Corey Hermann sentencing remarks (written) now online: classic.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/V…
Here is the background to the temporary suppression of information about the victim's death. Hollingworth J rightly lifted a wrongly imposed suppression order. 
As per all reporting, the remarks only briefly cover the evidence against Hermann, and omit the most damning evidence: D's DNA match to swabs in V's vagina. The sensitivities are obvious, but I don't understand not mentioning this, given its importance and the rape charge.
There is little factual dispute about what happened, but where D got the murder weapon (a pipe) and a WD 40 can remains an odd mystery. Hollingworth J rightly held that there's insufficient evidence of significant planning to the crime.
The remarks of course spend some time on Aiia Maasarwe and her family, but are otherwise devoted to trying to understand Hermann. There is an unsurprising history of neglect, abuse, mental illness and homelessness but, astonishingly, no prior criminal convictions at all.
Hollingworth J applied Bugmy (on disadvantage due to indigeneity) and Verdins (on reduced culpability but increased danger due to mental illness), which she held applied to a severe personality disorder (distinguishing a VSCA decision on dependant and adjustment disorders.)
D got the 'utilitarian' guilty plea discount (for saving all the expense and stress of a trial) but little other credit for the plea, given the 'overwhelming' evidence (alas, not properly set out) and his limited and dubious expressions of remorse.
Hollingworth rightly held that, despite the obvious similarities, the sentencing of Jaymes Todd for the murder of Eurydice Dixon is not a useful comparator in this case - due to Todd's lengthy premeditation and his entirely different mental condition.
She held that the case was 'well above the mid-range' for both murder and rape, imposing 32 years for the murder, 12 years for the rape, and allowing eight years of overlap in the sentences. 30 years non-parole. (If he had pled not guilty, it would have been 40 with 35 NP.)
All things considered, these are quite brief sentencing remarks, but I think that reflects how little anyone knows about why or - in some respects - how these crimes occurred. I was surprised that we learnt little about D's accounts to the police.
