R v Bufton
[2019] VSC 621
•13 September 2019
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S CR 2018 0283
| THE QUEEN | |
| v | |
| JANICE JOY BUFTON | Accused |
---
JUDGE: | Tinney J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 28 August 2019 |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 13 September 2019 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v Bufton |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2019] VSC 621 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence – Murder – Accused ran over her partner in the driveway of her home due to extreme anger over his refusal to talk to her – False account given to police and persisted in at trial – No remorse – No prior convictions – Previous cancer diagnosis and prospect of recurrence – Serious example of offence – High moral culpability - Just punishment – Denunciation – General deterrence – Sentence of 24 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 18 years.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr K Armstrong | Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr T Danos | Irwin & Irwin Law |
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
Janice Joy Bufton, after a trial in the Supreme Court at Horsham in May of this year which ran for 11 hearing days, you were found guilty by a jury of the murder of Colin Geoffrey Snooks in Fyans Creek on 30 October 2017.
The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment.
Background
You and Mr Snooks had been in a relationship from January 2016 until the time of his death. The relationship was a most turbulent one, involving many arguments and periods of separation. From as early as April 2016, as indicated by some diary entries you made which were tendered in evidence, you were frustrated, concerned and insecure about the behaviour of Mr Snooks towards you, and in particular, what you saw as his refusal or failure to commit to you. You also harboured some feelings of jealousy. You told police, for example, in the interview which was conducted after your commission of the crime, that you liked things to be open and honest, and did not like secrets. You said:
I don’t like things behind my back…All I ever wanted to do with Colin was sit down and get the truth out of him and all he’d ever do is run away every time…I didn’t know whether he was lying or not, I just wanted to know whether he was committed to the relationship or not…He said he loved me more than he loved anybody else and all this sort of thing, but…his actions didn’t back it up, I don’t think.[1]
[1]Excerpts from police interview.
For periods of time, Mr Snooks lived with you at your rural property in Fyans Creek and had his possessions, including his caravan, stored there. At other times, he would live away from you, often in his caravan at Green Hill Lake Reserve (‘Green Hill’) in Ararat.
Commencing just before Christmas 2016, there was one such period during which Mr Snooks lived in his caravan for some months at Green Hill. During this time, he befriended a man named Benjamin Weston, a 71 year old, retired ‘grey nomad’.
On multiple occasions in 2016 and 2017, Mr Snooks indicated his desire to leave the relationship with you and to remove his caravan from your property. There was some evidence before the jury which was indicative of your unwillingness, on occasions, to permit Mr Snooks to remove his caravan from your property when he wanted to. One such occasion was on 21 February 2017 when Mr Snooks enlisted the assistance of police from Stawell to remove the caravan. Police attended at your property, and you made it clear to them that you would not release any of the property of Mr Snooks until he told you why the relationship had ended. In speaking to the police, you made clear your anger towards Mr Snooks and your jealousy towards his wife, who you claimed he was seeing behind your back.
For several months leading up to October 2017, Mr Snooks again resided with you at Fyans Creek, but in October 2017, a particular development was apparently a source of some aggravation to you. It was the fact that Carol Snooks (‘Carol’), the wife of Mr Snooks, commenced divorce proceedings against him, and as a result, the level of contact between them actually increased.
On 12 and 13 October 2017, Mr Snooks met up with Carol to discuss the divorce proceedings. On 24 October 2017, you and Mr Snooks bumped into Carol by chance in Ballarat. On 26 October 2017, Mr Snooks again met with Carol to discuss the divorce papers. He told her that you had been angry after the Ballarat meeting, and that he intended to take his caravan to Green Hill the next week.
On 29 October 2017, Mr Weston rang Mr Snooks to inform him that he, Weston, had returned to Green Hill. While on the phone, Mr Weston heard Mr Snooks and you arguing, and the call ended abruptly.
30 October 2017; The murder
The next morning, on 30 October 2017, Mr Snooks and Mr Weston drove to Ararat in Mr Snooks’ red dual cab Holden Rodeo utility. Mr Snooks visited the bank and then his solicitor. Then, after a further trip to Halls Gap, the two men drove in the utility to your property. It was Mr Snooks’ intention to collect his caravan, which was parked at your premises at that time. They arrived there unannounced at about 12.30 pm. At the time, you told the police that you were ironing some clothing of Mr Snooks in the living room. You said that you were alerted to the arrival of the two men at your property by the triggering of an alarm on your front gate leading in from the road. You were annoyed at the attendance of Mr Weston, a man whom you did not like.
