DPP v Schaeffer
[2004] VSC 536
•21 December 2004
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 1484 of 2003
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| PETER SCHAEFFER |
---
JUDGE: | CUMMINS J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne (and by videolink to Wodonga) | |
DATE OF PLEA: | 10 December 2004 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 21 December 2004 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Schaeffer | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2004] VSC 536 | |
SENTENCE
---
Criminal law – sentencing – murder – jury conviction - unplanned killing – use of knife in response to threats – considerations applicable.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director | Ms S. Pullen S.C. | Solicitor for Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr C. Hannebery | Tony Hannebery & Associates |
---------------------------------------------------
HIS HONOUR:
You may be seated, Mr Schaeffer. These proceedings are being simultaneously telecast to the Wodonga Supreme Court. To the persons who are at Wodonga, I express my regret that I was unable to return to Wodonga as I had hoped. However, by reasons of other commitments in this Court in Melbourne - I had matters yesterday and have matters tomorrow - I was unable to return to Wodonga, but I am pleased that the proceedings are being simultaneously telecast to you at the Supreme Court at Wodonga.
Ms Pullen and Mr Hannebery, I have signed the relevant orders which are sought, the s.464ZF(2) Crimes Act Order and the disposal order and my Associate will provide those to you. I publish the reasons for Ruling Number 2, given at p.159 together with the published sentence, rather than hold proceedings up by orally delivering the Reasons now.
(SENTENCE FOLLOWS)
SENTENCE
HIS HONOUR:
Mr Schaeffer, you may remain seated during this sentence.
On Saturday, 21 June 2003, precisely 18 months ago today, at 1.20 a.m. outside 143 Brockley Street, Wodonga you, Mr Schaeffer, confronted Mr Nathan Jon Hanley and caused his death by stabbing him. On 9 December 2004, that is earlier this month, a jury in the Supreme Court at Wodonga convicted you of Mr Hanley's murder.
In the early hours of that morning in that peaceful street, Mr Hanley had no right to disturb the neighbourhood. He had no right to abuse and threaten the occupants of your house. He had no right to breach the Intervention Order which had been made in relation to him just one month earlier on 22 May 2003. But he had every right to his life.
You, Mr Schaeffer, took his life without lawful justification or excuse by deliberately stabbing him twice to his body. Mr Hanley died seven hours later from massive blood loss and cardiac arrest at the Albury Base Hospital. His loss has left, afflicted and grieving, his family and loved ones.
He was 27 years of age. He was seeking to address problems of alcohol and anger. He was living with his mother, who was guiding him, and he was entitled to his life. Filed before the court are victim impact statements, first, of Mrs Jillian Wood, the mother of the deceased and a most impressive woman; of Mr Bradley Hanley, the brother of the deceased, and of his partner; Ms Brooke Terlich; of Ms Sheridan Hanley, a sister of the deceased; and of Ms Kimberley Terlich. As I said in Wodonga on the plea in this matter, the victim impact statements are most moving and impressive documents. I have read each of them more than once and I take them into account centrally in the sentence I impose upon you.
An autopsy was carried out at the Coronial Services Centre, Southbank in Melbourne on Monday, 23 June 2003 by the distinguished pathologist, Dr Malcolm Dodd. It is apparent from the autopsy that there was a minimum of four applications of force by you to Mr Hanley: two blunt trauma injuries to the front of the head caused by the baseball bat, and two knife wounds to the body, one to the front just below the breast bone, five centimetres deep, and the fatal wound to the left flank cutting the aorta which was 13 centimetres deep, both inflicted by you with a large kitchen knife. It is apparent that Mr Hanley was standing when you stabbed him. The cause of death, seven hours after you stabbed him, was acute blood loss leading to cardiac failure.
That Friday night and early Saturday morning, Mr Schaeffer, you were peaceably in the home of your brother, where you were staying overnight, at 143 Brockley Street, Wodonga. You did not cause the crisis which occurred that night. The deceased, Mr Hanley, caused it. You did not create the threat or the outside situation which occurred that night, Mr Schaeffer. Mr Hanley caused it. You did not plan to use a knife that night, Mr Schaeffer. Your action in using the knife was spontaneous.
If that night when the crisis caused by Mr Hanley occurred, you had rung the police, we would not be here today. If that night you had gone outside and confronted Mr Hanley, we would not be here today. If that night you had gone outside with the baseball bat and assaulted Mr Hanley, we would not be here today. We are here today because you took out the kitchen knife and stabbed Mr Hanley twice. That is why you were convicted of murder and that is why you are now here to be sentenced.
You were at the time 33 years of age and Mr Hanley was 27 years of age. Mr Hanley had been born on 20 November 1975. He was a large and powerful man, 181 centimetres in height and 103 kilograms in weight. He was a man who was intimidating and could be aggressive when drunk, and on this night he was intimidating, aggressive and drunk. His blood alcohol reading was .29 per cent.
