Director of Public Prosecutions v Collins
[2010] VSC 209
•21 May 2010
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted | |
AT MELBOURNE
No. 1410 of 2009
| DPP | Crown |
| v | |
| RODNEY CHARLES COLLINS | Accused |
---
JUDGE: | Curtain J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 29 March 2010 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 21 May 2010 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Collins | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2010] VSC 209 | Revised on 25 September 2012 |
---
Catchwords: Two counts of murder – Jury verdict – Offences occurred in the victims’ home, with their three young children nearby – Offences committed with co-offenders – Offences occurred 23 years ago – No remorse: Prior convictions qualify to be sentenced as a serious violent offender – Sentence: Life imprisonment in respect of each count to be served concurrently – Non-parole period of 32 years.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr G. Horgan SC | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr J Desmond | C. D. Traill Lawyers |
HER HONOUR:
Rodney Charles Collins, you have been found guilty by jury verdict of two counts of murder and have admitted prior convictions.
In July 1987, you were associating with Ramon Abbey, whom the Crown described as a career criminal. He was then aged 40. He had convictions for burglary, theft and assault. He was a drug user and some time drug trafficker. At your trial the Crown led evidence that you and he had been planning an armed robbery of a jewellery store and that he had pulled out of it. He had a police badge which he was refusing to give you. There had been a dispute about moneys owing over the sale of a car, and you believed that Ramon Abbey had been a police informer. For all or any number of these reasons, it is said that you bore considerable ill-will towards Ramon Abbey.
Ramon Abbey‘s wife, Dorothy, was 39. She had no criminal history. They lived, together with their children, Elicia, WN and Damon, aged 10, 9 and 5 respectively, in a modest house at 11 Wordsworth Avenue, Heidelberg West. You had been to the Abbey house on a number of occasions. You would have known that the children lived there and, based on the evidence of at least CF, you knew that there was a safe secreted in the shed in the rear of those premises.
On the night of 27 July 1987, you, Mark McConville and a third person, Barry Kennedy, had gone to a house in Midway Street, Heidelberg West, and there changed into clothing which comprised, in part, police uniforms which had been stolen from a dry cleaners at Preston the previous month. JQ then drove the three of you to Wordsworth Avenue in McConville’s red Jaguar. The three of you got out of the car and went to the front door of number 11. JQ, in the meantime, drove around the block and returned to Wordsworth Avenue, parking some distance from the Abbey house.
There are no eye witnesses to the murder of Ramon and Dorothy Abbey, but their children gave evidence of what they saw and heard that night. Damon Abbey, then aged five, said he was woken by the sound of knocking on the door. He heard his mother ask who was it, a conversation then ensued, and he heard her let people in and, from his bedroom, he saw three people and one of them came to his bedroom door and closed it. Elicia heard the doorbell ring and heard her mother ask who was it, and heard the reply, “The police”. She also said that she heard her father’s voice and another voice or voices saying “Hand it over, Ray”, and he replying “I haven’t got it”. She then heard a whip noise and her mother came to the bedroom door and closed it. Elicia then heard talking and shouting, and, at a later point, looked out of her bedroom window and saw the light on in the garage. Later still, she heard the sound of a car take off. WN, who has a hearing disability, was unable to hear anything, but gave evidence of being woken by her sister and told that something was wrong. The three children ventured forth into the loungeroom and there saw their mother on the couch with the blood around her. Their parents’ bedroom was in a state of disarray and there was a trail of blood in the kitchen, leading from the living room door to the back door. Elicia telephoned her aunt, who lived next door. She came to the house and saw that her sister was dead. In the interim, JQ had been sitting in the car awaiting the return of you and the other two. He heard the muffled sound of shots and the three men ran back to the car and he drove off. He looked into the back seat and saw you with a gun in your hand and, as he drove through the nearby streets, a police car drove past and, as it was doing a U-turn, JQ drove around a corner and you and the other two jumped out of the car.
