Crown v Accused

2 The maximum penalty for manslaughter is 25 years' imprisonment.[1]

3 I will briefly summarise the circumstances of your offending.

4 On the evening of 14 September 2023, you made your way from Belmont to the Geelong waterfront area. You attempted to gain access to a number of parked cars by pulling on their door handles.

5 Sometime after 10pm, Mr Grapsas left his home to take his dog for a walk. This was an activity he regularly undertook at night; it usually took him about an hour.

6 Sometime after 11pm, you approached Mr Grapsas' car, which was parked at the rear of his home. You gained access to the car and searched inside.

7 At the same time, Mr Grapsas returned from his walk and saw you inside of his car. He walked up to the car and an altercation followed. You produced a knife and stabbed Mr Grapsas seven times.

8 You inflicted stab wounds to Mr Grapsas' rear left ear, chest, right middle finger, left hip, lower back, mid-back and upper-back. The seventh and final stab wound was the cause of death. This injury extended acutely downwards for a distance of 13cm, passing into the chest cavity and the lung, dividing a pulmonary vein. It resulted in a left tension pneumo-haemothorax, associated with blood in the airway.

9 Mr Grapsas was gravely injured and collapsed onto the ground next to his car. You stole his car key and a wallet and ran from the scene.

10 Sometime between 11:30pm and midnight, you called your friend Tye Brunt. You said to Mr Brunt, 'I think I killed someone, I stabbed them'.[2] He told you to call an ambulance but you said that you couldn't because you didn't want to get caught.[3]

11 You asked Mr Brunt if you could go to his house and he agreed. You arrived there at about 12:30am. You told Mr Brunt a number of things, including that: you had been breaking into cars that night; you were sitting inside an unlocked car when a man ran towards you and started to punch you; you pulled out your knife and stabbed the man twice to the chest; and the man was dead and you ran away.

12 Mr Brunt asked you whether you had stolen anything from the car. You removed a car key and wallet belonging to Mr Grapsas from your bumbag. Shortly after this, you left Mr Brunt's house.

13 Later that day, you met Mr Brunt at a bus stop near his house. Mr Brunt had seen on social media that a body had been found in Geelong. He said to you that 'you killed him'.[4] He told you that you needed to do the right thing. You said that you couldn't because you were scared of going back to jail.[5]

14 When Mr Brunt asked you what you had done with the knife, you told him that you had gotten rid of it. You pointed towards some bushes along the highway and said, 'I buried it in there'.[6] The knife was never found by police.

15 On 19 September 2023, you were located by police at a residence in Ocean Grove. You attempted to flee but you were apprehended. Upon your arrest, you provided a false name to police and you were found to be in possession of a bumbag and only the key to Mr Grapsas' car.

16 This is a serious example of the crime of manslaughter. It involves the stabbing of an unarmed individual. Mr Grapsas sustained seven stab wounds; the fatal injury being 13cm deep. Dr Michael Burke, who conducted the postmortem examination, concluded that the force required to inflict the fatal injury was mild, given the sharpness of the knife and the fact that it travelled through soft tissue only.

17 I am satisfied that you stabbed Mr Grapsas in a reactive manner and that it was spontaneous and of a short duration. That is, there was no planning or premeditation. I also accept that Mr Grapsas confronted you and that during the altercation, you were in the passenger seat and positioned underneath him.

18 A relevant factor in assessing the gravity of offending is whether you were armed with the knife before entering Mr Grapsas' car. It was submitted on your behalf that the Court could not be satisfied of this beyond reasonable doubt.

19 Your counsel pointed to the presence of a utility knife found on the passenger seat of Mr Grapsas' car, among a host of other things, which raises the possibility that you found and used a knife that was already in the car. The utility knife appears to be a small multi-functional tool which contained a knife within it. It was tested for DNA and the results were inconclusive. In any event, Mr Brunt's evidence is unequivocal in the sense that you had the actual knife that you used to kill Mr Grapsas in your possession when you left the crime scene.

20 Importantly, after the stabbing you turned to your closest friend, Mr Brunt and confided in him. Once at Mr Brunt's house, you told him several things with some degree of detail. Mr Brunt's evidence was that, 'Bailey said he pulled out his knife while he was getting punched'.[7] When he asked you if you still had the knife, you took it out and showed it to him. Mr Brunt described it as a fish filleting knife that had a sheath on it. The blade was about 150mm long. He said the knife still had blood on it and that it was 'definitely sharp'.[8] Despite the detailed account you gave to Mr Brunt, you never suggested to him that you found the knife in Mr Grapsas' car.

