• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

1 You have each pleaded guilty to three offences, as follows: Count 1, the manslaughter of Lee Bridge on 9 February 2005 at Warragul, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years' imprisonment; Count 2, aggravated burglary, which carries a maximum sentence of 25 years' imprisonment; Count 3 theft of a motor vehicle, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years' imprisonment.

2 I must now sentence you for those offences.

3 Lee Bridge was 36 years of age at the time of his death. He had resided in Warragul since 1990, in a modest home he had purchased with money awarded to him as damages for injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident, which occurred when he was a child. As a result of the accident he suffered brain damage and paralysis to one side of his body, and he later suffered severe epilepsy. He received daily support from welfare agencies, and he had a circle of friends, one of whom was Stephen Skarlatis. It was through Skarlatis that Lee Bridge had come into unwelcome contact with Wayne Frederick Norris, and his son Wayne Leslie Norris, respectively the second and first named accused on the presentment. It will be convenient, because of the similarity in your names to sometimes identify you as Norris Senior and Norris Junior. I intend no discourtesy in doing so.

4 It is necessary to say something about the circumstances of the prior contact between Mr Bridge and the two Norris's.

5 On the 12 September 2003 Mr Bridge had been the victim of a robbery which occurred in his presence at his home in Trumby Street, Warragul. His mobile telephone had been stolen, together with a small amount of cash. In the course of the intrusion at his home Mr Bridge rang Skarlatis, who apparently dealt in drugs, and requested that he come to the house with $50 worth of marijuana. Whilst Lee Bridge was on the phone to him Skarlatis recognised the voice in the background of Wayne Frederick Norris. Mr Bridge later reported the robbery to police and said that the older of the two offenders who were involved had held a screwdriver to his throat to induce him to call Skarlatis. Mr Hill, counsel for Wayne Frederick Norris, that is Norris Senior, conceded that it was his client who had threatened Lee Bridge on that occasion and had stolen property from him. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Wayne Leslie Norris was the other person then present.

6 On the following day Mr Bridge withdrew the complaint that he had made to the police and signed a written withdrawal, in which he denied that the withdrawal was being done under duress or by virtue of any threat to him. Although the investigating police accepted that withdrawal they said in their statements for this case that Mr Bridge told them he was frightened of possible reprisals should he proceed with his complaint.

7 On 7 April 2004 Mr Bridge attended the Headway office in Gippsland, and reported that the same home invaders had returned three times since the incident on 12 September 2003, and had again threatened or robbed him, on one occasion stealing his guitar. In November 2005 that guitar was pawned in Collingwood by Norris Senior. In a record of interview conducted after Lee Bridge's death Norris Senior claimed that he had been given the guitar by Lee Bridge. It is unlikely that Mr Bridge would have done so voluntarily, since his guitar was very important to him. In any event, Norris Senior claimed that he took the guitar because Mr Bridge told him it was owned by Skarlatis, not himself.

8 I am satisfied that Wayne Frederick Norris was present on all of the occasions when Mr Bridge was subjected to unwanted visits and/or thefts or intimidation. However, whilst I am satisfied that Norris Senior was accompanied by Norris Junior on more than one of these occasions Mr Bridge told Skarlatis that when his guitar was stolen Norris Senior was not accompanied by his son, but by a different person.

9 I recount these events only by way of background to the events on the day of the death of Lee Bridge. You are not being sentenced with respect to the earlier robberies or the intimidation of Lee Bridge, but the fact that Lee Bridge had reported those robberies and made claims that he had been robbed and threatened by persons who, I am satisfied must have been Wayne Frederick Norris, on all occasions, and Wayne Leslie Norris, on some occasions, is relevant to the events on the day of his death. The statements made to many other people by Lee Bridge constitute direct evidence of his fear of Wayne Frederick Norris, in particular, and, to a lesser extent, his fear of Wayne Leslie Norris.

10 Following the incident when his mobile phone was stolen, and as a result of his fear of a further attack, Lee Bridge had installed a security door to the front of his premises. He locked all windows in his house and set his alarm clock for 6 p.m. every evening, so as to remind himself to lock both the back door and his front security door.

