The Queen v Spaliaras & Ors [2017] VSC 33

2 On 26 January 2015 - Australia Day - a young woman named Jacinta Kennett, who at that time was in relationship with you, Mr Spaliaras, sold five morphine tablets on credit to Mr Bernard. The price was $100.

3 The next day, Ms Kennett called Mr Bernard several times seeking payment. According to Ms Kennett, you, Mr Spaliaras, also spoke to Mr Bernard and dropped the price to $60.

4 Later that day - the 27th - you, Mr Spaliaras, and Ms Kennett, visited Mr Hill at his flat in O'Shanassy St, North Melbourne. After a while, the three of you went downstairs to Mr Brennan's flat, looking for Mr Bernard, who was staying with Mr Brennan temporarily. Mr Brennan was home but Mr Bernard wasn't. You, Mr Spaliaras and Mr Brennan, went into Mr Bernard's room. Ms Kennett said the two of you began packing up Mr Bernard's possessions.

5 Mr Bernard came home. According to Ms Kennett, the three of you began yelling at Mr Bernard. It was chaotic. You were all substance affected by drugs and/or alcohol. Mr Spaliaras, you started fighting with Mr Bernard, punching him and then, you, Mr Brennan and Mr Hill, joined in the assault. Mr Spaliaras, you put Mr Bernard in a sleeper hold until he passed out.

6 The three of you then went into Mr Bernard's room and talked. Ms Kennett remained in the living room. When Mr Bernard regained consciousness after a few minutes, and tried to escape out the front door, Ms Kennett closed the door on him and called out to you Mr Spaliaras.

7 The three of you came out of Mr Bernard's bedroom and resumed assaulting him. At one point, according to Ms Kennett, you, Mr Spaliaras flicked a cutthroat razor in Mr Bernard's face.[1] To try and stifle his screams, pillows were put over his face. Eventually, he was dragged into the bathroom. The bathroom door was closed. Ms Kennett remained in the kitchen, drinking. She could hear banging in the bathroom.

8 Eventually, it went quiet. Ms Kennett entered the bathroom. Mr Bernard was lying in the bath, motionless, with a rope around his neck. You, Mr Spaliaras, had hold of one end of the rope. You said to Ms Kennett, 'Here have a pull of the dog' and with that, yanked the rope hard. Mr Bernard's head hit the side of the bath but he did not respond.

9 Ms Kennett checked Mr Bernard for a pulse but couldn't find one.

10 A little later, the three of you and Ms Kennett discussed the possibility that Mr Bernard might have drugs on him. Mr Hill volunteered to conduct a search. He went back into the bathroom alone. When he came out, he reported that he didn't find any drugs.

11 Mr Bernard's body remained in the bath for about a week as you considered how to dispose of the body. During this period you, Mr Spaliaras, were wearing Mr Bernard's shoes. According to Ms Kennett, you found it amusing to be walking around in a dead man's shoes.[2]

12 Eventually, the two of you, Mr Spaliaras and Mr Brennan, decided to cut up the body in the bathtub.

13 On 3 February 2015, the three of you and Ms Kennett drove to the Maribyrnong River to dispose of the body parts. The head, torso and hands were put in a skip and a wheelie bin. Other body parts were thrown in the river. One of those body parts, a forearm bearing a distinctive tattoo, was found on 5 February 2015. It led to the identification of the victim and ultimately to the detection of your joint crime.

14 Some factual matters are disputed by all of you.

15 None of you accept the following allegations made by the prosecution:

• That the three of you agreed to kill Mr Bernard as opposed to causing him really serious injury;

• That the search of Mr Bernard by Mr Hill after the killing was an intimate body search.

• Two of you, Mr Spaliaras and Mr Brennan, who were responsible for dismembering the body, submit that that conduct may not be regarded as an aggravating feature of the offence of murder. You submit it happened too long after the killing and should have been the subject of a separate charge.

• Next, two of you, Mr Spaliaras and Mr Hill, invited the jury to find you guilty of manslaughter: you submit that I should regard that acceptance of responsibility for the killing as a mitigating circumstance and as evidence of remorse on your part.

