The Queen v Tedford [2018] VSC 476

2 The maximum penalty for attempted murder is 25 years imprisonment, and the maximum penalty for recklessly engaging in conduct placing persons in danger of serious injury is 5 years imprisonment.

3 At the time of your offending, your wife was 62 years of age and you were aged 76. You have known your wife since she was 24 years old. You had been in a close relationship for 25 years and married for eight years by the time of your offending. At times, the relationship had been acrimonious and difficult. These difficulties intensified in the approximate 12 months leading up to your offending. In January 2017, you separated and your wife moved from the main house, where you both lived in Reservoir, into a bungalow at the back.

4 On 16 October 2017, your wife suffered a minor injury when she fell in the shower at the Reservoir Leisure Centre. After she received medical treatment, you were both at home and sat on the veranda of the house and talked. You drank some alcohol, and your wife became concerned as you often become argumentative when you drink. On this occasion she observed that you remained unusually calm as you sat and talked. However, the conversation deteriorated and you became a little irrational. At one point, your wife suggested you might need to see a psychologist and that your separation was having a significant impact on you. You also discussed whether the house that you jointly owned should be sold. At about 6.00pm, Mrs Tedford went back to the bungalow at the rear of the property.

5 Between 6.15pm and 6.30pm that evening, you telephoned a friend, Barry Poke, and told him you felt depressed. You said that you needed your wife to look after you in order to survive. During that conversation, you told Mr Poke that if anything was to happen, he should make sure he claimed the Kingswood motor car, as the vehicle was registered in his name.

6 Later that night, you entered the bungalow and, unknown to your wife, deadlocked the door behind you. Your nightly routine was to go to the bungalow, as you wear a colostomy bag which requires daily maintenance. Your wife would normally assist you with this process, which involved using a pair of scissors. This night, after assisting you with the colostomy bag, Mrs Tedford handed the scissors back to you. She then went to close the back door of the bungalow, before walking into her bedroom. You went to the kitchen where you selected a knife about six to eight inches long.

7 At this point, Mrs Tedford heard you say, 'I've got something for you', in what she later described as a monotone voice. She turned around and saw you walking towards her holding the knife in your hand. She asked what you were doing and whether you had 'taken something', to which you replied, 'I've taken enough of you'. You held the knife straight out in front of you, then thrust it three times upwards towards your wife's left breast area. Mrs Tedford attempted to cover up using her arms, and turned to one side to protect herself. You continued to thrust into her side and attempted to stab her in the hand and then in the stomach.

8 Your wife fell to the floor and you continued to stab her while she was on her elbows and knees. She felt repeated blows to her chest and side. You then stabbed the knife towards her head and face while she tried to keep her head tucked in.

9 You were then on top of her and she was unable to get you off. You put the knife against her throat and she felt you drag it from the left to the right side of her throat, as though you were attempting to cut it. She tried to protect her throat and grabbed the knife blade with her right hand, sustaining a cut between her thumb and index finger. As Mrs Tedford fought to defend herself, she brought her left hand up towards the knife and you stabbed the back of her hand. During the struggle, she successfully took the knife from you, by taking hold of the blade and handle.

10 You continued to try to get hold of the knife and Mrs Tedford bit your forearm. She later stated that she did not bite hard because she did not want to hurt you, thinking you may not hurt her further. You then punched her repeatedly in the head and to the front of her body. At this stage, her knees were on the carpet and her head was pushed into a corner between a wall and a chest of drawers. You pushed into her spine with your elbow and punched her kidney area, attempting to get the knife back. Your wife was screaming for help and for someone to call the police. She screamed, 'he is trying to kill me'.

11 Your wife's screams were heard by a 17 year old neighbour who was home studying. She reported what she heard to her brother and father, and they immediately called 000 shortly before 8.00pm.

12 You continued to assault your wife, grabbing and pushing her by her head and jaw. You were yelling that she was going to leave you, and that you loved her. At various times, you repeated that you were going to kill her and yourself, and that you loved her. At one stage, you rubbed her blood covered arm, saying 'it's all right, you're going to die tonight, I'm going to die tonight, we are both going to die tonight'. She responded, 'I'm not, you may be, but I'm not'. She continued to scream and you tried to cover her mouth to stop her.

