R v Webster [2026] VSC 69

1 On the evening of Friday 10 March 2023, Jeremy Jong hosted his 22nd birthday party at a city apartment he had rented for the night. Numerous guests, most of whom were of a similar age to Mr Jong, came and went throughout the night and into the early hours of the next morning.

2 While at the party, at around 3:00 a.m., and again at about 4:00 a.m., Trae Webster, partly on his own and partly in company with his friends Jogan‑Mohi Kepa and Dez Te‑Rito, assaulted Adoor Agang. Within about 45 minutes of the second assault, all of the partygoers had gone. All except Mr Agang, who was left lying injured on the apartment floor, with his head propped up on a cushion.

3 At about 10:20 a.m., a manager of the hotel went to check the apartment. She found Mr Agang, alone, lying unconscious on the floor, and struggling to breathe. She rang triple‑zero and performed CPR on him until police and ambulance officers arrived. Tragically, Mr Agang could not be revived, and he died at 11:24 a.m. He was only 22.

4 On 14 June 2023, Mr Webster and Mr Kepa were arrested and charged with the manslaughter of Mr Agang. Mr Te‑Rito was not charged, as he was no longer in the jurisdiction.

5 At a pre-trial hearing, I ordered that Mr Webster and Mr Kepa be tried separately.[1] At Mr Webster's separate trial on manslaughter in April 2025, the jury were unable to reach a unanimous verdict. At Mr Kepa's trial in August 2025, he was found not guilty of manslaughter.

6 Subsequently, the Crown accepted that it could not prove that any of the assaults personally committed by Mr Webster, or to which he was a party, caused Mr Agang's death. The Crown then filed a fresh indictment charging him with two offences of common assault instead. Upon arraignment on 13 October 2025, Mr Webster pleaded guilty to both charges.

7 On 2 December 2025, I heard a Crown opening and a plea in mitigation for Mr Webster. The Crown submitted that Mr Webster should be imprisoned but conceded that it was not necessary to impose any imprisonment beyond the eight months he had already spent in custody after his arrest.

8 The same day, I sentenced Mr Webster on the two offences of common assault to an aggregate sentence of eight months' imprisonment, and declared 248 days of pre‑sentence detention. Thus, Mr Webster's sentence was complete.

9 I gave ex tempore reasons for sentence, but indicated I would publish more detailed reasons at a later date. These are those reasons.

10 I turn to a summary of the circumstances of the offending, commencing with some background matters.

11 On Friday 10 March 2023, Jeremy Jong rented apartment 2802 on the 28th floor of the Canvas Apartment Hotel at 560 Flinders Street in Melbourne as a place to host his birthday party that night.

12 On entry to the apartment, on the first level, there was a bedroom with an ensuite. Upstairs, on the second level, there was another bedroom with an ensuite, a kitchen, and a living area that opened to a large balcony. Most people spent their time at the party in the upstairs area, but some spent time downstairs too.

13 While estimates varied, over the night and into the early hours of the next morning, as many as 40 or 50 guests attended the party. The various attendees were from different aspects of Mr Jong's life, including his brother Kenny Jong, work colleagues, friends from his online gaming community, and other friends. Many had, but many had not, met before this night.

14 There were CCTV cameras in four relevant areas of the hotel: first, in the hallway of the 28th floor, showing the two lift entrances and the door to apartment 2802; second, in the hallway of the ground floor of the hotel, showing the two lift entrances; third, on the ground floor, showing the foyer and front doors to the hotel; and, fourth, in the street outside the building.

15 The CCTV footage showed that, throughout the night, people came and went from the apartment. The footage also showed that, by about 2:10 p.m., the only persons left at the party were Jeremey Jong, Kenny Jong, Stefan Stoev, Lat Hpau Yu, Mr Agang, Mr Webster, Mr Kepa, and Mr Te‑Rito.

16 I turn next to a summary of the two assaults. Before doing so, I note two things. Neither of the Jong brothers was a very helpful witness. Both were heavily intoxicated on the night and claimed not to notice much. While Mr Stoev and Mr Yu were the main eyewitnesses to the assaults, and were more forthcoming, their versions differed in some respects. Despite those limitations and differences, on the plea, the Crown put the assaults in the following ways.

17 After being at the party for some time, Mr Stoev assisted Mr Agang to get onto a bed in the upstairs bedroom because he was "really drunk".

