R v Dinsley
[2013] VSC 631
•20 December 2013
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No S CR 2013 0141
| THE QUEEN |
| v |
| JASON JOHN DINSLEY |
---
JUDGE: | HOLLINGWORTH J | |
WHERE HELD: | Ballarat | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 16 December 2013 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 20 December 2013 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v Dinsley | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2013] VSC 631 | |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Murder –Aggravated burglary – Attempted rape – On parole at time of offending – Lengthy criminal history including some convictions for violence – Serious sex offender – Verdins principles not enlivened – Early plea of guilty – Some remorse – Sentenced to life imprisonment– Non-parole period of 32 years
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr J Champion SC Ms D Piekusis | Mr C Hyland Solicitor for Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr J Irwin | Jon Irwin Legal |
HER HONOUR:
Jason John Dinsley, you have pleaded guilty to charges of murder, aggravated burglary and attempted rape.
Sharon Siermans was a 29 year old mother of a four year old son, Aron. After Ms Siermans’ relationship with Aron’s father ended, she started using internet dating sites, as a way of meeting other people.
You met Ms Siermans through a dating website called “Plenty of Fish”. After communicating through the website, the two of you exchanged frequent text messages, for a period of about one week, in mid-January 2013.
You also met once in person during that period. On that occasion, Ms Siermans met you at the Ballarat train station, and you went back together to the house she was renting in Doveton Street, Ballarat. Apparently not wishing the date to continue, Ms Siermans texted a friend of hers, and asked him to call her, to say there was an emergency with Aron and she had to go to the hospital. The friend did as she asked, which ended the date.
Ms Siermans later told friends and family about your date. She described you as filthy, with dirty clothes; she said she was embarrassed to be seen with you.
There was no further contact between the two of you from 19 January 2013, until the night of these offences.
On Friday, 5 April, Ms Siermans had lunch and spent the afternoon shopping with Aron’s paternal grandmother, Anne Bruce. They made plans to meet the next morning, to do some gardening together.
After having dinner with her parents, Ms Siermans took Aron home around 7.45pm.
You awoke around 2.00am, suffering from what you described as an anxiety attack. You decided to go for a walk towards the Ballarat city centre, to relieve your anxiety.
As you walked along Doveton Street, you recognised Ms Siermans’ house from your visit some 2½ months earlier. You told police that, when you were outside her house, you started thinking about all the times you had been rejected in the past, and “it all just bubbled up.” You said you were “fuming”, and decided you “had to do something”.
You turned around and walked home – a distance of about 2.7 kms – to find a weapon with which to “punish” Ms Siermans. You spent about 10 minutes looking for a suitable weapon, before picking up your cricket bat. You then walked back to her house with the bat.
At first, you tried to get into her house using a small pocket knife to open the rear metal security door. Unable to open the door that way, you removed three glass louvre panels from a window next to the security door, and placed them beside a bin. You climbed in through the window, into the back room, carrying the cricket bat, and intending to assault Ms Siermans.
At this point, you were confronted by Ms Siermans, and the two of you argued. Within a very short space of time, you “just flipped”. You threatened to “beat her head in”, and hit her head with the bat, causing her to fall to the ground. You continued to hit her with the bat, swinging it from above your head with both hands, as she was on the floor, screaming. You put your hand over her mouth, and told her to “shut up”.
Ms Siermans’ screaming seems to have woken Aron, who clearly saw some part of the attack, including you forcing his mother towards the master bedroom.
On the way to the master bedroom, you allowed her to go into what you believed to be her son’s room, for a brief period. When she re-emerged, you told her to do what you wanted or you would kill her.
Once in the bedroom, you demanded that she lean over the bed and remove her pyjamas. You were holding her hair with one hand, and a knife to her throat with the other. She sustained a knife wound to the throat, at some stage during this part of your attack.
You let go of her briefly, in order to put on a condom. However, you were unable to get an erection, and put the condom back in the packet. Ms Siermans was yelling and screaming throughout your attempted rape.