21 Your counsel submitted that Mr Grapsas was a keen fisherman who kept a fishing bag in his car with at least one knife. The prosecution submits that the fishing bag was not in the car at the relevant time. It relies on the evidence of Mr Grapsas' wife, Jessica Grapsas, who states that her husband's fishing bag was in the house on the night of the stabbing.[9] In addition to this, a number of photographs were taken during a forensic examination of Mr Grapsas' car.[10] His fishing bag is not visible in these photographs. Nor is there any evidence that the fishing bag contained a knife of the type described by Mr Brunt.

22 The prosecution relies on Mr Brunt's evidence - specifically, his use of the words, 'his knife' - to support the conclusion that you were armed with the knife prior to entering Mr Grapsas' car. In his evidence at the preliminary hearing,[11] Mr Brunt does not elaborate on whether he meant that the knife was actually your knife and not a knife you found in Mr Grapsas' car. Given the state of Mr Grapsas' car and the fact that he owned fishing equipment, albeit not in the car at the time, it is not implausible that a fishing knife could have been in the car at the time you broke into it. Considering the paucity of evidence, I am unable to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that you came armed with the knife. Put another way, I cannot say it is the only reasonable inference open on the evidence.

23 In any event, this is still an example of serious offending. The fact remains that you elected to use a deadly weapon to stab an unarmed person seven times. Mr Grapsas' confrontation with you was not one in which you feared for your personal safety. There is no evidence that you tried to run away or punch back. You accept that you were not acting in self-defence or excessive self-defence. Simply, you panicked and did not want to be caught. In fact, when Mr Brunt encouraged you to do the right thing, you made it clear that you were scared of going back to prison.

24 After you stabbed Mr Grapsas, you left the scene and did not attempt to provide any assistance as he lay bleeding in the gutter. You went to your best friend's house and even upon his urging, you did not call an ambulance. Instead, it was Jessica Grapsas who was left to find her husband's corpse in the gutter behind their home just after 4:15am in the morning.

25 Finally, with regard to the charges of theft, there is insufficient evidence for me to conclude at what point in time you stole the wallet or the car key. It is accepted by the prosecution that it cannot be determined what order the theft and stabbing occurred. As such, the theft of these two items is not an aggravating factor.

26 For the reasons I have just set out, and taking into account other factors that reduce your culpability, I consider your moral culpability to be within the upper mid-range.

27 Before I continue, I want to acknowledge the impact your offending has had on others. Not only did you take Mr Grapsas' life, your actions have also had a terrible effect on his family, friends, and the Geelong community.

28 Mr Grapsas was only 40 years old when he died. He was married and lived with his wife and their two daughters: Matilda ('Tilly'), aged four, and Abigail, aged two. Jessica Grapsas was 26 weeks pregnant with their son, Alexander, at the time.

29 Jessica Grapsas described the trauma of finding her husband lying dead outside of their home.[12] She is haunted by this imagery; by the look of shock and horror on her daughters' faces when she told them that their father had died. She is overwhelmed with anger and depression as she tries to raise her young children without the support of their father. She spoke of having little time for grief; little opportunity for self-care. During childbirth, she was deprived of the love and care of her husband. Mr Grapsas will never know his son Alexander. He will never experience the joy of watching his children grow older.

30 I have also had regard to victim impact statements prepared by Mr Grapsas' mother, sister, aunts, uncle and niece, as well as his in-laws and close friends.[13] These statements provide a snapshot of the strength and beauty of the Grapsas family, including the extended family, and Mr Grapsas' pivotal role in that unit. Mr Grapsas' brother-in-law, Tom Vandermark described how 'this loss isn't just a moment in time. It's ongoing'.[14]

31 There is nothing I can say or do that will bring back Mr Grapsas. The sentence I am going to impose is not a reflection of the worth of his life; rather it reflects the large number of factors which judges are required by law to consider, only one of which is the victim impact statements.

32 I now turn to your personal circumstances. You were 18 years old at the time of the offending. You are now 20 years old.

33 You grew up in Geelong and have two older sisters. When you were about 8 years old, your parents separated and you lived with your mother. Three years later, your mother and your sisters moved to Horsham, and you went to live with your father in Geelong.

34 You struggled at school and were diagnosed with a learning disorder as a child.[15] You had problems with attention, reading and writing throughout your education. You left school in year 10 to pursue a trade-based education at Gordon TAFE. Part way through year 12, you left to focus on bricklaying and roof tiling.

