R v JL - [2024] VSC 803

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2023 0315

THE KING	Crown
v
JL	Accused

---

JUDGE:	Champion J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	18 October 2024
DATE OF SENTENCE:	19 December 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v JL
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 803

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Sentence — Manslaughter — Category A serious youth offence — Plea of guilty — Youth offender — Single stab wound — No premeditation — Limited criminal history — Difficult childhood — Bugmy considerations — Verdins enlivened — Positive prospects of rehabilitation.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	K Churchill B Goding	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	J Gullaci SC D Dempsey	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

JL, on 11 September 2024, you pleaded guilty to killing Adam Bockhodt on 3 June 2023 by way of manslaughter.

The maximum penalty for the offence of manslaughter is 25 years’ imprisonment.[1]
[1]Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 5.

Background

Mr Bockhodt was born in Melbourne on 17 August 1988 and was 34 years of age at the time of his death. He is survived by his mother, Bridget Drowley, stepfather, James Drowley, and half‑sister, Jennifer Gray.

Mr Bockhodt completed his schooling at Caulfield Primary School and Glen Eira College. He enjoyed playing baseball from an early age, and was known by his family and friends as an animal‑lover, who had a good sense of humour, and who was extremely loyal to those close to him.

Despite the significant support of his mother, Mr Bockhodt commenced exhibiting some antisocial behaviours during his youth, which resulted in several periods of juvenile detention. Tragically, Mr Bockhodt struggled with drug addiction for most of his life. I do not propose to discuss his background in any detail out of respect for his memory and his grieving family. I have only mentioned these matters in order to provide some understanding as to how his world came into collision with yours.

Mr Bockhodt had been friends with a woman, LC, for about 15 years. The pair had been in a romantic relationship for some time, however, once that ceased, they remained friends.

Events leading up to the offending

You began chatting with LC through social media, and met her for the first time on 31 May 2023 when she invited you to her apartment in South Yarra. You stayed at her apartment for the next two days, during which time you both consumed alcohol together. On various occasions across the 48‑hour period, you told LC that you were in love with her, to which she did not respond other than to thank you.

Between 5:00pm and 5:30pm on 2 June 2023, LC left her apartment to go to the cinema. Shortly after 5:30pm, you left the apartment, taking with you several of her possessions, including her house keys, a Louis Vuitton bag, a North Face puffer jacket, Prada sunglasses, a lanyard, and prescription medication.

You then…

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 JL

Details

AGLC: R v JL [2024] VSC 803
Case: [2024] VSC 803
Decision Date: 19 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved an appeal against sentence by the respondent, JL, who had pleaded guilty to the charge of manslaughter. The incident resulted from a single stab wound inflicted on the deceased. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The respondent, who was a youth offender at the time of the offence, had limited criminal history and came from a difficult background. The prosecution accepted that there was no premeditation on the part of the respondent.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for the respondent, taking into account the relevant factors under the criminal law. Specifically, the court was required to consider the nature and circumstances of the offence, the principles of sentencing for serious youth offences, and the principles outlined in Bugmy v R and Verdins. The court also needed to weigh the respondent's personal circumstances, including his difficult childhood and prospects for rehabilitation.

In delivering the judgment, the court first acknowledged the seriousness of the offence, recognising that a single stab wound had resulted in the death of the deceased. However, the court noted that there was no evidence of premeditation on the part of the respondent. The court further considered the Bugmy and Verdins principles, which emphasised the importance of proportionality in sentencing and the need to have regard to the personal circumstances of the offender. The court found that the respondent's difficult childhood and positive prospects for rehabilitation were significant mitigating factors. After weighing all the relevant considerations, the court determined that the appropriate sentence should reflect the principles of proportionality and rehabilitation.

The court imposed a sentence that recognised the gravity of the offence while also taking into account the mitigating factors. The final orders of the court were that the respondent be sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period, recognising the need for both punishment and rehabilitation.

Orders