Director of Public Prosecutions v Lloyd

[2025] VCC 178

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

Case No. CR-24-01009

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

JOSHUA LLOYD

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE CHAMBERS
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	21 February, 2025
DATE OF SENTENCE:	26 February, 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Lloyd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VCC 178

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:CRIMINAL LAW – sentence       

Catchwords:              Guilty plea following sentence indication – intentionally causing serious injury – aggravated burglary – offending involved repeatedly striking victim to the head resulting in life-threatening injuries requiring surgery – serious example of intentionally causing serious injury – aggravated burglary occurs where co-offender enters premises after the assault – offender complicit in aggravated burglary – youthful offender – utility of guilty plea – application of Bugmy principles – intellectual disability – long-standing drug and alcohol abuse – prospects of rehabilitation uncertain – general and specific deterrence, denunciation and community safety sentencing considerations of weight

Legislation Cited:      Crimes Act 1958; Sentencing Act 1991

Cases Cited:Chol v The Queen [2016] VSCA 252; Brown v The Queen [2018] VSCA 328; Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571; Nash v The Queen [2013] VSCA 172

Sentence:                  Six years, nine months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr M. White	Office of Public Prosecutions Victoria
For the Accused	Mr A. Malik (plea) Mr V. Slagalo (sentence)	Valos Black & Associates

HER HONOUR:

1Joshua Lloyd, following a sentence indication given by me on 4 February 2025, you have pleaded guilty to the following offences arising from the events of 23 May 2023:

(a) intentionally causing serious injury contrary to s16 of the Crimes Act 1958 ('the Act'), the maximum penalty for which is 20 years’ imprisonment; and

(b) aggravated burglary contrary to s77 of the Act, the maximum penalty for which is 25 years’ imprisonment.

2The victim of your offending is 48-year-old Raymond Bodsworth, who sustained life-threatening injuries after being repeatedly struck to the head by you and a 16- year-old co-offender, after you went to his home intending to assault him. Following the vicious attack, the victim required emergency surgery and now needs around-the-clock care in supported accommodation.

3You were born in August 2000 and were 22 years old at the time of the offending. You are now 24. You have admitted a prior criminal history.

Circumstances of offending

4Before turning to the circumstances of your offending, it is necessary to set out the background to the events of that night.

5At the time of the offending, Mr Bodsworth lived alone in a unit in McFarland Road, Wodonga. His 18-year-old son, Simon Bodsworth, lived in another unit in Nicole Crescent, Wodonga.

6On Tuesday 23 May 2023 the victim attended the unit in Nicole Crescent to visit his son. At around 5.00 pm you caught up briefly with a friend of yours, 29-year-old Michael Bridgeland, known to you as 'Micka', who lives in the unit next door to that of Simon Bodsworth. You left a short time later on your motorbike.

7At approximately 5.15 pm, Mr Bridgeland went into Simon’s unit where he had an argument with the victim. Mr Bridgeland was angered by comments made by Mr Bodsworth to him, but they later resolved their argument and shook hands before Mr Bridgeland left the unit.

8Not long after this, at approximately 6.30 pm, you returned and spoke with Mr Bridgeland in his unit. The two of you then walked around to Simon’s unit and threatened Mr Bodsworth through the door. You said words to the effect that Mr Bodsworth had 'mouthed off at his mate' and that 'no-one talks to his boys like that'.

9You then walked across the road to before returning to the unit approximately 20 minutes later where you threatened to do a 'run through' if Simon did not give you his father’s mobile phone number, which he then provided to you. After receiving the phone number, you left the area and unsuccessfully tried to contact Mr Bodsworth.

10You returned to the unit at around 10.30 pm where Simon saw you outside on the road, before you got into your car and drove away. Believing it was safe Simon walked his father back to his unit in McFarland Road. Simon then returned to his unit at around 11.00 pm where you confronted him again. While you were with Simon you spoke to the victim on the phone saying, 'Do you want me to bash your son right now?'

11After Simon spoke to his father, you told Mr Bodsworth to 'watch out'. Simon then walked back to his father’s unit in McFarland Road.

