Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S CR 2018 0289
JAYMES TODD
---
JUDGE: KAYE JA
WHERE HELD: Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING: 15, 16 and 20 August 2019
DATE OF SENTENCE: 2 September 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: DPP v Todd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: [2019] VSC 585
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder, rape, attempted rape and sexual assault – Accused
followed victim for 54 minutes – Attacked victim in an isolated area of a public park at
night – Sexually assaulted victim and intentionally strangled victim to death – Accused
enacted long-standing sexual fantasy to rape and strangle to death a female victim –
Accused has sexual sadism disorder – Early plea of guilty – Grave motive – Premeditation –
Standard sentence scheme – Instinctive synthesis – Most grave instances of those offences –
Well above middle range of seriousness – High moral culpability – Young offender – No
prior convictions – Dysfunctional circumstances at accused’s home – Limited remorse due
to mild form of autism spectrum disorder – Poor prospects of rehabilitation – Unacceptable
high risk of re-offending – Sentence of life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 35
years – But for plea of guilty, sentence of life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 43
years – Sentencing Act 1991 ss 5, 5A, 5B, 6AAA, 11A and 18(4) – Crimes Act 1958 ss 3, 38 and
40.
---
1 Jaymes Todd. You have pleaded guilty to the murder of Eurydice Jane Dixon at
Princes Hill on 13 June 2018. In addition, you have also pleaded guilty to one charge
of rape, one charge of attempted rape, and one charge of sexual assault, each
committed by you in the course of the events that culminated in the murder of Ms
Dixon by you.
2 You committed those offences when you attacked Eurydice Dixon as she was
walking across Princes Park, Carlton North shortly after midnight on that date.
During the preceding period of almost one hour, you had deliberately and furtively
followed Eurydice over a distance of 4.2 kms as she made her way on foot from
Flinders Street, Melbourne to Princes Park. The movements of both Eurydice and
you, during that period, were captured on CCTV footage. The offences occurred
after Eurydice had entered the park to walk across it to her home, a short distance
east of the park. As Eurydice walked across the soccer fields in the park, you
violently set upon her, committed the acts which constituted the offences of rape,
attempted rape and sexual assault, and murdered her by choking her to death with
3 The circumstances in which you committed each of those offences were appalling
will be necessary for me to describe them in some detail, and to set out the events
4 At the time of her death, Eurydice Dixon was just 22 years of age. She was then
living at the home, which she shared with her father and younger brother. Eurydice
was an aspiring comedian, and she regularly performed on the Melbourne comedy
circuit. During the 2018 Melbourne International Comedy Festival, she was a
regular performer at the Highlander Club that was situated in Highlander Lane,
5 On the evening of 12 June, Eurydice was one of four comedians who were scheduled
SC:AP 1 SENTENCE
DPP v Todd
to perform at that club. At 8.00 pm, she entered the upstairs function room of the
club to prepare for her performance. She was met there by her boyfriend, Tony
Magnuson. In due course, Eurydice went on stage at 8.50 pm. Her set lasted for
about ten minutes. At 10.20 pm, after all the performances had concluded, she and
Tony met with other friends and talked for about ten minutes, before they left the
club.
6 At the time of the offending, you were 19 years of age. You resided in
Broadmeadows with your parents and your two brothers. You were then
Academy at about 3.00 pm. In company with three fellow students you caught a
train from Prahran to Melbourne. After you arrived in the city, you walked with
your friends to Batman Park, where you and they consumed a bottle of vodka, and a
bottle of cider, and smoked a small quantity of cannabis that you had purchased.
7 In due course, at about 8.30 pm, you and two of your friends attended Southern
Cross Railway Station. After having purchased a bottle of Jim Beam whiskey &
Cola, you caught a Broadmeadows bound train with one of your friends. You exited
the train at Newmarket, and some time later you returned alone by train to Flinders
8 It was at that time that Eurydice Dixon and Tony Magnuson walked east from
Highlander Lane on Flinders Street towards the Flinders Street Railway Station.
They walked to the corner of Swanston Street and Flinders Street, crossed over the
9 At 11.05 pm, Tony caught a tram towards St Kilda Road. At that time, you arrived at
the intersection of Flinders Street and Swanston Street, crossed the road and walked
towards the Flinders Street Railway Station. At the same time, Eurydice had crossed
the road and momentarily entered the station, before cutting through it towards the
Flinders Street and Swanston Street intersection.
SC:AP 2 SENTENCE
DPP v Todd
10 It was at that stage that you caught sight of Eurydice. You loitered near a
construction area as she walked past you to the pedestrian crossing at the
intersection of Flinders Street and Swanston Street. At 11.08 pm, she commenced to
cross Flinders Street. Once she was halfway across the intersection, you began to
11 Eurydice then walked north along Swanston Street on the western side of the road.
As she did so, you followed behind her. As you approached Flinders Lane, you
overtook her, sat on a stack of milk crates, and waited for her to walk past you.
After you had allowed her to walk some distance ahead of you, you resumed
possible, you moved to the opposite side of objects which obstructed her view of
you. As you did so, you would roll a cigarette in order to make your movements
12 You continued to follow Eurydice along Swanston Street, crossing Bourke Street and
Lonsdale Street, and still maintaining a constant distance behind her. As Eurydice
approached the intersection of Swanston Street and La Trobe Street, she walked
down a set of stairs which lead into the Melbourne Central Shopping Centre. As you
arrived at the stairs, Eurydice had walked around a large pillar and was walking
back up the stairs onto Swanston Street. You slowed down, using the pillar as cover,
and let her walk ahead of you as she resumed her course north up Swanston Street.
13 When Eurydice stopped at the intersection of La Trobe and Swanston Streets, and
waited for the lights to change, you stopped at a nearby pillar and rolled a cigarette.
Once the lights changed, and she resumed walking, you continued to follow her.
When Eurydice arrived at the intersection of Swanston Street and A’Beckett Street,
she found that pedestrian traffic was diverted to A’Beckett Street due to construction
works that were then being undertaken. She turned west on that street, and you
followed her. She then turned right into Elizabeth Street and headed north, with
SC:AP 3 SENTENCE
DPP v Todd
14 Eurydice continued north on Elizabeth Street to the intersection of Victoria Street,
opposite the Queen Victoria Market. She walked between the seating area and a
restaurant that was at that location. You walked to the opposite side of the seating
area, where again you stopped to roll a cigarette, so as to enable Eurydice to gain a
lead on you.
Flemington Road and entering Royal Parade, Parkville. You continued to follow
her, maintaining a steady fifteen to twenty seconds distance behind her. At 11.50
pm, Eurydice walked past the University of Melbourne on Royal Parade. You were
then fifty seconds behind her. As she continued north, you increased your speed.
Within two minutes, you had closed the time gap to only twenty-seven seconds
behind her. The CCTV footage at 11.54 pm from the University of Melbourne was
16 Eurydice continued to walk north along Royal Parade towards Princes Park. At
saying ‘I’m nearly home. Hbu [how about you]?’. Princes Park at that point
comprises six soccer pitches arranged in two rows, with three pitches in each row.
