DPP v Matthews
[2006] VSC 124
•10 April 2006
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted | |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 1504 of 2005
| DPP |
| v |
| JARRAD FRANCIS MATTHEWS |
---
JUDGE: | TEAGUE J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 14 March 2006 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 10 April 2006 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Matthews | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2006] VSC 124 | |
---
Criminal Law – Sentencing – Murder – Axe used by male prostitute aged 19 to kill client aged 71 – Sentence of 18 years – Non-parole period of 13 years
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Mr A. Tinney | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr B. Bourke with Mr J. Bushby | McNamaras |
HIS HONOUR:
Jarrad Matthews. You have pleaded guilty to the murder of Howard Ambrose at Warrion near Colac on 2 January 2005. You met the deceased in about September 2004, when you were working as a prostitute in St Kilda. You were then aged 19. Over the ensuing months you saw him about ten times. Your practice was to telephone him. He would collect you in his car for the purpose of having sex for which you were paid. Sometimes you were paid in cash. Sometimes the amount was credited to your bank account. Altogether, he paid you about $5,000. You also got him at times to pay for heroin that you bought. From about the third time that you met with him, the two of you would go to his home at Warrion.
The deceased was an accountant. He was 71, shortly to turn 72. He had been married, but had been separated from his wife for some years. He had four children who remained close to him. He was a person well respected in the local community. On a visit to Warrion in December 2004, you decided to take advantage of him. You copied out some of his telephone numbers. Later, you telephoned him to tell him that if he did not give you money, you would ring his friends and tell them that he was a paedophile. The deceased paid you $1000. Despite the reasonable anticipation that the deceased would resent your obtaining money by threats, you decided to contact him again.
That was on 2 January 2005. You rang him at about 11 a.m.. You told him that you were sorry about taking his phone numbers. The deceased appeared understanding. You asked him to pick you up, and he agreed to do so. You got a lift to the place where you were to meet him. You told the person who gave you that lift that you were going to rip off the deceased. After you met up with the deceased, he took you to Russell Street. There, you bought some heroin with money supplied by him. You and the deceased went then to Warrion, arriving at about 5 p.m. It seems that, an hour or so later, the deceased prepared for sexual activity in his bedroom. He was wearing shorts. He had a tie in place as a blindfold. He lay on his front on his bed.
It is not possible to say precisely what happened then. You gave details to the police in an interview two days later. I am sceptical about some aspects of what you said to the police. What is clear is that, when he was face down on the bed, you took up an axe. You hit him forcefully to the back of the head and neck with the axe many times. You inflicted many savage blows to his head. You then took a towel and put it over his head. You later told the police that you did not want to see his head, as it was crushed – like a smashed pumpkin.
You left the house quickly. You took with you the deceased’s credit card, after removing it from his wallet. Later, you took out $2000 in cash from his account using the credit card. You also took away a hat of the deceased. You tried to drive off in the small manually-driven car of the deceased. You had to give up that attempt because you could not drive a manually-driven car, even after telephoning a friend for advice on how to do so. You walked for a time, then got a lift from a local resident, and then engaged a taxi to get back to Melbourne. The seriousness of the murder was aggravated by your actions after you carried it out. You callously took belongings of the deceased and then abandoned him, telephoning only for help for yourself.
The telephone call that you made was to lead to your being interviewed by the police two days after the murder. At that time, you co-operated substantially with the police. There were, however, several aspects of what you told the police that were at odds with other evidence. Findings as to blood spatter on the body and shorts of the deceased suggest that, after killing him, you re-arranged more than the towel over his head, as you claimed. Then there is the matter of the deceased’s sexual preferences or fantasies. According to your perception of what a paedophile is, the deceased was one. While I can accept that that may have been your perception based on what you say that he said to you at times, your claim is not independently verifiable as a matter of probability on the material before me.
