Ell 
IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA
AT Melbourne
CRIMINAL DIVISION	Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication	
GENERAL LIST
Case Nos. CR-23-01368 & CR-25-00913
Indictment Nos. N12105043.2A & N12105043.2B

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS		
		
v		
		
JOSHUA CAIN BULLOCK		

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE HOGAN	
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne	
DATE OF PLEA HEARING:	23 June 2025	
DATE OF SENTENCE:	26 June 2025	
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Bullock	
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VCC 877		

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:	CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: 	Following a trial, offender convicted of one charge of causing injury recklessly, one charge of common law assault, one charge of make threat to destroy property and one charge of make threat to kill – Family violence context to offending.  Offender also pleaded guilty to one charge of damaging property.
Legislation Cited:	Sentencing Act 1991
Cases Cited:	Skeates (a pseudonym) v The King [2023] VSCA 226
Sentence:	7 years’ and 3 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years’ and 9 months

---

APPEARANCES:
	Counsel	Solicitors	
For the DPP	Ms J Cavka (solicitor)
	Solicitor for the Office of Public Prosecutions	
			
For the Offender	Ms J Clark	Valos Black & Associates	

HER HONOUR:

1	Joshua Cain Bullock, following a jury trial on Indictment Number N12105043.2A, you were found guilty of one charge of causing injury recklessly (Charge 4), which carries a maximum penalty of 5 years’ imprisonment; one charge of common law assault (Charge 5), which carries a maximum penalty of 5 years’ imprisonment; one charge of making a threat to destroy property (Charge 7), which carries a maximum penalty of 5 years’ imprisonment; and one charge of making a threat to kill (Charge 12), which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.  You were acquitted of one charge of aggravated burglary (Charge 1), one charge of false imprisonment (Charge 2), one charge of causing injury intentionally (Charge 3, an alternative to Charge 4), three other charges of making a threat to kill (Charges 6, 8 and 13), one charge of making a threat to commit a sexual offence (Charge 9) and two charges of making a threat to inflict serious injury (Charges 10 and 11).
2	Following the return of the guilty verdicts, you also pleaded guilty to one charge of damaging property on Indictment Number N12105043.2B (Charge 1), which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.  This related to attending the home of the son of your victim of the offending of which the jury found you guilty.  It was 1.30am on 26 September 2022, 11 days after you had offended against his mother on 15 September 2022, and 10 days after you had been interviewed by police in relation to such offending.  You were observed kneeling next to the car belonging to her son.  You were wearing a black balaclava.  When her son asked what you were doing, you stated that you were letting the air out of a back tyre of the car.  He began to record the conversation and you later left.  When he checked the back tyre, he found that it was completely deflated.  When interviewed by police on 28 September 2024, you admitted to the offence.
3	The offending of which the jury found you guilty occurred in the context of what appears to have been a relativity short-lived relationship between yourself and the victim.  There is something of a disparity between the two of you as to what caused its decline.  It is clear, however, that from 1.40pm on 15 September 2022, the day of the offending, your victim had made clear to you that she did not want anything further to do with you as a result of, firstly, her becoming aware of a conversation you had had with her ex-partner in which you informed him that you had taken out an interim intervention order against her (which had actually lapsed) and, secondly, you having cast aspersions against her character that she had sexually propositioned a 14-year-old boy and made sexual advances towards your son.  On the other hand, you claimed that you had “given [her] 3 chances to make things work with [you]” and that “[she] came back a bigger psycho everytime (sic)” and told her to “stop being a loser and stalking [you] & move on with [her] man & [her] young lady & forget about [you]”.  You painted her as a dysfunctional drunk, pill popper and liar in both your record of interview on 16 April 2023 and in your sworn evidence before the jury.
4	Despite the victim telling you that she wanted nothing more to do with you and you telling her to forget about you, at approximately 5.00pm on 15 September 2022, you entered the victim’s home and, whilst there, you committed the offending on Charges 4, 5, 7 and 12 before leaving shortly after 8pm.
5	I pause here to note that a significant issue at trial was how you entered the victim’s house.  The prosecution case, on the aggravated burglary charge of which you were acquitted, was that, whilst you knew or were reckless as to the victim being present inside, you climbed in the front window of the victim’s lounge room window and entered her home, without her consent.  Your version of events was that you knocked on the victim’s front door and she invited you in.  Consistent with the jury’s verdict of not guilty on Charge 1, aggravated burglary, in sentencing you, I have not considered nor taken into account that your entry into the house was other than lawful.
