DPP v Wilson

[2006] VSC 23

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1442 of 2005

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

DAVID PAUL WILSON

---

JUDGE:	TEAGUE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	30 January 2006
DATE OF SENTENCE:	7 February 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Wilson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 23

---

Criminal Law – Sentence – Manslaughter – Fight involving two male residents of hostel following continued misconduct by deceased – Death from head injuries inflicted in the course of the fight – Sentence of  7 years – non-parole period of 5 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director	Mr D. Trapnell	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J. Desmond	Andrew George Solicitors

HIS HONOUR:

1. David Wilson, you have pleaded guilty to manslaughter, arising out of the killing of Matthew Goodwin on 9 August 2003.  For some time before August 2003, you and Matthew Goodwin had been residing at a hostel in Morwell, known as Theodore House.  Other residents at Theodore House included persons whose first names were Les, Joshua and Sharon.

1. Matthew Goodwin was a man of 38 who had chosen to become involved in illegal drugs.  He was a man whose unpredictable and erratic conduct was such as to at times concern, and at times frighten, others.  He had made numerous threats directed at Joshua.  His conduct led to your taking steps to move yourself and Sharon and Joshua out of Theodore House.  During the course of the day that he was killed, Les had cautioned Matthew Goodwin against urinating in the presence of Sharon, a matter that Les had learned about from Joshua. That caution led later to Matthew Goodwin making yet another threat to Joshua.  Later still, he confronted you and was abusive and threatening toward you.  You chose to ignore him at that stage.  He resented being brushed off by you.

1. Around 5.30 to 6 p.m. on 9 August 2003, in an open area outside Theodore House rooms, there was a further incident between you and Matthew Goodwin.  The incident was not seen by others.  Some aspects of it were heard.  Bloodstains were located in the area.  There is no independent evidence as to how the incident started.  You have later told the psychologist Mr Cummins, and your counsel that Matthew Goodwin came at you with a piece of timber, that you were fearful and scared, and that you managed to get the piece of timber from him and to strike him with it.  There is evidence from the autopsy as to the nature of the severe head injuries that you inflicted that caused death.  There were five deep lacerations to the scalp, consistent with the use of a long, hard instrument.  Associated with those lacerations were extensive skull fractures.  There are some aspects of your account that are readily seen to be consistent with other evidence, and some that are not.  The earlier actions and words of Matthew Goodwin were such as to be consistent with his having been, at the critical time, in an agitated state, and likely to have been threatening and provocative.  Your actions at the critical time were consistent with your having engaged, without murderous intent, or any premeditation, in conduct that was unlawful and dangerous.

1. You dragged Matthew Goodwin away from the area where you had struck him.  Your claims that there was little blood and that you thought he would recover are not readily reconciled with the objective evidence. The seriousness of the killing was aggravated by more than one of your subsequent actions.  You should have called, as you did not,  for medical attention. You should not have tried, as you did, to hide the body.  You transported it to the Morwell landfill dump in a van that you owned.  You dragged the body under a locked gate and along the landfill.  You buried it in a shallow grave.  This manslaughter is neither close to the top, nor to the bottom end of the range.  The prescribed maximum is twenty years’ imprisonment.

1. I have read the victim impact statements which have been lodged with the court by the mother and two sisters of Matthew Goodwin.  For them, he was a beloved family member, whose untimely death has caused them depression, anxiety, nightmares and other enduring adverse consequences.

1. You are 49 years of age, having been born in October 1956 in Yallourn. The report of Mr Cummins contains details of your background.  It includes that you were raised in Moe, that you had a father troubled by alcohol and a disposition to violence, and that your mother is still alive but distant geographically and otherwise.  You did an apprenticeship as a bricklayer at an early age and have continued to work at that trade.  You have had a number of relationships. You currently have a number of persons willing to provide you with support.  You have made choices as to consuming alcohol and illegal drugs that have led to adverse consequences on many occasions in the past, although neither was a factor in the killing of Matthew Goodwin.  Your record of prior convictions does suggest that you have had little respect for the law, and not only in your younger years.  Sentences of imprisonment were imposed in 1979, 1987, 1991, 1995 and 1997.  The 1997 sentence was for a period of 4 years.

1. I must allow in your favour for your plea of guilty. I have noted that Mr Cummins has referred to your having spoken to him in a manner indicating a feeling of remorse. To a limited degree, I  allow for that, and for the conclusion of Mr Cummins that as at the time of the killing, your mental state was compromised to a degree by the prior actions of Matthew Goodwin.  In your case, no favourable allowance can be made for co-operation with the police.

1. I have signed the orders as to retention and disposal, there being no objection to my doing so.  I declare that there are 911 days of pre-sentence detention. I direct that be entered in the court records.  I sentence you to seven years imprisonment. I fix a non-parole period of five years.