11 Mr Hill concedes that when his client Wayne Frederick Norris - that is, Norris Senior - had threatened Lee Bridge with the screwdriver, in September 2003, he did so in order that Mr Bridge entreat Skarlatis to provide marijuana to him**.** In his statement to police Skarlatis said that the two Norris' knew that if they threatened Mr Bridge that he, Skarlatis, would probably agree to their demands to provide free marijuana to them.

12 Against that background, I turn to the events of the day of the death of Lee Bridge.

13 On that day, 9 February 2005, the three of you were drinking in Warragul. At about 6.00 p.m. you together left the Railway Hotel, one of you carrying a cask of wine, and you travelled by taxi to a house at Burton Street, Warragul. The taxi driver said that you, Norris Senior, were drunk, but not as drunk as he had seen you on other occasions. You had insufficient funds, between you, to pay the cab fare. After drinking for a short time at the Burton Street house you walked in the direction of Lee Bridge's house, which was only a short distance away. One or more of you were seeking a source of marijuana. The three of you were observed at about 7.00 pm. running into the rear of the home of the deceased man at 10 Trumpy Street. Once there you gained entry by jemmying open the locked rear door.

14 One side effect of his medication was that Lee Bridge was often sleepy and when you broke in to his house he was asleep in his bedroom, wherein he was savagely assaulted.

15 The precise role played by each of you in the assault on Lee Bridge is uncertain. The records of interview you that each conducted with police provide admissible evidence only against yourselves; they do not provide admissible evidence against your co-accused. In each case the interviews were less than fully frank, and sought to shift blame to others, while diminishing the role taken by the interviewee. There is a good deal of objective evidence, however, as to the nature of the assault that took place.

16 When the scene was examined by police Mr Bridge lay face down on the bed and a dislodged wardrobe door was on top of his body. It is possible that the door simply fell on Mr Bridge in the course of the assault on him. Plastic telephone cable had been wrapped around his body, restraining his arms and also strung loosely around his neck. Pathologist, Professor David Ranson, said that although that cord was not directly causing breathing difficulties it may have played a part in impeding Mr Bridge's movement if he had tried to avoid swallowing his blood. Certainly, the cable, once applied, would have impeded any attempt - however futile - by Mr Bridge to defend himself.

17 Dr Ranson performed an autopsy which disclosed long standing brain injury, which would be associated with epilepsy. Mr Bridge died as a result of head and neck injuries. Dr Ranson found recent injuries to the face and neck, which resulted in fractures to the upper jaw and cheek bones, fractures of the lower jaw and of the hyoid bone (which is above the voice box). Those injuries produced extensive bleeding around the eyes, the face and the upper airway. There were significant blood clots to the gastro intestinal system. Dr. Ranson identified some 17 separate areas of abrasion or bruising to the head and neck, although that does not indicate that there had been that number of separate blows. He found bruising and abrasions to the chest, to both arms, and to the right foot. Dr Ranson reported that the absence of significant lacerations to the front of the face, together with the pattern of facial fractures, suggested that the force to the front of the face may have been delivered by an item with a soft configuration, either a fist or a weapon with a soft surface. The facial injuries were not caused by an item with a sharp edge.

18 Dr. Ranson said that some of the injuries to the trunk of the body, in particular an injury found to the chest, did have sharp edges which were consistent with being caused by a piece of wood found at the scene, but the injuries to that part of the body were not the cause of death.

19 Dr Ranson could not give an accurate count as to the number of facial traumas which had been inflicted, but said there were multiple injuries. He said the degree of force used to cause the facial injuries was consistent with that sometimes found in motor vehicle accidents, representing very significant force. He said that the injury to the hyoid bone could have been fractured by a punch or by a squeezing injury. He concluded that the period of time taken for the infliction of those injuries could have been anywhere from a few minutes to more than 25 minutes. He believed that there was a delay between the cessation of the beating and death. That could have been a matter of some tens of minutes or a little longer. Mr Bridge was swallowing blood, for a while, before he died.