6	Another issue at trial was whether you falsely imprisoned the victim after entering the house.  Again, consistent with the jury’s verdict of not guilty on Charge 2, false imprisonment, in sentencing you, I have not considered nor taken into account the allegation that you held the victim in her house against her will.
7	The conduct comprising the charges on which you were found guilty is as follows:
(a)	In relation to Charge 4, causing injury recklessly, you “pushed [your] finger under [the victim’s] arm” on a “pressure point”, causing a bruise; “bent [her] forward and sort of in this weird position” causing her to feel “something crack inside” and be “in a fair bit of pain”; “after the rib had broken … [you] kicked [her] in the same side very hard” so that she “just couldn’t breathe at that point”; “stomped on [her] stomach” with “hard force” which “made [her] … curl up in … excruciating pain”; and “stomped on [her] hand too”.
(b)	In relation to Charge 5, common assault, you “push[ed] [her] body … into itself” so that it was “almost folded in half” and she “heard [her] neck crack”; applied force to “a pressure point on [her] neck”; “banged [her] head into the floor”; “put [your] hands around [her] throat … and over [her] mouth and … bang[ed] [her] head into the floor”; put “[your] hands around [her] throat, pull[ed] at [her] hair” so that you “literally smother[ed] [her] to the point where [she] felt like [she] was gunna (sic) pass out”; and when “[you] realised that [she] blocked [you] on [her] phone … come (sic) at [her] and grabb[ed] [her] hair” and “bang[ed] [her] head on the floor”.
(c)	In relation to Charge 7, making a threat to destroy property, you told the victim that you had put a quite big can of fuel in her back shed and that you were “going to burn down [her] house”.
(d)	In relation to Charge 12, making a threat to kill, you brought the can of fuel, a fire lighter in its packaging and a knife to open the packaging, into the victim’s bedroom, “lit the .. lighter” and, after the victim said “please don’t kill me”, replied “well, if you shut up, I won’t.  It’s either gunna (sic) be you or me …  you’ll never see your daughter again”.
8	At the trial, the evidence was that, although you had known the victim and her sister for some time, it was only at some point earlier in 2022 that you had developed some form of relationship with her, albeit that it apparently was not sexual.
9	When interviewed by police on 16 September 2022 about the allegations which formed the basis of the charges on the indictment at trial, you denied that you had been to the victim’s house at approximately 5pm on 15 September 2022 and denied that you had committed any of the offences.  You spent a great deal of time describing the victim’s emotional instability, alcohol abuse and predisposition for physical violence.  Indeed, in a very lengthy record of interview, the police tried on multiple occasions to bring you back to the allegations about which they were interviewing you, but you seemed to want to spend time to ventilate your concerns about the victim’s behaviour.  These included an incident where she is alleged to have been drunk, and, in the course of a physical altercation with you in May 2022, broke a tooth of yours, and then, later, in or about July 2022, you obtained an interim intervention order against her.
10	When you gave evidence on oath before the jury you admitted that you had lied to police when you denied going to the victim’s house at approximately 5pm on 15 September 2022 but denied all allegations of offending.  These same matters about the victim’s flaws mentioned in your record of interview were ventilated by you in your evidence at trial.  I must say that the full gravamen of the alleged conduct of the victim, which you said made it necessary for you to make application for an interim intervention order in July 2022 against her, was less than clear.  You seemed to indicate that she had let herself into your house and telephoned you to let you know that she was there and having a sleep on your couch, and you later arrived home, but apparently invited her to stay for dinner.  You maintained that it was difficult for you to encourage her to go home that night, although you apparently succeeded.
11	The interim intervention order was due to expire on 9 September 2022, yet you told the jury that, about a week prior to this, you had attended your victim’s home and left flowers in a crystal vase and a box of chocolates and a note for her.  You told the jury that, in spite of drunken and off-putting behaviour by your victim, she was wonderful when she was sober.  In the series of SMS and MMS messages tendered as Exhibit “D” at the trial, which cover the period from 4 September 2022 to 15 September 2022, you expressed your love for her on numerous occasions.
