Director of Public Prosecutions v Chambers
[2025] VSC 63
•27 February 2025
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S ECR 2024 0005
S ECR 2024 0006
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS | Crown |
| v | |
| JACK CHAMBERS | Accused |
---
JUDGE: | Jane Dixon J |
WHERE HELD: | Shepparton |
DATE OF HEARING: | 7 February 2025 |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 27 February 2025 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Chambers |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2025] VSC 63 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Guilty plea – Attempted murder, stalking and five charges of conduct endangering life – Some Verdins considerations – Prospects of rehabilitation – Sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years and 8 months – Crimes Act 1958 ss 3, 21A, 22, 321M – Sentencing Act 1991 ss 5, 6AAA – R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269 – R v Mikhail [2020] VSC 681 – Tedford v R [2020] VSCA 71 – R v Hannarong [2017] VSC 264.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr N Hutton SC | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr G Casement | Emma King Criminal Law |
HER HONOUR:
Introduction
Jack Chambers, following a case conference on 22 July 2024, you were arraigned on the current indictment[1] on 26 July 2024 and pleaded guilty to one charge of attempted murder, one charge of stalking and five charges of conduct endangering life. Various summary charges have been discontinued.
[1]No. C2316407.1.
The maximum sentences for each of the indictable charges are as follows: 25 years for attempted murder,[2] 10 years for stalking[3] and 10 years for each charge of conduct endangering life.[4]
[2]Contrary to ss 321M, 321P and 3 of the Crimes Act 1958.
[3]Contrary to s 21 of the Crimes Act 1958.
[4]Contrary to s 22 of the Crimes Act 1958.
The following documents were tendered at your plea hearing.
On behalf of the Crown:
(a) Summary of Prosecution Opening (exhibit P1);
(b) Victim Impact Statement of Kirrily M (exhibit P2);
(c) Victim Impact Statement of Shannon G (exhibit P3);
(d) Photos of damage to subject motor vehicles (exhibit P4); and
(e) Prosecution Submissions on Plea (exhibit P5).
On your behalf:
(a) Defence Outline of Plea Submissions (exhibit D1);
(b) Assessment Report of Forensic Psychologist Patrick Newton[5] (‘the Newton report’) (exhibit D2); and
(c) Letter of apology (exhibit D3).
[5]Mr Newton conducted two 90-minute consultations with Mr Chambers on 31 October and 7 November 2024 and was provided with a range of relevant documents including past health records.
Background to the offending
You are now aged 34[6] and were 31 at the time of the offending. There are four victims who were impacted by your criminal conduct.
[6]Date of birth 11 February 1991.
The most prominent victim was your ex-partner, 24 year-old Kirrily M. You attempted to murder her, stalked her and recklessly endangered her life on two occasions. For convenience, I will refer to Kirrily M by her first name, Kirrily, in these sentencing remarks.
Charge one, a charge of reckless conduct endangering Kirrily’s life, relates to an occasion you engaged in behaviour of strangulation in a motel room on 9 November 2022. Charge two relates to your stalking of Kirrily between 7 and 12 January 2023. Charge three, attempted murder, relates to you forcing Kirrily’s car off the road. Charge four, also a charge of reckless conduct endangering Kirrily’s life, relates to your conduct in crashing into Shannon G’s Kia Sportage, into which Kirrily had escaped after you forced her car off the road.
The three remaining victims of your offending are Shannon G, Jason M and Shannon G’s 17 year-old son, Brodie K. They are consecutively named as the victims for charges five, six and seven: being three further charges of reckless conduct endangering life also based on your conduct in crashing your car into Ms G’s Kia Sportage.
I will now set out the background and details of the offending.
You had been involved in an intimate relationship with Kirrily from November 2019. Kirrily was based at Seymour Railway Station and worked as a train driver and lived in Seymour, Victoria. You were introduced to Kirrily by her brother Ben. Like Kirrily, you also worked as a train driver. You worked for the NSW Railways and lived in Sydney. Over the course of your relationship with Kirrily, tensions developed and she broke up with you on 31 October 2022.
After Kirrily broke up with you, you engaged in a number of distinct criminal acts involving her, commencing with an incident at the Seymour Auto Lodge on 9 November 2022.
You arranged to meet Kirrily to exchange property. She wanted to meet in a public location but you persuaded her to come to your motel room at Seymour Auto Lodge. She left her keys in her car, with the engine running, but reluctantly came into your motel room at your request. You immediately shut the door behind her. As she grabbed her bag and went to leave, you stopped her, locked the door and windows, and then aggressively pushed her onto the bed and began manually choking her to the point that she passed out.[7] When she recovered you were speaking to her but she felt unable to respond. She noticed her car keys on the bedside table and realised the keys were no longer in her car. You became angry again and put your hands around her neck and choked her once more, saying ‘Die’ and ‘I hope you die’. Kirrily was overpowered and passed out. This second act of strangulation forms the basis for charge one – reckless conduct endangering life.