On the account of Mr Weston as set out in his statement,[2] they drove up the driveway to your house. Mr Snooks turned his vehicle around and backed it up to the caravan which was parked in the driveway to the right of the house. As they got out of the vehicle, you came out of the house, came up to them, and started yelling abuse at Mr Snooks. You said to Mr Snooks, ‘You’re not taking that caravan. You’re not having that van’, to which he replied that he was taking the van. You said to Mr Snooks, ‘You just come here to fuck me and then you don’t even kiss me, you just roll over and go to sleep.’ You also said to him, ‘You’re fucking your ex-wife’. Mr Weston described you standing in front of Mr Snooks and screaming these things, in an argument which went for about 15 minutes. Mr Weston said that Mr Snooks said little in reply to these statements and accusations. While the argument proceeded, Mr Weston tried to attach the caravan to Mr Snooks’ vehicle, without success.
[2]The prosecution, as a result of the ruling in R v Bufton [2019] VSC 232, was permitted to lead evidence of a number of representations contained in the statement of Mr Weston made on the day of the incident and his walk-through with a Homicide Squad detective the day after the incident. Mr Weston died before the committal hearing in this case.
Wanting to stop Mr Snooks from taking his caravan and leaving you, you reached into the open driver’s side window of his vehicle and removed the car keys from the ignition. You then yelled at Mr Weston, attacking him for being present. He decided to leave the scene, communicating that to Mr Snooks. Mr Weston started to walk in an easterly direction along the driveway towards the road. Mr Snooks followed some time afterwards, catching up with Mr Weston and asking him to ring 000. Mr Weston dialled the number and then handed his phone to Mr Snooks. Mr Weston then remained where he was in the driveway as Mr Snooks continued to walk further along the driveway in the direction of the road.
Mr Weston noticed you getting into Mr Snooks’ vehicle and starting it. You drove it around the rear of your house. The precise timing of your removal of the vehicle from the driveway is unclear, but your purpose was clear enough. You wanted to prevent Mr Snooks from leaving the property, and taking his caravan with him. You were later to tell the police that you wanted Mr Snooks to come inside and talk to you and have a cup of coffee, and that you had driven his vehicle to the area behind the house in order to keep an eye on it. Mr Snooks did not enter the house. Rather, he continued to walk away down the driveway. Upon seeing this, you returned to the vehicle, started it again, and drove back around to the start of the driveway near the caravan.
It is neither possible nor necessary to know the precise sequence of events which then transpired in the driveway of your property. Other than the largely dishonest account you gave in the subsequent police interview, which was rejected by the jury, there were two sources of information about exactly what took place. The first source was the eye witness Mr Weston who actually saw the events from fairly close at hand. The second source was the objective signs found at the scene by the police, by way of tyre marks and other features. There is no doubt in my mind that Mr Weston told the truth when he spoke to the police and made his statement and took part in the walk-through. However, it was apparent that he made some mistakes in his recollection of what took place in light of the objective features of the scene.
As a starting point, it is clear that whilst Mr Snooks began by walking along the driveway to the east in the direction of the gate out onto the road, when he was struck by the vehicle you were driving, he was well over onto the grass reserve to the right. You commenced by driving for some distance along the driveway, and yet left the driveway to the right onto the grass verge to the point where you struck Mr Snooks. The only thing which could have caused Mr Snooks to leave the driveway and go over onto the grass was the approach of your vehicle, and his desire to avoid being struck by it. As for the vehicle, only one thing could have led to the decision you made to drive from the driveway onto the grass. It was the decision you had made by that time to run over Mr Snooks.
On the account of Mr Weston, you paused momentarily near the caravan. Revving the engine hard, you then drove along the driveway in Mr Weston’s direction at a speed he estimated as ‘at least 40 km/h’. Mr Weston jumped off the driveway to avoid being struck. I am satisfied that all of this occurred.