12Sometime after 11.00 pm, you arranged for a female friend to drive you to a location where you collected your co-offender, a 16-year-old male. The three of you then drove to a nearby service station to fill the car with petrol before proceeding to turn east onto Melbourne Road.

13At 11.29 pm, the car was intercepted by police for a random breath test. The police captured the identity of each of you on their body worn camera. Undeterred by your interaction with police you then directed the female driver to drive to McFarland Road and to stop a short distance from Mr Bodsworth’s unit.

14Hearing your car pull up, Simon looked out the window and saw you and the co-offender approaching the unit. Simon told his father about your arrival, in response to which he pushed Simon towards the rear of the unit, telling him to hide and to stay out of sight. Simon then hid in another room behind a set of drawers.

15As you approached the unit you and your co-offender took a large wheelie bin and threw it through the front window. You then reached inside to unlock the front door. At this point Mr Bodsworth approached the front door.

16Before entering the premises, but near the threshold, you and the co-offender then began to assault the victim. You kicked Mr Bodsworth to the face with sufficient force to cause him to fall to the ground. You and the co-offender then continued to assault the victim while he lay helpless, during which you continued to verbally taunt the victim as you struck him. While hiding Simon did not witness the assault but heard thumping.

17After a sustained attack on the victim, your 16-year-old co-offender then entered the unit, checking through the rooms. At this point Simon continued hiding behind a chest of drawers in one of the rooms but was not located by the co-offender. You did not enter the premises but by your guilty plea to Charge 2, aggravated burglary, you accept that you were complicit in the conduct of your co-offender who entered the unit with an intention to assault any occupants located in the house. The two of you then left the premises.

18After you left Simon discovered his father unconscious and motionless on the ground, describing the sound coming from him as 'snoring'. Simon ran to a neighbours’ house to contact police. The victim had suffered multiple facial fractures and bleeding on the brain. When the police and ambulance arrived, the victim was still unconscious and was taken to the Albury Base Hospital where he was admitted for surgery but was subsequently transferred to the Royal Melbourne Hospital for specialist treatment.

19CCTV cameras nearby captured you fleeing towards your car approximately two minutes after first arriving at the property. The female driver took you and the co-offender to a carwash in Lavington, New South Wales, where CCTV cameras captured you cleaning your shoes. The three of you then drove back to Wodonga.

20Shortly after 3.00 am on 24 May 2023 the police arrested you at your female friend’s unit in Nicole Crescent, Wodonga. Items of blood-stained clothing worn by you at the time of the assault were seized. During your interview with police you admitted that you had gone to the address in McFarland Road to 'sort out a problem' that was not yours and admitted you had punched and kicked the victim. You told police that you had 'Connor McGregor' heel kicked the victim to the head but denied entering the unit.

21When your 16-year-old co-offender was arrested he told police that he had received a text from you advising that you needed his help to 'sort someone out'.

22The victim was admitted to the Royal Melbourne Hospital on 24 May 2023 where he was placed in an induced coma and assessed with multiple facial injuries including:

·        A bilateral Le Fort III fracture (being a complex fracture across the bridge of the nose and extending posteriorly);

·        A comminuted or a fractured nasal bone fracture;

·        A bilateral jaw fracture; and

·        A fracture at the base of the skull associated with pneumocephalus (or air in the skull).

23The victim also presented with bleeding and bruising on the brain, including a left subarachnoid and subdural haemorrhage, in addition to significant bruising to the side of his brain, his neck and eyes. Due to reduced consciousness, he was also diagnosed with aspiration pneumonitis, being inflammation of the lungs.

24The victim required life-saving surgery for his facial fractures, including open reduction and internal fixation surgery involving the placement of metal screws and plates. He also underwent a tracheostomy, being a surgical procedure to allow for ventilation where the airway is compromised.

25By your guilty plea you accept that the victim’s injuries were life-threatening. The victim was unconscious when ambulance officers attended and had catastrophic facial injuries that resulted in air coming into his brain. Without being placed into an induced coma he could have lost the ability to maintain breathing and required urgent surgery to repair his facial injuries and medication to avoid any complications caused by infection.