The police were called, and eventually Ramon Abbey’s body was found in the shed in the backyard. He had been shot to the head. He was lying near a safe which was secreted in the floor. The safe was empty and, near his head, a pink polishing cloth which was later examined and seen to have a black residue in the centre of it consistent with the deceased having been shot in the back of the head and the pink cloth being fired through.
Autopsies later revealed that Mrs Abbey had been shot twice to the left hand side of the head and suffered an incised wound measuring eight centimetres to her neck. Colloquially, her throat had been cut. Mr Abbey had been shot three times to the left side of the head. Examination by the firearm and toolmark examiner established that both Mr and Mrs Abbey had been shot with .32 calibre bullets fired from the same weapon, a self-loading pistol.
QX gave evidence that you and her then husband, Terry Flannery, and Ray Abbey were planning to do an armed robbery of a jewellery store and that you had brought police uniforms around to her house for safe keeping and that you came and took the uniforms a couple of weeks before the Abbeys were murdered. QX also provided evidence of the animosity between you and Ray Abbey. You were angry with him about the police badges which he would not hand over, and Abbey had sold your car and did not give you the money, about which you were said to be furious. You said to her that you were going to “fix him” or “I’m going to knock him” because of the car, the badges and because the plans for the armed robbery were “mucked up”.
XD gave evidence in the trial, inter alia, that after the murders of Dorothy and Ramon Abbey, she travelled to Queensland with you and Mark McConville and, once there, she and McConville and you went your separate ways. Mark McConville was arrested in January 1988 and subsequently tried for the murders of Dorothy and Ramon Abbey. He was convicted, appealed, and was retried and acquitted. Barry Kennedy was never charged in respect of the murders and died in 1993.
It appears that the murders of Ramon and Dorothy Abbey had been the subject of considerable notoriety in the circles in which you then moved. The Crown called five witnesses who had been in prison with you at various times. They each gave evidence of conversations in which you implicated yourself in the murders. GS knew you as Rodney Earle. In various conversations from 1988 while in prison, you admitted killing Ramon Abbey and vehemently denied killing Dorothy Abbey, which actions you attributed to McConville. LV met you when you were both on remand in 1979. He was again in prison in 1986 and met up with you when you worked in the kitchen in B Division at Pentridge in early 1988. He gave evidence that you told him that Ray was a dog, that he had given you up for an armed robbery and that you killed him; you shot him in the back of the head because you thought he dobbed you in.
LB was in the same prison as you in 1992. He was present when there was a conversation amongst prisoners, including yourself, which involved the Abbey murders. In that conversation, referring to Mrs Abbey, you said words to the effect “She shouldn’t have said my name”.
BO gave evidence that he had known you since he was 16 when you and he used to spend time together in Richmond. He was in gaol in Pentridge in 1987 when the news of the Abbey murders broke. In mid 1990, he was still in prison when he again met up with you. He said in evidence that there were three conversations he had with you concerning the Abbey murders; one when only you and he were present, another when you, Lee Torney and he were present, and a third when you and he spoke of McConville getting a retrial. In that second conversation, said to have taken place in the presence of Torney and BO, BO gave evidence that you said words to the effect “They dragged him out into the shed. There was a safe buried in the floor of the shed and made him open it and they got lots of speed, smack and money”. You admitted that you shot Ray Abbey in the back of the head because you told him dead men tell no tales and that it was you that cut Dorothy Abbey’s throat.
CF also gave evidence that he knew you well in 1986. He also knew Ray Abbey well, and had been to his house many times and said in evidence that he had gone there many times with you. In August/September 1987, you and he were in Pentridge and, at a time when you were both on the stairs, CF asked you “Who got Ray, McConville?”, and you replied “Me”. CF also gave evidence of other occasions when you talked about the Abbey murders, but it was always, he said, after others had talked about it. in evidence-in-chief, CF was asked “Did he ever say anything about how Dot was killed?” and he had answered “Humanely, in the first time he ever mentioned it”, although CF later went on to say that that was said sarcastically.