The marks on the driveway and grass to the south indicated that you drove your vehicle about 44 metres along the driveway from the horse head stakes[3] before steering to the right onto the grass reserve. The wheel marks indicated that you drove a further 53 metres along the grass reserve with two slight changes of direction as you proceeded along, one towards the driveway and one away from the driveway. Just before the point of impact with Mr Snooks, who was struck by the front driver’s side bull bar of the vehicle, about .45 of a metre in from the right hand side, the vehicle went into what was described as a skid, but in reality was a process of rapid braking in which the ABS braking system activated. The marks produced by this proceeded for a further 22 metres until the vehicle came to rest.
[3]These were two posts on either side of the driveway close to its commencement near the house. They were a point of reference in respect of some of the measurements carried out by the police.
As Mr Weston perceived the immediate lead-up to the collision, Mr Snooks was walking east-bound along the driveway, facing away, and still talking on the phone, when your vehicle moved quickly along the driveway in his direction. Mr Weston yelled out a warning to Mr Snooks, who turned around with a look of horror on his face. According to Mr Weston’s account, Mr Snooks leapt off the driveway to the right. The utility swung over to the right and ran ‘straight over the top of him’. Mr Weston observed the bonnet of the utility hit Mr Snooks and he went straight under the wheels. The car skidded and came to a stop, with Mr Snooks lying on his right side facing the front. He was unconscious.
I am satisfied that Mr Snooks, having been warned of the approach of the vehicle, did indeed take evasive action by moving quickly onto the grass. I am further satisfied that seeing that, you then steered the vehicle onto the grass. That departure did not occur as late in the piece as recalled by Mr Weston. Once on the grass, with Mr Snooks in front of you and in clear view, you continued to drive for a considerable distance in the direction of Mr Snooks, intent upon running him over.
At almost the point when you struck Mr Snooks, you applied braking, which led to the commencement of the skid marks which continued for 22 metres until the vehicle came to rest. The braking may well have been a reflex by you in response to the imminent impact, but was certainly not applied out of an endeavour to avoid the impact. The prosecution case was conducted on the basis that you deliberately ran over Mr Snooks, and the jury verdict means the jury were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you did exactly that.
Detective Leading Senior Constable Hardiman, the expert reconstructionist from the Major Collision Investigation Unit, concluded that at the commencement of the skid marks, the vehicle was travelling at a minimum speed of 45 km/h.
At the time of being struck by your vehicle, Mr Snooks was still engaged in a phone call to 000, the recording of which was played to the jury. In the call, the words of Mr Snooks’ conversation with the 000 operator cut off, and were followed shortly afterwards by the sound of your voice. The time stamp indicated the collision took place at 12.50 pm. Mr Weston’s telephone must have been thrown from the hand of Mr Snooks at the point of impact. It ended up on the ground a short distance away, and some of the aftermath of the collision was recorded in the call.
Mr Weston indicated in his statement that he ran up to the scene and yelled at you, ‘You stupid bitch! You’ve killed him’. In the recording, in what amounted to your initial attempt to shift blame from yourself to Mr Snooks for your having run him over, you could be heard to say, ‘He ran in front of us’. Shortly after this, Mr Weston could be heard to say, ‘This is fuckin’ murder’. You asked, ‘Why did he run in front of me?’, to which Mr Weston retorted, ‘He didn’t run in front of ya’. You again claimed that he did. A little later in the call, Mr Weston said, ‘Fuck, this is fucking murder’, to which you replied, ‘I didn’t know he ran in front of us’. This drew from Mr Weston the retort, ‘Bullshit, he was off the road’. You repeated your claim that you had tried to avoid hitting Mr Snooks.
Mr Weston told you to get back in the car and back it up. You eventually complied with this demand. Mr Weston was then able to pull Mr Snooks partially out from under the car.
Police and other emergency services arrived at the scene at about 1.13 pm. Ambulance officers worked on Mr Snooks but he was deceased.
At an early time in your dealings with the police, you told Senior Constable Fitzell, ‘He jumped out in front of me. I couldn’t get out of the way’.
