R v Jeffrey
[2023] VSC 538
•8 September 2023
| 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 to Queensland, and then she moved into her home and took over the lease.
As a result of the false rumours Ms Jeffrey started, Ms Parfitt was not reported missing for over three months, in August that year. And it was not until another four months passed that, in December, police found her body at the bottom of the mineshaft. Given the state of decomposition, the cause of her death could not be determined.
On 29 January 2021, Ms Jeffrey was charged with murder.
Following pre‑trial examination of witnesses in April this year, the Director of Public Prosecutions accepted Ms Jeffrey’s offer to plead guilty to manslaughter instead. On 5 July, a new indictment was filed, and she duly pleaded guilty to manslaughter.
On 17 August, I heard a prosecution opening from Mr McWilliams, who appeared for the Director. Victim impact statements were read, and a plea in mitigation was delivered by Mr Desmond, who appeared for Ms Jeffrey.
It is now my duty to impose sentence. Before doing so, I shall summarise, in greater detail, the relevant circumstances and discuss the competing considerations that must be synthesised in performing that task.
Summary of offending
Background
I turn first to the background to the offending.
Ms Parfitt was also known as Kobie Lee Snowball. She was 42 at the time of her death.
Those involved in the relevant events were all connected in one way or another. Shannon Jeffrey knew Kobie Parfitt through mutual associates. AB[1] was a friend of both Ms Parfitt and Ms Jeffrey. CD and Brendon Prestage were each mutual friends of Ms Jeffrey and AB.
[1]There are suppression orders in place prohibiting identification of AB and CD.
Ms Parfitt and her partner Paul “Woody” Williams met in secondary school. They started a relationship in 2016. From November 2018, they rented a home in Hickman Street, Ballarat, which is where Ms Parfitt would later be killed. In January 2020, their relationship ended, and Mr Williams moved out of that address.
During November 2019, Ms Jeffrey moved some of her belongings to Ms Parfitt’s home in Hickman Street, and put some items into a storage container on the property.
On 27 November 2019, Ms Jeffrey was arrested at the property on an outstanding warrant, and was taken into custody. Ultimately, she was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, which she served at Dame Phyllis Frost Centre.
Prison phone calls
While in prison, Ms Jeffrey made several recorded phone calls to others, including her mother, her sister, her friends, and Ms Parfitt. Some of those calls show that Ms Jeffrey suspected that, in her absence, Ms Parfitt had disposed of, or sold, some of her property, including a child’s minibike. They also showed that Ms Jeffrey suspected that Ms Parfitt had given information to police that led to her arrest. She expressed increasing animosity towards Ms Parfitt. She described her as a “dog” and said that she intended to confront her about these matters upon her release from prison.
For example, on the morning of 9 April 2020, in a phone conversation with her mother, Ms Jeffrey’s remarks included the following:
I rang Kobie and abused her this morning.
I got the letter off her. She’s a lying dog.
Yeah. She sent me a letter with a heap of crackhead bullshit about all these other fuckwits. She’s had Gatha in the house. I go, “Well, there goes all my shit.” I said, “What stuff of mine have you got left? Where’s my phone?” All that [sort] of shit.
Nuh, it’s all gone. I said, “You’re a fucking lying dog. You sold the shipping containers.” She goes, “Oh, oh, it was this.” I said, “Don’t” — I said, “When are you gunna stop lying?”
She hung up on me.
She’s just a liar. I don’t want to know her.
Cut off — I don’t want any of my shit from her. I said, “If there is anything left of mine at the fucking house, you can drop it off at me fucking mum’s.” I’m like, “You’re a fucking dog, you set me up with the jacks.” And she just hung up on me.
Similarly, on 16 April, the day before she was due to be released from prison, Ms Jeffrey said this to a friend in a phone call:
So all me clothes are at Shazza’s and the rest of the whatever else — I’m going around to Kobie’s. I’m gunna walk there from Mum and Dad’s. I’m gunna walk there and I’m gunna fucking go off my head, cunt.
I don’t care. I’ll run. I’ll fucking — I’ll chase her down, this dog.
On 17 April, Ms Jeffrey was released from prison. She returned to the Ballarat area.
Ms Parfitt’s fears
During April, Ms Parfitt expressed concerns for her welfare to Mr Williams. In this connection, she mentioned Ms Jeffrey and her associate Matthew Heinz.
In the early hours of 24 April, Ms Parfitt was alone at Hickman Street and frightened. At 1:35 a.m., she sent this text to Mr Williams:
R u awake? I need to get out of this house asap iv just been warned on what’s being planned soon and shan is behind it and I can’t take this shit anymore … I can’t sit inside watching cameras with doors locked fearing who coming I’d rather store everything and live on street than go through what they going to do.
Later that morning, she arranged for collection of her property from Hickman Street on 27 April, which she then altered to 2 May. The property was to be taken to a storage unit. In the evening, she sent three messages to Mr Williams, the last saying, “I’m dead if I stay alone.”
On 25 April, Ms Parfitt prepared to leave Hickman Street because she was scared about what would happen to her if she stayed. Mr Williams came over to see her, but she had no clear plan about what she was going to do. After staying for several hours, Mr Williams ultimately left.
On 26 April, Ms Parfitt texted Mr Williams, claiming that cars were driving up and down the street, that “they” knew she was alone, and that she was “fucked”.
Property is taken from Ms Parfitt’s home
Early the next day, 27 April, Ms Jeffrey and CD arrived at Hickman Street with William Blackhall in a Holden Rodeo. Ms Parfitt was at home with AB. Mr Blackhall waited outside in the car. CD and Ms Jeffrey went inside and filled bags with items of property owned by Ms Parfitt.