26After three and a half weeks at the Royal Melbourne Hospital, the victim was discharged back to Albury Hospital on 16 June 2023 where he remained until 19 December 2023. Prior to the assault the victim had lived and functioned independently, even though he had several health issues. However, following his discharge from hospital the victim needed to move into NDIS-funded supported accommodation, requiring 24-hour care, seven days a week.

27In supported accommodation the victim now requires one-on-one assistance with mobility, self-care and support for all activities outside the residential unit. Cognitively, he experiences significant difficulties with executive function, particularly with memory, problem solving, cognitive fatigue, multi-tasking, organisation, time management and insight. The victim hopes to be able to transition to half-day support into the future.

Nature and gravity of the offending

28Without doubt, this was extremely serious offending.

29There are a number of reasons why this is a particularly grave example of the offence of intentionally causing serious injury.

30Firstly, for no better reason it seems than to exact revenge for a perceived slight against a friend of yours, you engaged in this extremely violent offending, notwithstanding the fact that your friend and the victim had resolved their differences by a handshake hours earlier.

31Secondly, this was not spontaneous conduct on your part. Upon becoming aware of the dispute between the victim and Mr Bridgeland, you then set upon a course of action that involved obtaining the phone number of the victim, making threats directed towards him and his son, culminating in your planned attendance at his property. You had adequate time to stop and reflect upon your proposed course, but you did not. Not even the interaction with police deterred you.

32Additionally, you recruited the other offender, a child of 16, to participate in this offending, telling him you needed 'help to sort someone out'.

33Thirdly, you attended at the victim’s property where he is entitled to be safe, late at night and in company, with the victim outnumbered two-to-one once the assault began.

34Fourthly, the assault commenced with you kicking the victim directly to the head without any provocation. The force used was sufficient to cause Mr Bodsworth to fall to the ground where he was unable to defend himself.  Thereafter, the assault continued with you and the co-accused repeatedly striking the victim, while he remained on the ground vulnerable to your ongoing violence.

35This was a fast-moving, sustained assault that was over in no more than two minutes.

36It is the repeated targeting of the victim’s head that is a particularly vicious feature of your offending, resulting in the multiple facial fractures that he sustained. This was senseless violence directed at a man against whom you had no personal grievance. It is no exaggeration to describe your offending as a brutal act of thuggery.

37By your guilty plea you accept that you intended to cause the victim serious injury by your acts. The injuries sustained by the victim were significant, involving a loss of consciousness, extensive and multiple facial fractures requiring surgical repair, bleeding on the brain and other bruising of his head and neck. He required life-saving medical intervention and an extended hospital stay.

38It is also apparent that the injuries sustained by the victim are of a protracted nature, requiring his relocation to supported accommodation to meet his everyday needs; no longer able to live independently as before.

39Mr Bodsworth’s sister has provided a victim impact statement in which she details the profound repercussions of your offending on her brother and his quality of life. Ms Renee Ellis is now the carer for her brother and says she mourns the loss of the brother she once knew. She describes her brother’s long-term memory loss, saying he is now 'locked away with no recollection of anything'; with no memory of his children, his friends or the family members who passed away prior to this assault. His sister says that when she reminds Mr Bodsworth of the earlier death of his brother, his mother and his former wife, it is upsetting for him and distressing for her.

40Ms Ellis also describes the impact the offending has had on her life from the need make every decision for her brother’s care to managing constant calls from her brother because he is 'not coping' or wants to leave residential care. She says that these additional demands make it difficult to balance her brother’s needs with those of her own family and work commitments. Since the assault Ms Ellis says her brother now scares easily and begins to feel unsafe, requiring her constant reassurance.

41Mr Lloyd, you can be in no doubt that your crime has had a profound effect on the victim’s life. Not only did he suffer extremely serious injury to his head, requiring life-saving surgery, but he has now been left with such significant impairment, both physically and cognitively, that he requires constant care. The quality of his sister’s life has also been impacted when, without warning, she has had to make sacrifices in her life to care and support her brother.