The post mortem examination of Mr Snooks catalogued the widespread and shocking injuries he had sustained. There were multiple injuries to the head, chest, abdomen, pelvic region, arms and legs. There were fractures to the ribs, sternum, right shoulder blade, lumbar vertebrae, the right tibia and fibula and right wrist. There were multiple internal organ lacerations and contusions involving the heart, aorta, lungs, left kidney, and bladder. There was extensive crushing and other damage to muscles throughout the body. The cause of death was found to be multiple injuries. The injuries were described by the pathologist as being severe and non-survivable. They would have caused death rapidly, secondary to internal bleeding and an inability to breathe.
You were interviewed by police on 30 and 31 October 2017 at Stawell Police Station. You had received legal advice before the interview, and generally exercised your right not to comment to questions directly about the alleged offence. You did, however, reveal much about your defence. You told the police that you had driven Mr Snooks’ vehicle to the rear of your house, having asked him to come inside and have a cup of coffee. You said that you then saw Mr Snooks and Mr Weston walking away down the driveway, which you could not understand. You got back in the car and then headed down, intending to lock the front gate and talk to Mr Snooks. You denied driving along the driveway as had been claimed by Mr Weston. Rather, you claimed that you drove onto the grass within 5 metres or so after passing the horse head stakes. You went onto the grass because the two men were on the driveway and you were trying to avoid them. You said you were not trying to hit them. You said that you were going at a safe speed, nothing like 40 to 50 km/h, and denied gunning the engine. On legal advice, you declined to comment in response to questions about the circumstances of the collision. You did say, however, that it was not your fault.
At the heart of your version given in the interview was your continuation of the false claim first advanced to Mr Weston in the seconds after the collision that you had not deliberately run over Mr Snooks, but that, rather, he had jumped in front of the vehicle, giving you no chance of avoiding the collision. That was a defence in which you persisted during the trial. Your account was rejected by the jury.
Nature and gravity of offence and your culpability and degree of responsibility
Two of the matters to which I am required by s 5(2)(c) and (d) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (‘the Act’) to have regard are the nature and gravity of the offence and your culpability and degree of responsibility for the offence.
As I have already said, the prosecution case of murder of which you have been found guilty had at its heart the requirement of proof that you deliberately ran over Mr Snooks, causing his death. The jury verdict means that the jury were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that at the time of the incident, not only did you deliberately run over Mr Snooks, but that at the time of doing so, you intended either to kill him or at least to cause him really serious injury. I cannot reach a conclusion of an intention to kill, so I sentence you on the basis that you had, at least, the intention of causing really serious injury to Mr Snooks.
Mr Danos described your crime as ‘clearly not a premeditated incident’, in the sense that you had not even anticipated the presence of Mr Snooks on the day in question, that you still had feelings for him, and that what occurred came about ‘as a result of very much what occurred on that day’. He submitted that there was nothing to suggest that until the incident took place, you ever harboured feelings of doing harm to Mr Snooks.
The Crown, for its part, submitted that whilst your crime was not a premeditated or planned one, neither was it a crime which was simply the result of a momentary or one-off occasion of being angry and frustrated. There had been a ‘build-up of escalating anger’ upon which you acted that day in carrying out the murder. The Crown relied on the way in which the case had been put to the jury, that is, that the murder was the culmination of an escalating period of anger by you, commencing with general dissatisfaction with Mr Snooks about his refusal to commit to you, which was exacerbated by your unhappiness about the continuing contact between Mr Snooks and his wife over the divorce proceedings and the feelings of jealousy you harboured. On the day of the crime, the attendance by Mr Snooks to take his caravan in the company of a man you detested, his refusal to talk to you about the matter, and the fact that he then simply went to walk away from you, triggered what the prosecution described during the trial as your incandescent rage which provided the motive to carry out the murder. As the prosecutor put it, a sequence of events occupying several minutes preceded the murder. At some point, you made the decision to run over Mr Snooks. You had at least some time to reflect on this and to fully understand the magnitude of what you were contemplating.
Mr Armstrong also submitted, by way of background to the asserted escalating period of anger by you, that you were prone to carrying out controlling behaviour towards Mr Snooks in the lead-up to the murder, and that, as evidenced by the outcome of the police visit to your property on 21 February 2017, you had previously used the caravan of Mr Snooks as a tool in pursuit of control of him. You must have known you had no right to withhold from him his possession of the caravan, but you sought to do so none the less.
