IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA	Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication	
AT Melbourne
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CR-22-00509

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS		
		
v		
		
IAN NORFORD		

---

JUDGE:	Karapanagiotidis 	
WHERE HELD:	Shepparton	
DATE OF HEARING:	29 June 2023	
DATE OF SENTENCE:	20 July 2023	
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Norford	
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VCC 1246		

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

---
Subject:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing 
Catchwords: 	Persistent contravention of a family violence intervention order – Recklessly causing injury – Rape - Plea of guilty – Worboyes – Covid-19 pandemic. 
Legislation Cited:	ss 5, 6AAA, 18 Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic).
Cases Cited:	R v Cotham [1998] VSCA 111; R v Verdins & Ors [2007] VSCA 102; Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169.
Sentence:	Four years and six months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and ten months’ imprisonment. 

---

APPEARANCES:
	Counsel	Solicitors	
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	D Guesdon for Plea
J Curtain for Sentence	The Office of Public Prosecutions	
			
For the Accused	M Fitzgerald for Plea	Slater & King Lawyers	
	E King for Sentence		

HER HONOUR:

1	Ian Norford, you have pleaded guilty to two charges of persistent contravention of a family violence intervention order, two charges of causing injury recklessly, and one charge of rape. The full circumstances of your offending are outlined in the prosecution opening of 29 May of this year, Exhibit A.  
2	You were in an one‑and‑off relationship with the victim, Francine Trident, for approximately three years.  
3	On 16 June 2021 at the Wangaratta Magistrates' Court an interim family violence intervention order was granted to protect Ms Trident.  The order prohibited you from going within her address, contacting or communicating with her, or approaching or remaining within five metres of her, and you agreed to the order.  
4	On or around 23 June 2021 you and Ms Trident recommenced your relationship and began meeting at each other's addresses and communicating on an almost daily basis. Between 23 June 21 and 16 July 2021 you both exchanged mobile phone text messages and calls, as particularised in the charge and the prosecution summary (Charge 1 – persistent contravention of family violence intervention order).  
5	On 24 June 2021 you invited Ms Trident over to your address in Irving Street, Wangaratta.  You were drinking scotch.  You were drunk by the time she arrived (Charge 1 continued).  Ms Trident had a couple of drinks but was not intoxicated.  At first everything was fine, but then you started accusing her of being promiscuous and began verbally abusing her.  Ms Trident was concerned by the escalation and went to leave.  You immediately turned violent and grabbed her by the shoulders and pushed her hard against the wall in the front entrance of the unit.  The back of her head went through the wall, causing a hole in the plaster.  She lost consciousness and experienced a concussion, pain, and a cut to her head causing bleeding (Charge 2 – causing injury recklessly).  
6	You eventually calmed down, and Ms Trident stayed with you, and you went to bed together.  You started kissing, and you struggled to sustain an erection.  You became frustrated and violent and roughly inserted one finger into her vagina for a few minutes, getting more and more violent with the thrusting.  You hurt her, and she put her hand down and tried to pull yours away.  She then said, 'you're hurting me, can you stop?'  Instead of stopping, you became more forceful and aggressive.  You started using more fingers and ended up aggressively thrusting them into her vagina.  She said repeatedly, 'stop it, you're hurting me', but you did not stop (Charge 3 – rape). This caused Ms Trident to bleed from her vagina onto the bed covers and through to the mattress.  
7	On the next day, 25 June 2021, after you left for work, Ms Trident took a photo of a hole in the plaster and her blood on the wall.  She also sent you text messages, but you did not respond.  She wrote, 'are you avoiding me because of what you did last night?  I'm confused why you're avoiding me', then shortly after, 'I haven't rang the cops, but I'd like to see you before I leave'.  
8	You and Ms Trident remained in a relationship and continued communicating and seeing each other despite the full interim intervention order.  You contacted her by phone calls and text messages between the 19 July and 15 August 2021 (Charge 4 – persistent contravention of family violence order).  
9	On 14 August 2021 you and Ms Trident were at her residence.  You were drinking alcohol and stayed overnight (Charge 4 continued).  On 15 August 21 at approximately 2.40pm you both attended a Coles bottle shop together and you bought a 700ml bottle of gin (Charge 4 continued).  You both returned to her unit, where you drank the bottle of gin in a matter of hours.  After drinking the bottle, you returned to the Coles bottle shop and purchased another bottle of vodka and a six pack of ciders.  You returned to Ms Trident's unit and quickly consumed the entire bottle of vodka by drinking directly from the bottle.  You then went to bed together.  