After 20 or 30 minutes, Mr Blackhall went to the back door of the house. He heard a loud crashing noise. Upon entry, he saw Ms Parfitt sitting with a blanket around her. The coffee table was out of place, as if kicked over. Ms Parfitt appeared petrified. She said she knew this day was coming. Mr Blackhall told her nothing was going to happen, and then asked Ms Jeffrey, “Nothing is going to happen, is it?” Ms Jeffrey did not reply. Mr Blackhall stayed with Ms Parfitt for about ten minutes. Later, Ms Jeffrey accused Ms Parfitt of “talking shit” about her. Mr Blackhall went to the front room, and saw AB looking at her phone. He then helped CD and Ms Jeffrey make several trips out to the Rodeo with property they had collected. Mr Blackhall believes they were at the house for about three hours in total.
Mr Blackhall, CD and Ms Jeffrey then left in the Rodeo for Sebastopol. Once there, he parked in a paddock at the rear of King Drive. Mr Prestage arrived in his blue Ford Territory. The other three told him what had just happened.
During the afternoon, AB took Ms Parfitt from Hickman Street to her (i.e., AB’s) home in another suburb. Ms Parfitt needed a safe place to stay so she could get some rest and get away from everyone.
In the evening, Ms Parfitt used AB’s phone to text Mr Williams. She told him she was going to end up dead and that she needed his help. She received no response.
Ms Parfitt’s last day
The next morning, on 28 April, Ms Parfitt texted Mr Williams again, telling him not to bother, and saying, “Thanks a lot, I know where I stand.” He responded, “OK then.” That was the last contact he had with Ms Parfitt.
AB drove to Hickman Street, leaving her daughter at her home with Ms Parfitt. When she arrived, Ms Jeffrey was present, as were CD and Mr Prestage, who were there to remove property again. AB and Ms Jeffrey discussed Ms Parfitt, after which AB returned to her home.
Later, in her Jeep, AB drove Ms Parfitt back to Hickman Street. Rhiannon Smith, who lived across the street, saw AB arrive and go straight into the house, while Ms Parfitt remained alone in the car with the window down.
Ms Parfitt saw Ms Smith, and tried to mouth something to her. She was shaking, terrified, and asked her to call police. When Ms Smith asked why, Ms Parfitt said there were people in her house taking her stuff, and that they were really bad. All she wanted, she said, was her phone. She refused to say who they were, and said she could not do anything, as they were going to put her in the boot.
CD came out of Ms Parfitt’s house and stood by AB’s car. He told Ms Parfitt that she had to come inside. She declined, and said she wanted AB. As CD turned to go back inside, Ms Smith invited Ms Parfitt over to her home for a coffee. She accepted, and told CD that she was going to help Ms Smith’s daughters with their maths.
Once they were inside, Ms Smith asked Ms Parfitt, “What the fuck have you done?” She responded that it had something to do with Ms Jeffrey’s property being sold. She also said that Ms Jeffrey believed she was responsible for her being locked up. Ms Smith took Ms Parfitt into the kitchen and asked her if she should call the police.
Ms Smith then went outside and spoke with CD and Ms Jeffrey. She asked them what the hell was going on. CD told her they were at Ms Parfitt’s house collecting her property because she had sold off Ms Jeffrey’s property while she was in prison. Ms Jeffrey gave similar reasons, and said she wanted to talk to Ms Parfitt and find out why she called the police on her. Ms Smith observed that Ms Jeffrey appeared angry with Ms Parfitt.
Ms Smith asked CD and Ms Jeffrey if they were going to hurt Ms Parfitt. They both said no. Ms Smith told them that it was not worth whatever Ms Parfitt had done, and that they should just forget it and move on. Both said that they just wanted to talk to her. Ms Smith said that Ms Parfitt was petrified of them. They both laughed. Ms Smith told them that she did not want any “shit” going on at her place. CD told her nothing would happen. Ms Smith told them that she would talk to Ms Parfitt, but that she would not come out while they were there, so they should just go. CD and Ms Jeffrey left, and went over to Ms Parfitt’s house.
Ms Smith went back inside her own home. She told Ms Parfitt that CD and Ms Jeffrey had gone back to her place. Ms Parfitt told Ms Smith not to call police. Ms Smith told her she had two choices. She could go over and talk to them and sort it out, or she could walk to the end of the street and keep going, call someone, and get away. Ms Smith gave her $10. Ms Parfitt thanked her, but she was scared and not sure what to do.
Ultimately, Ms Parfitt left Ms Smith’s house and got back into the passenger seat of AB’s car. CD and AB came outside and walked over to the car. AB got into the driver’s seat. Ms Parfitt asked her, “What do I do?” She told her that she needed to sort her stuff out. CD opened the gates to Ms Parfitt’s house, and AB drove the car through the gateway and parked in the rear yard. Mr Prestage’s Territory was also parked there. This was the last time that Ms Smith saw Ms Parfitt.
When in the rear yard, AB got out of the car. Ms Jeffrey was arguing with Ms Parfitt. AB walked through the house and down the side, where she met CD, who had walked inside just ahead of her.
Ms Jeffrey, Ms Parfitt and Mr Prestage all remained at the house, while AB and CD then walked away along Hickman Street. AB and CD entered a vacant house. They sat and smoked before returning to Ms Parfitt’s house, but did not enter. AB then drove to the home of her friend “Bianca”, which was in another suburb, and dropped CD off near the Scout Hall.
