Director of Public Prosecutions v Baea
[2017] VSC 40
•28 FEBRUARY 2017
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S CR 2016 0130
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| SIGARAGH BAEA |
---
JUDGE: | ELLIOTT J |
WHERE HELD: | MELBOURNE |
DATE OF HEARING: | 30 NOVEMBER 2016 |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 28 FEBRUARY 2017 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v BAEA |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2017] VSC 40 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW ― Sentence ― Murder ― Multiple stab wounds ― Defenceless victim attacked in family home ― Early plea of guilty ― Youthful offender ― 22 years’ imprisonment ― Non-parole period of 17 years.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Ms S Coombes | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Ms R Shann | Victoria Legal Aid |
HIS HONOUR:
A. Introduction
Sigaragh Baea, you have pleaded guilty to the murder of Prasad Somawansa. The murder of Prasad Somawansa by you was brutal and unprovoked. Ms Somawansa was defenceless and alone in her own home when she voluntarily allowed you to enter. Even though Ms Somawansa had only shown you hospitality and courtesy in the past, you took to her with a knife, which you carried in your trousers, and stabbed her at least 38 times.
Prasad Somawansa came from a loving home. She was married to a devoted husband, Priyantha Somawansa,[1] and had a devoted son, Wishhasad Somawansa, also known as Wish. Wish was 21 years of age when his mother was murdered.
[1]Mr Somawansa now goes by the name Priyantha Mudugamuwa Hewage.
B. Victim’s background
By way of background, Prasad Somawansa was born in Sri Lanka on 4 October 1967. She was married on 23 July 1993. She and her husband had their son, Wish, on 12 December 1994.
The family migrated to Australia on 2 November 1999. After a short time, they moved to the Werribee area. Then, in December 2012, the family moved to a family residence in Barber Drive, Hoppers Crossing (“the Family Home”).
At the time of the murder, Mr Somawansa was employed as an interstate truck driver. Wish was a student at Deakin University, and was a volunteer with the State Emergency Service at the Wyndham unit.
Ms Somawansa lovingly cared for both her husband and her son. She undertook household duties for her family, while also studying to become qualified to work with people with disabilities.
C. Circumstances leading up to 18 February 2016
In January 2016, you happened to see Wish while walking along a street in Werribee. Wish was with his mother at the time. You and Wish had not seen each other for approximately 10 years, but recognised each other and spoke for around 10 minutes. Wish gave you his telephone number so you could catch up.
About a week later, you contacted Wish and were invited to meet him at the Family Home. You met as planned and spent the day together, attending the Wyndham unit of the State Emergency Service and the beach at Werribee South. Towards the end of the day, you returned to the Family Home where Ms Somawansa had prepared dinner. You accepted an invitation to stay. After dinner and dessert, Wish drove you to the place where you were staying in Lara.
You found the experience of witnessing 2 loving parents supporting their son in his life and studies quite confronting. You were jealous of Wish’s life.
D. Events of 18 February 2016
At 7.15 am on 18 February 2016, you sent a text message to Wish asking whether the 2 of you could “hang out today”. You had not been in contact with Wish since the day you spent together in January 2016. You received no reply to your text message.
Despite receiving no response, you decided to go to the Family Home. You arrived there unannounced at approximately 5.30 pm. Wish and Ms Somawansa were present. Mr Somawansa had left on the morning of the previous day to drive a truck to Brisbane.
You were invited into the Family Home. Ms Somawansa made you welcome. She made you coffee. You and Wish spent several hours discussing various matters, including your anger towards your own father and your stepfather.
At 8.29 pm, Wish received an alert on his paging device directing him to attend the Wyndham unit of the State Emergency Service. As a result, Wish told you that he would drop you at Tarneit, for you to catch a train to Lara. However, you asked Wish to drop you at Werribee Plaza instead. The plaza was less than a kilometre from the Family Home.
At the time you and Wish left the Family Home, Ms Somawansa was on the telephone speaking to a friend. Wish then drove you to the Pacific Werribee car park and dropped you there at 8.33 pm. Wish continued on his way.
For a couple of minutes you walked towards the entrance of the shopping centre, but then, when you were almost at the entrance, you turned around and walked back to the Family Home.
Upon your return, Ms Somawansa was on her own and still on the telephone. She interrupted the call to let you in. Having done so, she returned to the telephone call and informed her friend that you had come back to pick something up you had left behind. Ms Somawansa told her friend she would call back in 5 minutes.
