R v Felicite
[2010] VSC 245
•8 June 2010
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 54 of 2010
| THE QUEEN |
| v |
| RON FELICITE |
---
JUDGE: | T FORREST J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 21 May 2010 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 8 June 2010 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v Felicite | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2010] VSC 245 | Revised 8 June 2010 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Spousal relationship.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Ms C Barbagallo | Solicitor for Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr G A Georgiou | Victoria Legal Aid |
HIS HONOUR:
Mr Felicite you have pleaded guilty to the murder of Marie Juliette Felicite on 30 August 2009. At shortly before 2.00pm on that day you followed your wife into the kitchen of your unit. There you selected two knives from a knife block. One of them you described in your interview with police as “the biggest knife I could find”. You then set about attacking your wife with appalling brutality, stabbing her time after time in her neck/throat region. Twelve separate incised defects were noted to the anterior cervical spine, as were multiple incised injuries to her hands; evidence that she endeavoured to defend herself from your attack. Her last seconds of life cannot be adequately described by the spoken word. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that at least part of your attack upon your wife was viewed by your four-year-old son Ronan.
You were born in Australia. You were married to the deceased who was known as Juliette in 2004. You had met approximately one year earlier in Rodrigues, your parents’ place of birth. You returned to Australia with Juliette after marrying in Rodrigues and initially you lived together with your parents. After a time you moved out and after several changes of address you settled in Unit 14, 52 Victoria Road Narre Warren.
You were married when you were 21 and Juliette was 22. Your son was born in July 2005. You have maintained steady employment, most recently as a storeman. Your relationship, however, at times has been characterised by your incapacity to control your anger. In your interview with police you admitted threatening to kill your wife in 2007, apparently as a result of her talking on the phone at the cinema. Police were called and an Interim Intervention Order was granted, although your wife did not pursue a full Order.
Dr Sullivan is a Forensic Psychiatrist engaged on your behalf. You described to him developing problems with managing your anger. In approximately 2004 you and your wife visited Rodrigues. You inflicted slashing injuries upon yourself, and your parents-in-law eventually ejected you because of recurrent arguing necessitating police intervention. From Rodrigues you moved with your wife to Mauritius, but were again ejected. You punched and broke a glass window at a house where you were staying and were apparently ejected for arguing with your wife’s relatives. From there you moved to Perth where once more you were asked to leave by a family of Rodriguens. You eventually ended up back in Melbourne, where you stayed with another of your wife’s relatives, until you found your own accommodation.
I am told and I accept that your relationship with your father has been a source of considerable anxiety to you, although you tended to minimise this to Dr Sullivan. You were brought up in a very religious family and your father practised harsh discipline. You are close to your only sibling, your older sister, who lives in Adelaide. Despite your differences with your father, you remain close to your parents.
In the months leading up to the murder of your wife, whilst I accept that you were under a considerable degree of emotional stress, your anger and your incapacity to contain it manifested itself on many occasions. Your wife’s cousin, Perle Cindy Elysee, was close to your family at this time. She was present in approximately May 2009 when you apparently argued with your father on the telephone. She saw you take a knife from the wooden block on the kitchen bench. At about this time you said you were going to go to your parents’ house and kill them. Your son screamed when he saw you place the knife under your jacket. He then ran away and hid in his tent. Only then did you desist.
On about 3 August your wife rang Ms Elysee in a state of considerable distress. Ms Elysee states that your wife told her of threats you had made against her and Ronan. Ms Elysee sets out these threats in her statement. Whilst I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the specific content of the threats, I am satisfied that your conduct towards your wife was sufficient to cause her to attend Dandenong Police Station with your son and a friend and then to move in with your mother for a couple of days. Dr Sullivan had the advantage of reviewing the notes of your treating General Practitioner. You apparently attended with your wife upon him on 6 August 2009. That must have been very shortly after your wife returned home. Your presenting complaint in August 2009 was anger.
You were prescribed a sedative medication, Diazepam, and referred to a private consultant psychiatrist at a local psychiatric clinic. You attempted to make an appointment and it is a matter of regret that you were unable to see a psychiatrist before 29 August. I shall return to your psychiatric state in due course.
On 7 August, one day later, you wrote a letter to your wife. It reads as follows:
“Dear Juliette,
Today is the 7th of August 2009 and I don’t know what the future holds for us, but it looks like there is no future. For 5 years I have put you under enormous stress, being very aggressive towards you and hurt you along the way. I regret every moment I have done these wrong things to you. There is no excuse for the way I have treated you, but I am trying my very best to turn my life around. I don’t expect miracles. I want you to take your time to find that love you once had for me. After everything wrong thing I have done to you. I have destroy the most precious thing, which is LOVE. I know I love you and I will always love you. I don’t want to feel pressured to love me back, because you deserve your happiness too. I bring forth this situation to the hands of God, he knows the outcome. All I want if we can bring God back into our lives, not just because to make this marriage work, for our spiritual upbringing to. Juliette there is no other woman on this planet that I know, that doesn’t have a heart that you do. After 5 years, of the way I have treated you, you stood by me. I appreciate that, although I feel I didn’t deserve that. Please give me a chance to prove that I can change. I can be that Ron Felicite, you knew in the letters. I want to show that I love and respect you with all that I have left. I love you and Ronan dearly, you are my family. Like I said, I don’t expect anything quickly, but allow God to guide you in your decision making. if to continue in this relationship or to start one without me. The end of the day, you are number 1. you deserve your happiness. God bless you Juliettte.