42In the circumstances of this case the offence of intentionally causing serious injury to the victim by your violent conduct is clearly the most serious. Although you never entered the premises, by your guilty plea to the offence of aggravated burglary, you accept you were complicit in the conduct of your co-offender who entered the house intending to assault any occupant. It is accepted that you were only diverted from your intention to assault Mr Bodsworth in his house by the fact he came out of the unit before being assaulted.

43Although no victim impact statement has been provided by the victim’s son, it would undoubtedly have been terrifying for him to know that one of the perpetrators of that violence had entered the unit to search for him, having heard his father being assaulted. It would have been equally distressing to find his father unconscious and unresponsive after you fled the scene.

44You bear a high level of moral culpability for your offending. However, this is also informed by your personal circumstances, to which I now turn.

Personal circumstances

45I have derived much of your personal history from the psychological report of Ms Carla Lechner dated 29 December 2024[1], together with the information provided in a letter written to the court by your mother, Joanne Evans.[2]

[1]Exhibit 1 – Psychological report of Carla Lechner dated 29 December 2024.

[2]Exhibit 4 – Reference of Joanne Evans (undated).

46For a number of reasons your childhood was one marked by disadvantage and dysfunction. You are the youngest of six siblings born to your parents Joanne and Justin Evans. In your formative years you were exposed to and experienced violence at the hands of your father and older brother. You told Ms Lechner that 'when I was a kid, dad was on Ice and shooting up and [he] bashed mum a fair bit', also hitting you if you tried to intervene. You also reported to Ms Lechner that your older brothers were involved in criminal activity, resulting in 'run throughs' of your house and that your older brother was also violent towards you. Your mother describes your exposure to violence during your childhood in this way:

'He grew up in a very toxic household [where] he witnessed non-stop domestic violence which Wodonga police can verify, and his father was a bad ice-user. Not only [was] his father very violent towards other people…he was mistreated as well by his father [and] when I would try [to] stop him from being hurt, I would then be assaulted'.

47Your parents separated when you were approximately six years old. You remain close to your mother, and she continues to support you. You no longer have any contact with your father or any of your siblings.

48You told Ms Lechner that you were the victim of sexual abuse when you were approximately five years old, in circumstances where a friend of your father's engaged you in 'mutual touching' of your genitals at least twice. You describe this as having a significant effect on you more recently.

49Coupled with these experiences, while attending Wodonga West Primary School, you were assessed by psychologist, Margaret Scott, when you were nine years old, and were found to have a full scale IQ of 64. This falls within the extremely low or mild intellectual disability range. In her report dated 2 June 2010, Ms Scott said that your result equated to that of one per cent of children your age, resulting in particular difficulties with both verbal and non-verbal concepts and auditory memory.

50After being assessed as having a mild intellectual disability, you transferred to Belva Special Development School but left school at the age of 14. You told Ms Lechner that you left school because your brothers bullied you about going to a special school, calling you 'retarded'. In her letter your mother also states that your inability to comprehend information caused you to 'suffer a lot' as well as receiving 'a hard time from a lot of people' for attending special school.

51You had your first significant relationship after leaving school and first became a father at the age of 16. Child Protection became involved with the family and the relationship ended two years later. You no longer have any contact with your two children of that relationship who are now aged eight and five.

52You did not obtain any work until you were 17 to 18 years of age. You then worked washing trucks for two years, followed by a brief stint working in concreting after being released from prison in New South Wales.

53Ms Lechner reports that you have a long-standing and chronic substance abuse problem and diagnosed you with an alcohol, cannabis and stimulant abuse disorder. You began smoking cannabis at the age of between 11 or 12 and your drug use increased to amphetamines and other illicit drugs after leaving school. Prior to being remanded you told Ms Lechner that you were smoking approximately seven grams of cannabis and a couple of points of methylamphetamine daily. You would also abuse cocaine, LSD, heroin, ecstasy and Xanax regularly. You have also had significant issues with alcohol abuse and had been drinking mixed spirits from early in the morning on the day of this offence.

54You have a concerning but not extensive criminal history, commencing in 2016 with appearances in the Children’s Court, mainly for driving offences.

55Relevantly, on 2 March 2021, you were sentenced to three years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months by the Albury District Court for the offence of aggravated breaking and entering, committing a serious indictable offence.

