R v Burleigh
[2001] VSC 29
•9 February 2001
| SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | |
| CRIMINAL DIVISION | Not Restricted |
No. 1426 of 2000
| THE QUEEN |
| v. |
| GEORGE ANDREW BURLEIGH |
---
JUDGE: | COLDREY, J. | |
WHERE HELD: | MELBOURNE | |
DATE OF RULING: | 9 FEBRUARY 2001 | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2001] VSC 29 | |
---
CATCHWORDS: Sentence – Murder – Killing of wife in murder-suicide attempt – Battering with hammer and setting alight after wife expressed intention to terminate marriage – Need to deter violent responses to perceived domestic problems – Effect of self-inflicted burns on service of prison term – Weight to be given to prisoner's age and lack of prior convictions – Eighteen years with a non-parole period of 13 years.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
For the Crown | Mr. P. Coghlan Q.C. | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr. J. Smallwood | Kenna Croxford |
HIS HONOUR:
George Andrew Burleigh, having been found guilty by a jury of the murder of your wife, Mary Olive Burleigh at Ellinbank on 14 June 1999, it is now my responsibility to sentence you.
In determining the appropriate sentence, it is necessary to briefly canvas the circumstances surrounding the commission of this offence. In June 1999, you had been married to your wife Mary for 27 years. That union had produced three children, the youngest of whom 20 year old Jason, was still living at home. That home for the last 22 years was a house in the Ellinbank area, (owned by your wife's parents). To your family, and, indeed, the outside world, your marriage appeared to be a normal one. That appearance was, in one respect deceptive. Some 16 years earlier, at your direction, and with your encouragement, your wife commenced a series of sexual relationships with various men in the area. You apparently derived satisfaction from observing this sexual activity.
It appears that the last of these liaisons concluded on 2 June 1999.
On 11 June 1999 Dr. Geoffrey Campbell, your general practitioner, saw both you and your wife at her request. At that consultation she spoke of these sexual relationships. Although previously a willing participant, she said she was not proud of these activities and had no wish to continue with them. Further, she announced she would be leaving the marriage. Dr. Campbell also gave evidence that Mrs. Burleigh was resolved to inform her children of these sexual activities. Dr. Campbell referred you to a psychologist, Ms. Lynette Howell.
In the course of that meeting, at which your wife repeated her intentions, you exhibited considerable distress. According to Ms. Howell this was caused by a combination of factors, commencing with the loss of your job with the Warragul Shire Council in 1996, the loss of your parents in 1998, the subsequent death of your brother Russell from cancer, and finally, the possibility of your wife leaving. Indeed, Ms. Howell questioned you as to whether you were suicidal and you said that if Mary left, you would commit suicide.
On the morning of 12 June, you were scheduled to visit a Mr. Roy Hammond who had a property in Korumburra Road, Warragul in relation to your watering and feeding his animals during his absence on holidays. At 9.30 a.m. you left a telephone message which said: "I can't do that job for you. Mary has left me. Don't bother ringing back." Indeed, it appears that from about Tuesday 8 June Mary had stayed at her parents' house.
In response to your telephone call Mr. Hammond visited your property about 10.30 a.m. You were upset and broke down sobbing. You told Mr. Hammond that Mary had left you and you could not see your way forward any further and thought you may as well do away with yourself. He described you as being "an emotional mess". By 12.00 noon you had calmed down and Mr. Hammond felt able to leave the property.
Coincidentally on 12 June, Dr. Campbell received a telephone call from Ms. Howell, who was concerned about you expressing suicidal thoughts. Consequently, the doctor arranged a referral to the Gippsland Psychiatric Service at Warragul. At 2.00 p.m. on the afternoon of 12 June you and your wife spoke to Ms. Karen Pollock, a registered psychiatric nurse employed by the Community Mental Health Service, Ms. Pollock told the Court that you presented as an anxious and worried man. You became particularly upset when your wife affirmed that she was leaving you and that she would tell the children what had been going on. Ms. Pollock said that you regarded the latter proposal as causing humiliation to both your wife and yourself.
Ms. Pollock contacted your wife at home and she reaffirmed her intention to leave you.
Ms. Pollock believed you were going through a crisis in your life and required support and counselling. She arranged for you to see a doctor on the following Tuesday, 14 June.
On 13 June you attended a family function to celebrate your parents in laws' wedding anniversary. You told Ms. Pollock, who rang shortly after 9.00 a.m. on 14 June, that your wife had been rather cool to you on that evening although you thought she may come back.
In fact on the morning of 14 June your wife attended at the Ellinbank property apparently to pick up a camera to take to the birthday party of her sister's son. According to your son Jason, you remained in bed up until the time he left the house at 11.35 a.m. He described you as emotionally upset and continuing to talk about matters relating to his mother.
