At the time of committing this vile crime, Jason Dinsely was on parole for a previous crime involving rape and attempted strangulation of a woman.

Again we have a violent serial offender against women proffering the excuse he was angry that the victim did not wish to form any relationship with him after meeting him only once.

In Jill Meagher's case, the killer was on parole and he too proffered the excuse that his victim rejected his advances.

This pathetic and pithy fall-back position that anger was the lead motivator is all too often trotted out by men who commit abhorrent and calculated violence against women.

This narrative is aided and abetted by defence counsels who wish to continually give life to this rhetoric.

In this case, Dinsley has been convicted of murdering Sharon Siermans, a young mother who was at home alone with her four-year-old.

Breaking into her home, armed with a cricket bat, Dinsely unleashed a savage attack.

As the prosecutor suggested, his actions were calculated and deliberate as he walked past her house and made the decision to return to his home and return with a weapon and a vicious intent.

The similar themes of Dinsely being on parole at the time of committing these murders, the calculated nature of the crime and a history of sexualised violence against women saw the prosecutor draw parallels with the murders of Jill Meagher and Sarah Cafferkey.

At the sentencing, plea defence counsel recounted Dinsley's difficult childhood and wove that into the narrative of a vocabulary of excuses for a track record of

targeted sexualised violence against women.

For the record, my work is in the area of children who have experienced childhood abuse and many experience feelings of being 'unwanted and alone', as explained by Dinsely's legal counsel.

But there is no link that these feelings lead children to become serial violent offenders targeting women.

In the same hearing, his defence counsel made the repugnant suggestion that Dinsely's crime was not in the realm of other recent murders, such as for Jill Meagher or Sarah Cafferkey, on the incredulous basis that those murders involved the post-murder movement of the bodies.

In Dinsely's case, he left Sharon's body in-situ, as though such an act somehow warranted attention as a mitigating element of the crime.

This puerile form or moral rationale should be loudly rejected by everyone from the judiciary to the public person on the street.

Dinsely brutally bashed this young mother to death after breaking into her home, while her terrified son was in the house. The child witnessed elements of his mother's brutal death and this will no doubt have caused deep trauma for him.

The fact that Dinsley broke into Sharon Siermans' home and murdered her while her terrified son sought refuge in another part of the house should be considered aggravating factors.

The lifeless, beaten body of Sharon was left where she fell, discarded on the floor of her home, only metres from where her distressed and terrified son was hiding.

Like the beads on an abacus, legal counsel for the offender has sought to give a perspective to somehow manoeuvre the murder further down the spectrum of seriousness.

As if granting a concession to help this rhetoric, legal counsel agreed the case was 'vile', but under the shibboleth of plea bargaining sought to introduce an argument against this murder bearing the hallmarks of what is a disturbing pattern of violent murders of women by men with a history of convictions for violence attacks against women.

I am imploring the legal system and the community, please, with our increasing level of awareness about violence against women, let us be sentinels in addressing not just this violence but in addressing the common parlance used to excuse or modify how we should understand these crimes.

Let's remember the statistics of sexual and physical victimisation of women and children.

The United Nations, Amnesty International and World Health Organisation continue to identify gendered violence against females as the most prevalent form of violence committed globally and the most urgent embedded crime for every global nation and community to address.

Lest we forget.