occasions, but denied any further symptoms since the 1990s...

On the third occasion of meeting with Mr Webb, he discussed how he had experienced a "breakdown" after the second interview with the author and that, as a result, custodial staff had placed him on hourly observations. He introduced himself as "Bennett" and referred to himself in the plural. He described how Bennett was strong, commenting, "We feel stronger"'.

1. I pause to note that in parole documents and records from 1977 references are made to a Jekyll and Hyde personality as it was expressed at that time. Returning to Mr Candlish's report, paragraphs 15 to 19, this is with reference to the subsequent matter for which you were sentenced in October 1977:

'Mr Webb's sexual offending involved an 11-year-old boy. Based on the judge's sentencing comments and the victim statement in June 1977, Mr Webb exposed his penis to the victim, asked if he could ejaculate on the victim and masturbated and ejaculated in the victim's presence. He also asked the victim if he could anally penetrate him and told the victim that he could kill him if he wanted to. He grabbed the victim around the throat and forced the victim to the ground. He told the victim that if he said no, that he would kill him. The victim complied due to fear. Mr Webb sucked the victim's penis. He engaged in forced anal penetration of the victim and ejaculated inside the victim's anus'.

1. Mr Candlish then referred to the psychiatric report prepared prior to the sentencing for those offences dated 25 August 1977 and expands on those matters in paragraph 16 to 20 of his own report. I have had regard to the matters contained therein. In relation to the 1991 convictions, Mr Candlish wrote this:

'According to the Criminal History Continuation Sheet, on 22 April 1991, Mr Webb was convicted of three counts of Sexual Penetration with a Child Underage, six counts of Sexual Penetration with a Child Underage between 10-16 years, three counts of Indecent Assault, ten counts of Gross Indecency and one count of Threat to Kill. He received a total prison term of seven years with a five-and-a-half-year non-parole period'.

1. He went on to set out that that offending was against two children aged between eight to 13 and six to 12 years of age. Mr Candlish wrote that you initially stated that you had not sexually offended against the younger child.
2. You explained to Mr Candlish that you found the elder childattractive. You went on to describe in detail with Mr Candlish your offending and subsequent fantasies. Paragraphs 28, 29, Mr Candlish wrote:

'Mr Webb appeared to show no insight into the harmful impact of his behaviour in his sexual offending. When asked about the ages of his victims when he sexually abused them, he stated that they were aged approximately 13 and 11 years respectively. This contrasts considerably with the ages recorded in official documents....

What was apparent during his description of sexual offending against these children was Mr Webb's considerable detachment, lack of empathy or remorse and his tendency to emphasise his enjoyment of the sexual acts that occurred'.

1. Mr Candlish then went on to refer to your 1997 convictions in New South Wales. You were open with Mr Candlish as to the nature of those matters.
2. At paragraphs 35 and 36, Mr Candlish writes:

'In the context of asking Mr Webb about the worst act of violence that he had committed against a person, he referred to how he had stabbed a 15-year-old male in 1977 and was charged with "grievous bodily harm" and other offences. He stated that he was intoxicated by alcohol and that there was two of them, "They said they'd put me down on the ground"'.

1. You went on to explain how you grabbed the victim and stabbed him in the stomach with a knife. You went on to discuss that you had probably been thinking about stabbing him beforehand and adding that it was quick and it felt good but you started to panic afterwards and encouraged the victim to attend hospital.
2. In relation to your childhood history, Mr Candlish went into some detail. He stated at paragraph 116:

'Mr Webb has clearly been considerably impacted by his childhood abuse, neglect and instability. These experiences have affected him in complex ways. It appears to have led to instability in his sense of self and has contributed to the development of problematic personality traits and difficulties coping. He appears more vulnerable towards distrust, interpersonal conflict and emotional volatility and irritability.

...The impact of Mr Webb's childhood abuse and neglect appears best understood in terms of the impact on his personality functioning and maladaptive coping mechanisms he has developed in response to this trauma. It is possible that he meets the criteria for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder based on his apparent difficulties discussing his childhood and his strong reactions to the current interview, although these strong reactions appear most likely related to his personality impairment and his anger and stress about being convicted of historical offences'.