13 Your wife managed to push the knife into the wall, and she bit your finger, drawing blood. When you tried to grab the knife out of the wall, she bit you again on the forearm. You fell over and hit your head on the closet. Your wife took the opportunity to grab the knife, stand up and hit your head into the closet. She stepped over you, stabbing you in the side with the knife. She ran to the door of the bungalow, unlocked it and ran out.

14 Your violent acts described above amount to the offending set out in Charge 1, namely, attempted murder.

15 Your wife was terrified by these events and ran into the house in an attempt to find the car keys. Unable to find them and fearing that you may be behind her, she ran out of the house. A neighbour was by then outside the property and she asked her to call the police, saying she had been stabbed by her husband. She was still holding the knife in her hand and she was covered in blood.

16 A short time later paramedics and police arrived at your neighbour's house, where they found Mrs Tedford lying on the lounge room floor with the knife next to her. After being assessed by paramedics she was transported to the Royal Melbourne Hospital.

17 Shortly after 8.00pm, while your wife was seeking assistance, you got into her Nissan motor vehicle and drove away. You drove around for about an hour, and the dash-cam of the car recorded you speaking to yourself. You appeared to be in a confused, emotional and angry state of mind. You expressed disbelief that you could not kill your wife; that you could not get anything sharp enough; that your wife was a bitch; and that you wished she was dead. You asked how you could kill yourself.

18 You did not appear to have had a plan as to where you were going, however you eventually stopped near to the level crossing in Bell Street, Coburg. When the boom gate went down, you said '...missed it ... shit'. As the train went past, you said 'come on, let's just do it Albert, I need a fuckin' semi-trailer. You're in big trouble boyo, you're as weak as piss ... man oh man, I used the wrong knife'. As you stopped and waited in the car, the dash-cam captured you making statements of love, as well as insults, in respect of your wife. You expressed frustration and regret that you had not been able to kill her, that you were 'hopeless', and that you needed a train as you wanted to die. Amongst other comments you said, 'I need a train ... a fuckin' choo choo train, I can't live without that woman ... I tried to stick (inaudible) in the throat and the cunt wouldn't die, fuckin' come on give me a train, I just want to die'. Your diatribe indicated a confused state of anger.

19 At about 9.00pm when the boom gates came down you had positioned your vehicle first in line. The events that happened next were captured on the dash-cam of a taxi that was stopped on the opposite side of the level crossing.

20 As the train entered the crossing, you accelerated your vehicle into its path. The train collided with the driver's side of your vehicle, pushing it for a considerable distance. A witness to the events called 000 and he and his brother ran to where the train and your car had stopped. Those two men were cautious because they thought your car might burst into flames. Acting with commendable courage, Mr Bir Prakash and his brother helped you out of the vehicle. They described you as being in shock, expressionless, and acting like nothing had happened.

21 Driving your car deliberately into the path of the moving train amounts to the offending described in Charge 2, namely, recklessly engaging in conduct that placed persons in danger of serious injury.

22 Police and ambulance services attended the scene of the events. You admitted being the driver of the motor vehicle. Shortly after, you were taken by ambulance to the Royal Melbourne Hospital under police escort.

23 As a result of the events on 16 October 2017, you suffered a series of abrasions, bruising, incised injuries and minor lacerations, and some bite marks. No submission was advanced that any of the injuries you suffered were of lasting significance. You were a patient at the Royal Melbourne Hospital for about four days.

24 When you were discharged from hospital, you were arrested. You were taken to the Heidelberg Police Station where you were seen by a forensic registrar from the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, and were deemed fit for interview. A record of interview was conducted later that day, during which you made no comment to the allegations that were put to you about these events.

25 Mrs Tedford received many injuries, including multiple injuries that required medical and surgical treatment. Though none were immediately life threatening, she was required to remain in hospital for four days before being discharged. There were 13 sharp blade injuries, including stab wounds, lacerations, and defensive injuries, as well as many blunt force injuries. There were a series of lacerations to her face and scalp area.