20 Lee Bridge was 188 centimetres tall and weighed only 75 kilograms. He was paralysed to one side and was epileptic. His hands shook with tremors, and he limped. He was the victim of a most violent assault, which probably commenced soon after you broke into his home. He was in bed, probably asleep or barely awake, and was semi-naked. He would have been taken completely by surprise. The attack on him, to which I am satisfied that all three of you contributed, was a cowardly one.

21 I can not make the finding beyond reasonable doubt - which is the standard of proof that would be required in order for me to do so - that any one of you knew that Mr Bridge had the physical disabilities which I have described as having resulted from his motor vehicle accident. There were no admissions made by any one of you in that respect, and a witness who knew Lee Bridge well, Ms Perikkentis, said in her statement that, "You wouldn't know Lee had a disability just to look at him or talk to him. It was only once you got to know him that you got to know his problems". It must, however, have been abundantly obvious to all of you that Mr Bridge was providing little resistance to the attack, even if it took place before he was bound by the cable, a possibility I can not exclude. Quite apart from his obviously slight physical stature, he had been asleep in his bed immediately before he was attacked, and, as I have said, was almost naked. He was alone when attacked by three drunken men.

22 After assaulting Lee Bridge and leaving him dying (although I do not find that you knew that to be the case) you all left the scene in his vehicle, which you had stolen. The vehicle had been very important to him. You travelled to Drouin, where you picked up another person. Norris Junior drove. You then attempted to sell DVDs which had been stolen from the premises. You were still attempting to purchase marijuana, at various locations. You drove to Collingwood where you dumped the vehicle and were still in the Collingwood/Fitzroy area when each of you was arrested.

23 A piece of timber beading which was found on the floor next to the deceased had a finger print of Wayne Frederick Norris. The wardrobe door had a finger print of Wayne Leslie Norris. There was a foot print of Wayne Frederick Norris at the scene.

24 I have difficulty determining precisely what role each of you played in the death of Lee Bridge. Where facts relevant to sentence are in dispute they must be proved by admissible evidence, not hearsay evidence: see, R v Rumpf[1]. Facts which aggravate the offence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, whereas a sentencing judge need be satisfied of facts which mitigate the gravity of the role of an offender only on the balance of probabilities: see, R v Storey[2]. In this case those principles are important, because the accounts given to police by each of you can not be used to implicate one or other of your co-offenders, and can only implicate or exculpate the person who made the statement. For the sake of completeness and context, however, I will refer to the accounts given by each of you to police.

25 I am not bound to accept those accounts that you gave to police, and in the case of Wayne Frederick Norris, I am quite satisfied that a good deal of your account is entirely false, and Mr Hill did not seek to argue otherwise. The accounts of the other offenders left out significant information.

26 You, Wayne Leslie Norris, were aged 22 years at the time of these offences, having been born on 9 February 1983. You were arrested on 16 February 2005 in Collingwood but gave "no comment" responses when questioned at that time, save to say that your father was not involved and that, "It's not what it seems". However, you later contacted the investigating police and requested that you be re-interviewed in prison, which occurred on 5 July 2005. In that interview you said that you had gone to the house seeking marijuana or money. You admitted that you knew that Lee Bridge lived at the house but said you had only been to the house once before, with a cousin, whom you named. On that occasion, so you said, you were looking for Steve Skarlatis. You said that you had seen Lee Bridge around town but you had no relationship with him. You denied knowing that he had any disabilities.

27 You told police that Skarlatis supplied drugs to you and sometimes dealt marijuana from that house. You said that you saw what you thought was his car at the house, so you entered the property and looked through the windows but no one seemed to be at home. You said that you suggested to Joabie Bodere that you ought to do a "burg", that is, a burglary, to get some dope, or money. You made a lot of noise jemmying the back door, then entered. You said that until you were suddenly grabbed on the hand when you were in the bedroom you had not known anyone was in the house. You then hit the man twice. You said they were "good hits". Then you pushed him back and called on Bodere to hold him. You said that you acted in a panic, because you got a fright when the man grabbed you. You said that you and your father then held the man down. You went into the lounge room, there stealing property and the car keys. You returned to the bedroom where a "scuffle" was occurring. You went outside and got the car, then returned and told the others to go. There was then a "little scuffle ... like fighting". You said that while you and your father waited in the car Bodere returned, alone, to the house.