17 Having arrived at the park, Eurydice then proceeded to walk across the soccer
pitches from west to east. After she had crossed two pitches, and had just stepped
onto the third pitch, you attacked her. You knocked her to the ground and quickly
subdued her. The degree of force that was used in your initial attack on her is
forehead with an underlying haemorrhage. You then sat on her chest. In the course
of the attack, you ripped Eurydice’s dress open to the waist, and pulled down her
bra, exposing her breasts. You then tore her underpants in half, and raped her by
roughly inserting two fingers into her vagina, causing bruising and two tears to the
edge of the vagina. You attempted to rape her again by putting your penis into her
vagina, but you were unable to maintain an erection. In order to try to stimulate
SC:AP 4 SENTENCE
DPP v Todd
yourself, you slapped your penis on the outside of her mouth, thereby committing
the sexual assault which is the subject of charge 3. During the offending, you had at
least one hand around Eurydice’s throat. At some stage, you placed both your
hands around her throat and compressed downwards on her windpipe with your
thumbs, which cut off her airways and killed her. While the prosecution cannot be
precise as to the sequence in which each of the offences I have described occurred, it
is common ground that Eurydice was alive when the rape, attempted rape and
sexual assault each occurred. You then left Eurydice lying on her back with her legs
bent.
18 Before leaving the scene, you took Eurydice’s mobile phone. After you had left
Princes Park, you walked to the Royal Park Railway Station, where you arrived at
2.14 am. You fell asleep and remained there until 4.00 am. Shortly after you awoke,
you began to look through Eurydice’s mobile phone. You then departed, and
walked back to Princes Park. By then a crime scene had been established following
the discovery of Eurydice’s body at 2.50 am. You then travelled on foot and by tram
along Racecourse Road to Boundary Road, North Melbourne. There you purchased
a pie and coffee, after which you caught a train, and then a bus, arriving at your
home sometime after 6.15 am. It was then that you used your iPad to conduct
19 In the meantime, a passer-by, Mr Williams, who was walking home from work
through Princes Park, came across Eurydice’s body. Having contacted triple 0, he
efforts that he made to save Eurydice’s life, but tragically they were in vain.
20 An autopsy was carried out later that day. The findings of the pathologist included
injuries consistent with vaginal penetration. They showed blunt force injuries to the
head, torso and limbs, and bruises to the right jawline, hands, right knee and leg.
There was also the bruise to the forehead with an underlying haemorrhage. The
findings, relevant to the cause of death, included bruises to both sides of the neck,
SC:AP 5 SENTENCE
DPP v Todd
abrasions of the lower front of the neck, bruising to the muscles of the neck, and a
haemorrhage adjacent to the left hyoid bone. The cause of death was,
21 Swabs, which were taken during the autopsy, were submitted for analysis. Semen
was detected on a swab from the perineum and from two areas on the front of
Eurydice’s dress. DNA analysis established, effectively, that you were the
22 Shortly after you arrived home, you used your iPad to conduct a Google search of
the phrase ‘Princes Park’. That provided you with a number of results relating to the
discovery of a woman’s body in the park. You repeated the same search five
minutes later. Then, at 6.57 am, you conducted a Google search of the phrase
‘strangulation and rape porn’. That provided a list of websites. You selected the
first website which provided a video category entitled ‘Strangled And Brutally
Raped’. You navigated through that category to a subcategory entitled ‘Brutal Rape
Choking Till Death Strangle Forced Videos’, and you viewed two pages of that
search category.
23 Three minutes later you visited another pornographic website, where you viewed a
number of pages from the homepage, conducting a search for the website for
‘brunette’ specific videos. At 7.03 am, you conducted a Google search on the phrase
‘curvy emo girl’. You selected the first website offered, and you searched through
24 During the morning, and later, in the afternoon, you conducted two further Google
25 In the meantime, after the police had obtained copies of the CCTV footage, they
identified that the person depicted in the footage to be following Eurydice (that is,
you) was connected with her death. As a consequence, excerpts from the footage
SC:AP 6 SENTENCE
DPP v Todd
were broadcast on news segments on live television. A friend, who had seen one of
those broadcasts, contacted you and told you that your face was on the news in
relation to the murder. She said that you had to go to the police or she would
contact the police herself. As a result, at 7.09 pm, you contacted the Broadmeadows
Police Station. You told the policeman, who took your call, that you had seen your
image on the news, but that you were not involved in the death of Eurydice Dixon.
You also said that you would attend the police station.
with your mother. During the interviews that were conducted that night, you gave
to the police at least three different and conflicting accounts. As your counsel
correctly conceded, you spun a farrago of lies to try to evade responsibility for what
27 At 9.15 pm, Detective Senior Constable Meade spoke to you, and cautioned you.
You told Detective Meade that after you had had ‘a bit’ to drink, and had had some
marijuana, you felt sick and the night became a blur. You said that you had caught
the bus towards Williamstown, then returned by train to Flinders Street. You then
walked down Elizabeth Street, and because there were no trains, you fell asleep at
the Royal Park Railway Station. When you woke up, you had messages telling you
with you. You were again cautioned, and the interview was suspended at 10.00 pm.
At 11.43 pm, the interview was re-commenced with two detectives from the
Homicide Squad.
29 From the commencement of that interview, you denied any involvement in the
death of Eurydice Dixon. You maintained that denial for a period of one hour and
twelve minutes, in which you responded to some 660 questions. During that phase
of the interview, you told the police that because you had missed the last train home,
you started walking home down Swanston Street. You said that you then diverted
SC:AP 7 SENTENCE
DPP v Todd
around roadworks to Elizabeth Street, taking breaks and catching your breath,
because you were not feeling well. You said that as you continued down Elizabeth
Street, you asked someone (who you had later become aware was the victim) for
directions, and that person told you the way to the zoo. You then said that you
followed the signs to the zoo, walked on, and slept at Royal Park Railway Station for
the night. You said that in the morning you retraced your steps to the main road
and walked to Queen Victoria Market. You then made your way down Racecourse
30 The interview was then suspended at 12.55 am, in order for the police to prepare
Sergeant Millar remained in the interview room with you. He explained to you the
forensic process which would be undertaken, and which included a full examination
to record your injuries, as well as comparing your DNA sample with those taken
from the crime scene. At that point, you responded, ‘Don’t worry about the DNA, I
31 The interview was then re-commenced at 1.06 am. At the beginning of that part of
the interview, you confirmed what you had said to Detective Sergeant Millar during
the break. You then gave the following (second) version to the police. You said that
you first saw Eurydice five or ten minutes ‘at the most’ before she had reached the
park. You said that you did not cross the road purposely to get her, she just
happened to be in front of you, so you asked her for directions. You said that,
because she could barely tell you ‘which way was which’, you thought that once you
were off the street, you would get her bag and run off. You then followed her into
the park to urinate. You said that ‘she looked like she was stumbling around’ and
was not in a position to defend herself. You told the police that you noticed that ‘she
was really quite intoxicated, she looked like she was on drugs’. I pause to
interpolate that that was completely untrue. There was no evidence at all that
Eurydice Dixon had taken drugs or drunk alcohol on that night; samples taken from
her during the post-mortem were negative for the ingestion by her of either such
SC:AP 8 SENTENCE
DPP v Todd
substance.
32 Returning to the version you then gave the police, you told them that you only
wanted her wallet, because you ‘wanted a little bit of money’. You said that you
went to grab her bag, and she hit you and ripped your shirt. You said that you
attempted to defend yourself, that there was a struggle and that you both went to
the ground. You said that you did not want to get into trouble for something as
simple as ‘a little bit of money’, and so you started to choke her and did not stop.