In addition, Mr Armstrong made the submission that at the time of the murder, you were subject to an intervention order prohibiting the commission by you of family violence against the protected person Mr Snooks. The existence of this order at the time you killed him was an aggravating feature of your crime, so the Crown submitted.
I am satisfied that the build-up of frustration and anger you felt towards Mr Snooks before that day, in the context of your desire to be able to control him to an extent and have him conform with your wishes, is what explains the swelling of murderous rage on 30 October 2017 leading to the outrageous and extreme conduct of your crime. At some point either before or shortly after you got back into his car and drove it to the head of the driveway, at which location, you revved the engine hard before driving in the direction of Mr Weston and Mr Snooks, you decided that you were going to run over Mr Snooks.
In the immediate lead-up to the murder, you deliberately drove the motor vehicle at a significant speed in the circumstances, directly at Mr Snooks, hitting him with the bull bar on the front driver’s side of the vehicle. It must have been obvious to you that your use of the dangerous weapon represented by this motor vehicle to run over a pedestrian was a very serious act of violence, carrying with it the inevitability of very serious injury being inflicted, and a very high level of risk of death. At the least, you intended to cause really serious injury to Mr Snooks.
This crime occurred in the context of your having been in a domestic relationship with Mr Snooks for some time, and of your having acted out of anger and frustration at the state of the relationship. The words of Redlich JA in Felicite v The Queen[4] are apposite:
The taking of a domestic partner’s life undermines the foundations of personal relationships and family trust, upon which our society rests. The sentence must reflect both the sanctity of human life and society’s abhorrence of violence towards vulnerable and trusting partners, who could legitimately have expected the offender to be the protector from, not the perpetrator of violent abuse. An outburst of homicidal rage in such contexts is totally unacceptable. The community expectation is that the punishment assigned to such conduct must be condign so as to denounce in the strongest terms the abhorrent nature of domestic murder and to deter others from taking a similar course. Accordingly, the principles of general deterrence, denunciation and just punishment will ordinarily be given primacy in sentencing for the murder of a partner in a domestic setting even where there are present, circumstances of provocation or great emotional stress.[5]
[4](2011) 37 VR 329.
[5]Ibid [20].
Without it being necessary to place your crime in any particular category of seriousness, it is clear that it was a serious example of the always-serious crime of murder. Your moral culpability is very high.
Your personal background
You are now 68 years old and have no criminal convictions whatsoever, having lived what Mr Danos described as a blameless life. For much of your life you have lived the life of a farmer. You were married to Leonard Bufton for 25 years before divorcing in 2000. During the marriage you and your husband worked as farmers and you engaged in racehorse training for many years, having some success, including training the winner of the Pakenham Cup. You bore one son who now lives in Geelong. I was told nothing about the level of contact between you and your son. After your divorce you commenced another long-term relationship with a man who was much older than you, Jeffrey Vogel, another farmer. The relationship proceeded for 12 years before Mr Vogel died as a result of an illness.
Your relationship with Mr Snooks commenced in January 2016, although you had known each other for some years as a result of the involvement of each of you with Project Platypus, a land care group in Ararat.
You were diagnosed with endometrial cancer in May 2017 and underwent a hysterectomy on 9 June 2017. As a result of what was described in the material as ‘residual disease within the pelvis and abdomen’ after the surgery, you were commenced on hormonal therapy which continues to the present time. A report dated 19 January 2018 stated that your cancer is under control, but described your prognosis as being ‘uncertain with an overall survival rate with this stage of disease of less than 30% at five years’. The author of the report stated that you would be likely to develop symptoms of cancer during the next few years and may require further treatment and in particular, chemotherapy. Fortunately, there has to date been no recurrence of the cancer, although the medical material placed before me speaks to the presence of some other seemingly unconnected medical issues that have required treatment.
Mr Danos submitted that the fact of your cancer diagnosis and the risk of recurrence of the cancer would make your service of the sentence passed on you more difficult than for a person without those medical concerns. He submitted that this is a relevant factor when it comes to passing sentence upon you. The prosecution did not dispute that the fact of your cancer diagnosis should be taken into account in sentence, referring me to the statement of Chernov JA in R v Cumberbatch[6] in which his Honour stated:
Thus it may be accepted that the applicant’s old age, her ill health, the increased burden of incarceration because of her state of health, and the fact that she may die in custody are all relevant factors in the sentencing process’.[7]
[6]2004 VSCA 37.