The killing of Ms Parfitt
Later, CD returned to Hickman Street. He knocked on the back door for five minutes or more. Eventually, Mr Prestage and Ms Jeffrey came to the door. After CD asked what was happening, Mr Prestage said that Ms Parfitt “is gone”, and waved his hand near his throat — not in a slitting gesture, but similar. CD said, “What the fuck have you guys done?” Both Mr Prestage and Ms Jeffrey said she was dead. They said that, after she had died, they had strung her up in the house to make it look like a suicide. CD told them, “You guys are fucked,” and said he did not want to be involved at all.
Later, after calling AB, Ms Jeffrey went to see her at Bianca’s home. She was driven there by Mr Prestage. AB went out to the car and opened the driver’s side rear door, whereupon Ms Jeffrey turned to face her and said, “Alright, so Kobie hung herself.”
AB drove back to her house, with CD. Mr Prestage and Ms Jeffrey followed in the Territory. Ms Jeffrey said that she had assaulted or hit Ms Parfitt and she had died, and that they decided to hang her in the home so that it looked like she had committed suicide. CD grabbed Ms Jeffrey and said, “What have you done? I don’t want a part of it. Go and get my prints off her neck … You’d better go fix it. … Fuck this shit.” When Ms Jeffrey said she was going to drive back to Hickman Street, CD said, “You can go down, I’m not going anywhere near there.”
All four then got into CD’s white utility, with Ms Jeffrey’s bike in the back. They stopped near, but short of, Ms Parfitt’s house. Ms Jeffrey left by herself on her bike. When she returned shortly afterwards, she said she could not remove any prints because Ms Parfitt’s hair was knotted up in and around the rope, and she could not get her down. CD was furious. He then drove them all back to AB’s house.
Disposal of body
Later that evening, while at AB’s house, Ms Jeffrey said she knew of a mineshaft. About 20 minutes later, she and Mr Prestage left in the Territory. They were gone a few hours.
They went to Ms Parfitt’s house. While there, they wrapped Ms Parfitt’s body in bedding, black plastic bags, clear sheets of plastic, and green foam, which was held together with tape. Then they loaded her body into Mr Prestage’s Territory and drove to Snake Valley, a distance of about 30 kilometres.
While at Snake Valley, Ms Jeffrey and Mr Prestage found a mineshaft in bushland. They threw Ms Parfitt’s body down the shaft. They covered her with additional items of bedding, towels, and clothing. They also shovelled dirt into the mineshaft to cover the body.
They then left the scene and returned to AB’s house. Nothing was said upon their return.
Mr Prestage, Ms Jeffrey and CD stayed at AB’s house for a few days. During that period, AB left the house a few times, each time in the company of CD.
Ms Jeffrey starts false rumour and moves into Hickman Street
On 16 May 2020, Ms Jeffrey contacted the landlord of Hickman Street about taking over the tenancy. She told him that Ms Parfitt had not been at the property for two or three weeks and that she would not be coming back. Two days later, she told the real estate agent that she had the keys to the property and that Ms Parfitt had fled to Queensland. On 28 May, she took over the tenancy.
Ms Smith noticed that Ms Jeffrey had moved into Hickman Street. She asked her what was going on with Ms Parfitt. Ms Jeffrey said she had “fucked off and gone”.
Ms Jeffrey’s admission to AB
AB went to the Hickman Street house after Ms Jeffrey had moved in. While in the loungeroom, Ms Jeffrey said, “It happened right here.” She said she bashed Ms Parfitt, who was on her knees begging to be taken to her father’s house or the police. It appeared to AB that Ms Jeffrey was proud of herself when she told her about the death of Ms Parfitt.
A missing person
Early in August 2020, Ms Parfitt was reported missing to the Ballarat Crime Investigation Unit. The matter was referred to the Missing Persons Squad, and Ms Parfitt was listed as a missing person on 10 August.
On 22 November 2020, police conducted a media conference at Ballarat Police Station, requesting information in relation to Ms Parfitt’s disappearance. The conference was broadcast on evening television news bulletins, including in the Ballarat area.
Police search Hickman Street
On 1 December 2020, police searched the Hickman Street address. They found that the security cameras at the property were not operating at the time of Ms Parfitt’s disappearance.
While the security cameras at Ms Smith’s address were operating back then, the footage had been recorded over by the time the police investigation commenced.
Discovery of body
Police retrieved data from Mr Prestage’s phone showing that the handset was moving in the Snake Valley area on the night of 28 April 2020 and into the early hours of the next morning.
On 14 December 2020, police commenced a search of the same area for the body of Ms Parfitt. On 22 December, her body was found in a mineshaft, just off an unnamed track near Kelly’s Road in Snake Valley. She was lying face down, and was bound with a plastic bag around her feet, a plastic bag around her head, patterned material around her torso, and foam around her thighs. Near the surface of the mineshaft, police found a doona, a mattress protector, a plastic bag, a towel, two pieces of cloth, and a work shirt.
Ms Parfitt’s remains were removed. Later, she was formally identified via DNA comparison.
Autopsy
On 23 December 2020, forensic pathologist Dr Yeliena Baber conducted an autopsy on Ms Parfitt’s body. She determined that the cause of death was unascertained. In her view, there was no conclusive evidence of injury sustained in life, whether deliberately inflicted or accidental.
There were nasal bone fractures, but forensic odontologist Dr Lyndall Smythe opined that they occurred post‑mortem.
There were also thoracic vertebral fractures. Forensic radiologist Dr Chris O’Donnell’s opinion was that these fractures were recent, as there was no evidence of callus formation, but he could not say whether they occurred post‑mortem or ante‑mortem.
Dr Baber concluded that, although the circumstances in which Ms Parfitt was found were deeply concerning, the autopsy and ancillary investigations were unable to confirm or refute any potential causes of death.
Original charge
On 29 January 2021, Ms Jeffrey was charged with the murder of Ms Parfitt. At that time, she was in custody on other charges, where she has remained ever since.
