Director of Public Prosecutions v Bondeson
[2025] VCC 1350
•12 September 2025
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-24-01453
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| BLAKE BONDESON |
---
JUDGE: | Holding | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 21 August 2025 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 12 September 2025 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Bondeson | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2025] VCC 1350 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE
Catchwords: Trial – Rape – Sexual assault – Sexual assault by compelling sexual touching – Guilty of three charges - Not guilty on one charge of rape – One charge discontinued - Middle range example of offending – Degree of force - Young offender - Delay a mitigating circumstance – No criminal history– Verdins principle 5 engaged– Shorter non-parole period – Serious offender – Good prospects of rehabilitation – Partial cumulation of sentence.
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act 1991
Cases Cited:R v Mason [2001] VSCA 62 – DPP v Davis [2017] VSCA 341 – DPP v Basile [2023] VCC 822 – R v Mills [1998] 4 VR 235.
Sentence:
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Mr D. O’Doherty (Trial) Ms A. Dearman (Plea) | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr C. Oldham | Matthew Mahady Criminal Law |
HIS HONOUR:
1Blake Bondeson, earlier this year you stood a trial before a jury in relation to five charges :
·Charge 1 – Sexual assault
·Charge 2 – Rape
·Charge 3 – Rape
·Charge 4 – Sexual assault by compelling sexual touching
·Charge 5 - Rape
2On the 2nd of July 2025, after a trial lasting approximately 7 days, the jury found you guilty of Charges 1, 2 and 4. You were found not guilty of Charge 3, and the jury was unable to reach a verdict in relation to Charge 5.
3Since that time the Director of Public Prosecutions has entered a notice of discontinuance in relation to Charge 5.
4I must sentence you on a factual basis consistent with the jury’s verdicts. Charges 1 and 4 each have maximum penalties of 10 years imprisonment and Charge 2, 25 years imprisonment.
5Ms Ella Freehill[1], the person you offended against, was at the time of the offending 18 years old. The two of you were acquaintances.
[1] A pseudonym.
6The offending occurred in the early hours of the morning of 25th of June 2022 when both you and Ms Freehill attended the Koonoomoo Pickers and Packers Charity Ball; a camping event held over a weekend at the Koonoomoo Show Grounds. Ms Freehill attended by herself, and you attended with a number of friends.
7During the first evening of the event, the Friday night, and into the following morning, both you and Ms Freehill consumed alcohol. Your level of intoxication was an issue of some dispute at the trial. It was not disputed that Ms Freehill at approximately 10:30pm, attended the first aid tent because she felt sick from intoxication.
8In the early hours of the next morning, Ms Freehill was feeling better. At approximately 3AM, you and a male named Corey[2], who was a mutual friend of both you and Ms Freehill, walked Ms Freehill back to her own campsite. There was some limited socialising at that campsite. Ms Freehill indicated she wanted to go to sleep. She had her own tent and a swag that was big enough for more than one person. Ms Freehill described you as being intoxicated, and asking her whether you could ‘join’ her and sleep in her tent. Her evidence was that she initially said, ‘ Nah, probably not’. But she then heard you and Corey ‘bitching about the cold weather’, and she offered for you both to come in, with the condition, ‘No funny business’.
[2] A pseudonym.
9You did not agree when interviewed later by police that Ms Freehill had said this. Your account was that when you asked her if you could ‘jump in’ she responded, ‘Yeah if Corey hops in as well’. While I accept Ms Freehill’s evidence on this point, on either version it is apparent that the Ms Freehill let you sleep in her tent without any interest in engaging with you sexually.
10Inside the tent, Ms Freehill was positioned on one side facing the tent wall. You were in the middle and Corey was on the other side. Ms Freehill started to fall asleep when she felt your arm moving underneath her T- shirt. She felt you ‘grab’ her breast. She asked you what you were doing and told you she was not interested. She grabbed your hand and moved it away.
11Ms Freehill’s evidence was that a couple of minutes later you ‘grabbed’ her breast again. She told you ‘don’t do that’ and made reference to you having a girlfriend and that it was wrong. You responded, ‘it doesn’t matter’. She tried to remove your hand but she could not because you had a ‘firm grip’ and you were ‘like playing with’ her breast. It is this second act of ‘grabbing’ Ms Freehill’s breast that is the basis of Charge 1, sexual assault.
