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

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS		
		
v		
		
KINGSLEY FORREST (a pseudonym)		
---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE CANNON	
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne	
DATE OF HEARING:	6 and 10 July 2023 and 10 October 2023 respectively	
DATE OF SENTENCE:	21 November 2023	
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Forrest (a pseudonym)	
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VCC 2172		
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:	CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: 	Sentence – Pleas of guilty - common law assault (10) – Threat to kill (1) – Stalking (1) – Family violence offending against intimate partner – Controlling and abusive relationship – Prolonged and persistent offending – Disregard for court intervention orders – Criminal history of no relevance in this proceeding – Expert opinion – Major depressive disorder and narcissistic personality disorder traits
Cases Cited:	Skeates (a pseudonym) v The King [2023] VSCA 226; Pasinis v R [2014] VSCA 97; DPP v Smith [2019] VSCA 266; Uzun v The Queen [2015] VSCA 292;  Laa v The Queen [2020] VSCA 136; Filiz v The Queen [2014] VSCA 212; Nolan v The Queen [2017] VSCA 240; R v Kilic (2016) 259 CLR 256; Kalala v R (2017) 269 A Crim R 1; DPP v Reynolds (a pseudonym) 2022 VSCA 263; DPP v Saxton 2017 VSCA 357; Marrah v The Queen [2014] VSCA 119
Sentence:	Convicted and sentenced to a total effective sentence of 5 years and 2 months' imprisonment with non-parole period of 2 years and 10 months’ imprisonment - 64 days’ pre-sentence detention declared as having already been served as part of the sentence imposed – s6AAA Sentencing Act 1991 declaration
---

APPEARANCES:
	Counsel	Solicitors	
For the DPP	Mr P. Pickering	Solicitor for the Office of Public Prosecutions	
			
For the Accused	Mr J. Moore	Dribbin & Brown	

HER HONOUR:

1	Kingsley Forrest, you have pleaded guilty to 10 charges of common law assault and one charge of make threat to kill, as well as one charge of stalking.
2	The maximum penalty for common assault is five years’ imprisonment, whilst the maximum penalties for threat to kill and stalking are 10 years’ imprisonment.
3	In sentencing you, I must have regard to the maximum penalties as these reflect the seriousness with which Parliament regards the offences.
4	By way of background, I was told that you and the complainant first met at a bar in Windsor in November 2007.  You developed a romantic relationship with the complainant, and, in August 2008, she moved in with you at your unit in suburban Melbourne. 
5	In the first few months of the relationship, you showered the complainant with gifts.  However, you began to control and manipulate her, behaving aggressively and ultimately isolating her from her friends and family.
6	A good deal of detail in relation to such behaviour was referred to in the course of the Prosecution Opening for the purposes of establishing context and indicating the nature of the relationship as between you and the complainant.  However, in short, from 2008, you began to behave in a most domineering and abusive fashion in the way that you spoke to her and dealt with her generally.
7	In July 2011, the complainant’s mother died.  At around this time, she found out she was pregnant with your daughter.  At around this time, you started grabbing handfuls of her hair, ripping them from her head.  The complainant kept cutting her hair shorter to try to protect herself, but this did not stop you.  She became so concerned about her hair loss from these regular assaults that she stopped washing her hair.
8	In January 2012, the complainant spoke to a midwife at a Medical Centre in relation to some aspects of your abusive behaviour.
9	On 29 March 2012, she gave birth to your daughter.  After the birth, the complainant started running her own floral business from the garage of your unit.  However, you effectively took over the running of the business. 
10	You told the complainant how useless she was and how the business should be run.  You started to threaten to destroy the flowers and to sabotage events.  On one occasion you made her write out lines, as if she were a schoolgirl being punished, where you made her say that she was an idiot and needed to behave correctly and do what she was told.
11	On 9 December 2012, you and the complainant were married.
12	In September 2013, when your daughter was about 18 months old, you locked the complainant out of the house, refusing to let her back inside.  The complainant had to sleep in the laundry.
13	During 2013, she tried to leave you but was unable to do so.  By this time, she and you were effectively living separately under the one roof.
14	The matters to which I have referred thus far in respect of your behaviour are not the subject of charges but are the context in which the charged conduct occurred. I make it clear that I do not sentence you in respect of any of the uncharged conduct.
15	The basis for Charge 1, a rolled-up charge of common assault, is as follows.
16	On a Sunday in 2014, you were driving with the complainant and your infant daughter to the Mornington Peninsula.  The complainant became frightened due to your aggressive and erratic driving.  When she screamed, you did a U‑turn and started driving back towards Melbourne.  As you drove, you hit the victim in the face with a closed fist, causing her nose to bleed.
17	When you reached an industrial area in south-east Melbourne, you pulled over and the complainant jumped out of the car in fear of you.  You demanded that she return to the car.  When you arrived home, she put your daughter in her bedroom.  You then hit and punched the complainant, dragged her by her hair and pushed her around the house.
18	She ran outside into the back corner of the yard, and you followed her, carrying a stick with a nail at the end of it which you had made.  You had a variety of wooden sticks, bats, and clubs in the house that you used to threaten the complainant from time to time.
19	On this occasion, you stood over the complainant with the stick with a nail through it and told her that you would put it through her skull.  The particulars relied on in relation to Charge 1 comprise punching the victim in the car, then hitting her and dragging her by the hair and pushing her around the house, as well as brandishing the stick with the nail in the back yard.
20	The basis for Charge 2 is that on an occasion between 29 March 2014 and 
29 March 2015, the complainant ran into your daughter’s room to try to escape from you.  You followed her into the room where she was cowering on the bed and covering her face with both hands to protect herself.  You stood over her and swung punches to her head and temples.  The complainant felt dizzy and light-headed afterwards and had sustained lumps on her head.  
21	On 3 April 2014 at 8.10pm, the complainant called Triple 0, resulting in police attending to conduct a welfare check at your home.
22	When the police arrived, the complainant told them that you were very controlling and would not let her take a shower, and you had been verbally abusive to her over the previous weeks.  She also disclosed that you had previously assaulted her but said she did not want to make things worse by having you charged.  Police issued a Family Violence Safety Notice with the sole condition that you do not commit family violence against the complainant.
23	On 7 April 2014, a suburban Magistrates’ Court granted an Interim Family Violence Intervention Order without admission, prohibiting you from committing family violence against the victim.  However, on 26 May 2014, the Family Violence Intervention Order application was withdrawn.
24	On 10 April 2015, between 7.04pm and 7.38pm, the complainant made three distressed calls to Triple 0 requesting police attend, as you had physically assaulted her and had taken your daughter from the house in her car.
25	Between 7.16pm and 8.41pm, you made 33 calls to the complainant’s mobile phone.  At about 8.40pm, police conducted a welfare check at your home.  They spoke with the complainant, who said that she had been in an argument with her husband over relationship issues, and it had escalated to the point where you had slapped her across the face with an open palm and then grabbed her by the neck.  It is this conduct to which I have just referred that gives rise to Charge 3.