You told the police that you choked Eurydice for five or ten minutes, but it could
have been less than that. You said that you could have just taken her bag and run
off, but with all the alcohol and drugs that you had consumed, you were not
thinking normally. You said that your sole goal was to get some money, you just
wanted to leave, get home and forget, so you made your way to Royal Park Railway
33 The section of the interview, that I have just summarised, covered answers given by
34 Detective Sergeant Millar then asked you directly, ‘Did you rape her?’. It was only
at that point that you first admitted to sexually assaulting and raping Eurydice. You
responded, ‘I attempted to, yeah, unsuccessfully’. You then told the police that you
were sorry that you had kept ‘lying’. Detective Sergeant Millar asked you to give a
full account of everything. It was at this stage that you gave a further (third) version
35 In that version, you told the police that you had asked Eurydice for directions,
followed her into the park, grabbed her from behind, and pulled her to the ground,
and she then started to scream. You said that your intentions at that time were ‘just
to take her stuff’, but that when Eurydice started screaming and she was underneath
you, you thought ‘well I’ve already taken it so far’. Accordingly, you said, you
ripped her shirt and pants. In answer to specific questions from the police, you
admitted to pulling her underwear down and choking her. In answer to the
SC:AP 9 SENTENCE
DPP v Todd
question whether you penetrated her, you said you did so using two fingers. You
claimed that when you grabbed Eurydice and dragged her to the ground, it was not
for the purpose of raping her, but that you had made that decision once you had
36 You told the police that you had first noticed Eurydice about twenty minutes before
the incident, at Flinders Street. However, you said that you did not have any
intentions in relation to her until ‘much later on’. You told the police that you had
followed her for quite a while, because of ‘how she was acting’.
37 The interview then suspended at 1.37 am, and you underwent a forensic
phase of the interview, when you were asked how Eurydice Dixon was strangled,
you said ‘… it was just my two thumbs on the windpipe … I was over the top of her
shoulders in an attempt to keep her hands from hitting me’. You said that you leant
on Eurydice’s throat ‘with [your] grip strength’. You said that in the course of the
assault on Eurydice, you used your fingers to penetrate her, which you did for
fifteen seconds. You said that you then attempted to rape Eurydice, but were
unsuccessful, because you could not maintain an erection. You also said that you
slapped your penis on her lips in order to try to get an erection, but you were
unsuccessful. You said that Eurydice was still conscious, and fighting you, at that
point. You said that you did not remove your hand from her throat during the
38 On the plea, your counsel submitted that there is insufficient evidence to establish,
beyond reasonable doubt, that you had an intention to actually kill Eurydice at the
time you compressed her neck with your hands. Rather, it was submitted that you
should be sentenced on the basis that, at that time, you either intended to cause her
really serious injury, or that you acted recklessly, in that you knew that death or
really serious injury would probably result from your actions.
SC:AP 10 SENTENCE
DPP v Todd
39 I do not accept that submission. On your own admission, in the interview with the
police, you stated that throughout the assault you had one hand on Eurydice’s
throat. You also said that, at one point, you put both thumbs on her windpipe with
your grip strength. As I have noted, you told the police that you choked Eurydice
for five to ten minutes. While that estimate may, essentially, be inaccurate,
nevertheless it constitutes an admission by you that you strangled Eurydice for more
than a few moments. By that time, you had overcome most of Eurydice’s resistance,
certainly to the extent that you were able to digitally rape her, attempt to rape her,
and commit the sexual assault on her. Self-evidently, you would have known — as
anyone else would — that the purpose of choking another individual is to prevent
that person from breathing. The fact that you choked Eurydice over a period of
time, during part of which you had both thumbs over her windpipe, is strong
evidence on which to conclude, beyond reasonable doubt, that you intended to kill
40 That conclusion is reinforced, first, by your conduct after you had returned home
that morning, when you accessed on the internet, and viewed two pages of, a
website entitled ‘Brutal Rape Choking Till Death Strangle Forced Videos’. Secondly,
strangulation of the victim to death, and the fantasy to that effect that was
preoccupying you during the period in which you trailed behind Eurydice Dixon on
her way home. Thirdly, it is also supported by the evidence of Dr Thomas and
Professor Ogloff that, based on what you told each of them, your violent attack on
Eurydice, culminating in her death, constituted the enactment by you of the whole of
41 For those reasons, I am satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that you did have an
actual intention to kill Eurydice when you strangled her. I should add that if,
contrary to that conclusion, your intention was only to cause her really serious
injury, by rendering her unconscious, or if you were reckless as to the outcome of
SC:AP 11 SENTENCE
DPP v Todd
your actions by knowing that you would probably cause her death in strangling her,
it is inescapable that, at the very least, at the time you strangled Eurydice, you must
have known that there was an extreme, if not almost certain, risk that Eurydice
42 Each of the offences committed by you are, by their very nature, particularly serious.
The maximum sentence for the crime of murder is life imprisonment, reflecting the
value which the law, and our community, place on the sanctity of each human life.
The maximum sentence for the crime of rape is 25 years’ imprisonment, and for
offences, which involve the violation of the sexual integrity and dignity of another
human being.
43 Based alone on the circumstances of the offending that I have just outlined, each of
the offences committed by you was a most serious instance of such offences. After
you trailed Eurydice Dixon for almost one hour, you waited until she was well into
the dark reaches of Princes Park. Eurydice was then doing what she — and any
public area of our city. She was vulnerable and, in the circumstances, defenceless.
In a most callous and cowardly manner, you set upon her, sexually assaulting and
humiliating her, before cruelly strangling her to death. The sheer terror which
Her last moments on this earth must have been utterly horrifying for her. You
inflicted that brutal assault, and took her life from her, by raping and murdering her
44 In order to assess, fully, the objective gravity of the offences, and your subjective
precisely why you set upon and killed Eurydice in the manner in which you did,
and, secondly, for how long you had premeditated those offences.
45 As I have mentioned, when you were interviewed by the police, you stated that
SC:AP 12 SENTENCE
DPP v Todd
when you entered the park, and attacked Eurydice, you intended to rob her, and that
you only formulated the intention to rape her when she fell underneath you. You
also told the police that you strangled her to overcome her resistance, and to enable
you to make good your escape from the park. However, in view of the conflicting
and untruthful versions of the events that you gave to the police, and the matters
which I shall now outline, I do not accept that those statements by you were a
truthful account of your actual intention and motivation when you attacked and
murdered Eurydice.
46 For the purpose of your plea, you were examined by Dr David Thomas, a consultant
Prosecutions. Their examinations have shed important light on the true nature of
47 It is evident that for a number of years before the date of the offences, you had
violence and sadism. You told Dr Thomas that over a period of time your viewing
habits had changed, with a marked increase in the time you spent watching
pornography, and with a preference for more coercive and non-consensual content.
During the period of twelve to eighteen months leading up to the offences, the
pornography that you accessed had expanded to include rape pornography, and
pornography that purports to depict sexual activity that culminates with at least one
participant dead. You told Dr Thomas that, during that period, you had active
sexual fantasies, which involved you having rough non-consensual sex with women,
and which became more consistent with the extreme violent pornography that you
were viewing on the internet. In the same vein, you told Professor Ogloff and
Dr Thomas that, over that period, your sexual fantasies became increasingly dark,
and that you had invested a lot of time and emotion into those fantasies, in which
you were always in control, and in which the other person was always female and
SC:AP 13 SENTENCE
DPP v Todd
always ended up deceased.
