Director of Public Prosecutions v Drennan

[2025] VCC 26

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

Revised

Not Restricted

Suitable for Publication

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR 22-01971

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

DAVID DRENNAN

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE M.P. BOURKE
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	16 December 2024
DATE OF SENTENCE:	24 January 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Drennan
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VCC 26

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

---

Subject:

Catchwords:

Legislation Cited:

Cases Cited:

Sentence:

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr F. Cameron	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J. Connolly	CP Law

HIS HONOUR:

1David Peter Drennan, you are to be sentenced for one charge of intentionally causing serious injury. The maximum sentence is 20 years' imprisonment. Intentionally causing serious injury is a category 2 offence under Part 2 of the Sentencing Act, meaning a wholly custodial sentence is necessary unless certain mitigating factors exist, which are not present here. In this case, a prison sentence is inevitable in any event.

2You pleaded guilty to the offence before me on 11 September 2024.  When interviewed by police on 16 February 2022, you admitted that you attacked and injured your victim, Simon Hoyle.  A committal ran on 26 October 2022.  The matter was listed for trial at the Wodonga circuit sittings of September 2024.  That indictment alleged more serious offending of intentionally or recklessly causing injury in circumstances of gross violence.  After pre-trial medical evidence and cross-examination on 10 September 2024, the matter resolved.  An indictment alleging this offence was filed over and as stated you pleaded guilty. 

3You receive the benefit of your plea of guilty and that level of co-operation in the proceeding. Your plea has accepted responsibility, is an expression of remorse and has facilitated the interests of justice.  That utilitarian benefit is to some extent enhanced given the impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had upon the criminal justice system, albeit that effect has lessened in more recent times.  The timing of your plea must be seen in the context of the resolution I have described.  I also accept that your defence hitherto largely related to questions of precise medical impact upon your victim.  That has led to some concession by the Crown.

4At your plea hearing, which ran on 16 September and 16 December 2024, Mr Cameron, for the Crown, tendered a written prosecution opening and the victim impact statements of Simon Hoyle, his daughter Lillian Clark, and his former partner Melanie Shannon.  Mr Connolly, for you, tendered the forensic psychological report of Dr Hannah Dawson dated 9 December 2024, letters of character and work reference, and a letter by Phillip Bowen of the Australian Institute of Vocational Development with attached certificates.  This relates to a Certificate III course in civil construction undertaken by you.  I stop to say, Mr Connolly, I will mark that as Exhibit 3 if it has not already been received as the exhibit.

5MR CONNOLLY:  As Your Honour pleases.

6HIS HONOUR:  I have also considered the evidence of forensic physician, Dr Maria Nittis, and clinical neuropsychologist, Dr Warrick Brewer;  that evidence given, as earlier stated, on 10 September 2024 at Wodonga.  Depositional photographs of some of Simon Hoyle's injuries were referred to in the course of that.  I have been provided with so-called comparative sentencing cases. 

7The circumstances of your offending are detailed in the tendered Crown opening, which is Exhibit A.  My own summary may therefore be shorter.  It is also informed by matters put on your behalf not challenged by the Crown.

8As at February 2022, you lived in the block of units where Simon Hoyle was staying with Melanie Shannon at 2 Quirk Street, Wodonga.  He was aged 38 years;  you, 36.  There was bad feeling between you.  I reject the allegations you have made about Hoyle as having no basis in evidence.  It seems that the immediate grievance was your view of the state in which they left their bins for rubbish collection.  On the night of 15 February you and a friend, a Shana Hogan, had been drinking very heavily.  I find that you were likely drunk by 4 am on 16 February when you confronted Hoyle about the rubbish.  There was an argument.  You obtained a hammer from Hogan, entered Hoyle's front yard and mounted a brutal attack. 

9Hoyle tried to keep you away, defensively armed with a piece of timber.  At one point, he slipped.  You got on top of him and began to strike him with the hammer to the head and collarbone.  There were at least three separate occasions of that over the space of a short time.  There was some minor assistance by Hogan, although she also tried to have you stop and call an ambulance.  Throughout you threatened, abused and humiliated Hoyle.  You threatened to kill him a number of times.  At one point you took photographs of Hoyle in an already badly injured state, Hogan holding his head for that. You continued to hit him for the third or fourth time.  You told him to smile, presumably for the photographs.  Shannon was pleading for you to stop.  Another resident, Luke Ferguson, came outside, saw Hoyle's state and walked you into your unit.  You said that Hoyle deserved it and that you should have killed him. 

10At times during the attack, you accused Hoyle of sexual abuse of a child in the sense, presumably, that your assault of him was recrimination for that.  As I have stated, there is no evidence that Hoyle had done so.

11Hoyle was taken to hospital.  A short summary of what was seen to be multiple injuries at that time is at paragraph 39 of the Crown opening.  I quote:

'Hoyle presented at Wodonga Hospital with the following injuries:

A deep laceration to the right eyebrow with bruising;

A puncture wound to his left ankle;

Pain to thorax lateral and posterior and abdomen, evidence of impact and       bruises and grazes;

Superficial grazes to wrists, elbows, knees and calves;

Pain to right wrist;

Swollen bilateral ankles;

Evidence of temporal skull fracture'.

