DPP v Green
[2000] VSC 305
•2 August 2000
| SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA |
| Not Restricted |
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 1441 of 1999
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
v.
GRAEME LESLIE GREEN
---
JUDGE: | Cummins J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 26 July 2000 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 2 August 2000 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Graeme Leslie Green | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2000] VSC 305 | |
---
Criminal law – sentencing – murder – killing of prostitute – absence of premeditation – absence of preying upon victim – considerations applicable.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | J. Leckie | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | S. Langslow | Kerry Clancy |
HIS HONOUR:
Graeme Leslie Green, you have been found guilty by a jury of the murder, on Friday 28 August 1998 at Wangaratta, of Tracey Lianne Holmes. At the time of her death Ms Holmes was 24 years of age, having been born on 29 November 1973. She was a happy, positive young woman who resided in Albury with her three year old son. You were 23 years of age, having been born on 6 February 1975. You are now 25. You are a single man.
On that Friday, 28 August 1998, you had been released at 11.30 am from Beechworth Prison. You had been serving a two month prison sentence for theft and related offences. You intended to go to your father’s at Nagambie. Having been released from prison, you cashed your Centrelink cheque at a local bakery, as was the Beechworth practice, and took a bus to Wangaratta. The Centrelink cheque was for $321.50 and you had cash of $52.10. You had been provided by the Prison with a V/Line ticket for bus travel from Beechworth to Wangaratta and a train ticket from Wangaratta to Melbourne. However you wished to travel by bus from Wangaratta across to Nagambie, that bus leaving from Wangaratta Railway Station. Upon your arrival in Wangaratta you went to a local hotel where you commenced gambling on the Tabaret gaming machines and consuming alcohol. At 3.15 pm you there won $228.00. Shortly thereafter you went to a local menswear store and purchased some items of clothing. Then just before 4.00 pm you went to the Gateway Motel, Wangaratta and booked in overnight. You gave your correct name and details, and for identification produced your birth certificate as you did not possess a credit card. You were allocated Room 202.
Wangaratta was not a city familiar to you and you did not know any persons living there.
Immediately after entering your room at the motel, you commenced making telephone calls for the purpose of obtaining the services of a prostitute. You had made earlier calls that afternoon. You initially called State Executive Escorts in Seymour, which calls were automatically redirected to its main office at Shepparton. Unable to make satisfactory arrangements with that service, at just after 6.30 pm you telephoned Border Escorts at Albury. Ultimately arrangements were effected whereby Ms Holmes, who worked as an escort at that agency and whose working name was Claudia, attended in Wangaratta at 8.40 pm at your motel room, 202. She was driven down from Albury by the escort agency’s driver, Mr Gallus, who also acted as security. He stayed in Wangaratta, contactable by mobile phone, in order to collect Ms Holmes at 9.40 pm, for the booking was for one hour. During the four and a half hours you had been at the Gateway you had been consuming alcohol in company with other young people.
Just after 9.00 pm Ms Holmes telephoned Border Escorts, Albury, to arrange an extension of the booking from one to two hours, thus to conclude at 10.40 pm. There was nothing in the content or tone of the telephone call to indicate any trauma to her. When she had entered Room 202 at 8.40 pm she was in a positive and happy state. She had not consumed alcohol and she was not a drug taker.
At about 10.20 pm the owner of the Motel heard a loud thud.
At 10.40 pm Ms Holmes did not meet the driver Mr Gallus at the front of the Motel as arranged. Mr Gallus immediately began enquiry and search for her. With the owner of the Motel at 10.50 pm he entered Room 202. There, on the floor, was the naked body of Ms Holmes. She was dead. She had been manually strangled by you and had died of asphyxiation. You had decamped. I was impressed by Mr Gallus, now a barber of Broome, as a witness and by his promptness of action and his real concern for Ms Holmes on that Friday night. The escort agency of Albury also took its responsibilities towards Ms Holmes carefully. At the very time the loyal Mr Gallus and the concerned Motel owner were seeking help for the deceased, you were back at the same hotel you had been that afternoon, playing the same gaming machine.
You had strangled the deceased and stolen her bag and her money. You left the Motel room by a rear exit. You kept the money but hid her bag on the opposite side of the road. You hid your own belongings further up the road on the way to the hotel. You then gambled for some time, winning $562.00 at 10.40 pm. You bought a pizza and went to another local hotel. At 1.15 am you again telephoned State Executive Escorts for another escort but one was not available. Ultimately you walked to the railway station, vomited, and waited there for early morning transport. At 5.30 am that Saturday morning (29 August 1998) you were there apprehended by local police.
No-one, other than you, knows precisely what happened in Room 202 between you and Ms Holmes. In your police interview you omitted the cause of the trouble and in your evidence before the jury you did not tell the truth about it. What is clear is the following. Ms Holmes herself did not do anything to cause the trouble. When she entered Room 202 at 8.40 pm she was positive and happy. She was not affected by alcohol and was not a drug taker. When she telephoned Border Escorts at 9.00 pm for an extension of time there was nothing apparently wrong. It would be highly unlikely that she would have said anything to upset you. On the other hand, you had been consuming alcohol for some time. You were not drunk - and I shall return to that matter shortly - but you had been drinking. The condoms found in the room search had been used but in none was any semen indicating orgasm. The likelihood is you became angry at your lack of orgasm and assaulted the deceased. Certainly she did not assault you. You commenced to strangle her and strangled her for some minutes, causing her death. The pathological evidence, and your admissions to the police, clearly establish that. You did not seek to obtain any medical or other assistance for her. Rather, you stole her money and ran, leaving her dead and naked body on the floor, and made your way back to the hotel where you commenced to gamble with the dead woman’s money.