17 I will deal first with the factual matters that all of you dispute. Each of these allegations if proven would be a circumstance of aggravation. Accordingly, each must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

18 As for the duration of the assault, the prosecution asserted in oral submissions that the assault went on for 'at least a couple of hours'.[3] Even relying on Ms Kennett's time estimates, as the prosecution does, 'a couple of hours' is an overestimate. In summary, Ms Kennett said there was yelling for about 15 minutes, then fighting in the lounge-room for 'less than 15 minutes'[4] until Mr Bernard went unconscious. After Mr Bernard regained consciousness and tried to escape, Ms Kennett said there was further fighting or wrestling for another five to ten minutes[5] before Mr Bernard was dragged into the bathroom. Ms Kennett said there were noises including bashing sounds coming from the bathroom for about 40 to 45 minutes[6] before it went silent. In summary, on Ms Kennett's account, Mr Bernard was assaulted for about an hour.

19 I consider her time estimates unreliable for two reasons. First, on her own admission she was on ice at the time of the assault, and was drinking alcohol.[7] She commented memorably that 'there's no point in drinking unless you get drunk'.[8] So, she may have been drunk as well as stoned at the time of this chaotic and tragic incident. Second, her estimate is at odds with the evidence given by another witness who overheard the assault from his flat directly above, namely, Daniel Techane. He estimated that the fighting went on for about 15 to 20 minutes.[9] Mr Techane was not substance affected.

20 As for whether the three of you agreed to kill Mr Bernard, you each submitted that I should find that the shared intention was only to inflict really serious injury. The prosecution conceded that such a finding was open to me.[10] Given the lack of evidence as to what happened in the bathroom where Mr Bernard was killed, I cannot be satisfied that there was an agreement to kill. Nonetheless, your moral culpability is still high. This was a protracted, brutal and cowardly assault by the three of you.

21 As for the search of Mr Bernard by Mr Hill for drugs, Ms Kennett did not actually say in evidence that Mr Hill conducted an intimate body search. Ms Kennett was asked the following questions and gave the following answers:[11]

Q. Was there any discussion about whether B had drugs on his body?

A. Yes

Q. And what did you hear said in relation to that?

A. Um, we thought that he might be hiding them and keeping them for himself. Apparently he was prone to doing that.

Q. Did someone go and conduct an inspection?

A. Yes

Q. Who did that ?

A. Nippy

Q. And did you see that happen?

A. No

Q. Did you hear the result of it?

A. No , he did it by himself but when he came out he said that he had nothing.

22 I cannot be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on this evidence that Mr Hill actually carried out an intimate physical examination.

Dismemberment of the body - whether a relevant aggravating circumstance

23 As mentioned, two of you, Mr Spaliaras and Mr Brennan, submit that your dismemberment of Mr Bernard's body occurred too long after the killing to be treated as a circumstance of aggravation. You submitted that the prosecution needed to lay a separate charge in relation to that desecration. I reject your submission.

24 At most, the dismemberment occurred within about a week of the killing. In my view, that is not too long for it to be regarded as an aggravating circumstance of the murder.

25 The three of you disposed of the body parts. I regard that as a further aggravating circumstance.

Invitation to jury by Mr Spaliaras and Mr Hill to convict them of manslaughter - whether mitigating.

26 You, Mr Spaliaras and Mr Hill, submit that I should regard the fact that you invited the jury to convict you of manslaughter as a circumstance of mitigation and as evidence of remorse.

27 Given the state of the evidence against you, I regard your invitation to the jury to convict you of manslaughter as a pragmatic, tactical decision to maximise your chances of being found not guilty of murder. It did not necessarily flow from remorse. At least I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that it did.

28 You will receive some credit for limiting the issues in your trial.

• Mr Bernard was assaulted in his own home, albeit his temporary home.

• You renewed your attack when Mr Bernard regained consciousness and tried to escape.

• Two of you desecrated the body by dismembering it.

• Some of the body parts (including Mr Bernard's head) have not been recovered, adding to the torment of his family, who are also victims of your senseless brutality.

30 The prosecution tendered Victim Impact Statements from Mr Bernard's father Ronald, from his brother Bernard and from his sister Gyorgy.

31 The impact of your offending on each of them is profound and enduring. The anguish they feel has impacted on their physical and mental health. What you did to Mr Bernard before and after his death understandably dominates their thoughts. They continue to be tormented by the fact that parts of Mr Bernard have not been recovered.

Personal histories (including criminal antecedents)

32 I turn now to your personal histories including your criminal antecedents.

33 Mr Spaliaras, you were born on 6 October 1983. You are now 33 years of age.

34 Your parents separated when you were 14. Your father continued to raise you and your two younger brothers. When you were 16, your relationship with your father deteriorated to the point where he was threatening to kick you out of home. You decided to leave of your own accord. You told forensic psychologist Jeffrey Cummins in August 2016 that now you only have a minimal bond with your father and no bond with your mother. It appears that your bond with your brothers is also minimal.