Co‑accused
Between December 2020 and February 2021, three other people — AB, CD and Mr Prestage — were successively arrested and charged with the murder of Ms Parfitt as well.
In October 2022, the Director discontinued the murder charge against each of AB and CD. They were released from prison, made statements to police, and became prosecution witnesses.
Following the evidence of AB and CD at a pre‑trial hearing in April this year, the Director accepted Mr Prestage’s offer to plead guilty to assisting an offender in relation to murder, and he entered a guilty plea to that charge. However, after the Director accepted Ms Jeffrey’s offer to plead guilty to manslaughter and her plea was entered, and before Mr Prestage was sentenced on the offence to which he had pleaded guilty, he was allowed to withdraw that plea. Following an amendment to the indictment, he then pleaded guilty instead to assisting an offender in relation to manslaughter. I sentenced him for that offence on 10 July.[2]
[2]See R v Prestage [2023] VSC 400.
Victim impact statements
Next, I shall address the victim impact statements made by four members of Ms Parfitt’s family. This is the second time I have heard from three of these women in this way, as they made victim impact statements in the case against Mr Prestage too.
Understandably, Ms Parfitt’s loved ones are distraught over her passing and the manner in which she was killed. They are also horrified at the indignity of her treatment in death.
As her mother Kathryn Snowball said, Kobie’s life mattered. She was a daughter, a sister, a granddaughter, a niece, an aunt, a cousin, a mother (of four), a grandmother (to four more), and a friend to many more. For Mrs Snowball, hearing of the discovery of another missing young girl’s body in recent times brought back the wave of grief she experienced when police told her Kobie had been found. Any flicker of hope that she was alive was snuffed out at that moment. Part of her died that day, but her daughter will never be forgotten.
Phillipa Lamb is Ms Parfitt’s sister. She experiences ongoing grief and distress at the thought of her sister begging to be taken to her father, or hanging, or wrapped up in the boot of a car, and then being thrown face‑down into a hole in the middle of the bush. She finds it harrowing to visit the mineshaft, which she has done many times.
Wendy Beckers is Ms Snowball’s sister and Ms Parfitt’s aunt. She feels enraged and traumatised by the horror of what her niece must have suffered. These images invade her thoughts every day. She finds it extremely difficult to comprehend Ms Jeffrey’s behaviour in covering up her crime, in misleading everyone as to her niece’s true whereabouts, and in moving into her home.
Trish Simmons is also Ms Parfitt’s aunt. Of the many awful scenes imprinted on her heart, the worst for her is the thought of her niece begging to be taken to her dad, who is Ms Simmons’s brother. She feels broken and empty. As they were close in age, Ms Parfitt was more like a sister to her. Annexed to her statement were numerous touching photographs of Ms Parfitt, Ms Simmons and the family in happy times.
These and the other sentiments expressed by Ms Parfitt’s loved ones are profoundly moving. In so far as it is permissible to do so, I have had regard to the victim impact statements in considering sentence.
I wish to add this. The sentence to be imposed is not a reflection of the worth of Ms Parfitt’s life. It cannot be. Rather, it simply reflects the many factors I am required by law to take into account, only one of which is the impact on victims.
Nature and gravity of offence
I turn now to the nature and gravity of the offence of manslaughter generally and this offence in particular, including Ms Jeffrey’s level of culpability.
The maximum penalty for manslaughter at the time of this offence was 20 years’ imprisonment.[3]
[3]See s 5 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) (version 291). For offences committed on or after 1 July 2020, the maximum penalty is 25 years’ imprisonment (see s 3 of the Crimes Amendment (Manslaughterand Related Offences) Act 2020 (Vic)).
While manslaughter is one of the more serious crimes known to the law, the circumstances of the offence and the offender, and the resulting sentences, vary widely.
The form of the offence relied on in this case is manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act. This means that, when she assaulted Ms Parfitt, while Ms Jeffrey had no intention to kill or cause her really serious injury and no subjective recklessness thereto (for otherwise it would be murder), her plea of guilty accepts that her conduct was unlawful and dangerous and that it caused death. The bashing was unlawful because it amounted to an assault without any justification or excuse. It was dangerous because a reasonable person in Ms Jeffrey’s position would have realised that, in assaulting her as she did, Ms Parfitt was being exposed to an appreciable risk of serious injury.
As to her account of the circumstances of and surrounding the offending, Ms Jeffrey said, among other things, the following to psychologist Warren Simmons, whose report was received in evidence without objection. In particular, first, she admitted that, after Ms Parfitt became unconscious, she hung her in a wardrobe to make it look like suicide. Second, she said she did not know whether she was dead or only unconscious at this point, but she did not check.
I am not prepared to act on parts of this information, for these reasons. As I indicated a moment ago, I have understood that Ms Jeffrey’s plea of guilty was offered and accepted on the basis that, by assaulting Ms Parfitt, she committed an unlawful and dangerous act that killed her. Yet, on one view of her account to Mr Simmons, it seems to be suggested that this was a combination of an unlawful and dangerous act that rendered Ms Parfitt unconscious, and then perhaps a form of gross negligence in stringing her up, without checking her vital signs, that ultimately led to her death. That said, this version would hardly reduce the gravity of the offence anyway.[4]
[4]On another construction of this account, the action involved in stringing might be thought to smack of recklessness as to her death. But this would be an impermissible finding, for it might be suggestive of murder. I make no such finding.