[7]Ibid [13].
I can indicate that I have taken into account your cancer diagnosis, the prospect of a recurrence of that disease and the existence of your other medical issues in formulating sentence in this case.
For completeness, I note that no material was placed before the Court and nor was any submission made which would engage any of the principles discussed in the case of R v Verdins[8].
[8](2007) 16 VR 269.
Your offers to plead guilty and the issue of remorse
In the context of submitting that the efforts you made after the running down of Mr Snooks to resuscitate him were indicative of your concern for him, Mr Danos went on to inform the Court of the fact that at one time or another, you offered to plead guilty to lesser offences than murder. He submitted that these offers to plead guilty, albeit to lesser crimes, demonstrated a level of preparedness to accept that you had ‘done the wrong thing’. Mr Danos did not go as far as to assert that you were remorseful for your conduct, but did rely on your conduct after the incident in seeking to help Mr Snooks, and your offers to plead guilty to lesser offences, as showing that there was ‘a level of contrition’ on your part, or an acceptance that you had done the wrong thing.
The matter having been raised by your counsel, Mr Armstrong then put before me the chronology of plea offers by you, which was as follows:
I.On 30 April 2018, an offer was made on your behalf to plead guilty to negligent manslaughter. This offer was rejected by the Crown.
II.On 12 October 2018, after the death of Mr Weston but before the committal hearing, your previous offer to plead guilty to negligent manslaughter was withdrawn, and in its place, an offer was made on your behalf to plead guilty to dangerous driving causing death. This offer was rejected by the Crown.
III.On 30 October 2018, you were committed for trial on murder.
IV.On 1 May 2019, the Court of Appeal refused your application for leave to appeal against my decision to permit the prosecution to lead evidence of some aspects of the statement of Mr Weston.
V.On 9 May 2019, an offer was made on your behalf to plead guilty to negligent manslaughter. That offer was rejected by the Crown.
Mr Armstrong pointed out that at no time did you ever offer to plead guilty to murder. Rather, so it was submitted, you alternated according to the perceived state of the evidence in making offers to plead guilty to lesser offences. Nothing about your various plea offers was any basis for a finding by me of a level of contrition or remorse.
As for your efforts in the attempted resuscitation of Mr Snooks, the prosecutor submitted that these did not necessarily indicate remorse. Indeed, in answer to an enquiry by me, Mr Armstrong submitted that in this case, your counsel had not pointed to anything which could be relied upon as evidence of remorse, especially given the fact that you pleaded not guilty to murder on the trial.
In my view, the offers you made at one time or another to plead guilty to lesser offences are not mitigatory in the circumstances. Your offers did not reflect a willingness to acknowledge your true criminality, but rather, they reflected your apparent willingness to admit to wrongdoing of a lesser extent for tactical reasons. The most serious offence to which you offered to plead guilty was negligent manslaughter, an offence which would in no way reflect the seriousness of your conduct in deliberately running down Mr Snooks whilst harbouring the intention to kill him or cause him really serious injury. Mr Danos made it clear during the plea that you have, in fact, never accepted that it was a deliberate act on your part to run down Mr Snooks. Your plea offers can be seen in that light. You contested this trial, as was your right, and at all times sought a complete acquittal.
In my view, it cannot be of any assistance to you in sentence that you endeavoured to have your murder of Mr Snooks sentenced on the basis of a crime substantially less serious than murder.[9]
[9]Bugeja v R (2010) 30 VR 493 [39] (Buchanan JA); Le v R [2011] VSCA 42 [41] (Hansen JA).
For completeness, I make it clear that you are not to be punished for your refusal to admit what you had actually done, or for pleading not guilty to murder. Rather, these facts point to the absence of a possible mitigating feature of your crime which would have existed were you to have been willing to accept the true criminality of your conduct.