1. At paragraphs 218 to 220, Mr Candlish discusses matters which are relied upon by Mr Fitzgerald in support of this argument pursuant to the authorities of Brown and Verdins.[5] At 218, in response to the question, 'Any psychological conditions Mr Webb has or had when the offending behaviour occurred, how long he has had the condition and whether the condition is of a temporary or permanent nature?' Mr Candlish writes:

'Mr Webb appeared to have suffered significant substance abuse issues at the time of his sexual offending in 1977. Mr Webb has a severe personality disorder and there are strong signs he was suffering from this at the time of his offending. This includes a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder. This disorder represents and entrenched pattern of thinking and behaviour that is pervasive and inflexible and one that leads to distress or impairment.

'Personality disorders can range in severity, although a diagnosis is usually made when the impairment and distress that the disorder causes is at least moderate in nature. Borderline personality disorder represents a pattern of instability in interpersonal relationships, self-image and emotions and marked impulsivity. Mr Webb has also been diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder and received a high score on the psychopathy checklist revised.

'It is likely that Mr Webb also had a paedophilic disorder and other specified paraphilic disorder (hebephilia). Mr Webb's substance abuse issues in the context of his cognitive deficits and severe personality impairment appears likely to have impaired his consequential thinking skills and reduced his empathic regard. He appears to have been considerably disinhibited as well as alienated and disenfranchised'.

1. 'What the relationship is, if any, between Mr Webb's condition and the offending?' was the question posed to Mr Candlish. He wrote:

'Mr Webb's personality impairment appears to have created a greater vulnerability towards disinhibition and impulsivity in relation to his offending and appears to have created greater disinhibition in relation to his paraphilia. Mr Webb's personality impairment also appears to have contributed to self-destructive behaviour and impulsivity. He appeared to have been more vulnerable to emotional dysregulation and might have used sex to cope with his negative mood states.....

The greater incidence of instability in his relationships and his sense of self due to his personality impairment might have contributed to a greater sense of alienation from others, impairing his empathy'.

1. That was his opinion in relation to connection between your personality features and the offending before me, in relation to your current circumstances he writes:

'Mr Webb's personality disturbance is permanent and enduring. He will likely always experience interpersonal issues, including distrust, hypersensitivity and rumination on negative interactions. He will likely experience issues with intimacy and avoid close relationships. Mr Webb will likely experience problems with coping and poor regulation of his emotions. The effects of advancing age might reduce the severity of these personality issues'.

'As a result of Mr Webb's personality impairment, he experiences difficulties coping. Mr Webb might find imprisonment at his advanced age more onerous and stressful. There might be increased suicidality and potentially self-harm to a lengthy prison term. He might experience greater interpersonal conflict due to the close proximity to other prisoners...

Mr Webb might experience decompensation in response to further imprisonment, this might include suicidal ideation, self-harm and dissociation as well as psychotic symptomology'.

1. The Prosecution conceded that these findings are relevant to take into account with mitigating effect due to the hardship you will experience in custody and the likely deterioration of your mental state whilst incarcerated. The Prosecution challenged the submission that a causal nexus between your severe personality disorder and your offending can be established to a sufficient degree to reduce your moral culpability for the offending before me.
2. As I observed during the plea hearing, in this case the connection between your personality and psychological functioning and your offending is present but difficult to define in a causal sense. I consider that these matters are nonetheless relevant to my overall assessment of your moral culpability. They are entwined with your personal circumstances and other aspects of mitigation such as the Bugmy principle to which I have already referred. I am satisfied they have mitigatory effect in a global analysis and assessment of moral culpability.