12Paragraph 40 states further.  I quote:

'Dr Justin Potts examined Hoyle and observed multiple injuries including lacerations, a puncture wound to his left temple, multiple contusions over his scalp, multiple bruises, minor abrasions and contusions, swelling and tenderness.  He underwent multiple CT scans including to his brain showing the skull fracture and to other parts of his body showing rib fractures and a fracture to the finger'.

13The serious injury you caused Simon Hoyle is made up of a combination of injuries.  As to his skull fracture (part of that) further testing including a CT scan showed a comminuted fracture to the left side of the skull.  As I have said, there was medical evidence before me on 10 September 2024 that included evidence of Dr Brewer on the question of whether you caused an exacerbation of a pre-existing acquired brain injury.  There is some evidence of that.  However, the agreed position has become that stated in paragraph 46 of the Crown opening “that the accused caused the seven-millimetre depressed fracture of Hoyle's skull as well as brain injuries immediately consequential to the brain trauma including headaches, dizziness, memory loss and sensitivity to light in the short term”.

14Consistent with paragraph 46, you are not to be sentenced for exacerbation to the prior acquired brain injury.  I am not satisfied that the required standard of that. 

15Mr Connolly put submissions to me about the nature of fracture to the finger suffered by Simon Hoyle, essentially that it is not consistent with the kind of attack the evidence describes, blows with a hammer or something related to that.  I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that your assault upon him caused that injury directly or indirectly.  In my view, it does not matter.

16The victim impact of your crime upon Hoyle and others is high.  In addition to serious physical outcomes (for example the need for plastic surgery, the trauma of other treatment, constant headaches and other symptoms associated with the brain injury, you did cause) Simon Hoyle describes serious emotional and psychological effects.  These are related to injuries suffered and the traumatic frightening nature of the attack upon him.  Melanie Shannon describes emotional impacts upon her.  They include the terror and fear of that night which includes that at least one of her children was nearby, the impact upon her and her family of the false allegations about Hoyle you made during the attack. Lillian Clark speaks of ongoing fear, anger, irrational guilt and anxiety about her father.  There have been serious effects on social and family life.

17The three victim impact statements describe the effect upon each of what they see to be a worsening of Simon Hoyle's acquired brain injury symptoms.  I note my earlier finding on causation.  However, I see these perceptions to be legitimately felt and a proper part of the emotional and other impact upon all three who made the statements tendered  This is not a complete description of victim impact.  That impact is substantial and must be taken into account in my sentence of you.

18You are now 38 years of age and await this sentence in remand custody.  You were remanded upon being charged but were granted bail on 30 June 2022.  I remanded you for sentence on 16 September.  There are 265 days      of
pre-sentence detention to be declared. 

19You are the second of six children and were raised in the Albury-Wodonga area.  That childhood was difficult.       Your father drank and your mother abused prescription medication.  You    suffered physical abuse at the hands of both.  You were the main victim, your father the main perpetrator.  You were diagnosed with ADHD and treated      with medication for that from the age of five. 

20Although you seem to have performed well there, you left school at 14 when you also left home.  There was a time living with your then partner and after with your father in Wodonga.  There have been a series of relationships which have been characterised by violence and alcohol.  You began drinking at 14 under the influence of your father and drank heavily until 27.  You have also used cannabis over time.  There have been attempts at rehabilitation from alcohol and one three-year period of abstinence.  You had lapsed in the time leading to this offence.  You state that you were working long hours and after work drinking heavily at home.

21After leaving school, you have worked in different jobs including, first, in an abattoir and in factory or like employment.  There have been periods of unemployment.  Your most stable period of work was in the three years leading to this offence.  When released on bail in this matter, you worked in waste disposal.  There is a tendered letter of work reference dated June 2022, perhaps related to an earlier employment. 

22You have a substantial criminal history.  Between September 2004 when you were 18 and April, 2021

23MR CAMERON:  Yes, Your Honour.

24MR CONNOLLY:  Yes, Your Honour, we have it.

25HIS HONOUR:  There are a large number of Victorian court appearances.  I am mindful of duplication in such criminal history reports;  for example, reflecting return to court on the same proceeding.  There are driving offences and those of dishonesty.  Violent offending is prominent, particularly over the last decade or more.  Since 2013 there are a number of appearances for breaching family violence intervention orders.  You have been sentenced to actual imprisonment on at least two occasions, both for offending which included violence.  I find that your past violence has fallen short of the seriousness of this offence.

26Dr Dawson conducted extensive psychometric testing.  Based on that and consultation with you, she finds that you would likely have met the criteria for complex post-traumatic stress disorder at time of offending.  This she relates initially to the abusive experiences of your upbringing.  Dr Dawson diagnoses related symptoms over time of major depressive disorder and anxiety disorder.  She finds alcohol use disorder.  As to the time of this offending, Dr Dawson states and I quote:

'Overall it is suggested that there is a link between Mr Drennan's alcohol intoxication, low mood, effective state and complex post-traumatic stress disorder symptomatology with his impulsive decision making and aggressive outbursts resulting in the offending behaviour'.