[7]This conduct provides context for what followed rather than forming a separate charge.
Kirrily woke to find that she had bitten her tongue and had pins and needles throughout her body. You got her some water and inquired if you could still be friends after what you had done. You spoke of ending your life because you would be in gaol for what you had done. You showed Kirrily some letters directed to your family and asked her to deliver them but she declined to take them. After refusing several of Kirrily’s requests to leave, you finally let her go. She grabbed her mobile phone and car keys and left.
Kirrily went directly to report the incident at Seymour Police Station and provided Digitally Recorded Evidence in Chief (‘DREC’). Whilst she was with police you sent her two text messages which were seen by police. Police photographed some visible marks on Kirrily’s neck.
You were interviewed by police later that evening and admitted that you had been in the motel room with Kirrily but denied assaulting her. You were criminally charged and released on bail and the following morning a Family Violence Safety Notice (‘FVSN’) was served on you. Subsequently, on 11 November 2022, Seymour Magistrates’ Court issued a Family Violence Intervention Order (‘FVIO’) against you which contained a number of conditions aimed at protecting Kirrily.[8] Among other conditions of the FVIO, you were not permitted to be within 5 metres of Kirrily or within 200 metres of where she lived or worked, nor were you allowed to contact her in any way.
[8]The terms of the FVIO mimicked the terms contained in the police-issued FVSN: SPO, 6 [26].
In the weeks that followed you packed up your apartment, and made written notes of all of your accounts and passwords bequeathing various personal property to family members.
In January 2023, you began to stalk Kirrily. Your stalking behaviour was in breach of the FVIO. On 7 January you tried phoning her and also sent text messages. She did not respond. Two days later, on 9 January 2023, you left Sydney and drove to Seymour Railway Station where you circled past Kirrily’s parked car. At 11.35pm you tried to phone Kirrily, using the ‘private’ function to hide your number. When she answered your call you inquired if she got your messages. Kirrily immediately hung up and reported your actions to police. On 10 January 2023, she attended the Mooroopna Police Station and formally reported your FVIO breaches.[9] She told police she was scared you would try to kill her.
[9]She gave police access to screenshots relating to calls and messages sent on 26 November 2022 and 25 December 2022.
That same day, you drove to Melbourne and checked into the Sofitel Hotel in Collins Street. On the morning of 10 January 2023 you continued your stalking of Kirrily when you left the Sofitel Hotel and drove towards Seymour, booking in to stay the night at the Seymour Club. On 11 January 2023, at about 1.20pm, you drove through the Seymour Railway Station car park and past Kirrily’s parked car. You then returned to the Seymour Club but re-attended the same carpark at 7.15pm and again at 9.30pm and again drove past her car. At 10.40pm that day you drove to Melbourne Airport and rented a Toyota Kluger from the Avis counter for a 2-day period.
On 12 January 2023 Kirrily was rostered to work from between 1.00pm and 8.00pm. At about 1.30pm you continued to stalk Kirrily. You drove the rented Kluger through the carpark and parked briefly, before driving off five minutes later. Between 3.00pm and 4.00pm you checked into a motel in Shepparton and then at 4.05pm you once again drove the Kluger through the Seymour Railway Station carpark, this time parking and staying in the car for four hours. Your pursuit of Kirrily over 7 to 12 January makes up the charge of stalking.
Following your stalking of Kirrily, your conduct moved to a new and very dangerous phase. At about 8.15pm Kirrily finished her shift and got into her Holden Astra and drove away. You immediately followed her in the rented Kluger. Kirrily stopped off at Woolworths in Seymour and you parked nearby and then again followed her as she drove on towards home. As Kirrily was driving north along Toolamba Road, Murchison North, at about 100kph, you brought the Kluger alongside her car and swerved sharply to the left impacting the driver’s side of the Astra and forcing it into a clockwise spin so that it travelled onto the incorrect side of the road before colliding with trees on the eastern side of the road. This conduct gives rise to charge three – attempted murder.
Fortunately, Kirrily managed to extricate herself from the Astra but you pulled over in your car and leapt out to confront her, grabbing at her phone and pushing her up against the bonnet of the Astra. You punched her to her head four times but still she managed to escape and she ran north along Toolamba Road where she flagged down an approaching car. That car was Shannon G’s Kia Sportage, which was being driven by Jason M.
Kirrily ran up to the Kia yelling ‘Help! He’s trying to kill me’. Shannon G, Jason M and Brodie K let her into the Kia Sportage. You then ran back to the Kluger, and drove it north along Toolamba Road at a fast rate of speed before deliberately swerving and colliding head-on with the stationary Kia Sportage. The force of that collision pushed the Sportage backward and into a 90-degree rotation and resulted in significant damage to both vehicles and injuries to the four occupants. This conduct constitutes charges four, five, six and seven – reckless conduct endangering life.