On a separate point, it is apparent that Ms Jeffrey indicated to Mr Simmons that there was a degree of panic in her actions after Ms Parfitt died. That, to my mind, is consistent with the fact that she first strung Ms Parfitt up, which was bad enough, and then, once berated by CD, she decided to dump and conceal her body in a mineshaft. However, in the circumstances of this case, I do not think that panic can be said to mitigate her behaviour to any meaningful extent, if at all. After the killing, she had oodles of time to reflect on her actions and to choose to do the decent thing thereafter. Thus, she might have come forward and explained what she had done and where she had dumped Ms Parfitt’s body. This might have gone some way to lessening the family’s suffering. But she chose instead to do nothing, to keep shtum, and never once deviated from that path, until she pleaded guilty.
While some aspects of the assault leading to Ms Parfitt’s death are unknown, enough is known to say that this is a serious example of manslaughter. On the one hand, as Mr Desmond submitted, it cannot be said that a weapon was used or that the assault was planned, protracted or committed in the company of others. On the other, Ms Parfitt was killed in her own home, and the assault was such as to have her begging to be taken to her father or police.
Further, Mr McWilliams was right to submit, and Mr Desmond was right to accept, that the offence was aggravated by the post‑offence conduct. That conduct included the initial stringing up of Ms Parfitt’s body, its subsequent disposal and concealment, and the spreading of false rumours about her disappearance. There was cruelty and callousness in that behaviour. Inevitably, and as the victim impact statements show, the very thought of this behaviour is horrific for Ms Parfitt’s loved ones.
Overall, I think there is a high level of moral culpability in Ms Jeffrey’s offence.
Personal and psychological history
Family
I turn now to Ms Jeffrey’s personal circumstances and her psychological history, which were detailed in the report of Mr Simmons and also conveyed by Mr Desmond in the course of his plea. I shall commence with her family background.
Ms Jeffrey, who was aged 31 at the time of the offence, and is now 34, was born and raised in Ballarat. Her mother is aged 58 and has worked in vegetable gardens and a “gypsy” shop. Her father, who is 63, worked as a concreter, although he has had a back problem and has recently suffered a broken leg. She has two sisters, one older, and one younger, to whom she is closer.
Her parents have separated while she has been in custody. Their relationship was afflicted by family violence and, in Ms Jeffrey’s view, had become toxic.
Both parents consumed cannabis and alcohol on a daily basis. While the children were always fed, the house tended to be untidy, and the children’s clothes were often hand‑me‑downs. There was, however, enough money for school excursions.
The family was part of a motorbike club. This involved family days and camping trips with extended family in the Otways around Christmas time.
Ms Jeffrey would see her maternal grandmother frequently, as well as her aunts and uncles. Her grandmother would often babysit the children, and take them to church.
In childhood, Ms Jeffrey played cricket, was involved in Little Athletics and Taekwondo, and she was encouraged to socialise.
Growing up, she was closer to her mother than her father. She says, however, she knew where she stood with her father. He was very stern, not affectionate, but she believed that this was the way he had been raised. The only time he was affectionate, however, was when he was intoxicated, but he would often become tearful and then stop. As a consequence, she turned to her mother. But it was her father who set the rules. He was very strict, but Ms Jeffrey was grateful for that, as she always felt protected. That said, his discipline was physical, in particular by the hand. He even punched her in the face on one occasion, which led to her moving out of home when she was only 14.
It seemed to Ms Jeffrey that her father was almost always intoxicated. He would make decisions about what her mother was able to do, although he did whatever he liked. Ms Jeffrey recalled an incident when she was only eight, when her father held her mother’s head in a sink full of water. Ms Jeffrey was so afraid that she wet herself. She felt that she was always walking around on egg shells. At times, her father would belittle her mother, which made Ms Jeffrey wonder whether she stayed all those years because she was too afraid to leave. But she did leave eventually, which surprised her father.
Although, with Mr Simmons, Ms Jeffrey tended to focus more on the negative aspects of her childhood, she also recalled that friends would visit her home and that they would spend their days down the back building go karts and having fun.
Education and employment
In primary school, Ms Jeffrey struggled with mathematics but liked science and art and was a capable reader. She had good relationships with teachers, but sometimes would lash out when she detected bullying of other students.
She was away from school for six months in Year 7 with glandular fever, and was expelled in Year 8 for fighting. Again, she got on well with her teachers, except one who taught maths. Ultimately, she was put on probation and would spend only the first three hours of each day at secondary school. She became used to not going and never went in the afternoons even when she was allowed to attend. She started mixing with older peers and continued to fight with other girls in her year. She eventually left the school for good. Then she completed a Certificate in General Education.
After leaving school, she did not work for several years. She was living out of home, had a boyfriend, and was involved in drug use. Eventually, she began working at a fast‑food store for about six months.
At 18, she began a Certificate in Outdoor Recreation but did not complete it. This was because she had been charged with assault and considered that she was unlikely to obtain a Working with Children Check.
In her words, she then spent several years “drinking and partying”, before moving to Queensland at the age of 21, where she worked in a seafood business. At that time, she was doing well. She lived there with her younger sister and her boyfriend for a year or so, but the latter two returned to Ballarat, which made her feel lonely and isolated. This caused her to return as well. After 12 months in Ballarat, she returned to Queensland for another ten months. That was her last employment.
Relationships
Ms Jeffrey has had five main relationships.
At 15, she met Robert, who was a year older. They were together for five years. It was a positive relationship initially, but ended up verbally, and then physically, abusive. Both were using drugs and alcohol.
At 22, she met Adam, who was two or three years older. They moved in with his parents at one point. The relationship had some stability initially, but they began using drugs, and he ended up cheating on her.
At 23, she met Sean, who was 20. He worked, was decent, and had a good relationship with his mother and sisters. They had a daughter together, Ayla, who is now aged ten. Ms Jeffrey regarded Sean as a really good father. However, she relapsed into substance abuse, which he was against, and he ended the relationship when Ayla was only one. They had shared custody of their daughter.
