- Updated
- National
- Queensland
- Courts
‘Night of unimaginable tragedy’: Heartache continues two years later
By Rex Martinich
A man whose wife was murdered during a home invasion on Boxing Day says it is “hard to take” seeing one of the involved teens released from court on lesser offences.
Mother-of-two Emma Lovell, 41, was stabbed to death on the lawn outside her North Lakes home, north of Brisbane, in December 2022.
One of the youths pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced to 14 years’ detention in May.
Lee Lovell, husband of victim Emma Lovell, speaks to the media outside the Brisbane Supreme Court on Wednesday.Credit: AAPIMAGE
The other youth, now aged 19, faced Brisbane Supreme Court on Wednesday for sentencing after being acquitted of murder or manslaughter and of wounding Mrs Lovell at a judge-only trial in October.
He was found guilty of burglary and the assault of her husband Lee and sentenced to 18 months’ detention – time he has served.
Convictions were recorded against him for the Lovell home invasion charges and another burglary. He was not given a probation order.
Outside court, Mr Lovell said he believed the youth should have been given the same 14-year sentence as his co-offender.
“To see him walking out ... was hard to take. It doesn’t feel like we have much of a justice system,” he said.
Attorney-General Deb Frecklington was quick to criticise the sentence, saying it would not meet community expectations and did not meet her own.
“I will be considering all aspects of today’s sentencing and obtaining further advice about the legal options available to me,” she said in a statement.
Frecklington said her thoughts were with the Lovell family and Emma’s death “laid bare the horrifying realities” of Queensland’s youth crime crisis.
The consideration of an appeal came after the court released the Lovells’ home CCTV footage. It shows youths entering via an unlocked door – one gives a thumbs up, before being joined by another later seen holding a knife above his chest.
Crown prosecutor David Nardone told Justice Michael Copley the youth being sentenced on Wednesday had 104 prior criminal charges and had committed offences while on community orders and probation.
“His record is dominated by property related and dishonesty offending but includes violence in robberies and common assaults,” Nardone said.
“The burglary and involvement in assault [at the Lovells’ home] was committed the evening after being released on bail from a watch house.”
Nardone said the youth had also pleaded guilty to 19 other offences – mainly related to stealing alcohol from shops worth $2000, and wallets and vehicles from homes while in company and at night – between September and December 2022.
One of the homes targeted by the youth was occupied by a woman at the time, while other offences related to him entering a garage while it was still under construction.
Mr Lovell read from his victim impact statement but Justice Copley said he would not be able to take into account any parts involving Emma Lovell’s death given the youth’s prior acquittal.
“We made our home a place of love and protection ... the actions of you and your co-offender took away our sense of safety,” Mr Lovell said.
“A night of unimaginable tragedy started when you decided to enter my home.”
Mr Lovell said he had installed extra security cameras and a security door but his family still felt a psychological impact.
“Sleep is a problem. I wake up thinking someone is inside my home,” Mr Lovell said.
Justice Copley heard the youth had been in detention since the morning after the Lovell home invasion.
Defence barrister Laura Reece said her client had shown improvements while in detention and should not face a further probation order.
“Almost two years in detention is sufficient punishment,” she said.
Reece said psychological reports showed the youth had taken steps toward rehabilitation, was remorseful and had positive plans for the future.
In sentencing, Justice Copley said the youth had committed offences primarily to obtain money to fund his substance abuse and had been influenced by others.
But he said that could not excuse his offending, and the youth knew he should not be committing offences, especially while already on a court order.
“I don’t know if your statements of remorse are true or not. No longer breaking the law would be the best evidence,” he said.
The identity of the youth is subject to a non-publication order due to his age.
AAP