She states earlier in the report, I quote:

'Trauma and/or invalidating earlier environments such as that which Mr Drennan has experienced are often implicated in the development of several comorbid mental health conditions, personality disorders and traits and are known to undermine cognitive and emotional development and exert a negative effect on behavioural trajectories.  Therefore, under heightened stress, Mr Drennan is more likely to experience compromised thinking processes, emotional dysregulation and impulsive behaviour and under the influence of substances this is likely to be augmented'.

27Her testing leads to a finding of moderate risk of re-offending,  if your mental health conditions remain untreated and you relapse into alcohol.

28You described to Dr Dawson a more stable life since the offending, now almost three years ago.  You state that you abstain from alcohol and have formed a positive drug and alcohol-free relationship.  Your partner has three children; you have two, aged 14 and 18 to different mothers.  You have some contact with them.  Dr Dawson makes recommendations for your treatment, if possible during, but also after release.  They include specialised psychological treatment and drug and alcohol counselling perhaps by the same practitioner. Employment will be critical to your stability in the community. 

29This was a brutal and vicious attack upon a quickly defenceless man at or near his home.  It was not prolonged in the overall sense;  however you resumed beating him with your weapon to the point of three occasions.  You had assistance from your co-offender, albeit you were emphatically the main player.  You abused and humiliated him.  You seriously injured him and have left him and others with serious victim impact.  Your intoxication, which I find to have been a major factor, gives no mitigation.  You have a relevant criminal history.

30Self-evidently, such circumstances make important sentencing considerations of moral culpability, deterrence, condemnation of the offending and proportionate punishment of it.  Deterrence that is aimed at deterring you and others in order to protect the community is important.  A sentence of imprisonment with head and minimum term is the only available one. 

31I take into account and consider moderating factors put on your behalf.  They particularly include the following.

1.Your plea of guilty.  As to personal and truly insightful remorse, I have some difficulty,  given your mitigated account of the circumstances of the offence to
Dr Dawson and to some extent your commentary to her about your co-offender.  There is some remorse, but I find it lacks a strong show of empathy for your victim in the light of the extent of the beating and injury you have caused him.  Your co-offender, Shana Hogan, was sentenced for intentionally causing injury and assault in the Magistrates' Court to 197 days' imprisonment and a community correction order.  Her role was very much secondary and peripheral.  There is no question of the application of parity here.

2.The principles stated in the well-known cases of Bugmy and Verdins were put as in some ways relevant to your sentence.  I find both cases to have some but limited, considerably moderated relevance and effect.  For example, Dr Dawson's analysis and conclusions finds difficulty in extricating a relevant connection of your mental health to a lessened moral culpability, given factors such as intoxication.  Even accepting the vulnerability of someone suffering your condition of post-traumatic stress disorder to uncontrolled behaviour in drink and under stress, it is difficult to give very much weight to Verdins on that question. I accept, consistent with Dr Dawson's evidence, that imprisonment will be to some extent harder, and your mental health conditions at risk of deterioration, in prison.  I find that the Bugmy principles have some;  but,  again, relatively limited weight.  Your early life, particularly the treatment and modelling set by your father played a relevant role in your decline into alcohol abuse and antisocial behaviour when still young.  Of course, those matters argued to have raised Verdins and Bugmy, your early life experience and consequent mental health conditions, remain as part of the general personal context for your sentence.

3.Rehabilitation for you is problematic.  For example, you have battled with alcoholism and lapsed into that over a long time.  However, I do not discount it.  You have achieved a stable environment in the three years since offending.  The delay also has that relevance.  I also accept that it has been a period of anxiety for you.

32Such moderating factors are relevant to consideration of a lesser sentence both head and minimum term.  However, there is a strong need for a sentence meeting the high seriousness of your offence.  That sentence must be one of considerable length.  The moderating factors I have identified can be seen to be particularly relevant to my consideration of the minimum term you serve before eligibility for parole.

33I have read the comparative sentencing cases provided.  They have given help; but I must also sentence individually to your case. 

34Having considered and weighed what I see to be the relevant matters, I sentence you as follows.  For one count of intentionally causing injury, you are sentenced to eight years' imprisonment.  I set a minimum term of five years' imprisonment before eligibility for parole. 

35Under s18, I declare 265 days of pre-sentence detention. 

36Under 6AAA, had you not pleaded guilty, I would have imposed a sentence of 10 and a half years' imprisonment with a minimum of seven and a half years' imprisonment.

37Are there other matters that I need to address, Mr Cameron?

38MR CAMERON:  No, thank you, Your Honour.  No other orders required.

39HIS HONOUR:  All right.  Good.  Thank you.

40COUNSEL:  As Your Honour pleases.

- - -