56The similarity with this offending makes this a relevant prior conviction. At the time of committing the offence of breaking and entering, you were 19 years old. You and another offender committed the offence by forcing the front door of a residential home, damaging the door frame. The incident occurred just after midnight when the sole occupant of the house was asleep. The occupant was then assaulted which was taken into account as an aggravating feature of your offending.

57Your only other prior conviction as an adult relates to driving offences, possession of cannabis and methylamphetamine, possessing a controlled weapon without excuse and contravening a family violence intervention order, for which you were sentenced to an adjourned undertaking, without conviction, on 28 October 2021.

58After serving 18 months' imprisonment for the sentence imposed on 2 March 2021, you were granted parole and returned to Wodonga. At the completion of your parole you relocated to Cairns for approximately five months, undertaking fencing work. At the time of this offending, you had returned to the border in the hope of seeing your older children but were not permitted to do so by your former partner.

59You have been in a relationship with your current partner, Courtney Balog, for two years. Together you have two children, aged three years and 13 months. You are yet to meet your youngest son, having been remanded since he was born but receive regular visits from your partner who remains supportive of you.

Matters in mitigation

60On your behalf a number of matters were raised in mitigation of your sentence.

61First and foremost, you pleaded guilty to these offences. The prosecution fairly accepts there is significant utility in your guilty plea in circumstances where the victim has no memory of the events. By your guilty plea you also saved the victim’s son, Simon, from having to relive these events by giving evidence at a trial.

62Moreover, you were initially charged with the serious offence of aggravated home invasion. Whilst there was a contested committal hearing in June 2024, at which Simon Bodsworth gave evidence, the prosecution accepts that the hearing was useful in narrowing the issues in dispute, leading to the resolution of this matter on the charges for which you are now to be sentenced.

63In addition to the remorse inherent in your plea, I accept that you have expressed genuine regret for your conduct in other ways. When you were interviewed by the police you made a number of admissions, telling them that you felt 'so bad' for the victim and apologising for 'what [you] did to him', saying that you hoped he would be all right.

64When assessed by Ms Lechner you told her you felt sorry for the victim and his family, saying 'I deserve to be locked up for what I’ve done, no question about that…I hope he gets better and has no pain', adding that you wished you could pay for his medical bills 'for a whole new life for him'. You also expressed regret and have shown insight into your offending in discussions with your mother and partner which they discuss in their letters to the court.

65I accept that your guilty plea is accompanied by contrition for your offending and sympathy for the impact it has had on the victim and his family. For these reasons, I attach considerable weight to your guilty plea in mitigation of your sentence.

66I also give full weight to the general principles enunciated in the case of Bugmy in mitigation of your sentence. In that case the High Court explained the relationship between the effects of childhood deprivation and the purposes of punishment, stating:[3]

'The circumstance that an offender has been raised in a community surrounded by alcohol abuse and violence may mitigate a sentence because his or her moral culpability is likely to be less than the culpability of an offender whose formative years have not been marred in that way'.

[3]Bugmy v. The Queen [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571 (“Bugmy”), at 594, [40].

67As your mother states, you grew up in a toxic home environment, exposed to your father’s drug abuse and erratic, violent behaviour involving your mistreatment and 'non-stop' violence directed at your mother and others. You report being sexually abused by a friend of your father at the age of five. These experiences in your formative years, particularly for a child with a mild intellectual disability, have had a significant impact on your development. In her report Ms Lechner assesses that your 'adverse childhood experiences have contributed to the development of symptoms of complex-PTSD that in turn have undermined [your] social, emotional and vocational development'. Ms Lechner describes these symptoms as including flashbacks, nightmares and hypervigilance, which she states is indicative of 'long-term Complex PTSD, secondary to [your] exposure to complex developmental trauma'.

68In the case of Bugmy the High Court observed that the effects of profound childhood disadvantage do not diminish with the passage of time and repeated offending. As such it is appropriate to give 'full weight' to an offender’s deprived background in every sentencing decision.