35 You told Mr Cummins that 'I know I've got a problem with anger and it probably dates back to my parents separating and Mum leaving me with Dad'.[12]

36 You left high school during Year 11. You did several years of a plumbing apprenticeship after leaving school but didn't complete it. Over the years, you've had intermittent employment, mainly as a concreter.

37 Illicit drug use has been a serious problem for you for a very long time. You began smoking cannabis when you were just 13 and used it often. By 14 or 15, you were using speed and since 17, you have been a regular ice user. In your mid 20's you were placed in a psychiatric hospital twice in connection with ice use. On your own admission to Mr Cummins, you have sold drugs to fund your own drug use. There have been a number of unsuccessful attempts to get off drugs.

38 You claim that you are now drug free. I only hope that is so. Neither at your plea hearing nor subsequently was I provided with any urine screen certificates. You have managed to secure a coveted position as a billet in custody, which suggests you have earned a measure of trust.

39 Prior to your incarceration, you were in an 'on again, off again' defacto relationship for about eight or nine years with a Ms Gouros. It was a relationship marred by repeated violence on your part. There are two children from that relationship, a boy and girl, both still very young. You hope to maintain your relationship with them whilst in custody.

40 You had a short relationship with Ms Kennett, beginning in December 2014. After that broke up in early 2015, you resumed your relationship with Ms Gouros for a time.

41 Mr Spaliaras, whilst you have over 30 convictions to your name, some recorded after the murder, I will just concentrate on those involving violence.

42 At Broadmeadows Magistrates' Court on 1 December 2010, you were convicted of hindering police, using threatening words in a public place and behaving in an offensive manner. You were placed on a bond with conviction. It was a special condition of the bond that you attend anger management counselling.

43 At Broadmeadows Magistrates' Court on 30 August 2013, you were convicted of recklessly causing injury, criminal damage, assault with an instrument, using a prohibited weapon, three counts of contravening a family violence intervention order and two further counts of criminal damage. It appears that you were sentenced to three months' imprisonment in respect of the first three offences and a Community Corrections Order for 12 months on the remaining offences. According to the summaries which were provided to me by the prosecution, the accuracy of which you did not dispute, the offences were committed in June 2013 (the June incident) and August 2013 (the August incident) .

44 The victim of those offences was your former defacto, Ms Gouros.

45 In the June incident, she awoke to find you asleep on a couch at her home. When she told you to leave, you smashed various items in the house including the fridge and a microwave. When she called police, you smashed the phone. When she got into her car with the children, you smashed some of the car windows with a stick. Eventually you ran off. You returned later the same day after the police had attended. Ms Gouros again tried to leave. You physically assaulted her by grabbing her hands, wrists and arms to prevent her leaving.

46 In the August incident, you again attended at Ms Gouros' home and smashed a number of items in the house in the course of an argument with her.

47 You ultimately breached the CCO and, in December 2015 at Melbourne Magistrates' Court, you were resentenced on the original offences

48 Most significantly, at Melbourne County Court on 12 October 2015, you were convicted of trespass, robbery and intentionally causing injury and given a total effective sentence of nine months' imprisonment. The main victim, a Nathan Robertson, owed you money. According to your counsel in these proceedings, it was a drug debt involving a small amount of money.[13] You went to the victim's home with another male and a female on Australia Day 2014. You barged your way into his home, demanding your money. His parents were home. You demanded his mother's car keys and later took her car. You followed Mr Robertson into his bedroom. In Judge Quin's words, Mr Robertson 'was on the bed and he covered his head with his hands. You dragged Mr Robertson off the bed to the floor and stomped on his head a number of times. You also kicked him to the back of the head and the neck'.[14] Judge Quin stated that this offending 'occurred in the context of you taking ice. Your behaviour was irrational, violent and out of control'.[15] The same could be said of your current offence. The fact that you were aware that you had a tendency to act violently when under the influence of ice is an aggravating factor in relation to the current matter.

