Director of Public Prosecutions v Bourke

[2025] VCC 1361

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

Case No. CR-24-00942

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

SHAUN BOURKE

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE TODD
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	12 September 2025
DATE OF SENTENCE:	18 September 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Bourke
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VCC 1361

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence

Catchwords:              Common law assault; recklessly causing injury; criminal damage (intent damage/destroy); reckless conduct endangering serious injury.

Legislation Cited:      Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) ss 320, 18, 197(1), 23; Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) ss 9, 6AAA.

Cases Cited:R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269; Kalala v The Queen [2017] VSCA 223; Sepehrnia v The King [2024] VSCA 149; DPP v Buhagiar and Heathcote [1998] 4 VR 540.

Sentence:                  Total effective sentence of two years and two months with a minimum non-parole period of one year and two months. 

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Ms F. Martin (for plea) Ms L. Altoon (for sentence)	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr C. Pearson (for plea) Ms O. Vidler (for sentence)	Emma Turnbull Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

Background

1Over the course of nearly a decade the offender in this case inflicted terror and degrading violence against his then intimate partner. That offending was not the subject of appropriate investigation until almost ten years after its conclusion.

Pleas of guilty and maximum penalties

2Shaun Bourke, you have pleaded guilty to the following charges:

(a)   Ten charges of common law assault, which each carry a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment;[1]

(b)   Five charges of recklessly causing injury, which also each carry a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment;[2]

(c)   One charge of criminal damage (intent damage/destroy), which carries a maximum penalty of ten years' imprisonment;[3] and

(d)   One charge of reckless conduct endangering serious injury, which again, has a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment.[4]

[1]Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 320.

[2]Ibid s 18.

[3]Ibid s 197(1). Although charged as ‘arson’ on the indictment, the Crown did not invoke the higher maximum applicable under s 197(6).

[4]Ibid s 23.

Summary of Offending

3Before I refer to the summary of facts on which this sentence is based, I note that this is an unusual case. The prosecution opening describes a campaign of abuse inflicted by you, Mr Bourke, against your then partner Ms Gracie Dennis[5] over a nine-year period between 2004 and 2015.

[5]A pseudonym.

4As I said at the hearing, over the subsequent years the community's expectations and institutions have evolved, and I hope that the kind of intimate partner violence that I am about to describe would now come to the attention of authorities and attract decisive action more quickly.

5By the time this case came before me for a sentence indication hearing, a trial was days away from commencing. The unusual sentence in this case is a result of a number of factors which I will soon describe and will result in a much lower sentence than had this offending been committed and detected more recently.

6A summary of prosecution opening dated 30 June 2025 was tendered on your plea, and I will refer to parts of it in summary form here.

7I add that there was a good deal of 'context' or 'background' in the prosecution opening which described your ongoing humiliation and degradation of Ms Dennis during the period you committed acts of specific violence against her. I sentence you against that background. Those matters are part of the summary of prosecution opening but will not be extensively summarised here.

8There are at times, months, and even years between the charged events, but your abuse of Ms Dennis between 2004 and 2015 more generally, was persistent. You abused her in your home, in public, in the car, and at times, in front of others, including your young son. 

9You met Ms Dennis at a friend's place in February 2004; your relationship started almost immediately, and within a few weeks you had moved into her unit. The first incident took place shortly after, in March 2004. On this occasion, you and Ms Dennis were 'mucking around' and wrestling in the loungeroom of a friend's place. You put your hands around Ms Dennis' neck and squeezed it; Ms Dennis struggled to breathe and tried to get you off her. This gives rise to Charge 1 – Common law assault.

10The next sequence of offending occurred between 18 and 19 June 2004. On 18 June 2004, you and Ms Dennis had an argument about money that Ms Dennis had lost at the pokies.

11On the following day, 19 June 2004, you persistently called Ms Dennis while she was at work. She came home from work early to find that you had left empty bottles of alcohol around the house. Not long after, you returned home with more alcohol. You started yelling at Ms Dennis about money and throwing bottles at her as you finished drinking them.