28 In explaining your motivations, you, Norris Junior, said that after suddenly finding the man there you thought, "Well, I'm here now. I might as well get something". You said that after you told Bodere to hold the man, Bodere commenced hitting him, too. You saw Bodere kick him once. You said you also saw your father hitting him. You said that when you left the house the man was hurt and was making a noise, like he was drunk. You told police that you did not know that Lee Bridge had been tied up. You said that no weapons had been used, but that apart from the first two blows to his head or face you hit Lee Bridge four or five more times and also kneed him, hard, to the chest. You saw Bodere, at one point, holding the man by the throat.

29 You said you were not on drugs that day, but had taken a couple of pills, which you did not identify.

30 You, Wayne Frederick Norris, were born on 29 June 1959. You were 45 years old at the time of these offences. When interviewed you stated that you had been asleep on the couch in the house and that the assaults had been committed by your co-accused, that is, by your son and Bodere. You suggested to the police that you were friendly with Lee Bridge and used to "score" marijuana from him. That was untrue, because Mr Bridge neither used nor dealt in drugs.

31 In your interview with police, you raised several possible motives for this offence. You ventured yet another to Mr Drury, the neuro-psychologist who examined you and gave evidence on your behalf. You told the police that you had entered the house on this day because you saw a vehicle outside which you believed was that of Skarlatis. You said that he was a person who had got your son bashed on a previous occasion. You said you entered the house just to give Skarlatis "a little pay back". You said you had no idea why Lee Bridge was assaulted. You told police that you had drunk with Lee Bridge plenty of times in the past and smoked cannabis with him. You agreed that the reason you went to the house was to get some marijuana, as well as assaulting Skarlatis.

32 You denied to police that you had touched Lee Bridge. You said that your son and Joabie Bodere probably did, although you didn't know, because you didn't see it. You told police that things had got out of hand and it was not you who did the damage.

33 You said you didn't remember getting into the Magna vehicle of Lee Bridge. You said that when you woke up you found yourself in the car, and at Collingwood. You denied ever previously robbing Lee Bridge. You said that while you assisted in the return of his mobile phone, that had been stolen from Mr Bridge by someone else. You said you had nothing to do with it being stolen.

34 You said that after hearing about the death of Lee Bridge you felt sorry for "the poor fellow", as you described him, and you said that you knew you were in trouble. You denied any involvement in his death.

35 Your pleas of guilty acknowledge that many of your statements to police were lies. The evidence of your finger print on the timber beading in the bedroom places you in that bedroom and holding the item which Dr Ranson said was consistent with being the cause of injuries to the chest of Mr Bridge. In any event, whether you personally struck Mr Bridge is of little moment; by your plea you admit responsibility for his death and I have no doubt that you were a primary instigator of the aggravated burglary and by your own admission you entered the property intending to engage in violence, although you said the intended victim was Mr Skarlatis.

36 You, Joabie Bodere were aged 29 years at the time of the offences, having been born on 11 March 1975. You were a Canberra resident and had been in Victoria only for a short visit. You returned to Canberra about a week after the death, but then handed yourself in to investigators in Melbourne on 20 February 2005.

37 When interviewed you told police that you entered the house out of a sense of obligation to support the two others, and that you went there only for the purposes of stealing. You claimed to police that you had been walking past the house and had been called back by one or other of the two others, because they had decided to enter the property, having seen a car which they believed was owned by a person who owed them money or with whom they held a grudge. You agreed that you entered to steal.

38 Ms Pullen submitted that your suggestion that you had been reluctantly drawn into the scheme to break into the premises should be rejected, because a neighbour said in her statement that she saw all three of you running into the property, together. In her evidence at the committal, however, that witness confirmed that you, Mr Bodere were the last of the three to enter the premises, and you seemed to be trying to catch up with the others. Her evidence is not inconsistent with your assertion that the burglary was not your idea, and I so conclude, but it is plain that you joined in, however much you may have felt obliged to do so, out of social pressure.

