R v Calway
[2003] VSC 297
•18 August 2003
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 1485 of 2002
| THE QUEEN |
| v |
| JULIE MAREE CALWAY |
---
JUDGE: | Teague J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 24 June - 4 July, 7 August 2003 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 18 August 2003 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v Julie Maree Calway | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2003] VSC 297 | |
---
Criminal Law – Sentencing – Murder of stepfather – prisoner with no memory of events - significant mitigating considerations – prison for fifteen years – non-parole period of ten years.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr B. Kayser | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr P. Morrissey | Victoria Legal Aid |
HIS HONOUR:
Julie Calway, you have been found guilty by a jury of the murder of Michael Pitts on 19 October 2001. The deceased was the de facto husband of your late mother. The two of them had lived together for many years at 11 Charlotte Street, Newport. Your mother had left you and your father to live with Michael Pitts when you were aged thirteen. You later re-established contact with her. After that, you and your mother were very close. By contrast, your relationship with the deceased was poor. He showed you little respect.
Your mother’s physical health deteriorated progressively into and during 2001. Over the same period, mental health problems from which you had been suffering for some time, worsened. You gave up work. To an excessive degree, you kept to yourself. You drank too much alcohol. You spent too much time in bed. You sought help from a psychiatrist and a psychologist. In mid-2001, because of your concern as to your mother’s health, you took to staying over with her at the Newport home.
In late August 2001, you had a fight with the deceased. The fight was over his smoking in your mother’s bedroom. Your mother had just shrugged when you raised with her your concerns as to the deceased smoking. You felt the need to act. You spoke strongly to the deceased about his smoking. That led to his punching you in the face. You left the house. He told you not to return.
A few days later, your mother died. You were grief-stricken. You went back to sleeping and drinking too much. On Saturday, 13 October, you went with your sister and an aunt to 11 Charlotte Street. Items belonging to your mother were gone through in the presence of the deceased. The deceased acted in a way that annoyed you, but there was nothing physical between him and you.
On Friday, 19 October, you telephoned your sister, early in the morning, from your flat in East Malvern. You made plans to go again to 11 Charlotte Street with her and another relative on the next day. You were later to say that you had no memory of what you did for most of that day apart from sleeping. You said you had no memory of leaving your East Malvern flat at all that day. There is ample evidence that you went to 11 Charlotte Street. You drove there in the station wagon that you customarily drove. While you were there, there was a fight involving you and the deceased. I am unable to make findings on the evidence as to the course of the fight. It is clear that you got the better of the deceased. You sustained several bruises. He sustained severe damage to his head and other injuries. There were 16 linear lacerations to the scalp. But the injury that caused death was the fractured skull. I cannot make a precise finding as to how the blow or blows that caused that fracture were struck. The indications are that it was done with a brick or rock or garden fork, that happened to be at hand.
The jury’s verdict makes it clear that they were satisfied that you had at least the intention to cause really serious injury, and were not acting in self defence. That you suffered injuries yourself is an indication that there was some form of struggle. I do not have a sufficient basis for drawing any inferences as to where blame might lie for starting the fight. It is only the injuries which caused death which are an indication of any specifically disproportionate acts. There is not a sufficient basis for a finding that the killing of the deceased was premeditated. I sentence you, therefore, on the basis that it was not.
You told the police that same day that you had no memory of going to 11 Charlotte Street. You gave evidence to that effect before the jury that convicted you. I am prepared to find that your memory loss is genuine. Studies show that such a loss in the circumstances of a traumatic death of a family member is quite common. Moreover, as Mr Morrissey was at pains to point out to the jury and to me, a contrived claim of memory loss could have no advantages, but more than one distinct disadvantage.
Michael Pitts was the father of two daughters and a son. They are victims of his death. They are victimised the more because of the death being unexpected and violent. It is part of the sentencing process that I should, and I do, take account of his death having caused them grief and pain and loss. The value that the community places upon the sanctity of life means that you must serve a long prison sentence, regardless of mitigating considerations, to which I will turn.
You are 43 years of age, having been born in June 1960. Until your mother left you at the age of thirteen, your childhood appears to have been a happy one. As noted earlier, after you and your mother were reconciled, the bonds re-established were strong. You have support from other family members, particularly your aunt, Valerie Henderson. You have a good work history, mainly in the bookkeeping sphere in the hospitality industry. For many years you had a good relationship with a young man. Ultimately, he saw his future in Europe, and you saw yours in Australia, and the two of you broke up. Your return to Melbourne was at least in part directed to caring for your mother. When you came back, there was a most unsatisfactory relationship with another man. That link caused mainly trouble for you.
Those relationship troubles contributed to a downward spiral. There were other traumas, like the loss of long-held accommodation, the death of a treasured cat, and the failing health of your mother. You sought relief in the excessive consumption of alcohol. You became depressed. You experienced major mental health problems: depression, anxiety, depersonalisation, amnesic episodes, and at least one major psychotic episode. Those problems were exacerbated by the death of your mother, with the inevitable period of grieving that followed. You sensibly sought help for your depression and other problems from both a psychologist, Ms Quirk and a psychiatrist, Dr Gidley, whose reports I have studied. Another psychiatrist, Dr Bell, in his report and oral testimony before me, expanded on those mental health problems. It is very apparent that, in October 2001, your capacity to think clearly, and your capacity to view your circumstances flexibly, was compromised. My sentence must reflect a concern as to general deterrence. It is moderated to allow for your mental health problems.
I must and do allow for you having had no prior convictions. All the indications are that your prospects of rehabilitation are to be rated as very high.
The basis for doing so having been established, and there having been no objection, I have signed orders as to the retention of a body sample and the disposal of certain items of property. I declare that you have served 622 days of pre-sentence detention. I direct that that be recorded. I sentence you to fifteen years imprisonment. I fix a non-parole period of ten years.
0
0
0