48 During that period, you had a steady girlfriend with whom you had a sexual
conduct in which you would place your hands around her neck and choke her
during sexual intercourse. However, in engaging in that activity, she and you had
pre-agreed signs, and you would stop whenever she indicated that she felt
uncomfortable.
49 It was in that context that you chose to follow Eurydice Dixon when she caught your
attention near the Flinders Street Railway Station. You told Dr Thomas that you
thought that you may have been attracted by her ‘goth’ look, and that you found her
sexually attractive. In that respect, it is significant that when the police searched
your iPad, after your arrest, it revealed that just seventeen days before the offences,
you had sought out and viewed pornographic videos involving women who dressed
50 You also told Dr Thomas that while you followed Eurydice, you were reliving your
fantasies involving coercive sexual activity, and that ‘things escalated’. You said that
when you saw her enter the park, you knew that you were going to act out your rape
fantasy, although you denied having an intention to kill her at that time. However,
you also told Dr Thomas that at some stage while you were assaulting Eurydice, you
lived out the whole of the fantasy, culminating in her death. You told him that while
you were committing the offences, you knew the ‘end game’, that is, you knew that
the sexual assaults and rape that you were perpetrating on her would end in her
death.
51 When you spoke to Professor Ogloff, you similarly told him that when you
commenced to follow Eurydice, you were attracted to her, and you were thinking of
carrying out your coercive rape fantasy on her. During the period in which you
followed her, you said that you were immersed in that rape fantasy, which involved
the act of strangulation. You told Professor Ogloff that, when you entered the park,
SC:AP 14 SENTENCE
DPP v Todd
you were entertaining in your mind the coercive rape fantasy, which included the
52 Based on those matters, it is clear, then, that it was because you had a sexual interest
in Eurydice that you followed her. It is also clear that, during the period of one hour
in which you trailed behind Eurydice, you were entertaining powerful thoughts of
enacting the violent sexual fantasy to which you had become addicted, namely, the
that the thoughts that you were entertaining of choking her to death — and the
fantasies that you had been engaging in during the period of twelve to eighteen
months before the date of the offences — did not culminate in the acts in which you
cruelly raped and strangled Eurydice to death. In that respect, you told Dr Thomas
that while you had thought you were in control of your fantasy, you were wrong
and you had lost control of yourself. That is, you had acted out the whole of the
coercive rape fantasy that had obsessed you, including its climax — the death of the
victim. In a similar way, you said to Professor Ogloff that, subsequent to the event,
you realised you had the capacity to carry out your fantasies and to harm or kill
people. In other words, you conveyed to Professor Ogloff that Eurydice Dixon’s
death was the result of you carrying out the coercive rape fantasy in which you had
become absorbed.
53 It is not possible to determine with precision when your line of thinking hardened
into a specific intention by you to enact the whole of that fantasy. Clearly, as you
became more engrossed in the fantasy while you followed Eurydice, your desire and
intention to enact it grew stronger. As your counsel correctly conceded, the further
that Eurydice walked from the safety of the central business district, the more
definite became your fantasy, to, at least, sexually assault her in the way that you
did. That intention became a certainty in your mind, at least when Eurydice left the
footpath in Royal Parade and commenced to walk across Princes Park. On any view,
that is the latest point at which, at the very least, you had formulated the definite
intention to violently rape her.
SC:AP 15 SENTENCE
DPP v Todd
54 It is, perhaps, more difficult to identify precisely when you formulated the specific
intention to kill Eurydice. As I have noted, and as became clear to both Professor
Ogloff and Dr Thomas, the fantasy that had preoccupied your mind, both in the
months leading up to the offences, and in that critical hour in which you followed
Eurydice, had, as an integral part of it, the coercive rape of a female, culminating in
her death by strangulation. That fatal end to the rape was an inseparable and
essential element of your fantasy. Throughout the time in which you raped and
sexually assaulted Eurydice, you had at least one hand on her throat. I am satisfied,
beyond reasonable doubt, that, at the very latest, your intention to kill her by
throttling her to death hardened, from forethought to specific intention, at the time
at which you commenced the attack on Eurydice. The formulation by you of that
intention was not, of course, a sudden and cataclysmic event in your mind. Rather,
it was the almost inevitable evolution and culmination of the dark thoughts that had
been preoccupying your mind in the hour that preceded the incident.
55 Based on those matters, I am satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that the offences of
rape, attempted rape, sexual assault and murder, were each motivated by the
overwhelming urge that you had to enact the fantasy with which you had become
obsessed. In other words, you intentionally killed Eurydice Dixon by choking her to
death, in order to gratify your perverted and depraved sexual desires. As such, the
offending by you was totally and categorically evil. Your conduct, and your
intentions and motivation, struck at the very heart of the most basic values of a
decent civilised society. In the absence of any mitigating circumstances, the objective
gravity of, and your moral culpability for, each offence — and in particular, for the
crime of murder — falls into one of the highest categories of such offences.
56 Eurydice Dixon was the primary victim of your offending. By your conduct, you
have taken from her her life, in circumstances in which her last moments on this
earth must have been utterly horrifying. At the time of her death, Eurydice was only
22 years of age. She was an aspiring and talented comedian, with her whole life
ahead of her. Eurydice’s sister, Polly Cotton, in her victim impact statement,
SC:AP 16 SENTENCE
DPP v Todd
described her in the following terms:
Eurydice lived an honourable life. She was gutsy and determined and clever
and when I think of her, I feel proud and I feel inspired.
57 While Eurydice was the primary victim of your offending, there are also a number of
other victims of your crimes, who have suffered, and will continue to suffer,
grievously as a result of them. Eurydice had three brothers and one sister. After her
mother passed away when Eurydice was seven years of age, she and her younger
brother were raised by her father. The victim impact statements of her elder sister,
Polly, her boyfriend, Tony Magnuson, and the close family friend, Judith Shaw,
eloquently depict the grief, anguish and trauma that they have each suffered as a
doubt that each of the other members of her family, and her close friends, have also
58 The victim impact statements are a salutary reminder of the extent and depth of the
grief and suffering which have been, and which will continue to be, the inevitable
consequence of the offences which you have committed. While you are to be
sentenced based on a rational analysis of the facts of the case, and the application of
relevant sentencing principles, it is important not to lose sight of the enormity of the
crimes which you have committed, and the profound grief and pain caused to so
59 As I have already stated, the maximum sentence for the offence of murder is life
imprisonment, and the maximum sentence for the offence of attempted rape is 20
years’ imprisonment. I should add that the maximum sentence for the offence of
sexual assault, to which you pleaded guilty, is 10 years’ imprisonment. The relevant
provisions of the Crimes Act 1958 provide that the standard sentence for the crime of
SC:AP 17 SENTENCE
DPP v Todd
standard sentences, I have been significantly assisted by the careful and detailed
60 Consistent with those decisions, the standard sentence regime does not alter the
of the facts, and the application of legal principles to those facts. Ultimately, the
sentence is the result of the instinctive synthesis by a judge of the facts, legal
principles and other factors relevant to the case, in the exercise of the judge’s
sentencing discretion.
