R v Bain-Singh
[2017] VSC 431
•28 July 2017
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S CR 2017 0034
| THE QUEEN |
| v |
| CHRISTIAN BAIN-SINGH |
---
JUDGE: | Beale J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 19 June 2017 |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 28 July 2017 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v Bain-Singh |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2017] VSC 431 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Aggravated burglary – Intentionally causing serious injury – Pleas of guilty – Murder occurred 11 days after other offences – Both incidents involved knife attacks – Mid-range examples of murder and aggravated burglary – High-range example of intentionally causing serious injury – Serious violent offender – Good prospects of rehabilitation – Parsimony and totality – Total effective sentence of 29 years – Non-parole period of 22 years.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Ms A Hassan | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Ms Nadia Kaddeche | Victoria Legal Aid |
HIS HONOUR:
Christian Bain-Singh, you have pleaded guilty to aggravated burglary, intentionally causing serious injury and murder.
Circumstances of offending
On the 22 March 2014, at around 2.30am, you broke into Daniel Maynard’s home in Doveton. You were armed with a large knife, a Victorinox with a 12 inch blade.[1] Mr Maynard was asleep in bed with his then partner, Melissa Parrant. Mr Maynard’s son Nathan was also in the house, presumably asleep. You entered Mr Maynard’s bedroom. As you looked around for something to steal, Mr Maynard began to stir, at which point you started stabbing him. Mr Maynard woke and tried to defend himself with his bare hands as you continued stabbing him. Eventually you ran off, leaving the knife behind.
[1]Record of Interview with Christian Bain-Singh (15 June 2016), A991.
Mr Maynard was taken to hospital. The injuries he suffered included:
(a) A fractured left skull with associated mild hearing loss;
(b) A subdural haematoma[2] and a pneumocephalus;[3]
(c) Scalp lacerations and de-gloving;[4] and
(d) Multiple lacerations to the left ear, right forearm, right little finger, left hand (to the extent that it was partially amputated) and left knee. All lacerations required surgical intervention. The injuries to the right hand and left knee required him to wear a splint.[5]
[2]Blood on the brain.
[3] Presence of gas or air in the cranial cavity.
[4]Skin completely torn from underlying tissue, named by analogy to the process of removing a glove.
[5]Statement of Professor Mark Fitzgerald (4 October 2016).
Mr Maynard required multiple medications including pain-killers, antibiotics, anaesthetics, ear medication, drugs against blood clots, intravenous fluids, high flow oxygen and drugs to protect the stomach.
Mr Maynard remained in hospital until 31 March 2014 when he was discharged to undergo rehabilitation.
On 2 April 2014, just 11 days after the attack on Mr Maynard, you had a chance encounter with Ms Rani Featherston on a street in Eumemmerring in the early hours of the morning. You knew her: there had been some unpleasantness between the two of you on 2 November 2013, when she was carrying on out the front of your home. You claim that on that occasion she was abusive, and threatening, because you refused to give her a cigarette. On 2 April 2014, you claim that she called you a “dog” for having called the police on that earlier occasion and that she threatened to get you. Whether she threatened you or not, she was unarmed and you should have just walked away. Instead, you took out a hunting knife and attacked her. On your own admission to police, you stabbed her first in the back, to the left shoulder blade. She tried to run away. You chased after her. When you caught up to her, you stabbed her repeatedly. After she went to the ground, you told police that you stabbed her once more to the throat, with force. Before you left the scene of your crime, you used your phone to post a message on Facebook. It was a quote from the lyrics of a song by a band called Five Finger Death Punch, whose lead singer is Ivan Moody. The message read “It’s not the size of the dog in the fight. It’s the size of the fight in the dog. Fucking A, Ivan Moody, never short of inspiration with this legend.” When you eventually admitted your guilt to police on 15 June 2016, you said you could not remember posting this Facebook message but remarked:
I guess looking at it now, it’s like a – bragging, it’s like a victory, it’s like saying “I gotcha”.[6]
[6]Record of Interview, A855.
Based on your account in the Record of Interview, and the fact that you had called the police on Ms Featherston back in November 2013, I find, on the balance of probabilities, that she was abusive towards you. But I am not satisfied that she threatened you on the night of the murder.
Ms Featherston’s body was found by a passer-by later that day. The autopsy report revealed that Ms Featherston had suffered 21 stab and incised injuries to the face, neck, chest, back and upper limbs.