1. Turning to your prospects of rehabilitation and considerations relating to the protection of the community. The materials demonstrate the level of risk you continue to pose to the community at large and young people in particular. You have little or no remorse for your shocking history of offending sexually against children. You have little empathy it seems. You do have some insight, however. You have taken steps to remove yourself from risk settings where you are likely to reoffend.
2. Specific deterrence appears to have worked in your case. You have been frank about your impulses and the shocking fantasies you continue to engage in, yet it appears as though you have managed yourself for 20 years or so, so as not to reoffend.
3. The motivation for doing so appears to be your fear of a return to prison. There is a tension between the obvious risk you continue to pose to the community and the observed 20-year period where you have managed to control the risk, somewhat, yourself. I have concluded that your prospects of avoiding recidivism upon release are approaching reasonable, given the experience of the past 20 years. A longer than usual period on parole would provide some confidence in this regard.
4. I have taken into account your advancing years. The sentence I will impose represents a greater percentage of your remaining years that it would for a younger man. There is also support within the Candlish report for the proposition that risk decreases with advancing years.
5. I have taken into account the principle of totality. I have applied this principle not only due to the number of offences before me, but also having regard to the fact that you served a lengthy sentence for similar offending around the time and subsequent to the offending before me.
6. You have also served other lengthy terms of imprisonment in the intervening years. I have taken the view that the principle of specific deterrence appears to have been served by you having spent so much of your adult life in custody. In this sense, delay is also relevant. You are not the man you were at 28 or 29, due to subsequent experiences.
7. In very helpful written submissions, Mr Fitzgerald referred me to historical sentencing practices and Stalio's case.[6] He provided some data and cases in this regard, summaries of cases to which I have had regard. I have followed and applied the principle as expressed in Stalio.
8. I have taken into account your experience since being remanded on this matter, that experience has clearly been an extremely difficult one. The COVID restrictions and experience in custody has made this even more difficult, and I take those factors into account also.
9. Due to your subsequent matters, you fall to be sentenced as a serious sexual offender, and I direct that this be entered into the records of the Court.
10. Accordingly, s.16(6)(c) of the Sentencing Act applies. The Prosecution did not seek a disproportionate sentence, and I do not give one. I must impose a sentence, of course, that deters others from this abhorrent and very serious offending. The sentence I impose also denounces your conduct on behalf of the community. Your prospects, as I have assessed them - difficult as it is - and the matters in mitigation, to which I have referred, are also reflected in the sentence I now impose.

1. I sentence you as follows, Mr Webb - and you can remain seated if you wish. I sentence you as follows:
2. Charge 1, you are to be sentenced to 18 months imprisonment;
3. Charge 2, 18 months imprisonment;
4. Charge 3, two years imprisonment;
5. Charge 4, three years imprisonment;
6. Charge 5, three years imprisonment;
7. Charge 6, three years imprisonment;
8. Charge 7, 18 months imprisonment; and
9. Charge 8, four and a half years imprisonment.
10. I direct that all sentences be served concurrently, save for the following orders for cumulation.
11. One month of each of the sentences imposed on Charges 1, 2 and 7 is to be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed on Charge 8. Three months of the sentence imposed on Charge 3 is to be served cumulatively on the sentence imposed on Charge 8. Six months of each of the sentences imposed on Charges 4, 5 and 6 are to be served cumulatively on each other and on the sentence imposed on Charge 8.
12. That makes a total effective sentence of six and a half years imprisonment. I set a non-parole period of three years and six months. I declare that you have served 139 days of pre-sentence detention.
13. By virtue of these matters, as set out in the prosecution opening, the prosecution's submissions on sentence, which was Exhibit A on the plea. For the reasons set out therein, you are subject to reporting under the Sex Offenders Registration Act, and the period of reporting is life. And I declare that be entered in the records of the court.
14. Now, are there any other matters, gentleman?
15. MR DONAGHY: No, thank you, Your Honour.
16. HIS HONOUR: Thank you, Mr Donaghy.
17. MR FITZGERALD: No, Your Honour, thank you.
18. HIS HONOUR: Thank you, Mr Fitzgerald. Yes, I am going to ask that Mr Webb be removed now, Mr Fitzgerald, and you will be able to go and see him, I take it?
19. MR FITZGERALD: Yes, downstairs.
20. HIS HONOUR: Your counsel will come and see you, Mr Webb.
21. MR FITZGERALD: Thank you, Your Honour.
22. HIS HONOUR: Thank you, gentleman.

[3] Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 57

[5] Brown v The Queen [2020] VSCA 212; R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; (2007) 16 VR 269

[6] Stalio v The Queen [2012] VSCA 120