Thirty-six years is not enough jail time for a monster killer who committed a savage rape and murder on a student walking home at night, prosecutors have told a court.
Codey Herrmann was sentenced in October 2019 to 36 years jail with 30 non-parole by the Supreme Court of Victoria for the rape and murder of Aiia Maasarwe.
But he should be behind bars for life, Victorian director of public prosecutions Kerri Judd QC told the Court of Appeal on Thursday.
The 21-year-old Palestinian-Israeli international student was walking home on January 16, 2019, in Bundoora, talking to her sister on the phone shortly after midnight.
In an unprovoked attack Herrmann, then 20, knocked her unconscious, dragged her into the bushes, assaulted her, and then set her body on fire after his horror act.
Ms Judd told the court on Friday that Herrmann should be jailed for life to protect the community.
She said a minimum of 30 years was “manifestly inadequate”.
“Violent, unprovoked and sexually motivated offending against women in the public domain has an impact on the community as a whole,” she said.
“(It) restricts the free movement of people within our society, particularly women.”
Ms Judd said a psychologist found the attack was an outburst of “primitive male rage”.
“This was a vicious, callous and intentional killing of an unsuspecting young woman,” she said.
Hermann could not explain his motive for the rape and murder other than that he “hated the world”, the court was told.
“The killing was perpetrated against a young woman who was a stranger to the respondent and who was simply walking home on a public street,” Ms Judd said.
She asked the Court of Appeal to change his sentence to life with a non-parole period to be determined by the judges — leaving open the possibility for him to be released if successfully rehabilitated in prison.
Herrmann’s lawyer Tim Marsh said a minimum of 30 years was an appropriate sentence.
He said it was right that Herrmann’s young age, personality disorder, Aboriginal disadvantage and deprived upbringing were taken into account by the sentencing judge.
“The learned sentencing judge’s remarks and conclusions are unremarkable, uncontentious and balanced,” he said.
“(She) summarises the respondent’s developmental history, acknowledging the respondent’s infancy as one of extreme physical and emotional deprivation.
“She recognised, inferentially, that he ought not to be viewed in the same way as ‘a person who had had the advantage of a stable upbringing and whose values had been shaped by appropriate parenting’ but also acknowledged other aspects of the sentencing process such as the need to protect the community.”
The Court of Appeal will make its decision at a later date.