You told police that you were “pissed off” at not being able to get an erection.
You further assaulted Ms Siermans, this time without the cricket bat, causing her to fall over.
You then picked up the bat, and swung it downwards from above your head, hitting her again. She tried to get out of the way, by climbing across the bed to the other side of the room, but you continued to pursue her with the bat.
By this stage, she was on the ground, completely defenceless, cornered in the room and unable to escape. You continued to strike her repeatedly with the bat. You could not say how many times you hit her at this point, just that you “didn’t stop”.
Ms Siermans died from the multiple blunt head injuries which you inflicted. According to the pathologist’s report, the degree of force required to cause those injuries was extreme, and the head injuries were likely to have been rapidly fatal. As well as the head injuries,[1] there were also multiple bruises on Ms Siermans’ body, arms and legs.
[1]The precise number of blows to the head was not able to be calculated, due to the nature and extent of the injuries.
You left the bedroom and went into the kitchen. Then you realised you had left the bat, and went back into the bedroom to retrieve it. Whilst in her room, you took Ms Siermans’ mobile phone, which was sitting on the bed. You did not even check whether Ms Siermans was conscious or alive, before you left.
On leaving the house, you took the louvre window panes with you, and threw them in somebody else’s rubbish bin, because you were concerned that your fingerprints might be on them.
As you were walking home, you noticed blood on your shoes. So you took your shoes off, and put them in another rubbish bin. You walked the rest of the way home in bare feet.
You also disposed of the cricket bat, by throwing it in a large supermarket bin.
Your counsel described your subsequent attempts to dispose of any incriminating evidence as “amateurish”; they may be so. Nevertheless, they were deliberate steps, and indicate that at this stage your sole concern was to protect yourself.
Next morning, Ms Siermans’ body was discovered, in what must have been very distressing circumstances, when Ms Bruce and her boyfriend came around to visit. They also found Aron, alone in the house with his dead mother’s body.
A few days after the murder, you activated the phone which you had taken from Ms Siermans, using a new SIM card which you had bought in your name. Police were thereby able to locate you through phone company records.
When police executed a search warrant at your house that evening, they found Ms Siermans’ phone, together with some healthcare cards belonging to her and Aron. They also found a jacket with what appeared to be blood on it, and a small knife.
You were taken to the Ballarat police station and interviewed. During the course of your record of interview, you made full admissions. You later participated in a drive around various locations in and around Ballarat, for the purpose of identifying your movements on the relevant night.
The offences to which you have pleaded guilty are very serious ones and have the following maximum penalties:
· Murder – life imprisonment
· Aggravated burglary – 25 years’ imprisonment
· Attempted rape – 20 years’ imprisonment
Murder is most serious offence known to our legal system and our community. And this is an extremely serious example of that offence.
Using a weapon which you had brought with you for the purpose of frightening or harming Ms Siermans, you engaged in a sustained, ferocious and cowardly attack on an unarmed, defenceless woman, in her own home, and in the middle of the night.
You may not have seen Aron on the night, but you were well aware that Ms Siermans had a young child, who lived with her; you were recklessly indifferent to whether or not he witnessed what you did to his mother, or found her body afterwards.
The sole explanation given for your behaviour is that you became angry, after being rejected by Ms Siermans some months earlier. This apparently brought back other feelings of past rejection. You decided you wanted to punish her in some way. You went home to get a weapon; the pocket knife which you usually carried was apparently not sufficient for your purposes. Your anger did not subside, during the period of perhaps ¾ of an hour in which you “stormed home in a kerfuffle”, located a suitable weapon, and returned to Ms Siermans’ house.
The prosecution accepts, and I am sentencing you on the basis, that prior to entering the house, you had not formed any intention to kill or cause really serious injury to Ms Siermans, only to frighten or harm her in some less serious way. However, once Ms Siermans confronted you, within a minute after you entered the house, you “flipped”, and started assaulting her with the bat. From the way in which you were wielding the bat, swinging it downwards with both hands from above your head, it is clear that you had formed the intention to do her really serious injury at this point.