10	Whilst in bed hugging, you became agitated for no apparent reason.  You started calling her derogatory names and became fixated on her being promiscuous.  After this occurred Ms Trident sat with you on the couch in her lounge room.  She put the TV on to distract you.  However, you accused her of cheating on you and lying.  She was sitting on the couch, and you stood up in front of her, leaned in towards her, and head‑butted her on the forehead.  She subsequently lost consciousness and experienced pain (Charge 5 – causing injury recklessly).  
11	On 16 August 21 at approximately 4.30am Ms Trident awoke to find you had left the address.  Angered by what had occurred, she sent text messages to you.  Soon after she called the Wangaratta Police and reported the assault.  Ambulance Victoria and police attended.  Ms Trident was taken to Northeast Health Hospital for observation but ended up leaving before she was treated or examined.  On 17 August 21 police attended Ms Trident's address to conduct investigation in relation to the assaults and intervention order contravention.  At the time Ms Trident disclosed being sexually assaulted by you and made a statement the next day.  On 19 August you attended at the Wangaratta Police Station and participated in a record of interview.  You were then remanded in custody, where you have remained since.  
Victim Impact
12	Mr Norford, Ms Trident, as you heard, provided a victim impact statement.  It was read out in court.  In that statement she describes having had anxiety before meeting you and how this has now significantly increased because of your offending.  She states, 'I felt stuck, trapped, and victimised.  At the time I didn't feel safe, and there are times since that I haven't felt safe'.  She speaks of the profound and pervasive impact of your offending; contributing to her significant mental ill health, damaging friendships, undermining her confidence and ability to work and study, and jeopardising her sense of safety and security.  She concludes by saying, 'I've withdrawn from social situations and public places.  Leisure and fun things have all stopped. I want Ian to acknowledge what he's done and to get help for himself'.  
Plea of guilty 
13	Your plea of guilty is an acknowledgement of what you have done and what you did to Ms Trident and an acceptance of responsibility.  Your plea of guilty entitles you to a substantial discount in sentence and to a heightened amelioration of sentence in line with Worboyes principles.  Your plea indicates a willingness to facilitate the course of justice.  While it was not entered at the earliest opportunity and a committal proceeding was conducted where witnesses were cross‑examined, you did face other serious charges at the time and I accept that the process facilitated the proper resolution of your case.  
14	On your behalf it was submitted that your plea was accompanied by 'genuine remorse'.  To an extent, I accept that it is reflective of this, but it does appear on the material, Mr Norford, that you need to develop and demonstrate further insights into your behaviours and attitudes.  
Gravity of the offending
15	Your offending against your partner at the time on Charges 2, 3, and 5 was brutal and degrading. As the higher courts have stated, family violence continues to be a prevalent issue in Victoria that necessitates general deterrence, denunciation, and community protection.  
16	Your assaults of Ms Trident were unprovoked and caused her to lose consciousness.  You were the subject of an intervention order at the time.  The assaults occurred in the context of you calling her derogatory names and expressing a controlling and entitled attitude towards her.  Clearly you were intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol at the time of all of your offending.  You told psychologist Ms Carla Lechner 'It's shocking behaviour. I wouldn't have done it if sober'.  While that may be so, of course this in no way diminishes the objective gravity of your offending or your moral culpability.  
17	In relation to the rape charge, it is a Category 1 offence and has a standard sentence of ten years' imprisonment.  As properly accepted by your Counsel, Mr Fitzgerald, your offending necessitates a term of imprisonment structured by way of a non‑parole period.  Rape is an inherently serious offence.  In your case, I accept the prosecution's submission that, while your offending is not at the lowest end, it sits somewhere between the low to mid‑range of seriousness.  I have taken into account a number of factors, including that at the time of the rape you were the subject of an intervention order. Also, while the sexual contact commences consensually you ignored Ms Trident's protests to stop because you were hurting her.  Also, you caused her minor injury.  I accept that your offending was of relatively short duration and that there is an absence of other aggravating features often seen in such matters.  
