DPP v Egan

[2007] VSC 485

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1513 of 2006

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

FRANK CHARLES EGAN

---

JUDGE:	Teague J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	25 October, 2 November 2007
DATE OF SENTENCE:	26 November 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Egan
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 485

---

Criminal Law – Sentencing – Manslaughter – Bashing of de facto partner – Neglecting to call in medical attention – 8 years imprisonment – 5 years non-parole period

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P. Rose SC	Office of Public Prosecution
For the Accused	Mr G. Meredith	Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service

HIS HONOUR:

1. Frank Charles Egan, you have pleaded guilty to manslaughter as a result of your having killed Roslyn Dunlop at Robinvale in July 2005.  At that time, you and she had been living together for some months, first in Queensland and then in Victoria.  Both of you came from an indigenous background and had relatives in both states.

1. In July 2005, you were aged 40.  Roslyn Dunlop was aged 48. She was a small frail woman.  Her weight at the time of the autopsy was merely 31 kilograms.  Both of you had had significant problems in the past with the excessive consumption of alcohol.  For 3 or 4 months prior to July 2005, the two of you had been living together at the premises of the Munatunga Mission in Robinvale.  The premises consist of a large shed designed to provide workspace for car repairs and the like.  In one room there, you made up a makeshift bedroom, with a mattress on the floor.  The two of you had a routine that seemed to focus mainly on the buying and drinking of cheap wine.

1. From time to time, when the two of you had been drinking, there were arguments that led to physical violence.  There are some indications that the violence was not one-sided but you were physically much stronger than she was.  Early in June 2005, you assaulted her in circumstances that led to the police being called.  She was taken to hospital.  After being discharged, she moved to live with one of her sisters in Euston.  After a short stay there, she returned to live with you at the Mission shed.

1. The two of you were in your room there between Friday 1st July and Monday 4th July 2005.  Roslyn Dunlop died there on the Monday.  After the Friday she was not seen alive by anyone other than you.  On the Friday you said to a friend that you had hit her to the head.  As to what really happened on the Friday and subsequently, I have your account to the police.  In more than one respect, that account does not correspond with the more reliable, forensic evidence.

1. To the police you denied being violent towards Roslyn Dunlop on the Friday.  Forensically obvious were the numerous injuries she received on or about the Friday.  You blamed those injuries on a number of accidental falls, and not on anything that you had done.  Your excuses are not supported as to a number of important matters by the objective evidence.  I need not list all the discrepancies given your plea of guilty and the concessions made at the plea hearing.  It will suffice for me to note that, at the autopsy, she was found to have had, as well as significant head injuries, fractures to bones in her left arm and left leg, and six recent rib fractures.  At best, I could accept that some of the injuries may have been the result of one or more accidental falls.

1. Given your alcoholic state, I accept that you may not have had a good recall of the actual violence inflicted on her by you on the Friday.  By Friday evening, she was in bad need of medical attention.  You should have summoned such attention, if not on the Friday, then on the Saturday or the Sunday.  You failed to do so.  Roslyn Dunlop died from the injuries that she received on the Friday and from the complications that followed.  Her capacity to deal with the complications was compromised by her long-standing addiction to alcohol.  Your long-standing addiction to alcohol provides a partial explanation, but not an excuse, for you acting as you did, and for you failing to act as you should have done.

1. I have read the seven victim impact statements that were produced on the plea hearings.  They were prepared by each of Roslyn Dunlop’s mother Phyllis, four sisters, namely, Karen, Nereda, Maxine and Julie, her son Callum and her niece, Katrina.  Roslyn’s life may have had many downs, but it was not for want of love and affection from her family members.  All of the statements make for powerful reading, but particularly that of Roslyn’s sister Nereda.

1. You are now 43 years of age.  Your parents died when you were very young.  You were raised by an older sister.  You were educated and have lived most of your life in Robinvale.  On any view, it was an upbringing of great disadvantage.  You have had five children by two women in circumstances detailed by you to the psychologist, Mr Joblin.  Mr Joblin’s report also provides other details, including as to your abuse of alcohol, particularly port, over the last 25 years.  What Mr Joblin also says includes that you are a man of reasonable intellect, that he considers you not to be psychotic, and that the main concern is to keep you away from alcohol.

1. You have prior convictions going back to 1982.  You have 27 convictions arising out of 10 appearances before the courts.  It is troubling that several of the convictions, including recent ones, were assaults.  However, I have noted that the penalties were mainly fines. There were two suspended short-term prison sentences.

1. I heard evidence from two people on the plea hearings.  One was your sister Barbara.  The other was your alcohol counsellor, Kayleen Tulloch.  Both spoke in encouraging terms of your attempts to address your alcohol problem while you were on bail awaiting trial.

1. I must take into account in your favour that you have pleaded guilty, and that you have taken serious steps to rehabilitate yourself.  I also accept that there was some genuine remorse shown by you.  Nevertheless, considerations of denunciation of your seriously wrong conduct, general deterrence and special deterrence must mean that you will have to serve a long prison sentence.

1. I have signed the disposal and retention orders, there being good reason for and no opposition to my doing so.  I declare at 305 days the amount of pre-sentence detention.  I direct that that be entered in the court records.  I sentence you to imprisonment for 8 years.  I fix a non-parole period of 5 years.