49 At Melbourne Magistrates' Court on 16 December 2015, you were sentenced to eight months imprisonment for several offences including, relevantly, using a carriage service to menace another on 18 September 2014, recklessly causing injury on 22 January 2015, intentionally causing injury on 29 January 2015, two counts of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail on 22 & 29 January 2015. As indicated, you were also sentenced for breaching the CCO imposed on 30 August 2013.[16] In relation to the offences on 29 January 2015, according to the summary that I was supplied by the prosecution, and which you did not dispute, the victim was again Ms Gouros. At your request, she attended your apartment on that day. When she arrived, you immediately became aggressive, shouting at her and pushing her down a flight of stairs, causing injury to her back and head. No information was provided to me as to the offences on 18 September 2014 and on 22 January 2015.

50 You are not to be punished again for these antecedents. They are however relevant to an assessment of your prospects of rehabilitation, which I consider poor. That in turn bears upon the weight to be given to the protection of the community and to specific deterrence - that is, deterring you from further offending by the sentence I impose today. Both considerations must be given considerable weight in your case.

51 Mr Brennan, you were born on 17 March 1978. You are now aged 38.

52 Your father owned a newsagency. Later he worked in a funeral business. Your parents had four children - three boys and a girl - and you were the youngest, by many years. One of your brothers died in 1999 from a drug overdose. You have little contact with your other brother and your sister.

53 Your mother died from cancer in 1997 when you were about 19. Your father, who re-partnered, died in 2010.

55 Since leaving school, you've had intermittent work, mainly in factories.

56 After getting out of prison in 2003 on parole, you obtained Ministry of Housing accommodation - the flat in O'Shanassy St. You lived there until you were remanded in custody in March 2015. You were receiving the Newstart allowance.

57 Illicit drug use has also been a longstanding problem in your life. You began using cannabis when you were 12, amphetamines when you were 15, heroin when you were 17. You told psychiatrist Dr Danny Sullivan that by the age of 19 you were dependent on heroin and that since then have always been on heroin or an opiate substitute. You began using ice in 2014. In August 2014 you were admitted to Royal Melbourne Hospital in relation to a methamphetamine induced psychosis. You've also used LSD and magic mushrooms many times, and benzodiazepines. There have been two previous inpatient detoxifications at Moreland Hall. Dr Sullivan comments that you 'have had longstanding problems with polysubstance abuse and dependence involving opiates, stimulants, alcohol and benzodiazepines. At the time of the offence, he was using opiates and alcohol and possibly benzodiazepines.'[17]

58 You underwent psychological treatment from October 2012 to September 2014. According to Dr Sullivan's report, a Dr Janev recorded that you identified as a Nazi and had been a 'skin head' for years.[18] Dr Sullivan says 'Dr Janev notes some psychopathic features associated with this belief system but also contrasted this with his anxiety, vulnerability and inferiority suggesting that his identification with Nazi beliefs was in a part a coping mechanism to deal with negative emotions'.[19] It is a coping mechanism that doesn't fill one with optimism as regards your prospects of rehabilitation. On the other hand, you have no prior convictions for violence.

59 You have two children of your own - two boys - who are in primary school. Their mother Jennifer had a drug problem and was unable to properly care for them. Your stepmother currently looks after the boys.

60 You do not appear to have caused any trouble whilst in custody. You have been doing some courses through the Kangan Institute and at least one other Institute. Several certificates in respect of clean urine samples taken on 5 February 2016 and between October 2016 and January 2017 were supplied to me.

61 From just three court appearance between 1995 and 2002, you have over 130 prior convictions, mostly for dishonesty offences. As I mentioned, you have no priors for violence. At Melbourne Magistrates' Court on 9 August 2002 you were sentenced to a total effective sentence of 14 months with a non-parole period of six months for failing to answer bail, theft of a motor vehicle, two counts of burglary, two counts of theft, handling stolen goods, using and possession heroin and possessing a controlled weapon. You were also dealt with on that occasion for breaching a suspended sentence of three months, which sentence was activated.

62 It is significant in my opinion that your last prior conviction was some 13 years prior to the instant offence, although one must bear in mind your ongoing use of illicit drugs up until your incarceration. In the light of your limited criminal history, and the fact that you have no priors for violence, one would ordinarily assess your rehabilitative prospects as good but your long history of substance abuse and your identification as a Nazi gives me pause. I assess your prospects of rehabilitation as fair.

63 Mr Hill, you were born on 16 June 1968. You are now aged 48.

64 You are the oldest of several[20] children. You grew up in Hobart, Tasmania. At some point, your parents separated but I was not told when that occurred. I was told that you 'enjoyed a childhood free of abuse and neglect but ... not ... free of difficulty.'[21]

65 You struggled at school, which you attended until Year 10. You missed a lot of school. You had a disease called Perthes disease that affected your hips and often made you the butt of jokes. Your difficulties at school - which you say was a special school - were no doubt compounded by your mild intellectual disability, of which I will say more shortly.