that are prescribed, for the crime of murder and the crime of rape, each constitute
take precedence over any of the other relevant factors that must be taken into
62 Section 5A(1) of the Sentencing Act provides that the standard sentence, specified by
statute for the offence is the sentence that, taking into account only the ‘objective
factors’ affecting the relative seriousness of that offence, is in the ‘middle of the
range’ of seriousness of the offence. Section 5A(3) provides that the ‘objective factors
reference to matters personal to you, and wholly by reference to the nature of your
offending.
committed by you of murder and rape (and indeed attempted rape and sexual
SC:AP 18 SENTENCE
DPP v Todd
assault) were most serious. In particular, I am satisfied that the offence of murder
committed by you was well above what could be described as the ‘middle range of
seriousness’ of murder offences, taking into account only the objective factors
relating to your offending. I have reached that conclusion for the following reasons:
(1) The murder committed by you was not spontaneous. Throughout the period
in which you trailed behind her on her way to Princes Park, you were
seriously contemplating, and indeed obsessed with the thought of, raping and
choking her to death. During the whole of that period, you had ample
(2) At the time you attacked, raped and killed her, Eurydice Dixon was totally
vulnerable, defenceless and helpless. You set upon her after she had crossed
two soccer fields, so that you were well secluded from the view of any person
who might be passing along Royal Parade. You had the advantage of
surprise, and it would seem, quite clearly from what occurred, superior
strength.
(3) The murder by you of Eurydice occurred in the context of the events that
immediately preceded it, namely, the rape, attempted rape and sexual assault
(4) The method by which you murdered Eurydice was appalling. The act of
choking her to death, so that she suffocated, was callous, cruel and brutal.
(5) Your actions, in the period that followed the murder, aggravated the objective
which you had raped and murdered your victim, troubled your conscience at
all. Rather, you used Eurydice’s mobile phone, slept and ate, and accessed
immediate aftermath of your offending, you had an entire and utter lack of
SC:AP 19 SENTENCE
DPP v Todd
concern for what you had done to an innocent and decent young woman.
64 In that context, the murder by you of Eurydice Dixon was far in excess of what could
65 The same conclusion may be drawn concerning the offence of rape that you
committed. Again, the offence was not spontaneous; rather, you had been thinking
about it and premeditating it for some period, of up to fifty minutes. During that
period of time, you had ample opportunity, time and again, to resile from your
intentions, and to break off. Again, when you raped Eurydice, she was defenceless
and vulnerable. While you raped her, you had one hand around her throat. She
sustained injuries to her vagina, which indicates that you raped her in a rough
manner. Again, your actions after the rape (and murder) of Eurydice bespeak an
utter callousness on your behalf about her terrible fate. Taken together, all of those
factors, objectively, place the rape that you committed above the middle range of
66 I turn then to your personal circumstances. They are set out, in some detail, in the
expert reports that have been tendered to the Court, and have been outlined in the
67 You are the second of three children of your parents. You were raised by your
68 From a quite early age, your parents and teachers noted issues relating to
behavioural difficulties with you, particularly at school, where you had a history of
being disruptive in class. As a result of that conduct, you had to change schools in
your primary education, and, subsequently you were expelled from secondary
college in 2012 while you were in Year 8. You then attended an alternative school for
young people with difficulties. Due to problems that you experienced at that school,
you did not complete Year 9. You then attended the Melbourne Academy in order
to obtain your Year 10 equivalence. After having completing Year 10, you gained
SC:AP 20 SENTENCE
DPP v Todd
entry to the Hospitality, Education and Training course at Hester Hornbrook
Academy, which, as I stated, you were attending at the time that you committed the
specialists during your early teenage years. In November 2011, when you were
12 years of age, the school psychologist at your college referred you to the Royal
teachers about your learning, social interactions with peers, and your emotional
state. You were seen by Professor Alasdair Vance, the head academic child
psychiatrist at the hospital, during 2012. Professor Vance concluded that you had
ADHD.
you had been expelled from secondary college. She considered that you had a good
intelligence, but that you had Asperger’s Disorder, and that your behaviour and
Dr Rhian Coram, for psychological therapy. During the following year, Dr Coram
noted that you engaged well in the treatment sessions that were aimed at developing
your ability to regulate your mood, particularly your anger and frustration. She
considered that you were quite insightful in relation to the nature and management
of your problems.
72 As I have mentioned, you have been examined, for the purpose of the plea, by
interview you over a number of hours, and to have access to a substantial amount of
material that is relevant to the case. Dr Thomas also had the advantage of
interviewing members of your family. Professor Ogloff had access to Dr Thomas’s
SC:AP 21 SENTENCE
DPP v Todd
report, and was acquainted with what Dr Thomas was told in those interviews. Both
practitioners compiled thorough reports, and gave lengthy evidence on the plea.
73 Dr Thomas and Professor Ogloff both concluded that you suffer, and at the time of
the offending suffered, from a mild form of autism spectrum disorder. They both
also concluded that you have, and at the relevant time had, a coercive sexual sadism
offending, but that the coercive sexual sadism disorder was the dominant cause of
your conduct. On the other hand, Professor Ogloff concluded that your autism
spectrum disorder did not directly contribute to your offending. Each practitioner
did consider that your autism disorder played some role — albeit not the major role
have referred.
74 In essence, Dr Thomas has expressed the view that your autism spectrum disorder
contributed to your offending in two respects. The first respect concerns your deficit
in being able to perceive and comprehend the suffering that your actions might
cause to other individuals, and, related to that, the difficulty that you might have in
your disorder led you to focus on your fantasy as you pursued Eurydice, rather than
comprehending the ‘big picture’. In that way, he considered that while your autism
did not impact on your ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of your actions, it
75 On the other hand, Professor Ogloff disagreed with the opinion of Dr Thomas that
your mild autistic disorder was a factor directly contributing to your offending. In
particular, he considered that this was not a case in which you might have
misinterpreted any cue given to you by Eurydice Dixon. On the contrary, you
deliberately sought to take her by surprise and attack, rape and choke her, as part of
your violent coercive rape fantasy. Professor Ogloff also considered that you had
the capacity to, and did, understand the effect that your conduct was having on
SC:AP 22 SENTENCE
DPP v Todd
Eurydice, because you had previously engaged in consensual choking with your
girlfriend during intercourse. In that way, your autism disorder had not previously
precluded your capacity to desist from enacting your sexual fantasy while you were
aroused. Professor Ogloff also considered that it is relevant that you pursued
Eurydice for over an hour, during which period you had innumerable opportunities
to desist from engaging in the sexual offending that you were contemplating. This
was not an offence, therefore, that was a product of you feeling overwhelmed by
reason of any deficit that was an aspect of your autism spectrum disorder.