12Ms Dennis had plans to go to a friend's house to celebrate her birthday. You told her you did not permit her to go. When Ms Dennis told you that she was going to go anyway you punched her in the face, causing a black eye. This gives rise to Charge 2– Common law assault.

13Ms Dennis left the house to see her friends, before later returning at your demand. Ms Dennis arrived home to find that you had nailed the front door shut; you were waiting for her, but you made her jump the back fence to get in. The house was in a state of disarray; Ms Dennis noted burn marks on the couch and on the carpet surrounding it.  Charge 4 – criminal damage.

14You became enraged by the fact that other people had seen Ms Dennis' black eye, and you continued to abuse her. You dragged Ms Dennis from the loungeroom to the toilet, where you started biting her leg. Ms Dennis screamed in pain. You then punched her a number of times. This forms the basis of Charge 3 – recklessly causing injury.

15Police arrived during this incident, but they were unable to enter through the front door that you had nailed shut. Although police separated you, Ms Dennis did not make a statement against you. When police found cannabis in one of the rooms Ms Dennis admitted to owning it; she wanted to protect you. Ms Dennis was arrested and taken to Frankston police station. After she was released by police you demanded to know everything that she had told them. She later told police 'why get both [you] and [me] into trouble when it could just be [me]?'

16Sometime the following month, in July 2004, Ms Dennis was driving to her home in Seaford with you in the passenger seat. You became angry that your mother had refused to give you money, and in that rage, you suddenly pulled the handbrake on. The car veered to the left of the nature strip, where it stopped. (Charge 5 – conduct endangering serious injury). You then grabbed Ms Dennis' head, pulled her towards you, and bit her nose so hard that she thought you had bitten her nose off. You apologised and said it would not happen again. This gives rise to Charge 6 – Common law assault.

17Ms Dennis did not see a doctor because she feared that if she told anybody you would assault her again. However, Ms Dennis did, at times, confide in those close to her. I note that in the same year, 2004, there were instances where Ms Dennis' friends helped her obtain temporary accommodation so she could get away from you.

18By early 2005, you had convinced Ms Dennis to return to you, and you were living in Eumemmerring. In March/April 2005, whilst pregnant with your son, Ms Dennis found out that you had tested positive for Hepatitis C. During an argument you told her to have an abortion because you did not want to be a father. You then stabbed her in the back with scissors, causing a small puncture wound. (Charge 7 – Common law assault). During a similar time period, and whilst arguing with Ms Dennis, you slashed her leg with a screwdriver and kicked and punched her afterwards. This gives rise to Charge 8 – Recklessly causing injury.

19Turning now to the event giving rise to Charge 9 on the indictment – Intentionally causing injury. In early January 2006, you and Ms Dennis were living in Hampton Park. After an argument late one night, you demanded that Ms Dennis go out and buy you more beer. When Ms Dennis tried to explain that the bottle shops would be closed, you punched her in the mouth; her mouth was bleeding, and her front tooth loosened. You apologised the following day. The same day, Ms Dennis saw a dentist who repositioned one of her upper teeth which had been displaced backwards. She was told that the tooth would eventually die. Years later, she had to have the tooth removed.

20In February 2008, you were both living in Doveton. Around this time, you became enraged about money. You slapped and pushed Ms Dennis around the house (Charge 10 – Common law assault). Ms Dennis called her father to help her, and when he arrived you got into an argument with him. You poured dirty bong water over Ms Dennis while she had your son in her arms. You said, 'now you smell as putrid as you are'. Ms Dennis' father took them both back to his home.

21Shortly after, in March 2009, you were unhappy with a reply that Ms Dennis gave you to a question that you asked. You punched Ms Dennis three times to her left ribs; she recalls this causing her the worst pain she has ever experienced – (Charge 11 – Common law assault). Ms Dennis thought her ribs were fractured or broken but was too scared to get medical help.