12As you ‘played with’ the Ms Freehill’s breast, Ms Freehill became scared and ‘went into a bit of freeze position’ because she did not know what to do. After a few minutes you undid her jeans, put your hand inside her underpants, and digitally penetrated her vagina. Ms Freehill described you inserting two fingers in and out of her vagina. She said, ‘Stop’ and ‘I don’t want you to do this’ and then grabbed your hand and removed it from her vagina. This is the basis of the Charge 2, rape.
13Some further incidents occurred that do not relate to any charges of which you were found guilty, but about 10 minutes after the digital penetration was committed, you grabbed Ms Freehill’s hand and placed it on your erect penis, moved it up and down, and forced Ms Freehill to masturbate you. Ms Freehill described this occurring for a ‘little while’. This act is the basis of Charge 4, sexual assault by compelling sexual touching.
14The next morning you returned to your campsite as if nothing had happened. Ms Freehill complained about your offending to her male friend, Corey, who had slept in the tent and slept through the offending. On the next day, the Sunday, she complained by text message to your partner. She also on the Sunday afternoon told her mother what happened. She subsequently made a statement to the police
15You were interviewed by police concerning the allegations on 14 February 2023. While you maintained in the interview that you believed Ms Freehill was consenting, you referred to telling Ms Freehill on the day after the night in Ms Freehill’s swag that you were ‘sorry about the swag’ and ‘I wasn’t thinking straight’.[3] You also told police ‘At that point in my life I was going through a lot with my mental health’. Although you claimed Ms Freehill’s body language indicated she was consenting, you told police ‘I’ve gone ahead and done it … without her saying anything’.[4]
[3] ROI 278: Prosecution elected not to place those answers in the interview before the jury.
[4] ROI 519.
Victim Impact Statement
16Ms Freehill read her victim impact statement to the court during your plea hearing. It is obvious your offending had a significant impact upon her. She has had to attend counselling, and had to take medication relating to depression and anxiety. She has lost a sense of trust in people. She describes after the offending experiencing a sense of worthlessness and powerlessness. She feels angry, questioning - ‘Why didn’t I do more?’
17I might comment here, that she should not feel that way. The law recognises that there is no ‘normal’ response to offending like this. It is not uncommon for a person to freeze when prevailed upon. The jury were satisfied by the evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the Ms Freehill was not consenting, and that you, Mr Bondeson, had no reasonable belief that she was consenting.
Personal Circumstances and Factors of Mitigation
18I now turn to your personal circumstances.
19At the time of the offending, you were 20 years old. You have no prior convictions. You were born and raised in regional Victoria. Your parents separated when you were 11 years old. You are close with your parents; having weekly contact with your mother and monthly contact with your father. You have one younger brother who suffers from ADHD and dyslexia. You completed year 12, then undertook a carpentry apprenticeship which you have recently completed.
20You have recently left your job in anticipation of receiving a sentence of imprisonment. Your employer has made an offer of work for when you complete your sentence.
21You met your wife, before the offending, in December 2021. You married in May 2025 and you now have two daughters aged 2 and 11 months.
22You were diagnosed with depression and anxiety in 2021 and prescribed duloxetine. Tendered during your plea hearing was your recent assessment and willingness to engage in a Mental Health Care Plan.[5] That plan refers to you having longstanding mental health issues related to anxiety stress and depression. It also refers to the benefits you receive from your supportive partner.
[5] Exhibit 3.
23A report from psychologist, Ms Cokorilo , was also tendered on your behalf. As I indicated during your plea hearing while the report describes you as suffering severe anxiety, and moderate depression, in the context of these legal proceedings, the most significant aspect of the report is that you do not have underlying psychological traits that elevate the risk of future offending. You are assessed as being at low risk of future offending. While Ms Cokorilo assessed you recently, specifically for this court proceeding, you had previously been referred to another psychologist, Dr Robert Chatfield, for counselling in January 2022.
24Dr Chatfield indicates that you have symptoms of stress, and mild depression and anxiety that he describes as appropriate to your current situation.[6] Dr Chatfield reports that you have capacity for insight and reflection, and a strong capacity for positive behavioural change. It is to your credit that you have constructively dealt with issues relating to your mental health in the past.
[6] Chatfield Letter 8 August 2025 p1.
25Tendered at your plea hearing were numerous character references from your family, friends, employer, and an ex-partner. There was a consistent theme through these references of shock when people became aware of your offending. You are described as a person who is kind and caring; a person of good character. You are someone who has been an active participant in the community through the local football club and volunteering your time to help after recent major floods in your area. You are described in some of the references as a devoted father to your two young daughters. Your wife describes you as an active parent, and the sole financial provider to your family. Your wife, along with several friends and family members attended your plea hearing and some of those people are linked in online to the hearing today.