26 Although some of the sharp blade injuries penetrated Mrs Tedford's torso, no internal organs were implicated. I have examined the photographs of the injuries. I am unable to conclude the depth of the penetrating wounds. Fortunately, none of the physical injuries appear to have caused catastrophic or enduring substantial physical impacts. However, the injuries were far from minor, and I note three of the stab wounds were clustered around the chest area, near to her left breast and left side. To say her physical injuries were not life threatening or enduring in no way diminishes the seriousness of the attack that you perpetrated upon her. She will have scarring that will remain enduring visual reminders of your attack on her.

27 Your attack on your wife represents a very serious example of the offence of attempted murder. Attempted murder, by its nature, is very serious offending as it involves the intention to kill. While some instances of this crime may not involve any actual physical injury to a victim, you inflicted a sustained attack on your wife with a knife, causing multiple blunt-force injuries and penetrating stab wounds to her body, head and limbs. Finally, and significantly, your wife was exposed to substantial psychological trauma.

28 Your offending was a vicious assault on a woman who had previously been your intimate partner. It was entirely unjustified and unprovoked. Immediately before you attacked her, Mrs Tedford had been caring for you. It is unclear how long the attack lasted but it was not fleeting. Indeed, by your wife's description, the attack was prolonged and unrelenting. During the attack, you repeatedly made it clear that your intention was to kill her, and that you would die too. These were chilling remarks, which indicated you had nothing to lose, and doubtless instilled further fear in your victim. I am quite satisfied that you resolutely intended Mrs Tedford to die at your hands, and you proceeded as best you could to make that happen.

29 These were deeply terrifying circumstances for Mrs Tedford. That none of the injuries were life threatening was a result of her resilience and tenacity in defending herself from you. She fought hard for her life and ultimately overpowered you. Accordingly, this was not a case where you desisted from your attack voluntarily. Rather, you were persistent in your intention to kill her through to the end.

30 I am satisfied that your attack on your wife was not spontaneous or in the heat of the moment. Although it was not sophisticated, there was a moderate degree of planning. In the period leading up to these events, you were unable to accept the relationship breakdown, and you made comments to both your wife and a friend that suggest you were forming an idea to end her life and yours. Shortly before your attack, you entered the bungalow and deadlocked the door. I regard this as the point at which I can be confident you had decided to kill your wife. You used the routine of maintenance for your own medical needs as providing the opportunity and location for the events that would occur.

31 After the attack, you left your wife injured, covered in blood, and traumatised. You ignored her obvious needs, driving away from the scene of your criminal conduct.

32 Recordings from the period in which you drove around and stopped to await a train reveal you were in an angry, confused and highly emotional state. I am satisfied that by deliberately driving your car in front of a moving train, you were making a genuine attempt to kill yourself. However, by doing this, you placed people on the train at risk of serious injury, including the driver.

33 While I accept you were in a highly emotional state, there is no evidence before me to suggest that you acted other than with your full mental faculties, and that you knew exactly what you were doing. This behaviour lacked insight and was selfish; you carried it out to satisfy your own needs at the risk of hurting other people.

34 Your actions in driving the car deliberately into the path of a moving train was objectively serious conduct, that can be distinguished from a case of negligent or reckless driving. Fortunately, the vehicle you were driving was relatively small. However, you disregarded the risk that the impact of your vehicle and the moving train may have had for innocent and unsuspecting members of the public.

35 No evidence was placed before me as to the extent of actual risk that your actions may have had for other people. Accordingly, I am unable to determine this issue with any degree of confidence. All that can be said is that the driving of a motor vehicle into the path of a moving train represents inherently dangerous conduct.

36 At the hearing of this matter, I was provided with three Victim Impact Statements, from Bridie Tedford, your wife; and her daughters, Rebecca Smith and Sandra Hillis. Each spoke of the traumatic effects of your attack on Mrs Tedford.