22By December 2009, you were living together in Hampton Park. On 19 December, during an argument, you started smashing items around the house. You then started punching and kicking Ms Dennis all over her body. This incident left Ms Dennis with swelling and bruising to her leg, and dizziness and nausea for nearly a week - (Charge 12 – Common law assault).  Again, Ms Dennis did not seek medical attention, she was scared of what you might do. 

23I note that on 1 September 2010, Ms Dennis told doctors at the Parkhill Medical Centre that she was having a hard time, and 'copping' verbal abuse at home.

24Turning now to Charge 13 – Common law assault. On 17 October 2010, whilst still residing in Hampton Park, you and Ms Dennis had an argument over money. During this argument, you headbutted, punched and kicked Ms Dennis; she suffered scratches and bruises as a result. Ms Dennis went to the doctor the following day, who noted multiple bruises.

25The following year, on 26 December 2011, you had a dispute over your son's Christmas presents. You wanted to sell his presents to buy cannabis. I note that your son was present during this argument. You and Ms Dennis argued into the afternoon; and at one point you slapped her across the mouth, which caused her tooth to dislodge and her lips to swell. When Ms Dennis fell to the ground, you began to kick her to the right side of her body. (Charge 14 common law assault). You were later arrested and taken to the Chelsea Police Station where you were served with a Family Violence Safety Notice.

26A few months later, in February 2012, you attended the Hampton Park house where Ms Dennis was still living.  Ms Dennis approached you while you were in your car and noticed that you had personal documents of hers in the front passenger seat. When she reached through the window to get these you grabbed her right arm and bit it. (Charge 15 common law assault)

27This pattern of abuse continued into 2014. On 19 May 2014, you and Ms Dennis were having an argument while Ms Dennis was driving in Eumemmerring. You told Ms Dennis to get out of the car, but when she tried to do this, you grabbed her by the hair and pulled her back into the car. You then bit Ms Dennis on her left forearm, breaking her skin. Ms Dennis froze in fear, and you continued to assault her. (Charge 16 recklessly causing injury)

28A year later, on 22 April 2015, you assaulted Ms Dennis in the car again. You had been drinking, and Ms Dennis was driving you along Hallam Road in Hallam. Before turning onto the Princes Highway, you began punching Ms Dennis in the head. (Charge 17 common law assault). Ms Dennis managed to escape from the car; you then got into driver's seat and sped off. Police were called by others who witnessed the incident. 

Investigation and Arrest

29Investigations into your offending occurred as a result of a review by Family Violence Taskforce analysts, who identified you as a potential family violence offender. Records and statements were obtained and reviewed.

30The prosecution opening included the following in relation to Ms Dennis' health:

·        First, she had considerable trouble recalling assaults due to the trauma she suffered at the hands of the accused;[6] and

·        She was assessed for psychological and the psychiatric consequences of your abuse.

[6]Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea dated 30 June 2025 [65].

31I will return to the significance of these matters later in this sentence.

32You were arrested on 28 April 2022 and taken to Ballarat Police Station where you were interviewed. During the interview, you denied the allegations. You said that your relationship with Ms Dennis was 'drug fuelled', that you had both been violent towards each other, and that arguments about money were common.

Prior criminal history

33You have a lengthy and relevant prior criminal history which spans the years 1995 to 2023. It is not straightforward to account precisely which offences are to be formally reckoned as prior offences in your criminal history, given the overlap between the offence period and your simultaneously being dealt with in court for similar offences.

34During the period of this relationship, if that is the right term, you were dealt with in court on many occasions between 2004 and 2014 for driving offences, but more relevantly, repeatedly breaching intervention orders and recklessly causing injury.

35You were dealt with in this Court by his Honour Judge Meredith in 2018 for violent offending against a different intimate partner and I have read that sentence.

36You have also recorded subsequent convictions for stalking, persistent contravention of family violence intervention orders, and unlawful assault dealt with most recently in the Ballarat Magistrates' Court in 2023. In 2015 you were again dealt with for multiple contraventions of family violence intervention orders.