Another passing motorist, Bruce B, approached to offer help. Kirrily urgently explained to him that you were trying to kill her. She then got into Mr B’s car while the occupants of the Kia called triple 0.
You approached the Kia and told Mr M that you had a gun and that you would get it out. Acting with considerable courage, Mr M said, ‘No you won’t’ and punched you to the face and restrained you until police arrived at the scene.
Regarding damage to the three cars, Det Sgt Hardiman, an expert collision reconstructionist, examined the damaged cars at the scene and reconstructed the collision. The Kluger airbag module showed it was travelling at 52kph when it crashed into the Kia Sportage. He found that the Kluger accelerator was fully depressed just prior to the collision, whereas the Kia Sportage data showed it was idling and stationary. The front of the Kluger and the Kia Sportage were both severely damaged. Det Sgt Hardiman also found that the physical evidence supported Kirrily’s account that the Kluger made contact with the driver’s side of her Astra, forcing the Astra off the road to the right-hand side where it collided with a roadside sign and trees. The Astra ended up off the road and 50 metres further south of the collision point and had extensive damage to the driver and passenger side and rear.
Brodie K received facial bruising and abrasions; Shannon G sustained two fractured ribs, seatbelt bruising to her stomach and abrasions to her lower legs; and Jason M experienced pain and swelling in his legs and sustained a possible fracture of the styloid process.[10] At about 9.37pm police attended and spoke to you at the scene. You told them there was a knife in the car but not a gun.[11] You said you made a wrong decision. You were taken to be medically checked at a local hospital and the following day you were formally interviewed by police.
[10](Bony connection to the jaw under the ear.)
[11]Ms M noticed a sex toy in Mr Chambers’ pockets. He told police he planned to use it at a brothel.
Inside the rented Kluger, police found correspondence addressed to your parents and directed to Kirrily’s family along with a large kitchen knife, some binoculars and a Motorola radio used for train driver communications. The Motorola radio was set to the channel that Kirrily and her employers used for communications.
The notes and correspondence you left behind evidenced your intention that both you and Kirrily would be killed by your planned actions. You left instructions to various family members about your wishes.
For example, to Kirrily’s family you wrote:
I really hope to be sitting with Kirrily up there spending the afterlife together until you arrive to be together again. I hope to be cremated and would like my ashes placed with Kirrily.
To your own family you wrote:
Hopefully I’ll be at peace now and sitting on a bench with Kirrily and grandv “patmia” + nanny + pa […] Please cremate me it’s cheaper and my preferred option. I’d like my ashes placed with Kirrily but that probably wont be able to be done.
On 20 January 2023, your Holden Commodore was recovered by police from a parking lot at the Melbourne Airport.
Procedural history and timing of plea
Following a filing hearing on 16 January 2023,[12] your lawyers made plea offers which were rejected by the Crown on 9 August 2023. A committal hearing on 1 November 2023 was vacated and additional charges were issued on 2 and 23 November. A committal on 11 January 2024 proceeded by way of straight hand-up brief. Following a case conference in this Court, on 22 July 2024, you made a plea offer that same day which was accepted by the Crown on 25 July 2024.
[12]A full chronology is set out at pp.18–19 of the Crown’s SPO for plea.
Whilst Mr Hutton disputed that yours was an early plea, Mr Casement argued that it should still be considered as early, because you first made offers to plead guilty in July 2023 with the only issue being the charges you would plead guilty to. As mentioned, the matter proceeded by way of straight hand-up brief at committal and, after being committed to this Court, you indicated a willingness to plead guilty to the charge of attempted murder. Mr Casement submitted that the delay in resolving the matter was the result of extensive negotiations to agree on the form of a plea indictment that was acceptable to both parties and captured the total criminality.
Notwithstanding that your plea was not at the earliest possible stage, it seems that the Crown added extra charges in November 2023 and then both parties were actively engaged in resolution discussions throughout the early part of 2024 prior to resolution in July 2024. In those circumstances, I accept that this was not a late plea of guilty.
Offence gravity
Mr Casement sought to mitigate the offence gravity for charges 1 and 2 by noting that there was no history of violence between you and Kirrily before 9 November 2022. This was accepted by the Crown and is somewhat mitigatory. Mr Casement submitted that when you met with Kirrily at the motel you reacted angrily and that the offence on 9 November was spontaneous. The Crown countered that while there was little evidence of you planning your first effort at strangling Kirrily, you had time to think about what you were doing when you left the room to collect Kirrily’s car keys, yet you returned and choked her for a second time. I agree with the Crown that that behaviour cannot be said to have been spontaneous.