26	As the police took a statement from the complainant, you returned to the house with your daughter.  Police issued a Family Violence Safety Notice with full exclusionary conditions, then left the premises at about 10.15pm.
27	Between 10.57pm and 11.49pm, you called the complainant eight times in breach of the Safety Notice.
28	On 11 April 2015 at 12.30am, you attended the unit where you resided and attempted to enter.  You called the complainant another 12 times.  She called Triple 0.  When police reattended at 1.03am, the complainant provided a statement to police in relation to the breaches of the Safety Notice.  You continued to call the complainant four times between 3.27am and 3.29am.  Your conduct in relation to breaching the Safety Notice was relied on for the purposes of context information and is also relevant to my assessment of your moral culpability in relation to the charged offences.
29	On 13 April 2015, a suburban Magistrates’ Court granted a 12-month Intervention Order prohibiting you from committing family violence against the complainant and your daughter.  Two days later, you made your own cross-application for an Intervention Order, naming yourself and your daughter as the affected family members and the complainant as the respondent.
30	On or about 30 April 2015, the complainant attended the warehouse where she obtained flowers for her business and told a colleague that you were going to kill her and your young daughter, and she could not take it anymore.  She was visibly upset when her colleague suggested she leave you and said that she could not as she had nowhere to go, and you would just find her anyway.
31	On 1 and 13 May 2015, the complainant made statements of no complaint to the police in relation to the complaint of abuse from 10 April 2015 and the subsequent breaches of the Safety Notice. This resulted in the police investigation being finalised by non-authorisation.  The complainant withdrew her statements as she was “scared about how bad the violence would get”.  
32	The basis for Charge 4 is that on 15 June 2015, being about one month after this, the complainant arrived at the floral warehouse with a black eye which you had caused by hitting her in the face. 
33	She told her boss that she had been hit with a cricket ball in the nose or something.  However, her boss was concerned and contacted police to report the matter.  Her work colleague also saw the complainant with a black eye and significant swelling, as well as bruising to the right side of her face.  Subsequently, the complainant’s work colleague made a formal statement to police about her observations.  At about 8.30pm on 30 June, police and Child Protection staff attended your unit.  You would not allow the complainant to permit police to enter the house and you recorded part of the interaction.  Subsequently, you made the complainant contact her work colleague to tell her to retract her statement.  You are very fortunate indeed that you are not facing a charge for attempting to pervert the course of justice.
34	In any event, on 2 July 2015, the complainant’s work colleague’s husband attended your unit to speak with you.  You recorded the interaction.  He told you to leave his wife alone, but you continually told him to “fuck off.”  After this, the relationship between the complainant and her work colleague deteriorated. 
35	Other workers in the warehouse observed the complainant on many occasions over the course of three to four years attending with black eyes and bruising to her face.  The complainant told another witness on two separate occasions that she had been hit by a cricket ball to her face. 
36	On 15 December 2015, the complainant terminated her employment with her then employer and, shortly after this, she began working at another florist.
37	By way of further contextual information, I was told that in 2016 your relationship with the complainant further deteriorated.  The complainant told you that you could not expect to keep bashing her in the face and leaving her with black eyes without anyone becoming suspicious.  Over the course of 2016, you continued to inflict physical and emotional abuse, as well as controlling behaviour toward the victim.  You often woke her in the middle of the night and ejected her from the house.  You would then call her, demanding that she return, but when she did, you would deny her access to the house until she begged on her knees to be allowed back inside.
38	On three or four occasions when she had been thrown out of the house by you, the complainant stayed at motels.  This is verified by other evidence referred to in the Prosecution Opening.  On one occasion when she was thrown out, the complainant went on to stay with a friend.  However, she never did so again as you demanded to know her friend's address and you forbade that she ever take your daughter with her again.
39	You would often justify your behaviour by telling the complainant “if you hadn't done this or that, I wouldn't have done this or that”.
40	The basis for Charge 5 is that on an occasion between 1 June 2016 and 30 June 2016, while the complainant was in the kitchen at the unit, you cornered her and kicked her hard in the groin, causing her pain.
41	She left the kitchen and went to the bedroom where she lay on the bed crying in pain and screaming at you to get away from her.  The complainant's vulva was initially red and became bruised.  She had difficulty going to the toilet.
42	The basis for Charge 6 is that between 11 June 2016 and 13 June 2016, you flicked the complainant in the face with the back of your finger during an argument, causing a black eye.  On 13 June 2016, the complainant took a photo of the purple discolouration to her eyelid and brow.
43	The basis for Charge 7 is that on 13 November 2016, when the complainant was 14 weeks pregnant with your second child, she was in the bedroom when you entered in an agitated state.  You yelled at the complainant, grabbing a pillow, and you tried to smother her with the pillow.  The complainant said, “I'm pregnant don't touch me, don't hurt me”.  You then punched the complainant to her abdomen.
44	The next day, the complainant started bleeding profusely and went to hospital, where she was hospitalised overnight.  However, the prosecution does not allege that the bleeding was a result of the assault and therefore I put this aspect to one side.  In the days following, the complainant attended the hospital on a number of occasions out of concern for her pregnancy following you assaulting her on this occasion.
45	The basis for Charge 8 is that on another occasion between 14 November 2016 and 26 April 2017, whilst the complainant was pregnant with your second child, you cornered her in the bedroom, grabbing a pillow and putting it over her face, covering her mouth and nose.  The complainant was screaming, so you put your hands on either side of the pillow and your body weight on the pillow so the victim could not move or breathe. 
46	You were yelling at her to “shut up”.  You said, “Shut up you bitch, fucking shut up, stop screaming, people can hear you, stop screaming, people can hear you”.  The complainant struggled desperately and managed to get away from you.
47	The basis for Charge 9 is that on an occasion after your second child was born, her date of birth being in April 2017, the complainant was walking down the hallway of the unit when you grabbed her by the hair and kicked her hard to her left buttock.  She sustained a large welt and bruising.
48	After your second child’s birth, you repeatedly told the complainant to “take the kids and fuck off”, and you were regularly locking her out of the house at night.  Sometimes, your older child would let her back into the house.
49	The basis for Charge 10, threat to kill, is that on an occasion between 1 June and 28 June 2018, the complainant was asleep in bed when you woke her in the early hours of the morning and yelled at her to get up and go to the loungeroom.  Once in the loungeroom, you told her that she had to go to a lawyer and sign away any right she had to your assets.  An argument ensued.  You grabbed the complainant's neck and told her “Look what you are making me do, I'll kill you”.  You kept saying “it's getting worse”.  You had your hands at the front of the complainant's neck, pressing into her throat to emphasise the threat.  You told her you were going to kill her.
50	The complainant was petrified and thought she was going to pass out.  She then collapsed onto the floor.  You said to her “get up, I know you're acting” and “you do realise that I am going to kill you one day”.
51	The complainant’s throat felt as if she had swallowed glass and her voice was deep and weak afterwards.  She could not eat or drink very much in the days following the incident as it was difficult to swallow.