The evidence of all of those witnesses was the subject of various directions and warnings which the jury must be taken to have abided by and acted upon. For myself, and in the exercise of my sentencing discretion, I would regard CF’s evidence as to be treated with considerable caution. His evidence was, at the very least, confusing and it seemed to me that he was wily, if not cunning, in the way he gave it. Without resiling from his evidence, he nonetheless sought to minimise its effect. However, the evidence of the other prison informers was, in my view, credible and reliable. All were subjected to comprehensive cross-examination and, in my view, the evidence of each of the witnesses was credible and reliable and capable of being acted upon by the jury in proof of guilt.
It is apparent from the evidence of all the prison informers that the murders had been the subject of interest, that Dorothy Abbey had been well regarded by those who knew her, and it was considered offensive to the criminal moral code that she was murdered and murdered with her three young children nearby.
The Crown also relied upon the evidence of XI, who had been Mark McConville’s girlfriend after he had been acquitted of the murders. She was present on a number of occasions when you and McConville spoke about the Abbey murders and, in particular, on an occasion at TY’s flat when you were upset because you said that McConville had taken a Rolex watch from Ray Abbey’s arm after he had killed him and that you could have got life for it. She gave evidence also that you spoke to her and said that you could not be associated with McConville due to the Abbey murders and that you made it clear to her that she had not met you and she did not know you. Reference was also made to having produced a warrant that looked “bodgie” and that Ray Abbey was a dog who deserved to die and that he owed $14,000 to TY. XI was also present on another occasion at the Burvale Hotel where there was a conversation between you and McConville in the presence of others about the watch and its significance. Indeed, she gave evidence that it was a recurring conversation on the occasions when the Abbey murders were discussed, which included an occasion at the Kilkenny Hotel when she heard you reassure TY’s mother that you were not going to get done for it (the Abbey murder) and that you would keep your head down.
In my view, despite a comprehensive cross-examination, XI was an entirely credible witness. She had no reason to come forward and give false evidence, and the jury were entitled to act upon her evidence in proof of guilt.
You were arrested and charged with the murders of Mr and Mrs Abbey on 8 June 2008. While on remand, police installed listening devices in the visitors’ room where you were held, and passages of taped conversations that you had with the prison guard, your de facto wife, Kylie Hagger and your grandson, Beau Collins, were also relied upon by the Crown. Those conversations reveal that you believed that a gold watch in the possession of the police would incriminate you because it had your DNA on it and, consequently, you asserted that the watch had been given to you by one LB and stolen from you by McConville. In fact, there was no evidence that your DNA was on any watch in the possession of the police.
You also expressed concern that any statement from TY’s mother would relate to burning the clothes which you said were found that night. You also discussed with Ms Hagger the prospect of saying that you were there, but that you did not go inside the house, and your concern that the person giving evidence against you was the driver and that if you could get out, you would go and see him and make him shut up and that if you could knock the person driving, you would beat it.
The transcript also records you talking about being in the car and describing your conduct as thus:
“I fucking just jumped straight out of the fucking car and rolled over onto the fucking what’s it name, the guns still in my hand and jumped over the fucking fence like you see in the movies, that’s why (inaudible) just as I got over the fence I came around the front and thought oh fuck ‘cause they seen us coming towards them right, they thought that I’d seen them fucking look at us as we went past them and I went these - - - are looking for us”.
At your trial, a notice of alibi dated 10 November 2009 was served after JQ gave his evidence, which necessitated his re-call. In that notice of alibi, you asserted that you met with JQ and friends at the address in Midway Street and then travelled with them to a house in Ramu Parade, and there you obtained two guns and that you returned to the car and that when the presence of the police was brought to your attention, you “bailed” out of the car and returned to the house in Ramu Parade, whereupon you were driven back to the house in Midway Street and later in the morning you went back home.
