R v Ford

[2000] NSWSC 713

CITATION:	R v FORD [2000] NSWSC 713 revised - 22/08/2000
CURRENT JURISDICTION:	Criminal
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 70024/98
HEARING DATE(S):	01/05/00, 02/05/00, 03/05/00, 04/05/00, 05/05/00, 08/05/00, 09/05/00, 10/05/00, 11/05/00
JUDGMENT DATE:	21 July 2000
PARTIES :	REGINA v Glen Ian FORD
JUDGMENT OF:	Barr J at 1

COUNSEL :	Crown: WT Creasey Offender: PJD Hamill
SOLICITORS:	Crown: SE O'Connor Offender: TA Murphy
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal Law - sentencing - murder.
DECISION:	See paragraph 24.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

GRAHAM BARR J

Friday, 21 July 2000

70024/99 - REGINA v Glen Ian FORD

SENTENCE
1   HIS HONOUR: The offender Glen Ian Ford was found guilty by a jury of the murder on 14 December 1997 at Tocumwal of Wayne Thomas Jackson.

2   In December 1997 the offender was staying at a camp on the southern bank of the Murray River at Tocumwal with a man called Greg Baldwin. Saturday 14 December was Mr Baldwin’s fortieth birthday and a party was held at the camp in celebration. A number of guests attended, including Wayne Jackson, the deceased, who was a distant relative of Mr Baldwin. Those at the party, including the offender and the deceased, had something to drink. There were angry words between the two of them but the evidence does not enable me to say how they arose. It was submitted that the deceased had threatened the offender and wanted to fight him, but I do not accept that submission because I do not consider that the evidence upon which it was based was reliable.

3   I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the following events happened on the next day. The offender and the deceased were still at Greg Baldwin’s camp. The deceased and others were telling racist jokes. The deceased, who was Aboriginal, told a joke against Aborigines. The offender became irritated and remonstrated with the deceased, who observed that one ought to be able to laugh at oneself. He continued by telling a joke offensive to New Zealanders. Everybody at the camp knew that the offender was a New Zealander. He became more angry and tried to pick a fight with the deceased. The atmosphere became so unpleasant that Greg Baldwin and the deceased and a friend, Steven Peacock, left the camp and walked to a nearby campsite. They remained there, talking to the occupants.

4   Some time later the offender followed them there and resumed his attempts to pick a fight with the deceased, who ignored him. Greg Baldwin went back to his camp to obtain some more beer and returned in due course.

5   The offender also returned to the Baldwin camp, muttering as he did so that he would not stab the deceased in the back but in the chest. When he arrived there he picked up a knife, part of the kitchen utensils, and returned to where Mr Baldwin, Mr Peacock and the deceased were. The unpleasantness continued and for a second time Mr Baldwin, Mr Peacock and the deceased walked away from the offender. They went towards their camp.

6   Once again the offender followed, this time armed with the knife. He caught up with the deceased, who was lagging behind the other two, and repeated, this time to the deceased, that he would kill him and that he would stab him in the chest, not in the back. The deceased must have realised that he could avoid the offender no longer and turned and either threw a can of beer at the offender or hit him with it. The two men closed in a fight and the deceased knocked the offender to the ground. Whilst the offender was on his back on the ground and the deceased was on his feet leaning over him the offender held the deceased’s right upper arm or shoulder with his left hand and stabbed him three times with the knife in his right hand. Two blows hit the deceased’s left upper arm but the third penetrated his chest and went into the heart. The deceased was taken urgently from the camp to hospital but died as a result of that wound.

7   The offender remained at the camp. He and his t-shirt were covered in the deceased’s blood, and he went to the river, washed himself and his shirt and threw the shirt away out of sight. He wiped the knife clean and put it back where it belonged. He kicked dust and rubbish over spilt blood. Then he started making preparations to leave the site. His car would not start and he became very angry and violent when refused a lift into Tocumwal. He went to a good deal of trouble before he finally got his hands on a battery and started his car, but the police arrived before he could get away.

8   It was submitted on behalf of the offender that the Court should have a reasonable doubt whether he intended to kill the deceased. It was pointed out that there were only three wounds and that only one of them was deep and that, according to the evidence of Dr Duflou, only moderate force would have been required to inflict them. If the offender had really intended to kill he would have attacked the deceased with the knife as soon as he brought it back from the Baldwin camp. Instead he secreted it and started a fist fight.

9   I think the offender’s persistent pursuit of the deceased quite remarkable. He told him that he would kill him. More importantly, according to the evidence of Tracey O’Hara, which I accept, the offender said to himself as he walked back to the Baldwin camp to get the knife, “I’ll kill you, I won’t stab you in the back, I’ll stab you in the chest”. Those words and everything else the offender said and did show that for some time before he engaged the deceased the offender’s intention was to kill him. Sometimes people make empty threats to kill, but I do not think that the offender’s threats were empty. I think that he killed the deceased as he told himself he would, by stabbing him not in the back but in the chest. I think that the fact that two of the thrusts wounded the upper arm had more to do with the movement of the deceased than the aim of the offender.