12	At the trial, your counsel, Ms Clark, relied upon various responses of the victim to your messages which expressed her love or appreciation, or consisted of emojis of love hearts or faces blowing kisses.  In her final address to the jury, Ms Clark invited the jury to consider that the victim was, as you had described her, emotionally unstable, and prone to turn on you.  This was the foundation for an argument put to the jury in support of your version of events given on oath that, when you had attended her home on 15 September 2022 for the purpose of collecting some of your belongings, the victim had let you into her home and, then, run at you and attacked you, and any injuries she had suffered were as a consequence of you simply putting up your hands or trying to get her off you, so that she would stop hitting or punching you.  This was not put as self-defence, as such, but rather as a submission that you lacked the relevant element, whether intentional or reckless, to cause her injury or to assault her.
13	Although the jury were obviously not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on the charges of which they acquitted you, they rejected this version of events of yours on Charges 4 and 5, and plainly accepted that you had recklessly caused injury to the victim (Charge 4) and had inflicted other forms of physical force upon her by way of assault (Charge 5).
14	Your version of events relating to Charges 7 and 12 was that you did not threaten to destroy her house by burning it down or make a threat to kill her whilst you were in her bedroom, after putting her on her bed.  You stated that you had gone outside and got the jerry can of fuel and had brought it into the bedroom, where you already had the firelighters and an actual lighter, because you were planning to take all these things and your bag of other belongings with you as you were leaving her home.
15	Police had obtained evidence which captured you on CCTV footage at the Seymour BP service station filling up the jerry can with fuel on the afternoon of 15 September 2022.  This was tendered at the trial.  You subsequently took that jerry can of fuel and put it in the shed at the victim’s house, even though you told the jury that you had no intention of resuming any relationship with her and were quite happy about her moving from Seymour to Wangaratta.  You told the jury that you had purchased the firelighters and the actual lighter itself for a friend who was staying with you, as he had barbecue equipment on the back of his truck, and you had taken to having a barbecue in the local park together.  You stated that you had obtained a knife from the kitchen to open the packaging of the lighter at the victim’s request, as she wished to keep it for her use.  Police had also obtained CCTV footage of you purchasing the lighter and the firelighters in the local Seymour IGA supermarket on the afternoon of 15 September 2022.  Given that you lived reasonably close to that IGA supermarket and, indeed, to the BP service station, it makes no sense that you would not have taken these items home if that was your intended purpose, rather than taking them to your victim’s house.  It is plain that the jury rejected your version of events about these matters.
16	As one looks at the messages between you and your victim which formed Exhibit “D” at the trial, those from yourself considerably outnumber the responses from your victim.  Although there are brief responses of affection or emojis from the victim to you up until 12 September 2022, your messages are far more revealing.
17	I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you were quite obsessed with your victim, and your messages reveal that you were keen to ingratiate yourself with her, by asking whether you can assist with something for meals, thanking her for letting you join her for dinner, as she is “the only person in the world [you] care about”, sending messages that she should call you when she is ready to be picked up from the hospital, and then following this up by reciting all the care that you had lavished upon her in getting her to hospital because “I just care about you a lot & you have become a very important person in my life and the only way that I can sum it up is a beast always protects his beauty” (a reference to the pet names you used for each other).
18	Notwithstanding that in both your record of interview and in your evidence before the jury you had expressed that you were perfectly content with the victim moving to Wangaratta and you had planned to move to Bendigo, when it became apparent that she was going to move to Wangaratta, your messages seemed to become increasingly importuning.  At 1.34:40 on 11 September 2022, you sent her a lengthy text message comprising multiple verses of the song “I’m only one call away”, assuring her that you would always be there for her.  On the following day, 12 September 2022, at 5.20:50, you exhibited extraordinary solicitude for her: “I didn’t get your call after you ate your dim sims before you went to sleep, so I hope that you’re okay and getting plenty of bed rest after a long day – I’m going to rest my eyes for a bit as I waited for your call but you must not be feeling well, I’ll keep my sound on for when you call so I don’t miss it #HUGGS [heart emoji]”.
19	The solicitude which is evident in your messages was matched by you spending time to help the to victim clear her house of rubbish to be thrown out, and mowing lawns.  You and she had a takeaway dinner of dim sims on 12 September 2022, and, on 13 September 2022, the victim took you out for a meal at a local hotel to say thank you for your help, and the two of you apparently remained at her house drinking into the early hours of the morning.  Following this, at 2.47:32 on 14 September 2022 you sent a message saying “Thank you for an amazing night”.  She responded “LOL all good see you in a few hours xx”.  You then responded “I love you #CUDDLESNUGGLES” at 2.52:17.
