DPP v Bruvels
[2000] VSC 76
•3 March 2000
| SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | |
| CRIMINAL JUIRISDICTION | Not Restricted |
No. 1444 of 1999
| THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| MICHELLE JAYNE BRUVELS |
---
JUDGE: | Cummins J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 3 March 2000 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Michelle Jayne Bruvels | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2000] VSC 76 | |
---
Criminal law - sentencing - manslaughter - plea of guilty - enforcement in drug trade - principal pleaded guilty to murder - other co-accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter - parity - considerations applicable.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
For the Prosecution | Mr G. Horgan | O.P.P. |
| For the Accused | Mr P. Casey | Amad & Amad |
HIS HONOUR:
Ms Bruvels, you may be seated.
Ms Bruvels, you have pleaded guilty to the manslaughter at Ballarat on 24 September 1998 of Royston Charles Jones. At the time you were 24 years of age, having been born on 25 January 1974. You are now 26 years. The deceased was 24 years of age at the time of his death.
Mr Charles McDonald, a co-accused of yours, has pleaded guilty to the murder of Mr Jones and has been sentenced by me. Mr McDonald was 37 years of age at the time of the death of the deceased. There were three further co-accused, each of whom has pleaded guilty to manslaughter and who have been sentenced by me. They were Mr Daniel, then aged 31, Mr Moat then aged 20 and Mr Grandison then also aged 20 but, as I shall later refer a much younger person than the others in maturity.
For about a month prior to the killing you, Ms Bruvels, had been living with your co-accused Mr McDonald at premises at Wilson's Road, Whittington. He was dealing in drugs. The deceased, Mr Jones, was living at Geelong West with his de facto wife and his mother. It is said that the deceased was also active in the drug trade in the Geelong area.
In early September 1998 Mr McDonald answered the door at about 10.00 p.m. one evening at the premises at Whittington. He was confronted by two masked intruders, one of whom was armed with a saw-off shotgun. Mr McDonald was forced back into the flat. The intruders then pointed a shotgun at you, Ms Bruvels, and your five year old son. Thereafter, you having been subdued, Mr McDonald was forced into the main bedroom and his hands were tied behind his back. He was made to lie face down with a blanket over his head and he was assaulted. Demands were made upon him for drugs and for cash. It is said that approximately $20,000 worth of drugs and cash were stolen from the premises you both were then residing in. You and he were not aware of the identity of the two intruders. The crime, however, including the threat to your son, was not reported to the police by either of you as it related to the drug trade, an aggravating factor also in this case.
Through Mr McDonald's associates in the drug trade he and you commenced to make enquiries in an endeavour to identify the two persons who had entered your home. You both told all those who would listen that once the identity of the assailants was known to you swift retribution would be inflicted upon those responsible for the attack. One William Angus, an associate of Mr McDonald, by telephone spoke to Mr McDonald just prior to 24 September 1998. In that telephone conversation Mr McDonald informed Mr Angus that he now knew who was responsible for the run through of your premises earlier in September.
You and Mr McDonald then proceeded to prepare for the consequence of that run through. You obtained the use of steel capped boots in order to assault the perpetrators of the offence. On the night of Wednesday 23 September 1998 at your flat at Whittington by arrangement a number of persons attended. There was yourself and Mr McDonald, who lived at the premises. There was also Simon Grandison, Barry Daniel and Ricky Moat. Pizzas were ordered for them and drugs, particularly amphetamines, were consumed. The purpose of the meeting, which had been arranged by Mr McDonald, was to plan the kidnap of the deceased, Mr Jones, to establish the identity of who was said to be his principal or accomplice in the aggravated burglary upon your premises earlier that month and to punish the perpetrators. Mr McDonald was the organiser of that criminal action. He was actively encouraged, assisted and supported throughout those preparations by you. When you all left for Mr Jones' premises, Mr McDonald took a gun with him and you took a baseball bat with you.