10   I am reinforced in these conclusions by the words and actions of the offender after he stabbed the deceased. He chased the car carrying away the mortally wounded man, yelling, “Come back here, I want to kill you”. He held up his shirt, which was covered with the deceased’s blood, and yelled to anyone who would listen that it was not his blood and that “no black bastard stands over a Kiwi”. When later told by Senior Constable Lovell that the deceased had died he continued his antagonistic attitude. The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from all this evidence, in my view, is that the deceased achieved what he intended, namely the death of the deceased.

11   It is easy to accept that the offender must have felt insulted about the joke told by the deceased, but it is difficult to understand the reaction which was engendered in him. One might have expected to see an outburst of indignation, even accompanied by violence in a person who lacked self-control, but what the offender did was quite remarkable. Far from cooling down, he became more and more angry as the morning wore on, pursuing the deceased and his companions successively from one place to another and trying to engage him in a fight. The deceased gave him no encouragement, but his refusal to fight appears to have enraged the offender further, so that by the time he reached the Baldwin camp alone he had entirely lost control of his temper and had formed the intention not just to fight but to kill.

12   I accept the evidence of Mrs Madeleine Ford, that the offender was difficult to control as a young child and that his father had a bad influence upon him during his teenage years, with the result that he began to get into trouble with the police. I accept that the behaviour of the offender since he has been an adult has been characterised by a desire, apparently taught him by his father, to exert an inappropriate degree of control over others.

13   I think that the only explanation of the offender’s extraordinary conduct which led to his killing the deceased is a combination of his ingrained desire to control others and the disinhibiting effects of the alcohol he consumed. There is no evidence of precisely how much he had to drink, but I think it must have been a significant amount.

14   It was submitted on behalf of the offender that there is a substantial probability that he will have to serve all or part of his sentence on protection. If that were to happen his movements within the correctional system would be restricted and he would be denied full opportunity to participate in work and other programmes. His sentence would therefore be served hard and that fact ought to be taken into account as entitling him to a more lenient sentence than would otherwise be appropriate.

15   A letter from the Corrective Services Department enclosing a copy of a request of the offender dated 7 January 1998 was tendered. The request was made at Goulburn. As a result, the Court was informed, the offender was on protection from the day of the request to 15 May this year when he was transferred to the Metropolitan Reception and Remand Centre. Although not now on protection he fears that if he is taken to a prison where there are Aboriginal inmates and they learn about his offence he will again be in danger and become obliged to seek protection.

16   There is no evidence that he will be returned to Goulburn and I would have thought such a move unlikely in view of the recognition by the authorities there that Aboriginal inmates threatened him and that on that account protection was warranted. Whilst I accept the likelihood of the presence of Aboriginal inmates at any institution where the offender is likely to be sent, I think the probability of the offender’s having to spend the whole or even substantial part of his sentence on protection is low. There is simply no proper evidence to enable the Court to find otherwise. However, I have taken this probability into account.

17   The offender’s criminal record includes a number of convictions for offences of violence. He has been in custody a few times, but never for longer than three months. His record is not of the worst kind and he has offended less frequently in recent years than in his youth and early adult years. The troublesome thing about his record is that many of his convictions are concerned with the inappropriate use of alcohol or concern the kinds of offences more likely to have been committed after excessive consumption of alcohol. I accept the evidence of Mrs Ford that excessive consumption of alcohol and the use of illegal drugs have been a part of his life for a long time.

18   The offender underwent psychological counselling whilst he was in custody in Victoria some years ago, but that could only have been for a short time and it is apparent that little progress was made. He has had three substantial relationships with partners, but each has come to an end, apparently as a result of his desire to dominate and control the behaviour of others. It is apparent that he needs every assistance to modify his attitude towards others, otherwise he will continue to be prone to the use of violence when circumstances do not please him.

19   A letter was received in evidence from the Corrections Health Service, under the hand of Dr Koller, a psychiatrist. It is addressed to the offender’s legal representative and refers to earlier correspondence. It states that Dr Koller has seen him on several more occasions, that his behaviour causes no concern, that he is generally co-operative and accepts regular doses of Valium. The letter does not mention why Dr Koller has been seeing him and there is no reference to any diagnosis or prognosis.

20   The offender makes no claim to be remorseful.

21   It seems to me that his chances of rehabilitation depend upon his being able to re-examine and modify his attitudes towards people, to limit his use of alcohol and to learn to control himself whilst under its influence. It is impossible to foresee the course of the offender’s rehabilitation during his time in custody. It is to be hoped that he will accept the assistance that will no doubt be offered in managing anger and about the use of alcohol and illegal drugs.

22   I have dealt with these matters in some detail in order to try to ascertain whether the need for rehabilitation requires a parole period of more than one-quarter of the term of the sentence that I have in mind. I have decided that it does not. In any case, the non-parole period I intend to fix is the minimum one necessary to reflect the seriousness of the offence.

23   A victim impact statement was received from Selina Lyons, the sister of the deceased. The death of the deceased has been a great loss to her and her family, especially because the deceased had come to replace the parents whose nurture she was denied when she was a child. The Court extends its sympathy to her and her family in their loss. Of course, these matters, important though they are, may not be taken into account in determining the sentence to be imposed.

24   Glen Ian Ford I sentence you to imprisonment for sixteen years, commencing on 14 December 1997 and expiring on 13 December 2013. I fix a non-parole period of twelve years, which will expire on 13 December 2009, when you will be eligible for release on parole.

**********

Last Modified: 09/27/2000