39 You said it was Norris Senior who called you to enter the house with him, and that when you got into the house: "I saw the poor fellow gettin' a flogging." You also claimed that when Lee Bridge was being beaten you were checking the house for property which could be stolen, and you found some DVDs in the lounge room.

40 Mr Bodere, you said to police "The poor man done nothing, mate" and added "The victim, he done nothing". You said that he was asleep and that you didn't think he did anything to deserve what happened to him. You added: "It just went on and on and on". You said that by the time you were called into the bedroom "the damage" had "already started". You claimed that you had had a bit to drink that night. You had entered the bedroom when you heard the commotion coming from inside the room and you said that if you'd known what was going on you wouldn't have entered the house. You said of the deceased that he was in bed, and probably didn't know what hit him. Having been woken he put up a bit of a fight, you said, but he was in a panic, and was dumbfounded and confused.

41 You said that both Norris Senior and Junior were standing around the man, and he was getting, in your words, "a flogging", with fists, and he was left face down on the bed. You said the assault occurred with fists, not weapons. When the three left, the deceased was unconscious, but still breathing. You said you returned to the scene and uncovered his face because you were worried that he might suffocate. I accept that you did that.

42 You said of what occurred: "It was just something that went terribly, terribly wrong, you know". When you left the scene, although he was breathing, you knew there would not be a good outcome. You said it wasn't supposed to happen: "The poor bastard didn't do anything ... he done nothing, you know".

43 You said you realised that the others were going to do a "slap up" or something like that "or a bit of a stand over, or something like that, you know." You added: "I didn't realise it was going to go so far". You said you couldn't walk out when you saw what was occurring, because they would get dirty on you.

44 Mr Bodere, you denied to police that you personally assaulted the man, but there is other evidence of your role.

45 After going back to Canberra you spoke to friends and decided to hand yourself in to the police. You told Stephen Harrison, Gareth De Mar and Elizabeth Earl that you "tapped the guy a couple of times to make him shut up". You also said that you had tied him up, but that you had then left the bedroom to look for property to steal. You told Mr Harrison that when you left the bedroom the others "went to town" on Lee Bridge, and you felt ashamed for not intervening. You were very upset when you recounted these events to your Canberra friends.

46 Mr Bodere, I am inclined to accept the genuineness of those statements of regret and remorse, and, indeed, pity, for the terrible death suffered by Lee Bridge. I will return to the question of remorse, later.

47 You each admitted prior convictions.

48 Wayne Leslie Norris, you admitted 25 prior convictions and 22 non-conviction findings of guilt from 12 court appearances, commencing on 15 October 1997. Your offences were primarily of dishonesty but include the following, that are of particular relevance. On 13 May 1998 on counts of burglary, theft and causing injury recklessly (two counts) you were released on probation. On 5 May 1999 you were convicted on counts of resisting a police officer, robbery, theft, armed robbery, attempted armed robbery, unlawful assault, assault by kicking and other counts, and were released on a youth supervision order for 12 months with a special condition to attend anger management counselling, which order you breached and you were then released on a good behaviour bond. On 22 May 2001 you were fined for causing wilful damage. On 12 June 2001 you were sentenced to three months detention in a youth training centre on counts of unlawful assault, damaging property and being unlawfully on premises. On 12 February 2002 you were convicted of causing injury intentionally, and also burglary and theft, and sentenced to detention in a youth training centre for two months. On 19 March 2002 on counts of attempted robbery, using heroin, and other counts, you were sentenced to detention in a youth training centre for a period which, on appeal, was reduced to 15 months' detention. On 4 April 2003, on counts of armed robbery and theft, you were sentenced to a total effective sentence of two years' imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of nine months. You were released on parole on 3 September 2003. On 17 August 2004 you were sentenced to an aggregate of three months' imprisonment, which was wholly suspended for a total of twelve months, for offences of burglary, theft and causing serious injury recklessly. On 19 November 2004 you were convicted of damaging property intentionally. That charge was found proved but dismissed without conviction.