18 About 20 minutes later, Mr Stoev heard "banging" coming from the bedroom. He said it was "a loud thump". Mr Webster asked Mr Stoev to come into the bedroom to check on Mr Agang.

19 When he entered, Mr Stoev saw that Mr Agang "was laying back down" and that there was "one big hole in the wall". Mr Stoev was standing in the doorway, a couple feet from Mr Webster, who entered the bedroom and asked, "You punched a hole in the wall?" to which Mr Agang replied, "It wasn't me." Mr Stoev believed Mr Webster got upset because it was his friend's birthday and Mr Agang was causing damage to the apartment. He punched Mr Agang to the face, causing him to fall back onto the bed and bleed. It was a hard punch, and Mr Agang was unconscious for a brief period. When Mr Agang was struck, he was leaning on the bedhead.

20 Mr Kepa and Mr Te‑Rito then entered the bedroom. Together with Mr Webster, they engaged in a scuffle with Mr Agang, with "punches being thrown from both sides". It lasted "maybe a minute or something". During the scuffle, Mr Agang took a beating and was saying, "Please, stop."[2]

21 Mr Stoev "copped an elbow to the face" during the scuffle. He became "fed up and frustrated", and was scared, so he left the bedroom. He went to the balcony and talked with Jeremey Jong.

Mr Agang leaves the apartment with Mr Webster and others

22 Later, Mr Stoev saw Mr Webster, Mr Kepa and Mr Te‑Rito take Mr Agang out of the apartment. CCTV footage shows that, at 3:04 a.m., Mr Agang and Kenny Jong exited the apartment, followed by Mr Webster, Mr Kepa and Mr Te‑Rito. It is apparent from the footage that Mr Agang was bleeding from his face. The CCTV footage also shows that, when they arrived at the ground floor, Mr Webster, Mr Kepa and Kenny Jong helped Mr Agang out of the lift, into the foyer, and out of the hotel.

23 The CCTV footage also shows that, after returning to the foyer by about 3:23 a.m., Mr Webster, Mr Kepa, Mr Te‑Rito and Mr Agang took the lift to the 28th floor at 3:30 a.m. This is consistent with Mr Stoev's account, who thought they returned to the apartment about half an hour after they had left. He said that, once inside the apartment, the same three men were effectively carrying Mr Agang up the stairs to the second level.

24 On Mr Stoev's account, at some point after Mr Agang returned, he was placed on a little wooden chair (or stool) in the living room, outside the upstairs bedroom. On the Crown case, this must have been at around 4:00 a.m. Mr Webster, Mr Kepa and Mr Te‑Rito were trying to get Mr Agang to unlock his mobile phone. One of them said, "We'll get you an Uber." Mr Webster, Mr Kepa and Mr Te‑Rito were all pretty close to each other at this point. Mr Agang did not unlock his phone. Mr Webster then punched Mr Agang to the face a number of times.

25 Next, Mr Kepa picked up a small chair or stool. He threatened to use it against Mr Agang, but did not strike him with it. The Crown put this part of the second assault on the basis that Mr Webster was in an agreement with Mr Kepa to cause Mr Agang to apprehend the immediate application of force.

Everyone (except Mr Agang) leaves the apartment

26 The CCTV footage shows that, at about 4:25 a.m., Mr Stoev and Mr Yu left the apartment, soon followed by Jeremy Jong and Mr Kepa. They all then took the lift down to the foyer.

27 At about 4:31 a.m., the CCTV footage shows Mr Webster, Kenny Jong and Mr Te‑Rito exiting the apartment, with Mr Te‑Rito carrying Mr Agang's bag. They went down to the foyer as well, and left the building.

28 Next, the CCTV footage shows that, at about 4:38 a.m., Kenney Jong returned to the foyer and headed back up to the apartment by himself, which he entered at 4:40 a.m. He then left the apartment at about 4:46 p.m., went down in the lift, and ultimately left the building soon after.

29 Mr Agang was left alone in the apartment. No one called an ambulance or otherwise sought medical attention for him.

30 As I indicated earlier, nearly six hours later, at about 10:20 a.m., a manager of the hotel found Mr Agang in the apartment, alone, lying unconscious on the floor, and struggling to breathe. She rang triple-zero and performed CPR on him until police and ambulance officers arrived and took over. Despite their best efforts, sadly, Mr Agang died at 11:24 a.m.