35 Unfortunately, in May 2021, when you were 16 years old, you were involved in a serious car accident which has had lasting impacts on your cognitive functioning and mental health. You sustained significant injuries, including a severe traumatic brain injury (TBI).

36 A neuropsychological assessment completed in July 2021, after the car accident, concluded that you had weaknesses in your attentional capacity and executive functioning, as well as learning and memory inefficiency. Your profile was consistent with a severe TBI.

37 By April 2022, you continued to experience difficulty in learning and information retention. You were observed to have low mood and anxiety and required regular medical follow up. You had no capacity to continue your TAFE training or employment. In 2022 you were diagnosed with a mild neurocognitive disorder as a direct secondary consequence of the TBI.

38 You began using cannabis around the age of 13 or 14. At about 14 you started to experiment and use different drugs including MDMA (ecstasy), cocaine and Xanax. You drank alcohol to excess. You started to use methamphetamine (ice) at 15 and GHB (gamma-hydroxybutyrate) at 18. After the car accident you ceased using ice for about a year. However, in 2022 you relapsed, and at the time of the offending had a serious ice habit and were drinking heavily.

39 You were living with your father in Belmont at the time of the offending, but your relationship had deteriorated due to your drug use. You were unemployed and had no income at the time. On the night of 14 September 2023, your father threatened to go to the police and get a restraining order if you returned home.

40 You have a limited but relevant criminal history. You have one prior matter for violence - 'assault with a weapon' - for which you were placed on a community corrections order (CCO) in June 2023, in conjunction with other offences. You were on this CCO when you killed Mr Grapsas. Your criminal history otherwise comprises mostly of petty dishonesty and drug offending. The current offending is a clear departure and escalation in criminality.

41 The Court was assisted by a neuropsychological report from Mr Martin Jackson, who assessed you in January of this year.

42 Mr Jackson identifies that you suffered at least mild additional impairment from your TBI on top of pre-existing learning difficulties.[16] Mr Jackson considers that any impairment from your TBI is likely to be permanent given the time that has passed since your injury in May 2021. He is also of the view that you have sustained further cognitive impairment since your injury. He notes that your Full Scale IQ has fallen from 85 in July 2022 down to 73 on the current assessment.

43 On his current evaluation, Mr Jackson determines that your intellectual functioning is in the low-average to average range. You take almost twice as long as the average person your age to process information; you have difficulty focusing and are easily distracted; you are overwhelmed by large amounts of information; you have a tendency to make errors; and, you have a rapid rate of forgetting things.

44 Mr Jackson explained that the deterioration in your cognitive functioning since your previous neuropsychological assessment in July 2022 is likely to be due to a combination of increased mood difficulties and further acquired brain injury because of very heavy substance abuse, and it is likely to be permanent. Mr Jackson is of the opinion that you do not have the capacity to work and are unlikely to do so going into the future.

45 According to Mr Jackson, when you are released into the community you will be eligible for disability support through the NDIS. This will assist you to navigate your day-to-day activities and improve your functioning.

46 Mr Jackson concludes that you have an increased risk of reoffending, based on what he considered to be your very serious drug and alcohol use disorder prior to offending. While you have remained abstinent in custody, Mr Jackson notes that if you were to return to drug and alcohol use then your cognitive function is likely to deteriorate rapidly. This would exacerbate your cognitive impairments and increase your risk of recidivism.

47 Assessing your prospects of rehabilitation is a difficult exercise. Despite Mr Jackson's guarded opinion, you have been abstinent from drugs and alcohol for 18 months. This is the longest period you have been sober for many years. You have worked consistently since being in custody in the prison kitchen. You have completed a number of courses, including a substance awareness program, an on-track plan program, and programs on healthy relationships and healthy living.

48 You are fortunate to still enjoy the support of your parents. I have had regard to your mother's letter dated 4 April 2025, in which she expresses her continued love and support for you.

49 Your long term prospects of rehabilitation will depend on you remaining abstinent from drugs and alcohol, and being provided with the necessary supports in the community on your release. You have demonstrated that if you are drug and alcohol free, and have the necessary support, you have a real capacity to engage in employment and education and improve yourself. These factors, along with your young age, your family support, and hopefully a stable, structured environment upon release into the community, lead me to conclude that you have at least a reasonable prospect of rehabilitation.