49 The present offences concerning Lee Bridge occurred during the period of the suspended sentence imposed on 17 August 2004. These offences also occurred while you were on bail awaiting trial on offences committed on 28 February 2004 but on which you were not sentenced until 30 September 2005, by Judge Pilgrim in the County Court. The offences dealt with by his Honour occurred while you were on parole, and were offences of intentionally causing injury, criminal damage, aggravated burglary and theft. On 30 September 2005 you were sentenced by Judge Pilgrim to a total effective sentence of 18 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 months. That sentence is the subject of an appeal by you, not yet determined.

50 If the Parole Board were to cancel your parole with respect to the sentence imposed on you on 4 April 2003 you would be liable to serve a balance of one year two months and 29 days imprisonment, which period of imprisonment would be served cumulatively upon the sentence I impose, by virtue of s.16(3B) of the Sentencing Act. The Parole Board has not yet made any decision on this matter and when fixing my own sentence I am not permitted to presume what the Parole Board might do (see s.5(2AA)). I am, however, obliged to have regard to the possibility that you will serve the additional period of imprisonment when I am considering the principle of totality in your case: see R v Orphanides[3]. I will take into account, in that way, the possibility of a further cumulative sentence of imprisonment being served by you.

51 As to the convictions for which you were sentenced by Judge Pilgrim, they may not be treated as aggravating factors when sentencing you for the present matters. They are subsequent convictions, not prior convictions. Nonetheless, those offences have relevance to my sentencing exercise.

52 In the first place, as Ms Pullen correctly submitted, the fact that you committed those offences and received sentences of imprisonment are matters relevant to the question of remorse and to my assessment of your prospects of rehabilitation and of the risk of recidivism, with particular reference to the question of the appropriate non-parole period that should be fixed: see R v Poulton[4].

53 There is another way in which those subsequent offences, and the sentencing orders made concerning them by Judge Pilgrim, are now relevant. The present offences were committed while you were on bail awaiting trial for the offences for which Judge Pilgrim later sentenced you. By s.16(3C) of the Sentencing Act the sentence which I will impose must be served cumulatively upon the uncompleted portion of the sentence imposed by Judge Pilgrim, unless I order otherwise. I have not been urged to make an order overcoming the effect of s.16(3C), therefore the sentences I impose will be cumulative upon the unexpired portion of the sentence imposed by Judge Pilgrim. You have appealed against that sentence but for my purposes the sentence stands. Both the prosecutor and your counsel agree that it is appropriate that I also have regard to the effect of s.16(3C) as an additional factor relevant to the question of totality in determining sentence in the present case, and I have done so.

54 Wayne Frederick Norris, you admitted convictions commencing in November 1976. You have had 32 court appearances, resulting in 80 convictions and 10 findings of guilt without conviction. The present offences on 9 February 2005 occurred during the period of a suspended sentence which was imposed on 18 May 2004 for breach of an intervention order and riotous behaviour. Although your prior convictions have been primarily for dishonesty they include the following matters of particular relevance: in April 1978, a conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, for which you were sentenced to nine months' detention in a youth training centre; on 2 October 1978, conviction for robbery in company, for which you were detained in a youth training centre for six months; in September 1980, assault with intent to rob, which, together with an offence of burglary, led to a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of four months; in May 1982, six counts of burglary and also a conviction for assault in company, which resulted in a total effective sentence of three years and six months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years, which was varied on appeal to a total effective sentence of two years and six months with a non-parole period of 18 months' imprisonment; and in February 1984, offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (two counts) and assault in company (two counts), for which you were sentenced to six months' imprisonment on each of two counts, and three months' imprisonment on two other counts. That was the last occasion on which you were actually placed in prison upon conviction for an offence.

55 Further convictions for offences other than violence arose in court appearances in 1986, 1988 and 1993. Then in November 1995 you were convicted on three counts of damaging property with intent, unlawful assault, causing serious injury recklessly, causing injury intentionally, and failure to comply with a Community Based Order. You were released on a further Community Based Order. There were further dishonesty offences in 2000, 2001, and 2002, and also minor alcohol related offences.