37 Mrs Tedford spoke of being diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, always feeling scared, and feeling the actual impact of a knife being thrust into her body. She described how she now constantly thinks dark, painful thoughts and feels fear when she touches parts of her own body. She describes physical impacts of suffering from tinnitus, headaches and pain in her eye, as well as scars on her breasts, shoulder, the back of her head, near her ear and under her right eye. She has scars that still hurt, and disfigurement to part of her left hand. Further, she says she experiences horrific nightmares and is scared of shadows. She describes a lack of trust and never wanting to get close to another human being again. She remains fearful of being approached and attacked. She notes stress was put on her children as a result of what occurred, and says she now constantly fears for them.

38 Sandra Hillis described how your actions towards her mother have left her with feelings of fear, confusion, anger and sadness. She described feeling physically ill the first time she saw her mother in hospital after your attack and seeing the fear, confusion and disbelief on her face, along with the physical injuries. She described living in a state of total confusion and shock in the days following your attack. She described feeling angry that you could do something so heinous against someone that she loved. She felt anger towards you for leaving her and her family in a situation in which they had no control. She described not only emotional loss, but also financial loss as a result of your actions.

39 I have carefully read the statement of Rebecca Smith. At her request I will not refer to it, but simply say I have taken its contents into account, and it has assisted me.

40 You are now 77 years of age. Your parents were Irish and you were born in England, but grew up in Ireland. Your mother and father were factory workers. You had a younger brother who passed away at the age of 42, and a younger sister who continues to support you and visit you in custody. You were exposed to a degree of violence within the family as you were growing up.

41 You came to Australia at age 16, and completed an apprenticeship in plastering at the Collingwood Technical College. You became a master plasterer, and drove taxis for approximately 30 years. You have been married three times.

42 You have never been psychiatrically hospitalised, but you reported a history of depression over a number of years and were medicated with antidepressants. You are not aware of any formal mental illness within your family.

43 You suffer from multiple medical ailments, including having experienced rectal carcinoma, respiratory problems, sleep apnoea, gout, psoriasis, and high cholesterol. You are on multiple daily medications for your physical conditions.

44 I was provided with a psychiatric report prepared by Dr Leon Turnbull, dated 9 July 2018. Dr Turnbull reported that you insisted you had complete amnesia in respect of your offending, stating, 'I can't remember anything about it'. Dr Turnbull reported that you expressed regret at your offending, and you attributed your amnesia to the use of Valium. Dr Turnbull found that you have no obvious memory difficulties for recent or past information, and the only period of amnesia in your life is that surrounding this offending. He concluded that the combination of Valium and alcohol might have impaired your memory, although was of the view those factors fell short of providing a complete explanation for your claim of amnesia. He noted that during the relevant events, you were able to operate a vehicle and your hospital records did not indicate you were obviously alcohol or drug affected.

45 Dr Turnbull also found you were not psychotic or manic in your presentation, and were 'intellectually intact'. He acknowledged you had a diagnosis of depression, which had been managed through your general practitioner for several years, with the assistance of antidepressant medication. However, he did not see you as actively depressed now or at the time of the offending. Asked about how your intellectual capacity or psychiatric state may have contributed to the offending, Dr Turnbull opined your intoxication with Valium and alcohol may have acted to disinhibit you, but these factors fell short of providing any motivation for what occurred.

46 Further asked how your intellectual capacity, psychiatric state or general mental health might impact on you serving any sentence imposed, Dr Turnbull opined the most relevant factors are your physical conditions, which were outside of his expertise to comment on. He was, however, comfortable in stating that you will find prison more onerous because you will be frustrated about your medical needs being met. He recommended that you cease alcohol and diazepam permanently, and further indicated he did not consider you to pose a risk to the general public.

47 Significantly, you have not been diagnosed with any condition involving compromised mental health or intellect that could be said to have caused, or have been implicated, in your offending conduct. No submission was advanced before me that sought to argue otherwise.

