R v Jakimov
[2005] VSC 328
•18 August 2005
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted | |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 1514 of 2004
| THE QUEEN |
| v |
| NOVICA JAKIMOV |
---
JUDGE: | TEAGUE J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 17-20, 23-26 May, 23 June 2005 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 18 August 2005 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v Novica Jakimov | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2005] VSC 328 | |
---
Criminal Law - Sentencing - Murder – Brutal attack on woman during/after sexual activities causing head and other injuries – action after the murder to cover up - 19 years imprisonment – 14 years non-parole period
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Ms. R. Carlin | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr. J. O’Sullivan | Robert Stary & Associates |
HIS HONOUR:
Novica Jakimov. You have been found guilty by a jury of the murder of Kelly Hodge in August 2003.
In August 2003, you were living alone at a rented house in Westmeadows. On the night of 18 August, you left that house. You met up with Kelly Hodge. She was then working as a sex worker, generally in St Kilda. It is not clear where you met up with her. It might have been in St Kilda, given the evidence of her being there in the early hours of 19 August. It might have been at the Crown casino, as you were later to claim. You have chosen to give more than one account of what happened that night. The jury clearly did not accept some aspects of what you said in evidence. Nor do I. There are others that I do not necessarily accept or reject. One is as to where you met Kelly Hodge.
After meeting, the two of you went back to your Westmeadows house. At the house, there was activity of a sexual nature. During or after that activity, you viciously attacked Kelly Hodge. I am unable to say what led to your doing so. The explanation you gave to the jury was that you were innocent of any malice towards Kelly Hodge, and that she attacked you. That explanation was implausible, for reasons that included that it was difficult to reconcile with the state of the injuries to Kelly Hodge, and with your conduct after she died, and with the evidence of two neighbours. Your explanation was understandably rejected by the jury. Notwithstanding some reservations, I accept that your attack was a product of the situation that arose, essentially spontaneously, rather than that it was premeditated.
It was a vicious and brutal attack. In it, you inflicted upon Kelly Hodge a series of serious injuries. Kelly Hodge was a slight woman. You are a man of more than average strength. You struck many blows to her head. She suffered a fractured skull. Three times you struck blows to her head with the shaft of a folding umbrella. You inflicted a serious injury to her vagina. I cannot make a finding as to how that was done. The injuries that you inflicted caused a lot of bleeding. The complications of the head injuries and the bleeding caused respiratory problems that resulted in Kelly Hodges’ death.
After killing Kelly Hodge, you callously went about covering up her death. You set out to avoid responsibility for what you had done. Your conduct after the murder aggravated the seriousness of the murder. You took out a sheet. You rolled the deceased onto the sheet. You used her bra to keep her hands together. You tied rope around the sheet. You then wrapped a red blanket around the rope. You put the wrapped body in the back of your utility. You drove north almost to Beveridge. By the side of a back road, you dumped the body. You returned home. There, you carried out an extensive cleaning job. You put into two bags items such as the clothes of the deceased. Later, you burned or otherwise disposed of them.
One item that was not thus disposed of was the mobile phone of the deceased. Enquiries as to that mobile phone led the police to you. You lied when you were spoken to by the police. In due course, the account that you then gave was supplanted by a different account given to the jury. The final account showed signs of being tailored to fit the prosecution evidence, with more than a little blackening of the character of Kelly Hodge. You have subsequently shown some signs of remorse. I am prepared to accept that there is a degree of remorse. Nevertheless, I see indications of self-concerned tailoring in some of those signs of remorse, as with your evidence to the jury.
I have read carefully and slowly the three victim impact statements placed before me, one from each of the grandmother, father and sister of Kelly Hodge. Kelly Hodge, like her sister Stacey, was raised mainly by her grandmother Anna, after their mother died when they were very young. Kelly Hodge lived with Anna until she was killed. Through those victim impact statements, I can get at least some measure of appreciation of how special a young woman Kelly Hodge was. Her murder has caused great sorrow. That sorrow was heightened by your conduct after the murder.
I turn to your background. You were born in 1968 in what was then Yugoslavia. You came with your parents to Australia in 1971. Your family remains supportive. You were educated to Year 12 level. At and after school, you did well at sport, in cricket, football and water polo. You established a good work record, mainly as a bricklayer, but at times in other areas. I have noted the matters of commendation set out in the letters tendered on the plea. Many are from people who have known you for a long time, and who see what you have done as being out of character. One letter is from your estranged wife. You were married in 1998. There were difficulties that led to a final separation from your wife in 2001. She refers to episodes of screaming, but denies episodes of violence. After you and she separated, you chose to change your lifestyle for the worse, opting to indulge more in the use of illegal drugs.
You have prior convictions. Two of them resulted in the imposition of suspended sentences. There is no conviction for an offence of violence. I have noted that some matters of which you spoke to the police suggest a capacity on occasions for anger and violence.
I accept that your prospects of rehabilitation are very good. The commendable rehabilitative actions that you have taken in prison are apparent through the evidence of Ann Hooker and the numerous certificates which you have obtained.
I have signed the retention order. I declare pre-sentence detention of 556 days to today. I direct that that be entered in the court records. I sentence you to 19 years in prison. I fix a non-parole period of 14 years.
0
0
0