31 The ambulance officers noticed swelling to Mr Agang's right temple but could not see any other injuries.

32 The next day, forensic pathologist Dr Brian Beer conducted an autopsy on Mr Agang. In his opinion, the cause of death was blunt force trauma to the head and neck on a background of dimethylpentylone and ethanol use.

33 On 14 June 2023, Mr Webster was arrested by police at his home.

34 In his interview with police, he denied assaulting Mr Agang.

35 In between phases of his interview, Mr Webster was returned to a police cell. Police placed an undercover operative in the cell. He covertly recorded his conversation with Mr Webster. During that conversation, Mr Webster said, inter alia, the following:

a) A male started damaging a room by putting holes in the wall.

b) The partygoers didn't like his behaviour, so they started to assault him.

d) He did not assault the male and was not even in the room when he was assaulted.

e) Another male currently in custody (meaning Mr Kepa) was the main offender.

36 At the conclusion of his police interview, Mr Webster was charged with manslaughter.

37 Thereafter, he remained in custody until he was bailed on strict conditions at the committal hearing eight months later.

38 As I explained earlier, following the two separate trials on manslaughter, which included evidence from forensic pathologist Dr Beer, and resulted in a hung jury at Mr Webster's trial and the acquittal of Mr Kepa at his, the Crown accepted that it could not prove that any of the assaults personally committed by Mr Webster, or to which he was a party, caused Mr Agang's death.

39 It was in those circumstances that the Crown declined to put Mr Webster on trial again for manslaughter and chose instead to indict him on two charges of common assault, to which he pleaded guilty at the first opportunity.

40 I note that members of Mr Agang's family attended the trials and the plea hearing. Mr Gibson KC, who appeared for the Crown, explained that, while Mr Agang's family were advised that they could make victim impact statements, they declined to do so. As Mr Gibson understood it, this was because they felt they would have found it too difficult to separate the impact of Mr Agang's death from any permissible impact on them. They maintained this position despite a concession by Ms Smith, who appeared for Mr Webster, that she would not object to statements that referred to Mr Agang's death.[3]

41 That said, I take it as read that Mr Agang's family would suffer grief from knowing that their loved one was assaulted in the ways admitted, and from the fact that he was left alone in the apartment without any medical attention.

42 While the law forbids me, in sentencing, to take into account Mr Agang's family's grief over his death, I can say to them, and I do, that I am sorry for their loss, which must be horrible.

43 I turn now to assess the gravity of the offending.

44 Common assault is a common law offence that, in this State, carries a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment.[4]

45 As Mr Gibson submitted, serious features of these assaults included the following. First, Mr Agang's very high level of intoxication made him vulnerable and less able to defend himself. Second, Mr Webster took the lead role in both assaults, including knocking Mr Agang out briefly on the first occasion. Third, the scuffle part of the first assault and the whole of the second assault were committed in company. Fourth, Mr Agang was assaulted not once, but twice, about an hour apart. Fifth, Mr Agang did not appear to present any threat to Mr Webster. Sixth, instead, in the first assault, Mr Webster meted out a form of summary justice for Mr Agang damaging the wall. Seventh, the second assault seems to have resulted from frustration over Mr Agang not allowing others to access his phone. Eighth, Mr Webster and Mr Agang were otherwise on cordial terms throughout the night, and Mr Agang was entitled to expect that cordiality to continue without fear of harm. Ninth, while Mr Webster appears to have helped Mr Agang downstairs and then back upstairs after the first assault, he did nothing to assist him after the second, and indeed was party to leaving him alone with no medical attention.

46 On the other hand, some of the less serious features of the offending included the following. First, neither assault was pre-meditated. Rather, each was spontaneous. Second, no weapons were used, other than the stool wielded by Mr Kepa, which was used only in a threatening manner, and not actually to strike. Third, a related point is that I think it is likely that all of those who left Mr Agang alone and without medical help, including Mr Webster, could not have realised that he was so seriously hurt that he would die. In other words, their behaviour was consistent with a belief that he would recover. Fourth, that belief in Mr Webster is likely to have been affected by his high level of intoxication. Indeed, it is clear from the CCTV footage that, around the time of the assaults and afterwards, Mr Webster was so intoxicated as to be almost paralytic, albeit he did not seem quite as far gone as Mr Agang, who was falling about drunk. Fifth, as I indicated a moment ago, it appears plain on the CCTV that, between the two assaults, Mr Webster was trying to help Mr Agang, who, as I have just explained, was so intoxicated as to be unable to stand at times.