As for your conduct shortly after you ran down Mr Snooks in seeking to provide assistance in resuscitating him, it is possible that that conduct was indicative of some concern for him, but it did not necessarily indicate that. It would also be conduct explainable by the fact that you were aware that your crime had been carried out in full view of Mr Weston, who, in fact, accused you of murder at the scene before your resuscitative efforts commenced. Apparent efforts to help Mr Snooks may well have seemed to you at the time to be in your best interests. After all, you very shortly thereafter claimed to the police at the scene that you had not intentionally struck Mr Weston, a false account in which you persisted throughout the interview, and indeed, throughout the trial. Furthermore, having carefully viewed and listened to your interview with the police, it was notable for the fact, in my view, that your appearance and conduct during the interview, along with what you said, betrayed little if any concern for the death of Mr Snooks which you had brought about by your actions.
One other small aspect of the evidence pointing to possible remorse was a short passage contained in the statement of Mr Morrow tendered on your behalf on the plea. That material would not, either alone or in combination with the rest of the material, justify any finding of remorse on your part.
All-in-all, I accept the prosecution submission that there was no evidence of remorse in this case.
Victim impact statements
Three victim impact statements were provided to the Court. The authors of the victim impact statements and their relationship with Mr Snooks were as follows:
Carol Snooks – Wife
Troy Snooks – Son
Lee Snooks - Son
The victim impact statements revealed something of the anguish, distress and profound sense of loss brought about by your crime to these three victims. Two of the authors revealed their sense of regret, indeed guilt, for not having known what Mr Snooks was going through, and not having done something to prevent this tragedy, although, of course, there was nothing they could have done. One of the sons of Mr Snooks observed, ‘You have destroyed a part of my life, my family’s life’.
As for Carol Snooks, whose statement was read aloud by the prosecutor in Court, she was required to endure the trauma of giving evidence in Court on your trial, and she made particular mention of the ongoing distress caused to her by the continuing court proceedings. Most strangely, her perception was that in the small-town community where she lived, some people harboured thoughts that she had in some way been implicated in your crime. This caused her understandable distress. She also grieves for the lost opportunity of trying to work through unresolved issues between her and her husband.
All-in-all, the victim impact statements present a powerful picture of the sadness and loss brought about by your crime. I take the victim impact statements into account as I am required to do under the Act.
Current sentencing practices
In arriving at the appropriate sentence I have taken account of current sentencing practices, one of the matters referred to in s 5(2) of the Act. In seeking to understand these, I have considered, amongst other things, the Sentencing Snapshot from the Sentencing Advisory Council, the most recent sentencing statistics for murder released by the Sentencing Advisory Council, the helpful material contained within the Judicial College of Victoria’s Victorian Sentencing Manual, including the murder case collection, and a number of other cases in which sentences for murder have been passed or considered, some of which were drawn to my attention by Mr Armstrong.
Important sentencing considerations
As I indicated earlier, yours was a serious example of the crime of murder. Using the dangerous weapon of a motor vehicle, you carried out a crime of considerable violence upon a man in respect of whom you were in a position of trust. He was walking away from you and presented no threat of any sort, other than perhaps, to your pride. He had failed to bend to your will, and you were not prepared to take it. You allowed your extreme and quite unjustified state of anger to well up and move you to a shocking and senseless crime completely out of keeping with your previous conduct throughout your life. As you drove towards him, you had ample opportunity to reflect on the outrageous nature of your intended crime, and to draw back from it. You failed to do so.
To my mind, the most important reasons for which sentence must be passed in your case are just punishment, denunciation, and general deterrence. Specific deterrence also retains significance, although I note and agree with the submission of Mr Armstrong about its reduced role in light of your age and the reality of the sentence which must be imposed in this case. As for rehabilitation, that is also a matter which I have taken into account. Your prospects in that regard are good.
You must be punished in a way which reflects the seriousness of your crime. The sentence of the Court must make it perfectly clear that the Court deplores violent crimes of this sort, particularly those committed against domestic partners. In respect of general deterrence, the sentence I pass must be such as to bring it clearly home to others who might be minded to act with extreme violence and to take the life of a domestic partner that such conduct will be met with strong punishment.
Sentence
Janice Joy Bufton, for the murder of Colin Snooks, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of 24 years.
I fix a period of 18 years before which you will not be eligible to be released on parole.
I declare a period of 683 days up to and including yesterday, 12 September 2019, as being a period already served under this sentence. I direct that the fact of the making of that declaration and its details be noted in the records of the Court.
4
0