That night the deceased was at his home in Geelong West with his wife and mother. At about 11.00 p.m. the telephone rang and the deceased answered it and had a short conversation. He then informed his mother that he would be going out for a while but before he had left Mr Daniel knocked on the front door and engaged in conversation with the deceased. He sought to lure Mr Jones in a trap which had been set, Mr Daniel pretending to be a friend of Mick the boxer and having been sent to buy some drugs. Mr Jones was unconvinced of the genuineness of Mr Daniel's approach and ordered him to leave. Mr Jones left the premises, attended to a drug transaction away from the premises and at about midnight returned to his home.
The persons in your and Mr McDonald's party were strategically placed, at Mr McDonald's direction, at and near Mr Jones' home in order to effect the capture of Mr Jones.
Mr Jones got out of his vehicle outside his home and was immediately set upon by Mr McDonald and Mr Grandison and Mr Moat who had been waiting, watching for his return. You were keeping watch nearby and keeping in touch with the others of your party, especially Mr McDonald, by mobile phone. The deceased was led away at gunpoint by Mr McDonald to a paddock area which runs close to his premises off Wardell Road. There a struggle occurred and the deceased's baseball cap and jacket were dislodged which were later found by an officer attached to the Geelong CIB at that place. A gun was held to the head of the deceased who was then forcibly and violently placed into the rear of the van. All of the persons except Mr Daniel were wearing balaclavas. Duct tape was applied to the hands and legs of the deceased. You were still waiting nearby as part of the operation. You were then collected and sat in the front seat of the van.
Mr Jones was assaulted in your presence as he was being driven around the Geelong area and he was threatened, including threatened by you, in order to ascertain the name of his accomplice or principal, you and Mr McDonald believing that he was one of the persons who had been involved in the run through at your premises earlier that month. In the van Mr McDonald threatened Mr Jones with secateurs. Mr Jones said that the person was 'Scotty' and gave an address in Geelong West. You all then attended that address in the vehicle. Mr Daniel again went to act as a lure to the front door of Scotty's premises. Although the lights were on and the television was on, no one answered the door. You outside the premises severely assaulted Mr Jones to the nose.
Ultimately your group left there and with Mr McDonald driving drove some 90 kilometres from Geelong through deserted countryside to the outskirts of Ballarat at Nerrina. The deceased was assaulted and threatened violently in the back by the other men during that drive. When you all arrived at Nerrina the deceased was removed from the van and was led into the bush by Mr McDonald and you and with Mr Grandison accompanying you. In a gully close to where the van was parked the deceased was repeatedly assaulted in a most violent manner by Mr McDonald and by you. He was also assaulted by Mr Grandison. The deceased was struck with an aluminium baseball bat by you. He was repeatedly kicked by you with the steel capped boots you had brought to the scene for that very purpose. He was also assaulted with the aluminium baseball bat and kicked by Mr McDonald and in the end very violently attacked by Mr McDonald.
You all left the scene, leaving the deceased to die.
You all went to Mr Daniel's premises in Ballarat where you changed your clothes and then you all attended at the casino in Melbourne in order to give yourselves a previously arranged false alibi for the activities that night. You all returned to Geelong by mid-morning on Thursday 24 September 1998.
At about 4.30 p.m. on that Thursday afternoon a person walking his dog in the bush area off Nerrina Road found the deceased's body lying on its back in the creek bed. The police were notified and the area was isolated by police. The Homicide Squad was informed and immediately attended. Enquiries were forthwith commenced into the circumstances surrounding the death of the deceased. A preliminary examination was conducted at the scene. Tyre marks were identified and traced. The surrounding bush area was searched and a roll of discarded tape was found.
Media releases were made on 25 September 1998, the next day, by police, as a consequence of which anonymous information was received alleging that Mr McDonald and you were involved in the death of Mr Jones. Thereafter the focus of the investigation centred upon Mr McDonald and you. On Friday 2 October 1998 a warrant was executed at your home. You and Mr McDonald were there located and placed under arrest. You both were taken to the Geelong Police Station where you were both interviewed in relation to the death of Mr Jones. You falsely denied any knowledge of the events of 23 and 24 September 1998 as did Mr McDonald. At the conclusion of the interviews Mr McDonald was charged with the murder of Mr Jones and was remanded in custody. You were released.