50 Mr Jackson also considered that from a neuropsychological perspective, your cognitive profile would affect your ability to cope with imprisonment. He explained that your capacity to process and remember information could place you at risk of harm from other prisoners or staff in the event that you forget things or do things that you are not supposed to. Mr Jackson considers that your poor monitoring skills mean you will not necessarily know when you are doing the wrong thing, which may also place you at risk.

51 It was submitted by your counsel that this enlivens principles 5 and 6 of Verdins.[17] I accept that a term of imprisonment will weigh more heavily on you because of your cognitive profile, thereby enlivening principle 5. I accept Mr Jackson's opinion that there is evidence of decreased mood since your previous neuropsychological assessment, which may be an indication that your mental health could deteriorate as a result of imprisonment. However, when considered with your progress generally in prison, I am not satisfied that there is a serious risk of imprisonment having a significant adverse effect on your mental health; in other words, I am not satisfied that principle 6 of Verdins also applies_._

52 It was submitted on your behalf that I should have regard to the McKee principle. The Court of Appeal in R v McKee and Brooks[18] explained that the existence of an addiction as a causal factor in offending may warrant a reduction in moral culpability if the decision to experiment with drugs is not a decision made freely; for example, if the decision is affected by youth, or by 'despair and low self-regard' resulting from disadvantage or abuse. A sentence may be tailored by the judge that considers those factors, in addition to whether the addiction is ongoing or is being treated.[19] Drug addiction or drug use is not usually a mitigating factor, and in some circumstances can be an aggravating factor.

53 I accept that you began experimenting with hard drugs at a very young age. It appears that this continued and escalated after the car accident in 2021. I also accept that your drug and alcohol addiction from such a young age, along with your TBI, have had 'serious corrosive effects ' that influenced your conduct at the time of the offending.[20] There was no challenge that at the time of your offending, the addiction was chronically affecting your life. Having said that, you must be fully responsible and accountable for the conduct you have voluntarily engaged in, that is drug taking, which led to you committing this offence. It cannot be seen as an excuse for your conduct; rather it can be considered for a variety of sentencing purposes, including a reduction in your moral culpability.

54 Your age is a relevant factor in sentencing you. You were 18 at the time of your offending; you are now 20.

55 The law says that the youth of an offender should be a primary consideration for a sentencing court when the matter properly arises.[21] In the case of such an offender, rehabilitation is usually more important than general deterrence; that is because rehabilitation benefits the community as well as the offender.

56 These principles, however, are not absolute. Due regard must be had in each case to other relevant matters, including the seriousness of the offending and whether there has been any prior offending. Generally speaking, the more serious the offending, the less weight to be attributed to youth. However, the mitigatory effect of youth will be extinguished only in circumstances of the gravest criminal offending, and where there is no realistic prospect of rehabilitation. Your youth is an especially important factor in this sentencing exercise.

57 You offered to plead guilty to manslaughter in August 2024. Your plea was only accepted on the first day of trial, some 8 months later. You were initially charged with murder and I accept that this burden would have made your initial time in custody more onerous.

58 You are entitled to the benefit of a plea of guilty that was entered at an early opportunity. Your plea facilitates the course of justice and serves a utilitarian value, saving Mr Grapsas' family and friends from having to engage in what would have been a traumatic trial. The community has, by reason of your plea, been spared the time and cost of a lengthy trial.

59 You have expressed remorse in the form of a letter of apology which you read at the plea hearing. You have also expressed your remorse to your mother.[22] In your letter, you acknowledged the trauma and pain that you have caused Mr Grapsas' wife and family, thus demonstrating some insight into the effect of your actions. As you said, your 'actions have caused a lifetime of suffering'; you will 'live with regret everyday'.[23]

60 I accept that your expressions of remorse and early plea reflect your genuine remorse for your actions.

62 The only purposes for which a sentence may be imposed are general and specific deterrence, denunciation, protection of the community, just punishment and rehabilitation.[24]

63 General deterrence, denunciation and just punishment are important sentencing purposes in this case. You chose to use a knife in circumstances where Mr Grapsas was unarmed and trying to stop you from stealing from him. It must be understood that resorting to the use of a knife can only lead to tragic consequences of the kind that occurred here. This was not just a breaking in and theft gone wrong. It was a cowardly and reckless act done without consideration of the possible consequences. This type of conduct creates a sense of fear in the community. It further erodes and undermines the broader community's ever more fragile sense of safety and security in their neighbourhood. Members of the community have a right to feel safe in their neighbourhood and on the streets.