47 Balancing these matters and all the surrounding circumstances, overall, I regard these assaults as serious instances of the offence, albeit their gravity is offset to some degree by the matters just mentioned.

48 I turn now to Mr Webster's personal circumstances. These were explained by Ms Smith, and via the references and other documents she tendered in evidence.

49 Mr Webster was born on 22 June 1999 in Napier, New Zealand, to his mother Wirena Por Haki and his father Pipi Webster. He spent his early years living in Hawkes Bay.

50 Mr Webster has three older half-sisters (aged in their mid‑30s) from his father's previous relationship. He is the eldest of six siblings to his mother, with two brothers and three sisters, four of whom are half‑siblings. His younger half-siblings all live in New Zealand with his mother. He has a good relationship with his full brother, Josh (aged 23), who also lives in Australia.

51 His parents separated when he was aged six, and his mother re-partnered with Darren, who became his stepfather. This meant that, thereafter, Mr Webster often travelled between the homes of his parents.

52 During his childhood, between the ages of six and 14, Mr Webster was exposed to damaging family violence and illicit drug use. Prior to the age of seven, he would see his mother partying and using drugs and alcohol. Child protection became involved when he was about seven. They removed Mr Webster from the care of his mother and stepfather, and placed him in the custody of his grandmother. He was also exposed to a tumultuous relationship between his mother and his stepfather. This involved physical and verbal abuse of his mother in his presence. There were instances when Darren would throw or push his mother down the stairs while she was pregnant. His mother would ask Darren to leave the home, but he would return and they would reconcile. Darren would "torment" the children, including by locking them in a room. This made Mr Webster feel "worthless". His mother would ask him to call the police, but, when police attended, she would deny the offending and turn her anger and frustration to Mr Webster. When Mr Webster was about 12, he tried to intervene when Darren slapped one of his younger sisters, but he was hit too. When Mr Webster was about 14, Darren was imprisoned for assaulting Mr Webster's mother. Yet his mother asked him to prepare a letter for court indicating that she was not a victim of family violence.

53 Mr Webster described feeling "abandoned" by his mother at the age of 14. As a result, he left New Zealand and came to Australia to live with his father and his brother Josh.

54 Mr Webster was educated in various schools in Sunshine, Saint Albans and Albion. He described school as being okay, because he had friends and played school sports, like rugby. He finished his schooling at 16, at St Joseph's Flexible Learning Centre in North Melbourne.

55 Mr Webster has a history of prior court appearances or convictions, some of which are relevant to this matter.

56 In 2018, when he was 19, he was placed on an adjourned undertaking, without conviction, for contravening a conduct condition of bail.

57 In 2019, he was again placed on an adjourned undertaking, without conviction, for unlawful assault and contravening a conduct condition of bail.

58 Also in 2019, he was sentenced to 30 months' detention in a youth justice centre for aggravated home invasion, aggravated burglary, and theft.

59 In 2020, he was fined, with conviction, for robbery, theft, and committing an indictable offence while on bail.

60 Also in 2020, he was again placed on an adjourned undertaking, but with conviction this time, for affray, unlawful assault, and committing an indictable offence while on bail.

61 Given these prior matters involve assaults and other forms of violence, the need for specific deterrence is potentially enlivened in sentencing, to which I shall return later.

62 In 2022, Mr Webster was the victim of a physical assault near his home, during which he suffered a significant cut to his hand.

63 He described experiencing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder as a result, and he subsequently received sessions of counselling treatment with a counsellor at Charles Street Clinic.

64 As for his use of drugs, Mr Webster first used cannabis when he arrived in Australia at 14. In the lead-up to the offending, he was smoking cannabis daily.

65 On the night of the offending, he was heavily substance-affected and under the influence of alcohol.

66 Since his release on bail in February 2024, however, Mr Webster has embraced a quiet life that his strict bail conditions have compelled. Significantly, he reports he does not miss going out, drinking, or being around the wrong influences. He intends to continue spending time at home with his partner, and with her family, his father and his brother.

67 A key factor in turning his behaviour around on bail was Mr Webster's positive engagement in the six-month Youth Umbrella Project with the Youth Junction between February and August 2024.