Once in the bedroom, your inability to get an erection seems to have further inflamed you, to the extent that you completely lost control at that stage. Thereafter, you inflicted multiple blows to her head with the bat, using extreme force, clearly intending to kill her. At the time, you had her cornered, on the floor, completely unable to defend herself or escape.
The prosecution accepts that you only formed the intent to rape Ms Siermans once you were in the house; that it was not a pre-planned crime. Nevertheless, the attempted rape is a very serious example of that offence. You forced Ms Siermans to remove her clothing and bend over the bed, where you held her by the hair, with a knife to her throat. You had already threatened to kill her, if she did not do what you told her to do. She was screaming, and her neck was cut with the knife at some stage during this episode. The only thing which stopped this from being an actual rape was your inability to get an erection.
For the offence of attempted rape, you are to be sentenced as a “serious sexual offender”; that is because you have two prior convictions for rape. In sentencing a serious sexual offender, the court must regard the protection of the community from the offender as the principal sentencing purpose. Furthermore, there is a statutory presumption of cumulation for the sentences which I am to impose on you.
The aggravated burglary is also a serious one. In the early hours of the morning, you broke into the house of a woman, who you knew was living alone with a young child. You were armed with a weapon, which you intended to use to frighten Ms Siermans.
Furthermore, the fact that you committed these offences whilst on parole is an aggravating factor.
Before I consider your personal circumstances, I want to say something about the impact your actions have had on others.
Sharon Siermans was the youngest of the four children of Denise and John Siermans, and grew up in the Ballarat and Western Districts region.
After struggling academically at school, and being in the workforce for a few years, she seems to have found her true calling, when Aron was born, in May 2008. She was, by all accounts, a wonderful and devoted mother.
She was also a much-loved daughter, sister, aunty, granddaughter and friend, and her death has devastated so many people’s lives. The manner of her death, and the fact that they had no chance to say goodbye to her, have been particularly distressing for those who loved her.
In murdering Ms Siermans, you not only deprived her of her most precious right, her right to life, but you also ended her family’s dreams of sharing their lives and going through life’s many milestones together.
Even though Ms Siermans’ parents are now raising Aron, and providing him with a loving home, he will have to grow up and go through life without his mother. And, with a young child’s natural curiosity, Aron will unexpectedly ask questions about what he witnessed on that terrible night; that brings painful memories flooding back to family members.
The fact that you broke into Ms Siermans’ house and attacked her so violently, in the middle of the night, has also caused others to be fearful for their own safety.
I turn to consider your personal circumstances.
At the time of your birth, in December 1982, your father was in prison (a place in which he has apparently spent much of his life).
Your mother repartnered with Charles, who you described as being like a dad. Charles died when you were about 8. You also had an adequate relationship with another stepfather, Ronald.
Your early childhood was spent in Shepparton, before the family moved to Melbourne when you were about 10.
In your later years of primary school, you started getting into trouble for fighting with other children. You were expelled from several high schools for behavioural problems, including fighting, graffitiing and drug use.
Although you described yourself at that time as being hyperactive and “all over the place”, you had no contact with mental health practitioners in your childhood.
You started abusing illegal drugs when you were very young. You first tried cannabis when you were about 9, and were a regular user from about 12 years old. You were about 11 when you started using amphetamines, by injecting “speed”; you have described that as making you feel powerful. You started using heroin when you were 13 and had become dependant by 14.
Once you started abusing drugs, you moved intermittently between living at home, and living “on the streets”, where you would hang out with other street kids.
You moved to Queensland, looking for work, and had nearly completed a carpentry pre-apprenticeship, before you were detained in a youth training centre at the age of 16. This was the start of your lengthy history of convictions and imprisonment.
In the periods when you have not been in custody, you have had intermittent employment, labouring and working on trawlers.