69It is not necessary that there be a causal link between your offending and childhood trauma to apply the general principles in Bugmy. In this case I note that you told Ms Lechner that the 'victim was getting smart to me and my mate and…it reminded me of my dad, and yeah, I can’t really remember, I was really drunk'.  However, whilst that explanation provides some context to your offending, it does not reach the level of enlivening the second specific limb of Bugmy.

70I accept that your childhood exposure to repeated violence and substance abuse may explain your recourse to violence and add to the risk of you acting impulsively when angered by the acts of others. To that extent it reduces your moral culpability for your conduct to some degree and warrants some moderation of the principles of general deterrence and denunciation.

71Your youth is also a highly relevant sentencing consideration. You were 22 years old at the time of this offending and are now 24. The law recognises that the youth of an offender may be relevant to sentence in a number of ways.

72Firstly, young people are more prone to rash, ill-considered decisions. In your case Ms Lechner assesses you as 'cognitively, socially and emotionally immature'. In addition to your relative youth Ms Lechner concludes that your mild intellectual disability results in a 'notable deficit' in your ability to 'engage in consequential thinking, conceptualisation, judgement and decision-making' and in controlling impulses. I have had regard to these matters which operate distinctly in moderating the sentence that I impose.

73I also note that as a youthful offender you have been on remand for close to two years with serious charges hanging over your head. A contested committal hearing scheduled for February 2024 was adjourned as the prosecution was unable to proceed on that date. The contested committal was then rescheduled in Wodonga Magistrates Court in June 2024. Subsequent case assessment and other hearings ultimately resulted in the serious charge of aggravated home invasion being withdrawn. I have taken this delay and the lengthy period of uncertainty into account in sentencing you.

74Secondly, the youth of an offender gives prominence to the weight that attaches to rehabilitation as a sentencing consideration. The law recognises that the community benefits where a youthful offender is able to turn their life around and go on to lead a productive life. However, the more serious the offending, the relevance of your youth is correspondingly reduced. As stated, this was serious, violent offending.

75In this case the mitigating effects of your youth, your mild intellectual disability and childhood trauma and disadvantage, are complicated by your long-standing abuse of drugs and alcohol. Ms Lechner is of the opinion that your offending occurred in the context of a ‘high level of emotional arousal, coupled with drug and alcohol intoxication [that] undermined his judgement and capacity to inhibit his angry impulses'. Given your previous sentence for similar offending at the age of 19, the sentence I impose must also operate to deter you from future acts of violence and give appropriate weight in sentencing you to the need for community protection.

76In cases such as this the sentencing principles of deterrence, both general and specific, are important sentencing considerations. Others must be deterred from seeking to exact retribution by resorting to alcohol-fuelled acts of violence by the sentence I impose.

77Your future prospects will undoubtedly be enhanced with treatment and support to address your addiction issues. I am uncertain about your future prospects given the matters I have discussed but also note that there are some positive indications for your future.

78Firstly, you have the ongoing support of your mother and partner. As a demonstration of her support your mother says she is looking for alternate accommodation for you in regions away from all influences in Wodonga. In her letter to the court your partner states she has seen positive changes in you, particularly noting that you have shown remorse for your conduct and have avoided all conflict in custody. She states that you have spoken optimistically about your plans for the future.

79You have also used your time in custody productively and have taken the opportunity available to you to engage in multiple vocational courses; having completed certificates in Civil Construction, Engineering, Kitchen Operations, Cookery and Workplace Safety during your time on remand. You have also been entrusted to hold the position of a unit billet.

80Secondly, you have been identified by Ms Lechner as eligible for supports in the community through the NDIS, which your mother is pursuing on your behalf.

81Given your engagement in educational programs whilst on remand, I have greater confidence that you will engage in drug and alcohol treatment and other programs to manage your symptoms of Complex-PTSD upon being sentenced.

82You have shown insight into the impact of your offending and expressed remorse. Subject to your engagement in long-term drug and alcohol treatment, I assess that you have reasonable prospects of rehabilitation.

83Neither party referred me to any authorities that may inform current sentencing practices for the offence of intentionally causing serious injury. In sentencing you, I have had regard to the sentences imposed for this offence that were considered by the Court of Appeal in Brown v The Queen[4] and Chol v The Queen[5].  