52	The basis for Charge 11, a rolled-up charge of common assault, is that after you had yelled at the complainant about where she had parked in the driveway, she took the children to a shopping centre.  Whilst there, you rang her 15 times, calling her “bitch” and “cunt” and telling her she was worthless.
53	On 1 July 2018, you continued yelling at the complainant, telling her that she had wrecked the weekend.  The complainant told you that she would leave.  She put the children to bed and started to look for motels to stay in and to pack bags.
54	You were so enraged and were behaving so erratically that the complainant decided to record your behaviour with her mobile phone.  When you became aware she was doing this, you took her phone from her.  When she tried to get her phone back, you struck her forcefully on the knuckles with the phone.
55	The complainant ran to the front door to leave the house to get help as she did not have a phone to call police.  You grabbed her and she bit your hand to get free.  You shoved the complainant into the hallway wall.  She fell to the floor and saw blood coming from her head and felt dizzy.
56	Your older child was present and, seeing what had happened, she started to scream and cry hysterically.  You told her that it was okay, and it was nothing.  Your older child was six years old at the time.
57	You told the complainant to shut up and go into the bathroom to clean up.
58	Your older child later told police “Daddy was hitting Mummy on the head and it split the head open, so she had to go to hospital”.
59	The complainant ran to a Medical Centre Emergency Department where nurses on duty contacted police.  She was extremely emotional, sobbing, shaking and struggling to walk. 
60	Photographs were taken of the her injuries at the Medical Centre, with the discharge summary noting “a 2 centimetre area of swelling to the left occipital area (back of the scalp) and a barely perceptible area of yellow/green discolouration to the back of the right hand, which has the appearance of bruising” and “dried blood to the right-hand side of the neck, to the middle knuckle of the right index finger, and to the back of the scalp in the hair covered area”.
61	Police attended the Medical Centre and took a statement from the complainant.  She told police she did not want you charged because of the children.  Police seized the complainant's phone, but the recordings were no longer saved.  You had called her 20 to 30 times within the hour. 
62	Police attended the unit where you resided and spoke with you.  You told police there had been “a verbal argument over moving furniture in the living room” and that “during the verbal argument the complainant had intentionally struck her head against a door frame and subsequently bled on the floor”.  At 7.20pm, you were placed under arrest.  When you were asked what had happened that evening by police, you said “Francine (pseudonym) has lost it because I moved the sofa ... Francine (pseudonym) didn’t like that I moved the sofa, she bounced herself off the walls in the hallway and that's why she is bleeding”.  When you were asked why she was in hospital, you said, “I don't know, she just left, she is crazy.  Nobody is taking my kids, don't come near them”.
63	At 9.52pm, a record of interview was conducted with you.  During the interview, you said, “it's not as it happened”, but otherwise you chose to exercise your rights, giving “no comment” responses to allegations put.
64	After this incident, on 1 July 2018, the complainant did not return to the unit.
65	On 13 July 2018, an interim intervention order was made which listed the complainant and her daughters as the affected family members and you were the respondent.  You were present at the suburban Magistrates' Court and consented to the order.
66	The interim intervention order included conditions prohibiting you from “committing family violence against the protected persons or attempting to locate, follow or keep the protected persons under surveillance or stalk them”.
67	The basis for Charge 12 – stalking, is that on 5 July 2018, you accessed the complainant's user profile on a home computer in the unit as it was not password protected.  You then used this access to monitor the activities of the victim, locate her new address, and find out about her interactions with police, her lawyers and other people. You accessed the complainant's email account and read personal and private emails from Victoria Legal Aid, from the complainant's family law firm and from Victoria Police.  You also accessed bank statements belonging to the victim from 2011 and 2012.  You then saved these documents and emails to a USB stick.
68	You engaged in conduct such as this from 5 July to 3 November 2018.
69	You accessed the complainant's information, to which I have referred, on about 
55 occasions on the following dates.
70	As previously stated, 5 July 2018, and the following dates; 6, 9; 12; 14; 16; 18; 21; 23; 24; 26; 27; 30; 31 July; 1; 6; 7; 9; 10; 11; 12; 13; 17; 21; 22; 30; 31 August; 1; 2; 3; 4; 10; 11, 12, 14, 18, 25, 26, 27 and 28 September, and then on 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 25, 26, 29, 30 and 31 October, and then again on 1 and 3 November.
71	To place some of this offending in its proper context, on 21 July 2018, you accessed the complainant’s user profile at about 10.50am and her personal email account, reading private emails sent to the complainant, including emails from Victoria Police, Victorian Magistrates' Courts and her solicitors in relation to family law matters.  At about 12 noon that day, the complainant, and her daughters were at a suburban laundromat.  While there, the complainant looked up and saw you standing at the window, waving your arms and looking at her, saying “what are you doing?”  She told you to go away, but you kept looking at your older daughter and telling her that you loved her through the glass whilst blowing kisses.
72	After a couple of minutes, the complainant looked out the door of the laundromat to see if it was safe to leave.  When she did so, she saw that you were walking towards her car.  She waited for a few minutes and again checked to see if you had left the area, but she saw that you were waiting at her car.  She checked three times over the course of about 15 minutes before you eventually left the area.
73	On 23 July 2018, the victim contacted Victoria Police, informing them that you had breached the intervention order.  Police compiled a statement from the conversation over the phone before emailing a copy of this to the complainant at 10.00pm on 23 July for her perusal.
74	On 24 July 2018 at 12.06am, you again accessed the complainant's user profile and personal email account, reading private emails sent to the complainant by police, including the statement from her in relation to you allegedly contravening the interim intervention order at the laundromat.  
75	At 8.41am, you contacted the Oakleigh Police Station to “proactively report” that you might have “inadvertently” contravened the intervention order while walking the path you routinely took for years.  You contacted the police again 3.35pm, saying that you wanted it recorded that you had reported the inadvertent contravention of the IVO to police.  At 7.40pm, you attended Oakleigh Police Station and spoke to police for a third time about your “inadvertent” breach of the intervention order and it being recorded.  You were told that there was no book to record this in.
76	Therefore, you used the information you had obtained from the complainant's computer on this occasion to try and head off any prosecution of you for breaching the intervention order.
77	After having accessed the complainant's information on 10 September 2018, you attended the Magistrates' Court on 11 September 2018, where a final intervention order was granted – the complainant and your two children being named as protected persons.  The final intervention order included conditions that you be prohibited from committing family violence against the protected persons, and prohibited you from attempting to locate, follow or keep the protected persons under surveillance or stalk them.  You agreed to the final order without admissions.
78	After court proceedings that day, you again accessed the complainant's user profile and personal email account and read private emails sent to the complainant, including emails from the Magistrates' Court and the complainant's lawyer.  The email account also contained various documents in relation to current matters against you, together with emails from Vodafone with details of all persons and organisations that the complainant was in contact with, as well as again her protected address.
79	You went on to access her private information on 23 further occasions on the dates to which I have previously referred. 
80	In early 2019, the victim and the children moved to a new protected address of which you were unaware.
81	In January 2019, police officers from the Family Violence Command Task Force engaged with you in relation to allegations of historical family violence offending, with the complainant providing a statement in January 2019, which was completed on 25 April 2019.