Your answers to police questions as to why you had killed the deceased were opaque. You hinted at having taken steps in anticipatory self-defence. The implausibility of that position is clear, given that the deceased was struck forcefully to the back of the head and neck when lying on a bed, face down and blindfolded. He was not bound, but he was nonetheless defenceless. I have reflected on your having spoken, just prior to having the deceased collect you, in terms of your planning to rip the deceased off. That is troubling. It does not, however, form an adequate basis for inferring a plan to do violence. Accordingly, I accept that your brutal use of the axe was spontaneous rather than pre-meditated. Nevertheless, this murder was a very serious example of a very serious crime. Considerations of general deterrence and just punishment necessitate my imposing a significant prison sentence.
I have read and listened to the reading in court of victim impact statements prepared by members of the family of Howard Ambrose. They serve a very important balancing role in the sentencing process, when so much of the focus has to be on the offence and the offender. The statements were prepared in a way that articulated well the enormous sense of loss each other family member suffered. They served to bring home the devastating and long-lasting consequences to each other member of the family of the sudden death of the deceased, aggravated by the brutality of the circumstances of that death.
You were born in July 1985, and are now 20 years of age. As a child, you were difficult to raise. Your parents separated when you were eight years of age. You went to live at different times with your father, with your grandparents, with your mother, and in foster care. You then chose to live on the streets. You completed Year 10 of your schooling in 2002. Well before that, you had chosen to use illegal drugs with escalating harmful effects. You made, or were forced to make, some efforts to address the drug problems up to the time of the murder. Your mother, who gave evidence before me, has remained supportive of you.
You have several prior court appearances, including two for armed robbery. The pattern is such as to show at least a lack of respect for the law. As to the first of the two armed robbery appearances, you were sentenced in the Childrens’ Court to be released on probation with conditions including that you undertake a drug abuse program. As to the second, dealt with in the County Court, you were convicted and it was directed that you be released on a community based order. I was provided with scant information as to the circumstances of the armed robberies. I accept, however, that the sentences imposed provide a strong indication that they were towards the bottom end of the scale of seriousness. They are nonetheless indicative of a readiness to at least threaten violence.
I have carefully reviewed the report of Martin Jackson, the psychologist that was tendered on the plea. He noted that you were co-operative with him. Based on the tests that you performed for him, he concluded that you had an IQ in the average range, although you demonstrated difficulties with some aspects of memory and in processing multiple tasks. It is troubling that you have never worked other than as a prostitute. You told Martin Jackson, and I accept, that you were sexually abused by a close relative at the age of 8. Regrettably, such an experience can have a devastating effect on self-esteem, and the indications are that that has occurred in your case. Martin Jackson also refers to your attempts at suicide, and to you otherwise being depressed and anxious, although some of that is a product of your being in prison and facing sentence. His report refers to a report of Ruth Vine that he had viewed that indicated her view that you were not psychotic, but suffered some confusion as to sexual identity, and poor self-esteem, and lability of mood. I note that there is no mention of any remorse in Martin Jackson’s report, nor was there in Mr Bourke’s plea. I also note that the report of Dr Vine was not tendered on the plea. I also note that I have read the cases that I was asked to review by Mr Bourke and taken into account appropriate matters raised in them.
There are several mitigating factors to take into account on your behalf. The most significant of such factors are your plea of guilty and your youth. Because of your youth, your prospects of rehabilitation are likely to be better than your prior record in the courts and your poor work performance might suggest. The plea of guilty, which is almost the only indication of any remorse, also warrants a significant reduction. Another mitigating factor is that you co-operated with the police. Yet another is that you are likely to find prison conditions more of a burden because of the sexual background to this murder. The sentence must still be a long one given the starting point that this was the brutal, senseless murder of a defenceless old man.
There being no objection, I have signed the body sample and disposal orders. I declare as 462 the number of days of pre-sentence detention. I fix a head sentence of 18 years. I fix a non-parole period of 13 years.
0
0
0