67 You have done some gardening and butchery work but have had little employment since the age of 18.

68 You began drinking heavily at an early age. Your counsel referred to your alcohol abuse as a 'lifetime of drunkenness'. You would drink litres of port a day. You have also been a regular user of cannabis, heroin, morphine and methamphetamine.

69 You have six children aged from about 18 to 32 but you have little contact with any of them. They live in Tasmania as do their mothers.

70 You lived in your Ministry of Housing flat in O'Shanassy St for about a decade prior to your incarceration. You had a Salvation Army case worker for about 12 years. You were placed on a Disability Support Pension in about 2011.

71 At the request of your lawyers, you were assessed by a neuropsychologist, Dr Sheryl Monteath, in September 2016. She found that you had a full scale IQ of 68 and diagnosed you with a mild intellectual disability. She writes in her report:

The available history indicates that the impairment was present during the developmental period. Evidence for this includes the reported history of widespread learning difficulties at school, as well as his special school attendance. Substance abuse commencing in adolescence is also likely to have further compromised his brain development.[22]

The severity of the intellectual disability is mild. Use of the term mild does not mean that it is a disability of little consequence. People with a mild intellectual disability generally require a supportive environment and significant training to function in their lives effectively. ... The intellectual disability will impact on Mr Hill's general functioning and behaviour. His impaired reasoning and problem solving skills mean that his capacity for understanding complex information and situations will be impaired. His decision making and judgement are likely to fall well below that of his same age peers. He is likely to be vulnerable to influences within his immediate environment.[23]

73 It was conceded by the prosecution, rightly in my view, that as a result of your intellectual disability, Mr Hill, I should moderate the weight given to specific and general deterrence in sentencing you, and I will do so.

74 Another significant point of differentiation, of course, is that you, Mr Hill, did not participate in the dismemberment of the body though you did participate in the disposal of the body parts.

75 Mr Hill, you have over 80 prior convictions from 29 court appearances between 1985 and 2010. Most of your priors are for dishonesty offences and driving offences interspersed with several drunk and disorderly offences. The most recent matter, which was in 2010, was minor - an offence of begging alms. The matter immediately prior to that was back on the 29 November 2000 when the Hobart Supreme Court convicted you of one count of assault, two counts of injuring property and one count of aggravated burglary and sentenced you to eight months imprisonment. There have been two other court appearance involving violence against persons. At Hobart Court of Petty Sessions on 12 August 1997, you were convicted of assault and sentenced to 42 hours of community service. At Hobart Court of Petty Sessions on 29 August 1991 for an assault, you were sentenced to 49 hours of community service. I consider your priors for violence as limited. The fact that your last significant prior was in 2000 is encouraging but, at best, your prospects of rehabilitation are uncertain given your long history of alcohol and substance abuse and your personal limitations.

76 The three of you pleaded not guilty. I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that any of you are truly remorseful for your actions. None of you gave evidence on your plea hearing to support such a finding. You relied on statements you made to others as evidence of remorse. I am not bound to accept such hearsay. I can only hope that you are remorseful.

77 All murders are offences of the utmost seriousness. Though comparisons are odious - and may indeed seem callous - it is necessary, in the interests of consistency in sentencing, to consider where this offence falls on the spectrum of seriousness for the offence of murder. The prosecution submitted that this murder falls in the upper range. Defence counsel submitted it falls in the mid-range.

78 Regrettably, there are worse cases. As mentioned, I am not satisfied that there was an intention to kill as opposed to an intention to inflict really serious injury. There is no evidence of extensive pre-planning. Whilst this assault in company was protracted, other murder cases involve assaults of greater duration and ferocity. I consider this to be a mid-range example of the offence of murder, though the dismemberment and disposal of Mr Bernard's body puts it at the upper end of the mid-range.

79 I am obliged under the Sentencing Act 1991 to have regard to current sentencing practices. The purpose of that requirement is to promote consistency in sentencing.