64 The loss of Mr Grapsas' life in criminal circumstances and the permanent and ongoing impact of that loss has on Mr Grapsas' loved ones must be denounced and met with just punishment.

65 As for specific deterrence and the protection of the community, those purposes, while relevant, are of lesser moment in view of your offer to plead guilty, your insight into the harm and devastation you have caused, your limited criminal history, your youth, the hardship you have experienced in custody while facing a murder charge, and your reasonable prospects of rehabilitation.

66 I note the interplay between rehabilitation and the protection of the community. Mr Clifford, you will be returning to the community eventually. It is therefore in the community's interest that your prospects of rehabilitation be maximised, so that, when you are released from prison your risk of reoffending is as low as it reasonably can be, and your chances of successful reintegration into society are as strong as they can be.

67 Section 5(3) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) relevantly provides that 'a court must not impose a sentence that is more severe than that which is necessary to achieve the purpose for which the sentence is imposed'. This reflects the common law principle of parsimony. I have applied this provision when considering the appropriate sentence in this case.

68 I have been assisted with the provision of comparable cases.[25] I have, as far as it is possible with respect to the offence of manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act, had reference to current sentencing practice.

70 Balancing, as best I am able, the competing considerations laid down in the Sentencing Act and having regard to the matters I have just discussed, for the offence of manslaughter, I sentence you to imprisonment for 8 years and 6 months.

71 Given your youth, and the fact that you have not yet developed adequate skills for living as a responsible member of the community, I have set a non-parole period which allows for the possibility of you undertaking supervised rehabilitation in the community, over a longer period than might otherwise be thought justified. Whether or not you will be granted parole will no doubt depend on your behaviour in custody. Considering the desirability of giving you a minimum non-parole period, I order that you serve 5 years before becoming eligible for parole.

72 On the two charges of theft, I impose a conviction and an aggregate fine of $300.

73 I have imposed on you a less severe sentence than I otherwise would have because you pleaded guilty to this offence. Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act, I declare that but for your plea of guilty, I would have sentenced you to 10 years and 6 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years.

74 I declare that you have served 453 days of pre-sentence detention, not including this day.

75 Finally, I make the disposal order sought by the Crown.

[1] Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 5. The maximum penalty for manslaughter was increased from 20 to 25 years effective on 1 July 2020 pursuant to the Crimes Amendment (Manslaughter and Related Offences) Act 2020 (Vic) s 3.

[2] Depositions, 374 [5] (Statement of Tye Brunt dated 2 October 2023).

[7] Depositions, 376 [17] (Statement of Tye Brunt dated 2 October 2023).

[9] Notice of Additional Evidence dated 20 March 2025 (Statement of Jessica Grapsas), 2 [7].

[10] Notice of Additional Evidence dated 21 March 2025 (Statement of Scott Ryan), 3 [6].

[11] DPP v Clifford (s 198B hearing on 22 May 2024).

[12] Victim impact statement of Jessica Grapsas dated 6 April 2025.

[13] Table of victim impact statements dated 7 April 2025.

[14] Victim impact statement of Tom Vandermark 6 April 2025, 37.

[15] Neuropsychological Report of Martin Jackson dated 28 January 2025, 5.

[16] Neuropsychological Report of Martin Jackson dated 28 January 2025, 15.

[17] R v Verdins, R v Buckley, R v Vo [2007] VSCA 102; (2007) 16 VR 269 ('Verdins'), 276[32]. In respect of an offender with a mental impairment, principles 5 and 6 of Verdins provide that the existence of the condition at the date of sentencing (or its foreseeable recurrence) may mean that a given sentence will weigh more heavily on the offender than it would on a person of normal health; and, where there is a serious risk of imprisonment having a significant adverse effect on the offender's mental health, this will be a factor tending to mitigate punishment.

[18] [2003] VSCA 16; (2003) 138 A Crim R 88.

[19] Ibid, 92-93, [13] (Buchanan JA) (citations omitted).

[20] DPP v Jabbour [2023] VSCA 204, [43].

[21] Azzopardi v The Queen [2011] VSCA 372; (2011) 35 VR 43.

[22] Letter from Lynne Dixon dated 4 April 2025.

[23] Letter of apology from Bailey Clifford (undated).

[24] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 5(1).

[25] DPP v Oakley [2021] VSC 430; DPP v Ford [2024] VSC 797; R v Smart & Ors [2023] VSC 469; DPP v Manuel [2021] VSC 568; DPP v Garrard [2020] VSC 154.