Her next partner was Adam, who was 13 years older than her. She became pregnant within their first six months together, but the relationship ended when their daughter Aryah was aged only eight weeks. Aryah is now seven years old.
Ms Jeffrey’s most toxic relationship was with Heath. He was violent and sexually abusive. He would often record their sexual activities and upload the recordings to sites where others could view them. One day, he gave her the drug GHB and then raped her while she was unconscious, which he filmed. She discovered the footage on his phone. That, for her, was the end of their relationship, which had lasted three or four months. Because of this relationship, welfare services became involved, and she lost custody of her children.
Drug and alcohol history
Ms Jeffrey has a long history of illicit drug abuse.
She began smoking cannabis at the age of 11. By the age of 12, it became the first thing she would do in the morning before going to school. She ceased cannabis use permanently when she fell pregnant.
At 15, she was introduced to amphetamines by housemates. She would snort the drug, which gave her a numb feeling but also a great deal of energy.
At 18, she began smoking methamphetamine. She liked the high and it caused her emotions to become numb. Her usage was daily from the beginning, although there were periods when she was abstinent.
She took GHB when with Heath but has not used it otherwise. She has experimented with acid, mushrooms, and cocaine, and has used heroin once. She has also used ecstasy, Suboxone, and benzodiazepines.
Ms Jeffrey began drinking alcohol at the age of 13. She and her friends would take the money they had been given for school canteen, buy a slab of alcohol, and drink down by the local creek. Her drinking became worse when she moved out of home, although it was not a significant issue until she turned 18, when she was able legally to buy alcohol herself. She would drink a bottle of spirits or a “goon sack” each day. This continued for a few years, until she gave birth to her first child.
Ms Jeffrey has never returned to alcohol, although she believes it is still a problem for her, in this respect. As she explained, on two occasions while in custody, she has drunk hand sanitizer, which has resulted in her attending hospital. Her positive urine screens in custody have been mostly for alcohol. Among her many negative results for drugs, there have been some positive results for amphetamine (in January and December 2022).
Ms Jeffrey undertook drug and alcohol counselling with Uniting Care while on a community corrections order (“CCO”), but felt that this was not helpful. On the other hand, while in custody, she has completed a 40‑hour intensive programme, from which she considers she has gained a great deal.
Medical history
As for her medical history, Ms Jeffrey has had ongoing problems with her bowels, and she suffers from gastric reflux. She also has a problem with cardiac arrhythmia, although it appears that this does not require any intervention. She has a tumour in her right breast for which she requires a biopsy.
Criminal history
Ms Jeffrey has a criminal history. Only some of that history is of relevance to the current matter.
In 2007, at 19, without conviction, she was placed on an adjourned undertaking for shoplifting. She was living away from home at the time.
In 2008, she was convicted and placed on a CCO for intentionally causing injury. This offence occurred when she was attending nightclubs, drinking, and taking ecstasy.
In 2010, she was convicted and placed on an adjourned undertaking for dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime, and possessing and using cannabis. This occurred when her house was raided by police.
Later in 2010, she was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment, wholly suspended, for intentionally causing injury, theft and assault. She told Mr Simmons that this offending occurred in the context of her cousin being given a hard time by another.
In 2012, she was sentenced to four months’ imprisonment, wholly suspended, for theft.
In 2016, she was convicted and placed on an adjourned undertaking for handling stolen goods, driving an unregistered vehicle, fraudulently lending a licence authority, offending while on bail, and possessing a controlled weapon and a prohibited weapon.
Later in 2016, she was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 12 months for car theft, theft from a car, shoplifting, dealing with proceeds of crime, failing to answer bail, possessing methylamphetamine, burglary, theft, aggravated burglary, possessing a firearm as a prohibited person, and handling stolen goods.
In 2018, she scratched her name on the wall of a police cell and dealt with property suspected of being proceeds of crime, which led to a fine and a CCO.
In 2019, she was convicted and placed on a CCO for intentionally causing injury. This offending involved an offence committed with her partner Heath, who subsequently died in a car accident.[5] The CCO was later cancelled, and she was ordered to serve four months’ imprisonment upon resentencing.
[5]DPP v Jeffrey [2019] VCC.
In January 2020, she was sentenced to 32 days’ imprisonment for obtaining property by deception, negligently dealing with proceeds of crime, and offending while on bail.
In April 2020, she was sentenced to one month’s imprisonment for car theft, unlicensed driving, offending on bail, possessing a prohibited weapon, handling stolen goods, obtaining property by deception, failing to stop a vehicle on police direction, theft, and multiple instances of shoplifting.
Psychiatric history
While Ms Jeffrey was tearful at times, Mr Simmons did not consider her to be irritable. He noted that she saw her future as positive, and denied feeling hopeless or suicidal. In Mr Simmons’s view, her mood is euthymic.
She has been referred to WestCASA and is currently on the waiting list with that organisation to provide counselling services surrounding the sexual abuse she suffered.
Mr Simmons’s opinion
Finally, I note that Mr Simmons’s opinion is that Ms Jeffrey presented with symptoms of PTSD, which almost certainly had its genesis in her early life, and was then aggravated by her experience with harmful relationships.
He added that her prospects of rehabilitation are likely to be affected by two things in particular. First, her prospects will be enhanced if she is able to access and undertake programmes in custody directed at addressing the issues concerning her relationships and her drug use. Second, if she is able to develop a network of prosocial friends upon release, this too should enhance her prospects.
I shall return to these considerations shortly.