82	On 28 February 2019, police attended your unit and executed a search warrant, where they seized a home computer, mobile phones, hard drives, USB sticks and personal paperwork.
83	On 27 March 2019, you attended a suburban Magistrates' Court to make an application to have the property seized returned to you.  During the hearing, detectives had to disclose to the court that there was an ongoing police investigation and that the seized property contained evidence relevant to that investigation. 
84	You took part in a number of interviews with the police, the first of which occurred on 27 July 2018, in relation to contravening the intervention order by communicating with the complainant at the laundromat on 21 July.
85	During that record of interview, you told police that you had already contacted another suburban police station on 24 July to report that the matter was a chance encounter.  You told police that you had been walking your dog on a path that you had been walking for 10 years.  When asked to elaborate on what actually happened in relation to the alleged contravention, you refused to comment any further.
86	On 3 April 2019, you were arrested and interviewed by police and made “no comment” answers to allegations put to you on that occasion.
87	On 12 April 2019, you took part in a further record of interview where you gave expansive answers to questions, a number of which are set out in the Prosecution Opening.  In essence, you denied committing any offences against the complainant and you tended to blame the complainant in relation to difficulties you experienced in the relationship.  You painted her as the aggressor who had been violent and verbally abusive towards you, painting yourself as the rational and patient one.
88	Amongst other things, you told police that “the relationship overall was great, but Francine (a pseudonym) tends to withdraw when things get a bit – you know – full on, a bit serious with her and you just got to be patient for her to sort of get past that …”.  You said that you felt you could not really get the complainant to open up, that the relationship had its ups and downs and tested your patience, but that you were patient.  Although you agreed that there were arguments at times where there was yelling at one another. (Q995-1006)
89	You told police that you had been assaulted by the complainant on a number of occasions and spoke of her being anxious and aggressive, and hysterical at times.  
90	You told police that at some stage the complainant did have a bruise on her face, but it was not really a black eye.  You said that she told you she had bumped into something. (Q1697-1717)
91	You admitted that you punched the complainant's abdomen, and she was in hospital after this, but that it was not uncommon for her to have a tear.  (Q1237-2155)
92	You denied ever smothering her with a pillow, and you said that you did not yell and scream as you were the landlord of the property next door.   You said that you did not hurt the complainant or lash out at her. (Q2221-2222; 2239, 2256-2273)
93	Mr Forrest (a pseudonym), your offending is serious and deserves a punishment which is just in all of the relevant circumstances.  Your conduct must be firmly denounced.  Your behaviour towards the complainant was monstrous and repugnant.  You assaulted her on 10 separate occasions over a prolonged period of time in the context of a controlling and abusive relationship where you appear to have behaved in any way you wished at a whim. In saying this, I make it clear that you are only to be sentenced for the offences on the indictment rather than in relation to the contextual information, but that contextual information is relevant.
94	I regard each of the common law assaults as serious examples of this offence, in all of the relevant circumstances, and I regard the offence of make threat to kill as a serious example of that offence in the context of you tightening the grip on the complainant's neck to the point where she thought she was going to pass out.  Whilst common assault covers an array of conduct and the physical injuries you caused are not as serious as some, you persistently offended against the complainant subjecting her to trauma again and again which has significantly impacted her.
95	In 2014, the Court of Appeal in Pasinis v The Queen sent “an unequivocal message” as to the prominence deterrence must achieve in sentencing criminal conduct in the context of family violence. It was in the following terms:
“Historically perpetrators of family violence were rarely prosecuted. Even when offenders were convicted of such offences, they often received lenient sentences. Fortunately, the criminal law now gives greater recognition to the devastating effects of family violence. It has also been recognised that women who are killed by their husband, boyfriend or de facto partner have frequently been assaulted by them many times previously. This makes both specific and general deterrence very important factors in sentencing men who assault their partner.
The effects of family violence are now well documented. They are not confined to physical injury. Victims often feel responsible for the violence and ashamed that they were not able to prevent the perpetrator from offending. As occurred in this case, it is common for victims to deny or conceal that their partners have assaulted them until the violence becomes unbearable. … Victims who have been dominated, controlled and beaten by their partners over a significant period experience serious and long-lasting psychological trauma. As in the present case, the physical effects of the violence and its erosion of the victim’s confidence can also affect their ability to participate in paid work and have other serious financial effects.
…
General deterrence is of fundamental importance in cases of domestic violence. The victims of such violence are often so enveloped by fear that they are incapable of either escaping the violence or reporting it to the authorities. The key to protection lies in deterring the violent conduct by sending an unequivocal message to would–be perpetrators of domestic violence that if they offend, they will be sentenced to a lengthy period of imprisonment so that they are no longer in a position to inflict harm.”
96	Since then, the Court of Appeal has made repeated statements that sentences imposed for family violence should be “set at a level which will send a message to those — predominantly men — who might offend violently against domestic partners or former partners or family members” and reaffirmed that the “fundamental importance” of the need for condign punishment to denounce and deter family violence is because of its prevalence and the seriousness of its consequences.
97	In Marrah v The Queen the court said:
“Offending of this nature is too often perpetrated by men whose response to difficulties in a relationship is one of possessive, violent rage. It goes without saying that such a response, to what is a common human situation, is utterly unacceptable. The sentences must convey the unmistakeable message that male partners have no right to subject their female partners to threats or violence. The sentences must be of such an order as to strongly denounce violence within a domestic relationship.”
98	In DPP v Meyers the court stated:
“Violence of this kind is alarmingly widespread, and extremely harmful. The statistics about the incidence of women being killed or seriously injured by vengeful former partners are truly shocking. Although the cases under consideration do not fall into that worst category, they are symptomatic of what can fairly be described as an epidemic of domestic violence.
General deterrence is, accordingly, a sentencing principle of great importance in cases such as these. Those who might, in a mood of anger or frustration or bitterness, contemplate this kind of violent entry into the home of a former spouse or partner must realise that, if they do so, they will almost certainly spend a long time in prison.”
99	The Court has “made it clear that acts of violence in a domestic setting, and in particular by men towards women, are utterly abhorrent and unacceptable”.  The strength of the language used in these statements is not accidental. Family violence is contemptible. It warrants both condemnation and appropriate punishment.
100	As is plain from these authorities, the fundamental importance of general deterrence in arriving at the appropriate punishment does not diminish the value of specific deterrence and protection of the community as sentencing considerations, and the gravity of family violence offending will be aggravated if it breaches an extant FVIO, or is committed in front of children. 
101	Further, the seriousness of family violence and the harm it inflicts is not to be simply equated with physical injury.  Family violence is now understood - and defined in law - to encompass behaviour that is physically, sexually, emotionally, psychologically and economically abusive or threatening or coercive, even if such behaviour does not constitute a criminal offence. That kind of behaviour produces situations where people, disproportionately women, live in “real and justified fear of men who are, or were, their intimate partners.” It produces a domestic atmosphere steeped in dread. It robs victims of capacity and agency and also engenders shame. 