At 8.52 pm, Mr Somawansa received a telephone call in Brisbane from Ms Somawansa’s mobile. Mr Somawansa heard his wife say “You go out” 3 times. She also yelled “Dos” on 3 occasions, which is the name she called her husband, and made loud deep breathing noises before the telephone call cut out.
You proceeded to kill Ms Somawansa with a kitchen knife that you had on you. It was a vicious, gruesome and cowardly attack. You stabbed this defenceless woman in her own home, violently and repeatedly; including to the head and neck 11 times; the chest 12 times; and to the arms, wrists and hands 15 times. Many of the wounds you inflicted were deep. You only stopped stabbing her when she fell to the floor, which is where you left her.
Upon leaving the house, you disposed of the knife and your shoes.
After Ms Somawansa’s call to her husband cut out, he made numerous telephone calls both to her and Wish. Neither of them answered. No doubt, Ms Somawansa was incapable of doing so. As for Wish, the battery on his mobile phone was flat.
As a result of these failed attempts, Mr Somawansa called a work colleague and asked him to attend at the Family Home. He did so and found Ms Somawansa face down on the loungeroom floor, surrounded in blood.
The police and ambulance paramedics arrived shortly after. They were unable to revive Ms Somawansa. She was declared deceased.
E. Premeditation?
In a police interview a couple of days later, you attempted to explain your conduct. You said you returned to the Family Home because you thought you had dropped your Myki card. You suggested that Ms Somawansa told you to “piss off”[2] and that you got angry and stabbed her. After you stabbed her, you said you went upstairs looking for the Myki card and, upon returning downstairs, you made no attempt to care for Ms Somawansa. You said, at that time, she was not moving and that she was “probably dead or something”.
[2]In his victim impact statement, Mr Somawansa said his wife would never have used this kind of language.
No understandable motive has ever been identified. The statements you have made since 18 February 2016 demonstrate you attacked in anger. Ms Somawansa did not say or do anything that could sensibly be a reason for that anger. On the contrary, she only showed you hospitality and courtesy. You have also said you felt like you were being controlled by spirits at the time you murdered her. But nothing was put forward to suggest that you ought to take anything other than full responsibility for what you did.
The Crown submitted that your actions were premeditated and that the court should be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that after you left the shopping centre you were planning to kill Ms Somawansa. The Crown relied upon the fact that there was no evidence to corroborate your account that you sought to retrieve your Myki card after having repeatedly stabbed Ms Somawansa. Given the amount of blood involved, and the subsequent disposal of your shoes, it was submitted such corroborative evidence would necessarily exist if your account were truthful. Further, consistent with the Crown’s version of events, you told a psychiatrist that, contrary to what you told police, you had not left your Myki card at the Family Home.
The Crown also relied upon an account of the events that you gave to the psychiatrist in which you said you developed suspicions concerning your mother having an affair with Wish. Leaving aside there was no basis whatsoever for these suspicions, you told the psychiatrist that you went to the Family Home “looking for information about [your] suspicions, ‘looking at [Wish’s] face’”. You also informed the psychiatrist you had taken the kitchen knife with you earlier in the day from the house in Lara.[3]
[3]See par 8 above.
Furthermore, you told the psychiatrist that you decided you could not trust Wish and determined that you would wait until nightfall and then return to the Family Home and “kill the whole family”. You described this as a matter of “family honour”. You indicated you wanted to wait until nightfall to avoid being caught. Moreover, you said that once Wish had been called out by the State Emergency Service, you had returned to the Family Home not to get your Myki card, but rather to kill your friend’s mother.
You indicated that you had no emotional reaction to the killing, stating “I did not feel anything”. You also said you had not told these things to the police because you were concerned they would think you were crazy.[4]
[4]For completeness, the Crown referred to an answer you gave to the police on 20 February 2016, in which you stated you told Wish to drop you off at Werribee Plaza so you could call your mum or a friend. You never made such a call, but you explained that was because after you were dropped off, you remembered you had not brought your phone.
If this had been the only material before the court, it would have gone a long way to satisfying me beyond reasonable doubt that your actions were premeditated. However, in addition to the conflicting account that you gave the police on 20 February 2016,[5] you also gave other accounts of why you attacked Ms Somawansa in the way that you did. For example, consistent with your statement on 20 February 2016, on 3 March 2016 you told a psychiatry registrar that you were angry with Ms Somawansa without referring to anyone else. Also, on 18 March 2016, you stated that your thoughts were controlled by a spirit.[6]
[5]See par 23 above.
[6]See also par 24 above.