Mr McDonald made an approach to the police the next day, 3 October 1998 in order to make a further interview in which he admitted actions by himself but said that you were not at Ballarat or at Nerrina. On 9 October 1998 you were arrested at Whittington and conveyed to the Geelong Police Station where you were re-interviewed. Again, you falsely denied your part in this matter. In both the 2 October interview and the 9 October interview you lied to the police in a confident, self-possessed and persistent manner. At the conclusion of the 9 October police interview, the investigating police having also by then interviewed Messrs. Daniel, Moat and Grandison, you were charged with the murder of Mr Jones. The other three men were also charged with that murder as had been Mr McDonald.
A post-mortem of the body of the deceased by an eminent pathologist, Dr Malcolm Dodd, on 20 September 1998 revealed that the deceased had sustained a number of injuries to the head, face, limbs and torso. The deceased had duct tape around his mouth and a length of tape around his left wrist. It was the opinion of Dr Dodd that Mr Jones had died from blunt head trauma and intracranial haemorrhage and he also had aspirated blood. There was evidence of neck compression but the hyoid and thyroid cartilages were intact. Dr Dodd observed that there were up to 30 different injuries to the body of the deceased. There were 18 separate injuries to the head and 12 to the body. There was also internal bruising of the deceased. It was Dr Dodd's opinion that the injuries sustained by the deceased were consistent with a minimum of 16 individual and severe blows having been struck to the deceased. A number of those were consistent with the deceased having been struck with a baseball bat or the butt of a gun. The deceased suffered a fractured skull, fractured face and two fractured ribs. There were defence injuries to the back of both of his hands.
Mr McDonald has pleaded guilty to the murder of the deceased and has been sentenced by me for that offence. The prosecution here says that your own actions, Ms Bruvels, were unlawful and dangerous and you were complicit in a plan to that end and which in fact resulted in death. The prosecution has accepted your plea of guilty to manslaughter on that basis.
A committal proceeding commenced in the Geelong Magistrates' Court on 3 May 1999 and proceeded for four days. The five persons then charged with murder were yourself, Mr McDonald, Mr Grandison, Mr Daniel and Mr Moat. At the end of the fourth day the committal was adjourned and the three men, Mr Grandison, Mr Daniel and Mr Moat made further statements to the police setting out what they said was their part and your part and Mr McDonald's part in the killing of the deceased. Those three came before me, pleaded guilty to manslaughter and on 10 June 1999 were sentenced by me. I have observed each of them and have examined their interviews, statements and videos and find that each of them has substantially told the truth about what occurred on 23 and 24 September 1998.
The committal then resumed on 24 June 1999 and each of those three gave evidence at the committal consistent with the statements they made to the police and with their pleas of guilty to manslaughter before me. I have read the cross-examination of each of them conducted on behalf of yourself and on behalf of Mr McDonald at the committal proceedings. You pleaded not guilty to murder at the end of the committal as did Mr McDonald.
In September 1999 the matter was listed for trial due to commence on 31 January of this year. In the interim Mr McDonald instructed counsel that he wished to plead guilty to murder but only on the basis that the prosecution accepted that you were guilty only of manslaughter. As I have stated, in fact the prosecution has proceeded before me on the basis that Mr McDonald was guilty of murder and you and the three other men were each guilty of manslaughter.
There are, however, very significant differences between the crime of manslaughter for which I sentenced the three men and the crime of manslaughter for which I sentence you, and between those offenders and you. First, your role in the planning of this offence was significant and continuous and central. The function of the other three men in the planning was peripheral. Second, your role in the infliction of injury to the deceased at Nerrina was much more significant than that of the three men. Mr Grandison contributed but to a lesser extent than you and the other two did not. Third, it was Mr McDonald and you who were giving orders to the other three men on the night. They of course are responsible for their own actions; but they were the hired help. Fourth, each of those three men pleaded guilty early to manslaughter and exhibited early and genuine remorse for their offence. Fifth, each of those men were prepared to and, indeed, did fulfil their duty of giving evidence truthfully concerning the offences. Sixth, that loyalty to the truth directly will involve those men in having a more burdensome quality of imprisonment by reason of that fact than they otherwise would have had, had they been convicted or even had they pleaded guilty and not given evidence in relation to other persons.