When you were 22, you started using ice (methamphetamine). Although that gives you energy and allows you to stay awake for days at a time, you have acknowledged that it makes you more aggressive and impairs your judgment.
Dr Danny Sullivan, a forensic psychiatrist, has recently examined you for sentencing purposes. Although he noted that you have displayed symptoms of anxiety from time to time, he says you do not display symptoms of any major mental illness or psychosis, and believes your offending was motivated by anger.
There is no suggestion that your sentence should be moderated in any way by reason of your mental state.
You have a long history of offending, your first court appearance being in January 2000, soon after you had turned 17. You have more than 140 convictions, recorded by courts in this State and elsewhere. You have spent much of your adult life in custodial institutions.
The vast majority of your convictions have been for what might be described as “street offences”, including property offences (such as burglary and theft) and possessing illegal drugs.
Your first convictions for violence were in November 2002, when you were convicted of a number of charges, including intentionally threatening serious injury and unlawful assault. The circumstances of that offending are not known to me.
On 4 July 2006, you were convicted of two counts of rape, aggravated burglary, false imprisonment, intentionally causing injury, robbery and obtaining financial advantage by deception. These offences all occurred on 18 July 2005, when you were 22 years old, and very shortly after you had been released from prison for other offences.
The victim of that offending was a rather vulnerable, middle-aged woman, who was living in a residential hotel in St Kilda. She was a complete stranger to you. As she returned to her room, you grabbed her, wielding what looked like a pocket knife. You forced her into her room, where you restrained her with some handcuffs you had brought with you. After removing some of her clothing, and stuffing paper in her mouth to gag her, you raped her by penetrating her vaginally and inserting a finger in her anus. After raping her, you started to strangle her, while demanding money. After she gave you her bank card and PIN number, you tied her up hand and foot with your shoelaces, before leaving her in the room.
Your offending on that occasion was described as “violent, humiliating and degrading.”[2] For all of these offences, you were sentenced to a total effective sentence of 9 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 6 ½ years.[3]
[2]R v Dinsley [2007] VSCA 31 at [17].
[3]The Director’s appeal against your sentence would have succeeded, but for the sentencing principle akin to double jeopardy: R v Dinsley [2007] VSCA 31 at [19]-[21].
You were released on parole on 14 August 2012, after serving just over 7 years of that sentence. Initially, you were compliant with your parole conditions, but you eventually relapsed into drug usage. You also started drinking heavily. On 25 March 2013, some 7 months after you had been released, the Parole Board was advised that you had tested positive to cannabis. Accordingly, you were ordered to appear before the Parole Board a fortnight later, after the Easter break, on the morning of Monday, 8 April 2013. When you failed to appear before the Board that morning, your parole was cancelled. You were arrested for these offences that same evening.
At the time your parole was cancelled, you had a balance of 1 year and 11 months still to serve on that sentence. From your arrest on 8 April 2013 until today, you have served 256 days of that remaining term.
The fact that you committed these offences whilst on parole is an aggravating factor in sentencing you. Furthermore, unless there are exceptional circumstances, s 16(3B) of the Sentencing Act 1991 requires that the sentence I impose must be served cumulatively upon the reclaimed parole sentence which you are currently serving. It is not suggested that there are any exceptional circumstances in your case.
Where an offender is serving a sentence reclaimed by the Parole Board, that custody is relevant to the assessment of totality. Furthermore, where an offender’s parole is cancelled prior to sentence, the totality principle must be applied to the whole sentence the offender might have to serve.
These offences were driven by your long-standing and completely disproportionate anger. A woman you had met on one occasion, and texted over a period of about one week, had decided she did not want to date you. That you might have had some feelings of disappointment or rejection, at the time, would have been perfectly understandable. But your response was to become angry; so angry that, some 2½ months later, having had no further contact with the woman, you decided to go and get a weapon, break into her house in the middle of the night, and punish her in some way. And once inside the house, your anger and violence increased to the point where you totally lost control of yourself and beat her to death.