68 The reports from Youth Junction[5] attest that Mr Webster engaged in fortnightly face-to-face sessions aimed at addressing goal setting and personal development. He also engaged in multiple offence-focussed case-management sessions, in which he was a willing participant. During these sessions, he learned to identify the risk factors that led to his involvement in the criminal justice system. He also received education and employment support through the Reconnect Programme, which resulted in him obtaining work in scaffolding from August 2024. Further, he was encouraged to continue to engage with Charles Street Clinic for support with his mental health, which he did.

69 Youth Junction concluded their final report with the remark that Mr Webster had shown motivation to make positive changes to his lifestyle. As we shall see shortly, that conclusion is consistent with the observations of Mr Webster's partner and her family.

70 Significantly, Mr Webster is in a healthy and supportive relationship with his partner Armani Ravendran. As is apparent from the several character references (parts of which I shall extract shortly), Ms Ravendran and her family provide significant emotional support and stability to Mr Webster.

71 In October 2025, Mr Webster moved out of his father's home to a private rental property with his partner. They are financially supporting each other while Ms Ravendran completes her veterinary nursing studies.

72 As for his work history, Mr Webster has never received Centrelink benefits.

73 After finishing school, he obtained work with his father building pallets and other construction roles, including driving forklifts.

74 He lost his job after being charged with manslaughter.

75 However, as I mentioned earlier, after he was released on bail, he gained scaffolding work from August 2024 with the assistance of Youth Junction.

76 Since July 2025, he has been employed six days a week, with Sundance Racking Pty Ltd, building frames that carry pallets. While working, he has also embraced the opportunity of obtaining accreditation for elevated work platform ("EWP") tickets in scissor lifts, boom lifts and vertical lifts. He hopes to remain in this job for years to come, and he welcomes the valuable experiences and skills he is learning every day.

77 Prior to the offending, Mr Webster was involved in a boxing club. However, since then, he has not returned to boxing.

78 He now goes to the gym three or four times a week, which he fits around his work commitments.

79 Next, I turn to the mitigating factors urged by Ms Smith, commencing with Mr Webster's pleas of guilty.

80 While these guilty pleas have come late in the overall process, they have come immediately upon the Crown withdrawing manslaughter and charging the common assaults. The pleas have avoided the expense and trauma of what would have been a third trial for some witnesses.

81 Further, in my view, his pleas of guilty reflect Mr Webster's willingness to facilitate the course of justice and take responsibility for his actions.

82 Second, I accept that his pleas of guilty are also indicative of Mr Webster's remorse. That he is genuinely remorseful for his offending is also apparent from the references received from his partner Armani Ravendran, her mother Iris Jeffrey, her stepfather Iain Jeffrey, and her sister Ziaire Ravendran, as well as from Mr Webster's own letter to the Court.[6] As indicated earlier, I shall reproduce parts of these documents shortly.

83 Third, despite his prior appearances or convictions, including those for offences of violence, I am satisfied that Mr Webster has some positive character traits.[7]

84 So much is apparent from the character references. For example, in her reference, his partner Armani Ravendran said this:[8]

... Throughout the years I have known Trae, I have witnessed significant personal growth and maturity. Like many young people, we both made immature decisions during our adolescence, however, we learned and grew from those experiences. I have always seen Trae strive to better himself even in difficult circumstances.

Since Trae and I reunited in 2024, I have seen many positive changes in him. We attend church regularly, which has provided both guidance and stability. Trae has secured full-time employment and has shown responsibility, commitment, and strong work ethic. We recently moved into a home together and adopted a puppy named Stormy, which has brought routine, joy, and structure to our daily lives. Trae has the full support of my family, who have helped us during the past year, particularly during the period of his trial.

I have seen firsthand the remorse Trae carries and the effort he has put into rebuilding himself and choosing a better path. He is committed to growing, healing, and becoming the best version of himself. I believe in the goodness he is striving for, and I have complete faith in the man he is becoming.

85 Similarly, in her reference, Ms Ravendran's mother Iris Jeffrey said this:[9]

I have known Trae Webster since my daughter Armani first met him at the age of sixteen. They were in a relationship for a couple of years before separating, and they later reconnected and have since been in a committed relationship.

When I first met Trae, I was initially hesitant due to concerns about the character of some of his associates. Despite this, whenever he visited our home, he was consistently quiet, respectful, and polite. As I came to know him better after he and Armani reconnected, I could see that he cared deeply for her.