Regarding your stalking of Kirrily, Mr Casement emphasised that this only occurred over a five-day period between 7 and 12 January, and you were motivated by your hope that Kirrily would reciprocate your attempts at contact.
The Crown correctly responded that the suggestion that your stalking of Kirrily was prompted by a misguided belief that you needed to talk to her, is an untenable explanation. As submitted by Mr Hutton, the FVIO prohibited you from having any contact with Kirrily and you knew it. You went to lengths to disguise your phone number when you phoned Kirrily, and you continually attended the vicinity of her workplace and later rented a vehicle that was unrecognisable to her. I consider that your repeated unwanted pursuit of Kirrily was sinister behaviour against a contextual background of uncharged contraventions of court orders. Your stalking of Kirrily demonstrated a concerning level of determination on your part and involved high objective gravity, despite not occurring over weeks or months.
Regarding the charge of attempted murder, Mr Casement concedes that the offending was very serious, especially in circumstances where you were prohibited from approaching Kirrily. However, he argued that the gravity of this instance of attempted murder was lessened by the relatively modest degree of physical injury sustained by Kirrily, the indirect nature of the attack (employing the use of a motor car rather than direct physical violence) and the short duration of the specific actions constituting the offence. He argued that your offending falls at the lower end of seriousness for the offence of attempted murder.
The Crown accepted that, as a matter of good fortune, there was limited physical injury to Kirrily, despite obvious psychological trauma being inflicted. However, Mr Hutton disputed that mitigation could be derived from the choice to use a car to try and kill Kirrily, rather than some form of more direct physical attack. I agree with the Crown’s submission that there is no relevant mitigation in this aspect.
The Crown also argued that the gravity of the attempted murder was aggravated by the planning and preparation involved, including the hiring of an anonymous car and following and lying in wait for Kirrily. The manner of commission of the offence was inherently dangerous, and the context of intimate partner violence makes it worse.
In considering the competing submissions on the objective gravity of the attempted murder, I am conscious of the need to avoid double punishment for matters that form part of the context for the attempted murder but are also encompassed by the charge of stalking, while accepting that the planning and preparation makes this a worse example of the offence.
Overall, I am not persuaded that this is a lower-end example of the crime of attempted murder, although the absence of serious ongoing injuries to Kirrily may distinguish it from some high-end examples of that crime. I acknowledge that the presence of an intent to kill is elemental to all charges of attempted murder, which means there will often, but not always, be pronounced evidence of pre-planning forming the background to such a charge.[13]
[13]See, eg, Lyons v The Queen [2020] VSCA 127; DPP v Kelly [1999] VSC 399; R v Tanasi [1999] VSC 553; The Queen v Boaza [1999] VSCA 126; Soteriou v The Queen [2013] VSCA 328; The Queen v Quail [2013] VSC 190; The Queen v Tedford [2018] VSC 476.
Mr Casement reminded the Court to avoid conflating the state of mind accompanying the four charges of reckless conduct endangering life committed on 12 January with the nature of the intent required to establish the attempted murder. I acknowledge that the act comprising the attempted murder was completed at the time of the collision with the Astra. I am mindful of the need to avoid double punishment where the different offence conduct overlaps. I must also be conscious of totality in apportioning punishment for each charge, especially since all of the charges arising from crashing into the Kia Sportage occurred as part of one and the same act.
Nevertheless, the conduct involved in the 9 November incident, and in the January 2023 charges of stalking, attempted murder and reckless endangerment directed at Kirrily, all involved intimate partner violence in the all-too-frequent setting of relationship breakdown. This makes for a bad contextual backdrop to the offending. You also assaulted Kirrily when she got out of the Astra although you are not charged with that. Taking all matters into account, I consider that this was an objectively serious example of attempted murder, and that related charges of stalking and reckless conduct endangering her life are also serious examples of those offences.[14]
[14]See, eg, Judicial College of Victoria, Victorian Sentencing Manual (4th ed, 12 February 2025), 21.2.6 (citations omitted):
The gravity of an attempted murder is assessed by reference to the murderous intent. Attempted murders committed in the context of family violence, of a police informer, or where the intended victims suffer catastrophic injuries can aggravate the seriousness of the offending.
Likewise, the offences concerning the other occupants of Ms G’s car were also serious examples of those offences, and their lack of serious injuries was due to good fortune rather than any restraint by you.
Victim Impact Statements
Kirrily has provided a Victim Impact Statement (‘VIS’) where she expresses her profound gratitude to those persons who came to her aid, and her belief that she would not be here today if not for their fortuitous intervention. At 25 years of age, she now identifies as a survivor of domestic violence.