20	The following morning, at 7.14:02 on 14 September 2022, you sent her a message asking the victim if she was awake.  She responded that she was just waking up and did not want to get out of bed.  You, at 7.22, enquire as to whether she is getting the 8.26 or the 9.48 or 13.23 train to Wangaratta.  The victim responded that she was just getting up and needed a Macca’s run and strong coffee.  You told her that you were “on my way”.  She responded that she would get a taxi and that you should stay warm, but, nevertheless, you picked her up.
21	Very soon after your victim left on the train for Wangaratta at 8.26 am on 14 September 2022, you texted her at 8.30:16: “Never forget my beauty that your beast will always love you [heart emoji]”.  You got no response to this, so followed it up with a message at 8.51:30 as follows: “Just letting you know that wether (sic) you sign on the dotted line today or not for the place in Wang i will wait as long as i need to for you to be comfortable if we were to ever become partners again as an amazing woman like you only comes along once in a lifetime & you mean everything to me so wether (sic) its (sic) a day , week , month or even a year your Beast will always be here for you [fist bumping emojis] #NUCKLES . P.s i have loved you since the first time i meet (sic) you & im so glad i got to know you better this year . P.s Just for the record you’ll always be my favourite person.”
22	This text is in stark contrast to what you told police in the record of interview: namely, that the victim was the person “wanting to have a relationship again.  I said we couldn’t because she needed to move because of her daughter ...”  Later in the record of interview, you claimed that she was very conflicted and wanted to live with you, but she wanted to live in Wangaratta to be closer to her daughter. When asked whether you were content with the break-up, you answered that you were, and went on to say “Cos that’s why I even said to her in some of the messages yesterday, I said that as much as, you know, and, you know, as much as I love her stuff like that ... you know, I’m – I’m able to move on.”  This theme was repeated throughout your record of interview and your evidence.
23	On 14 September 2022, despite no response from the victim to your assurance that you would wait as long as required for a relationship with her, you sent further messages to her at 12.35:14pm and 8.05:50pm and 9.17:34pm, asking on initially what train she was getting back, then, not to forget to give you a call before she goes to sleep, and, finally, saying “Ni-night kit kat” (another pet name you had for her).
24	Yet, by the following morning it had become apparent that you had stated things about her and had even communicated with her daughter.  The latter took place in spite of you having never met her daughter.  Indeed, you told police that “her daughter doesn’t know me from a bar of soap”.  By 11.57:49 the victim had plainly told you that she was very unhappy with what she had learned about your behaviour (presumably when you phoned her at 9.14:39).  You then urged her, at 11.57:49, to call you back.  Thereafter, at 12.03:07, 12.04:44, 1.16:22, 1.17:08, and 1.40:14, the victim let you know in no uncertain terms that she wanted to be left alone, not to contact her, and that she did not want anything more to do with you.  It was in this context that you deemed it appropriate to go around to her house later that day at 5pm.  Indeed, I note that when the victim called 000 shortly after you had left her home on the evening on 15 September 2022, one of her first statements in response to the operator’s enquiry as to what had happened was “I’ve been seeing this guy and [he] was really, I don’t know, pushy …”.
25	As I stated to your counsel at the plea hearing, the tenor of these messages satisfies me beyond reasonable doubt that you very clearly wanted some form of connection and attachment to the victim.  They are in the same vein as your oversolicitous care for her and somewhat cloying attention to her which you described in elaborate detail to police and in your evidence before the jury.  Consistent with the jury verdicts, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the victim telling you that she wanted nothing more to do with you made you extremely angry.  Your anger is evident in your abusive message to her at 1.33:26pm on 15 September 2022, calling her a psycho, a loser, a stalker, and a liar every time that she had told you that she loved you.  I here interpolate that there was no evidence, at all, before the Court that she had stalked you in the weeks leading up to this offending, only your say-so months beforehand, as described in your record of interview, prior to you delivering flowers and chocolates to her.
26	I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that your anger about losing this attachment to the victim caused you to go around and commit the offending of which the jury has found you guilty.