18	In assessing the objective gravity of the persistent breach charge ‑ that is, Charges 1 and 4 ‑ I take into account the period of the offending and that there was a relatively high volume of communications.  The intervention order was in place to protect Ms Trident, and of course 'intervention orders must be strictly adhered to’ ‑ in other words, followed.  However, I also take into account that it is not suggested that the communications or contact between you generally involved any intimidation or threats on your part.  They appear to have arisen as a result of the relationship between the two of you at the time resuming.  Ms Trident was herself in regular contact with you, and you often spent time together in contravention of the order on a consensual basis.  I will also sentence you on the basis, as submitted by the prosecution, that your offending on both Charges 1 and 4 effectively comprises a single course of conduct.  
Personal circumstances 
19	Your personal circumstances, Mr Norford, were canvassed in detail by Mr Fitzgerald and in the reports of Ms Lechner and Mr Martin Jackson.  
20	In summary, you are in your early forties, presently single with no children.  You have the continuing support of your immediate family, and you have a particularly good relationship with your mum.  She provided a letter to the court indicating her continuing support of you.  
21	You grew up in Wangaratta.  For decades your father worked for Telstra and then set up his lawn‑mowing business.  You have one younger brother, who has an intellectual disability and continues to live with your parents.  You attended Wangaratta Secondary College until Year 11.  You recall being bullied at school and struggling academically.  During your childhood years your father was a heavy drinker.  He was often violent towards your mum and you and your brother, and you were exposed to his alcohol abuse and violence during your formative years.  When you were around 13 or 14 your father stopped drinking and things changed for the better in the family home.  
22	After leaving school you worked for a tea plantation and factory, cleaning as well as packing and warehouse work.  You have also done seasonal work, grapefruit and tobacco picking, delivery work, labouring jobs, and you have worked in your father's lawn‑mowing business.  Overall, while work has been 'on and off', you have a reasonable history of employment.  Most recently you worked at a pine timber supplier in Wangaratta, where your role included checking timber quality, packing, and cleaning.  This was full‑time work that came to an end because of your drinking.  Your drinking has apparently caused you to lose a number of jobs over the years.  
23	At the age of 26 you suffered a broken leg while playing football.  This was a considerable setback at the time as you had hoped to make a career out of football and it resulted in increased depression and drinking.  In her reference, Jenni Gardner, who has known you for decades, refers to you as having been 'a talented sportsperson playing football and cricket successfully with local teams'.  She refers to your injuries having curtailed your connection with the community.  
24	In respect of drugs and alcohol, you first experimented with cannabis at the age of 13.  From around the age of 17 you started smoking more regularly and quite heavily.  You began drinking at a similar age, and by the time you were 17 you were a heavy drinker, often drinking to the point of passing out.  You have had several short‑term and intimate relationships.  Your relationships have tended to end in the context of your alcohol use.  
25	You have a relevant prior criminal history, which includes assaults and contravening family violence intervention orders.  You do not have a history for sexual offending, and this is your first experience in custody.  
Mental health and cognitive impairments 
26	Psychologist Ms Lechner assessed you and prepared a report dated 28 December 2022.  You reported to her numerous concussions and head injuries.  Ms Lechner administered various formal tests and in summary found: your verbal intelligence was in the extremely low‑borderline range; you were likely severely psychologically distressed; and your presentation was consistent with the diagnosis of clinical depression.  She found that you present with symptoms of alcohol use disorder in early remission and adjustment disorder with depressed mood.  She recommended a full neuropsychological evaluation to determine if you have an intellectual disability.  
27	On 16 May of this year you were assessed by Martin Jackson, a neuropsychologist, and he provided a report.  Mr Jackson administered a number of psychological tests.  On the intelligence test you obtained a full‑scale IQ of 64, which is in the extremely low range.  Within that test it was noted that some of the individual scores fell in the borderline range and some in the extremely low range.  On the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale you reported symptoms suggestive of mild to moderate stress as well as moderate depression and anxiety.  Mr Jackson is of the opinion that your cognitive impairments are consistent with alcohol‑related brain injury.  This is permanent and currently stable.  If you return to heavy drinking your cognition will rapidly deteriorate.  Mr Jackson considers that your heavy state of intoxication and your alcohol‑related brain injury would clearly have had an impact on your mental functioning at the time of your offending.  