Over time, I learned more about his background. He moved from New Zealand to Australia as a teenager with his father and brother, and he did not have the presence of his mother to help guide him during those important years. I understand that life was difficult for their family, and that he was influenced by peers who may not have been a positive influence. I also heard that his mother drank during pregnancy, and while I am not medically qualified to make any assessment, as I have come to know him better, I am mindful that he may have faced challenges arising from his early circumstances.

During the past couple of years, Trae has opened up to me more, and I have tried to support him and provide positive guidance where I can. My husband, who is Armani's stepfather, has also been a strong and stabilising influence in our household, especially as Armani's biological father chose to cease all contact with his daughters ten years ago. Our family has been a consistent source of stability for both Armani and Trae.

During and since the trial, I have tried to maintain contact with Trae on a daily basis, texting and speaking with him by phone to ensure he has support and guidance.

Throughout Trae's trial earlier this year, Armani and I attended court to offer our support. I was aware of the nature and seriousness of the offence prior to the proceedings. Although it was difficult for him to speak about, Trae expressed genuine remorse for what occurred and appeared deeply distressed about the consequences of his actions.

During that period, both Trae and Armani were unable to work for an extended time. Trae received very little support from his own family, and my family - including my elder daughter and her partner - provided emotional, moral, and financial assistance. Trae and our family fully understand the devastating consequences suffered by the victim's family, and they have our deepest sympathy for their loss.

Since the trial, Trae and Armani have moved into their own home, where they are working to build a stable, positive, and constructive life. They share household and financial responsibilities and support each other day to day. ...

86 And, in their references, Ms Ravendran's stepfather Iain Jeffrey and her sister Ziaire Ravendran made similar remarks, including that Mr Webster is always polite, respectful and well-mannered; that he has demonstrated a consistent effort to contribute positively to his community; that he is motivated to continue making positive decisions and improvements in his life; and that he is a young man who has faced hardship and made mistakes but who is genuinely trying to grow, take responsibility, and build a stable future.[10]

87 I accept the remarks made in these references, which were unchallenged.

88 Fourth, at 23 when he offended, Mr Webster was relatively young.

89 All else being equal, a younger person is less likely to appreciate risk or consider consequences fully. Mr Webster's offences, I accept, are a product, at least in part, of youthful limitations of that kind.

90 As Hollingworth J said in DPP v JA & Ors:[11]

[26] The law says that the youth of an offender should be a primary consideration for a sentencing court, where the matter properly arises. In the case of such an offender, rehabilitation is usually more important than general deterrence; rehabilitation benefits the community as well as the offender. There is a significant public benefit in rehabilitating a young offender, and maximising the prospect that they will go on to live a peaceful, productive and law‑abiding life.

[27] However, those principles are not absolute; due regard must be had in each case to other relevant matters, including the seriousness of the offending, and whether there has been any prior offending. Generally speaking, the more serious the offending, the less the weight to be attached to youth. But the mitigatory effect of youth will be extinguished only in circumstances of the gravest criminal offending, and where there is no realistic prospect of rehabilitation.

91 While these remarks were made by her Honour in the context of matters involving offenders younger than Mr Webster (all were 19), they still have some application in this case, bearing in mind his particular age and circumstances. For, as serious as the assaults were, he is not being sentenced for offending as grave as a homicide. Further, as we have seen, Mr Webster's criminal history, while relevant, is not extensive, and, as we shall see shortly, he also has good prospects of rehabilitation. Thus, in my view, this is far from being a case in which the weight to be accorded to youth is to be subjugated to other considerations - and, less still, extinguished - because of the nature of Mr Webster's offences or his past history.

92 Fifth, notwithstanding the nature and seriousness of the offending, and his relevant criminal history, I am satisfied that Mr Webster has good prospects of rehabilitation.

93 The matters that persuade me to that view include his pleas of guilty, his remorse, his positive character traits, his relatively young age, his demonstrated rehabilitative strides taken while on bail, his motive to better himself, his strong work ethic, and the support he enjoys from his father and his partner and her family.

94 I am all the more confident in that assessment when regard is had to Mr Webster's own words, which he expressed in a letter to the Court. He said this:[12]

... I am 26 years old, and I am currently employed full-time installing pallet racking for Sundance Racking. The company has supported me by giving me opportunities to learn and progress, including paying for EWP tickets such as the scissor lift, boom lift, and vertical lift. Through this work I have been able to overcome my fear of heights. I plan to remain in this job for years to come as I continue to gain valuable experience and skills every day.