37I will deal soon with the submissions that you are now well on the way to your rehabilitation. I take into account your prior history going to your culpability, and your subsequent convictions going to your prospects for rehabilitation.

Objective gravity of the offending

38I conclude that the objective gravity of your offending is extremely high. You relentlessly imposed terrible violence on your intimate partner over a period of years in circumstances that were additionally humiliating and degrading of her. You acted with impunity, and a complete disregard for her humanity. Acts like biting her to the face bespeak a complete abdication of your responsibilities as a human and as a partner. Your violence was persistent and hateful. It is difficult to comprehend.

39You were violent to her while she was pregnant with your child. Later you were violent and degrading of her in front of your young son. You were on a community corrections order at the same time you committed many of these offences.

40What you did is completely horrifying and almost beyond words.

Personal Circumstances

41You are 56 years old; at the time of your offending you were aged between 28 and 39.

42You were born in Dandenong and grew up in the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne with your family. Your father was a forklift driver and your mother worked at Telstra. I note your childhood was not a happy one; your father was an alcoholic, and both your parents were abusive towards you and to your sister.

43You recall that your parents worked hard, and they expected the same from you. Your father required you to work from about the age of 12 as a factory cleaner before school. I note that your father passed away when you were 19, and that your relationship with your mother remained strained until her death in 2019.

44School was an unremarkable experience for you, you completed VCE at Berwick Secondary College. You have noted that your academic performance at school was generally good and that your relationships were mostly positive.

45You have maintained employment throughout your adulthood, and you are currently employed as a warehouse manager in Ballarat. You have obtained certificates in Transport Logistics, Warehousing, Engineering/Fabrication and Business Management. You also manage a part-time business making garden art.

46Your history of substance abuse is a very long one. You started using cannabis from the age of 16, and have experienced longstanding problems with cannabis, ecstasy and methylamphetamines since. You state that your substance abuse was at its highest throughout the period of this offending. I note that you have made efforts to overcome this and have now abstained from drug use for over two years. You currently have a Buvidal implant, which you regard as very effective in this regard.

47You have three children, though you have limited contact with just one of them. You have been with your current partner, Judy, for two years. I note that she provided a character reference for you on your plea.

Victim impact

48'The sound and feeling of his teeth breaking through my skin will haunt me forever', writes Ms Dennis in her victim impact statement.

49She also writes about feeling full of shame, anger and embarrassment. After so many years of her feet hitting the floor running to fix things for you, she finds it now hard to fix herself. She experiences the shame of being a mother who at the time of your abuse of her did not or could not protect her child, and finds that thought extremely difficult to live with.

50I acknowledge Ms Dennis' suffering and the enduring nightmare that your abuse of her has imposed on her. I take this into account on sentence.

51Returning now to the medical evidence in relation to Ms Dennis.  Part of the agreed Summary of Prosecution Opening includes the following:[7]

(a)   Dr Joseph Poznanski identified that Ms Dennis was suffering from Chronic Post Traumatic Stress Disorder because of the violence perpetrated against her by you during the relationship;

(b)   Dr Danny Sullivan, psychiatrist, conducted an Independent Psychological Assessment of Ms Dennis and provided police with a psychiatric report finding that Ms Dennis met the criteria for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and General Anxiety Disorder. He further opined that Ms Dennis' mental health difficulties would be consistent with the traumatic effects of the relationship with you; and

(c)   Since the relationship concluded, Ms Dennis has continued to suffer the physical effects of the relationship, visiting doctors and dentists as a result of the injuries that she suffered during the relationship.

[7]Ibid [66]-[67].

52I take all of these matters, the effect of your conduct on Ms Dennis, into account in fixing your sentence.

Pleas of guilty

53You entered pleas of guilty to these charges at the door of a trial. Your counsel submitted that you had accepted the inevitability of conviction and that you chose to bring the case to an end.

54The matter first came before me as a sentence indication. Although I did not indicate a precise maximum head sentence, I did say that I would impose either a combination sentence or a head sentence and a relatively short non-parole period. I offered to quantify this more precisely, but this was declined, and you were arraigned and entered your pleas.