Your terrifying crimes went unsolved for over two years. During that period you made admissions to killing Ms Featherston to various people, including two prostitutes at a brothel which you used to frequent. Your admissions to them included false details, such as the claim that Ms Featherston had produced the knife and you had taken it from her.
For a considerable time after the murder, you resorted to heavy use of the drug ‘ice’. But then you renewed your association with a Christian church that you had been involved with in your teens and began to get your life back in order. You became more and more involved in that church, a fact confirmed by a reference from a church youth leader which was tendered at the plea hearing. When police arrested you and interviewed you on 15 June 2016 regarding Ms Featherston’s killing, you mentioned your involvement with the church.
Initially in that police interview, you maintained your story that you were home in bed when Ms Featherston was killed, even when police revealed information which contradicted parts of your story. The turning point came at Q808 when Detective Senior Constable Clova told you three things: first, that he believed you were involved in Ms Featherston’s killing; second, that police had some damning evidence against you; and, third, that “if you were serious about your Christianity…and want forgiveness from God then you need to be genuinely sorry and remorseful and one way of doing that is to admit to your sins or your mistakes and take the consequences and then you can get forgiveness and your soul can rest easy.”[7] You asked for a break to have cigarette. Whilst you were having that cigarette, you confessed to Detective Clova that you had murdered Ms Featherston and you confirmed your confession when the formal interview resumed. Before the interview was brought to a close, you were asked at Q971 whether you had stabbed anyone else. You then admitted to the aggravated burglary and knife attack on Mr Maynard. Prior to you admitting to the Maynard offences, police had not suggested that they had any information connecting you to those crimes.
Victim impact statements
[7]Record of Interview, Q808.
The prosecution tendered a victim impact statement from Mr Maynard. Apart from the ongoing mental and emotional trauma he experiences from being so viciously attacked in his own bed, he’s lost much of the functionality in his hands. One of his passions – fishing – is too difficult for him now, as is golf which he liked to play with his grandson. His then partner, Melissa Parrant, is deceased but she – and Mr Maynard’s son Nathan – are likely to have been traumatised by your actions too.
In relation to the murder, victim impact statements were made by Ms Featherston’s father, Kevin; her brothers Matthew and Aaron; her nieces Olivia and Abby; and her cousin Reagan. Ms Featherston’s mother, who no doubt was heartbroken by her daughter’s murder, died from pneumonia on 28 May 2015, prior to your confession of guilt.
Understandably, Ms Featherston’s family are overwhelmed by her awful death. Their relationships with each other and outsiders have suffered greatly. Their anguish was increased by the fact that, for over two years, the murder was unsolved.
Regrettably, no sentence that I can pass will undo the harm that you have done.
Summary of circumstances of aggravation
Your offending against both Mr Maynard and Ms Featherston had many aggravating features.
As regards Mr Maynard:
·It was a home invasion late at night.[8]
·You entered the house armed with a large knife. Even though you did not enter with the intention to assault,[9] you were ready to use the knife if necessary.[10]
·When Mr Maynard stirred, you could have left. Instead, you stabbed him whilst he was still asleep[11] and continued to stab him once he awoke. I find that you intended to cause him really serious injury.[12]
·The consequences for Mr Maynard are ongoing. His loss of enjoyment of life has been substantial.
[8]See DPP v Bowden [2016] VSCA 283 at [23].
[9]The charge alleges only an intent to steal.
[10]See DPP v Bowden [2016] VSCA 283 at [23].
[11]Record of Interview, A1012.
[12]See Nash v The Queen [2013] VSCA 172 at [10].
I consider that the aggravated burglary was a mid-range example of that offence. The fact that you did not enter with an intent to assault and entered alone prevent it being placed in the upper range. But I consider that the offence of intentionally cause serious injury was an upper range example of that offence. Mr Maynard was asleep in bed when you began stabbing him and you continued to stab him when he awoke. He was lucky to survive the attack. You could have easily fled as he began to stir from sleep. You were not grossly substance affected. You told police that on the night you had drunk half a dozen glasses of “Jack and Coke” at a strip club from about 8.15pm.[13]
[13]Record of Interview, A1125, A1126 and A1331.