Mitigating factors
Plea of guilty
I turn next to consider the mitigating factors more directly, commencing with Ms Jeffrey’s plea of guilty. This is a very significant mitigating factor, for at least three reasons.
First, her plea acknowledges criminal responsibility for Ms Parfitt’s killing and her mistreatment and concealment of her body in death. In that sense, it brings a measure of certainty and finality for her family.
Secondly, her plea carries with it an even greater utilitarian benefit than at other times. This is because of the plea’s tendency to free up resources in the criminal justice system as a whole to deal with the backlog of cases that has resulted from the pandemic.
Thirdly, Ms Jeffrey pleaded guilty despite having an arguable defence to this charge. At a trial, the principal evidence against her was to come from witnesses who would have attracted a strong jury warning as to their potential motives to lie and related unreliability. Experience shows that many a prosecution case has faltered on evidence of this character.
Remorse
On a new but related topic, I am satisfied that Ms Jeffrey is remorseful for her crime and the irreparable harm it has caused Ms Parfitt’s loved ones. There are three reasons.
First, her plea of guilty, and the circumstances in which it was entered, tend to support this conclusion.
Second, Ms Jeffrey’s claim to remorse is bolstered by her remarks to, and the observations made by, Mr Simmons. For example, he observed that she became quite distressed when talking about what occurred. She also told him that she has spent a great deal of time thinking about her actions. She acknowledged the impact her crime has had on Ms Parfitt’s family. Moreover, she told him that what she has done makes her feel awful and that she accepts that she should be in custody. Mr Simmons also observed that, while Ms Jeffrey could not understand why she acted as she did, and while her use of methamphetamines on that day may have impacted on her judgment, she did not seek to use this to justify or excuse her actions.
Finally, that she is remorseful is also apparent from her remarks to Molly Ampt and Sharryn Douglas, both of whom provided character references to the Court.
Hardship in custody
The third factor in mitigation is that Ms Jeffrey’s time in custody has been harder than usual, for two reasons.
First, for almost the whole of her time in custody, Ms Jeffrey has had a murder charge hanging over her head. That charge was contested from the outset. An application for a permanent stay was raised in this Court, and written submissions were filed, although the point was not determined in the end. Once new counsel came into the matter following the cross‑examination of AB and CD at the pre‑trial hearing in April, Ms Jeffrey made an offer to plead guilty to manslaughter. While such an offer might have been made earlier, the Director’s acceptance of it shows that she has been held in custody for nearly two‑and‑a‑half years on a murder charge that turned out to be inapt. In any event, I accept that to have spent the bulk of her time in custody thus far facing a murder charge must be more onerous than otherwise. It is reasonable to assume that Ms Jeffrey would have been burdened by the thought that, if convicted of murder, she would be incarcerated for a very long time.
Secondly, I accept that, for much of her time in custody, like other prisoners, Ms Jeffrey has been subject to various pandemic restrictions. This has included periods of quarantine and isolation, with limits on access to face‑to‑face visits, and being locked down in her cell more frequently and for longer periods than usual. Although these conditions have ameliorated somewhat in more recent times, it remains the case that her time in custody during this period has been more burdensome than usual.
Prospects of rehabilitation
Finally, I turn to rehabilitation as a mitigating factor. For a combination of reasons, I am satisfied that Ms Jeffrey’s prospects of rehabilitation, while not excellent, are reasonably good.
First, her plea of guilty and remorse suggest positive prospects.
Secondly, her criminal history for violence is relatively modest. Much of her offending appears to involve relatively minor dishonesty and drug offences.
Thirdly, notwithstanding her criminal history and the gravity of her crime, the character references show a positive side to Ms Jeffrey. For example, in their references, she is described by Ms Douglas, Ms Ampt and Tara Hughes as loving, compassionate and kind.
Fourthly, as Mr Simmons opined, her ability to address her illicit drug use will be important to her prospects of rehabilitation. In this regard, it is encouraging that she has done a 40‑hour course concerning drug use while in custody. On the other hand, while her many negative urine screens for drugs are for the good, her two positive results for amphetamine use are a tad concerning.
Fifthly, and similarly, her chances of reform are likely to be improved if she addresses the difficulties she has had with relationships. Unfortunately, she has been exposed to things in some of her relationships that no person should have to endure. Positively, however, she has taken a course in prison with Drummond Street Services concerning family violence.
Sixthly, it is also positive that Ms Jeffrey is keen to be a good mother to her children. The referees attest to her being devoted to her two daughters.
Seventhly, another promising trait is that she has sought to improve herself by undertaking numerous other courses in custody, including by advancing her interest in geology. In the longer term, she wishes to pursue a career in that area.
While the nature of her crime, her criminal history and her history of drug use might be said to suggest poorer chances of reform, I am satisfied that the other matters I have mentioned make her prospects reasonably good in the longer run.
Sentencing purposes
I turn now to the purposes of sentencing.[6]
[6]Section 5(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) provides that the only purposes for which sentence may be imposed are general deterrence, specific deterrence, denunciation, protection of the community, just punishment, and rehabilitation.
General deterrence, denunciation and just punishment are important sentencing purposes in this case. To have killed another by an unlawful and dangerous act of violence is bad enough and must be deterred, denounced and punished. But post‑offence conduct of the kind Ms Jeffrey engaged in here increases her moral culpability and means those sentencing purposes have additional application.
As for specific deterrence and protection of the community, those purposes must also carry weight in the sentencing synthesis in this case. However, I think that that weight should be somewhat less on account of Ms Jeffrey’s plea of guilty, remorse, and prospects of rehabilitation, and the deterrent effect that her time in custody thus far is likely to have had upon her.