Lots of Love,
Ron Felicite”
In this letter you appear to acknowledge your part in the relationship breakdown and ask for a chance to turn things around. You contemplate the option of your wife starting another relationship and on the face of it seem sanguine enough, if that were to occur.
This letter was probably written against the background of an on-line relationship your wife had formed with an American citizen, and her decreasing interest in you. It seems that you were aware of her interest in the Facebook website and her friendship with this man but that you did not appreciate the depth of her feelings until 29 August.
Between 15 and 17 August you argued with your father about his intervention in your family holiday arrangements. You took out an interim intervention order against your parents and they responded by taking one out against you and your wife. Given the dominant influence of your parents, particularly your father, I accept that siding with your wife against your parents would have caused you considerable anguish.
At about 11.00am on Saturday 29 August, police responded to a report of a dispute between you and your wife. Your wife had called the police. Her complaint to Constable Abbas was as follows:
“I want you to explain to him that I am not having an affair. Ron is accusing me of having an affair on this internet. I have explained to him there is a man I email and that he is a good friend only. I am not having an affair. I love my son too much…he doesn’t understand and he wants to email this man back…
I have been unhappy for a long time, I got married too young. I want to leave but I feel sorry for him because he can’t live without me….Ron wanted the email address of my friend and I told him and threatened that I will leave him if he doesn’t trust me.”
Your wife informed the police that you both had a counselling session booked for later that day.
Although the initial phone call to police apparently involved an allegation that you had threatened your wife with a knife, when the police arrived all was calm; there was no sign of any struggle and both you and your wife denied that a knife was ever produced. I am not satisfied that a knife was produced on this day.
On about 26 August your wife telephoned Mr Araya-Bishop, a counsellor for the Seventh Day Adventist Church. An appointment was made for him to see you and your wife regarding issues within the marriage at 1.30pm on Saturday 29 August. The issue of your wife’s American friend Dino was raised and an email was produced by your wife in which Dino indicated he was coming to Australia and would wait for her. Mr Araya-Bishop stated:
“Ron was wanting to save the marriage and Juliette was wanting to end…(it).”
You told Dr Sullivan that when your wife, in your presence, said that she loved Dino “that hit me hard”. I accept that it did, and I accept that this was the first time your wife had informed you of this. This is to some extent confirmed by the evidence of Senior Constable Abbas that I have referred to.
You, according to Dr Sullivan, adopted a superficially magnanimous demeanour to this revelation by your wife. In your interview you told the police that you accepted the situation as there was nothing you could do if your wife no longer loved you. You told Dr Sullivan you had a difficult night’s sleep and took large quantities of Valium tablets both on the Saturday and the Sunday after you woke up. You then slept again but woke up and described feeling like a “pressure cooker”. This must have been sometime in the early afternoon. Juliette, it seems, had been in contact with her cousin Anick Raffaut about your proposed separation. The text of the messages are in the court brief. You argued. She left to walk into the kitchen. You took two knives from the block, one of them in your own words “the biggest one”, and you then set about the ferocious attack that I have described earlier.
As I have said, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that your four-year-old son Ronan witnessed at least part of your attack. I have viewed his VATE recording. I consider that towards the end of the tape he provides a cogent account of what he saw, albeit expressed in a child’s language. Even making allowances for a young child’s limited powers of observation and recall, and the capacity that all young children have to fantasise, what he describes in his own way, both in words and by gesture, is seeing you stab your wife to death. I doubt that you were aware of his presence during the attack. I consider that when you attacked your wife it was inevitable that Ronan would see either the attack or its aftermath. I regard this as an aggravating feature of your conduct.
Dr Sullivan, in his first report, dealt with many of the background matters that I have already adverted to. You have no relevant medical history. You have sought treatment, intermittently, for anger management. You have presented to your GP since 2007 complaining of anxiety, mood swings and bad temper. I note in your police interview, you state that about five weeks prior to this event you attended Relationships Australia with your wife, and you enquired then whether you could receive counselling for anger management. As I have observed, when you presented to your GP on 3 August 2009, your presenting complaint was anger.