She has described both physical pain and injury and emotional sequalae from the offending in the motel room in Seymour. She felt her world had been turned upside down by your treatment of her and she suffered persistent worry and fear away from her home. Your stalking of her triggered even more anxiety. After your attempt to kill her in January 2023, she was left with bruising and bodily scars. She had to readjust to living in fear, with constant reminders of the trauma you put her through. She still suffers nightmares and has lost her self-confidence as a result of your actions.
Shannon G’s VIS expresses that she finds it hard to comprehend how she and the other two occupants of the Kia were treated as collateral damage by you. She was a front seat passenger at the time of the collision between the Kluger and the Kia. She relives the trauma of the event in her head. Shannon G suffered painful ribs and sleeplessness after the incident and needed time off work to recover. She no longer feels safe driving about on her own and feels less willing to stop and help other motorists in the future.
I have taken into account the content in each of the VIS, whilst also acknowledging the likely impact on Mr M and Brodie K and the fact that crimes such as these are bound to also have an impact on the broader community.
Personal history and psychological report
You are presently 34 years of age and you have been in custody for this offending since your arrest on 12 January 2023. You have no pending matters nor prior convictions.
You grew up in Bendigo in a supportive family and both your parents had gainful employment. Your father worked as a truck driver and your mother worked as a teacher’s aide until she was assaulted in the workplace and ceased work. You have one brother, two years your junior. Although your home environment was comfortable, your mother became drawn into heavy gambling which led to tension and conflict between your parents.
You attended state primary and secondary schools in the Bendigo region. You frequently got into trouble at school, and had persistent difficulties attending to lessons, being prone to a raft of disruptive behaviours in class. Your problems at school included behavioural, social and communication problems triggering various investigations. You were something of a loner at primary school, but by secondary school you had some friends who shared your interests. You needed the assistance of teacher’s aides at secondary school but managed to progress through to Year 12, although you did not sit the Year 12 exams.
Your behavioural difficulties led to engagement by the local child and adolescent mental health service when you were still quite young.[15] Ultimately, you were diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (‘ASD’) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (‘ADHD’) as a child. You were prescribed Ritalin, although your mother stopped you taking it when you began secondary school.
[15]He attended the child and adolescent mental health service in 2000.
As an adolescent your recurrent episodes of depression and anxiety were triggered by everyday stressors and you engaged in self-harm when distressed.[16] In 2009, when you were aged 18, following further episodes of instability, a provisional diagnosis of ‘quasi psychotic symptoms in a patient with autism-spectrum disorder and poor coping skills’ was made.[17]
[16](“slashing [him]self”: Newton report, 7 [31].)
[17]Ibid [33].
You had been working part-time at Coles during secondary school, and after Year 12 you took on a full-time role as a duty manager. You moved to Coles in Gawler Green, South Australia for a period and worked there as a duty manager and in other roles until 2016. You then relocated to NSW and began work with the NSW Railways, initially in customer service before undertaking a two-year train driver traineeship during 2022 and 2023. Unfortunately, during the periods when you had relocated away from your family, firstly to South Australia and secondly to NSW, you developed a serious propensity for gambling and problem drinking and accrued large debts. It is somewhat remarkable that your employment was not disrupted by your increasing problems with excessive drinking and gambling and unstable relationships.
Forensic psychologist, Patrick Newton, assessed you in 2024 at the request of your lawyers and noted your long-standing developmental and behavioural impairments. He confirmed the diagnoses of ASD and ADHD, noting that you present as an eccentric man, distant from your own emotional and internal experiences, lacking developed awareness of the feelings of others, with persistent deficits in social skills. He observed that you have also suffered recurrent episodes of depression and that between 2008 and 2010 you were treated for episodes of self-harm and suicidal ideation often in the context of substance misuse.
Consistent with your ASD diagnosis, the Newton report described a complex and unconventional history of nonlinear relationships. Mr Newton opined that your interpersonal deficits have seen you struggle to deepen and maintain intimate connections leading to repeated experiences of confusion, rejection and loneliness.
You were found to exhibit prominent traits of borderline personality disorder (‘BPD’), although not the full condition. Overall, you were found to lack social competence and behaviour regulation as shown in your abuse of alcohol and persistent gambling. These activities damaged the integrity of deeper relationships and were a source of strain between yourself and Kirrily, especially once you were accruing debts to her.[18]
[18]Debts were accrued of up to about $80,000.
Mr Newton opined that your problem drinking was sufficiently severe to meet ICD-11 criteria for harmful use of alcohol, and your gambling was sufficiently intense to meet the criteria for a gambling disorder. He also found symptoms of an anxiety disorder when he assessed you. Your ASD remains present in adulthood although your deficits are at a relatively mild level compared with other autistic people, meaning you have good potential to improve your adaptive functioning with appropriate intervention. According to the Newton report it may benefit you to be assessed for participation in the NDIS.