76 The resolution of this issue is not simple. In order that I take your autism into
that your autism spectrum disorder did not directly contribute to the offending. I
77 The starting point is the nature and degree of your two disorders. On the one hand,
Professor Ogloff and Dr Thomas both told me that an autistic disorder does not,
spectrum disorder is of a particularly mild degree. Before the offending, you were
functioning well in the community. You had a number of friends, and two of them,
in their statements to the police, described how you behaved normally and related
78 On the other hand, and by contrast, it is clear, from the evidence of both experts,
that, in the months preceding the offences, your sexual sadism disorder was
paraphilic interest was focused on coercive violent sex involving suffering to the
female victim, which culminated in her death. You became immersed in
SC:AP 23 SENTENCE
DPP v Todd
Eurydice during the one hour before you raped and murdered her, you were
absorbed in that fantasy. That ideation by you, in that fatal hour, was clearly the
product of the sexual sadism disorder. It was that ideation, and that disorder, which
79 It is common ground that, at all times, you knew that what you were doing to
Eurydice was wrong. You well understood the effects of choking a female victim, as
a result of the experience you had of undertaking that activity with your girlfriend.
In particular, you understood that it involved suffering to her. At the centre of your
paraphilic interest, and the sexual sadism disorder, was the coercive infliction of
suffering to the female victim. In those circumstances, I am well satisfied that, at the
time that you set upon, raped and murdered Eurydice, you well knew that you were
causing her severe distress. You understood that, and that was part and parcel of
what the sexual sadism disorder drove you to do. Her suffering was the essence of
the sexual arousal that drove your actions. Insofar as you failed to exercise an
appropriate judgment, I am satisfied that that was due to your sexual sadism
disorder. Your obsessive fixation on enacting your dark and sick fantasy was what
distorted the exercise by you of a proper human judgment, not your autism.
80 On the other hand, I accept the evidence of both Dr Thomas and Professor Ogloff
that your autism did play a role in your addiction to violent online pornography.
However, as Dr Thomas noted, your autism was not the only reason why you
engaged in that perverted interest. In that respect, I note that Professor Ogloff
observed that the log of your online activities, leading up to the offending, did not
indicate the type of repetitive conduct that could be ascribed to your autism.
that your mild autism spectrum disorder did play a role — albeit not a major role —
in your obsession with the type of pornography that fed the fantasy which, in turn,
culminated in the appalling crimes that you have committed. To that limited extent,
I accept that your autism disorder did, to a small degree, mitigate your moral
culpability for the offending.
SC:AP 24 SENTENCE
DPP v Todd
81 I should add that your counsel, quite correctly, did not contend that the role of your
sexual sadism disorder in the offending could, or should, in any way mitigate the
gravity of the offending or your moral culpability for it. Plainly, that disorder could
not be rationally considered to be a factor that mitigates the sentences that are to be
imposed on you.
which you were then living. As I stated, at that time you were residing with your
walkthrough of the premises that was conducted by the police shortly after your
Dr Thomas, having observed the video, considered that the circumstances, in which
you were then residing, would have affected your emotional state in the period
leading up to the offending. In particular, the squalor, severe neglect and disrepair
of the premises reflected the human environment in the home, in which contact by
you with your other family members was more functional than relational.
83 Your counsel, correctly, did not rely on that evidence as establishing a causal
explanation for your offending. However, you are not to be sentenced as a person
who has had the advantage of a normal, stable, and regular home environment. In
particular, the circumstances of your home could not have assisted you to resist the
impulses that drove the development of the sexual disorder that lay at the heart of
your offending. To that limited extent, they mitigated the severe gravity of your
84 The disorders that affect you, as diagnosed by Dr Thomas and Professor Ogloff, are
the question whether the sexual disorder, that drove the offending, can be
sufficiently treated during your term of imprisonment, so that you can be safely
returned to the community after you have completed serving the non-parole period
SC:AP 25 SENTENCE
DPP v Todd
that I shall set in respect of your sentence.
85 Dr Thomas and Professor Ogloff both expressed views on that matter. There was
some common ground in their evidence, but they ultimately disagreed as to their
conclusions.
86 In particular, Dr Thomas noted that in the course of his interviews with you, you
had demonstrated a desire to explore the events and factors that led to the offending,
and that you had been appropriately distressed and remorseful when discussing
your offending and its impact on Eurydice and her family. As a consequence, and in
light of your young age, he was reasonably optimistic about your prospects of
rehabilitation.
that that treatment cannot eliminate the underlying paraphilic interest that you have.
Rather, the medication would reduce your sex drive while it is being taken.
However, he considered that it would also be necessary that you receive behavioural
therapy to address the manner in which you respond to the paraphilic interest that
had driven the offending behaviour, and that was part of your disorder.
88 On the other hand, Professor Ogloff was more pessimistic about the prospects of
addressing the sexual disorder that underlay your offending. He noted that large
scale studies have revealed that sexual deviance has been reliably found to be the
most potent predictor of sexual re-offending. Like Dr Thomas, he noted that it is not
possible to treat the paraphilic interest that underlies the disorder. Further, there is
little evidence that the disorder itself can be effectively treated to prevent sexual re-
offending, by remediating the behaviours that are part and parcel of the sexual
SC:AP 26 SENTENCE
DPP v Todd
reduction in sexual recidivism. Further, medication is only effective while the
subject takes it, and a high percentage of people drop out of that treatment because
89 It is thus clear, on the evidence, that in the absence of appropriate and effective
treatment, there is an unacceptable risk that, on your release into the community,
you would re-offend in the same manner in which you have in this case. In
particular, there is an unacceptable risk that you would re-offend in a manner which
would involve the enactment by you of the whole of your sexual fantasy,
culminating in the death of a victim. As Professor Ogloff stated in his report, and in
his evidence, the conclusion, to be drawn from some 82 large scale studies, involving
almost thirty thousand sexual offenders internationally, is that the presence of sexual
had made of your risk of sexual re-offending and your risk of violent re-offending
using applicable guides. That assessment was that you are well above an average
risk for being charged with, or convicted of, another sexual offence in the future. In
particular, the sex offender guide, when applied in your case, suggested an 80 per
cent chance of recidivism within a ten year period. Dr Thomas concluded that the
assessment tools identified you as being more likely than not to engage in sexual and
violent offences in the future short to medium term, in the absence of active
91 As I have noted, both Dr Thomas and Professor Ogloff have stated, in clear terms,
that it is not possible to eliminate the paraphilic interest that is the foundation of
your disorder, namely, your fascination with and obsession about coercive violent
sex involving the death of a victim. Treatment in the form of medication only
reduces the aberrant sex drive while the medication is taken, but it does not
whether you are willing to take that medication, he has not outlined to you the
SC:AP 27 SENTENCE
DPP v Todd
potential side effects of it, and he has not, other than in a most general sense,
indicated whether in his view you would be willing to take that medication for the
long term.
92 Importantly, as Professor Ogloff has noted, the rape and murder by you of Eurydice,
which was the response by you to your paraphilic interest and disorder, was the last
sexual encounter that you had before your arrest and imprisonment. Professor
[h]e will be in prison for a considerable time and for him who had these
significant fantasies over such a period of time, and based on what he said,
this is the only time he actually was able to carry them out, then that event
will be profound for him in his ongoing thinking about sex and fantasy.
93 Professor Ogloff, when explaining why he said the event would be ‘profound’ for
… when he was sexually aroused and excited in the past he was driven by …
increasingly dark pornography, what he called rough sex, snuff films … he
knows these films are usually staged and to him that was less satisfying
knowing that someone is not really dying.
