Adams v Xypolitos - [2015] VSC 747

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not-Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL LAW DIVISION

S CR 2013 0015

JO-ANN ADAMS	Applicant
v
JOHN XYPOLITOS	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	T FORREST J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	9 November 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	18 December 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Adams v Xypolitos
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 747

---

CRIMINAL LAW - Application for compensation under s 85B of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) – Offence of murder – Applicant is mother of the deceased – Pain and suffering direct result of offending – Psychiatric injury direct result of offending – Future medical expenses – Quantum – Rehabilitation – Financial circumstances of offender.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the applicant	Mr A Hill	Waller Legal
For the respondent	In person

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

In 2013 the respondent in these proceedings, John Xypolitos, was convicted of the 2003 murder of Gary Greg Adams (‘the deceased’). On 6 December 2013, Curtain J sentenced the respondent to 27 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 24 years.[1] The respondent applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal both his conviction and sentence.[2] In the case of his sentence, leave was refused; and in the case of his conviction, his appeal was dismissed.[3]
[1]The Queen v Xypolitos [2013] VSC 485 (‘sentencing remarks’).
[2]Xypolitos v The Queen [2014] VSCA 339, [1] (‘appeal decision’).
[3]Ibid [3]; [81]; [90].

The applicant, Jo-Ann Adams, is the mother of the deceased. She seeks compensation pursuant to s 85B of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) (‘the Act’) for injury suffered as a direct result of the offence.

Background

The facts of the offending and surrounding circumstances are set out in both Curtain J’s sentencing remarks and in the joint judgment of the Court of Appeal. I summarise them as follows.

The respondent and the applicant were in a relationship. The respondent was in effect the deceased’s step-father. At the time of the offence (December 2003) the deceased was 17 years old. The applicant, respondent and deceased all lived together at this time, however it had been agreed that the respondent would be leaving the house to live elsewhere in the following month.

Although the relationship between the deceased and respondent had initially been good, it had soured by the time of the offence. The deceased told friends that the two of them argued, and it appears that violence was involved on at least two occasions.

On 5 December 2003, the respondent killed the deceased by hitting him to the head with a hammer. The respondent then placed the body of the deceased in a plastic swimming pool in a shed in the backyard of the house.

The applicant returned from work that evening to find the respondent preparing the evening meal. When she asked where her son was, the respondent lied by telling her he had gone out. The following day, the respondent dismembered the body of the deceased using…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Adams v Xypolitos

Details

AGLC: Adams v Xypolitos [2015] VSC 747
Case: [2015] VSC 747
Decision Date: 18 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Adams v Xypolitos, the applicant, Adams, sought compensation under section 85B of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) for the murder of her child by the offender, Xypolitos. The primary issues before the court involved the assessment of compensation for pain and suffering, psychiatric injury, future medical expenses, and the offender’s financial circumstances.

The court had to determine the appropriate quantum of compensation for Adams, considering the severity of her loss due to her close relationship with the deceased. The court evaluated the extent of her pain and suffering and whether it was a direct result of Xypolitos's offending. Additionally, the court assessed the psychiatric injury Adams suffered as a direct consequence of the crime and examined her future medical expenses. The financial circumstances of Xypolitos were also considered to determine his capacity to pay the compensation.

After a thorough review of the evidence and the relevant legislation, the court concluded that Adams was entitled to compensation for her pain and suffering, psychiatric injury, and future medical expenses. The court also took into account the offender’s financial situation in determining the amount of compensation. The final orders of the court included specific amounts to be paid by Xypolitos to Adams for her losses.

Orders