DPP v Pan
[2007] VSC 509
•10 December 2007
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 1458 of 2007
| THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| YIWEN PAN |
---
JUDGE: | Teague J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 19 November 2007 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 10 December 2007 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Pan | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2007] VSC 509 | |
---
Criminal law – Sentencing – Murder – Ferocious stabbing of fellow employee – Body hidden - Prisoner of good character but depressed – Plea of guilty and other mitigating circumstances – 19 years imprisonment – 14 years non-parole period
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr C. Ryan SC | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr M. G. O’Connell | Victoria Legal Aid |
HIS HONOUR:
Yiwen Pan, you have pleaded guilty to the murder of Juan Zhang on 18 May 2006. Juan Zhang was known as Joanne. I will after this refer to her as Joanne.
In May 2006, both Joanne and you were employed by a company which operated out of premises located at 130 Dudley Street, West Melbourne, just west of Spencer Street.
On the night of Thursday 18 May 2006, Joanne was responsible for taking the day’s takings from the premises. The takings on that day were just over $9,000. When she finally left the premises around 6.45 p.m., it was dark. She went to her car which was located in the car parking area next to the premises. In the darkness of the car park, you were waiting to confront her. You wore dark clothes. You wore gloves. You had on you a small knife.
What your motivations were for confronting her is not clear. Your motive was not out of any animosity towards Joanne, linked to any history of past dealings. I say that conscious of the suggestion to that effect given by you to the police initially. It is clear now that that suggestion had no basis in fact. Part of the motivation seems to have been money, since you did rob her. Moreover, you had developed something of a habit for gambling. To further that habit, you had recently borrowed money. Indeed, later on the night of 18 May, you used part of the stolen money to repay the loan and part to gamble at the casino. But I do not see that it was money alone that motivated you, particularly as you had ample access to funds through your parents. I am disposed to substantially accept the more complex explanation that emerged when you spoke recently to the psychiatrist, Dr Walton. You were depressed and lonely. Your former girlfriend had found another man. Your work was dissatisfying. You perceived that maternal pressure had, to some degree, contributed to your sad state. Joanne was somehow symbolic of what you perceived to be wrong in your life.
The outcome of your confronting her is clear enough. The sequence of events during that confrontation is not. You have said that your plan was not to attack, but to talk. That is hard to reconcile with the taking of the knife, and the wearing of dark clothes and gloves. The contents of the report of Dr Walton do go some way to making it reconcilable. Whatever you did initially, it led quickly to her screaming loudly, and calling out for help. At one stage, you grabbed her by the throat. The compression that you applied was such as to cause a fracture of the hyoid bone in her neck. At a critical stage, you produced and used your knife to subdue her. You then stabbed her time after time. It was a ferocious attack. She tried to ward off your blows with the knife. There were more than 30 stab wounds to her head and neck. There were more than 20 to her hands and arms.
Having subdued her, you bundled her into the hatchback area of her own car. You drove the car away. You then took more than one step that aggravated the seriousness of your actions viewed overall. You listened to her attempts to get aid. You sat passively until you were satisfied that she had died. You then drove her car to your own place of residence. You cleaned yourself up. You drove the car to a quiet St Kilda street. You left the car parked there. You then took a taxi to recover your own car. Later that night you went to the casino. There, over a period of about four hours, you spent some of the money that you had taken from Joanne.
At 2.20 p.m. on the Friday, an SMS message was received by a friend of Joanne. It purported to be a plea for help from Joanne. By then, she had been dead for nearly 20 hours. You denied to the police that you sent the message. That you did send it is the only reasonable inference from the facts apparent on the materials before me. Between the Thursday and the Sunday night, you used Joanne’s car on occasions. On the Sunday night, you were increasingly conscious of police investigations. You arranged for the car to be garaged out of public view.
On the Monday morning, you were arrested by police. Initially, you denied involvement. You told a number of lies. After you were told matters that suggested that your lies had been found out, you admitted responsibility. You then co-operated with the police.
I have taken time to read carefully the four victim impact statements that were placed before me. They were prepared by the mother, the father, the older sister and the fiancée of Joanne. The impact of the death on each of the four has been so substantial and in so many ways. The statements resound with totally understandable sentiments of love and grief. They are permeated with unanswerable questions as to how such an endearing, beloved and loving woman could suffer such a traumatic and untimely death.
I turn from Joanne and her loved ones to you. You are aged 25. You were born in China in September 1981. You come from a law abiding family. You are highly intelligent. You are the only child of professionals in government employ. You have never previously been in any trouble with the law. Your parents impressed on you the need to study. There are indications that the level of that impressing was a significant cause of stress. It was further study that led to your coming to Australia in 2002. For two years in China, you had been in a relationship with a young woman. For study purposes, she travelled to Canada. There, she entered into another relationship. That distressed you. In Australia, you found it hard to make friends. Socially disconnected, you became something of a computer geek. You found some solace in gambling. Until the events of the night in question you were essentially just another quiet, respectful young man, but with some major underlying problems.
I have referred to the report of Dr Walton. It is his assessment that at the time of the murder, you were suffering, and are still suffering from, a major depressive psychiatric condition. That condition did not give rise to the raising of an issue as to mental impairment in the strict legal sense. Nevertheless, the application of established sentencing principles require that that assessment must be, and is by me, taken into account in assessing moral culpability, and otherwise. To a limited degree, the element of general deterrence is moderated. As your comments to Dr Walton revealed, you will have to live with the memory that your actions have destroyed two families. That memory has been, and is likely to remain, linked to enormous shame. The shame that you have brought on yourself and on your family is evident in various ways.
There is nothing to indicate that you were in any way provoked to do what you did. You were not acting spontaneously, given that you had armed yourself with a knife, albeit a very small paring knife. Moreover, you had worn gloves and dark clothes. Nevertheless, on balance, I do accept Dr Walton’s opinion that your actions, although not spontaneous, were not long premeditated. I accept that they were, to a substantial degree, a product of your disturbed mental state.
Your actions in killing Joanne as you did merit strong denunciation. Others must be deterred from acting as you did.
On the other hand, there are significant mitigating factors to be allowed for. Some I have noted and will not repeat. Others that I have allowed for I will briefly refer to. You have no prior convictions. You are young. You have, and will continue to have, supports in the community. Your rehabilitation prospects are good. You have pleaded guilty. That has utilitarian value in various respects. It is also an indication of remorse. There are other indications of remorse, including the assessment made by Dr Walton.
You have served 567 days of pre-sentence detention. I direct that that be entered in the court records. There being good reason for, and no objection to, my doing so, I have signed the orders for disposal and retention sought at the plea hearing. On the count of murder, I impose a sentence of nineteen years imprisonment. On the first count of theft, I impose a sentence of one year’s imprisonment. On the second count of theft, I impose a sentence of one month’s imprisonment. As to both periods imposed on the theft counts, they are to be served concurrently with the nineteen years imposed on the murder count. I fix a non-parole period of fourteen years.
0
0
0