26You counsel Mr Oldham submitted the following matters on your behalf.
27First, the character references, psychological reports, lack of prior or subsequent offending, family support, and employment prospects all support the finding that you have good prospects of rehabilitation.
28Secondly, being 20 years old at the time of offending is a significant consideration. The law recognises that young offenders sometimes are less able to reflect on the consequences of their actions and that rehabilitation is a particularly important consideration. While imposing a gaol sentence is for any person a punishment of last resort, it is particularly to be avoided in the case of youthful offenders if there are appropriate alternative sentences. While that is not possible given the seriousness of your offending that principle still has application in determining the length of the sentence to be imposed.
29Thirdly, delay in finalising your charges has understandably caused you anxiety and stress. I might comment that no doubt the delay has also caused stress and anxiety to Ms Freehill. The delay, however, is significant because your life has moved on in a rehabilitative sense. You are now married with two children, you have completed an apprenticeship, you were in gainful employment, and performing parental responsibilities immediately before this case was finalised.
30Fourth, your mental health issues will make your period of imprisonment more burdensome[7] in conjunction with your personal feelings of having let your family down by not being able to support them while in custody.
[7] The prosecution conceded limb 5 of the case of Verdins was established by the evidence on the plea.
31I am also of the view that although you pleaded not guilty, and as a consequence are unable to rely upon the significant mitigation of a plea of guilty, you were found not guilty of one charge of rape and the jury were unable to reach a verdict in relation to another charge of rape. This, to some extent, makes a finding in relation to a lack of remorse more nuanced. It would have been somewhat difficult for you to resolve this case in a manner consistent with the jury’s verdict.
32Some of your statements in your record of interview, while not admitting the offending, at least acknowledged that your behaviour occurred when you were ‘not thinking clearly’. Despite pleading not guilty, I am of the view that you have the ability to learn and reflect on your own behaviour. I am fortified in that view by the evidence you obtained a referral to a psychologist in January 2022 in relation to behavioural issues; that is, you had some insight into the need to deal with problems in your life related to your behaviour months before this offending.
33In my view, the prosecution did not really dispute these submissions. The prosecution conceded your prospects of rehabilitation are positive. I will take account of the above mentioned matters in mitigation of your sentence.
Objective Gravity of the Offending
34Mr Bondeson, all charges of rape are serious. Parliament has indicated as much by fixing a maximum penalty for rape of 25 years imprisonment. It has made a period of gaol a mandatory outcome for someone guilty of rape. It has indicated that a standard sentence for rape is 10 years imprisonment. A standard sentence is the sentence that, taking into account only the objective factors affecting the relative seriousness of that offence, is in the middle range of seriousness. While I must have regard to the maximum penalty and the standard sentence, one must always p
lay close attention to the individual circumstances of a case in determining what is a just and appropriate sentence.35The standard sentence is not to be regarded as a starting point, and it has been stated in our Court of Appeal that sexual offending such as rape can occur in such a variety of circumstances that it can be very difficult to form a view as to when an offence might be regarded as in the middle range of seriousness. I regard your offending to be below the middle range of seriousness and for that reason, and because of the mitigating circumstances referred to above, I will impose a sentence significantly below the standard sentence.
36These statements should not however be taken to diminish the seriousness of your offending. Our Court of Appeal has made the following remarks regarding the offence of rape:
It should not be forgotten that the crime of rape is an intensely personal crime which, for sentencing purposes , cannot be divorced from its effect on the victim. But the effects include not only those which flow from the physical invasion of the victim’s person and security , but also those which flow from the violation of the more intangible intellectual properties of the victim’s rights and freedoms.[8]
[8] Per Winneke P - R v Mason [2001] VSCA 62 [8]- cited with approval DPP v Davis [2017] VSCA 341.
37Another Judge in this court has also made remarks that are appropriate to the circumstances of your offending:
Consent is not to be seen as somehow the default position until a victim voices or shows that she is not consenting. A victim is not expected to scream and fight, and until she does so, her consent is inferred. The reform of our sexual assault laws makes this clear.[9]
[9] DPP v Basile [2023] VCC 822 [28]
38This is not to suggest that Ms Freehill in this matter did not make her non-consent plain to you, she did. Your actions were selfish acts of sexual gratification with little to no regard for the feelings of Ms Freehill, who just wanted to be left alone so that she could go to sleep.