102	It follows that in assessing the totality of the circumstances that pertain to any offence committed in the context of family violence, the surrounding behaviours of the offender must be considered to assess the true gravity of the offending and for “the sentence to vindicate the dignity of [the] victim”.
103	Charge 11 is aggravated by the fact that your six-year-old child witnessed the assault.  
104	Further, you were put on notice, if you had to be, by virtue of police attendance, the issue of family safety notices and intervention orders, as well as the attendance at your home of the complainant’s work colleague’s husband, that what you were doing was against the law and utterly intolerable.  Despite this, you continued to offend.  You were a law unto yourself who apparently felt entitled to treat the victim in any way you saw fit. 
105	In relation to the stalking charge, I regard your offending as a serious example of this offence in view of the persistency of it and the nature of it, as well as your flagrant disregard for the interim and final intervention orders which specifically forbade you from the conduct in which you were engaging.  Also, you continued to engage in this activity notwithstanding that the police had interviewed you in respect of the alleged breach of an intervention order on 27 July 2018. 
106	Whilst there are more serious examples of stalking, in some ways, such as where the offender physically follows their victim or engages in more sinister behaviour of which the victim is aware, the fact that you were accessing the complainant's personal information on about 55 occasions reflects your determination to continue to control her as best you could, even after the complainant had left the unit and you knew very well that you were not to try and find her.  You also knew very well that you had repeatedly assaulted her when you were behaving in this way.  However, rather than reflect on the wrongfulness of this, you continued in your bid to surveil her and control her from a distance.  
107	Also, when interviewed by police in relation to the assaults, you sought to blame the victim and to further belittle and humiliate her, as you had done during the course of the relationship.
108	In assessing the seriousness of the offending, I am well aware that you are not to be dealt with on the basis of intending to recklessly cause injury to the victim, as you are being dealt with for common law assault - this offence comprehends an intentional application of force.  I note that you used a weapon on one occasion in respect of the charges on the indictment, namely in relation to some of the conduct giving rise to Charge 1.
109	In my view, it does not matter that your conduct was not motivated by jealousy or perceptions of infidelity.  I do not regard your conduct as any the less heinous because of this.
110	In all of the relevant circumstances, I regard your moral culpability as high.  
111	In sentencing you, I take into account the impact on the complainant and your older daughter, as reflected in the admissible parts of their Victim Impact Statements.  The complainant read her Victim Impact Statement aloud, which was a most courageous thing to do, and she articulately set out the various ways in which your offending had affected her.  I am sure it is no cold comfort to her, but, unfortunately, the sentiments that she expressed are echoed by many who have been through the trauma that she has been through in the context of domestic violence.
112	Ms Millhouse (a pseudonym) said that you had destroyed her sense of self and had isolated her from all of her friends and family.  She said that you had taken the essence of who she was and everything that she had built before she had met you.  
113	She had previously been a happy person who enjoyed being with those she loved and who loved her, and she had a zest for life, but that this was no longer the case because of your offending.  She said that you infiltrated her relationships and her business and took everything away from her.  She said that the physical violence was torture and that she was in constant pain, feeling physically broken.  
114	She said that trying to disguise her mental state and acting like there was nothing wrong was the worst.  She said that by the time she had fled you, she felt like she had no identity at all, and she continued to struggle in finding out who she was.  
115	She spoke of you devaluing her as a person and that the effects on her broken confidence and self-belief continued to permeate her daily life and interactions with others.  
116	She said that she would never know whether you would be Dr Jekyll or Mr Hyde from one day to the next, and that she felt she had to behave in a way that would protect herself from your violence.  She continued to be hypervigilant because of this.
117	She said that your actions had left lifelong scars on her mental and emotional wellbeing, stripping her of her confidence and ability to function on a day-to-day basis, questioning all that she said and did because she never felt she was worthy as a person.  I stop to say to you, you most certainly are.
118	She spoke of her sense of isolation because of your offending and control over her.  She spoke of her struggles in relation to her youngest child because of the effect of your offending upon her, which led to feelings of disconnection and shutting down.  
119	She expressed concern about your older daughter and the impact of what she witnessed.  She said she did not feel worthy of any affection, and she felt there was an emotional wall which prevented her from offering any true physical contact with others.  This was not the case before your offending.
120	She said that your total control of her finances had left her in a financially vulnerable state and spoke of losing an inheritance from her grandmother and mother, due to the control you exercised in this regard.  
121	She said that she had become accustomed to your violence over the period of the offending, and that although the bruises healed within a week or two after you assaulted her, the mental torment remained, and she still dealt with this daily.  
122	She spoke of the indescribable fear when you held your hands around her throat, as she was terrified, she would never see her children again, and she said that fear persists.  
123	She spoke of the impact upon her of now knowing that you had stalked her through her emails and says that due to the criminal and family law court proceedings, she had continued to feel suffocated by you and unable to move forward.  She did not have autonomy in her life anymore.  She said that suddenly she would become stressed and triggered by something without warning or reason.  She was jumpy and easily startled, and quick to anger.  There were also places she could not go.
124	She spoke of her fear of hair falling out when she was showering, as this happened so often when she lived in the house.  She spoke of sleeplessness and night terrors and being petrified of you coming near her or the children.  She said that the total and complete control and humiliation that you put her through had affected how she felt about men.  She had not been able to trust any man since your offending.
125	She said that she still felt extreme loneliness even when around people and did not know if she could ever be fully free from what you had put her through.
126	She said that after she and the girls had left, although she was still stressed and in a heightened state for many months after, she saw that both the girls began to flourish quickly.  She said that watching the children flourish reinforced that she had made the right decision to leave.  However, at the same time, she was consumed with guilt that she had not left earlier.
127	Mr Forrest (a pseudonym), this is the very real and significant impact that your offending has had upon the primary victim in this matter, Ms Millhouse (a pseudonym).
128	I pause again here to say to you Ms Millhouse (a pseudonym) directly, that you have nothing to feel guilty about - you did what you could when you felt able to do it, and I do hope that you are able to fully recover from the ordeal that you have been through sooner rather than later. 
129	Your older daughter also made a Victim Impact Statement, and I also take that into account.  She said that she witnessed her mother and you fighting, that when this happened, she felt scared – that sometimes she would try to protect her mother, but sometimes she would not.  She said she would always be worried for her mother and spoke of being worried about the one time when you locked her outside.  She spoke of feeling helpless and worried about her mother when this happened, and she also felt helpless in some situations because she could not help keep her mother safe.  She said that when she was with her mother, she would feel safe and happy.
130	In relation to criminal history, there is only one offence recorded in June 1984 in the Magistrates' Court being theft from a motor vehicle where you were fined $200.  Your prior matter has negligible relevance to the offending now before me.
131	As the learned prosecutor set out in his submissions on sentence, appellate courts have made very strong pronouncements in relation to the gravity of domestic violence and how courts ought to approach this.  In Pasinis v R [2014] VSCA 97 at [53], the court said:
“Historically perpetrators of family violence were rarely prosecuted.  Even when offenders were convicted of such offences, they often received lenient sentences.  Fortunately, the criminal law now gives greater recognition to the devasting effects of family violence.  It has also been recognised that women who are killed by their husband, boyfriends or de facto partners have frequently been assaulted by them many times previously.  This makes both specific and general deterrence very important factors in sentencing men who assault their partner.”