The need for community protection and specific deterrence loom large in this case, given the nature of the offending, your prior criminal history, and the fact that the offending occurred while you were on parole.
General deterrence is another important sentencing consideration. Sharon Siermans, like any other person in our society, had the right to choose who she wanted to date, without suffering fatal consequences. Unfortunately, the story of somebody (usually, but not always, a male) who refuses to accept romantic or sexual rejection, who becomes enraged and attacks or kills the person who has rejected them, is all too common. It is important that the court condemn such conduct, and send a message to would-be offenders that such conduct will be met with severe punishment.
Your sentence must also reflect the court’s denunciation of, and the need for just punishment for, these terrible crimes.
It was not suggested that your prospects of rehabilitation are anything but poor, at least for the foreseeable future.
You entered a plea of guilty at the committal mention hearing on 15 August 2013. The prosecution accepts that this is an early plea.
You are entitled to a discount on the sentence to be imposed upon you in recognition of your plea, and its utilitarian value. Your plea has facilitated the course of justice. The community has, by your plea, been spared the time and cost of a trial. And the family of Ms Siermans, and other witnesses, have been spared the distress and difficulties of a criminal trial.
As far as remorse is concerned, you did make full admissions to the police and co-operated with them in their investigation. Indeed, you could not have been charged with attempted rape, but for your admissions to that part of your offending. And there is some remorse implicit in your early plea of guilty. However, there has been no direct expression of remorse by you.
I agree with the prosecution that it is appropriate that a non-parole period be set in this case, due to your early plea of guilty, your admissions to and co-operation with the police, and your age.
Mention was made during the course of the plea to the recent, terrible, violent deaths of two other young women, Jill Meagher and Sara Cafferkey. In general terms, your offending is every bit as terrible as that of the men who killed those two women, although there were some additional aggravating features in those two cases. But your history of violent and sexual offending is not nearly as bad as Adrian Bayley and Steven Hunter, and needs to be reflected to some extent in the non-parole period which I propose to set.
Whether or not you will in fact be released on parole will depend on the extent to which you are assessed, at that time, to still present a risk to the community.
I sentence you as follows.
On charge 1, aggravated burglary, I sentence you to 5 years’ imprisonment.
On charge 2, attempted rape, I sentence you to 6 years’ imprisonment.
On charge 3, murder, I sentence you to life imprisonment.
Your total effective sentence for these offences is, therefore, life imprisonment.
In accordance with s 16(3B) of the Sentencing Act 1991, I direct that the sentences which I have imposed on you are to be served cumulatively on any period of the sentence imposed on you by His Honour Judge Ross on 4 July 2006 which you may be required to serve in custody in prison.
Pursuant to s 6F of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare that you are sentenced on charge 2 as a serious sexual offender, and I direct that the fact of the declaration and its details be entered in the records of the court.
Pursuant to s 14 of the Sentencing Act 1991, I set a non-parole period of 32 years in respect of all sentences which you are to serve or complete, and I direct that the fact of the declaration and its details be entered in the records of the court.
Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare that, but for your plea of guilty, I would have sentenced you to a total effective sentence of life imprisonment without parole.
Pursuant to s 18 of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare that the number of days which must be reckoned as already served under the sentence is 10 days including this day, and I direct that the fact of the declaration and its details be entered in the records of the court.
I shall make forensic sample and disposal orders in the terms submitted by the prosecution.
Finally, the prosecution submitted that I should order under s 11 of the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 that you comply with the reporting obligations of that Act for the rest of your life. Yesterday afternoon, the Court of Appeal handed down its decision in the case of Bowden.[4] In that decision, the court clarified some important principles which apply when a court is considering whether or not to make an order under that Act. I propose to give the parties an opportunity to consider that Court of Appeal case, and decide whether they wish to make any further submissions, before I make any final decision on the question of reporting obligations.
[4]Bowden v R [2013] VSCA 382.
---
2
0