In your evidence at trial, you denied killing Ray and Dorothy Abbey and denied being present when they were killed. You admitted knowing them and going to their house, although you denied that there had been any issues between you and them. You denied going to Queensland with McConville and otherwise you gave evidence consistent with your notice of alibi, except that you expanded upon it to say that you were in the car with JQ, Kennedy and McConville, and that after you had returned to the car from having been to the house in Ramu Parade, Barry Kennedy had said that they had to go up the road to meet Terry Flannery and they went a few blocks and pulled up, Kennedy and McConville got out, saying they would only be five to ten minutes and you waited with JQ and then told him to drive off, which he did, and at that point, when they stopped at a corner, JQ yelled out that there were coppers, you watched them go past and then, as they started to do a right hand turn, you opened the door and flew out.
You also denied making any admissions to the prison informers and denied knowing XI, although you said you may have met her once briefly, and you maintained that you had made no admissions to these offences at all, whatsoever, to anybody.
The Crown went to the jury on the basis that you were the person who shot and killed Ramon Abbey and shot Dorothy Abbey and cut her throat, thereby killing her, and/or alternatively, that you were acting in concert with persons who did. The Crown also went to the jury on the basis that if they were not satisfied that you were the shooter and they were not satisfied that you were acting in concert with the person who was, they could find you guilty as an aider and abetter. The Crown now submit that you should be sentenced on the basis that it was your actions which caused the death of Ramon and Dorothy Abbey.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you were the person who shot and killed Ramon Abbey. You admitted it to GS and to BO. You expressed to GS and to Mark McConville, in the presence of XI, your antipathy towards Ramon Abbey and you told QX that you intended to “knock” or “fix” him. There was no evidence that anyone other than you had a degree of animus towards Ray Abbey. You told BO that Ray Abbey was killed because “dead men tell no tales” a sentiment also said to have been expressed by you to GS.
I am satisfied also that you were the person that shot Dorothy Abbey and cut her throat, thereby killing her. This is so because the evidence establishes:
(1) the bullets that killed both Mr and Mrs Abbey came from the same gun;
(2) the gun held six cartridges, all six were fired; three into Mr Abbey, two into Mrs Abbey, and the sixth hit the fireplace in the loungeroom where Mrs Abbey was found dead. Thus, the cartridges were fully expelled;
(3) both Mr and Mrs Abbey were shot in the head;
(4) JQ saw a gun in your possession when you returned to the car from the Abbey house;
(5) he saw a gun only in your possession and not in the possession of anyone else. JQ did not see you in the possession of two guns;
(6) you were known to Mr and Mrs Abbey, you had been to their house previously;
(7) there was no evidence that either Barry Kennedy or Mark McConville knew either Mr or Mrs Abbey;
(8) LB’s evidence that you said in his presence words to the effect “she shouldn’t have said my name”. The inference to be drawn from that is that Mrs Abbey recognised you and you knew that she had;
(9) thus, you had a motive for killing Mrs Abbey and there was no evidence that any of the other two persons present had a motive to kill her;
(10) you admitted to BO that you killed Mrs Abbey;
(11) although, in speaking with GS, you attributed the killing of Mrs Abbey to Mark McConville, there are good reasons, given the notoriety of the murders and what appears to be the breach of the criminal code in killing Mrs Abbey with her children nearby, as to why you would attribute responsibility for this killing to another;
(12) in your evidence and in your notice of alibi and in a conversation which were covertly recorded, you admitted having guns in your possession, although in evidence you said that they were not .32 calibre pistols
The motive in respect of Mrs Abbey is put by the Crown, that she was killed because she could identify the persons who murdered Ramon Abbey. That, of course, presupposes that she was killed after her husband. But as there is no evidence that you held any antipathy towards Mrs Abbey, the only reason for killing her must be so as to avoid identification. Thus, you fall to be sentenced on the basis that you murdered Mr Abbey as a result of your animosity towards him and Mrs Abbey was executed because she was a witness. So stated, your conduct places these two murders in the worst category of murder; that is, cold blooded executions.