Given these various accounts, and the absence of any independent witness to the events in question, I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the killing of Ms Somawansa was premeditated. While there is no doubt that you were angry at the time you murdered her, and that you had been angry for some time, I cannot be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that that anger was coupled with a murderous intent for longer than a moment shortly before you committed the offence. In short, the real reason for your decision to return to the Family Home is far from clear.[7]
[7]In making this finding, I have taken into account that it seems highly unlikely the reason for your return was to collect a Myki card.
Consistent with this, I also note that you have stated on a previous occasion that you always carried “that knife”, being the knife you had on you when you stabbed Ms Somawansa, because back in Papua New Guinea it was “a dangerous place”. Accordingly, I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you were in possession of a knife on 18 February 2016 because you had planned to kill Ms Somawansa.
F. Victim impact statements
Mr Somawansa and Wish filed victim impact statements, both of which disclose a deep love and affection for Prasad Somawansa. Her widower said he had lost a part of himself that will never be filled. Her son said he felt lost and that his life has no direction, no joy and no purpose. It is plain that she will be deeply missed.
Victim impact statements were also filed by 3 others. To the extent those statements disclosed the maker had suffered “injury, loss or damage” as a direct result of the offence,[8] those statements have been taken into account.
[8]See Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), s 3(1) and the definition of “victim”, and s 8K concerning who may make a victim impact statement. It was accepted by the Crown that part of each of the 3 statements made by Wish’s partner, a close family friend and a friend of the deceased, went beyond what was properly the subject of a victim impact statement: see Sentencing Act, s 8L.
Each victim impact statement has been carefully considered.
G. Your background
Sigaragh Baea, you were born in Papua New Guinea on 13 May 1994. Your parents moved to Australia in 2003, when your father (a member of the Papua New Guinean army) gained entry to work with the Royal Australian Air Force at the Laverton base in Victoria.
From grades 4 to 6 you attended a school in Tarneit, Victoria, where you met and befriended Wish. At the end of primary school, you went separate ways, attending different high schools.
At the end of 2008, you and your family returned to Papua New Guinea.
Soon after, your parents separated. Their relationship had been marred by infidelities, extended absences and, at times, serious assaults. You witnessed some of these assaults.
Without warning, your mother returned to Australia, and remarried. Upon her departure, your mother left you a note saying she was leaving you and your 9 old sister behind. However, she chose to take your younger sister (who was around 3 or 4 at the time) with her. At the time, neither your mother nor your father explained to you why this occurred. Further, your father also left home. He left you to raise your 9 year old sister, although he visited from time to time and left you money. You kept a machete on hand in order to protect yourself and your sister.
The evidence before the court shows you experienced mental and emotional difficulties as a result of your circumstances, and at times you were under considerable stress. You have stated that the fear, paranoia,[9] distress and intense anger you have experienced is something you have never been able to move past.
[9]A report from a psychiatrist suggested that during the time you lived in Papua New Guinea the paranoia you felt “seem[ed] reality based”.
In 2012, you failed to attend school. In December 2012, you returned to Australia for less than a month. You asked your mother on more than 1 occasion to help you to become an Australian resident. She said she could not afford to sponsor you. Accordingly, you continued to be a resident of Papua New Guinea. You then completed years 11 and 12 in Papua New Guinea, with excellent results. You wanted to study medicine. There was an opportunity to do so in Turkey. Your father stated he would fund this if you obtained the necessary marks. You did so, as well as learning Turkish, only to be told by your father that he could not afford it. Your anger and frustration grew.
It is unnecessary to set out all the details of your childhood and early adulthood. It is fair to say that, from the age of 14, if not before, you had an unfortunate upbringing. This has resulted in you having a serious lack of self-worth and a real sense of not belonging, both with respect to family and more generally.
You remained in Papua New Guinea until December 2015, when you re-entered Australia on a visitor’s visa. You stayed with your mother and your sister in Lara, and were due to return to Papua New Guinea on 21 February 2016. On this most recent visit, your mother completed some relevant paperwork but again failed to sponsor you, despite your keenness to become an Australian resident. This only increased your anger and frustration. She also tried to explain to you why she left Papua New Guinea when you were only 14. You described feeling like a “pressure cooker” in the days leading up to your proposed return to Papua New Guinea.
H. Sentencing factors
You have no prior convictions and are otherwise of good character.
Although not a “young offender”, as that term is used in the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic),[10] you were only 21 years of age at the time of the offence. Ordinarily, your young age would be a factor to be taken into account in your favour.
[10]Section 3(1) defines “young offender” as a person who, at the time of being sentenced, is under the age of 21 years.
