Prosecutors are calling for an increased sentence for convicted Canberra murderer Jayscen Newby, who stabbed a man to death while he was on a Tinder date with a woman Newby had known.
Newby was sentenced to 20 years in jail and a 10-year non-parole period after he stabbed Frankie Prineas to death in 2020.
Mr Prineas was on a date with a woman Newby had once had a relationship with when he was attacked.
At the time of Newby's trial, ACT Chief Justice Helen Murrell described the murder scene, at a home in Charnwood in Canberra's north, as a "bloodbath".
A post-mortem found Mr Prineas had sustained 37 wounds in a frenzied attack.
He had been stabbed in the heart and both of his lungs had collapsed.
The court heard that Newby had never met Mr Prineas before that night.
Today, the ACT Court of Appeal heard how Newby had gone home afterwards and asked his mother to wash his clothes before going out.
He eventually handed himself in and later pleaded guilty to murder.
'It was an assertion of dominance'
ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold told the Court of Appeal that the case against Newby was overwhelming, with an eye witness and DNA evidence.
Mr Drumgold said Newby was given too large a discount on his sentence for his plea of guilty and cooperation in the court process.
He also told the court there had been an insufficient explanation for the low non-parole period.
Mr Drumgold said the judge had largely left parole up to the Sentence Administration Board, when that should have been a decision of the courts.
He told the court Newby had not shown remorse and his sentence should reflect the seriousness of the crime he committed.
"It was an assertion of dominance."
But Newby's lawyer, David Campbell, told the court even if it accepted the sentence was inadequate any changes would only amount to "tinkering".
He also noted that the court would not decide Newby's release date in any case, it would only be able to say when he could first apply for parole, and the rest would be up to the Sentence Administration Board.
Mr Campbell disputed the claim that the case against his client was overwhelming, saying it could have been contested, possibly on grounds of provocation, but that his client chose to plead guilty.
The court has reserved its decision.