56 Your last sentence of imprisonment, Wayne Frederick Norris, was a suspended sentence, on 18 May 2004, for offences including burglary, behaving in a riotous manner, theft, breaching an intervention order, and insulting language, for which you were sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of three months, the sentences being wholly suspended for 12 months. You were last convicted on 3 August 2004, when you were fined on counts of theft and failing to answer bail.

57 Your record of offending includes some 24 counts of burglary. In noting your extensive criminal history I acknowledge that many of your convictions arose in your youth (as to which I refer to what I said in R v Wise[5] as to factors relevant to high conviction rates within some Aboriginal communities, which remarks are also relevant to your son). I accept that there were extended periods without serious convictions being recorded against you.

58 You, Joabie Gavara Bodere, were convicted of theft on 10 December 1992 and released on a bond for 12 months. On 16 September 1997 you were convicted on old offences of being a child under the age of 18 consuming liquor, of being on licensed premises, and also for failing to answer bail. You were fined. You have no other convictions.

59 Particularly moving and compelling victim impact statements have been filed in this case. Each one of those statements expresses the horror, devastation and pain at the thought of so cruel a death of a gentle person who, despite his disabilities faced life with optimism. He had adopted the Mormon faith and loathed drugs of any kind, including alcohol. His life revolved around his friends, his family, his music and his guitar. As his sister Cindy Bridge stated, in the year prior to his death he lived in fear, locked behind a security door. All of those who wrote victim impact statements expressed particular horror about his vulnerability and the particular cruelty of such a death for a person who had never hurt anyone in his entire life.

60 As Edward Braddock said in his victim impact statement, "Lee Bridge was not built for, nor capable, of fending off the type of violence that was inflicted on him."

61 Lee Bridge's aunt, Barbara O'Rourke, spoke of his enthusiasm for life, his happy disposition and love of music, which he maintained despite the disabilities that followed his motor vehicle accident. Another aunt, Carol Tabak, said that she had suffered stress-related illness as a result of the death, and suffers continuing nightmares.

62 His aunt, Mary Legg, said that he was a peaceful, gentle man whom she had never seen angry. She described him as a "very gentle soul".

63 Mr Bridge's mother describes how she cries herself to sleep most nights. She spoke of his courage when from early childhood he struggled with his disabilities from the car accident, which left him with paralysis on one side of his body and taking medication for his tremors.

64 It is impossible to read the victim impact statements in this case without sharing the disbelief that is expressed in all of them that such violence as you inflicted could be imposed upon one so vulnerable.

65 Many of the victim impact statements express anger at the fact that you are convicted of manslaughter and not of murder, the charge first brought against you. I want to say something about that matter, although decisions as to whether a plea of guilty to a lesser charge will be accepted are for the discretion of the Director of Public Prosecutions and not for the Court.

66 Whilst the reaction to the Director's decision is understandable, I feel bound to say that the decision could be readily explained, when regard is had to the state of the admissible evidence in this case. Ironically, the very fact that property had been stolen from Mr Bridge in the past and the fact that his intimidation had been the means whereby marijuana had been obtained from Skarlatis, render it less likely that the three offenders entered Lee Bridge's house and assaulted him with the murderous intention required for proof of the offence of murder. None of the offenders made any admissions in this respect when interviewed by police.

67 You will be sentenced not for murder, but for manslaughter, and the fact that you did not intend to kill or to cause really serious injury to Lee Bridge must be accepted, as I do. Nonetheless, the absence of murderous intention makes your offending no more explicable, and this remains a serious instance of the offence of manslaughter.

68 I turn then to the factors addressed in mitigation of sentence by each of your counsel.

69 I accept that you, Wayne Leslie Norris, have expressed genuine remorse for the death of Mr Bridge. In your record of interview you said you did not learn that Mr Bridge had died until two days later, and that you just felt numb when you heard. You told police that you had decided to ask to be re-interviewed because, as you said, "I understand, sort of, where the family's coming from" because, as you said, you had lost close relatives, too. You said "I'm just trying to put things right, you know? Youse probably don't know what I mean or anything". You said you were trying to give some closure for his family and your own. When interviewed by Forensic psychologist Carla Lechner you wept when expressing remorse for your victim's death, which occurred on your birthday. You said you no longer celebrate your birthday on that date. You told her "I feel ashamed, don't feel human ... the worst thing, taking someone's son away. I will feel that for the rest of my life". In a statement, the terms of which reflect her own sincerity, your mother attested to your real appreciation of the suffering you have caused to others by the death of Lee Bridge. It is small comfort to them that you express remorse, but it is nonetheless important that you have that degree of insight into your terrible crime.