However, the high degree of criminality in the offence you have committed “requires the sentencing objectives of deterrence, denunciation, just punishment and protection of the community to become more prominent in the sentencing calculus [and] the weight to be attached to youth is correspondingly reduced”.[11] As your counsel rightly acknowledged, for a crime such as this, general deterrence will still feature strongly. That said, there are prospects of rehabilitation and, notwithstanding the gravity of the offence, your youth is still a factor to be taken into account,[12] albeit at a level commensurate with the seriousness of the offence.
[11]Azzopardi v The Queen (2011) 35 VR 43, 57 [44] (Redlich JA, with whom Coghlan and Macaulay AJJA agreed); cf R v Tran (2002) 4 VR 457, 462 [14] (Callaway JA, with whom Buchanan and Vincent JJA agreed).
[12]Ibid.
On your prospects of rehabilitation, your past demonstrates you were a very bright and dedicated student. You are a person who is willing to take on responsibilities and to look after others. It would seem the events of 18 February 2016 were completely out of character.
Both your age and your prospects of rehabilitation, together with the lack of a direct mature influence since the age of 14, make it appropriate that your rehabilitation be supported by the adult parole board for a longer period than would ordinarily apply. Of course, whether you will be released on parole when you become eligible will be a matter for the parole board, but providing for a longer period may promote your rehabilitation.[13]
[13]Cf R v Nguyen [2003] VSC 62, [30] (Warren J). Whether your citizenship will preclude you from the benefit of an appropriate parole regime in 17 or more years from now is something incapable of certainty.
It was submitted on your behalf that custody is more burdensome for you than would ordinarily be the case because you were “away from [your] culture and [your] people”.[14] A psychiatric report suggests “the impression” of “an adjustment disorder”.[15] Whilst undoubtedly there is some dislocation, feelings of isolation and longing for familiar surrounds, this submission must be viewed in the context where, for a number of years, it has been your desire to move to Australia on a permanent basis. Further, although it is not your first language, you have no English difficulties and, having been assessed recurrently by psychiatrists, psychologists, nursing staff and others, you have shown no signs of any psychotic illness. You also reported to a psychiatrist of “relating adequately with others”, and not being involved in any fights or arguments, while in custody. Furthermore, your sense of isolation has, in part, been brought about by your own decision to cut off your ties with your family.[16]
[14]Cf Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Estrada (2015) 45 VR 286, 296 [38] (Priest and Beach JJA and King AJA).
[15]Cf R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269, 276 [32.5] (Maxwell P, Buchanan and Vincent JJA).
[16]On 16 August 2016, you wrote a letter to your sisters, indicating your desire for the family to forget about you and stated that the letter would be your last contact with your family.
The Crown accepted that matters in mitigation are your age, the fact that you have no prior criminal history and that you pleaded guilty. But it was not accepted that you were remorseful, nor was remorse apparent from the psychiatrist’s report.
Although you have not taken the opportunity to express remorse on some occasions, your plea of guilty is consistent with your remorse and your expressed desire to repent.[17] You spent a significant part the day after committing your crime at church contemplating what you had done. On the following day, when confronted by the police, you immediately confessed to all elements of the crime of murder.[18] You then assisted police to locate the knife you had used.[19] I have taken your remorse into account.
[17]Phillips v The Queen (2012) 37 VR 594, 604 [36.5] (Redlich JA and Curtain AJA, with whom Maxwell P agreed); Director of Public Prosecutions v Nguyen [2010] VSCA 31, [28] (Ross AJA, with whom Maxwell P and Bongiorno JA agreed).
[18]You formally pleaded guilty at the committal mention, which then avoided the need for a committal hearing.
[19]The shoes you wore at the time of the murder have not been recovered.
Finally, the absence of an apparent motive does not diminish the moral culpability for this terrible crime, which is the most serious known to our legal system, or the significance of general deterrence, denunciation, just punishment and the protection of the community.[20]
[20]Cf R v Streeter [2014] VSC 100, [36] (Lasry J).
Sentence
Taking each of the matters referred to above into account, and balancing the factors as best as I am able, on the count of murder you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of 22 years. I fix a minimum non-parole period of 17 years.
By reason of your guilty plea, s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act requires me to state the sentence I would have given if you had not pleaded guilty. In those circumstances, I would have imposed a sentence of 25 years with a non-parole period of 20 years.
You have been remanded in custody since the date of your arrest on 20 February 2016. Pursuant to s 18(4) of the Sentencing Act, I declare the total period of pre-sentence detention to be reckoned as a period of imprisonment already served is 375 days up to and including this day. I shall cause that declaration to be noted on the court records.
---
3
12
0