39Having said that, there are clearly circumstances of aggravation that might accompany a charge of rape that are not present in this case. Perhaps the most important is that the evidence does not suggest the digital penetration was prolonged. It is not suggested to be a premeditated offence, and other than the act of penetration itself, there was no accompanying acts of violence or acts intended to humiliate or degrade Ms Freehill.
40Although counsel did not refer me to relevantly comparable cases, I have examined the Judicial College Sentencing Manual Case Summaries and taken account of current sentencing practices. However, these other cases are not to be regarded as precedents and each case must be determined according to the its own particular circumstances.
41The prosecution pointed out that if you are sentenced to gaol on Charges 1 and 2, you are to be sentenced as a serious offender in respect of charge 4. I accept that submission, but given the prosecution concedes that your prospects of rehabilitation are positive and that they do not seek a disproportionate sentence, this is not a consideration that is significant in affecting the length of your sentence.
42Your counsel submitted that I should consider a conviction and fine as the appropriate sentence in respect of Charge 1. I have considered that submission but ultimately reject it. The ‘grabbing’ of the Ms Freehill’s breast was after she had made clear she did not want you to do that; it was not fleeting, and involved a degree of force.
43Charge 4 also in my view, warrants a period of imprisonment. It involved physical manipulation of Ms Freehill’s hand on your penis that was not transient.
44Mr Bondeson, as I referred to above, I accept that your age at the time you offended, as well as the delay since the offences were committed are significant circumstances of mitigation. Our Court of Appeal has stated in relation to the consideration of a youthful offender:
Due to their immaturity young offenders may be ‘more prone to ill-considered or rash decision’. They ‘may lack the degree of insight, judgment and self-control that is possessed by an adult...they may not fully appreciate the nature, seriousness, and consequences of their criminal conduct. [10]
[10] R v Mills [1998] 4 VR 235.
45A sentence of imprisonment is a significant punishment for a person who was 20 at the time they offended, and who has no prior convictions or subsequent offending during the past three years.
46The purposes for which a court may impose a sentence are just punishment, deterrence both specific and general, rehabilitation, denunciation and the protection of the community. Your behaviour must be publicly denounced. General deterrence and just punishment are important considerations. Unfortunately, sexual offending committed by young men is not an uncommon charge heard in these courts.
47In your case, some of the sentencing purposes pull in different directions. The seriousness of your offending must be recognised by a justly stern sentence, but your youth at the time of your offending, the delay in finalising the matter, and your solid prospects of rehabilitation mitigate the length of the sentence to be imposed. I must impose a sentence no longer than is necessary to serve the purposes of sentencing.
48The Sentencing Act 1991 provides that for a standard sentence offence such as rape, the non- parole period must be at least 60 per cent of the head sentence for a term of imprisonment of the length that I intend to impose, unless the court considers it is in the interests of justice to fix a shorter period. In regard to your personal circumstances, and your sound prospects of rehabilitation I am of the view that it is in the interests of justice to fix a shorter percentage of the head sentence as the non- parole period.
49Balancing as best I can the various purposes of sentencing and taking account of the submissions of the parties and all relevant matters, I sentence you as follows.
50On Charge 1, sexual assault, you are convicted and sentenced to three months imprisonment.
51On Charge 2, Rape, you are convicted and sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment.
52On Charge 4, Sexual assault by compelling sexual touching, you are convicted and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment.
53I declare that the sentence on Charge 2 is the base sentence. I declare that one month of the sentence on Charge 1, and two months of the sentence on Charge 4are to be served cumulatively on the base sentence.
54In relation to Charge 4 you are sentenced as a serious offender, and this will be noted in the records of the court.
55Although Section 6E of the Sentencing Act 1991 creates a presumption of cumulation in relation to a sentence imposed on person being sentenced as a serious offender, this presumption only applies ‘unless otherwise directed by the court ’.
56In this case, I am of the view that only two months of the sentence imposed on Charge 4 should be served cumulatively on Charge 2, and the other four months be served concurrently.
57That makes a total effective sentence of 21 months imprisonment. I declare that you must serve a period of 11 months before being eligible for parole.
58I declare pursuant to s18(4) of the Sentencing Act 1991 that you have served 22 days as pre-sentence detention and that those days be credited as time served pursuant to this sentence and be entered into the records of the court.
0
3
0