The Newton report described your somewhat limited remorse and victim empathy and related it to your ASD. Structured risk assessments assessed you as posing a high risk for further stalking-related behaviour. Put differently, Mr Newton elaborated that you pose a well above average level of risk. You were also assessed as posing a moderate-high risk of recidivism with regard to violence towards a future intimate partner, which is above average relative to typical family violence offenders.
Regarding your rehabilitative prospects, Mr Newton was guarded about your ability to benefit from offence-specific treatment due to your entrenched interpersonal problems, limited insight and barriers to treatment, but said that, assuming you can actively engage with the required treatment, he would assess you as having some prospect of benefiting from that intervention.
Moral culpability
Regarding your moral culpability, it was put on your behalf that you were beset by intense depression once you were not permitted to contact Kirrily. Earlier in the relationship, when you recognised that you needed help, you had engaged in some brief psychological treatment focused on relationship issues and gambling avoidance.
You described to Mr Newton that in the lead-up to your offending, you were experiencing feelings of hopelessness, suicidal ideation, and obsessive rumination on the fantasy that you and Kirrily might die together and be reunited in the afterlife. You did not seek treatment at that time, instead oscillating between suicidal depression and hoping that you could speak to Kirrily, to resolve your issues.
Mr Casement referred to the Newton opinion that your ASD likely made it more difficult for you to understand Kirrily’s emotional responses. Your maladaptive personality traits contributed to your idealising of the relationship and to the intensity of your emotional distress at its loss. Therefore, while it cannot be said that you did not appreciate that your conduct was wrong, your behaviour was partly influenced by your ASD and borderline personality traits. These personal characteristics remain present in your psychological makeup. Mr Casement submitted that there was a realistic connection between your interpersonal deficits and the offending so as to enliven limb 1 of Verdins, allowing the Court to moderate the assessment of your moral culpability.
The Crown accepted that some minor amelioration of moral culpability could be allowed on this basis under Verdins limb 1, but argued that your moral culpability overall should be assessed as high. I accept that there is an established basis for moderation of moral culpability under Verdins limb 1 based on your psychological factors referred to in the Newton report, but I still regard your overall moral culpability as reasonably high.
Mr Casement argued that just as under Verdins limb 1 you should be seen as less morally culpable due to your ASD, Verdins limbs 3 and 4 have a role to play in reducing the need for the full measure of specific and general deterrence.
Mr Hutton countered that any moderation under limbs 3 and 4 should either be rejected or at best only slight. He pointed out that prior to the offending you held down employment, had hobbies and could perform complex tasks. Furthermore, the letters found after the attempted murder showed you had put significant thought into the aftermath of your crimes, maintaining a continued fantasy about dying with Kirrily. Mr Hutton submitted this should lead to an increased scope for the application of specific deterrence and community protection.
I am persuaded that there is scope for modest moderation of general and specific deterrence under Verdins limbs 3 and 4. Although you did manage to maintain employment, your ASD and BPD features, including your lack of self-awareness, meant that you were actually functioning quite poorly in many aspects of your life, including drinking and gambling excessively and isolating yourself from support and oversight by your family.
Value of guilty plea
Mr Casement submitted that your plea saved the expense of a trial, spared witnesses from being cross-examined and facilitated the course of justice. He argued that your plea of guilty is valuable despite your diminished capacity for insight and victim empathy.[19] He argued that you have shown an awareness of the gravity of your offending[20] and your belated letter of apology was relied upon as evidence of actual remorse.[21]
[19]Mr Newton opined that Mr Chambers’ impoverished self-awareness and difficulties communicating emotions contribute to his challenges in developing victim empathy and remorse.
[20]Per the Newton report [50].
[21]Dated 3 January 2025 but handed to Mr Casement by Mr Chambers for the first time on the morning of the plea hearing: refer TS 50–1.
Mr Hutton conceded that your plea attracts a utilitarian benefit but argued there was very limited actual remorse shown by you. Whilst this might be explained by your interpersonal deficits, you cannot thereby gain the benefit of demonstrated remorse. Regarding your belated letter of apology to the victims of your offending, Mr Hutton encouraged scepticism, given it was written in the lead-up to the plea rather than earlier in your time on remand and Mr Newton was not given the chance to comment on it.[22]
[22]TS 53–4. Mr Hutton also pointed out that it was authored on Kirrily’s birthday, which may indicate a basis for further concern.
I note that your letter of apology does not align with the description of your consistently minimising account provided to Mr Newton.
Ultimately, I conclude that the late provision of your letter of apology means it can only attract modest weight, although your case can be distinguished from those cases where remorse is completely absent.
It is possible that with a great deal of offence-specific psychological treatment, you may yet develop improved insight. It seems you are open to therapeutic interventions in custody.[23] I accept that your plea of guilty was very valuable, and represents an acceptance of responsibility.
