Justice Michael Copley returns bombshell verdict for teen charged over the death of Emma Lovell

The grieving husband of Emma Lovell has slammed the decision of a Supreme Court judge in the case of a teen charged over the death of the North Lakes mum.

The second juvenile charged over the death of Emma Lovell in a shocking home invasion on Boxing Day 2022 has been found not guilty of murder by a Supreme Court judge.

Little more than a week after the judge-only trial ended and he retired to consider his verdict, Justice Michael Copley returned on Thursday afternoon and delivered his decision.

Justice Copley found the youth guilty of burglary and assault. He returned not guilty verdicts on murder and the alternative manslaughter charge, he also found the juvenile not guilty of malicious act with intent and wounding.

Emma Lovell’s death triggered a youth crime case against two juveniles that shocked the state, with the second of the two juveniles granted a trial without a jury because it started at the height of the state election campaign which hinged on youth crime.

Emma Lovell was stabbed to death in at her North Lakes home. Source: Facebook.

Her grieving husband slammed the not guilty decision while sending a clear message to the new Crisafulli government.

Speaking outside court, trying to hold back tears, Lee Lovell, expressed his disappointment,

“I just don’t feel justice for Emma one bit,” Mr Lovell said.

“That’s not how I thought today was going to go to be honest.

“I didn’t think he was going to get a burglary charge pretty much. But what can you do it’s not in my hands.

“If you are a part of killing someone and you get off with a burglary charge, what does that say for anyone else going forward.”

An emotional Lee Lovell at the Brisbane Supreme Court today. Picture: Lyndon Mechielsen/Courier Mail

Mr Lovell said he had a clear message for the new government.

“They just need to change legislation, you can’t have people getting murdered and still stick with the ten-year maximum sentence...,” he said.

He said his daughter Scarlett was struggling with the judge’s decision.

“She’s not too great at the moment, I haven’t told my youngest one yet,” he said.

“It’s difficult for her to accept it.

“This is people’s lives and families and husbands and wives and we are the ones having to live with it.

“They get to carry on doing whatever they’re doing. As other people have said in the past, we are the ones that live with a life sentence and everyone carries on what they’re doing.”

Lee Lovell with his daughters Kassie and Scarlett. Picture: Liam Kidston

Earlier this month, the judge-only trial was ordered because the election campaign discussions on youth crime were “likely to prejudice a jury” and it would require a “superhuman effort” by the jury given the issue’s prominent link with Mrs Lovell’s murder.

During last week’s trial, the Brisbane Supreme Court heard that the now-18-year-old youth was an alleged accomplice to a primary offender - who has already been sentenced to 14 years’ jail for Emma’s murder, but is appealing his sentence.

The accused boy on trial last week was charged as an alleged accomplice to all alleged offences committed during the fatal home invasion, even though he never wielded the knife and was not directly involved in the struggle on the Lovell’s front lawn.

His legal team argued during the trial that he was not guilty of Emma’s murder because he did not know the primary offender had a knife.

He had pleaded not guilty to four charges: murder, break and enter while armed and in company, unlawful wounding, and unlawful assault.

Police at the home where Emma Lovell was stabbed to death, and her husband Lee injured during a violent home invasion. Picture: Lyndon Mechielsen

After confronting and forcing the two youths out of their North Lakes home that night, Mr Lovell was stabbed in the back and kicked in the face by the primary offender during the struggle on the front lawn, during which Mrs Lovell was fatally stabbed in the heart.

During the trial, crown prosecutor David Nardone said multiple pieces of residential CCTV footage from that night would be crucial, including footage and audio from a neighbour’s camera of the accused youths yelling “I’ll kill you, I’ll kill you too”.

Other footage, the court heard, was of the pair prowling the street looking for open houses and car doors, after coming from a government-funded care home for at-risk youths from where the accused’s co-offender had taken a knife.

The crucial issues in contention at the trial was whether the youth knew that the primary offender was carrying a knife prior to their confrontation with the Lovell’s.

Mr Nardone told the court that security camera footage from the Lovell’s porch showed that as the youths stepped into the Lovell’s home through the front doorway, the defendant could be seen turning around and looking directly at the knife in the already-convicted primary offender’s hand.

“The knife being presented centimetres from the accused’s face – the accused’s head turning at precisely the same time and the light emanating from the accused’s phone,” he said.

“That all adds support to the submission that the accused, at least at that point in time, was aware that his co-offender was bringing a knife with him in execution of their common purpose.”

The Lovell family home in North Lakes, north of Brisbane. Picture David Clark

However, defence barrister Laura Reece – acting for the accused youth – argued that her client only turned partly around in that crucial moment, but not enough to be sure that he definitely saw the knife in the primary offender’s hand as they entered the Lovell’s home.

“When the knife is at least in some proximity to my client’s head, he has his phone in his right hand and the screen is dark,” she said.

“He is facing essentially directly towards that left hand wall at that point, perhaps looking down at his mobile phone as he brings it up towards his face. His legs are facing forward and until he moves away, he does not change the direction of his legs.

“I say that your honour cannot discern that he turned his face towards the knife at any point.”

Ms Reece also emphasised that the Lovell’s security camera recorded in infra-red, and even though the dark knife could be seen on the footage, it did not truly represent what the human eye could see in the darkness on that fateful night.

In his reasons for the verdicts, Justice Copley concluded, based on the video evidence, that the accused did not fully turn around and did not know that the primary offender had a knife.

“I cannot see that the accused looked at or towards the knife [the primary offender] was holding. From what I could determine … the accused’s face remained facing down towards his phone before he turned back to the way he had been facing to go further into the house,” the Supreme Court judge wrote in his published judgment.

“As I could not see the accused’s eyes, and as his head and face did not turn completely back towards where [the primary offender] was with the knife and as there were no lights on in the house, I cannot be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused knew that [the primary offender] was in possession of the knife.”

An emotional Lee Lovell at the Brisbane Supreme Court. Picture: Lyndon Mechielsen

Justice Copley also could not be sure beyond reasonable doubt that there was enough light in the Lovell’s doorway to enable the accused to see the primary offender’s knife.

“I conclude that it was not pitch dark outside the [Lovell’s] front door, after all, both [the primary offender] and the accused could see to be able to get to the door area and turn the handle of the [Lovell’s] door without fumbling it,” he concluded.

“However, I am not able to determine whether any of the light available inside the entry area to the house was sufficient to enable the accused to see the knife.

“There was nothing I could see to suggest that the accused activated any torch function on his phone, if it had one. I cannot be satisfied that any light emitted by his phone was sufficient to allow him to see the knife.”

The youth will be sentenced for one count each of burglary by breaking in the night in company and assault occasioning bodily harm in company on December 4.

He has been remanded in custody in the meantime.