27	Indeed, notwithstanding that, following your arrest on 16 September 2022, police had applied for and obtained an interim Intervention Order with your victim named as the protected person, and you were bailed in relation to that, in February, March and April 2023 you posted multiple comments on Facebook in contravention of the Intervention Order.  These messages constituted subsequent offending by you.  You were charged with and pleaded guilty to six charges of contravening a conduct condition of bail, one charge of contravening a Family Violence Intervention Order, one charge of persistent contravention of a Family Violence Intervention Order, and one charge of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail.  The content of these posts on Facebook formed part of Exhibit “C” at the plea hearing.  The first post, on 14 February, referred to you and your victim by your pet names: “Dear Beauty, my number is still the same.  Beast”.  The next post refers to “Confession time”.  You state that is has been extremely difficult for you to be in love with both her and one of her sisters at the same time.  Others posts have photographs of the victim taken when you were on friendly terms with her and refer to her as “Saint K”.  You state, “despite you trying your best, your struggle with drinking and turning back to selling drugs got the better of you in the end”.  You make references to the victim doing aqua aerobics, “even though [she is] still self-conscious of [her] body” and, stated “yes you were stalking me Saint K”.  You make repeated references to the victim (“Saint K”) and two of her sisters (respectively, “Princess S” and “Lady G”) and what you had done to protect her and keep her safe from harm.  Other messages are addressed to the victim as “Saint K”, telling her that “I’m actually feeling really sad.  I still love you too”, and hearken back to things that you had said to each other in the past.
28	It is no part of my role to punish you for the breach of Intervention Orders or bail conditions.  Those charges to which I have referred were dealt with at Bendigo Magistrates’ Court on 24 January 2024.  You were convicted of them and fined $1,500.  The point I make is that the content of these messages confirms my interpretation of the messages which were tendered at the trial, namely, that I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you were obsessed with the victim and could not cope with her anger which led to her saying that she never wanted to see you again.  As I have previously stated, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that this was the motivation for your offending.
29	Ms Clark, on your behalf, stated that you have no other subsequent offending apart from the contravention charges to which I have just referred, along with one charge of sexual exposure which involved you masturbating whilst on a train committed on 10 January 2023.  The latter charge was dealt with along with the other matters at Bendigo Magistrates’ Court on 24 January 2024, on which occasion you were convicted and fined $1,500.  This leaves aside the matter to which you have pleaded guilty relating to damaging the tyres of your victim’s son shortly after the victim complained to police of your offending on 15 September 2022.  That seems to be a childish and vindictive act by a man of then 40 years of age.  You gave instructions to your counsel that this was in response to you having received threats on Facebook but, according to the prosecutor, Mr Cameron, they came from some female rather than from your victim’s son who owned the car in question.  It shows a nasty and sly attitude, but I agree with counsel that it is relatively minor compared to the other matters for which I must sentence you, and is appropriately dealt with by way of a fine.
30	The plea on your behalf was remarkable for a paucity of mitigatory material.  The court was told that you were born in Melbourne, the only child of your father, who worked for local councils driving street sweepers, and your mother, who was a nurse before you were born and, later, worked at truck stops.  You completed your infant and primary schooling at Wallan and Kilmore Primary Schools and then attended Whittlesea Technical School in Year 7, followed by Broadford Secondary College from Year 8 to Year 11.  Your counsel’s submissions noted that you had repeated Year 10 three times.  You left school part way through Year 11 and, at some stage, injured your right hand in a car accident.  You seem to have a very limited employment history.  You worked with a sound and lighting company for eight months when you were 19 years old and, much later, had worked as a security guard at two separate locations for about two years each.  Other than another two months working in “construction”, you have not been employed.
31	It seems that you were in a relationship for some four years and, in 2004, your partner gave birth to your son.  Your counsel stated that, from infancy, you had cared for your son, who has some form of intellectual disability.  You received Centrelink payments for undertaking that care, until he turned 18 years of age and moved out of home in August 2022.
32	Following the offending for which I must sentence you, you apparently left Seymour to live in Bendigo.  Ms Clark stated that, after commission of the offence to which you pleaded guilty, and, having by then been charged with the offending upon which you stood trial, you were remanded in custody from 28 September to 23 December 2022.  This resulted in you losing your stable rental accommodation, which you had had in Seymour for many years.  After you obtained bail, you lived in Bendigo and then moved to Melbourne in August or September 2023.  In Melbourne you relied upon crisis accommodation for a couple of months, before securing a place at Elizabeth Street Hostel in late October or early November 2023.  You have maintained that accommodation for the last year and a half and pay for it from your Jobseeker payment.  Also, you receive assistance with food services operated by St Vincent de Paul, the Salvation Army and charities at Victoria Market.