[23]Based on the courses already undertaken.
Burden of imprisonment
Mr Casement submits that your ASD and interpersonal deficits will increase your risk of conflict with other prisoners, attract negative attention in prison, and increase your isolation, so that imprisonment will weigh more heavily upon you than other prisoners, enlivening Verdins limb 5. The Newton report supported this submission, asserting that you are already quite isolated in prison. Mr Casement mentioned some minor targeting of you by other prisoners that has already occurred on remand.
I am prepared to make some allowance for this aspect under Verdins limb 5.
Sentencing purposes
Mr Casement rightly conceded that denunciation, just punishment and general and specific deterrence are all relevant purposes in your case. Mr Hutton added community protection to these factors, which, I accept is relevant but, in your case has a link to both specific deterrence and rehabilitation.
Rehabilitation is an important goal and it was put by Mr Casement that as a first-time prisoner with particular vulnerabilities, imprisonment, in and of itself, will likely have a salutary and deterrent effect upon you. I accept that submission.
Mr Casement couched your prospects of rehabilitation as fair to good. He pointed out that all the offending derived from the one issue, being your inability to accept the break-up with Kirrily and the despair you felt. Previous longer-term relationships had ended without recourse to violent or stalking behaviours. Although you remain preoccupied with thoughts of Kirrily, Mr Casement submitted that you have expressed an understanding that the relationship is over.[24]
[24]In this regard I note that the Newton report said you idealised the relationship with Kirrily and spoke of being unable to contemplate having a relationship with anyone else, but you also explicitly stated that you accept that the relationship is irretrievably broken down and that there is no prospect that you and Kirrily could ever be together again.
Emphasis was given to your lack of criminal history and your solid work history prior to the offending, along with the fact of your continued support from your parents and younger brother.
It was also put that you have been making good use of your time in custody by working in a trusted position in staff dining, and participating in regular counselling for gambling, mental health and other personal issues. Whilst your ASD presents challenges for your rehabilitation, the Newton report indicates that you have good potential to improve your adaptive functioning. It was argued that the risk assessments performed by Mr Newton underscore the importance of individualised offence-specific treatment to best ensure your long-term rehabilitation. This would best serve the community’s interests.
Contrastingly, Mr Hutton underlined the aspects of the Newton report that show continuing lack of insight into the impact of your offending, ongoing preoccupation with Kirrily and concerning risk assessment outcomes.
I agree with Mr Casement that it is crucial that you are granted access to offence-specific treatment in custody in light of your ASD, features of BPD and increased risk profile. It is promising that you have already engaged in counselling and that you are working in a trusted position at the MRC. I am prepared to accept that, in light of your lack of prior convictions and good work history, with appropriate intervention and treatment, your prospects for rehabilitation are reasonable. I have kept in mind that you are still relatively young and your family remain willing to support you. By the time of your eventual release from prison you should have had an opportunity to undertake individualised therapy allowing you to reflect on where and why you were sentenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment. You may also be able to obtain individual assistance through the NDIS for your ASD.
Current sentencing practices
Mr Casement mentioned three cases as having comparative significance, but pointed out the limitations in having regard to other sentences for like offences.[25] I accept the need for care when making sentencing comparisons with other cases or looking at statistical data.[26] The cases mentioned were The Queen v Mikhail,[27] Tedford v The Queen[28] and The Queen v Hannarong.[29]
[25]Citing DPP v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) (2017) 262 CLR 428.
[26]See Hudson v The Queen [2010] VSCA 332 [27]–[34].
[27][2020] VSC 681.
[28][2020] VSCA 71.
[29][2017] VSC 264.
Mr Hutton distinguished some features of the cases mentioned by the Defence including that in Mikhail the offender pleaded guilty at an early stage during the COVID-19 pandemic and was remorseful, with good prospects for rehabilitation. In Tedford the Court of Appeal commented on the modest sentence imposed for attempted murder,[30] and in Hannarong the offender pleaded guilty early, was remorseful with good prospects of rehabilitation and was likely to find prison more difficult for cultural reasons. Mr Hutton drew the Court’s attention to DPP v Jensen[31] which attached a table of sentences imposed for attempted murder. I consider that Mikhail, Tedford and Hannarong do involve some comparative features, as do the cases cited in those decisions.
[30]Regarding Tedford I note, however, that the Crown did not appeal the sentence and the offending comprised in both the attempted murder and the reckless endangerment charge was objectively very bad. The total effective sentence was 9 years with a non-parole period of 6 years. I have also had regard to DPP v Cigercioglu [2023] VSC 772 (but which involved worse physical injuries than this case and a not guilty plea) and DPP v Thomas [2024] VSC 659 (which was motivated by revenge, characterised by a total lack of remorse, and inflicted catastrophic physical injuries upon both victims).
[31][2019] VSC 327.
