I am reigning in my expectations about this sentence coming up. There is provision for Justice Beale to tangle Borce up for a very long time, even on a 'manslaughter' conviction, but things can go pear shaped.
The thing about Victorian Law courts, and particularly, the Victorian Supreme Court, is , it is generally fearless in it's application of the law, just a tiny bit more that other State Supreme Courts, with the exception of NSW, which has more mandatory sentencing conditions.
It is still my fervent hope that public expectation, that esoteric factor, you can't measure it, you can't pin it down, but it's solid and immovable, nonetheless, will play a large part in the sentencing component in this particular death of a woman, in the prime of her life, in her own home, with a lifetime to look forward to, loved and appreciated by her many friends and family, and a law abiding taxpaying contributing member of the community.
Surely this has to count for something, in the totting up and dishing out of punishment and deterrence? Because if the deterrence factor is glossed over, men right across Victoria will be eyeing off the inconvenient wife with harder eyes, and the endless burial places one can hide the body of that inconvenient wife will be crowded with jerks like Borce, checking out the suitability , there will be traffic jams up and down Mount Macedon. Not nice for the locals.