28	In assessing your history and circumstances, I take into your mental health and cognitive functioning as outlined in the reports.  
Other factors
29	I have also taken into account, Mr Norford, that your remand period has been more restrictive and onerous due to the impact of the Covid‑19 pandemic.  
You initially spent 14 days in quarantine, and you have also experienced lockdowns.  Consequently, over the time you have been on remand, you have undergone periods in isolation, and you have had limited contact visits.  
30	You have served most of your remand period at Ravenhall.  Initially you were in the mainstream population, where you had work in the kitchen, but have since been moved to protection.  Your ability to work has been impeded by the discomfort you experience relating to your old leg injury, though recently you have had work untangling headphones.  You are housed in a unit shared with five other prisoners, and cleaning and cooking responsibilities are shared between you.  
Prospects of rehabilitation 
31	Upon release from custody you will go to live with your family ‑ that is, your mother, father, and brother.  You have weekly contact with your mother.  Often during these calls you also speak to your father and brother, and I do note that your father attended Court on the last occasion in support of you.  You maintain some contact with friends also.  
32	It is clear from the reports of Ms Lechner and Mr Jackson that your rehabilitation will hinge, that is, it will depend, on your ability to control your alcohol use and also to engage in counselling and men's behaviour change programs.  As your Counsel submitted, alcohol has clearly had a destructive impact on many aspects of your life, and your excessive drinking has caused you a permanent injury.  
33	Ms Lechner assessed you using the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment tool.  You measured as a high risk of spousal violence, particularly in the context of substance misuse or threats to your authority or self‑image.  She also referred to your limited insight and disinclination to take personal responsibility.  
She recommended targeted, intensive counselling.  
34	In your favour, Mr Norford, as I have already noted, you have the continuing support of family and friends.  You have the availability of work on release, and your history demonstrates that you are someone inclined to, and capable of, working.  A reference was provided from Yen Sanderson, who worked with you previously at the green tea factory.  He describes you as always helpful and as assisting your supervisor in training new employees. Peter O'Callaghan indicates that you and your dad have been assisting in his garden maintenance for years, and he describes you as 'punctual, honest, and hardworking'.  
35	You have engaged in relevant programs while in custody. You completed courses in occupational health and safety, Cleaning Certificate III, First Aid level two, as well as Cannabis and Me, and Alcohol and Me.  
36	Mr Jackson notes that you do not have a cognitive profile associated with a high risk of reoffending.  You do not have a disorder of impulse control, and you have the basic capacity to learn new ways to do things and to change your behaviours.  He strongly recommends that you receive post‑release support services to transition back into the community.  He also considers that you would benefit from referral to a drug and alcohol service to assist you in maintaining abstinence and developing relapse prevention techniques.  
37	In my assessment of your prospects of rehabilitation, I have also taken into account your prior criminal history.  I also take into account that this is your first experience of custody and that you have accepted responsibility for your offending by pleading guilty. 
38	In your case, there are a number of factors which do suggest that, while caution is needed, your current prospects are reasonable and that, with appropriate supports and interventions, you are someone capable of rehabilitating and getting your life back on track.  
Sentencing considerations 
39	As I have already noted, Mr Norford, specific deterrence, denunciation, community protection, and just punishment loom large in the sentencing exercise.  
40	In your case, Verdins principles, as we refer to them, were not relied upon.  However, your counsel submits that your acquired brain injury is a relevant sentencing consideration. Your current neuropsychological profile indicates the presence of a permanent mild but significant alcohol‑related brain injury which has occurred in the context of a person with premorbid borderline abilities and therefore little cognitive reserve.  In his report, which I have already referred to, Mr Jackson outlines in detail the nature and impact of your impairments.  Your acquired brain injury is a relevant part of your personal circumstances, as already canvassed, and I accept that it should moderate to a limited degree the application of general deterrence in your case as a sentencing factor.  