Mr Hutton also pointed out that the kind of conduct that can result in the offence of attempted murder is potentially wide and varied. In some cases life-threatening injuries may occur, whereas other cases can be conceived of where the victim may be unaware of the attempt on their life.
In Mikhail, Croucher J analysed what remains the Sentencing Advisory Council’s only Sentencing Snapshot for attempted murder[32] which indicated that, for the period from 2001–2 to 2005–6, sentences for the offence ranged from about 6 to 18 years’ imprisonment; that the average sentence was about 10 years; and that the median sentence was 8 years. I have also examined the Council’s most recent compilations of statistics for attempted murder.[33]
[32]Sentencing Advisory Council, Sentencing Snapshot: Attempted Murder, No 21, January 2007. I am mindful of the limitations of such statistics, which Croucher J observed in Mikhail, and which the Court of Appeal has (in a different offence context) very recently reiterated: see, eg, Comer v The King [2025] VSC 8, [57] (Orr JA).
[33]These statistics show that, for the period 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2023, sentences ranged from 7 to 16 years’ imprisonment, and that there was an increase in the median sentence to about 11 and a half years.
I agree that there is no straightforward comparison to be made between your case and other usefully recent sentencing judgments, especially since the charge of attempted murder is one of several other charges thereby invoking totality considerations. Nevertheless, I have perused the cases provided by the parties, as well as some other recent decisions and drawn some assistance from them.
I have also had regard to data provided by the Sentencing Advisory Council in relation to the charge of reckless conduct endangering life.[34]
[34]SACStat – Reckless conduct endangering life – Higher courts sentencing outcomes, 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2023. Sentences for this offence ranged from less than 1 year to 6 years’ imprisonment, and the median sentence was 3 years. There is no available Sentencing Snapshot.
Submissions regarding the gap between head sentence and non-parole period
Mr Casement submitted there should be a lengthy gap between the head sentence and the non-parole period to foster your rehabilitation in a supervised setting, given your relatively young age, absence of a criminal history and your longstanding diagnosis of ASD and need for individualised treatment. Treatment options on parole could include addressing your borderline personality traits, given that there are likely to be more options for intensive psychological treatment in the community than in custody. I agree that it is desirable to allow for a lengthy period of parole towards the latter part of any sentence to be imposed.
Totality and proportionality
As noted, the four charges of reckless conduct endangering life on 12 January 2023 all occurred as part of the one action, although there were four separate victims. Furthermore, your stalking conduct is captured by a separate charge but also forms the context for the other offending on 12 January. All of the offending in November 2022 and in January 2023 was triggered by a common motivation. This is relevant to the level of cumulation and to the total effective sentence which I will shortly announce.
Parsimony
The Court is also bound to apply the principle of parsimony under s 5(3) of the Sentencing Act and I do so.
Sentence
I propose to structure your sentence as set out on the table below. However, I will announce the effect of that tabulation in this way.
Charge 3, attempted murder is the base sentence and a sentence of 8 years’ imprisonment is imposed.
On Charge 2, stalking, you are sentenced to 12 months, with 6 months cumulation.
On Charge 1, reckless conduct endangering life on 9 November 2022 in which Kirrily was the victim, you are sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment, with 10 months cumulation.
On each of Charges 4, 5, 6 and 7 of reckless conduct endangering life, you are sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment, with 8 months cumulation referable to each charge.
This leads to a total effective sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment.
I fix a non-parole period of 7 years and eight months.
Pursuant to s 18(4) of the Sentencing Act, I declare that you have already served 777 days by way of pre-sentence detention, not including today’s date, and I direct that this be reckoned as time already served under the current sentence.
Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act, I declare that had you not pleaded guilty, I would have imposed a sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 10 years.
Your driver’s licence must also be cancelled. I will order it be cancelled and disqualify you from obtaining a further licence for a period of 3 years.
| Charge | Offence | Maximum | Sentence | Cumulation |
| Indictment C2316407.1 | ||||
| 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 | Reckless conduct endangering life | 10 years’ imprisonment | 9 November 2022 (Kirrily): 18 months’ imprisonment | 10 months |
| 12 January 2023 (Kirrily): 18 months’ imprisonment | 8 months | |||
| 12 January 2023 (Shannon): 18 months’ imprisonment | 8 months | |||
| 12 January 2023 (Jason): 18 months’ imprisonment | 8 months | |||
| 12 January 2023 (Brodie): 18 months’ imprisonment | 8 months | |||
| 2 | Stalking | 10 years’ imprisonment | 12 months’ imprisonment | 6 months |
| 3 | Attempted murder | 25 years’ imprisonment | 8 years’ imprisonment | Base |
| Total Effective Sentence: | 12 years’ imprisonment Non-parole period of 7 years 8 months | |||
---
0
13
0