As regards Ms Featherston:
·The murder occurred only 11 days after the attack on Mr Maynard. You fall to be sentenced as a serious violent offender for the murder.
·Ms Featherston was a defenceless woman of only 34 years of age who you subjected to a horrifying death.
·You stabbed her repeatedly. When she tried to run off, you chased her and resumed your attack.
·You posted a callous message on Facebook whilst still at the crime scene. You were not drunk or stoned when you did so. You told police that on that night, you had only had three or four beers[14] and had not used any drugs.[15]
[14]Record of Interview, A920.
[15]Record of Interview, A917.
It goes without saying that, based on the objective circumstances, this was a very serious example of the offence of murder, but it was not a premeditated confrontation or killing. I regard it as falling in the mid-range for the offence of murder.
Maximum penalties
The maximum penalties for these offences are 25 years’ imprisonment for aggravated burglary, 20 years’ imprisonment for intentionally causing serious injury and life imprisonment for murder.
Circumstances of offender
Let me turn now to your personal history.
You were born on 15 July 1993.
Your father left your mother when you were an infant. You did not have any contact with him again till 2016. Your relationship with your mother has been a strained one. Your mother had several other children to several fathers. You report that the man with whom your mother maintained a long-term relationship had a drinking problem and was physically violent, sometimes towards you.
As a child, you were unhappy at home and at school, where you were often bullied.
By the age of 15, you were self-harming and spent a week in a psychiatric hospital. The Department of Human Services and the Child Adolescent Mental Health Service intervened and you moved from eastern Victoria to Melbourne to live with your maternal grandparents.
At 16, you joined the workforce. You did a butcher’s apprenticeship and over several years held down employment in that industry.
At about 18, you began a relationship with a young woman to whom you became engaged in 2013. The two of you lived together for some time but, in late February or early March 2014, the relationship broke down and she left you. You also lost your job as a butcher in Doveton around this time: you were accused of stealing some shanks and failed to turn up for work as a consequence, resulting in a parting of ways from your long term employer. You were unemployed for about three months. It was during this period of unemployment, and a failed relationship, that you committed the offences for which I must sentence you today.
At the plea hearing, I was told that in March 2014 you were struggling to keep up with the rental payments on your home. In your police interview, you said that you committed the aggravated burglary because you had been informed that Mr Maynard had plenty of cash on his premises.[16] You said you had also been told he had firearms so you took a large knife with you just in case.[17] That was a desperate solution to your financial problems which eased in mid-2015 when you again obtained work as a butcher, in Pakenham. In late 2015, you changed jobs and worked for an organisation that installed Telstra pits on new estates. You did that work until your arrest and remand in June 2016.
[16]Record of Interview, A983.
[17]Record of Interview, A1114.
Summary of circumstances in mitigation
You pleaded guilty at the first opportunity.[18]
[18]After being charged.
I am satisfied that you are remorseful. In my view, remorse played a significant part in your eventual confession to police. Further, you confessed to the Maynard offences in response to an open ended inquiry by police as to whether you had stabbed anyone else.
Both the remorse you have demonstrated and the utilitarian benefits flowing from your plea of guilty will attract a significant discount, even though your confession to police came more than two years after the offending.
You were 20 years of age at the time of your offending, a young man without the familial supports which many in our community enjoy. Such supports, had they existed, may have helped you to cope better with the loss of your fiancée, your job and your fear of losing your rented home. Whilst I attach some significance to your youth, the Court of Appeal has stated that “as the level of seriousness of the criminality increases, there will often be a corresponding reduction in the mitigating effects of the offender’s youth.”[19] I do not consider that you were immature at the time of the offences. You had been living independently and in paid employment for several years prior to the offending.[20]
[19]Bradley v The Queen [2017] VSCA 69 at [107] to [108].
[20]Bradley v The Queen [2017] VSCA 69 at [109].
You have no prior convictions, despite having a very difficult upbringing. There is a subsequent matter,[21] but I do not consider it to be particularly significant.
[21]On 12 August 2015, you were pulled over by police for a breath test. You appeared nervous and admitted to the police to having small quantities of ice and speed on you. You also had a large shifter in the back pocket of the front passenger seat. On 7 June 2016, at Dandenong Magistrates’ Court you pleaded guilty to two charges of possessing a drug and possessing a dangerous article.
You have a good work history, beginning when you were just 16.