Dr Sullivan’s opinion is that you have been suffering from a major depressive disorder. This state is “longstanding”. You have a history of depression, managed through your GP and without involvement of psychiatric services. Your personality, Dr Sullivan opines, is vulnerable to stressors and you are prone to low mood in response to adverse life events. You have no significant cognitive impairment and there were no symptoms of any psychosis leading up to the murder of your wife. Antidepressant medication (Fluvoxamine) was ceased on 6 August 2009 as you did not consider it effective and you were commenced on Diazepam, a sedative. Dr Sullivan said that anger is not a core feature of depression, but is frequently associated with it. Dr Sullivan further stated that it was likely that you were suffering from a major depressive disorder at the time of the offence. I accept this. I also accept his opinion that depression can cloud judgment. He further observed that whilst depression itself is not known for its disinhibiting effects, Diazepam does have such an effect. I am prepared to accept that the Valium you described to the police was in fact your prescription Diazepam, and that your consumption of it had some disinhibiting effects. In other words, I accept that your pre-existing difficulties with managing your anger may have been compounded by the consumption of Diazepam tablets that you have described. Dr Sullivan thought your depressive illness may make your inevitable future imprisonment a little more onerous.
In his characteristically frank fashion when cross-examined about the nexus between the major depressive disorder and the commission of this offence, Dr Sullivan thought the “causal link” was a weak one. I should also say that Dr Sullivan had earlier ruled out the availability of a mental impairment defence, from his perspective, at any event.
You have no prior convictions and I have read six character references tendered on your behalf. They speak of your passive, caring nature and your concern for your immediate and extended family. Your employer regards you as an outstanding employee and you were popular in the workplace.
I accept that you have exhibited genuine remorse. Your plea indicates it. Your referees talk of it and your immediate post-offence conduct, including your attendance upon police and your frank and comprehensive responses to police questioning, allow me to reach that conclusion comfortably. Your remorse informs aspects of rehabilitation and specific deterrence.
I take into account that your plea was entered at an early stage. In addition to demonstrating remorse, you have spared the family of the deceased the trauma of contested court proceedings and the community the cost of a contested committal and trial. I take these latter two considerations into account. Your remorse, as I have indicated, I take into account also.
It was argued that your crime was a spontaneous outburst of anger-related violence and there was nothing premeditated about it. I accept that your offending can be distinguished from, for instance, a cold blooded execution. I regard your offending as a grave example of unpremeditated criminality.
I am satisfied I must make some allowance for your mental state at the time of offending. As I have indicated I accept that at the time of offending you were suffering from a major depressive disorder, although its link to your offending is relatively tenuous. I make a modest allowance for it insofar as it impacts upon your moral culpability and aspects of general and specific deterrence as they relate to your sentence. I do not consider that imprisonment will weigh more heavily upon you in any meaningful way as a result of your depressive illness.
Your prospects for rehabilitation turn on you developing a capacity to control your anger. Dr Sullivan is of the view that with time, you will develop the maturity that enables you to deal with stressful events in your life. You have no prior convictions. There is no suggestion that you were ever physically violent to your wife before this event. Given the many verbal conflicts that are documented, this suggests you have at least some measure of self-control. Your employer speaks highly of your work ethic. I regard your prospects for rehabilitation as reasonably good. You have spent the last nine months in custody and have used that time productively, seeking out and completing several short courses.
Whilst I make some modest allowance for your mental state at the time of offending, the aspect of general deterrence must still assume significant weight in this sentencing process. Your crime was one of savage brutality, committed upon a person you professed to love. This is a crime which carries a maximum of life imprisonment. It is committed very frequently by one party to a relationship upon the other. I have a duty to spell out with clarity that parties to a relationship have the right to the full protection of the law, and that the protection of those parties from spousal violence is a high priority of the criminal justice system. That protection is no more than an aspiration if general deterrence is not given significant weight in the sentencing mix. I do not regard specific or personal deterrence as a significant factor in your case.
Mr Georgiou, on your behalf, has directed me to a number of sentences imposed by this Court and a number of Court of Appeal judgments that have involved spousal murder. Whilst of some general assistance as to the application of sentencing principles, in cases of this type it is trite but necessary to observe that each case turns on its own discrete facts.
I have read Victim Impact Statutory Declarations from Idana Leveque, the mother of the deceased, and Fritzman Leveque, her stepfather. Their suffering is profound and enduring. The indirect damage you have caused does not stop there. Your now 5-year-old son has lost his mother forever. He has lost his father at least until adulthood and perhaps forever. There is no way of measuring the psychological trauma you have inflicted upon him. Your conduct calls for denunciation and the need to impose a just and appropriate punishment.
Balancing these considerations as best I can, I sentence you as follows:
For the offence of murder you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for 19 years. I direct that you are to serve a minimum of 16 years imprisonment before becoming eligible for parole.
Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare the sentence I would have imposed but for your plea of guilty would have 22 years and six months with a minimum of 19 years and six months before eligibility for parole.
I declare pursuant to s.18 (4) Sentencing Act 1991 that the period of 282 days in pre-sentence detention be reckoned as already served under this sentence and I so certify.