48 An attack on a female partner in the home environment where she should have expected to feel safe is a very serious matter. Even in circumstances where the relationship was failing, such conduct amounts to a serious breach of trust. It is apparent you were disappointed and angered by the dissolving relationship between you and your wife. This context raises a serious issue for consideration in deterring like conduct in others that find themselves in similar circumstances. Violence towards a partner in a relationship, or in a failing relationship where a partner wishes to leave, must be firmly deterred and condemned by the courts.

49 Furthermore, those who contemplate driving vehicles deliberately in front of moving trains need to be deterred. The consequences are so potentially serious that there exists a significant question of public policy in passing a sentence that treats such offending sternly. Accordingly, I regard general deterrence to be a significant sentencing factor in respect of both offences to which you have pleaded guilty.

50 The use of violence of the kind inflicted on your wife must be strongly denounced by the courts on behalf of the whole community. Such violence is utterly unacceptable, and must be condemned. Denunciation of your conduct therefore plays a significant role in the sentencing task in your case.

Special deterrence and protection of the community

51 You do not have a criminal history of any significance. There is no background of previous violence towards your wife, as is so often seen in cases similar to this. A clear explanation for your offending is somewhat difficult to find, as you assert that you have no recollection of the events, and you did not speak to the police about them. What evidence there is suggests a context of a failing marital relationship involving resentment and grief, and anxiety about the possibility of losing your carer and your home being sold.

52 In my opinion, your unblemished background and the situational circumstances associated with your failing marriage do not lead to a conclusion that there is a high risk that you may offend again in future. As such, I do not consider that the approach to your sentencing need emphasise special deterrence, or protection of the community. I have regard also to the fact that, by the time you are released from custody, you will a significantly older man. I would expect that any risk factors that may exist will likely have diminished.

53 It was properly conceded that your offending was serious. It was accepted that you will be sentenced to a significant term of imprisonment.

54 You were charged on 20 October 2017 and the matter resolved by pleas of guilty on the morning of the committal hearing on 2 May 2018. There was no need for witnesses to be called.

55 It was submitted that your plea of guilty should be treated as a relatively early plea. I agree with this submission and, although it was not at the earliest possible opportunity, it was at the committal stage. Accordingly, I accept it was at the earliest practical opportunity. There have clearly been utilitarian benefits to your pleas of guilty and as result a number of affected witnesses have not been required to give evidence, and time and expense have been saved. It is of particular significance that your wife did not have to re-live her traumatic experience.

56 Apart from one small matter of no relevance, you have no previous convictions, and your offending appears out of your usual character. It was submitted, and I accept, that these factors are of importance in assessing your prospects of rehabilitation, as well as protection of the community.

57 It was submitted you suffer from various medical conditions and, as a result, will find prison more onerous. It was submitted you may not receive the level of care you were receiving while in the community. There were a series of reports tendered which addressed these issues. I have taken them into account.

58 It was argued that your time in prison will be onerous for you due to your age, and poor health. It was submitted that your age and compromised physical health are significant factors to consider in my assessment of a just and proportionate sentence. I agree this is the case. The sentence passed should not have a crushing effect due to these factors. In R v RLP, [1] the Court of Appeal identified a series of principles to be considered when assessing the appropriate sentence for an advanced-aged offender with ill-health. Those principles have continued to be applied and I have taken them into account.

59 It was conceded that your advanced age and ill health do not mean that a disproportionately low or inappropriate sentence should be passed. Just punishment, general deterrence and denunciation remain primary sentencing considerations. However, it was argued that the sentence to be imposed on you should be moderated with regard to the relevant principles. It was submitted that your situation calls for modest moderation of punishment, general deterrence and denunciation, to allow for reintegration back into society. It was submitted I should moderate both the head sentence and non-parole period, and that the principle of totality is a major factor to take into account. I agree with those submissions.

60 It was submitted that in attempting to murder your wife you engaged in a moderate degree of planning, which meant your offending should be considered to be more grave than otherwise. Your offending was not a hot-blooded situational response, but involved a degree of premeditation.