During the trial you tried to hide behind alcohol. On the afternoon and evening of Friday 28 August 1998 you had been drinking beer consistently. The next day, you were tested at the Wangaratta Police Station at 8.30 am by Dr Price, a local medical practitioner, and found to have had at that time a blood alcohol content of 0.048%. Depending upon the circumstances of your earlier drinking, including the rate of drinking and the time of last consumption of alcohol, that reading indicates a range of 0.15% to 0.25% at 10.20 pm the previous evening. The attempt by you at trial, which attempt commenced in your police interview, to exaggerate the quantity of your alcohol consumption collapsed when it was demonstrated that your claimed ingestion would have rendered you comatose if not dead. You had been drinking and would have been affected to a limited degree by intoxication. But the evidence clearly establishes you were not drunk. The numerous civilian witnesses in the public area of the Motel establish that; your later conduct of hiding your belongings and those of the deceased and then going gambling demonstrates that; and particularly your precise memory after 5.30 am on the Saturday, in showing the police where you had left your and her bag hidden the night before, and your precise memory of other details (such as writing the Escort Agency telephone number on your hand and the location of your dropping the motel key) demonstrate that.
After your arrest by local police, you were interviewed by officers of the Homicide Squad. In that interview you did not reveal the cause of the trouble between you and Ms Holmes, and you exaggerated your consumption of alcohol. However, you otherwise told the truth to the investigating police and cooperated in their enquiries and investigation. That stands to your credit.
You are a young man, then of 23 years and now 25. You have a number of prior convictions but none for substantial violence. Those prior convictions – 81 convictions upon nine court appearances from 24 June 1993 to 30 June 1998 – show consistent law breaking by you but not of a violent sort. The convictions primarily are for dishonesty. Their circumstances were helpfully explained by your counsel on the plea (T. 3-9, 26 June 2000). I am satisfied upon the eloquent plea made on your behalf by your counsel, Mr Langslow, and the evidence of a distinguished psychiatrist, Dr Lester Walton (in the form of his report of 18 July 2000, exhibit 1 on the plea) that your prior convictions, in part, reflect your unhappy and lonely youth since your parents separated when you were 17 years of age. That separation and its incidents afflicted you greatly. As a consequence you had, as I have said, an unhappy and lonely youth. At the time of the offence you were still a lonely young man. You suffer from no psychiatric illness or psychological disorder and are of normal intelligence. You have remorse for your crime, but insufficient to acknowledge your guilt. You are not of violent propensity.
I have read the victim impact statement tendered by the prosecution on the plea. It is a moving and impressive document. A loving mother is afflicted by the loss of her daughter on the threshold of her adult life, and a young child has lost his mother when most he needed her. I have great sympathy for the victims of this crime. Ms Holmes was a good daughter and mother, a good friend, a happy and positive young woman. Her death was totally unjustified.
There are a number of exacerbating elements in this case. First, as I have just said, this is the totally unjustified killing of a good young woman who did nothing to cause the attack upon her. Second, the circumstances of the killing and your conduct thereafter were particularly callous. You deliberately strangled the victim with your own hands until you were sure she was dead. You then left her naked body on the floor, stole her bag and her money, and went to a hotel where you gambled with her money. The person you killed was part of a vulnerable group in our society, prostitutes, which need protection by the law. However in your case, as distinct from some others who come before the courts, you did not deliberately prey upon that vulnerability, either before or after the commission of the crime.
There are a number of matters in your favour. First, and importantly, your crime was not planned or premeditated. When you requested the attendance of Ms Holmes, and when she entered the room, you did not plan or intend any violence towards her. Likewise you did not seek to manipulate, either before or later, her vulnerability, as I have said. Second, and also importantly, you are a young man with no other violent convictions or violent propensity. Third, your numerous dishonesty convictions are in part explained, although not justified, by your lonely youth. On the night of 28 August 1998 you had been drinking. Indeed you had had problems with alcohol in the past, as is indicated by the orders made in sentencing you on previous occasions.
You are now 25 years of age, but you are not as worldly or experienced as others of that age. Although you have been convicted of murder, and it is a matter for the prison authorities to decide, I recommend in your case that you be permitted to serve your term of imprisonment in Port Phillip Prison or a subsequent establishment of less severity rather than at Barwon Prison. That is because of your relative youth (in a personal sense) and in order to assist the process of rehabilitation. I consider that, despite the crime you have committed, there is good in you which has been demonstrated by your commendable efforts in prison while awaiting trial. You have positive prospects for rehabilitation which should be encouraged. For that reason I shall order in your case a longer period of availability for parole than usual.
You have served 704 days in pre-sentence detention. Pursuant to s. 18(4) Sentencing Act 1991 I declare that period of 704 days already served under the sentence I impose and so certify.
Mr Green, for the murder of Tracey Holmes I sentence you to 18 years’ imprisonment. I direct that you serve a minimum term of 14 years’ imprisonment before you are eligible for parole.
Mr Green may be removed.
---
0
0
0