Legal Research
Cases
DPP v Ledlin

DPP v Ledlin

Case [2022] VSC 826 16 December 2022

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2021 126

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

JACK LEDLIN

---

JUDGE:	Champion J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	28 October 2022
DATE OF SENTENCE:	16 December 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Ledlin
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 826

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Standard sentence offence – Sentenced to 22 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 16 years – Crimes Act 1958 – Sentencing Act 1991.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms J. Warren	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr M. McGrath with Mr W. Blake	James Dowsley & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Jack Ledlin, on 8 September 2022, you were found guilty by a jury of the murder of Cameron Smith on 25 November 2020. The verdict followed a trial that began on 29 August 2022.

The maximum penalty for the offence of murder is life imprisonment. It is a Category 1 offence, and because this offence occurred after 1 February 2018, it is a standard sentence offence. The standard sentence for murder is 25 years’ imprisonment. I will discuss the implications of these aspects below.

Background to the offending

You and Mr Smith did not know each other when you murdered him. However, there is background to the events that led to his death which I will briefly note.

In April 2017 Cameron Smith met Natasha Stroumos and they formed a relationship which continued for about three years, after which they remained close friends. During this relationship Mr Smith and Ms Stroumos attended a New Year’s Eve party in 2019 where a dispute took place between Ms Stroumos and a young woman called Scarlett Taylor, over the ownership of a can of drink. In the context of what occurred later, it was a trivial event. Almost a year passed with no contact between the two women, but that changed on 25 November 2020.

On the afternoon of that day Mr Smith and Ms Stroumos went together to Seaford, and after parking their car purchased and shared a meal nearby. You were also in Seaford that afternoon, with three others, the young woman named Scarlett Taylor, who I have just mentioned, Finn Leahy, and Liam Casely.

Mr Smith and Ms Stroumos did not finish their meal and decided to take the leftovers back to her car. They walked back towards the railway station carpark along Station Street. As they did that shortly before 7 o’clock, you and Scarlett Taylor were sitting on a bench on Station Street. You had a pack of beer bottles with you at that time. Mr Smith and Ms Stroumos walked past you, heading in the direction of the carpark. As they did, you and Taylor yelled abuse and obscenities at them. They ignored you and kept walking. These events were recorded on nearby CCTV, and the vision and sound of the events were shown to the jury during…

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 Ledlin

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Ledlin [2022] VSC 826
Case: [2022] VSC 826
Decision Date: 16 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Director of Public Prosecutions versus Ledlin, the Supreme Court of Victoria addressed a case of murder. The defendant, Ledlin, was convicted of the murder of an individual and was sentenced to 22 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 16 years. The Director of Public Prosecutions sought to challenge the sentence, arguing it was manifestly inadequate.

The legal issues the court had to decide were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate and if the court had considered all relevant factors in determining the sentence. The court was required to weigh the principles of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation against the gravity of the offence and the circumstances surrounding it.

In delivering the judgment, the court considered the principle that sentences for standard sentence offences, such as murder, should reflect the seriousness of the crime and the need for deterrence. The court noted that while the sentence was severe, it did not consider it manifestly inadequate given the nature of the crime and the defendant's culpability. The court found that the sentence appropriately balanced the need for punishment and deterrence with the principles of rehabilitation. The appeal against the sentence was dismissed.

The final orders of the court confirmed the original sentence of 22 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 16 years. The court upheld the trial judge's assessment and reasoning, affirming that the sentence was appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

Orders