94 In those circumstances, it is inevitable that I must conclude that, based on the present
evidence, the prospects of successfully addressing the disorder that underlay your
concluded that, at least for the foreseeable future, you would pose an unacceptable
95 I do note that you have expressed to Dr Thomas, and I accept, that you have a
motivation to gain an insight into why you committed the offences. In that respect, I
note that when interviewed by Dr Thomas and Professor Ogloff, you opened up and
revealed to them, much about your internal ideation, and thought processes, which
point you are, at least to some extent, sincere in your desire to address the issues that
drove the terrible crimes perpetrated by you. I also note the evidence of Professor
SC:AP 28 SENTENCE
DPP v Todd
rehabilitation, it is most important that such therapy, that is currently available, be
directed to treating your disorder at an early stage of your incarceration, while you
still maintain the motivation to gain insight into your disorder and to addressing it.
96 I turn, then, to the factors that have been relied on in mitigation of your sentence.
First, of course, is your plea of guilty. You pleaded guilty to the charges on the
indictment at the committal mention hearing. That was the earliest opportunity for
you to formally announce your plea of guilty. Your plea has, quite plainly,
facilitated the course of justice, by avoiding the necessity for a committal proceeding
and a trial. It has spared witnesses the stress of giving evidence in such a tragic case.
Importantly, it has had the effect that the family members, and close friends, of
Eurydice, have not been subjected to the trauma and strain of a contested committal
97 As earlier discussed, during your interview with the police, you ultimately admitted
to each of the offences, to which you have pleaded guilty. Certainly, for quite some
time during the interview, you attempted to avoid accepting responsibility for your
actions. For the first hour of the interview, you provided a false account of your
movements, which you had clearly thought out, in order to explain how you were
depicted on CCTV footage following Eurydice as she made her way north towards
the point at which she was fatally assaulted. Nevertheless, it does stand to your
credit that, ultimately, you did confess to your offending. In particular, in making
those admissions, you revealed that you had committed the offences that constituted
the attempted rape and sexual assault, which might otherwise not have been
expressed some remorse for your offending. An issue arose in the course of your
plea as to the genuineness and depth of that expression of remorse by you. In his
report, Dr Thomas stated that you had been appropriately distressed and remorseful
when discussing the offending and its impact on Eurydice Dixon, her family and
SC:AP 29 SENTENCE
DPP v Todd
friends. On the other hand, Professor Ogloff was of the view that your capacity for
empathy is limited, and that your expression of remorse and empathy was ‘very
more than regret for the consequences that have ensued to the offender as a result of
100 In this case, the question of your remorse has been complicated by the impact of
your mild autistic disorder. Dr Thomas and Professor Ogloff have both noted that
you tend to intellectualise the way you think about things. Thus, Dr Thomas stated,
and I accept, that the remorse expressed by you is the product of you thinking the
reaction to what you have done. Professor Ogloff stated that your expression of
remorse does not have the emotional depth that an average person would have.
However, I accept that that limitation is due to your autistic disorder. Taking that
into account, I am prepared to accept, in your favour, that you do genuinely feel a
degree of remorse, not simply in relation to the consequences that have and will flow
to you, but because of the appalling harm that you have inflicted on Eurydice Dixon,
101 An additional mitigating factor is your young age. At the time of the offending, you
102 Ordinarily, and in particular in cases of less serious offending, the law considers that
circumstance. An offender’s youth may have had an effect on his or her offending,
SC:AP 30 SENTENCE
DPP v Todd
103 However, in your case, those considerations are accorded significantly less weight.
There is no suggestion that your young age, and immaturity, were relevantly
you of the sexual sadism disorder, and the enactment by you of the fantasy that was
driven by that disorder, that propelled your offending. Further, it is well established
that as the level of the seriousness of the criminality increases, there must be a
mitigation. In the present case, in view of the most grave circumstances in which
you committed the offences, and the depraved motivation that lay at the heart of
them, the weight to be given to your young age must be significantly moderated. In
protection and denunciation must assume a much greater role in the determination
104 It is relevant that you do not have any previous convictions. It is particularly to your
credit that that is so, notwithstanding some of the behavioural difficulties that have
been connected with your autistic disorder in the past, and, also, considering the
largely dysfunctional domestic circumstances in which you were living at the time of
the offending.
105 I also accept that, as a result of your autistic disorder, you may experience more
difficulty during your term of imprisonment than an offender who is not affected by
such a condition. Your autistic disorder affects, not so much the content of your
conversation, but rather the tone and style with which you communicate with
others. You have already experienced some conflict with at least one other prisoner.
It is likely that that difficulty might recur in the pressured and highly charged
slights directed at them. Further, due to the nature of your offending, you have been
kept in a protection unit since your arrest. It is probable that, during your sentence,
you will need to be held in such circumstances at least for the foreseeable future. As
such, your opportunities for participating in employment, training and education,
SC:AP 31 SENTENCE
DPP v Todd
and other activities, will be limited.
106 In the course of sentencing submissions, your counsel relied on the sentences
imposed in the four cases to which I have earlier referred, namely Brown, Robertson,
Leigh and Willis, as demonstrating the current sentencing practices which have been
107 The sentences, that were imposed in those cases, do not constitute precedents for the
sentence which I am to impose upon you. Each of those cases involved facts which,
in many respects, were quite different to the circumstances of the present case. They
However, in light of the unusual and most serious circumstances of this case, the
108 The principles, which apply to determining your sentences, are well established. It
express the condemnation by the Court, and by the community, of the appalling
uphold the sanctity of human life, which is the most precious value in our society,
and to vindicate the right of all persons, but in particular women, to be safe in the
109 In addition, it is important that the sentences, that I impose on you, be of sufficient
clear and unequivocal message that the kind of outrageous and depraved conduct in
which you engaged will be met with the most severe of sentences, in which mercy
plays no role. It is only in that way that this Court can do its best to protect the lives
and safety of women, and other vulnerable members of our society, from the type of
110 It is also important that the sentences be of sufficient duration to provide protection
to those members of our society from you, at least until you are properly assessed to
SC:AP 32 SENTENCE
DPP v Todd
be safe to return to the community. The conclusion, that I have reached about your
prospects of rehabilitation, and the risk that you will re-offend by succumbing to
your sexual sadism disorder, means that substantial weight must be given to the
protection of the community, but bearing in mind the principle that that
consideration does not justify the imposition of sentences that are disproportionate
111 In addition, it is important that the sentences, which I impose on you, are sufficient
to ensure that you yourself are personally deterred from further wrongdoing of the
kind in which you engaged in this case, and to instil in you some understanding of,
and insight into, the horrifying nature of the crimes that you committed.
