This is a case study on charges of kidnapping and murder that resulted in a 3-year Youth Justice Centre Order. The accused is 17 years of age, had no history of criminal offending, and is one of many individuals charged with the offences.
What is alleged to have occurred?
Our client was alleged to have been one of six co-accused who initiated an attack against a person who was subsequently stabbed to death. It was alleged that the deceased and his associate were tracked down by our client and co-accused hours after they had shown up outside our client’s house armed with machetes. One of our client’s co-accused was then alleged to have stabbed the deceased in the neck before the group fled the scene.
Our client was charged with kidnapping and murder. It was not alleged that our client possessed a knife, but it was alleged that our client was aware of the co-accused being in possession of knives at the relevant time.
A person found guilty of kidnapping can face up to 25 years of imprisonment. More significantly, murder carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment with a standard sentence of 25 years.
What happened at court?
Our lawyers reviewed the evidence against our client and obtained instructions relevant to the kidnapping and murder charges. The matter was initially set for trial in the Supreme Court of Victoria.
Ultimately, a negotiated resolution was that a sentence indication would be applied for on the basis that our client would plead guilty to one count of manslaughter. The maximum penalty for manslaughter is 25 years imprisonment (less than murder). A sentence indication enables a judge to inform a defendant about the possible sentence they might face if they choose to plead guilty to a particular set of charge(s).
Ultimately, submissions were made addressing two key issues: the gravity of the offending and the client’s prospect of rehabilitation.
While acknowledging that manslaughter is plainly a serious offence, our lawyers submitted that our client’s offending fell towards the lower end of the scale of seriousness, based on a careful analysis of the client’s role in the attack, that he did not possess a knife and did not organize or instigate the assault against the deceased.
Our client was 17 years of at the time of the offending and had no criminal history. His parents came to Australia as refugees and were exposed to significant trauma. Our client also suffered difficulties in his childhood when his younger sister died, and his parents separated. He had otherwise engaged positively in school and cultural activities.
The Justice of the Supreme Court who heard the matter indicated that the client would be likely to be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of no more than four years. Our client accepted this sentence indication.
At the plea hearing, our lawyers made further submissions to demonstrate that our client’s plea of guilty and circumstances gave rise to exceptional circumstances, such that a Youth Justice Centre Order was an appropriate sentence. A Justice Centre Order is favorable because it allows a person to participate in education and programs that address their offending behaviour and effectively rehabilitate.
A comprehensive psychological report and a Youth Justice suitability report were ordered and were favourable to our client addressing matters such as mental health, prospects of rehabilitation and our client’s vulnerabilities if they were to be placed in an adult prison.
What was the result?
The court ultimately sentenced our client to a 3-year Youth Justice Centre Order.
Zoe Zhou
Zoe regularly represents clients at the Broadmeadows Magistrates' Court as well as other suburban and regional courts. She is fluent in Mandarin which makes her an even more effective lawyer for our Mandarin-speaking clients.With a strong foundation in criminal defence, Zoe has been been actively involved in case management, legal research, and trial preparation in both areas of criminal law and commercial law.
View Zoe Zhou's profile.
DISCLAIMER: This is a real case study of an actual case from our files. Details pertaining to the client have been changed to protect their privacy. The sentence imposed and the charge have not been altered. These case studies are published to demonstrate real outcomes and give an indication of possible tariffs in Court. We do not guarantee a similar case on these charges will get the same result. Please note that we post results at our discretion, therefore while many case studies are average results, others are notable for their exceptional outcomes. PUBLISHED 01/11/2024