80 The prosecution submitted that R v Terdputham & Seehaverachart[24] was a comparable case. I was the judge in that case. In my view, it was a more serious example of murder, even though the offenders did not dismember and dispose of the body. In that case, the three drunken offenders armed themselves with knives and went looking for the victim who, a short time before, bravely came to the aid of a stranger whom they were assaulting. The offenders spotted the Good Samaritan in the car park of a 7-Eleven and, in full view of many witnesses, Terdputham and Seehaverachart attacked the victim with knives, kicking and punching him and stabbing him repeatedly while the third offender (a Mr Tepsut) looked on, ready to help out if necessary. The three offenders then fled the country. Tepsut pleaded guilty and gave evidence against the other two. As a consequence, his sentence was heavily discounted. I sentenced the two who pleaded not guilty to 24 years' imprisonment with a minimum of 18 years.

81 It does not follow that because that was a worse example of murder, that each of you should receive a lighter sentence. The objective seriousness of the offence is only part of the circumstances which a sentencing judge has to take into account. Neither offender in that case had priors or relevant priors. Their rehabilitative prospects were better.

82 Your counsel, Mr Hill, relied on R v Parry[25] as a comparable case. I was also the judge in that case and regarded it as a mid-range example of the offence of murder. Mr Parry, during a period when he had inexplicably relapsed into ice use, believed the victim had burgled his home and stolen his property. With two other men, Mr Parry attended at the victim's home with a baseball bat. He went there intending to inflict serious injury. The victim, who was in bed with his girlfriend, produced a knife in lawful self- defence when Mr Parry began to assault him. Mr Parry took the knife off him and stabbed him repeatedly, killing him. He fell to be sentenced on the agreed basis that, in stabbing the victim, he intended to cause really serious injury, not death. I found he had reasonable prospects of rehabilitation. His sentence was 19 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 years. Parry, unlike the three of you, pleaded guilty and received a substantial discount for doing so. I indicated that, but for his plea of guilty, I would have sentenced him to 23 years' imprisonment with a minimum of 18 years.

83 The sentences I impose on each of you must be informed by the purposes of sentencing, which are set out in the Sentencing Act 1991, namely - just punishment, specific and general deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation and protection of the community. I have taken each of those purposes into account.

84 Mr Spaliaras, your sentence will be the heaviest because of your significant prior and subsequent convictions for violence. Your attitude to Mr Bernard's fate, on the night of the killing and afterwards, also demonstrated a chilling callousness.

85 Both of you, Mr Spaliaras and Mr Brennan, will receive harsher sentences than Mr Hill because, for one thing, you two dismembered the body. Mr Hill's intellectual disability is also a point of distinction.

86 Mr Spaliaras, please stand. I sentence you to 24 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 19 years.

87 In determining your sentence, I have taken into account, pursuant to the totality principle, the sentences imposed on you in October 2015 and December 2015.

88 Mr Brennan, please stand. I sentence you to 22 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 17 years.

89 Mr Hill, I sentence you to 20 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 years.

90 The three of you have all been in custody since 16 March 2015. Mr Spaliaras, some of your time in custody was spent serving sentences subsequently imposed. Hence, I make the following declarations of pre-sentence detention:

91 I make the disposal order sought by the Prosecution.

92 Mr Hill, I also make a forensic sample order against you.

[1] Trial Transcript, The Queen v Spaliaras & Ors (Supreme Court of Victoria, Justice Beale, 23-27, 30-31 May, 1-3, 6-10, 14, 16-17 June 2016), 194 ('Trial Transcript').

[3] Plea Transcript, The Queen v Spaliaras & Ors (Supreme Court of Victoria, Justice Beale, 30 November 2016), 78 ('Plea Transcript').

[8] Ibid 215. She also said in cross examination that, by reason of her ice use, 'Everything was a blur around that time in my life' (Trial Transcript 214) and later, 'I remember clearly everything that happened but the time frames are a bit fuzzy'(Trial Transcript 226).

[12] Report of Psychologist Jeffrey Cummins dated 23 August 2016, [5].

[14] DPP v Spaliaras [2015] VCC 1450 [5].

[16] Three counts of contravening a family violence order on 28 May and 28 August 2013 and intentionally destroying property on 28 August 2013. You were also fined for some other offences.

[17] Report of Dr Danny Sullivan dated 12 November 2016, [44].

[20] At the plea hearing, your counsel initially said you were the oldest of three children. Later, he said you had three brothers and sister. Only one brother and the sister are still alive.

[22] Report of Dr Sheryl Monteath dated 27 October 2016, 5.

[24] R v Terdputham & Seehaverachart [2015] VSC 740.

[25] R v Parry [2016] VSC 685.