55The evidence was that Ms Dennis, as I have said, had considerable trouble recalling the assaults due to the trauma that she suffered at your hands.[8]

[8]Ibid [65].

56Her account was sometimes supported by medical and dental records obtained in the investigation.

57Your pleas of guilty have prevented Ms Dennis being cross-examined at trial in those circumstances. I have no doubt that this would have been traumatising for her, and that also as a result of what you did to her, her recall would potentially have been quite uneven.

58The value of your guilty pleas is very high in these circumstances. This feature of your plea goes a long way to explaining the unusually low sentence in this case.

Current circumstances and character reference

59There was significant emphasis on the plea before me on the steps that you have now taken towards your rehabilitation. Your counsel placed emphasis on the fact that you have, with the help of a Buvidal  injection, maintained abstinence from illicit substances and abuse of alcohol which, in your understanding has underpinned much of your previous conduct.

60

You have a new partner, Ms Sobey, who writes that she has known you for 21 months in her character reference. In her opinion, your relationship is

non-violent with very little alcohol consumption and no use of drugs or other illegal substances. She writes that you are wholeheartedly applying yourself to the current Community Corrections Order and you are conducting yourself responsibly and affectionately within that relationship.

61A report into your performance on a Community Corrections Order imposed by another Court and which is still on foot, details your commitment to using that order to advance your rehabilitation. You have mostly attended your commitments under that order; some absences were noted as unacceptable. Your progress in treatment is described as positive. You are recorded as demonstrating capacity to reflect on your past behaviour. The conclusion in that report is that overall, you have made measurable progress in addressing the key risk factors that present for you and that you have remained engaged with the relevant services.

62A more recent Community Corrections assessment report records that you have developed some insight into the causes of your offending. However, the assessor also noted that you 'victimised yourself' when discussing the offending and that your remorse about what you did was focused on your previous drug and alcohol abuse and childhood trauma, but did not directly acknowledge your responsibility to the victim.

Psychological report

63Turning now to the psychological material before me on the plea.

64A report prepared by Ms Gina Cidoni, psychologist, was tendered on your plea.  This forms the basis for submissions made by your counsel Mr Pearson, who appeared for you at your plea, for the reduction of your sentence 'through the prism of Verdins[9] - type considerations' being limbs five (burden of imprisonment) and sixth (potential for the deterioration of your mental state).

[9]R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269.

65The psychologist notes that your insight appears to be fair. You are able to acknowledge having been an abusive partner in the past. The psychologist also notes that your frequent positive impression management and tendency to emphasise strength over difficulties suggests that your insight may be selective.[10]

[10]Psychological Assessment Report authored by Gina Cidoni [58].

66Ms Cidoni notes the presence of significant anxiety in you involving persistent tension and worry, and restlessness or difficulty relaxing. She said that your symptoms are consistent with post-traumatic stress disorder.

67Ms Cidoni conducted a risk assessment and tests in relation to the likelihood of future family violence being committed by you. You are found to be in the highest risk category for future family violence. Your overall risk for future spousal assault is assessed as high. 

68Ms Cidoni identifies that you are suffering from alcohol use disorder (in sustained remission), stimulant use disorder (methamphetamine, severe, in sustained remission), post-traumatic stress disorder, and generalised anxiety disorder.

69In Ms Cidoni's opinion, with continued intervention the risk of further violent offending perpetrated by you can be moderated, though there may be potential for relapse in this regard.

70Ms Cidoni writes:

Confinement, unpredictable noise, night-time disturbances, and exposure to conflict would be expected to intensify hypervigilance, intrusive recollections, and physiological arousal, with consequent sleep disruption and irritability. The loss of supports, relapse-prevention planning, and consistent medication management would increase the risk of destabilisation and relapse upon release.[11]

[11]Ibid [97].