61 The prosecution submitted that although your offending did not result in the aggravating feature of life threatening or catastrophic injuries, the case nevertheless involved active and serious violence against a domestic partner, which is objectively grave. The prosecutor submitted that your offending is a dreadful example of domestic violence, committed in the context of a relationship breakdown. As a result, general deterrence and denunciation of your conduct must be primary considerations. It was put that denunciation of this kind of conduct must be made in the clearest possible terms, in line with community expectations.

62 The prosecution pointed to your failure to desist from the attack voluntarily, that you clearly intended to kill your partner and that she only survived through her determination to overcome your attack.

63 As for the charge of reckless conduct, the prosecution submitted that in all the circumstances, this should be seen as an offence of mid-range to lower end mid-range seriousness, which involved a moderate risk of serious injury to potential victims. The prosecution conceded that on the available evidence, it was not possible to conclude there was a risk the train may be derailed. The prosecutor also conceded that your moral culpability for this offending should not be assessed at the higher end.

64 Finally, the prosecutor submitted that the principle of totality was a moderating feature in your case, and that the attempted murder of your wife should be regarded as the most serious offending before the Court. I agree with that submission.

65 There is a distinct absence of remorse in your case. While you told Dr Turnbull you regretted your offending, evidence of any remorse on your part is scant. The nature of comments you made to your relatives in prison recorded telephone conversations cast considerable doubt in my mind as to whether you are sorry for what you have done, or simply regret the predicament you now find yourself in. The comments go to your motivation, and attitude to your offending.

66 Little explanation has been provided which would assist me in forming views about positive prospects of rehabilitation. I do note that you do not have a criminal history of any significance, and so it can be said that your violent offending was out of character in a lifetime of 76 years. Taking into account all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that your prospects of rehabilitation should be regarded as good given the situational nature of your offending and your advancing years. You will be significantly older by the time of your release from custody.

67 The fact that you acted in such a violent and unexpected way at an advanced and mature age is mystifying in the absence of any evidence of mental deterioration or violent history. Compromised mental health and reduced intellectual capacity, which may enliven the principles identified in R v Verdins,[2] are not part of the sentencing considerations in your case.

68 The only explanation I can identify on the materials is a comment you made to a friend on a recorded prison telephone conversation, that you felt that you 'couldn't stand it anymore' and 'just cracked'.

69 Both parties agree that your age and ill health are relevant factors to be taken into account in the assessment of a just and proportionate sentence. For the same reasons, the issues of cumulation and concurrency and the totality principle are of significance.

70 There are two separate pieces of offending for which you must be sentenced. The circumstances of the attempted murder of your wife represent a very grave and serious piece of offending. There are no compromised mental health or intellectual factors which caused or contributed to your offending. Little, if any, remorse is evident. Your actions should be strongly denounced as they involved a most serious physical attack on your wife, in her home, where she was entitled to feel safe.

71 The offending involving the train was within the mid-range of seriousness, and potentially affected many people who you did not know, and did not care about. I am required to pass a sentence that sends a strong message that criminal acts of this kind, involving deliberate actions that are reckless and risk the well-being of multiple members of the general community will not be tolerated, and must be deterred. You were in a highly emotional state at the time, but this does little to mitigate your conduct. Fortunately, no harm occurred to other people.

72 It is of significance that you suffer from ill-health caused by a number of medical issues. Because of your various physical conditions, I accept you are likely to find the serving of a sentence of imprisonment more onerous because of the risks associated with not receiving treatment on your own terms, and ongoing worry that you might have associated with those risks. These medical conditions will likely make your day to day life in prison more difficult and your time in custody somewhat more onerous. I cannot accurately predict how your future state of health will turn out.

73 In cases such as the present, the requirement for general deterrence and denunciation are primary sentencing considerations. However, in the circumstances of your case, I am of the opinion it is appropriate to moderate the sentence imposed due to the conjunction of your advanced age and health problems. These factors are important considerations in your case and I am conscious that a significant part of your remaining life will pass before your release on parole.[3] I am also required to be mindful that you may never achieve release from prison.[4] The above said, it is clear that 'old age and ill health do not justify the imposition of an unacceptably inappropriate sentence'.[5] I also take into account the principle of totality in an assessment of the appropriate sentence to be imposed.

