R v Birchall - [2025] VSC 170

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2021 0198

THE KING	Crown
v
DANIELLE BIRCHALL	Accused

---

JUDGE:	Beale J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	18 February 2025
DATE OF SENTENCE:	4 April 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Birchall
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 170

---

MURDER – Sentence – Accused convicted after a trial – Accused murdered elderly de facto father-in-law in the deceased’s home – Deceased savagely beaten with an instrument – Upper range example of murder – Offender suffered a profoundly deprived childhood – Mental impairment making experience of imprisonment harder – Remanded in custody during COVID-19 restrictions – Delay – Bugmy v R (2013) 249 CLR 571 – R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 26 – Surtees v R [2023] VSCA 42 – Rodriguez v DPP(Cth) (2013) 40 VR 436.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms S Thomas with Ms R Champion	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr C Pearson with Ms J Willard	Law and Advocacy Centre for Women

Contents

CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCE

Victim Impact Statements
Disputed Facts
Objective Seriousness of Offence

CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER

Abused and Deprived Childhood
Prior Convictions
Prospects of Rehabilitation
Summary of Mitigating Circumstances

COMPARABLE CASES

SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR:

CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCE

Danielle Birchall, a jury found you guilty of the murder of your de facto father‑in‑law, Konstantinos Kritikos, who was 87 at the time of his death.[1] It is not in dispute that, on the afternoon of 11 November 2020, you attended Kon’s home at 224 Reynard Street, Coburg. He was alone, as his wife Effie was in hospital at the time, recovering from a fall. The jury, however, rejected your version of events that you simply had a brief conversation with him and left. The jury’s verdict means that they were satisfied that whilst you were at Kon’s home that afternoon, you savagely assaulted him with murderous intention. Kon died in hospital on 24 November 2020. You were charged with his murder and remanded in custody on 9 March 2021. You maintain your innocence.
[1]Kon’s date of birth was 25 June 1933.
After that brief overview, it is necessary to backtrack.
At the time of the killing, you were in a long-term relationship with George Kritikos, Kon’s son. He is the father of your sons Jesse (now aged 18) and Shannon (now aged 14). You and George were both longstanding heroin addicts. On the day of the killing, both you and George used heroin in the morning and in the evening. Not only did you need money for heroin and general living expenses, you also needed money to complete the purchase of a car which you were supposed to pick up from the vendor on 12 November 2020. You knew that Kon kept substantial amounts of cash at his home in a glory box in his bedroom.
At approximately 2.42pm, you left your home in McBurnie Drive, Kurunjang, telling George that you…

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 R v Birchall

Details

AGLC: R v Birchall [2025] VSC 170
Case: [2025] VSC 170
Decision Date: 4 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was a sentencing hearing for the accused, Birchall, who had been convicted of murder following a trial. The offence was committed against the accused's elderly de facto father-in-law, who was savagely beaten with an instrument in his home. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the accused, who had been remanded in custody during the COVID-19 restrictions. The legal issues that the court had to resolve included the upper range of sentencing for murder, the impact of the accused's deprived childhood and mental impairment on the experience of imprisonment, and the impact of the delay in the sentencing hearing due to the COVID-19 restrictions.

The court considered the relevant case law on the upper range of sentencing for murder, including Bugmy v R and R v Verdins. The court also took into account the impact of the accused's deprived childhood and mental impairment on the experience of imprisonment, as well as the delay in the sentencing hearing due to the COVID-19 restrictions. The court noted that the accused had suffered a profoundly deprived childhood and had a mental impairment that made the experience of imprisonment harder. The court also noted that the delay in the sentencing hearing due to the COVID-19 restrictions had caused the accused to be remanded in custody for an extended period of time.

After considering all of the relevant factors, the court determined that the appropriate sentence for the accused was life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 25 years. The court noted that the offence was an upper range example of murder, but also took into account the impact of the accused's deprived childhood and mental impairment on the experience of imprisonment, as well as the delay in the sentencing hearing due to the COVID-19 restrictions. The court also noted that the accused had shown remorse for his actions and had cooperated with the authorities throughout the investigation and trial. The final orders of the court were that the accused be sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 25 years.

Orders