DPP v Kabo - [2006] VSC 340

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1505 of 2005

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

ANDREW JEK KABO

---

JUDGE:	TEAGUE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	19, 20, 24, 26-28 April, 1-5, 8 May, 28 August 2006
DATE OF SENTENCE:	21 September 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Kabo
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 340

---

Criminal Law – Sentencing – Stabbing murder of husband and wife – Serious mental health problems not amounting to mental impairment – 25 years imprisonment – 20 years non-parole period.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Ms C. Quin	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr M. Perry with Ms D. Manova	Kabo Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Andrew Kabo, you have been found guilty by a jury on two counts of murder. The murders were of a married couple. The two of them had come from China to Australia, intending to study and work here. The husband was Yuqing Li, born in September 1972. The wife was Ying Zhao, born in December 1972. In April 2004, they had moved into a flat in Essendon. You stabbed both of them to death at that flat on 6 May 2004.

In May 2004, you were working on a casual basis in the kitchen of an Albert Park restaurant. You were staying with a housemate at a flat in South Yarra. Because the sister of your housemate was, some weeks later, expected to arrive in Melbourne, you were looking for other accommodation. You saw an advertisement for a vacant room at the flat of Yuqing Li and Ying Zhao in Essendon. You answered the advertisement. You visited the flat. You were shown around the flat. You agreed to take the vacant room.

On 6 May, in the City of Melbourne, you bought two expensive kitchen knives. It is not clear to me why you did so. You gave to the police conflicting accounts as to why you bought them and as to what you intended to do with them when you took them with you when you visited the flat later that day. The purchase of the knives came a couple of weeks after you had had a curious conversation with a fellow worker from the restaurant. In that conversation, you said, out of the blue, that you intended to kill a couple of people. Your colleague thought that you were joking and said so. You replied to him that you were serious. Other fellow workers at the restaurant saw you often in the days leading up to 6 May. To them you appeared to be acting normally, and not strangely. At most, you appeared to be somewhat disappointed after being told that there was to be a reduction in the number of hours that you could work. Both after and before 6 May, and that includes long before as well as just before 6 May, you usually appeared to act normally. Only later was it…

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 Kabo

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Kabo [2006] VSC 340
Case: [2006] VSC 340
Decision Date: 21 September 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of DPP v Kabo involved the prosecution seeking an appropriate sentence for the defendant, Kabo, who had been found guilty of the murder of both his wife and his husband. The crime, which was carried out with a stabbing, was particularly brutal and tragic, leading to the deaths of both victims. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendants' mental health was a significant factor in the proceedings, as he had serious mental health issues, although these did not amount to a mental impairment within the meaning of the relevant legislation.

The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account the gravity of the crime and the defendant's mental health. The primary legal issues revolved around the assessment of the severity of the crimes and the impact of the defendant's mental health on his culpability and sentencing. The court had to balance these considerations, ensuring that the sentence reflected both the heinous nature of the crimes and the defendant's mental state at the time of the offence. The court also had to decide on the appropriate non-parole period, which is a critical component of the total sentence.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the severity of the crimes, noting the brutal nature of the stabbing and the devastating impact on the victims' family and friends. The court found that while the defendant's mental health issues were significant, they did not absolve him of responsibility for his actions. The court concluded that a sentence of 25 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 20 years, was appropriate. This sentence reflected both the gravity of the crimes and the need to consider the defendant's mental health in determining his culpability.

The court issued its final orders, confirming the sentence of 25 years imprisonment for the defendant, with a non-parole period of 20 years. This outcome represents a careful balancing of the need for justice for the victims and their families, with the necessity of considering the defendant's mental health in the sentencing process.

Orders