33	Ms Clark stated that you have no history of mental health issues, but some years ago were diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes, for which you take Metformin tablets, 1000 milligrams twice per day.  You suffer associated foot neuropathy and require specialist podiatry.  In December 2024 you suffered an infected foot, for which you were hospitalised at the Royal Melbourne Hospital, and received outpatient treatment for some months following that.  You have no alcohol or drug issues and Ms Clark stated that you had complied with your bail conditions by reporting to police three times per week, both in Bendigo and in Melbourne.  She submitted that the Court should find that you have very good prospects of rehabilitation.
34	Tendered at the plea hearing were two character references by people associated with charities who have assisted you since you moved to Melbourne.  Both are in an inappropriate form in that they are emails and are undated and are unsigned.  
35	One reference is from Justin Elliott, a volunteer at Pentecost Care.  It states that he has known you for approximately two years, as you sometimes come into their Franklin Street facility for a meal.  He describes having made a close friendship with you and he considers you friendly, kind, empathetic and “good intentioned”.
36	The other reference is from Anne Balaganeshan, who is a volunteer with the Church of Hope in Franklin Street, Melbourne.  She stated that you attended their church at the end of 2023 in order to benefit from their meals program.  However, you have continued to be engaged with the church community.  She describes you as someone who puts others before himself and shows a commitment to helping vulnerable individuals.  You build relationships, offer mentorship and are trusted and respected in the community.  She expresses the view that you are committed to making positive, lasting changes in your life and that she believes that the past decisions and actions for which you are before the court do not represent the man you are today.
37	There are multiple acts upon which the prosecution relied in support of Charge 4, recklessly causing injury.  The jury were instructed that, if they were satisfied that anyone of these acts had been committed, then they were entitled to give a verdict of guilty on that charge, provided they were satisfied of all of the other elements of the charge.  Doing the best I can, I consider that on the evidence of the victim, both in the 000 call and in her Digitally Recorded Evidence in Chief, all of the matters relied upon by the prosecution as acts causing her injury are either the subject of an injury which can be demonstrated or part of a sequence of events associated with those acts causing evidence of physical injury.  The allegation of your having put your finger under her arm on a pressure point causing a bruise is evident in the Digitally Recorded Evidence in Chief where she spoke of this occurring, and photograph 17 of Exhibit “C” shows a very dark elongated bruise on the inner or underarm portion of her right arm with another small dark bruise above it.  The allegation that her head was bent forward and she felt something crack and was in pain and afterwards had a broken rib was also referred to in the victim’s Digitally Recorded Evidence in Chief during which she pointed to her left hand side and referred to her having trouble breathing.
38	Dr William Dwyer, whom the victim consulted the day after you assaulted her, gave evidence before the jury that the victim reported pain in the ribcage after being kicked and was highly tender in the area of her left 9th rib, which an x-ray reported as being suggestive of an undisplaced fracture of that rib.  He stated that fractures of ribs are often quite subtle on x-ray and, when an x-ray is reported as being highly suspicious of a left rib fracture and the victim is highly tender in that part, that is the usual way to diagnose a fracture.
39	Earlier on in the Digitally Recorded Evidence in Chief, the victim had stated “I felt something crack inside.  I sort of said then ‘you’ve just broken a rib I think”. She went on to state that, “after the rib had broken and because I didn’t be quiet he kicked me in the same side very hard and I’m just sort of, I couldn’t breath at that point I was starting to go in and out of consciousness”.  Later, when police asked her about you having kicked her in the side, she was very distressed.  Police asked her whether you had done anything else and she stated “he stomped on my stomach”.  She was asked how high you had lifted your knee and she said “very, very high”, and what sort of force you had used to stomp on her stomach, and she said “hard force, which made me like curl up in like pain like excruciating pain”.  She was very distressed as she described this.  In addition, she gave evidence in the Digitally Recorded Evidence in Chief that you had stomped on her hand and marks were visible as she pointed to her left hand, stating that this was because she had tried to put her hand up to say stop.  Photograph 18 of Exhibit “D” shows bruising and redness to the left hand of the victim.
40	As far as Charge 5, common law assault is concerned, again, various of your actions were relied upon by the prosecution.  Given the jury’s finding of not guilty on the charge of false imprisonment (Charge 2), I find that, consistent with that verdict, I should not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of acts which appear to be associated with that charge.  These seem to be the allegations that you pulled her by the hair and dragged her back into the hallway after she attempted to escape out the front door and, later, after she attempted to escape out the back door, you again grabbed her by the hair.  Thus, I leave aside those matters and I sentence you on Charge 5 on the basis that the jury was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the very distinctive description that the victim gave in her Digitally Recorded Evidence in Chief about you pushing her body into itself so it was folded in half, applying force to a pressure point on her neck, banging her head on the floor, and putting your hands over her throat and around her mouth and smothering her to the point where she thought she was going to pass out.  There was more than one occasion throughout the three hours that you were in her home that she mentioned that you banged her head on the floor and had your hands in such a position that she was having trouble breathing.