[4]Brown v The Queen [2018] VSCA 328 (“Brown”).

[5]Chol v The Queen [2016] VSCA 252 (“Chol”).

84In Brown the offender was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment for intentionally causing serious injury (with a total effective sentence of six years, six months’ imprisonment for that offence and an affray) in circumstances where he, in company with two others, punched, kicked and stomped on the victim’s head and body after a brief altercation in a bar. The offender than picked up a bar stool and drove it into the victim’s head. The assault caused the victim to suffer a period of unconsciousness, facial fractures and extensive swelling and bruising to the face. The offender was intoxicated at the time of the offending and was also 24 at the time of sentencing.

85In Brown’s case the offender also pleaded guilty, had suffered a dysfunctional childhood enlivening Bugmy considerations, and was assessed as having obtained some insight into his reasons for offending having engaged in anger management sessions. In that case the offender had priors from the Children’s Court including for assault with a weapon (being a machete) and had been sentenced in the Magistrates’ Court for two road rage incidents.

86In the case of Chol the offender was sentenced to four years, nine months’ imprisonment for the offence of intentionally causing serious injury, a sentence that the Court of Appeal characterised as 'lenient in the circumstances' but did not set aside. I have also had regard to the sentences referred to in that judgment, including the observations of the Court of Appeal in the case of Nash v The Queen[6], to which the prosecution helpfully referred me.

[6]Nash v The Queen [2013] VSCA 172

87In Chol’s case the offender was walking in the street with a number of friends when he had a conversation with the victim who then pushed the offender in a gentle way. In response, the offender followed the victim, throwing punches at him, and when the victim fell to the ground, continued to punch him repeatedly to the head before standing up and kicking him to the head. The victim suffered extensive bleeding to his face, a fractured eye socket, a fracture to the base of his skull and swelling and tenderness. The immediate and long-term consequences for the victim were also very serious. The offender was under the influence of ice at the time of the offending.

88In that case, the offender was an older male, aged 29, and was raised in circumstances of 'great deprivation and disadvantages' enlivening Bugmy. There were also other mitigating factors including delay associated with the finalisation of the matter.

89Current sentencing practices do not act as precedents and nor do they fix boundaries that bind the courts. Ultimately, each case must turn on its own facts and circumstances.

90What the authorities do demonstrate is that terms of immediate imprisonment can generally be expected for the offence of intentionally causing serious injury, to properly reflect the weight that attaches to general deterrence, denunciation and community protection.

91On your behalf it was acknowledged that the offending was extremely serious and warrants the imposition of a lengthy term of imprisonment. However, in fixing an appropriate non-parole period, I have sought to balance the seriousness of your offending with the need for ongoing supervised treatment having regard to the various matters that operate in mitigation of your sentence, notably your guilty plea, your youth, your mild intellectual disability, the application of Bugmy considerations, in order to best promote your future rehabilitation.

Sentence

92Balancing the matters to which I have referred, while having regard to the maximum penalty for each offence, I sentence you as follows:

93On Charge 1, intentionally causing serious injury, you are convicted and sentenced to six years, three months’ imprisonment. This is the base sentence.

94On Charge 2, aggravated burglary, you are convicted and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment.

95I accept that the offending was, broadly speaking, a continuous event and that this should be reflected in a significant degree of concurrency between the two sentences. However, it is appropriate that there be some cumulation to reflect the additional criminality of your complicity in the aggravated burglary. I direct that six months of the sentence imposed on Charge 2 be served cumulatively upon the sentence I have imposed on Charge 1.

96This gives a total effective sentence of six years, nine months’ imprisonment. I fix a non-parole period of four years’ imprisonment. This is the period of imprisonment you must serve before becoming eligible for parole.

97Pursuant to s18 of the Sentencing Act, I declare that 644 days of pre-sentence detention be reckoned as already served under the sentence I have imposed.

98Finally, pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act, I indicate that had you not pleaded guilty to these offences the sentence I would otherwise have imposed is a sentence of eight years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of five years, six months.

- - -