JUDGE:	Beale J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	11 April 2019
DATE OF SENTENCE:	17 May 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Jensen
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 327

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Attempted murder – Intentionally causing serious injury – Home invasion – Stabbing – Offender in long-term incestuous relationship with his sister – Offender aggrieved by sister’s new relationship with first victim – Offender, intoxicated, attended first victim’s home finding him and the offender’s sister asleep in bed together – Offender stabbed them both repeatedly and also stabbed first victim’s mother who intervened – Offending against sister example of domestic violence – Upper end examples of offences – Relatively youthful offender – Limited non-violent antecedents – Plea of guilty – Remorse – Sentenced as a Serious Violent Offender on Charges 2 and 3 – Total effective sentence of 19 years’ imprisonment – Non-parole period of 14 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J Rapke QC and Ms T Saville	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J Williams and Ms C Lloyd	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Circumstances of offending

Hamish Jensen[1], you have pleaded guilty to three offences — the attempted murder of Daniel Whitelaw (charge 1), attempted murder of your sister Samantha Jensen (charge 2) and intentionally causing serious injury to Daniel Whitelaw’s mother Madison Kirby (charge 3).
[1]Pursuant to the anonymisation order in paragraph 85 of these reasons, the name of the accused and the victims have been anonymised in these reasons. These reasons have also been prepared in a form which omits other identifying details.

The maximum penalties for attempted murder and intentionally causing serious injury are 25 years’ and 20 years’ imprisonment respectively.

Though there was little planning to your offending, in another sense these offences had a long gestation.

For many years, commencing when you were 17 years old, you maintained an incestuous relationship with your sister, Samantha. The two of you had a child together, who is now 8 years of age. In 2013, you pleaded guilty to incest with your sister and were placed on a Community Corrections Order (‘CCO’) by Judge Mason of the County Court but you remained infatuated with Samantha and the two of you continued living together.

Your sister and Daniel Whitelaw were workmates from 2014 onwards. According to the agreed Prosecution Summary, after the cessation of your incestuous relationship with Samantha, but whilst she was still living with you, Samantha began an intimate relationship with Daniel. You were unhappy about her new relationship. Binge drinking did nothing to cure your unhappiness. On the night of 5 to 6 May 2017, you were drinking spirits to excess – bourbon and vodka – and at approximately 6.00am on 6 May 2017, you attended Daniel’s home, which he shared with his mother…

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 DPP v Jensen

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Jensen [2019] VSC 327
Case: [2019] VSC 327
Decision Date: 17 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of the Director of Public Prosecutions versus Jensen arose from a home invasion incident where the defendant, Jensen, attempted to murder three individuals. Jensen, who had a history of an incestuous relationship with his sister, stabbed both her and the victim she was involved with, as well as the victim's mother who attempted to intervene. Jensen was found guilty of multiple charges of attempted murder and faced sentencing.

The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence considering the severity of the crimes, the defendant's personal circumstances, and the impact on the victims. Issues included the classification of the offence as an example of domestic violence, the degree of premeditation, and the defendant's personal history, including his intoxication at the time of the crime. The court also had to weigh his limited non-violent antecedents and his plea of guilty and expression of remorse against the gravity of the attempted murders.

The court found the offences to be of an upper end example due to the violent nature and the number of victims. Despite Jensen's relatively youthful age and limited criminal history, the court emphasised the heinous nature of the crimes, particularly the element of domestic violence and the premeditated nature of the attack. The defendant's intoxication and the plea of guilty were noted but did not significantly mitigate the sentence. The court sentenced Jensen as a Serious Violent Offender on the primary charges, resulting in a total effective sentence of 19 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14 years.

The court's final orders were that Jensen be imprisoned for a total effective term of 19 years, with a non-parole period of 14 years. The sentence reflects the court's consideration of the severe nature of the crimes, the element of domestic violence, and the need for deterrence and protection of the community.

Orders