The maximum penalty for the crime of murder is life imprisonment. It is the most serious offence on the criminal calendar, and here you have committed two instances of it in callous, brutal fashion and have done so entirely to serve your own interests. In respect of Ramon Abbey, whether it be because you believed he had informed on you, withheld the police badge, withdrawn from an armed robbery or owed money, whatever the reason, you had great animosity towards him and clearly you were prepared to act upon it, even if it be in the context of an aggravated burglary as distinct from going to the house with the intention of murdering him. In respect of Dorothy Abbey, because she was a witness to the events and could identify you. Both murders were committed in total disregard to the presence of three young children. Such conduct reveals a chilling and fearsome resolve on your part and a complete and utter lack of humanity and regard for the sanctity of human life.
Victim Impact Statements made the daughters of Ramon and Dorothy Abbey, Lee Goode, Dale Cleveland and Debbie Abbey, the sisters of Ramon Abbey, Sandra Richards and Margaret Belchambers, the sisters of Dorothy Abbey, and Nicole Belchambers, Dorothy Abbey’s niece, were tendered in evidence. They each speak poignantly of the dreadful loss that each have suffered and the consequences to them and their family. But none moreso than the Victim Impact Statements of the two daughters. Elicia’s statement was read to the Court on the plea. It is a heart-rendering document. She expressed her sentiments as thus:
“Rodney Collins unjustly and selfishly took away so much from my parents, my family, from me and my children. There is no word that can adequately describe the loss that I feel. Please know that this crime has permanently left me with the pain that will never, ever be healed. The wonderful times in my life will always have sadness because I cannot share the experiences with my parents. … My family has had to live with the pain of his actions and will continue to live with this pain for the remainder of our lives.”
WN, in her Victim Impact Statement, said as follows:
“As an eight year old child, my parents were my world, only to be woken one night by my sister to find my mother lying dead on the loungeroom couch. To have that as the last image of my mother will stay with me for the rest of my life. I would never wish that on any child to have to see or remember. A few days later, my siblings and I were then told not only had we lost our mother, but also our father was gone as well, and our home wasn’t our home no more.”
She went on to say:
“I still can’t understand how a human being can take two people’s lives so easily and quickly, no matter what the circumstances. As a mother I now understand a love a mother has for her child and to think of my own mother’s fears she must have felt on the night of the murders, how she was unable to protect her children and never knowing what would happen to the three of us would have been traumatically distressing as well as trying to save her own life. It still hurts deeply to know my own child will never get to meet her grandparents and my parents never got to live their lives to enjoy watching their children and grandchildren grow up.”
These Victim Impact Statements eloquently speak of the irreparable loss suffered by WN, Elicia and, no doubt, by Damon as well. They became orphaned at a very young age. They lost for all time the love, care and comfort of their parents who, in the years since, could not be there to take pride in their achievements, to share their milestones, to offer solace in their sorrows and, of course, the ultimate victims, Dorothy and Ramon Abbey, who were deprived of their lives in brutal and callous fashion. No words can do justice to the sorrow and loss endured by the relatives of Dorothy and Ramon Abbey, and no sentence imposed by this Court can restore to them their loved ones or, in any real sense, make reparation for the grief and sadness endured over the years.
You are now 64 years old. You would have been 41 when the murders were committed. You have secured 40 prior convictions from 19 Court appearances as at July 1987. You have, since then, secured a further 18 convictions and been sentenced to actual imprisonment on four occasions. A medical report of Dr Plunkett dated 29 January 2010 was tendered in evidence as Exhibit “2”. That report details your health and medical history since you have been in prison since June 2008. Dr Plunkett records that you have had a number of significant injuries and medical complaints over the years, including hepatitis, a fractured skull and the removal of a kidney. In the past, you have suffered from bronchitis and asthma, and occasionally now suffer from such respiratory complaints, but otherwise he describes you as in reasonably good health.
A report by psychologist, Elizabeth Warren, dated 5 February 2010, was tendered in evidence on your behalf as Exhibit “1”. That report details your domestic circumstances and antecedents which I accept. Your early life was dysfunctional and abusive. Until you were seven, you lived with your grandparents and then with your mother, who was an alcoholic, and your stepfather, whom you believed to be your natural father. You were subjected to years of severe beatings at his hands and your mother’s non-intervention the cause of years of resentment on your part. Your mother died some ten years ago. You have three younger half siblings. You never knew your natural father.