41	Ms Clark submitted that, in the light of your lack of offending over the last two years and your prior criminal history which related to only one court appearance in 2001, the Court should regard your prospects of rehabilitation as being very good.  She submitted that you had demonstrated your ability to comply with the Family Violence Intervention Order over the past two years, after initially having contravened it.
42	As I commented to her at the plea hearing, it is difficult to assess prospects of rehabilitation when you continue to deny your guilt for this offending.  It may be that, since you moved to Melbourne, your involvement with the Church of Hope or Pentecost Care, has helped you find some focus and meaning in your life, but it has not resulted in you acknowledging your guilt for this offending.  There is no evidence of any mitigatory psychological condition suffered by you and there is no explanation for why you thought you could act in this appalling fashion by attacking and threatening the victim in her own home.  In these circumstances, I must be somewhat guarded about your prospects of rehabilitation, as the offending of which the jury has found you guilty shows a calculating and vengeful side of your character, which is very concerning.  Both in your record of interview and in your sworn evidence before the jury, you gave the impression of being a pious and forbearing person who had been a model of patience, kindness and care towards the victim, despite the fact that you lost no opportunity to describe her as regularly having engaged in drunken, volatile and degrading behaviour.  The model of calm, rational and caring behaviour of yours which you portrayed to the jury is inconsistent with the brutal and frightening conduct of which they have found you guilty.
43	You were taller, fitter and some 30 kilograms heavier than your victim.  You knew that your victim had an ongoing issue relating to some form of back injury and pain.  You subjected her to violence which no human being should be subjected, and it is all the worse for the fact that it was in her own home and took place over approximately 3 hours.
44	You made the threat to burn her house down and kill her in circumstances where she could see that you had the means to carry out your threat.  You had a large jerrycan full of petrol, a lighter and firelighters, one of which you actually lit in her presence.  This must have been truly terrifying for your victim, coming as it did after you had already viciously assaulted her.  Approximately 10 minutes after you left her home, she made a call to 000, where her ragged breathing and emotional distress is very evident, as it was on the body-worn camera footage of the first police officer who attended her home and in her Digitally Recorded Evidence in Chief.  She was very distressed, as she described the brutality of you kicking her in the side, stomping on her stomach and her curling up in excruciating pain, and stated that she was terrified.  She stated that, after you put her in bed and then brought the fuel into the bedroom and got a knife to open the firelighters and actually lit one, she could smell the fuel in the room and pleaded “Please don’t kill me”.  She stated she just lay there and cried, thinking, “Well this is it”.
45	Dr Dwyer, who saw the victim on the day after your offending conduct, told the jury that he recalled that she was very shaken and appeared to have been through a very trying experience.  He stated that she was tearful and anxious, and appeared to have been very, very frightened overnight, and very relieved to be safe.  It is plain from the Victim Impact Statement which was filed at the plea hearing that the psychological consequences of your behaviour have been enduring and very adversely impacted upon her life.
46	The Victim Impact Statement made on 19 June 2025 was read aloud to the Court at the plea hearing.  The victim described having a full and meaningful life before your offending, and how your conduct terrorised her in her own place, where she should have felt safe, and she feared she would never see her children or loved ones again.  She said that your offending caused her to feel isolated, trapped and completely vulnerable and has had a real and lasting impact on her life.  She can no longer work due to severe anxiety and Post-Traumatic Stress.  She suffers panic attacks, nightmares and a constant state of fear and hypervigilance.  She now isolates herself from friends and family to whom she was formally connected because she feels so unsafe.  She cannot sleep in her own bed, avoids places and people and sounds that remind her of what happened, and her trust in others has been eroded.  She says she feels broken by what you have done.  You have destroyed her confidence, freedom and peace.  These are understandable and foreseeable consequences of your brutal and frightening conduct.
47	You ran a trial in this matter.  This is your legal entitlement, and you were not convicted of all charges.  However, you have shown no remorse in relation to the conduct of which the jury has found you guilty.  You have no discounts available to you on your sentence by reason of these matters.