71And later she writes:

Neurocognitive inefficiencies, particularly reduced immediate memory, slowed processing, and weaker verbal fluency, would hinder his ability to navigate prison procedures, retain critical information, and advocate for clinical care or program access, increasing the risk of misunderstanding, disciplinary consequences, and disengagement from treatment.[12]

[12]Ibid.

72I conclude that the evidence does support a finding that your current psychological problems will cause the burden of your imprisonment to weigh more heavily upon you, although this is only to some modest degree.

73I am not satisfied that imprisonment will necessarily cause a deterioration in your mental state on the basis of the evidence in Ms Cidoni's report.

Delay

74Your counsel submitted that delay is a significant fact to be taken into account on sentence.

75You were interviewed for this offending in August 2022 but were not charged until January 2024. By May 2025 your case had resolved.

76I accept that in the period between August 2022 and January 2024 these potential charges must have haunted you and that this feature of your situation has a punitive aspect. This will reduce the sentence that I impose to a degree.

77The application of the other limb of delay is slightly more complex as your criminal history discloses a range of similar and more recent offences post-dating your offending before me. You have recently begun to demonstrate rehabilitation, but this is not a case where you can call on delay in mitigation on account of a very lengthy form of rehabilitation.

Prospects of rehabilitation

78I acknowledge that you have, over the past two years, taken a series of concrete steps towards your rehabilitation. Had you not done so, the outcome of this sentence would be very different. In the context of your very lengthy history of drug use and violence, your recent attention to your rehabilitation I find is both commendable and very new. On the basis of your more recent progress, I conclude that you have better than bleak prospects for rehabilitation. It remains to be seen whether you can sustain the recent gains and whether you can demonstrate enduring progress.  

79You have demonstrated a strong work ethic and maintain the support of your current partner, who has full knowledge of your history and the assessment of your current risk.

Purposes of sentence

80The higher courts have repeatedly stated that there is a 'need for condign punishment to denounce and deter family violence … because of its prevalence and the seriousness of its consequences'.[13]

[13]Kalala v The Queen [2017] VSCA 223 [95].

81Moreover, the fact that a relationship is labelled 'volatile' or sometimes called 'toxic' may have in the past applied as giving ‘moderating context’, but the time for that kind of reasoning has ‘long passed’.[14]

[14]Sepehrnia v The King [2024] VSCA 149 [67].

82Authority also tells me that a sentencing disposition 'productive of reformation' may offer 'the greatest protection to society'.[15] The courts must recognise, and be seen to recognise, an offender's genuine steps towards rehabilitation as you have made and, where possible, sentence in a way that does not undermine the course of that rehabilitation.

[15]DPP v Buhagiar and Heathcote [1998] 4 VR 540, 547 (Batt and Buchanan JJA).

83The need for punishment and general deterrence on the one hand, against imposing a sentence that does as little as possible to disturb the gains that you have so far made, is the fundamental tension in this sentencing exercise.

Submissions of the parties

84Your barrister submitted a cascading variety of dispositions that could be imposed in this case. He submitted for a deferral of sentence to see whether you can further demonstrate your ongoing commitment to rehabilitation on the Community Corrections Order. He submitted that a Community Corrections Order could be imposed without the requirement of a term of imprisonment. He submitted that alternatively, a combination sentence involving a reasonably short term of imprisonment could be followed by a lengthy Community Corrections Order. Finally, he submitted that a head sentence and a minimum term could be imposed in a structured way so as to allow for a proportionately shorter minimum term than would otherwise normally be imposed, in recognition of the likely destructive impact of an extended period of imprisonment.

85At the sentence indication hearing, and on the plea hearing, the prosecutor conceded that one possible lawful version of this sentence would be the combination of a term of imprisonment with a Community Corrections Order, but the ultimate submission made by the prosecution was that a head sentence and a non‑parole period was the appropriate structure.  

Aggregate

86At the sentencing hearing, I asked for assistance in relation to whether the imposition of an aggregate sentence or sentences in the circumstances of this case would be appropriate given the unusual sentencing exercise I must engage in and given that this offending is founded on the same facts, and form part of a series of offences of the same or similar character.[16]

[16]Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 9.