132	In R v Kilic (2016) 259 CLR 256 at [21], the High Court said in relation to the role of current sentencing practice in respect of the task of a judge in Victoria:
“…The requirement of currency recognises that sentencing practices for a particular offence or type of offence may change over time reflecting changes in community attitudes to some forms of offending.  For example, current sentencing practices with respect to sexual offences may be seen to depart from past practices by reason, inter alia, of changes in understanding of the long-term harm done to the victim.  So too, make current sentencing practices for offences involving domestic violence depart from past sentencing practices for this category of offence because of changes in societal attitudes to domestic relations.”
133	In Kalala v R (2017) 269 A Crim R 1, a case in respect of incitement to murder, the Court said:
“It is well recognised that the prevalence of a particular type of crime may be a relevant sentencing consideration. …….   [56]
 In 2016 the Royal Commission into family violence reported that, although it was clear whether the incidences of family violence was increasing, there had been a marked increase in reporting of it.  This is reflected in family violence incidence data for Victoria. … .” [57]
134	The Court went on to say: 
“The Crimes Statistics Agency reports that, between January 2012 and December 2016, Victoria Police identified 340,926 ‘family incident related’ offences.  In 2016, such offences represented 16.6 per cent of offences, an increase from 11 per cent in 2012….. [58]
The trial courts of this state (that is, referring to the County Court and the Supreme Court as a trial court for murder), are imposing sentences for family violence offences with increasing frequency.  This court has repeatedly emphasised the need to condemn family violence in line with community expectations.  In Filiz v The Queen, the court acknowledged the ‘shameful truth that family violence is a leading cause of illness, disability and death among Victorian women aged between 15 and 44.” [59]  
135	In DPP v Reynolds (a pseudonym) 2022 VSCA 263 the Court said: 
“Regrettably, this is yet another example of appalling family violence which has come before the courts.  Family violence is a blight on society, which this court “has been at pains to denounce” ……. [71] 
… As these authorities make plain [referring to relevant authorities] general deterrence, public denunciation, just punishment and community protection must be the prominent sentencing factors when sentencing for family violence offending.” [77]
136	In the recent case of Skeates (a pseudonym) v R [2023] VSCA 226, in relation to cases involving domestic violence, the Court said:
“It is not correct to assess the gravity of such offending by separately measuring the relatively limited physical consequences of the assaults on a charge by charge basis.  It is incorrect to deconstruct the whole in an attempt to divorce each individual offence from its context.  While the degree of physical injury sustained in each assault is relevant, the applicant's offending must be understood in the context of his persistent perpetration of family violence.”
137	The Court said before that passage to which I have referred, having cited and quoted from Pasinis v R:
“Since Pasinis this Court has made repeated statements that sentences imposed for family violence should be set at a level which will send a message to those predominantly men who might offend violently against domestic partners, or former partners, or family members and reaffirmed that the fundamental importance of the need for condign punishment to denounce and deter family violence is because of its prevalence and the seriousness of its consequences.”
138	In Skeates, the Court went on to quote from Marrah v R, where the Court said:
“Offending of this nature is too often perpetrated by men whose response to difficulties in a relationship is one of possessive, violent rage.  It goes without saying that such a response to what is a common human situation is utterly unacceptable.  The sentences must convey the unmistakeable message that male partners have no right to subject their female partners to threats or violence.  The sentences must be of such an order as to strongly denounce violence within a domestic relationship.”
139	They went on to quote from DPP v Meyers at [58].  They quoted the following:
“Violence of this kind is alarmingly widespread and extremely harmful.  The statistics about the incidence of women being killed or seriously injured by vengeful former partners are truly shocking.  Although the cases under consideration do not fall into that worst category, they are symptomatic of what can fairly be described as an epidemic of family violence.  General deterrence is accordingly a sentencing principle of great importance in cases such as these.  Those who might in a mood of anger, or frustration, or bitterness, contemplate this kind of violent entry into the home of a former spouse or partner must realise that if they do, they will almost certainly spend a long time in prison.”
140	I hasten to add that this was not the context in which you committed your offences, seeing you were already in the home.  In any event, the Court went on in Skeates to say:
“The Court has ‘made it clear that acts of violence in a domestic setting, and in particular by men towards women, are utterly abhorrent and unacceptable’.  The strength of the language used in these statements is not accidental.  Family violence is contemptible.  It warrants both condemnation and appropriate punishment.
As is plain from these authorities, the fundamental importance of general deterrence in arriving at the appropriate punishment does not dimmish the value of specific deterrence and protection of the community as sentencing considerations.  And, the gravity of family violence offending will be aggravated if it breaches an extant FVIO [family violence intervention order] or is committed in front of children.”
141	The Court went on to say:
“The seriousness of family violence and the harm it inflicts is not to be simply equated with physical injury.  Family violence is now understood and defined in law to encompass behaviour that is physically, sexually, emotionally, psychologically and economically abusive or threatening or coercive, even if such behaviour does not constitute a criminal offence.  That kind of behaviour produces situations where people, disproportionately women, live in ‘real and justified fear of men who are or were their intimate partners’.  It produces a domestic atmosphere steeped in dread.  It robs victims of capacity and agency and also engenders shame.  
It follows that in assessing the totality of the circumstances that pertain to any offence committed in the context of family violence, the surrounding behaviours of the offender must be considered to assess the true gravity of the offending and for ‘the sentence to vindicate the dignity of the victim’.”
142	I have referred there to paragraphs 56 to 62 of the decision in Skeates.
143	In the course of submissions, I was referred to some sentences of this Court and a decision of the Court of Appeal, DPP v Saxton [2017] VSCA 357.  I have had regard to these matters and, in relation to the Court of Appeal decision, the observation that the sentence imposed in that case was merciful.  In any event, I have had regard to current sentencing practice, bearing in mind that this is but one consideration when imposing sentence and it is not a controlling one.  I have also borne in mind the remarks of the High Court in Kilic as well as the other cases to which I have referred, the most recent of them being our Court of Appeal in Skeates.
144	Strong weight must attach to general deterrence in a bid to deter others from behaving as you have. 
145	I have considered a report from Ms Carla Lechner, clinical psychologist, dated 12 September 2023.  She was of the view that you had symptoms of major depressive disorder and narcissistic personality disorder traits.  She said that you reported that your marriage seemed to deteriorate after your first child was born and you felt disconnected.  You said that your angry and aggressive responses to arguments were an attempt to manage and improve the situation.  Ms Lechner said: “He does not appear to understand that the relationship may have been deteriorating on account of his controlling and aggressive behaviour.”  She said that your symptoms of major depressive disorder and some features of narcissistic personality disorder, such as lack of empathy and a strong need for admiration, were present when she assessed you.