41	Both parties concede that the only appropriate sentence is one of imprisonment with a non‑parole period.  Your Counsel submits that, taking into account all mitigating factors, a sentence that permits your release on parole as early as possible is appropriate.  In all the circumstances of your case, Mr Norford, 
I agree that the only just and appropriate sentence is a term of imprisonment.  The sentence I will impose will also facilitate your rehabilitation, which is also in the community's interest.  
42	The principle of totality is important in your case, and I propose to give effect to this principle through the orders made for cumulation and concurrency.  Also, given I have taken into account as an aggravating feature that you offended during the course of an intervention order, my orders for cumulation in respect of Charges 1 and 4 are designed to avoid any double punishment.  Further, given these charges are founded on the same facts and are part of the same series of offending, as discussed with counsel present today, I intend on those charges to impose an aggregate sentence.  
43	I take into account in respect of all matters the maximum sentences.  As earlier noted, the standard sentencing regime applies to your case, and the standard sentence for rape is ten years' imprisonment.  The standard sentence for an offence is a sentence that, taking into account only the objective factors affecting the relative seriousness of that offence, is in the middle range of seriousness.  I must take the standard sentence into account as one of the factors relevant to sentencing.  This requirement is to be treated as a legislative guidepost having the same function as the maximum penalty.  It does not affect the established instinctive synthesis to sentencing or require or permit two‑stage sentencing.  
44	The Court must only have regard to sentences imposed in cases where the standard sentence regime applies, and I can indicate that I have had regard to such cases, although each case ultimately turns on its own particular facts and circumstances.  I have taken the standard sentence for rape into account as one of the factors to consider in my instinctive synthesis of all of the relevant factors in your case.  The sentence I am about to impose in respect of the charge of rape is lower than the standard sentence.  I have considered all relevant factors in assessing your sentence, including the objective seriousness of your offending, its impact on Ms Trident, and the matters available to you in mitigation as canvassed.  
Sentence 
45	So, Mr Norford, taking into account all relevant factors in the exercise of my instinctive synthesis, on all charges you are convicted, and you will be sentenced as follows:
46	Charge 1, which is the persistent breach, six months' imprisonment, which is part of an aggregate sentence; 
47	Charge 2, recklessly causing injury, 12 months' imprisonment; 
48	Charge 3, rape, four years' imprisonment; 
49	Charge 4, persistent breach, six months' imprisonment.  That is part of the aggregate sentence.
50	Charge 5, recklessly causing injury, 12 months' imprisonment.  
51	The orders for cumulation are as follows.  On Charges 1 and 4, which is the persistent breach, the aggregate sentence, I am imposing a cumulation of one month imprisonment, on Charge 2, the recklessly causing injury, a cumulation of two months’ imprisonment, and on Charge 5, recklessly causing injury, I am cumulating three months’ imprisonment.  
52	That arrives at a total effective sentence of four years and six months’ imprisonment.  As for a non‑parole period, taking into account all the factors that I have referred to, I am imposing a non‑parole period of two years and ten months’ imprisonment. 
53	I make the forfeiture order in the terms sought, which was unopposed.  
54	I declare that you have already 696 days in pre‑sentence detention.
55	Pursuant to s6AAA I can indicate that had you not entered a plea of guilty I would have imposed a sentence of around six years and three months' imprisonment with a non‑parole period of four years and three months’ imprisonment.  
56	Counsel, is there anything further?  
57	MS CURTAIN:  No, Your Honour.  
58	MS KING:  No, Your Honour.  
59	HER HONOUR:  All right.  All right, can I thank Counsel for their assistance today.  Can I thank also the others who have attended.  And again I note Ms Trident's attendance today and I thank her.  Mr Norford, what's going to happen now is I've imposed a head sentence of four years and six months’ imprisonment, with a bottom, a non‑parole period, of two years and ten months’ imprisonment, take away the time that you've served.  Do you understand?  
60	OFFENDER:  Yes.  
61	HER HONOUR:  All right.  What I'm going to do is I'm going to leave the link on.  Just wait a moment.  It will give you an opportunity to speak with Ms King just to ensure that you do understand the sentence and in case you have any questions of her, all right?  
62	OFFENDER:  All right, thank you.  
63	HER HONOUR:  All right.  So just wait a moment, give an opportunity to others to leave, and you'll be told when you can start talking to her.  Ms King, you'll have the link for sufficient time, I would've thought, all right?  
64	MS KING:  Thank you, Your Honour.  
65	HER HONOUR:  All right, thank you.  We'll adjourn.  
- - -