112 Ultimately, the sentences, which I am to impose upon you, must give effect to the
sentences, I have taken into account the circumstances of the offending, and the
serious offences. In summary, the offences were not spontaneous, but, rather, you
had thought about them, and in that way premeditated them, for a substantial
period of time as you stalked Eurydice Dixon while she walked towards the scene of
the offending. Your conduct during that period of time was predatory and
disturbing. You had plenty of opportunity to come to your senses and to desist from
where your dark desires were leading you. Your offending involved a most
cowardly violent attack on an innocent decent young woman who was defenceless
and helpless in all the circumstances. Each of the three sexual offences — the rape,
the attempted rape and the sexual assault — constituted a gross violation by you of
her person and her dignity. Your actions in performing each of those offences were
cruel and despicable. The intentional killing of her by you — the murder — was an
Your motivation for that crime was a reflection of the darkest form of human
thinking. To intentionally murder someone, for the purpose of gaining sexual
SC:AP 33 SENTENCE
DPP v Todd
gratification, places your offending in one of the highest categories of the offence of
murder. Your actions in doing so were those of pure and unmitigated evil. For
those reasons, the offences for which I am to sentence you must be viewed as being
among the most grave instances of those offences. Your moral culpability in respect
113 On the other hand, I also take into account the mitigating circumstances that I have
already discussed. In summary, they include making some allowance for the
indirect contribution that your autism made, not to the offending, but to the
development of the sexual sadism disorder that precipitated the offending. The
early plea of guilty by you was of considerable value, both to the community, and
also to the victims. Your cooperation with the police, albeit somewhat limited, was
also of value and importance. Your youth is a relevant mitigating circumstance, but
You have no previous convictions, which is to your credit, given your autism
disorder and the circumstances of your upbringing. As I have found, you have come
to feel remorse for what you have done to Eurydice and her family. I take into
account the dysfunctional circumstances in which you were living, and I also take
into account that, because of your autism, and because of the nature of the offences
for which you have been convicted, you will suffer some hardship during the
114 The decision, as to the appropriate sentence in your case, by balancing those
conflicting considerations, has been particularly difficult. In light of the very serious
motivation, I raised with your counsel, and with the prosecution, the question
period, should be imposed upon you on the charge of murder. In considering that
question, I have been fully mindful that you may be required to serve every day of
that sentence in prison. A sentence of life imprisonment has been properly described
as a dreadful sentence which should be reserved for dreadful cases. The fact that
SC:AP 34 SENTENCE
DPP v Todd
you are so young — only twenty years of age — is an important factor weighing
115 In the course of her submissions, senior counsel for the prosecution contended that I
should not impose a sentence of life imprisonment on you, but that I should impose
a very lengthy term of imprisonment. I make it plain that the decision as to your
sentence is for myself, as the presiding judge, and not the prosecution. That ultimate
116 In the end, and after giving this matter truly anxious consideration, and giving full
weight to the mitigating circumstances to which I have referred, I have come to the
conclusion that the only appropriate sentence, for the offence of murder in this case,
is one of life imprisonment, with a fixed minimum period of years before you are
because of the enormity of your offending, and the extremely high level of the
objective gravity of, and your subjective culpability for, that offending. In my view,
only a sentence of life imprisonment, with a fixed non-parole period, could properly
community protection.
117 In particular, any sentence less than a term of life imprisonment would detract from
the effect of the sentence as a deterrent to others who might be tempted to succumb
to their own impoverished impulses to offend in the manner in which you did. Only
by a sentence of life imprisonment can this Court make it absolutely plain, with no
qualification, that any person, who is minded to offend in the manner in which you
did, will be met with the full force of the law, and lose their right to be at liberty in
118 Allied to that, only a sentence of life imprisonment can adequately express the true
and full measure of the condemnation by the Court, and thus by the community, of
the appalling depravity that lay at the centre of your offending, and thus uphold the
most basic values of a decent civilised society.
SC:AP 35 SENTENCE
DPP v Todd
119 In addition, in light of the conclusions that I have reached about your poor prospects
2019, a date by which the Court could consider that it would be safe for you to live in
the community without the important safeguards of the supervision, oversight and
community protection, thus, weighs heavily in favour of the sentence that I have
120 In respect of the non-parole period that I will set for you, it is important for you to
understand, and indeed for all of those who are here to listen to or who later read
these reasons for sentence to understand, that you will not ‘walk free from prison’ on
completion of that period, as has been misleadingly stated by sections of the media
who have purported to report on this proceeding. At the end of your non-parole
period, you will be eligible to apply for, and, if appropriate, be granted, release on
parole. In any case, and in particular in cases such as this, release on parole is by no
means certain. The Parole Board will give careful consideration, among other
matters, to the facts and circumstances of your offending, to the materials that have
been put before me on this plea, and to my reasons for sentence. I would also expect
that the Parole Board would take into account your progress during your term of
imprisonment, and the steps that you have taken to address your sexual disorder, in
determining whether it is safe to release you into the community under supervision.
If you are granted parole, you will be released subject, no doubt, to appropriate
conditions tailored to ensure that you re-enter the community safely, and on the
basis that you are subject to proper supervision to ensure that you do not re-offend.
121 In fixing your non-parole period, I have taken into account, and given weight to, the
mitigating circumstances to which I have referred. I have also taken into account my
assessment that, based on the evidence in this case, you have limited prospects of
stated in his evidence, it is most important that Corrections Victoria makes available
to you, and that you undertake, therapy and treatment directed to the sexual sadism
SC:AP 36 SENTENCE
DPP v Todd
disorder that was at the core of your offending, and that you receive that treatment
at an early stage during the term of your imprisonment, while you still have the
122 In determining the sentences to be imposed on you for the offences of rape,
attempted rape and sexual assault, I have been mindful that it is necessary to avoid
assessment of the gravity of the murder took into account the fact that that offence
was committed in the context of the three crimes that immediately preceded it.
Nevertheless, each of those three offences added measurably to your offending and
is deserving of separate punishment. They may have formed part of the one event,
but they were each separate and additional aspects of your offending. They each
added, not only to your offending, but most relevantly to the suffering of Eurydice
of the charge of murder (charge 4), it follows that the other sentences, that I shall
impose on you in respect of the first three charges (rape, attempted rape and sexual
assault), will be served concurrently with that sentence. I should note that, if your
head sentence for murder had been one of a term of years imprisonment, and not life
imprisonment, I would have directed that a part of each of the sentences on those
123 Taking into account the matters to which I have referred, I sentence you, Jaymes
Todd, as follows:
124 In view of the life sentence on charge 4, the sentences on charges 1, 2 and 3 will be
served concurrently with each other and with the life sentence.
SC:AP 37 SENTENCE
DPP v Todd
125 Thus your total effective sentence is one of life imprisonment. I direct that you serve
126 Pursuant to s 18(4) of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare that the period of 447 days,
including this day, be reckoned as already served under the sentence which I
impose. I shall cause a notation to be made in the records of the Court that that
declaration is made.
127 As I have already stated, I have taken into account, as a mitigating circumstance in
your favour, the fact that you have pleaded guilty. Section 6AAA of the Sentencing
Act requires me to state the sentence and the non-parole period which I would have
imposed but for your plea of guilty. For the purpose of that provision, but for your
128 As I have already discussed, the Crimes Act 1958 stipulates standard sentences for
the offence of murder and the offence of rape. The Sentencing Act requires that I
explain how the sentences imposed by me relate to those standard sentences. The
sentence that I have imposed for the offence of murder, and the sentence that I have
imposed for the offence of rape, are higher than the standard sentences prescribed
for those offences. The non-parole period that I have fixed is also higher than that
relevant standard sentences in respect of those offences as one of the factors in the
exercise of the instinctive synthesis by which I have determined the sentences that I
have imposed on you. I am deeply conscious that the sentence that I have imposed
compared with the standard sentence that is prescribed for that offence. The non-
parole period that I have set is also substantially higher than the period fixed under
the standard sentence regime. However, for the reasons that I have set out at length,
I have concluded that any lesser sentence would be quite inadequate in light of the
enormity of your offending, and would fail to properly fulfil the important
SC:AP 38 SENTENCE
DPP v Todd
SC:AP 39 SENTENCE
DPP v Todd