On the evidence, at about 12.00 noon your wife returned to Ellinbank where she intended to set up a light in the piggery.
Between 1.50 and 2.00 p.m., Mr. Kevin Tyrrell, the Captain of the Darnum-Ellinbank Fire Brigade, received a call from you in which you said the house was on fire. He described your tone of voice as being quite normal.
Shortly thereafter Mr. Donald Hornby, a dairy farmer from Loch, observed flames coming from your house and on investigation, he observed you and your wife on fire just outside the back verandah. He attempted unsuccessfully to extinguish the flames.
When Mr. Tyrrell arrived at the scene you told him that Mary was dead and that she did not want you anymore. You also said that you did not want things to finish up that way. You spoke to a number of other persons who attended the scene expressing the wish to die. As to what may have motivated you to light the fire, you told Barry Davidson, an ambulance paramedic: "My wife wanted to leave me so I decided to burn the house". You told him you started the fire with petrol. To Mr. Cameron Robertson, a mobile intensive care paramedic, you said that you had lit the fire after an argument with your wife. You also told him that Mary had said she did not love you anymore and that she was leaving you.
Significantly, you informed Mr. Tyrrell of a note you had written and which was in the outside toilet. It may be characterised as a suicide note. That note read: "Michelle Belynda and Jason go to solicitors near roundabout. Wills … and Jim Johnson in Albert Street for super money. Dad". It was then signed A.G. Burleigh and underneath, apparently added as an afterthought, the words "Belynda have the car".
The reference to wills, plural, and the car, which belonged to your wife, would, in my view, have led the jury to conclude that you intended to kill your wife and yourself. Moreover, the jury would have been satisfied that the motive for this killing lay in your wife's intention to leave you and her intention to expose her prior sexual activities and your role in them.
A post mortem examination of your wife by Dr. Malcolm Dodd revealed, apart from the burning injuries, which were extensive to the facial area and upper limbs, six separate areas of blunt trauma to the head. In particular, over the right forehead there was a splitting laceration measuring approximately six millimetres in length with an underlying skull fracture. The doctor also located bruising to the back of the left hand and the outer aspect of the right elbow, consistent with an attempt to protect the head and neck area from an assault with a blunt weapon. Dr. Dodd expressed the view that all the injuries were consistent with blows from a hammer, which was found on the verandah of the premises.
Dr. Dodd said that the head injuries may have contributed to death but were not directly the cause of it. The cause of death was the direct effects of the burning, the shock induced by heat and the smoke inhalation, probably compounded by the effects of the trauma to the head decreasing the conscious state.
The preponderance of evidence is that the fire itself was centred in a chair adjacent to a wood heater in the loungeroom. There can be no doubt that petrol was spread in that room by you, although the exact mechanism of ignition of the accelerant could not be definitely established.
You have revealed nothing of what occurred to investigating police but the jury would, in my view, have found the sequence of events to be the assault with the hammer, rendering your wife helpless, followed by the ignition of the fire. I am prepared to accept that when the fire was ignited, you believed your wife to be dead and that the ignition of the fire was designed, in part, to conceal your initial crime and also, to destroy your own life.
The number of hammer blows coupled with the suicide note evince an intention to kill. It was said that some of the head injuries could have been produced by your wife falling against objects whilst she was aflame and endeavouring to flee the house. I do not regard that as at all likely given the concentration of the injuries to the skull area.
Clearly, a number of questions remain unanswered. These include where the initial hammer blows were struck and how Mrs. Burleigh's body came to be outside the premises. It is also unclear as to whether the suicide note was written before or after the assault with the hammer. It does, however, seem clear that, given the extensive burning to your hands, you wrote the note and used the phone to ring Mr. Tyrrell of the CFA before the fire was lit. The latter action was most likely performed so that the bodies would be found. However, given your depression for which you had been receiving treatment from Dr. Campbell, and your emotional state of mind, as indicated by your son Jason, one should not necessarily assume that the sequence of your actions was the product of logical thought.
I am satisfied that these events occurred when you were in a highly emotional state and against the background of depression. Indeed, the level of depression was such that you intended to take your own life. Further, although there must have been some premeditation involved in the killing, the evidence of time sequences suggests that it was relatively short-lived.
I also accept that your present mental attitude is, as your counsel Mr. Smallwood Q.C. submitted, one involving a large element of denial and non-comprehension. The consequence of that attitude, however, is that you have not expressed, and do not get the benefit of, any remorse.
