R v Castles
[2008] VSC 93
•31 March 2008
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted | |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 1480 of 2007
| THE QUEEN |
| v |
| SHAUN PETER MAXWELL CASTLES |
---
JUDGE: | BONGIORNO J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 26–29 November 2007, 2–5 December 2007; 22 January 2008 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 31 March 2008 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v Castles | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2008] VSC 93 | |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Intentionally causing serious injury – Possibility of rehabilitation.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr C Beale | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr T Danos | Mike Wardell, Barristers and Solicitors |
HIS HONOUR:
Shaun Peter Maxwell Castles, on 5 December 2007 you were convicted by a jury in Ballarat of having intentionally caused serious injury to Roslyn Elizabeth Withers at a house in Aquila Court, Ballarat North, on 13 July 2006. The jury acquitted you of the attempted murder of Miss Withers and you were acquitted by direction of one count of rape.
The property at which Miss Withers sustained her injuries was occupied by Theresa Maree Cliff, her two children, her niece and the niece's boyfriend. You were also staying in the house, having moved in a short time before 13 July. You were in a sexual relationship with Miss Cliff, although how long that existed on that occasion is not clear. What is clear is that the occupants of the house, including you, but not including the children or Miss Cliff's niece, were in the habit of consuming vast quantities of alcohol on a daily basis, at least when their financial circumstances permitted it.
On 12 July, the day before your vicious assault on Miss Withers, you were drinking at the Aquila Court house. Miss Cliff said that you drank cans of Woodstock bourbon and cola, a bottle of Jack Daniels bourbon and a bottle of Sambucca. She said you began drinking at about 11 a.m. and continued through the day and into the evening. Ms Cliff went to bed at about 11 p.m. but was woken at about 3 a.m. by a woman's voice coming from the lounge room. She investigated and found a woman, who must have been Miss Withers, drinking bourbon and cola with you. Miss Cliff said that when she came into the room, Miss Withers was standing near the heater and you were sitting on the couch with your shorts pulled down and your penis exposed. She said that you said, "Have a look at this," holding your penis in your hand as you did so. Miss Withers said, "Shaun, put it away." Miss Cliff said that she sat down and lit a cigarette, at which point you introduced Miss Withers, whom she did not know, as “Ros”, one of her neighbours.
Miss Cliff said that some indeterminate time later, whilst Miss Withers was speaking on a telephone, you said to her, Miss Cliff, words to the effect, "I'm going to knock this bitch on the head and I want you to get rid of her for me.” Miss Cliff said that she was devastated by this statement, such that she immediately collected her two small children from the room in which they were asleep and left the house to seek refuge at the home of a nearby neighbour, from where she called the police.
Shortly after they were called the police arrived but could not raise anyone or gain entry to Miss Cliff's house for some considerable time. When they did eventually gain access, you emerged from the premises through the front door having clearly avoided answering the calls made by a number of police over a considerable period from outside the house before they finally got inside.
Upon entering the house police officers found Miss Withers in a very badly injured condition lying on the bathroom floor. She was immediately taken to the Ballarat Base Hospital and then to the Royal Melbourne Hospital where she remained in a medically induced coma for some nine days. One effect of her injuries and/or this coma is that she was left with no memory whatsoever of the evening on which she was injured.
Miss Withers was examined at the Royal Melbourne Hospital by a Dr Angela Williams, a forensic physician employed by the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine. This examination took place at about 8.30 p.m. on 13 July whilst Miss Withers was unconscious and after a number of medical interventions had occurred, some of which she was still undergoing. At the time of her examination, Dr Williams had access to a history from the Ballarat Base Hospital which informed her that upon arrival there Miss Withers was noted to have bruising to her body, face and head and several broken teeth. A CT scan showed bruising to the front part of her brain, subarachnoid haemorrhages (that is to say bleeding in the area of the brain), fractures to the nose, face and left medial orbital wall.
In her evidence Dr Williams detailed her observations of Miss Withers at the time she examined her. She found two black eyes with much associated swelling. Her eyes were oozing blood and serous fluid and the rest of her face was extensively bruised and swollen. She had bruising to her chest, right hand and right elbow. There was also bruising to both legs.
Dr Williams expressed the opinion that the bruises on Miss Withers' legs were characteristic of fingertip bruising where the application of fingers results in round, discrete bruises. She found similar bruises on Miss Withers' upper arms. She thought that the bruising to the eyes and face had resulted from direct blunt trauma to the eyes, nose, mouth, cheeks and forehead. Dr Williams considered Miss Withers' injuries to have been life threatening, especially those to the head which resulted in the subarachnoid haemorrhages.
You did not give evidence at your trial and you made no comment to questions put to you by investigators in a record of interview. Your defence, which you still maintain, is that you had nothing to do with Miss Withers' injuries which, on your case, must have been inflicted by someone else: a case rejected by the jury. Of course, the jury also rejected the Crown case that you intended to kill Miss Withers, despite the evidence of Miss Cliff as to what you said to her just after you introduced her to Miss Withers. They were satisfied, however, that you intended to inflict serious injury on her.