You were educated to Year 7 or 8 in Preston and had completed two years of a tailoring course before you went to gaol for the first time at the age of 19. You estimate that you have since served approximately 25 years of your life in prison, thus interrupting much of your education and work over the years. Ms Warren assessed your overall IQ as in the lower levels of high/average, and in her opinion you would have been well capable of completing your secondary and indeed tertiary education, had opportunities then existed. She assessed you as suffering a mild anxiety and depression at normal levels, and in her opinion, your childhood brutality has led to an emotional shutting down, which is utilised as a means of coping, and that this has not been lessened by 25 years of life in prison. Nonetheless, you have been capable of forming relationships; a marriage in 1972 which produced two daughters, and your relationship with Kylie Hagger, which has endured since 2002 and is said to be very strong. You have been as a father to her three children and Ms Hagger regards you as a positive influence on them. You remain in daily communication with her and, by reason of her evidence given on the Basha inquiry and the contents of the taped conversations, it appears that she continues to support you.
You reported to Ms Warren that, at the age of 45 you began drinking alcohol, using cannabis and amphetamines. At one stage, you were, in your words, “seriously addicted to speed”. This was exacerbated by the short resumption of an earlier relationship which led to a mental deterioration on your part and subsequent counselling. You managed to detoxify, and it was submitted by your counsel that, apart from a relatively short period of imprisonment, you have not been in custody since 1996. Mr Desmond relied upon your age and this period of your life when you were both gaol-free and drug-free, together with your relationship with Ms Hagger to found the submission that there is some prospect for your rehabilitation. That may be so, but it must be said to be very slight. Previous substantial periods of imprisonment have failed to deter you from re-offending. In July 1987, you had served at least six periods of imprisonment for offences which included abduction with intent to rape and rape, unlawful assault, assaulting police officers in the execution of their duty, seven counts of being in possession of a pistol or imitation pistol whilst unlicensed, being in possession of a silencer, assault with a weapon, wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm and three charges of shooting with intent to do grievous bodily harm, and although your convictions post-1987 are not to be taken into account in the way that your convictions prior to that date are, they nonetheless reveal, as your counsel submitted, that you continued with a life of crime and, indeed, in some instances serious crime. Nothing other than your age, the hiatus in your returning to gaol, your sobriety and your relationship with Ms Hagger can be said to evidence any rehabilitation on your part. Further, you maintain your innocence and thus there is no expression of remorse, which would also go in your favour in considering your prospects for rehabilitation. In these circumstances, although the Court would never abandon all hope for rehabilitation, the Court must nonetheless regard your prospects very cautiously indeed.
Mr Desmond submitted that as the offence occurred almost 23 years ago, the antiquity of these offences and the lengthy delay between the murders and conviction and sentence should be taken into account in your favour. The antiquity of these offences, however, do not lessen the gravity of them and, indeed, the Victim Impact Statements demonstrate that the passage of years and the fact that the family of Ramon and Dorothy Abbey have waited so long for justice has exacerbated their grief. Further, you have been at liberty in the 23 years since the Abbeys were murdered. You have not used the intervening years, except perhaps since 1996, to reform and rehabilitate yourself. So although these are old offences and there has been a significant delay in the matters coming to justice, this can have only very limited impact upon the sentences to be imposed upon you. Certainly, you have had these matters hanging over your head for the last 23 years and you must have lived with the fear that you would inevitably come to justice in respect of them.
The Crown has submitted that the appropriate sentence to be imposed is two life sentences without parole. In 1988, when Mark McConville was sentenced in respect of these offences, the maximum penalty available was imprisonment for the term of his natural life or for such other terms as fixed by the Court. In McConville’s case, he was sentenced to two terms of life imprisonment with a minimum of 20 years and 8 months, the sentencing judge having deducted one year and four months, being time served from the sentence he would otherwise have imposed. McConville was then aged 26. Mr Desmond submitted that the prevailing tariff for murder convictions are now higher than they were 22 years ago. He produced no material to support that submission. Nonetheless, he did submit that for the Court to fix a life sentence without a non-parole period would be an extreme penalty and should only be fixed in the most serious and exceptional of cases. Mr Desmond submitted that to do so would be to impose a crushing sentence and that the fixing of a non-parole period would allow for some time out of custody before your death.