87I have considered whether the charged acts represent very distinct forms of gravity and conclude that they do not.

88This is as I have said, a difficult and unusual sentencing exercise. The profoundly serious nature of the offending, the need for general deterrence and just punishment, and the recognition of the impact on your victim leads me to conclude that the appropriate sentence must involve a head sentence and a non-parole period. I do not neglect the steps that you have taken towards your rehabilitation, nor do I neglect to consider the high value of your pleas. I will structure the sentence in such a way that allows for a lengthy period on parole.

89Given the submissions of the parties and the concession by the Crown, the number of charges, and the very similar nature of the offending before me, I have concluded that I will impose an aggregate sentence in respect of all charges before me. I am conscious that there is a maximum penalty of five years that attach to all but two of the charges, being causing injury intentionally and the criminal damage charge, which each attract a 10-year maximum.

Disposition

90Mr Bourke, if you will stand for me please.

91On each of the charges 1-17 on the indictment, you are convicted and sentenced to an aggregate term of two years and two months' imprisonment. I fix a minimum non-parole period of one year and two months before you become eligible for parole.

92I must explain to you that the reason that I have imposed an aggregate sentence in this case is because the offences were very similar, and giving you an individual sentence for each charge would have been a complex and unwieldy process, and result in strange orders for cumulation and concurrency. This is a way of sentencing on all of the charges before me which makes the final sentence simpler.

93Thank you.  If you will take a seat for me please.

S 6AAA

94Turning now to my indication of the sentence that I would have imposed had you been found guilty after trial and not pleaded guilty. This is a particularly artificial exercise in this case in all the circumstances. I observe again that your pleas were particularly valuable and had you not pleaded guilty but been found guilty after trial[17] I would have imposed a head sentence of six years with a non-parole period of four years.

[17]Ibid s 6AAA.

95Are there any other orders that are sought, Ms Altoon?

96MS ALTOON:  No, Your Honour.

97HER HONOUR:  You will now be committed to custody, Mr Bourke.  Ms Vidler, are there custody management issues that you seek to raise?

98MS VIDLER:  There are, Your Honour.  There are.  So he does take multiples of medications.  I am happy, I can speak to your clerks, but I am happy to send an email through to your Chambers with a list of them - - -

99HER HONOUR:  Yes.

100MS VIDLER:  - - - if Your Honour is minded to make an order that way.  It might be a bit simpler, rather than having to go through - - -

101HER HONOUR:  I will include those on the final order so that the authorities have good notice of Mr Bourke's current treatment, thank you.

102MS VIDLER:  Yes, Your Honour.  Thank you.

103HER HONOUR:  I have just been advised, Counsel, that I have a request by a media organisation for copies of the indictment in this case, the summary of prosecution opening for plea, the summary of defence submissions for plea, and sentencing remarks. Sentencing remarks will be published in due course. My inclination is towards releasing the indictment and summary of prosecution opening to assist in the process of correct reporting in this case.  I generally say that the sentencing remarks will summarise the relevant portions of defence submissions. I remind any media organisation that is reporting on this case not to publish the names of the victim in this case. I will hear the parties if you have anything to say about the release of the indictment and summary of prosecution opening.

104MS ALTOON:  Your Honour, having not had any notice I don't have any instructions from the complainant as to whether she would oppose the application itself.  I would have to say that the usual and the course that Your Honour has suggested is likely to be the appropriate one.

105HER HONOUR:  It's an open justice principle - - -

106MS ALTOON:  Yes, of course.

107HER HONOUR:  - - - that I am obliged to serve and I think there is, for the purposes of general deterrence, a reason for this material to be published.  It will of course be published without identifying the victim and any material that might cause her to be identified will be removed and must not be reported on.

108MS ALTOON:  I agree with that, Your Honour, thank you.

109HER HONOUR:  I will release the indictment and summary of prosecution opening in those.

110MS ALTOON:  As the Court pleases.

111HER HONOUR:  Thank you.  Thank you, we will rise.

- - -