R v Jeffrey - [2023] VSC 538

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2021 0358

Between:
THE KING
-and-
SHANNON JEFFREY	Accused

---

JUDGE:	Croucher J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	17 August 2023
DATE OF SENTENCE:	8 September 2023
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Jeffrey
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSC 538

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Sentence — Manslaughter — By unlawful and dangerous act — Accused believed deceased disposed of her property and informed on her to police — Precise circumstances of killing unclear, but accused accepts she bashed deceased in unlawful and dangerous manner, causing her death — Accused then strung up deceased’s body in house to give appearance of suicide — With another, accused later removed body from scene and dumped in disused mineshaft — Accused spread false rumour deceased had gone to Queensland, and moved into her house — Eight months after disappearance, police found deceased’s decomposed body in mineshaft — Accused originally charged with murder — Following pre‑trial hearing, DPP accepted offer to plead guilty to manslaughter — Serious example of offence — Offence aggravated by post‑offence conduct — Plea of guilty — Remorse — Troubled upbringing — Abusive relationships — PTSD — Drug addiction — Limited work history — Criminal history, but comparatively modest for violence — Support of family — Courses completed in custody — Reasonably good prospects of rehabilitation — Hardship of prison conditions — Sentencing purposes — Parsimony — Relevance of totality given partial service of ten‑month sentence for unrelated matters while on remand for homicide — Sentence of ten years’ imprisonment with non‑parole period of seven years — But for plea of guilty, sentence of thirteen years’ imprisonment with non‑parole period of ten years — Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), ss 5, 6AAA & 18.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr J McWilliams	Abbey Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For Ms Jeffrey	Mr J Desmond	Emma Turnbull Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Overview

On 28 April 2020, Kobie Lee Parfitt was bashed and killed in her own home in Ballarat. Her killer, Shannon Jeffrey, later admitted that, at the time of the assault, Ms Parfitt was on her knees begging to be taken to her father’s house or the police. Mercilessly, her pleas were ignored. Ms Jeffrey was incensed because she believed Ms Parfitt had disposed of her property while she was in prison and that she had informed on her to police.

After the killing, Ms Jeffrey initially hung Ms Parfitt’s body in a wardrobe to make it appear she had committed suicide. That was cruel. But, later, she changed her mind and did something even worse. With the assistance of Brendon Prestage, she wrapped the body in plastic, put it in Mr Prestage’s car, travelled 30 kilometres to Snake Valley, and then dumped it, unceremoniously, in a mineshaft.

As if to rub even more salt into the wound, within weeks, Ms Jeffrey told an estate agent, falsely, that Ms Parfitt had fled…

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 Jeffrey

Details

AGLC: R v Jeffrey [2023] VSC 538
Case: [2023] VSC 538
Decision Date: 8 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Jeffrey involved the defendant's guilty plea to manslaughter following the death of another individual. The incident arose from the defendant's belief that the deceased had improperly disposed of her property and had reported her to the police. Although the exact circumstances surrounding the killing were not entirely clear, the defendant admitted to having assaulted the deceased in a manner that was unlawful and dangerous, leading to her death. Subsequently, the defendant manipulated the scene to make it appear as though the deceased had committed suicide, and later, together with another person, removed the body and disposed of it in a disused mineshaft. The defendant also spread false information suggesting that the deceased had left for Queensland, and subsequently moved into her residence. The decomposed body of the deceased was eventually discovered by the police in the mineshaft eight months after her disappearance.

The central legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentence for the offence of manslaughter, taking into account the circumstances of the killing, the post-offence conduct, and various mitigating factors. The court had to weigh the seriousness of the offence against the defendant's plea of guilty, remorse, troubled background, and prospects for rehabilitation. The court also considered the principle of totality due to the defendant's partial service of a ten-month sentence for unrelated matters while on remand for the homicide charge.

In determining the sentence, the court acknowledged the gravity of the offence, particularly given the defendant's post-offence conduct, which involved staging the scene to appear as a suicide and disposing of the body. However, the court also recognised the defendant's guilty plea, expressions of remorse, troubled upbringing, history of abuse, and the presence of drug addiction and PTSD as mitigating factors. Additionally, the court took into account the defendant's limited work history, relatively modest criminal record for violent offences, support from family, courses completed in custody, and reasonably good prospects for rehabilitation. Considering the principle of totality, the court sentenced the defendant to ten years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of seven years. The court noted that, but for the plea of guilty, the sentence would have been thirteen years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of ten years.

Orders