As a result of the fire you also received severe physical injuries. The burns specialist Mr. Rodney Judson described you as suffering from burns involving both legs and arms and extending up to your buttocks and lower back. He estimated that 45% of your body surface had been burnt of which 30-35% were full thickness burns. These were predominantly on the legs, the region of the buttocks and lower back as well as areas of the forearm. You have currently received four skin grafts and as part of the surgery, amputation of the finger was required. Further skin grafts may be necessary. Your injuries will make your period of imprisonment more difficult to serve and although self-inflicted, may be regarded as constituting an ongoing punishment.
Your background, which is devoid of any prior convictions, together with the unique nature of this offence, suggests that specific deterrence need be given little weight. However, violent responses to the emotional problems occurring in domestic relationships cannot be tolerated by the courts. The courts have a duty to deter those who may be minded to resort to such violence. Mary Burleigh, like every woman in this community, had every right to terminate her relationship and to do so without suffering fatal consequences. Consequently general deterrence is an important element in any sentence to be imposed. Any psychological disturbance you may have been experiencing during the commission of this offence is not such as to reduce the significance of the element of general deterrence. That is not to say that the emotional turmoil which accompanied your actions is not a factor which may be taken into consideration in assessing the gravity of your conduct. I have regard to it.
In considering the appropriate sentence, there are matters personal to you which I must take into account. Before doing so, however, I would like to say something about the deceased.
Mary Olive Burleigh was aged almost 49 at the time of her tragic and untimely death. The large number of people who attended her funeral provides testimony to the affection and respect in which she was held by members of the local community. Glimpses of Mrs. Burleigh emerge from the Victim Impact Statements of her children. Michelle writes of the qualities and gifts passed on to her by her mother. Belynda speaks of her mother as a beautiful, loving and considerate person. Jason talks of a mother who was there when he needed her. In reading their eloquent and moving words, I cannot help but think that these fine young people are one of Mary Burleigh's greatest legacies, and one of which she could be justifiably proud. Understandably, the aftermath of Mary Burleigh's death has also been one of unwanted publicity and embarrassment for her children and an anger and incomprehension that their father could have perpetrated these acts.
Their distress is shared by Mr. and Mrs. Wright at the loss of a daughter and by Mrs. Janet Lee, Mr. John Wright and Mrs. Barbara Rhodes at the loss of a sister and friend. Mary Burleigh's death, and the manner in which it occurred, is something from which the Burleigh family will never fully recover.
George Burleigh, you are now 57 years of age having been born in December 1943. You were one of nine children and your family have always resided in the South Gippsland area. Your father ran a small dairy farm of about 45 acres. You went to primary school in Bunyip and then attended Mirboo North High School to grade 8 level. You were taken from school because an uncle had died and you were required to look after your aunt's farm. You were then 14 years old. Subsequently you worked on your father's farm until you were about 25. As was common in those days, you worked for a pittance in the expectation of inheriting the property. When it appeared clear that this was unlikely to occur you left the farm at about 25 years of age and effectively did farm labouring jobs including working at a piggery near Traralgon, picking potatoes and milking cows for people. Following your marriage you spent a short period of time living in a caravan park in Warragul before moving to the Ellinbank property. After many years of farm labouring you obtained a maintenance job with the Warragul Council in about 1980. That job was terminated in 1996 contributing to the depression I have already spoken about. Thereafter you undertook private maintenance work such as lawn mowing.
Apart from your exemplary work record, you have always contributed to the local community through sporting activities. For example you played cricket until you were 48 with Naracan, Trafalgar, Thorpdale and Ellinbank Clubs. At one stage you were on the committee of the Naracan Cricket Club. You played badminton until you were 50 and you supported the Thorpdale Football Club by acting as a boundary umpire for them. You also belonged to such organisations as the Young Farmers Association.
In summary, up until this offence, you have been a law abiding, hard working, and contributing member of your community. Not only is this to your credit but one can confidently say that your prospects of rehabilitation are excellent.
I also take into account the age at which you come before this Court. Further, I bear in mind that through this offence you have lost the support of your children. Whether reconciliation is possible in the future is a matter of conjecture. I suspect it is unlikely so long as you refuse to fully accept responsibility for your wife's death.
As I have already indicated, I have regard to the effect of your permanent injuries on the service of your prison sentence.
Balancing as best I can the principles of sentencing enunciated in the Sentencing Act, including particularly punishment, general deterrence and rehabilitation, I have concluded that the appropriate sentence is that you be imprisoned for a period of 18 years. I fix a minimum period of 13 years before you become eligible for parole. Further, I declare that the period to be reckoned as already served under this sentence is 607 days, inclusive of today's date. I direct that there be noted in the records of the Court the fact that such declaration is made and its details.
---
0
0
0