48	It is an aggravating feature of your offending that it has occurred in a family-violence context where you had some form of relationship with the victim.  Earlier on the day of the offending, the victim had made very clear to you that she did not want anything more to do with you.  In recent years, there has been a very troubling increase in the amount of violence inflicted in these types of situations.  The Victorian Court of Appeal has repeatedly emphasised that the criminal law now gives greater recognition to the devastating effects of violence perpetrated upon victims, mostly women, by their partners or former partners.  It has made firm statements about the fundamental importance of general deterrence and appropriate punishment in sentencing for family violence offences, the need to condemn such offending as utterly abhorrent and unacceptable, and to acknowledge the harm that it inflicts is beyond causing physical injury because it produces fear in victims and robs them of capacity and agency, and engenders shame.
49	It must be made clear that no one owns another person with whom he is in a relationship.  No one is entitled to force a relationship to continue.  When a person feels aggrieved by the conduct of someone with whom they have been in a relationship and commits offences by way of vengeance or endeavouring to assert control, the courts have made it plain that sentences must be imposed which vindicate the victim and deter this type of conduct.  As previously stated, it is particularly concerning that you attacked the victim in her own home, where she was entitled to feel safe.  This type of offending is one where the predominant sentencing principles must be denunciation of your conduct, general deterrence and community protection.  General deterrence means that, in sentencing you,  a clear message must be sent to would-be perpetrators of family violence that, if they engage in brutal acts like you have done, then they will be sentenced to appropriate punishment by way of imprisonment.
50	The multiple and varied assaults of your victim in her own home, of sufficient force to cause her rib to fracture and clearly identifiable bruising, took place over a period of some three hours.  I have already mentioned the disparity in size and strength between you and the victim and her vulnerability because of a painful back condition.  All of these factors make both Charge 4 and Charge 5 of, at least, midline gravity for those types of cases.  Your threat to burn down the victim’s house and kill the victim while inside, coming on top of the earlier assaults and with the capacity to carry out that threat, by reason of the possession of a jerrycan of petrol, the lighter and firelighters, were very real threats.  They are serious examples of such charges, above the midline of gravity.  Your possession of these items shows planning on your part.  You wanted the victim to be afraid and to feel your sense of power and control, and your actions have had serious longstanding adverse impacts upon the victim’s psychological wellbeing.  Your moral culpability on all four charges is high.
51	In all the circumstances, there is no appropriate sentence to adequately reflect the seriousness of your offending other than a term of imprisonment with a head sentence and non-parole period.  Your counsel submitted that you should be given a Community Corrections Order.  I consider that such a disposition would be manifestly inadequate.  However, I am conscious that you appear to be a person who is now quite isolated and will need support and supervision to re-establish yourself in the community after a period of incarceration.  This has caused me to set the non-parole period which I intend to impose.
52	Totality is an important sentencing consideration, given that all the offending of which the jury have found you guilty occurred over the same timeframe.  In particular, there is an overlap in the factual basis of Charges 7 and 12.
53	On Charge 4, causing injury recklessly, you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of 3 years.
54	On Charge 5, common assault, you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of 2½ years.
55	On Charge 7, making a threat to destroy property, you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of 2½ years.
56	On Charge 12, making a threat to kill, you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of 5 years.
57	The base sentence is that of 5 years imposed on Charge 12.  I order that 1 year of the sentence imposed on Charge 4, 9 months of the sentence imposed on Charge 5, and 6 months of the sentence imposed on Charge 7 be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed on Charge 12 and upon each other.  The total effective sentence is thus 7 years’ and 3 months imprisonment.  I direct that you serve a period of 3 years’ and 9 months imprisonment before becoming eligible for parole.
58	I declare a period of 90 days’ pre-sentence detention to be time reckoned as already served under the sentence imposed this day.
59	On Indictment No. N12105043.2B, on Charge 1, damaging property, you are convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of $400.
60	Upon your conviction on Charges 4, 5, 7 and 12, and upon being satisfied that the property referred to in the Schedule is of negligible value and that it was used or intended to be used in connection with the commission of the offences, I order, pursuant to s 78(1) of the Confiscation Act 1997, that such property be forfeited to the State and further direct that it be placed in the custody of the Chief Commissioner of Police and be held until 28 days from this date, or the conclusion of any appeal proceedings where it may be tested, and or analysed, and then destroyed.  This relates to the knife, Nike water bottle, black dress and Bic lighter packaging.
---