JUDGE:	KAYE JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	15, 16 and 20 August 2019
DATE OF SENTENCE:	2 September 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Todd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 585

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder, rape, attempted rape and sexual assault – Accused followed victim for 54 minutes – Attacked victim in an isolated area of a public park at night – Sexually assaulted victim and intentionally strangled victim to death – Accused enacted long-standing sexual fantasy to rape and strangle to death a female victim – Accused has sexual sadism disorder – Early plea of guilty – Grave motive – Premeditation – Standard sentence scheme – Instinctive synthesis – Most grave instances of those offences – Well above middle range of seriousness – High moral culpability – Young offender – No prior convictions – Dysfunctional circumstances at accused’s home – Limited remorse due to mild form of autism spectrum disorder – Poor prospects of rehabilitation – Unacceptable high risk of re-offending – Sentence of life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 35 years – But for plea of guilty, sentence of life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 43 years – Sentencing Act 1991 ss 5, 5A, 5B, 6AAA, 11A and 18(4) – Crimes Act 1958 ss 3, 38 and 40.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Dr N Rogers SC with Ms A Ellis	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr T Marsh with Ms B Franjic	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Jaymes Todd. You have pleaded guilty to the murder of Eurydice Jane Dixon at Princes Hill on 13 June 2018. In addition, you have also pleaded guilty to one charge of rape, one charge of attempted rape, and one charge of sexual assault, each committed by you in the course of the events that culminated in the murder of Ms Dixon by you.

You committed those offences when you attacked Eurydice Dixon as she was walking across Princes Park, Carlton North shortly after midnight on that date. During the preceding period of almost one hour, you had deliberately and furtively followed Eurydice over a distance of 4.2 kms as she made her way on foot from Flinders Street, Melbourne to Princes Park. The movements of both Eurydice and you, during that period, were captured on CCTV footage. The offences occurred after Eurydice had entered the park to walk across it to her home, a short distance east of the park. As Eurydice walked across the soccer fields in the park, you violently set upon her, committed the acts which constituted the offences of rape, attempted rape and sexual assault, and murdered her by choking her to death with your bare hands.

The circumstances in which you committed each of those offences were appalling and confronting. In order to adequately convey the seriousness of…

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 Todd

Details

AGLC: DPP v Todd [2019] VSC 585
Case: [2019] VSC 585
Decision Date: 2 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the Director of Public Prosecutions brought proceedings against Todd, who had pleaded guilty to murder, rape, attempted rape and sexual assault. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for these serious offences, which involved the brutal attack and murder of a victim by Todd. Todd had followed the victim for over 50 minutes before assaulting her in a remote area of a public park at night. He subjected her to a violent sexual assault and then strangled her to death, carrying out a long-standing sexual fantasy.

The court considered several legal issues, including the appropriate range of sentence for the offences, the effect of the plea of guilty on the sentence, and the aggravating and mitigating factors relevant to Todd’s case. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence within the standard sentence scheme, taking into account the gravity of the offences, the premeditation and motive behind the crime, and the personal circumstances of the offender. The court also needed to consider the principles of general and specific deterrence in determining the length of the non-parole period.

The court found the offences to be amongst the most grave instances of murder, rape, attempted rape and sexual assault. The offences were premeditated, involved a high degree of moral culpability, and were committed against a vulnerable victim. The court accepted that Todd had a sexual sadism disorder and limited remorse due to a mild form of autism spectrum disorder. The court found that Todd had poor prospects of rehabilitation and a high risk of re-offending. After considering all the relevant factors, the court sentenced Todd to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 35 years. The court found that but for the plea of guilty, the non-parole period would have been 43 years.

Orders