Mr Desmond also relied upon the fact that your antecedents do not include a prior conviction for murder, which he submitted is a relevant consideration if you are to receive a minimum period.
As two murders were here committed on the one occasion in a brutal and callous manner, in circumstances amounting to cold-blooded executions with the deceased’s children nearby, and done, in respect of Mr Abbey, because you bore him ill-will and in respect of Mrs Abbey because she was a witness, absent your pleas of guilty and absent any remorse, I have come to the conclusion that the only sentences properly to be imposed are two life sentences.
Apart from having committed two murders on the one occasion and the manner of killings, which may be said to be brutal and in respect of Mrs Abbey particularly cruel and callous, and the fact that the murders were committed when you must have known the couple’s young children were nearby, no reason has been submitted by the Crown as to why you should not have a non-parole period fixed. Of the sentences imposed in recent cases of multiple murder, a number of cases, Camilleri, Farquharson and Hudson, were sentenced to life without parole. Other multiple murderers, including the murderers of serving police officers in the execution of their lawful duty, have secured non-parole periods, even in the absence of guilty pleas. Life without parole is a sentence of the utmost severity, and I can see no reason why a non-parole period should not be fixed here, particularly when one has regard to the consideration that a sentence should not be crushing and should allow for life beyond a non-parole period. The fixing of a non-parole period also gives due regard to your prospects for rehabilitation, such as they are, and acknowledges the steps that you have taken since 1996 to lead a more ordered life.
By reason of your prior conviction of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm, that being a qualifying offence pursuant to clause 3 of the first schedule of the Sentencing Act, you are to be sentenced as a serious violent offender in respect of both counts of murder. Pursuant to s 6D of the Sentencing Act, as I consider that a sentence of imprisonment is justified, the Court, in determining the length of the sentence which is imposed, must regard the protection of the community from the offender as the principal purpose for which the sentence is imposed and may, in order to achieve that purpose, impose a sentence longer than that which is proportionate to the gravity of the offence considered in light of its objective circumstances. In sentencing you, I do so regard the protection of the community from you as the principal purpose for which the sentence is imposed. But I do not propose to impose a disproportionate sentence so as to give effect to that stated purpose, and that is because the sentences I propose to impose will serve to protect the community from you.
Accordingly, in sentencing you, I take into account the nature and gravity of the offences here committed and your role in them. The need to pass a sentence which will serve to protect the community from you, the need to pass a sentence which will serve to punish you and act in denunciation of your conduct. I also take into account specific deterrence, given that sentences of imprisonment have failed to deter you in the past, and the need to pass a sentence which will give effect to considerations of general deterrence, so that like-minded members of the community will know that if they commit offences such as these, they can expect condign and salutary punishment. I take into account also parity of the sentence imposed on Mr McConville in 1988, he being sentenced on the basis that he was not the person who actually killed Mr and Mrs Abbey contrary to the finding I have made here.
I take into account also your age, your health, your personal circumstances including your antecedents, and the antiquity of the offences, the consequent delay and your prospects for rehabilitation, such as they are.
Accordingly, for the murder of Ramon Abbey, you are convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. For the murder of Dorothy Abbey, you are convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Pursuant to s 6E of the Sentencing Act, every term of imprisonment imposed by a Court on a serious offender must, unless otherwise directed, be served cumulatively on any sentences of imprisonment imposed on that offender. Accordingly, I propose to otherwise direct that the life sentences be served concurrently with each other.
As to the fixing of a non-parole period, I order that you serve a non-parole period of 32 years and I declare that you have already served, by way of pre-sentence detention, a period of 714 days.
---
0
0