146	She conducted a Spousal Assault Risk Assessment of you. She said that the SARA provided two numerical estimates to assist evaluators in making a final risk judgement.  She said:
“One is based on the number of risk factors in which there is “definite” evidence, while the other is based on the combined number of risk factors with definite or partial evidence.  In both instances Mr Forrest (pseudonym) is identified as having a moderate-high number of risk factors.  However, had he remained in the relationship I would have considered the risk level to be “high” on account of the escalating nature of the violence.  Moderating factors that seem to have now reduced that risk include the passage of time with Mr Forrest (pseudonym) making no known attempt to contact the complainant, and what at face value appears to be his insight regarding aspects of his abuse towards her.  He appears to have accepted that the relationship is totally over, hence, is now better described as a “moderate” risk of spousal violence.”
147	Ms Lechner said that the level of risk meant that you were in a category that posed the same risk as the average violent offender and would therefore require a moderate level of supervision and resources to address your risk of spousal violence.  She said that the SARA assessment indicated that the critical items which were relevant to your risk appeared to be an inability to curb your angry impulses, coupled with a sense of failure.  She said that you were at most risk of engaging in such behaviour again within a relationship that did not match your expectations or did not put you as the centrepiece of the partnership.
148	She said that you accepted responsibility for your actions and understood that you had caused the complainant fear.  However, lacking in your narrative was a description of your behaviour as appalling or disgraceful and you had limited understanding of the impact of your actions on your children.  She said that your risk level could be further reduced through psychological intervention.  She said that you would benefit from attending a Mens Behavioural Change Program, and that you were likely to find a period of incarceration difficult to manage especially in view of your current mental health problems – that you were suffering depression and were likely to experience a further downturn in your mood in custody, especially as you would not be able to assist your elderly parents. 
149	Before you were placed on remand, you and your brother, Tom, were helping your parents with their day-to-day needs, as each are rather frail and have health issues. You have expressed your worry that your parents might pass away whilst you are in jail.  
150	I have also considered your counsel's submissions in relation to your mental health. He said that you had been experiencing anxiety to crippling levels; that you had been diagnosed with depression and anxiety and had been taking anti‑depressants since 2019.  There is nothing which indicates that there was any relevant impairment of mental function operating on you at the time of the offending which would result in reduction of your moral culpability which, as I have previously found, is high.  However, I accept that time in custody will be harder for you as this will be your first time in jail, due to the state of your mental health, as well as your concern for your aging parents in your absence, including your worry that one or other of them might become ill or die whilst you are in jail. I also allow for the likelihood that your mental health may well deteriorate whilst you are in jail. 
151	I make some allowance for custody hardship due to COVID‑19 restrictions as, to my understanding, these have been largely relaxed, although it is true that there appears to be a resurgence in COVID-19 and these restrictions are likely to fluctuate.  Also, you have endured a hard time in custody due to anxiety in respect of contracting COVID‑19, although there was no evidence put before me that you had experienced such anxious thoughts.  In any event, I note that there are vaccines readily available and COVID numbers in jails are currently very low. However, as there are some restrictions in place and a likelihood that these might well continue or become harsher, and the restrictions have already impacted on you, I make an allowance in your favour in these respects. 
152	I allow for a fairly substantial discount in the sentence you would otherwise receive because of the stage at which you entered pleas of guilty, but also factoring in other circumstances.  You conducted a contested committal hearing, which is your right, and you are not to be punished for this but, in doing so, you did not save the witnesses the time and trouble of giving evidence, nor did you save the community the time and expense of contested proceedings in the Magistrates' Court.  Having said this, I have also factored in that you were facing a significant number of charges at that time, including a number of more serious charges in circumstances where the prosecution had maintained a stance in relation to the more serious charges up to the point of settlement negotiations before the sentencing indication which I conducted.
153	Your counsel submitted that given the volume and seriousness of the charges, there was no realistic forensic manner in which the case could be resolved in a piecemeal way.  I have had regard to this situation in sentencing you.  However, I have also had regard to the fact that you did not appear to offer to resolve any matter until the negotiations prior to the sentencing indication hearing in this Court.  It is also somewhat relevant that new counsel came into the matter for you and the prosecution rather recently.  I have factored that in as well.
154	I also allow for a palpable discount in your sentence in addition for you pleading guilty during the period of the backlog of trials in this Court.  In doing so, you have contributed to the reduction in that backlog, and the law says that I must give you a palpable allowance or discount for such a contribution. 
155	In my view, Mr Forrest (a pseudonym), you have a good way to go in developing insightful remorse as to how your actions impacted the victim and as to the seriousness of your offending. Your counsel said at the hearing that you wished to apologise to the primary victim, who was in court when this occurred.  I note that this aspect was not recorded in your counsel's written submissions.  He told me that you had instructed him to say this at some stage before the plea hearing. You told your counsel to convey to the court that you would also be most cooperative in any compensation application that the victim might make against you for the harm caused by you.  You should be clear that I have taken this into account as a further sign of remorse.
156	A number of your character referees expressed surprise at the nature of the offences you have committed, and some said that you had expressed remorse, in particular, in respect of the loss of contact with your children. 
157	In view of matters raised in Ms Lechner's report and the way in which you conducted yourself over the prolonged period of offending, as well as your unpreparedness to acknowledge guilt to any offending until fairly recently, I must say that your apology that you wished to convey to the victim in court rang somewhat hollow.  On the other hand, you were able to take responsibility for your conduct when speaking with Ms Lechner, describing it as “primitive”, albeit that you seemed to under value the impact that your offending had on the victim. 
158	It appears that your shortcomings in this regard may have something to do with your personality issues including narcissistic tendencies. Your expressions of remorse to some of the character referees appear to relate to your regret for your own predicament rather than your actions and their impact on others.  In the end, I am of the view that your insight and heartfelt remorse are works in progress, but I accept that you do have some remorse and insight in respect of your offending. 
159	In sentencing you I take into account your background.
160	You are 60 years old and you were 50 through to 56 during the course of the offending.
161	You are of Greek heritage.  Your father is aged 92 and your mother is 83 years old.  Your parents are still married and live together in a suburb of Melbourne.  Your father is a retired butcher, and your mother is a retired factory worker – both worked full-time whilst you were growing up.
162	You were raised in suburban Melbourne by your parents, along with your two younger brothers, who are now aged 57 and 54.  Both your brothers live in Melbourne.  No member of your family has had any criminal or legal issues and live ordinary prosocial lives.  Your upbringing was a conventional and solid one.  You recalled no significant trauma or deprivation.  However, you were met with corporal punishment at the hands of your mother.  Your family was not wealthy but it was a happy one, and you are very close to your parents.
163	When you were eight years old you developed a kidney disease which required you to take medication, and this has resulted in reduced function of one of your kidneys.
164	You come from a very large extended family with the majority of the members of it living in Melbourne.  You belong to a rich family network, so you do enjoy good family support.
165	You attended primary and high school in Prahran, and you were a capable student, preferring humanities.  You were awarded a scholarship to attend high school which helped with expenses for books and uniforms.  You finished school in 1981 and gave some thought to pursuing further study at university.  However, due to family pressures to start earning, you entered the workforce.