You have turned back to your Christian faith, which, in part, at least, prompted your confession to the police.
You have undertaken a number of courses whilst on remand, including one run by a pastor called “Change on the Inside”. It appears that you have not been any trouble to Corrections since you were remanded in custody but have tried to make the best of your situation.[22]
[22]Whilst much of your time on remand has been spent in protection, for your own safety, it was not submitted that you have been subjected to any greater restrictions than a normal prisoner.
Considered in combination, these matters justify a finding, on the balance of probabilities, that you have good prospects of rehabilitation, even though your release date is necessarily a long way off.
Current sentencing practices
The appropriate sentence in each case has to be worked out based on the particular facts of that case. No two cases are exactly the same. Only limited assistance is derived from other cases and sentencing statistics. Nonetheless, the courts rightly strive for consistency in sentencing and have regard to statistics and other sentencing cases in that quest.
The prosecution provided statistical information in the form of Sentencing Snapshots for all three offences.
Sentencing Snapshot 184 for aggravated burglary – which covers sentences between 2010 and 2015 – indicates that the median sentence of imprisonment for that period was three years.
Sentencing Snapshot 187 for intentionally causing serious injury – which covers sentences for the same period – indicates that the median sentence of imprisonment for that period was four years and six months.
Sentencing Snapshot 198 for murder – which covers sentences for the period 2011 to 2016 – indicates that the median sentence of imprisonment for that period was 21 years. The median non-parole period for murder was 17 years.
I was referred by the prosecution to a number of murder cases which it was suggested were relevant comparators. These cases were Baea,[23] Bradley[24] and Miller.[25]
[23]DPP v Baea [2017] VSC 40 (Elliott J) (‘Baea’).
[24]Bradley v The Queen [2017] VSCA 69 (‘Bradley’).
[25]R v Miller [2015] VSC 180 (King J) (‘Miller’).
In Baea,[26] the offender pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced by Elliott J to 22 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 17 years. Baea was 21 at the time of the murder. The circumstances of his offending were that he attended the victim’s home and was invited in by the victim. She knew Baea because her son had gone to primary school with him. Nobody else was home at the time. Baea became angry at the victim for reasons that were unclear and stabbed her 38 times with a knife which he had brought with him. Elliott J was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the killing was premeditated. In finding that Baea was remorseful, Elliot J said Baea “spent a significant part [of] the day after committing [the] crime at church contemplating what [he] had done. On the following day when confronted by the police [he] immediately confessed to all elements of the crime of murder.”[27] Baea’s personal circumstances were that his parents separated when he was about 14 and he received little support from them thereafter. He had no prior convictions.
[26]Baea.
[27]DPP v Baea [2017] VSC 40 (Elliott J) at [51].
There are certainly similarities between your offending and Baea but there is at least one important difference. Baea admitted his guilt of the offence to the police two days after the murder. You did not do so for more than two years. And, of course, you fall to be sentenced for two knife attacks.
Sentence
The purposes for which a sentence may be imposed are specified in the Sentencing Act 1991. They are, in brief, just punishment, denunciation, general and specific deterrence, protection of the community and rehabilitation. Your offences were shocking. They are all serious examples of the offences in question. I have already mentioned that I consider Charge 2 as an upper range example of intentionally causing serious injury. And you murdered Ms Featherston in a horrifying attack only a few days later. There must be a significant amount of cumulation between the sentences of imprisonment I impose on the Maynard offences, on the one hand, and the murder, on the other, even allowing for the principles of parsimony and totality.
Please stand.
On Charge 1, the aggravated burglary, I impose a sentence of five years’ imprisonment.
On Charge 2, intentionally causing serious injury, I impose a sentence of eight years’ imprisonment.
On Charge 3, murder, I impose a sentence of 24 year’s imprisonment and declare that you were sentenced as a serious violent offender on that charge.
Charge 3 is the base sentence.
I order that one year of the sentence on Count 1 and four years of the sentence on Charge 2 be cumulative on each other and on the base sentence.
The total effective sentence is therefore 29 years.
I specify a non-parole period of 22 years.
I declare that you have served 408 days, not including today, by way of pre-sentence detention.
But for your plea of guilty I would have imposed a total effective sentence of 32 years and a non-parole period of 25 years.
I make the Disposal Orders sought by the prosecution. Neither order was opposed.
0
3
0