There are three especially aggravating elements of this offence of manslaughter. The first is that the criminal conduct, the capture and assault on the deceased, was pre-meditated, planned and was effected like a military operation. Mr McDonald was the planner who directed that military operation. You, Ms Bruvels, actively encouraged, supported and assisted him in the planning and in the effecting of that operation. Second, the deceased was subjected to a terrible ordeal of fear and suffering over a significant period of time and place and in the company of hooded men and of yourself. Third, the criminal conduct was itself in the enforcement of other criminality, Mr McDonald's drug operations. It was a punishment and a warning to others. You, Ms Bruvels, also were motivated by your desire for retribution for the prior threatening conduct towards your son. But the things you said in the month between that assault on your son and the death of Mr Jones, and the quality and extent of your unremitting conduct towards Mr Jones, conclusively demonstrate that your primary object was the joinder with your partner Mr McDonald in drug trade enforcement retribution.
I take into account the following matters in your favour. First, you have pleaded guilty to the crime for which I am to sentence you and I take that matter into account for its own sake and as betokening some remorse by you. However, your plea of guilty with the concomitant benefits it accrues to you has significantly less impact, for the reasons I have stated, than the pleas of guilty of the three men given, as they were, not only at a significant and early stage but also involving a course of curial conduct by them which has brought this matter effectively to finality. Next, I take into account that you have had a difficult personal history, as has been made clear to me on the evidence and on the reports which have been tendered before me, in particular the most helpful report of Mr Jeffrey Cummins, psychologist of 15 February 2000. You have undergone some particularly traumatic and oppressive experiences and have as a consequence abused alcohol and drugs. Next, I consider that you now do have remorse albeit late for your offence both by reason of your plea of guilty and by reason of the helpful evidence of Rev. St. James before me and her report of 8 February 2000. Next I consider you have significant prospects for rehabilitation both by reason of your conduct whilst in custody and the numerous courses, certificates of which have been tendered before me, showing the harbinger of rehabilitation. You have no prior convictions. Finally and importantly, I take into account the especial burden incarceration is and will be upon you as a mother of a young son.
As Mr Cummins has stated you have suffered as a consequence of these events yourself and have reactive agitated depression. However, you have no mental illness and no psychological disorder and you are intelligent.
I take those matters, and the matters most helpfully articulated on the plea on your behalf, in your favour. I also take into account the circumstance that, by reason of your family situation (namely the occupations of your relatives), you already have and are likely to continue to have a burdensome period of imprisonment. That matter I do take into account as a fact in moderating penalty but I also observe that the moral quality of the additional burden of imprisonment of the other three accused derives from their own preparedness to come forward and be loyal to the truth; yours derives from an extraneous factor, namely your antecedent family situation.
Your crime of manslaughter, for the reasons I have stated, deserves an entirely different sentence than that which was imposed upon the three men. In the case of Mr Daniel and of Mr Moat, I stated that, for the reasons I gave in sentencing them, I reduced their sentences by half from that which I would have imposed upon conviction. I sentenced both of them to six years' imprisonment. Mr Grandison was quite a different case, as he was significantly less mature than the other men and was under the thrall of Mr McDonald. I sentenced Mr Grandison to three years' detention in a Youth Training Centre. Your conduct, before during and since the killing, involves much more serious criminality than that of the three men.
You have now spent 513 days in pre-sentence detention. Pursuant to the provisions of s.18(4) Sentencing Act 1991 I declare that period of 513 days as already served under the sentence I impose upon you and I so certify.
Ms Bruvels, for the manslaughter of Royston Charles Jones I sentence you to 10 years' imprisonment. I direct that you serve a minimum term of seven years' imprisonment before being eligible for parole.
---
0
0
0