Rehabilitation is an important purpose in fixing sentence. That Ms Jeffrey has reasonably good prospects of reform makes rehabilitation a sentencing purpose that must be afforded substantial weight.
As is almost always the case in sentencing, it is also important to recognize the interplay between rehabilitation and protection of the community. Ms Jeffrey will be returning to the community ultimately. It is therefore in the community’s interests that such prospects of rehabilitation as she has are maximized, so that, when she is released, the risk of her reoffending is reduced and her chances of successful reintegration into the community are as good as they can be. In my view, these aims are more likely to be achieved if the head sentence and non‑parole period imposed allow the possibility of a considerable period for release on parole, when the time comes.
Section 5(3) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) provides that a court must not impose a sentence that is more severe than that which is necessary to achieve the purpose or purposes for which the sentence is imposed. This provision reflects the fundamental common law principle of parsimony, which I have applied in arriving at the sentence I shall announce shortly.
Current sentencing practices
In so far as I can determine them, I have had regard to current sentencing practices for manslaughter. This is but one factor in sentencing, and certainly not a controlling one at that, but it is nevertheless important in the sentencing synthesis.
To this end, I have had regard to sentencing statistics for the offence.[7] In doing so, however, I recognise that such statistics are of limited utility, mainly because they do not distinguish cases according to their most important sentencing considerations. Nevertheless, they do give some guidance.
[7]Sentencing Advisory Council, Sentencing Snapshot: Manslaughter, No 274, June 2023.
In order to assist in gauging current sentencing practices in a more targeted way, I have also considered some manslaughter sentences imposed where there was significant post‑offence conduct concerning treatment of the deceased.[8] In doing so, however, I recognise that, in the area of sentencing, it is almost always difficult usefully to compare cases. None of those I considered was quite the same as Ms Jeffrey’s case. And, in any event, sentences are not precedents to be applied or distinguished.
[8]See, e.g., R v Farfalla [2001] VSC 99; R v Mailes & Bux [2001] VSC 236; R v Moreland, Tippins & Thorp [2015] VSC 324; R v BA & Stanley [2019] VSC 90; and DPP v Ristevski [2019] VSCA 287.
In the end, as always, because of the limits of statistics and the process of comparison, I have been driven to rely largely on the circumstances of this case and sentencing principles and purposes to arrive at the appropriate sentence for this manslaughter.
Totality
The final matter to consider concerns the operation of the principle of totality.
Ms Jeffrey has subsequent convictions for unrelated matters for which she received an aggregate sentence of ten months’ imprisonment. Part of that sentence was served during the currency of her remand on this homicide, and part was served immediately preceding that remand.
In particular, the chronology is as follows. On 9 October 2020, Ms Jeffrey was remanded in custody on the unrelated matters. She has remained in prison continuously since that date. While she was charged with the homicide on 29 January 2021, it seems that she was not remanded on that charge until 1 February 2021. In any event, in the Magistrates’ Court on 27 August 2021, she received an aggregate sentence of ten months’ imprisonment on the unrelated matters. Curiously, a declaration was made as to 317 days of pre‑sentence detention, when the period spent in custody to that point was 322 days,[9] and yet was more than ten months anyway.
[9]The parties agree that that five‑day difference (322 – 317 = 5) should be added to the pre‑sentence detention to be declared in respect of the current sentence from 27 August 2021 to today, 8 September 2023, inclusive (which is 743 days), which brings the total to be declared to 748 days (743 + 5 = 748).
Given the terms of s 18(2)(d) of the Sentencing Act, the period of nearly seven months of the ten‑month sentence of imprisonment served on the unrelated matters between 1 February and 27 August 2021 cannot be reckoned as a period of imprisonment already served under the manslaughter sentence under s 18(1). This means that the time for expiry of the head sentence and non‑parole period I am about to impose each will be extended by nearly seven months beyond the date each would have expired but for the service of the other sentence.
It follows that, in considering the principle of totality, I must have regard to these considerations, as well as to the fact that Ms Jeffrey has been in custody continuously since 9 October 2020. The point is all the more significant when regard is had to the likelihood that, had the aggregate ten‑month sentence been imposed in the Magistrates’ Court following the imposition of sentence on manslaughter, it would have been directed to be served mostly, if not wholly, concurrently with that sentence. Thus, in a broad way, the head sentence and non‑parole period I am about to impose have been reduced to reflect these considerations as a matter of totality.
Sentence
I turn now to impose sentence.
Ms Jeffrey, would you stand, please?
Balancing all matters as best I can, for the manslaughter of Kobie Lee Parfitt, Shannon Jeffrey is convicted and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment with a non‑parole period of seven years.
Pursuant to s 18 of the Sentencing Act, I declare that, including today, 748 days of pre‑sentence detention be reckoned as served under this sentence.
Given the loss of pre‑sentence detention through partial service of the other sentence during the period of Ms Jeffrey’s remand on the homicide, this sentence should expire about ten years and seven months after the date she was charged, and the non‑parole period will expire about seven years and seven months after that charge date.
In addition, given that she first went into custody on the charges giving rise to the other sentence on 9 October 2020, from that point, Ms Jeffrey will have spent a little over a month short of eight years continuously in custody before she is eligible for parole, and the combined total length of the other sentence and the sentence just imposed will expire a bit over a month short of eleven years from that date.
Finally, I am required by s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act to declare the sentence I would have imposed had Ms Jeffrey been found guilty of manslaughter at trial following a plea of not guilty. This is always a difficult task as the plea of guilty tends to affect other relevant considerations. Nevertheless, my best estimate is that, but for Ms Jeffrey’s offer to plead guilty and her entry of that plea, I would have imposed a sentence in the order of thirteen years’ imprisonment with a non‑parole period of ten years.
---
6
6