At the time you assaulted Miss Withers you had been drinking for many hours, although at some point the alcohol supply was exhausted. At some earlier time on the same day you had also probably taken some amphetamines. For her part, Miss Withers had also drunk a very large amount of alcohol. Her blood alcohol reading at the time of her admission to the Ballarat Base Hospital was 0.25 grams per hundred millilitres.
The motive for your attack on Miss Withers is a mystery. Whether she had rejected a physical advance made by you after Miss Cliff left the house or whether there was some other conflict between you can only be guessed at. It must remain unknown for sentencing purposes.
You were born on 8 June 1977 so that you are now 30 years of age. You were assessed by Mr Ian Joblin, a forensic psychologist, on 11 January of this year. You gave Mr Joblin an extensive history. That history, and your mother's evidence before this Court given on your plea on 22 January, is the sole source of information concerning your background from which some basic information of utility in the sentencing process can be gained. Its accuracy can be generally accepted, there being no contest on it from the Crown.
Your father died when you were very young so that you were brought up by your mother who married your stepfather when you were nine and a half. Your mother confirmed your history to Mr Joblin that you had had a very bad relationship with your stepfather. There was always conflict fuelled, at least in part, by his heavy drinking, your mother said. You told Mr Joblin that you could still remember an extraordinary amount of violence to which you were subjected as a boy by your stepfather. Your mother and your stepfather have since divorced.
Your offending history, as far as it is alleged, commenced when you were about 18 and has continued such that you have been in custody, according to your counsel, for most of the past 10 years. Most of that offending, except for a conviction for manslaughter, which was acquired in the Supreme Court of Western Australia in August 1997, is of a relatively minor nature although it includes convictions for drug offences and offences involving violence as well as driving and dishonesty.
On 8 August 1997 you were sentenced to eight years' imprisonment with parole by the Honourable Heenan J, in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, after being acquitted of wilful murder by a jury, but convicted of manslaughter. This offence was committed in circumstances in which you intervened in a dispute between a male and a female of your acquaintance after you had drunk about nine cans of beer and half a bottle of whisky and after you had smoked a quantity of cannabis. The jury rejected your case, which appeared to be self‑defence or the defence of your female friend. His Honour sentenced you on the basis that your lack of criminal intent was due to your intoxication or perhaps to a loss of self‑control. He said it was a bad case of manslaughter and referred to a number of serious prior offences which were alleged against you, although not alleged by the Crown in this case.
Your mother gave evidence that without drugs and alcohol you were a different person. It would appear that not only your criminal offending but also your psychological state has been affected by this combination very often in your adult life, leading to many admissions to psychiatric facilities as well as prisons.
Your mother told the Court that your present condition is that you appear physically and mentally well and have been so since shortly after you were first incarcerated in respect of these events on 13 July 2006. She maintains faith in your capacity to use your time in gaol productively to become a useful citizen upon your release.
Mr Joblin in his report reviewed your situation comprehensively. He referred to your relationships, to your three children by two different women with whom you now have very little or no contact, to your determination to avoid drugs and alcohol and to your wish to live with and care for your mother. He proffered a diagnosis of a personality disorder exacerbated by drugs and alcohol and was unable to offer any optimism with respect to your future unless you stayed away from these substances. He suggested that you might be able to be assisted by the Parole Board upon your release to address your "fragility to alcohol and drugs".
Miss Withers has filed a victim impact statement in which she outlines the effect of this dreadful offence upon her. As might be expected she has suffered and is continuing to suffer from the effects of your assault upon her over 18 months ago. She will never be free from those effects entirely, a situation for which you alone are responsible.
It is the function of a sentencing court to take into account a number of diverse considerations when imposing a sentence for a serious offence such as that with which you have been convicted. It must consider the maximum sentence imposed by law, in this case 20 years' imprisonment. It must impose a sentence which will denounce the criminality of which you have been found guilty, deter you and others from engaging in similar conduct and punish you for having offended in this way. It must consider protection of the community and the effect of the crime on the victim herself. Finally it must, as far as possible, consider rehabilitation of someone as young as you still are - if such is possible.
Your mother's faith in you and Mr Joblin's acknowledgment of the possibility that you can change by avoiding drugs and alcohol gives some glimmer of hope that you might be able to avoid trouble in the future. This will be entirely a matter for you. The Court must try to encourage that hope, not only in your interests but in that of the community which benefits from the rehabilitation of persons convicted of serious crime much more than it does from punishing them by imprisonment.
Notwithstanding this consideration in your favour, a proper sentence in this case demands a long term of imprisonment. It is the sentence of the court that you be convicted and sentenced to eight years' imprisonment for having intentionally inflicted serious injury on Roslyn Withers. It is further ordered that you serve a minimum of six years before being eligible for parole.
It is declared that you have served a total of 627 days’ pre‑sentence detention in respect of this sentence, and this declaration and its effects will be entered in the records of the court.
0
0
0