March 2023 feels like a lifetime ago. When I was arrested, I spent eight months in custody, during which I lost so many important aspects of my life - my job, my relationships, and many friendships. That period in prison was extremely difficult, and it all stemmed from me surrounding myself with the wrong people, mixed with a bad night and alcohol. I take full responsibility for the choices that led me there.

Prison was especially hard knowing my father was at home alone. I never wanted him to see me in that situation. I could see how much it hurt him every time he visited. I cannot express enough how deeply it affected me to see the pain in his eyes. That experience made me realise how precious time with your family truly is, especially under those circumstances.

As much as I hated being there - and as much as I never want to return - I found God in prison. I know that the events of that night caused harm far beyond myself. I wish more than anything that the night had never happened, and that I had never agreed to go. My heart breaks for the family of the deceased. I pray for him and for both of his parents. I am deeply sorry for their loss, even if they hold anger towards me. I understand why they would. I hope they one day find peace, and I wish they could know how desperately I wish I could take back everything that happened.

Since being granted bail, I have found it easy to follow the conditions, mainly because I understand that bail is a privilege, not a right. I do not miss going out, drinking, or being around the wrong influences. My partner has played a huge role in keeping me grounded and focused on positive change. Her family has been incredibly supportive, and having the stability of living with Armani in a quiet neighbourhood has given me the calm and structure I needed. To most people, a quiet life might sound boring - but after being on remand, "boring" feels like a blessing.

I am committed to staying on the right path. I am committed to my work, my family, my faith, and becoming a better person every day. I know I cannot change the past, but I can take responsibility for it and work to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again.

95 I accept that Mr Webster's remarks, which were not challenged, are genuine.

96 Finally, Ms Smith submitted that, given Mr Webster's exposure, in his formative years, to domestic violence, illicit drug use, instability, and feelings of abandonment, the principles in Bugmy v The Queen[13] are engaged in a general way.[14]

97 Mr Gibson took no issue with this submission, although he noted "the self-reporting nature of the matters relied upon".

98 I accept that Mr Webster was raised in circumstances of domestic violence, illicit drug use, instability, and feelings of abandonment. I also accept that there is some mitigation in that fact. This is because his moral culpability is likely to be less than the culpability of an offender whose formative years have not been marred in that way.[15]

99 I turn now to the purposes of sentencing. Section 5(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) provides that the only purposes for which sentence may be imposed are general deterrence, specific deterrence, denunciation, protection of the community, just punishment, and rehabilitation.

100 In my view, general deterrence, denunciation and just punishment are important sentencing purposes in this matter. Anyone minded to assault another in circumstances of the kind involved here must understand that, usually, just punishment will be meted out by way of a prison sentence upon conviction, and also that the Court denounces such conduct. That said, the weight to be given to those sentencing purposes must be tempered to some degree by the reduction in moral culpability that arises from the Bugmy considerations applicable in Mr Webster's case.

101 Given Mr Webster's prior appearances and convictions for violence, I think specific deterrence and community protection are of some weight, albeit that weight is reduced to some extent by those same Bugmy considerations. Further, that weight is reduced significantly by his pleas of guilty and remorse, his positive character traits, the efforts he has made to turn his life around, the salutary effect on him of eight months in custody and much longer on strict bail conditions, and his good prospects of rehabilitation.

102 Rehabilitation remains an important purpose in sentencing Mr Webster, for at least two reasons. First, because I am satisfied that his prospects of rehabilitation are good, rehabilitation is a sentencing purpose that must be afforded significant weight. Second, it is necessary to recognise the interplay between rehabilitation and protection of the community. If Mr Webster were to be returned to prison, there would be a grave risk that much of the good work he has done would be set at nought. It is therefore in the community's interests that such prospects of rehabilitation he has be maximised, and that he is not crushed by a sentence that returns him to prison, so that he may continue on his path to full reform and so that his risk of reoffending is as low as it reasonably can be.

103 Next, I note that the sentence I have selected is intended to conform with the principle of parsimony, as it must. This principle, which is reflected in s 5(3) of the Sentencing Act in a modified form, provides that a court 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.

104 I turn now to current sentencing practices for common assault, in so far as I can determine them. These practices are but one factor in sentencing, and certainly not a controlling one at that, but they are nevertheless important in the sentencing synthesis.