74 Your behaviour in attacking your wife with a knife must be strongly denounced. Despite being 76 years old at the time of your attack, you were still capable of these acts. You are not an offender who is now before the court having committed a series of historical offences when you were a much younger man. Yours was contemporary offending. It was a shocking and violent attack and was sustained and persistent. Your wife was entitled to be terrified and bewildered at your attack on her, and the repeated threat that she was going to die. In my opinion, she only survived what would have been a fatal attack, because she fought hard for her life and was able to overcome you. This was very serious and savage attack on her, with the clear intent to kill, and should be strongly condemned.

75 Your attack on your wife was not spontaneous, and it occurred with some degree of thought, and planning, albeit unsophisticated, and perhaps with the final decision not being made until you entered the bungalow and locked the door behind you. That said, in light of what you carried out, a degree of contemplation before the events means that you did not reflect to the point where you changed your mind. This adds some degree of consideration, calculation, and clearly, deliberateness, to your conduct, and these are aggravating features.

76 I am satisfied that you were angry, resentful and also grief stricken at the breaking down of your relationship, and the consequences of that to you. Many of your actions on this night were focussed upon yourself and your own needs, and bespeak a lack of insight and a high degree of selfish behaviour. Your actions were extremely violent towards your former partner who was entitled to feel protected, even though the relationship between the two of you was failing.

77 You are nevertheless to be regarded as having been previously a person of good character, so that your offending is out of character. I do not regard you as a person from whom the community requires particular protection. Furthermore, due to the factors I have just identified, and especially due to your advancing age, it is unlikely that you will represent a realistic risk to Mrs Tedford, or other people close to you, by the time you are released from custody.

78 Finally, I was provided with a number of past cases involving sentences imposed for attempted murder and have considered past and contemporary sentencing practices for this offence,[6] and that of recklessly engaging in conduct that risks serious injury. So far as the latter offence is concerned, the circumstances of the present case are uncommon, so past decisions are of limited assistance.

79 On the offence of attempted murder you will be sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment.

80 On the offence of recklessly placing persons at risk you will be sentenced to 2 ½ years' imprisonment.

81 I will order that 18 months of the sentence on Charge 2 will be served concurrently with the sentence on Charge 1, which will mean a total effective sentence of 9 years' imprisonment.

82 I direct that you serve a period of 6 years before becoming eligible for parole.

83 I declare that but for your pleas of guilty to these two offences, I would have sentenced you to 11 years' imprisonment on the charge of attempted murder, and 3 ½ years on the charge of recklessly causing risk of serious injury. Taking into account concurrency considerations and totality I would have ordered you serve a total effective sentence of 12 years' imprisonment before becoming eligible for parole after 9 years.

84 I declare that you have served 312 days of pre-sentence detention, not including today. You were escorted by police to the hospital where you received treatment, and although not formally arrested until 20 October 2017, you were effectively in police custody throughout the time you were in hospital. I have calculated pre-sentence detention from 16 October 2017.

85 I have signed the disposal orders that have been sought.

[1] [2009] VSCA 271 at [32]-[38].

[2] (2007) 16 VR 269; [2007] VSCA 102.

[3] R v White [2204] VSCA 5, at [31].

[4] R v Iles [2009] VSCA 197 at [20].

[6] R v Kelly [2000] VSCA 59; R v Alipek [2006] VSCA 66; R v Soteriou [2011] VSC 623; R v Quail [2013] VSC 190; DPP v Saltmarsh [2013] VSCA 290; R v Nguyen [2013] VSC 674; R v Rapovski [2015] VSC 359; R v Darrington [2016] VSC 60; DPP v Boodhoo [2016] VSC 458; R v Sanghu [2016] VSC 516; R v Byrne [2016] VSC 580; DPP v Black [2016] VSC 564; R v Hannarong [2017] VSC 264; DPP v Nichol [2017] VSC 809; R v Guode [2018] VSCA 205. See also: Sentencing Snapshot, Sentencing Advisory Council, January 2007.