Legal Research
Cases
Baumann (a pseudonym) v The King

Baumann (a pseudonym) v The King

Case [2025] VSCA 232 22 September 2025

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA COURT OF APPEAL
S EAPCR 2025 0044
MARK BAUMANN (A PSEUDONYM)[1]	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

[1]The applicant’s name has been anonymised to protect the identity of the complainant.

---

JUDGES:	ORR JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	Determined on the papers
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	22 September 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 232
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2025] VCC 50 (Judge Doyle)

---

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE DETERMINED BY A SINGLE JUDGE PURSUANT TO S 315 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2009

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for leave to appeal – Sentence – Summary offence of intentionally distributing intimate image of another person where distribution is contrary to community standards of acceptable conduct – Offender also convicted of rape, indecent assault and other offences against intimate partner – Offender distributed videos of rape during the offending to people known to intimate partner – Whether sentence of 14 months’ imprisonment, with 7 months cumulated on sentence for rape, is manifestly excessive – Whether judge gave adequate weight to mitigating factors – Profound childhood disadvantage and intellectual disability – Current sentencing practices – Leave to appeal refused.

Summary Offences Act 1966, ss 40, 41DA.

Clarkson v The Queen (2011) 32 VR 361; Young v The Queen [2016] VSCA 149; R v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550; DPP v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) (2017) 262 CLR 428; Gaunt v The Queen [2019] VSCA 241; DPP v Hartland [2019] VCC 628.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr GJF Chisholm
Respondent:		Mr J Johnston
Solicitors
Applicant:	Victoria Legal Aid
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

ORR JA:

The applicant seeks leave to appeal his sentence on a rolled up charge of intentionally distributing an intimate image of another person in circumstances that are contrary to community standards of acceptable conduct (the ‘distribute intimate image charge’). The offending occurred on 16 July 2023 as part of a prolonged and violent assault by the applicant on his intimate partner, during which the victim was raped five times, physically assaulted, and threatened with a knife. The victim was around 23 weeks pregnant at the time.
On 14 December 2024, the applicant pleaded guilty to charges of common assault, making a threat to kill, a rolled up charged of rape, and three related summary offences which included the distribute intimate image charge. On 3 February 2025, he was sentenced as follows:

Charge	Offence	Maximum Penalty	Sentence	Cumulation
Indictment P11519168
1	Common assault[2]	5 years	12 months	None
2	Rape[3]	25 years	9 years and 6 months	Base
3	Make threat to kill[4]	10 years	12 months	None
Related Summary Offences
4	Distribution of intimate image[5]	2 years	14 months	7 months
5	Assault with a weapon[6]	2 years	9 months	2 months
6	Contravention of family violence intervention order[7]	2 years	6 months	1 month
Total Effective Sentence:		10 years and 4 months
Non-Parole Period:		7 years and 2 months
Pre-sentence Detention Declared:		568 days

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Baumann (a pseudonym) v The King

Details

AGLC: Baumann (a pseudonym) v The King [2025] VSCA 232
Case: [2025] VSCA 232
Decision Date: 22 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Baumann, sought leave to appeal against the sentence imposed by a single judge in relation to a summary offence of intentionally distributing an intimate image of another person, which was contrary to community standards of acceptable conduct. The distribution occurred in the context of a broader pattern of offending against an intimate partner, including rape, indecent assault, and other offences. Baumann had distributed videos of the rape to individuals known to the victim. The sentence imposed was 14 months’ imprisonment, with 7 months cumulated on the sentence for the rape. The applicant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive, and that the judge had not adequately considered mitigating factors such as profound childhood disadvantage and intellectual disability.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, and if the judge had appropriately weighed the mitigating factors in imposing the sentence. The court considered the principles of sentencing for summary offences, the relevant statutory provisions, and case law precedents. The applicant submitted that the sentence was disproportionately harsh, particularly when compared to sentences imposed in similar cases, and that the judge had failed to give sufficient weight to the mitigating factors.

The court reviewed the sentencing principles applicable to summary offences and examined the relevant statutory provisions and case law. It considered the totality of the offending, the gravity of the offences, and the mitigating factors presented. The court concluded that the sentence was within the range of appropriate penalties for the offences committed and that the judge had appropriately considered the mitigating factors. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the applicant had not established a sufficient ground for leave to appeal.

The application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused. The court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and that the judge had adequately considered the mitigating factors in arriving at the sentence. The court emphasised the importance of considering the totality of the offending and the gravity of the offences when determining the appropriate sentence for summary offences.

Orders