166	You have a longstanding work history of which you are quite proud.  You started as a mechanic’s apprentice.  However, you did not like this and stopped after a year or so.  You then embarked on an office job with the Australian Defence Force, and you have worked in office or professional environments ever since that time.
167	Between 1986 and 1998, you worked as an account manager and sales executive with a media/publication company.  You found sales and marketing were very fulfilling, feeling like you went from being a nobody to being a somebody.  You managed staff and also relished working with senior executives.
168	In 1999, you were happy to transition to the community television station Channel 31.  You are most proud of the work that you did with this television station.  This occurred at a time when the station was under significant financial stress and potential closure.  You were instrumental in turning things around by putting community service announcements out in multiple languages, expanding the reach to different communities which then enabled the station to access testimonials, and this gave it credibility in the business community which then led to investment.
169	After working at Channel 31, you worked as a business development manager at a media company in Scoresby before embarking on property development between 2005 and 2009.  You then returned to media as national advertising manager at a media company in 2010.  From 2011 to 2016, you worked alongside the complainant, who was the owner-operator of the florist business which was referred to in the Prosecution Opening and to which I have referred.  In 2016, you returned to sales as a customer relations officer which was essentially call centre work.  You worked with this organisation from 2016 until quite recently.
170	When you were initially charged with the offences, you were stood down.  After an internal HR process, you were reinstated but placed on probation with various conditions, including a prohibition on discussing the charges with your colleagues.  However, your employment was terminated on 24 May 2023, as the company changed hands and all staff on probation were terminated as part of a downsizing process.  You tried to obtain further employment and in doing so you had been upfront about your charges.  As a result, employers were loath to employ you, advising you to apply again once your legal situation was resolved.  I understand that this was the longest period in your life that you had not worked.
171	You have had other major relationships in your life before that with the complainant.  You have had a relationship from 1991 to 2000 with one woman, living in a de facto relationship with her.  You then had a second de facto relationship with another woman from 2002 to 2004.  There are no children from either of these relationships.
172	I have also taken into account the character references tendered on your behalf. These reflect knowing you to be a kind and generous person who expressed pride in his children - not the kind of person to commit offences such as those before me.  I have taken those into account, bearing in mind the nature of the offences you committed for which I now sentence you and the period over which these were committed.
173	I take into account the extra curial punishment that you have suffered in respect of this offending.
174	You have been unable to see your children since March 2019, which has been a source of great sadness for you, and you are concerned that you might not have a relationship with them in the future.  You have been advised to pursue any rights that you might have to see your children after the conclusion of this case. It is to be hoped that this is done in such a way that does not exacerbate or trigger any trauma that your offending has caused. 
175	A further aspect of extra curial punishment has been your loss of employment, and you have been unable to find more work due to your offending. 
176	Further, your bail conditions which you have undertaken for about five years have meant that you have not been able to associate with some of your friends and relatives as they were witnesses in the case.  This has resulted in a sense of isolation for you, although I do not understand that you have been excluded from all family and friends. I was told that you had withdrawn a good deal which has contributed to your sense of isolation.
177	At the plea hearing, I was told that you also had your dog put down, as there would be no-one to look after it in your absence.  I must say that this occurred to me as being a rather drastic action, but it is one that you chose to take, and I take it into account as a form of extra curial punishment. 
178	I have also taken into account your various medical issues, although largely these seem to be manageable with the help of medication.  However, this may well be another source of hardship in custody, and I have taken it into account.
179	I was told that prior to your remand you were living off your savings, and I was told of the various expenses you had including a mortgage and large credit card debt. When I enquired, it was confirmed that you also had a neighbouring property and had received rental income from this, but this was no longer the case. 
180	I take into account that there has been substantial delay in this matter, such that you have had the anxiety of these matters hanging over your head.  Also, in the period of five years you have not re-offended so, in this case, you have shown positive steps toward rehabilitation. 
181	You are now in your advanced middle age, as your counsel termed it, and you have reached a significant age before you started committing criminal offences, which is a matter in your favour.  I am sure that jail has been and will be a salutary experience for you.  On the other hand, you commenced offending against the victim, and you would not be deterred from doing so for an extensive period, notwithstanding attempted interventions along the way.  Factoring in all relevant matters, including your lack of subsequent offending, your strong work history and community support, but also factoring in your mental health issues and degree of insightful remorse, I assess your prospects of rehabilitation as being guardedly very good. 
182	I place less than moderate weight on specific deterrence and protection of the community. 
183	At a sentence indication hearing, I said that the highest head sentence that you would receive if you were to plead guilty was six years' imprisonment, but that you might do better than this at the plea hearing.  I indicated that it would be appropriate to impose a sentence where there was a substantial gap between the head sentence and non-parole period. You entered pleas of guilty to the offences before me on the basis of the sentence indication that I gave.
184	At the plea hearing, your counsel, Mr Moore, submitted that in view of the matters raised or expanded on at the plea hearing (which included the nature of the offences you committed, their maximum penalties and current sentencing practice), that a significantly lesser sentence than my indication was warranted in your case.  He said that it would be appropriate for you to receive a sentence which reflected a large gap between the head sentence and non-parole period, a submission I had previously accepted.
185	Having considered counsel's submissions and all relevant matters to which I have referred, I have arrived at a sentence which, in my view, is appropriate in your case.
186	You are convicted of each of the offences and sentenced as follows:
Charge 1: 18 months' imprisonment. 
Charge 2: 12 months' imprisonment.
Charge 3:  15 months’ imprisonment.
Charge 4:  12 months’ imprisonment.
Charge 5:  16 months’ imprisonment.
Charge 6:  12 months’ imprisonment.
Charge 7:  2 years’ imprisonment.
Charge 8: 2 years’ imprisonment.
Charge 9:  15 months’ imprisonment.
Charge 10:  20 months’ imprisonment.
Charge 11:  2 years 2 months’ imprisonment, which will be the base sentence.
Charge 12:  2 years’ imprisonment.
187	I direct that one month from the sentences on Charges 1, 2, 4 and 6, plus three months from the sentences on Charges 3, 5 and 9, five months on Charge 10, and six months from the sentences on Charges 7, 8 and 12, be served cumulatively with each other and with the base sentence.
188	This produces a total effective sentence of 5 years and 2 months' imprisonment, and I direct that you serve 2 years 10 months before becoming eligible for parole.
189	I declare you have already served 64 days by way of pre-sentence detention.
190	If not for your pleas of guilty, I would have sentenced you to a total effective sentence of 7 years' imprisonment with a non- parole period of 5 years.
191	Is there anything arising counsel?
192	MR PICKERING:  No, Your Honour.
193	HER HONOUR:  Very well, thank you.  I am now going to adjourn, Mr Moore.  Did you wish to have a word with Mr Forrest (a pseudonym) before I terminate the transmission?
194	MR MOORE:  Thank you for that opportunity, Your Honour, but I have booked a conference with him at 4 o'clock this afternoon so I won't need to prevail you of that, Your Honour.
195	HER HONOUR:  All right, very well.  Yes, thank you.  Very well, we will now adjourn.
- - -