There had been a history of threats and violence by Mr Hanley to his partner, Ms Terlich, from whom he was then separated, and with whom was their child, a nine month old boy, Dakota. The Family Violence Information Form filed with the Court, Exhibit 1, shows that on 15 February 2003 Mr Hanley committed property damage in relation to Ms Terlich. On 20 March 2003, he assaulted her. On 1 May 2003, he assaulted her out the front of 143 Brockley Street, near the letterbox, in the view of little children in the house, causing her a bloodied face and distress, and on which occasion he was chased away by your brother, and rightly chased away, with a baseball bat. On 20 May 2003 at Ms Terlich's home, Mr Hanley sought violently to enter the home, smashed a rear window, and only desisted when he cut himself severely. You were there that day and, instead of yourself confronting Mr Hanley, you took the peaceable course of leaving the premises. Then on 22 May 2003 by consent, an Intervention Order was made, with the complainant being Ms Terlich and the defendant being Mr Hanley, at the Wodonga Magistrates' Court. That the Intervention Order was by consent was significant in this particular: I have no doubt that Mr Hanley had his loving and good side, and I have no doubt at the Wodonga Magistrates' Court on 22 May and on many other occasions he was grievously sorry for his violence towards Ms Terlich. But when drunk and crossed he could be violent. And on the night you killed him, without lawful justification or excuse, he was drunk and violent.
He appeared out the front of 143 Brockley Street in the dead of night with another man, banged on the car out the front, called out threats and abuse, woke up half the neighbourhood and terrorised the people inside. The people inside included three little girls aged 14, 10 and eight, as well as his own son, Dakota, nine months, yourself, your brother and his wife, and Ms Terlich, the object of Mr Hanley's anger. The little girls' bedrooms were right at the front, within a metre or two of Mr Nathan Hanley's conduct. His conduct and his presence were in direct breach of the Intervention Order made only one month before.
It is not simply hindsight, Mr Schaeffer, to say you should have rung the police. They would have been there very quickly, especially as Brockley Street is close to the centre of Wodonga and as Mr Hanley was on an Intervention Order. The police arrived very promptly, within a minute, when in fact they were called. You had determined, after the previous time when your brother rightly chased Mr Hanley away with the baseball bat, to confront Mr Hanley if he again abused, threatened or assaulted Ms Terlich. You did not at any time plan to use a knife and going out with a knife that night was a spontaneous action by you. The knife was in the kitchen and you took it out with you when you quickly left the house to meet the threat outside, together with the baseball bat. There were two men outside, one was aggressive and drunk, it was dark, and you acted spontaneously in that situation. Outside, Mr Hanley in fact was not armed. You suffered no injury yourself. Although you had been drinking and there was an unexpected crisis you know what you were doing. After the stabbing you sought briefly to assist the victim and then returned inside the house in a distressed state. You there said you could not believe what had happened. You remained at the scene. Whatever else you did, you should not have used the knife.
I commend the prompt and responsible attention of the local police officers who came immediately when called, in particular Constable Steven Galvin of the Wodonga police who attended the grievously injured Mr Hanley on the footpath at the front of 143 Brockley Street, and of Senior Constable Leon Perry who also assisted in that regard and very responsibly attended to the scene.
You were interviewed early that morning and then fully later that evening. In those interviews you could not bring yourself to admit your use of the knife, but you knew full well you had used it, and used it twice.
As I say, you were 33 years at the time. You are now 34 years of age, having been born on 17 April 1970. You have no history of violence. You have one conviction for violence on 9 May 1994 but that was not of extrapolated or extended violence and the small fine imposed on that day indicates that fact. You have had convictions related to drinking, revealing that you had a problem with alcohol. You were also subject to stress, having had a vasovagal collapse on 17 September 2002 whilst being concerned for your ailing mother.
You come from a close and good family. You are the youngest of six children. Your father has given evidence before me and I was most impressed by your father and by your family. Your father was an engineer in St Albans where the family grew up, and when he retired he moved to Wodonga. Your mother, to whom you were deeply devoted, had a severe illness and died in January 2003. You were afflicted by her loss.
You and your then partner have three children, now aged fourteen, nine and six, to whom you are closely devoted and caring. You and she separated in 2000, but you remain close and devoted to your children. You come from a good and close family and you yourself are a loving and attentive member of the family, loving to your parents, your mother now deceased, and especially to your children. You have a good employment record and have worked steadily since leaving school.
You have excellent prospects of rehabilitation, which I take centrally into account in this case.
Looking to the principles of sentencing applicable to you, Mr Schaeffer, relevant is general deterrence, in that the law must discourage the use of knives to resolve crisis situations. However, you are not a man of violence. You did not intend to create the situation which occurred, and whilst your actions had no lawful justification and excuse and have led to tragic consequences, the Court regards the matter of rehabilitation as important in your case, given your good history.
I conclude where I began. The family of the deceased, who have loyally attended throughout the court proceedings and who have filed most impressive victim impact statements, are respected by the Court.
You have served 550 days in pre-sentence detention and pursuant to s.18 Sentencing Act 1991 I declare that period of 550 days as already served under the sentence I impose and I so certify.
Mr Schaeffer, for the murder of Nathan Hanley I sentence you to 16 years' imprisonment. I direct that you serve a minimum term before eligibility for parole of 12 years' imprisonment.
Sine die.
0
0