70 Your counsel, Mr Parsons, submitted that I should not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you entered the premises knowing that Mr Bridge was present, and intending to assault him. You told police that after looking into the house from outside you believed no one was home, and entered the house in order to steal money or drugs.

71 Your plea of guilty on count 2, however, constitutes an admission that you "entered as trespassers a building ... to commit an offence involving an assault to a person therein and that at the time of [so] entering a person was then present in the building and [you] knew that a person was then so present or were reckless as to whether or not a person was then so present".

72 Both you and your father told police that you entered the boundary of the property believing that Skarlatis was present. Thus, by your plea of guilty you, Norris Junior, must be taken to admit, at least, that you entered the premises intending to assault Mr Skarlatis in order to obtain drugs or money. In my opinion the conclusion that you intended to assault Mr Skarlatis is inescapable, as you had no money to buy drugs, and Skarlatis was not on friendly terms with any of you and would not have donated drugs to you. In my view, the plea of guilty means, that you, Norris Junior, admit that you entered the building intending to assault Skarlatis, had he been present. However, I am unable to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that you entered the premises intending to assault Lee Bridge. Nonetheless, even if it be the case that the presence of Mr Bridge came as a surprise, and, further, that the first two punches were instinctive, or thrown in panic, as you claim, on you own admission you punched Lee Bridge four or five times more after the initial two blows, and you also kneed him to the chest.

73 I accept that you were intoxicated, and probably heavily so, at the time when these events occurred, but you were able to drive the stolen car to Melbourne.

74 Why Mr Bridge was so brutally assaulted I am unable to say, and I will not speculate. Only you three offenders know whether any purpose accompanied the drunken rage with which the assault must have been conducted. None of you has offered any explanation for either the assault or the tying of Lee Bridge with cord.

75 You, Wayne Leslie Norris, are the oldest of five children, your parents now being separated. Your father stands beside you in the dock. You were educated at Drouin primary school and were an average student. Although your home life was reasonably happy it was attended by much drinking among extended family members. You have a history of poly-substance abuse, beginning with marijuana use from age of about 13 and you began heroin use at age 16. You have overdosed on a number of occasions and undertaken methadone programs while in prison. You have used many other drugs, including ecstasy, cocaine, amphetamine and serapax. You have been a binge drinker for many years.

76 Forensic psychologist, Ms Carla Lechner, provided a helpful and comprehensive report concerning you. She said that negative role modelling from uncles and cousins was an important factor in your upbringing. She considered that you had immature judgment and reasoning skills, compromised by substance abuse, and that you were at the top end of the borderline range of verbal intelligence, with 92% of the adult population performing better. Upon testing you in prison she diagnosed you as then suffering moderate depression, and you have been on anti-depressant medication while in custody. She considered that you were at significant risk of becoming institutionalised, despite your youth.

77 Mr Parsons placed emphasis on your Aboriginality as a factor relevant to understanding the context in which your prior convictions arose and the disadvantages which you faced in trying to avoid criminal behaviour. I agree that your history as an Aboriginal person has that relevance, and is also relevant in considering your prospects of rehabilitation.

78 My judgment in R v Fuller-Cust[6] was cited by all counsel. Given the well-recognised socio-economic disadvantages that confront many members of the Aboriginal community and contributes to their disproportionate involvement in the criminal justice system, a sentencing judge is bound to consider the impact, if any, of your Aboriginality on each of you when addressing both the cause and context of your offending and your prospects for rehabilitation. However, important as those considerations are in many cases, including this, I made this caveat in Fuller-Cust,[7] which I repeat for the present case: