Prosecution v Prosecution

1. Robert Evan Rickerby, you have pleaded guilty to manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act of Jessica Leigh Geddes on 6 November 2020 at 27 Haverstock Hill Close, Endeavour Hills; the address where you both lived together.
2. Manslaughter is a category 2 offence with a maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment.[1]
3. Regrettably, this is yet another case involving someone killing a more vulnerable domestic partner. Indeed, this case is a serious example of the manslaughter of an extremely vulnerable person who was heavily dependent upon you for support and protection.
4. By your guilty plea, you admit that you consciously, voluntarily and deliberately committed the acts that caused Jessica's death,[2] and that those acts were unlawful and dangerous.[3] A dangerous act occurs when a reasonable person in your position would have realised that you were exposing Jessica Geddes to an appreciable risk of serious injury.[4]
5. Belatedly, you acknowledged that you "lost it" and violently assaulted Jessica by unlawful and dangerous acts which resulted in her death.

B.1 Events the result of Jessica Geddes' death

1. At 6.41pm on 6 November 2020, you called emergency services and told the operator that you had come home and found Jessica unconscious on the bed. In earlier separate telephone calls, both your mother and father told you to call an ambulance. You did not immediately do so, instead taking some 14 minutes from when you were first so advised. In fact, at the time of this call to emergency services you had been home for over half an hour, having returned at 6.08pm from a local pizza shop. You had only been absent from your home for 11 minutes.
2. This was the second time you had called 000; the first time was 10 minutes prior, but that call lasted for less than a second.
3. Paramedics arrived at the scene promptly. Jessica was lying face up on the floor of the first bedroom, naked from the waist down. They determined that she was dead. No obvious weapons were found.
4. Jessica's body was in a deplorable state, with many immediately obvious significant injuries. Her hands and left ankle appeared swollen. She had injuries to her face, including a crescent-shaped cut to her right eye socket. Her left ear was partially separated. Although there were no apparent bloodstains around those injuries, bloodstains appeared on surfaces throughout the bedroom and the remainder of the house, including the hallway, the laundry and the bathroom.
5. I do not intend to exhaustively refer to the extensive list of Jessica's injuries. A forensic pathologist determined the cause of death to be complications from multiple blunt force injuries, with no particular injury or physiological mechanism that led to her death. More significant injuries included fractures to the ball of her right shoulder, to the base of her right thumb, to her spine and to the medial femoral condyle of her left knee. Jessica had lacerations and bruising to her inner lips and bruising to her chin, also caused by blunt force trauma. It was apparent that these, and a considerable number of other injuries, did not exist when Jessica was captured on closed-circuit television at the local convenience store earlier that day.
6. An examination of Jessica's body disclosed a litany of injuries, including skeletal and other significant injuries, from which she had suffered in the days, weeks and months leading up to her death. The evidence is unclear as to the extent to which you were responsible for each of them. Given the large number of pre-existing injuries, it is likely some of them contributed to Jessica's death. But it was properly acknowledged by your counsel that your violent attack on Jessica on the day of her death was not an isolated incident. Further, there was a substantial body of evidence from neighbours and others in Endeavour Hills, and from each of Jessica's parents to the effect that you had a history of behaving in an aggressive and violent manner towards her.[5]

1. It is necessary to outline only some of the earlier events of 6 November 2020. You and Jessica were alone at home at 9.45am when you joined an online teleconference related to a community correction order to which you were subject at the time. The conference continued until around 2.40pm, with some breaks in between. During the first of those breaks, you left your home to collect Jessica from a local convenience store. Shortly before doing so, you had tried to call her 8 times between 11.31 and 11.39am. She did not answer, so you sent 2 text messages in an attempt to get her to pick up.
2. On arrival at the convenience store, you appeared to be angry. Jessica told you she was getting lunch for you. She said to others she was getting her lunch and that she was hungry. She also told them she was scared. On 2 occasions while you were there, you and Jessica embraced. At another point in time, Jessica was upset and crying as you left the store. Ultimately, you left together in your car and arrived back home at 11.46am.
3. Leaving aside your telephone calls and text messages, and some brief moments when you ventured outside to your car or to knock on your neighbours' door, precisely what occurred between 2.40 and 5.55pm (when you went out to collect the pizzas) remains unclear.[6] The court has been told that your recollection in this regard is vague and incomplete. However, it is uncontroversial that during that time you inflicted a number of serious injuries on Jessica in what could only be described as a very violent assault.

B.3 Aggravating circumstance of deliberately and repeatedly lying

1. Of course, you had a right to remain silent. You chose not to do so and instead made numerous false statements concerning the circumstances of Jessica's death. To the extent there was any possible controversy on this issue, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you deliberately and repeatedly lied to deflect suspicion away from yourself in the aftermath of Jessica's death.[7] Without being exhaustive, a number of examples demonstrate the lengths you were willing to go in an attempt to deceive the authorities.
2. In your first record of interview, you falsely told police that you were asleep between about 3.00 and 5.00pm. Although you denied this previously, you now accept that you had attempted to call your father 8 times between 3.59 and 5.15pm.[8]
3. In an attempt to convey that Jessica was not harmed at that time, you told police that at around 6 o'clock you went to get some pizzas for "us". Further, you falsely stated that on your return you immediately walked into the bedroom and found her unconscious on the floor, commenced CPR[9] and called an ambulance. A little later in the interview, you said that you panicked upon seeing her body, called your father and then repeated that you then immediately called for an ambulance.
4. Not only did you deny any involvement in Jessica's death, you untruthfully said to police that there had never been any form of violence or abuse in your relationship and that you had never assaulted her. Indeed, as part of your efforts to divert police from your misdeeds, you referred to the fact that Jessica had mental health issues and had harmed herself in the past.
5. In your second record of interview nearly a year later, you reiterated some of your previous lies. You also told police that at the time you went to collect the pizzas, Jessica had a closed gash to her head from 4 days before, and a bruised and swollen arm that had been like that for a couple of days, but that she otherwise appeared to be fine. You also suggested that before you left, she walked inside and asked you to get her a drink. You then said that upon your return, the gash to her head was open. You asserted again that you did not have anything to do with her death.
6. By your guilty plea and your agreement to the revised summary of prosecution opening, you have acknowledged that this assertion was completely false. Remarkably, you even stated to police that you did not know how she sustained any of the numerous injuries identified during her post-mortem examination.
7. In broad summary, you falsely told police that:

(1) You did not physically assault Jessica either on the day of her death or at any other time.

(2) She was walking and talking shortly before 6 o'clock when you went to collect the pizzas.

(3) On your return you found her unresponsive and obviously badly injured and she did not have those injuries when you left only some 11 minutes earlier.

(4) You did not know how she sustained them.

1. The uncontroverted medical evidence was that Jessica's death was not rapid and that her physical state declined, probably over hours. Thus, by the time you left to collect the pizzas, Jessica would not have been able to walk or talk normally as you had falsely intimated to police.

1. There are a number of further aggravating features of this case.
2. As already touched upon, you were in a relationship with Jessica and you were living together at the time of her death. You violently assaulted Jessica on the afternoon of 6 November 2020 in her home where she was entitled to feel safe. Your offending was a grave betrayal of the trust that she placed in you.[10]
3. Jessica was a vulnerable person. Not only did she have ongoing mental health issues, but in November 2020 she was generally in poor physical health. In 2017, before she left Queensland, she weighed between 70 and 79 kilograms. At the time of her death, she weighed only 46.2 kilograms. Not only was she physically weak, but you were much bigger and stronger than her.[11]
4. You told police that you would usually spend 22 to 23 hours together every day. You wrongly took advantage of this joint isolation, compounded by COVID-19 restrictions in 2020,[12] and your stronger physique to physically abuse her. Although your relationship might accurately be described as tumultuous and chaotic and something with which you were ill-equipped to handle, nothing could be suggested to justify or excuse your gross misconduct.
5. Having again beaten Jessica on the afternoon of 6 November 2020, and severely so, you failed to get her the medical attention she desperately needed. Incredibly, not only did you fail to do that, but you left your home to go and collect pizzas. Your decision to leave the home was made at a time when Jessica was alone and suffering, if not already dead.

1. You were born on 1 December 1993. You were 26 years old at the time of your offending. You grew up in the same home in Endeavour Hills that you and Jessica resided in. Your parents' marriage was problematic, involving arguments, yelling and crying. Your parents used cannabis and maintained a room for growing marijuana plants for personal use. While still in primary school, you stole and used your parents' cannabis.
2. Your mother left the family home in 2006.
3. Soon after, when you were about 13 years old, you moved to Queensland to be with your mother. You did not form a good relationship with her new partner and returned to Endeavour Hills to live with your father. You and your father lived on takeaway food and you failed to develop even the most rudimentary homemaking skills.
4. You returned to visit your mother in Queensland from time to time, while staying with your maternal grandmother. Your grandmother taught you some basic life skills during these visits.
5. You attended the local primary school across the road from your home, but did not thrive there. You were bullied and your self-esteem was low.
6. While at secondary school, you met persons outside of school who supplied you with ecstasy, amphetamines and then methylamphetamine. From the age of 14, you regularly used methylamphetamine. After attending 3 different high schools, you dropped out of school in year 9. You undertook a painting apprenticeship for 3 years, but did not complete it. You also took on additional work as a bookbinder.
7. You used your income to pay for methylamphetamine, but over time developed a need to use this drug to be able to keep working. Your use became an addiction.
8. In 2017, you moved to Queensland and stayed with your grandmother. It was there that you met Jessica Geddes. You both decided to move to Melbourne together. You were both addicted to methylamphetamine at that time. Lamentably, mutual drug addiction was a constant throughout the time of your relationship.
9. In 2018, and for the first time in your adult life, you found yourself unemployed. As a result, you and Jessica received unemployment benefits from that time onwards. Also in 2018, your father moved out of the family home. You and Jessica remained there, but failed to maintain it. It was already in a state of disrepair, but over time it became completely squalid and largely unfit for habitation.
10. On 13 September 2019, Jessica was admitted to hospital with multiple injuries caused by blunt force trauma. No charges were laid by police. The prosecution did not attempt to prove who caused those injuries. However, it is relevant that police issued a family violence safety notice against you in order to protect Jessica. A full order was made in January 2020 and served on you. It expired on 16 September 2020 as there was no application to extend its operation.
11. You were arrested and remanded in custody on 5 April 2022, having already spent 2 days in custody in November 2020. Accordingly, some of your time on remand was affected by the recent pandemic and the more arduous conditions imposed as a result.[13] Your experience in custody has been made more difficult by the media attention this case has attracted and the hostile response of others in prison, which resulted in you having to be moved to protection units at 2 different locations. You are medicated with methadone, and Avanza for treatment of anxiety.
12. You have spent over 2 years in custody facing a charge of murder. Although there is no evidence of particular hardship having been suffered,[14] and some of the more recent delay in the trial commencing was to accommodate the availability of your chosen counsel, you have spent a significant period of time in custody in suspense in not knowing your fate.[15]

1. Jessica Geddes was born in Queensland on 3 January 1993 and died at the age of 27. She was the eldest daughter of Saasha Hughes and Bevan Geddes. Her mother gave birth to Jessica when she was 16 years old. Her parents separated soon after Jessica's first birthday. Jessica's grandmothers, Penelope Johnson and Robyn Lawry shared her custody.
2. Jessica experienced mental health problems during high school. In 2008, she tried to overdose on Panadol. She also began using illegal drugs, but precisely when that occurred is unclear. She had a child, Arianna, with her then boyfriend on 27 April 2013.
3. After Arianna's birth, Jessica resided with friends and family members, including her paternal grandmother, father, and mother and stepfather. Her mental health problems worsened and her drug use increased. Jessica's mother, Saasha, assumed custody of Arianna from that time on.
4. In September 2017, you and Jessica met on a dating app. Soon after, you both moved to Victoria and lived in a de facto relationship.
5. Jessica's medical records indicate that from April 2013 to September 2017, she attended hospital or had some other form of interaction with health care professionals on approximately 30 occasions. Her records provide details of physical injuries suffered during this time, including bruising to her face and various parts of her body, as well as cuts to her wrists where surgical intervention was required. However, the extent of her injuries to that time bore no resemblance in number or gravity to the extensive injuries observed during her post-mortem examination.
6. Jessica's life in Endeavour Hills was unfortunate to say the least. She often appeared dishevelled; she constantly begged for food, money, cigarettes and petrol, both door-to-door and at local shops; she visibly declined in health and appearance in the months leading up to her death; she exhibited mental health and drug abuse problems with strange behaviour; she was regularly seen with visible injuries to her face; and she sometimes struggled to walk. Although Jessica suffered from serious mental health issues which sometimes resulted in her self-harming, you materially contributed to her misfortune. As I have said, there was substantial evidence of your previous mistreatment of her.

1. Five victim impact statements were relied upon and were read out in open court. These victims were Jessica's mother and father, her sister, her daughter and her grandmother. Each of the statements were deeply moving and universally spoke in loving terms about how much Jessica was cherished, and about the severe pain that was caused and continues to be caused by her untimely and tragic death.
2. I have taken each of these statements into account in determining the appropriate sentence to impose upon you.[16]

F. Sentencing guidelines and further considerations

1. The only purposes for which a sentence may be imposed are prescribed in the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic).[17] These purposes include punishing the offender to an extent and in a manner which is just in all of the circumstances; deterring the offender or other persons from committing offences of the same or a similar character; establishing conditions which may facilitate the rehabilitation of the offender; manifesting the denunciation by the court of the conduct in question; and protecting the community from the offender.[18] In sentencing you, I must adhere to the principle of parsimony and must not impose a sentence that is more severe than that which is necessary to achieve the purpose or purposes for which the sentence is imposed.[19]
2. I must also have regard to a number of other considerations, including but not limited to the maximum penalty prescribed for the offence, any current sentencing practices, the nature and gravity of the offence, your culpability and degree of responsibility for the offence, the impact of the offence on victims, and the presence of any aggravating or mitigating factors.[20] The weight and emphasis to be given to various factors is a discretionary exercise which depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.[21] Through a process of instinctive synthesis, I must balance these factors, which may point in different and conflicting directions, in order to arrive at a sentence that is just in all the circumstances.[22]
3. Cases involving domestic violence have justifiably attracted particular opprobrium.[23] Bringing violence into the sanctity of a home is abhorrent and must be denounced in the strongest terms. Outbursts of rage towards a vulnerable and trusting domestic partner are totally unacceptable, and your sentence must make this plain.

1. Although of marginal significance, I note that an offer to plead guilty to the generally less serious crime of manslaughter based on criminal negligence was made on 8 August 2023,[24] but this was rejected.[25] I was informed that, before current lead counsel for the prosecution was recently retained in this matter, counsel for the prosecution had stated that an offer to plead guilty to manslaughter on any basis would not be accepted. More recently that position changed and a guilty plea to manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act was offered on 23 May 2024. This offer was accepted the following day, just 1 working day before the trial was scheduled to commence. These circumstances must be distinguished from cases where an accused belatedly pleads guilty to the charge that was always the subject of the indictment.
2. The trial was estimated to run for 4 to 5 weeks, and there were to be a considerable number of witnesses called, including some of Jessica's family members and some of your family members. Accordingly, there is considerable utilitarian value in your guilty plea, which is of significant weight in determining the appropriate sentence.
3. It was submitted on your behalf that your guilty plea is some evidence of your remorse. However, it was acknowledged that the late adoption of this position was the first indication of any remorse on your part. Your conduct up until that time gave no sign of any such remorse.

1. The court must ensure just punishment. What is just in part depends upon the nature and gravity of the offending. Manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act is self-evidently a very serious offence. As for the gravity of your offending, the circumstances of this case are truly shocking. Inexplicably, by your vicious assault through multiple acts of aggression, you have brutally taken the life of someone who trusted you and who had moved far away from her family to be with you. Jessica was also particularly vulnerable given her mental health issues, and you knew of her vulnerability and that she relied on you for support and care. The taking of a domestic partner's life undermines the foundations of personal relationships and family trust upon which our society rests.[26] The sanctity of human life must be taken into account, as well as society's abhorrence towards violence against vulnerable and trusting partners who could legitimately have expected the offender to be the protector, not the perpetrator of violent abuse.[27]

F.4 Prospects of rehabilitation, deterrence and other matters

1. It appears you were deprived of a satisfactory upbringing in a number of respects.[28] In your younger years, you did not have a stable environment either at home or at school. It also appears as if you have always struggled to fit in. You have had a serious drug addiction for many years and there is no evidence of any rehabilitation in that regard. Although you were employed full-time until around early 2018, after this you were not in employment at any time prior to your arrest in April 2022.
2. Although of relatively minor significance, you have a limited criminal record. Relevantly, in March 2018 you were convicted for offences of reckless conduct endangering serious injury and driving whilst suspended. The first of these convictions involved an aspect of violence. A community correction order was imposed. In November 2019, you were found to have contravened the conditions of that community correction order. You were the subject of that order at the time you killed Jessica.
3. It was submitted on your behalf that your prospects of rehabilitation were good, but quite properly, with significant circumspection. In this regard, your limited criminal history, your previous period of employment and the fact that you will be more mature in age at the completion of your custodial sentence were relied upon.
4. You were 26 years old at the time of your offending. I have no evidence of you seeking to take any steps towards rehabilitation in the ensuing 3½ years. While I acknowledge there must be reasonable prospects of some rehabilitation given the length of time you are to spend in prison, I accept the prosecution's submission that your prospects of rehabilitation should be viewed as guarded.
5. General deterrence is a very important matter in this context. The scourge of domestic violence in our society is well-documented and cannot be tolerated.[29] In recognition of this, on behalf of the community sentencing courts express the strongest denunciation of such abhorrent conduct.[30]
6. In light of your limited criminal record, the prosecution accepted that specific deterrence is less relevant.

1. Current sentencing practices are a factor, albeit not a controlling factor,[31] to be taken into account as part of the instinctive synthesis. The court was referred to a number of cases involving manslaughter in a domestic situation, though both parties correctly acknowledged that the facts of those cases were not directly comparable to the circumstances now confronting the court.[32]
2. Importantly, to the extent they are of assistance, the sentences in those cases were imposed at a time when the maximum penalty for manslaughter was imprisonment for 20 years rather than 25 years. By increasing the maximum penalty by 25 percent, parliament's intention is to convey that previous penalties for this crime were inadequate.[33] The higher maximum penalty provides broader scope to impose more severe sentences in cases such as this that involve high levels of moral culpability.[34]

1. Taking each of the relevant matters into account and balancing the factors as best as I am able, on the count of manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act, you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of 15 years and 6 months. I fix a non-parole period of 11 years.[35]
2. I declare that, but for your plea of guilty, if you had been found guilty of manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act after pleading not guilty, I would have imposed a sentence of 18 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14 years.[36]
3. Further, I declare that 810 days of imprisonment, not including today, have been served by way of pre-sentence detention. This period is to be reckoned as a period of imprisonment already served.[37] I shall direct that declaration be noted on the records of the court.

[1] Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s 5; Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), s 3.

[2] R v Winter [2006] VSCA 144, [11], [15]-[20] (Maxwell ACJ, with whom Buchanan and Redlich JJA agreed).

[3] Wilson v The Queen [1992] HCA 31; (1992) 174 CLR 313, 333.3 (Mason CJ, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ); Pemble v The Queen [1971] HCA 20; (1971) 124 CLR 107, 123.1 (Barwick CJ, with whom Windeyer J agreed).

[4] Burns v The Queen [2012] HCA 35; (2012) 246 CLR 334, 361 [75] (Gummow, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ); R v Klamo [2008] VSCA 75; (2008) 18 VR 644, 660 [67] (Maxwell P, with whom Vincent JA agreed), 664 [95] (Neave JA); Wilson v The Queen [1992] HCA 31; (1992) 174 CLR 313, 325.4, 333.3 (Mason CJ, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ); R v Haywood [1971] VicRp 93; [1971] VR 755, 758.2 (Crockett J).

[5] Naturally, your sentence is not to include punishment for any crime you may have committed as part of this unfortunate history.

[6] There is evidence of Jessica sending several non-sensical text messages to phone numbers that did not exist throughout the course of the afternoon. The last text message from Jessica's phone was sent at 2.49pm.

[7] R v Storey [1998] 1 VR 359, 369.6 (Winneke P, Brooking and Hayne JJA and Southwell AJA), cited with approval in R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270, 281 [27] (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Hayne and Callinan JJ).

[8] Six of the calls were between 3.59 and 4.58pm.

[9] That is, cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

[10] Freeburn v The Queen (No 2) [2020] VSCA 176, [38] (Kyrou, Kaye and Emerton JJA).

[12] Both you and Jessica were the subject of lockdown restrictions in 2020 from 31 March to 12 May and 9 July to 27 October, a total of 154 days.

[13] Surtees v The King [2023] VSCA 42, [10] (Kyrou and Kaye JJA), [43], [56] (Walker JA); Freeburn v The Queen (No 2) [2020] VSCA 176, [61] (Kyrou, Kaye and Emerton JJA).

[14] That is, in addition to the matters referred to in the preceding paragraph.

[15] R v Merrett, Piggott and Ferrari [2007] VSCA 1; (2007) 14 VR 392, 400 [35] (Maxwell P, with whom Chernov JA and Habersberger AJA agreed), 403-404 [50] (Chernov JA).

[16] It was accepted that a number of the victim impact statements contained inadmissible material. Consequently, the victim impact statements have been taken into account in accordance with s 8L(6) of the Sentencing Act.

[17] Section 5(1).

[18] See also Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465, 476.8 (Mason CJ, Brennan, Dawson and Toohey JJ).

[19] Sentencing Act, s 5(3).

[20] Ibid, s 5(2). See also R v AB [2008] VSCA 39; (2008) 18 VR 391, 405 [45]-[46] (Warren CJ, Maxwell P and Redlich JA).

[21] Director of Public Prosecutions (Victoria) v Dalgliesh [2017] HCA 41; (2017) 262 CLR 428, 434 [7] (Kiefel CJ, Bell and Keane JJ), 452 [79] (Gageler and Gordon JJ); Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357, 371 [27] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne and Callinan JJ).

[22] Director of Public Prosecutions (Victoria) v Dalgliesh [2017] HCA 41; (2017) 262 CLR 428, 434 [5] (Kiefel CJ, Bell and Keane JJ), 452 [79] (Gageler and Gordon JJ), citing Wong v The Queen [2001] HCA 64; (2001) 207 CLR 584, 611 [75] (Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne JJ). See also Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357, 373-375 [37]-[39] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne and Callinan JJ).

[23] See, for example, Dragovic v The King [2024] VSCA 95, [32]-[33] (Kennedy and T Forrest JJA); Freeburn v The Queen (No 2) [2020] VSCA 176, [45]-[47] (Kyrou, Kaye and Emerton JJA); Director of Public Prosecutions v Ristevski [2019] VSCA 287, [3], [10] (Ferguson CJ and Whelan JA); Felicite v The Queen [2011] VSCA 274; (2011) 37 VR 329, 333 [20] (Redlich JA, with whom Harper JA and Robson AJA agreed).

[24] For a discussion on the difference between the categories of manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act and by criminal negligence, see Wilson v The Queen [1992] HCA 31; (1992) 174 CLR 313, 333.6 (Mason CJ, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ). See also Burns v The Queen [2012] HCA 35; (2012) 246 CLR 334, 345-346 [19]-[23], 354 [47] (French CJ); R v Jagroop [2009] VSCA 46; (2009) 22 VR 80, 89-90 [58] (Dodds-Streeton JA, with whom Weinberg JA and Williams AJA agreed), 90 [64]-[67] (Weinberg JA, with whom Williams AJA agreed).

[25] For completeness, a sentence indication hearing for the charge of murder was held on 18 April 2023. The indication given was rejected. It was submitted on your behalf that these events were not relevant to any sentence to be imposed, as the indication was given with respect to a different set of facts as then advanced by the prosecution.

[26] Felicite v The Queen [2011] VSCA 274; (2011) 37 VR 329, 333 [20] (Redlich JA, with whom Harper JA and Robson AJA agreed), citing Diver v The Queen [2010] VSCA 254, [41] (Ashley JA, with whom Neave and Weinberg JJA agreed).

[28] Senior counsel on your behalf expressly disavowed any reliance by you upon the principles espoused in Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571.

[29] Freeburn v The Queen (No 2) [2020] VSCA 176, [47] (Kyrou, Kaye and Emerton JJA), citing Smith v The Queen [2020] VSCA 159, [7] (Maxwell P, Kyrou and Weinberg JJA). See also Dragovic v The King [2024] VSCA 95, [32]-[33] (Kennedy and T Forrest JJA).

[31] Director of Public Prosecutions (Victoria) v Dalgliesh [2017] HCA 41; (2017) 262 CLR 428, 445 [50]-[52], 447 [56], 448-449 [63], 450 [68] (Kiefel CJ, Bell and Keane JJ), 453-454 [82] (Gageler and Gordon JJ). This is so whether or not an accused pleads guilty; ibid, 449-450 [64]-[68], 454-455 [85].

[32] Generally speaking, the utility of sentencing statistics in respect to manslaughter is limited because the range of culpability is so wide: see R v Jagroop [2009] VSCA 46; (2009) 22 VR 80, 85-86 [35]-[37] (Dodds-Streeton JA, with whom Weinberg JA and Williams AJA agreed), a case concerning manslaughter by criminal negligence.

[33] The second reading speech for the Crimes Amendment (Manslaughter and Related Offences) Bill 2020 (Vic), introducing the 5 year increase to the maximum term of imprisonment before your offence was committed, stated that the government intended to send a clear message that past sentences imposed for the most serious offending involving manslaughter had been inadequate: Victoria, Parliamentary debates, Legislative Assembly, 6 February 2020, 182.6 (Jill Hennessy, Attorney General). See also R v AB (No 2) [2008] VSCA 39; (2008) 18 VR 391, 402-406 [37]-[51] (Warren CJ, Maxwell P and Redlich JA).

[35] Sentencing Act, s 11.

[36] Ibid, s 6AAA.

[37] Ibid, s 18(1) and (4).