105 In order to gauge the applicable sentencing practices, I have had regard to sentencing statistics kept by the Sentencing Advisory Council. Those statistics show that, for offences of common assault dealt with in the higher courts during the period from July 2019 to June 2024, about 73 percent of offences attracted imprisonment, and over 66 percent of those sentences were of less than a year's duration.[16]

106 These statistics are, of course, of limited utility, mainly because they do not distinguish cases according to their most important sentencing considerations - such as the seriousness of the particular offence, whether there were significant aggravating or mitigating factors (such as a plea of guilty), whether there were significant prior convictions, and so on. Nevertheless, they do give some guidance.

107 Sometimes, case comparisons can also assist in gauging current sentencing practices. However, I was not referred to any specific cases, and, given the Crown's stance on sentence, I did not consider it necessary to seek any out in this matter. Of course, other sentences are not precedents to be applied or distinguished in any event, but comparators can be useful.

108 Nevertheless, recognising the limitations of sentencing statistics and the fact that I had no case comparisons before me, I am satisfied that the sentence at which I have arrived is consistent with those statistics and with current sentencing practices.

109 Mr Gibson submitted that the offending warranted imprisonment, but made it clear that the Crown does not submit that the term of imprisonment imposed should exceed the period he has already served by way of pre-sentence detention. In other words, "time served" would be sufficient. He also submitted that a "combination sentence" - meaning a prison sentence combined with a community correction order ("CCO")[17] - would be within range.

110 Ms Smith submitted that, having regard to Mr Webster's young age, the offence-specific treatment he had done, his compliance with onerous bail conditions for over 21 months, and the other matters in mitigation, an aggregate term of imprisonment of less than the time he spent on remand would be sufficient to meet all relevant sentencing principles and purposes.

112 Balancing all matters a best I could, I determined that, on both offences, Mr Webster should be convicted and sentenced to an aggregate term of eight months' imprisonment.

113 Pursuant to s 18 of the Sentencing Act, I declared that he had served 248 days of pre‑sentence detention under this sentence, which amounted to slightly more than eight months.

114 Accordingly, his sentence was complete, and he was free to go.

115 As will be apparent from this sentence, I did not consider it to be consistent with parsimony to add a CCO as well. He had been punished, denounced and deterred enough by his eight months in custody. Further, those eight months were sufficient for the purposes of general deterrence; he was no threat to the community; and, indeed, he was well on the path to rehabilitation anyway.

116 Equally, while there may be an element of pragmatism in many a sentence of "time served", as it turned out, I considered that the eight months he had served in custody - no more, no less - was consistent with parsimony.

117 Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act, I declared that, but for his pleas of guilty, I would have imposed an aggregate sentence in the order of 12 months' imprisonment.

[1] See R v Kepa & Webster (Ruling 1) [2025] VSC 846.

[2] I understood this part of the first assault to be put on the basis that the three men were in an agreement to assault Mr Agang at this point.

[3] In proposing that approach, Ms Smith, of course, recognised that, in sentencing, I would not - and could not lawfully - take into the account the victim impact that resulted from Mr Agang's death.

[4] See s 320 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).

[5] Especially the final report. See the reports from the Youth Junction's Youth Umbrella Project dated 13 February 2024, dated 12 March 2024, and undated (but the final report, written as late as August 2024).

[6] References of Armani Ravendran (26 November 2025), Iris Jeffrey (24 November 2025), Iain Jeffrey (26 November 2025), and Ziaire Ravendran (27 November 2025), and Mr Webster's letter (27 November 2025).

[7] As to the factors that a court may consider in determining the character of an offender, see s 6 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic).

[8] Reference of Armani Ravendran (26 November 2025).

[9] Reference of Iris Jeffrey (24 November 2025).

[10] References of Iain Jeffrey (26 November 2025), and Ziaire Ravendran (27 November 2025).

[11] DPP v JA & Ors [2023] VSC 531 at [26]- [27].

[12] Mr Webster's letter (27 November 2025).

[13] Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571.

[14] As opposed to the "more specific" way. See DPP v Herrmann [2021] VSCA 160; (2021) 290 A Crim R 110 at 118[36]-‍119[37] (per Maxwell P, Kaye, Niall, T Forrest and Emerton JJA).

[15] See Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 at 594[40] (per French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ).

[16] Sentencing Advisory Council, SACStat: Common law assault, higher courts, 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2024.

[17] As to which, see s 44 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic).