R v Haigh
[2009] VSC 185
•12 May 2009
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted | |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 1594 of 1992
IN THE MATTER OF PAUL STEVEN HAIGH
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE CRIMES ACT 1958
AND
AN APPLICATION BY PAUL STEVEN HAIGH PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 (2) (a) OF THE SENTENCING ACT 1991 FOR A MINIMUM TERM
---
JUDGE: | KING J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATES OF HEARING: | 29 March 07,16, 23 April 07, 16 July 07, 8 October 07, 26 November 07, 20 December 07, 24 January 08, 19 June 08. | |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 12 May 2009 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v Haigh | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2009] VSC 185 | |
---
Application for minimum term – applicant sentenced to six life sentences without parole – offences committed 1978 and 1979 – subsequent conviction for murder whilst in custody – application refused.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr. R Alston S.C. | Solicitor for the Office of Public Prosecution |
| For the Applicant | Mr. P Tehan Q.C. | Amad and Amad |
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Background
Early offences
The Offences for which a Minimum Term is Sought
(1) 4 counts of murder - sentenced to life imprisonment - November 1980
(2) 2 counts of Murder sentenced to life imprisonment - 1 May 1986
(3) Subsequent Offending
Judges sentencing remarks
Adult Parole Board Victoria Report – 3 September 1982
Parole Officers Report of 22 May 1987
Psychiatric report dated 18 August 1989
Psychiatric report 11 April 1990
Parole Board report of 27 April 1990
Parole Officers report of 22 May 1987
Psychiatric report 4 April 1987
Classification reports 4 January 1988
Transcript of plea and sentencing hearing 26 May 1993
Judgment delivered 14 February 1994
Parole Board Report – 27 May 1994.
Report of Dr Ruth Vine 2 May 1994
Report by Correctional Services Division – 9 May 1994
Report by Community Corrections Office, Pentridge – 29 April 1993
Letter from Paul Haigh to Justice Bongiorno – 9 July 1994
Transcript of proceeding – 2 March 1995
Corrections Victoria report of annual review – 1999 – Exhibit 5
Corrections Victoria report of annual review – 2000 – Exhibit 5
Correspondence relating to Haigh’s request for counselling – 2 April 1996 and 18 April 2001 – Exhibit 8
Correspondence relating to Haigh’s attempts to contact the families of the victims – 2 June 1997 to 16 June 1998 – Exhibit 10.
Education Certificates – 1982, 1991, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2003 and 2004 – Exhibit 11
Letter from Michael Amad Lawyers – 5 December 2003
Transcript of Proceedings – 10 June 2004
Complaints re Psychiatrists – February to October 2004 – Exhibit 12
Adult Parole Board Report – 24 January 2005
Christmas cards / poem
Interests
Physical and mental health
Conclusion
Letters to Professor Ogloff, regarding the Christmas card incidents – Exhibit 9
Letter dated 11 September 2006
Letter dated 13 September 2006
Professor Ogloff’s report – 13 April 2007 – Exhibit 2
Haigh’s psychological profile
Substance abuse
Risk of re-offending – limitations of assessment schemes
Risk of re-offending
The Revised Psychopathy Checklist
The HCR – 20
Conclusion
Professor Mullen’s Report – 14 May 2007 – Exhibit 1
Letter regarding the cognitive skills program – I August 2007 – Exhibit 5
Corrections Victoria report of Annual review – August 2007 – Exhibit 5
Psychiatric report by Dr. Lester Walton – 9 July 2007 – exhibit 3
Letter regarding status of Hepatitis – 18 December 2007 – exhibit 14
Proceedings – 20 December 2007
Evidence of Professor Ogloff
Empathy and Remorse
Discussion of obsessive compulsive disorder and move to less restrictive environment
Ogloff’s testing of Haigh
Cross examination of Professor Ogloff by the prosecution
Discussions with counsel and Ogloff
Discussion of empathy and remorse
Discussion of the murder of Hatherley
Discussion of Haigh’s prison experiences and institutionalisation
Evidence of Dr Lester Walton
Cross-examination of Dr Lester Walton
Evidence of Professor Mullen
Request for further information by her Honour
Transcript of Proceedings – 24 January 2008
Evidence of Marlene Morrison, employee of the Office of Corrections
Transcript of proceeding – 25 January 2008
Evidence of Paul Haigh
Examination on friends, associates, witnesses and characters
Cross examination on the issue of Exhibit 7
the issue of remorse and murder of Danny Mitchell
Cross examination on the issue of remorse and Danny Mitchell
The murder of Donald Hatherley and remorse
The murder of Lisa Brearley
Cross examination about the murder of Lisa Brearley
The sending of the Christmas cards
Cross examination about the sending of the Christmas cards
Comments about comparisons to Julian Knight
On the issue of rehabilitation
Cross examination about motivation and rehabilitation
Cross examination as to future offending
Letter to Court – 25 January 2008 (Exhibit 6)
Letter from Dr Sarah Miller – 26 February 2008
Transcript of proceeding – 19 June 2008
The House of Blue Light
Conclusion
HER HONOUR:
Background
Paul Haigh, you were born on 5 September 1957 and are currently 51 years of age. You were adopted at the age of approximately 3 months. You attended primary school and then Swinburne Technical School, leaving at the end of form 2. You started to get into trouble at around the age of 12 and you came into conflict with your adoptive parents over what you viewed as their restrictive approach. You were first sent to a youth training centre at the age of 14, and your criminal lifestyle escalated from there. You made contact with your biological family later in life but ultimately no relationship developed from that contact. You commenced apprenticeships but never completed them, and when you were not incarcerated you undertook semi skilled jobs. You reconciled with your adoptive parents and have been able to maintain a strong relationship with them even from prison. They have been very loyal to you over your lifetime.
Early offences
Between the years 1970 and 1979, you committed multiple offences in each of the following categories:
·Larceny (of bicycles and motor cars)
·Break ins and stealing
·Unlicensed driver
·Assault (by kicking)
·Assault occasioning actual bodily harm
·Behaving in an offensive manner in a public place
·Escaping from legal custody
·Possession of a restricted substance and supplying a restricted substance.
The Offences for which a Minimum Term is Sought
(1) 4 counts of murder - sentenced to life imprisonment - November 1980
The first group of offences for which the term of life imprisonment with no minimum was imposed were offences that were heard by his Honour Anderson J in the Supreme Court after a trial lasting 10 weeks. The conviction was on the 10th day of November 1980 and on the 12th day of November 1980 his Honour Mr Justice Anderson sentenced the applicant to be imprisoned for the term of his natural life.
The offences of which the applicant was convicted, together with Robert Lindsay Wright, were that on 27 June 1979 at St Kilda you murdered Wayne Keith Smith; that on the 22nd day of July 1979 he murdered Sheryle Ann Gardner and her son Danny William Mitchell; and on or about the 8th day of August 1979 he murdered Lisa Maude Brearley.
The facts in relation to the offences of which the you were convicted are detailed to a degree by his Honour Justice O’Bryan and reported in (1983) VR 65 at 68ff. Although the facts are referred to in those passages, the information relating to the circumstances surrounding the murders has been expanded as a result of information given in this court by you, in both written and oral evidence. It is important that you, and anyone who reads this document understands the basis on which my decision is made, and accordingly, although lengthy, a summary of the murders is important.
These offences commence with the escape from prison of convicted murderer Robert Barry Quinn, who was serving a double life sentence for two murders he had committed in 1974. He was assisted in that escape by Wright, Wayne Smith and a woman by the name of Eva Karlson, a girlfriend of Quinn. Quinn also had a number of other girlfriends including Sheryle Ann Gardner, and she, although not involved in the escape plan, became aware of the circumstances under which the escape occurred. She also visited Quinn at the campsite where he and Karlson were living. At a subsequent time Quinn and Gardner left the camp and travelled to Perth. Karlson was not seen at any stage after they left the camp and portions of her skeleton were discovered by the police at or near the campsite many months later. It became clear later that Quinn and/or Gardner had murdered Karlson.
Quinn and Gardner had returned to Melbourne over the Christmas period in 1978 to allow Gardner to visit her young son Danny Mitchell – who became ultimately another murder victim. From time-to-time prior to their escape to Perth, Wright and a man by the name of Wayne Smith – also another murder victim – and a woman by the name of Debbie Veal and Lyne Bowles had assisted Quinn, visited the campsite and were aware of the location and the presence of Karlson.
The crown case in the murder trial was that there was a fear that Smith, Bowles and Gardner may not remain loyal to Quinn and Wright and may at some point reveal their knowledge of Karlson and her death at that camp.
You had met Robert Wright in 1975, when you were serving a six month sentence in the Young Offenders Division of Pentridge Prison. At some stage you both ended up at a youth training centre in Malmsbury and absconded together. It was at that point that you went to stay with one of Wright’s older sisters. There you met some of the people that ultimately you helped to kill.
You tendered to this court as Exhibit 7 a document called ‘Victims, Friends, Associates, Witnesses, Histories and Characters’ and that document sets out some explanation and reasons for your involvement in the murders of the four people to which I am currently referring. Whilst it does not extensively refer to the reasons for the murders it does refer to some of the reasons and I will make reference to some of your statements in that document during this summary of these four murders.
In relation to the murder of Wayne Smith in late November of 1978. This occurred in the following circumstances; Wright and Gardner went to the campsite intending to move Quinn to Perth. On this occasion Karlson was shot and killed. The persons present were Quinn, Wright and Gardner at the time of the killing. In Exhibit 7, you say at page 5, in relation to this murder, that Sheryle Gardner and Robert Wright murdered Eve Karlson with Gardner putting the first bullet into her. Gardner then drove Quinn to Perth and they returned to Melbourne by train around Christmas day to visit Gardner’s son Danny William Mitchell. Quinn returned to Perth where he was looked after by Gardner’s brother until he was subsequently re-arrested on 25 January 1979. Once Quinn was recaptured only six people were aware of the location of the original campsite and the location of Karlson’s body. Those people were Quinn, Wright, his girlfriend Debbie Veal, Wayne Smith, his girlfriend Lyn Bowles and Sheryle Gardner.
On 27 June 1979 Lyne Bowles who was living in a de facto relationship with Wayne Smith left the flat for the evening, Smith remained at home. On that same day, you and Wright met up with a man called Ernie Strachan whom you had both known for some time. He observed Wright tell you to put the ‘business in the car’ and that you then retrieved a .22 rifle, put it in the car and obtained some .22 bullets from the glove box. Shortly after this Wright produced a .25 pistol. You visited two men at other premises and the firearms were shown to them. After leaving there, you and Wright together with Strachan said “We’ll go and see that Smith”. You and Wright left the car carrying both the .25 pistol and the .22 rifle. You went into a block of flats and a short time later Strachan heard shots – a loud bang from the .25 pistol, followed by some rapid shots from the .22 rifle. When you returned to the car you threw the firearms into the rear of the vehicle and were driven to Langwarrin to the home of Wright’s sister Marilyn where you then proceeded to invent alibis for a later stage.
Smith was killed with a .25 bullet in the left side of his neck together with a number of multiple gunshot wounds from a .22. In your comments in Exhibit 7 you say:
Wayne Smith was in my experience a chronic substance abuser and regular thief who had, if I recall correctly, served at least one term of imprisonment though I didn’t have enough reason to justify killing Smith, I still do recall having frowned on him for dumping me at a point during the aforementioned night we went to commit a burglary and for not giving me what I thought was a due share of crime profit. I can’t say that he and I were close. I vaguely recall it being hypothesised that Smith was killed to silence him and that his assistance with hiding the escapee Barry Quinn during his flight from the law but I don’t personally recall this being spoken of as responsible in any way for his murder. I recall Wayne Smith was a few years older than me and though my primary target for murder on the night of his demise was his de facto Lynette Bowles I helped to kill Smith when she wasn’t home.
You had earlier developed a friendship with Lisa Maude Brearley on her return from Coober Pedy in the middle of 1979. On 18 July she applied for a shooters licence at the St Kilda police station which was issued and some hours later she and two unidentified men purchased a .22 rifle and then five minutes later returned to purchase a .22 semi-automatic rifle in East Bentleigh. These guns were purchased for you and Wright and were subsequently used in the murder of Sheryle Ann Gardner and her son Danny Mitchell.
In July of 1979, you and Wright in the company of William O’Connor spoke about both Gardner and Brearley, referring to Gardner as the “give up” and told O’Connor that Gardner had given up Wright over the business involving Quinn. You also, during the discussions, indicated your concern about Lisa Brearley’s loyalty in that she was refusing to go to the police and tell them that the guns she’d purchased on your behalf had been stolen from her car.
On 22 July 1979 Sheryle Ann Gardner and her son Danny Mitchell were visiting a friend’s flat and after the film which they were watching on television had ended they left the flat - they were never seen alive again. They were shot at Ripponlea at about 11.30 that night.
The police arrived at approximately 1.30 and found Gardner slumped behind the steering wheel of the car where she had been shot in the head a number of times. Danny Mitchell who was 10 years of age at that stage had also been shot a number of times in the head and was found lying across the seat. All of the bullets found at the scene revealed that the shots were fired from a .22 weapon.
At the time you were renting a room in Carlisle Street, St Kilda under the false name of Santos. The morning after Gardner and Mitchell were shot you left the address without advising anyone of your new address.
In Exhibit 7 you stated, amongst a number of other things, about Sheryle Gardner, the following:
Because of the extent of my devotion to Gardner and the things I did and risked for her I was very upset when told that she had apparently been lying to me causing a rift between Robert Wright and myself and also speaking loosely about homicides that I’d been involved in to a person who wasn’t able to be trusted with this information. I felt deeply violated and the depth of my displeasure and distrust was eventually shown in my act of taking her life.
As indicated, Danny Mitchell was in the car with Sheryle Gardner at the time that she was murdered What you had to say about him in Exhibit 7 is as follows:
I met Danny when he was a youngster in 1975 when Robert Wright and I were absconders from the Malmsbury Youth Training Centre. I again met Danny a number of times upon my release from jail in 1978, and I eventually came to not like him very much when he was around 9 years old. Also with a mother like Sheryle Gardner his chances of becoming a saint were reduced. I vaguely recall, even at this tender age, he had snuck a smoke of dope when his mother had had it, and I have a dim recollection of other problems. I can also see that my own lack of maturity could have contributed to me not being partial to Danny.
It appears that Sheryle Gardner came to learn that she was in trouble with Robert Wright and me before the night of her demise, so in my opinion it was irresponsible of his gangster mother to keep Danny with her when she knew of the problems she had. Rather than move her son away to stay with his grandmother or someone else whilst Gardner was apparently in danger, or flee with him to some place more distant and safe, it appears she tried to use Danny as a shield to try to dissuade people from harming her because of his presence.
It was generally spoken of as an underworld principle that children aren’t to be killed, but obviously, by Danny’s unforeseen presence and sad demise, the gamble that Gardner took did not pay off. Not only did Gardner’s life end, but the unfortunate circumstances of the situation meant that Danny, who knew both Wright and myself well, had to die also. There was no possibility of postponing the plan because of what and whom Gardner knew. Her knowledge of our deeds could put us behind bars, and with help from her friends there was the slimmer possibility that Wright and I could be harmed or killed. Though I didn’t particularly like Danny he had never done anything to merit death at my hands. His murder is particularly tragic, and certainly wasn’t planned. I accept that I put the poor boy through the terrible ordeal of seeing his mother shot, and then I robbed the boy of any sort of future life. Alas nothing I say, or have, do, or will feel, will change what happened to this youngster.
By 7 August 1979 you had already been interviewed by police about the murder of Wayne Smith and released. On that date you together with Wright were travelling in a car with Ernie Strachan, you stopped and bought a red handled knife and a cut-throat razor from a barbershop in Springvale. On the next day Strachan and Wright joined Lisa Brearley and you at your rented bungalow in Aspendale.
When they arrived you had already been lying on top of the bed with Lisa Brearley. It is said that Strachan asked if he could have intercourse with her to which you agreed. I am unable to say whether this is totally true as in another version, in evidence before me, you agreed that Strachan raped and sodomised Brearley later that night, at around the time of her death. Whichever way it occurred, there was clearly a sexual attack of some sort on Brearley by Strachan that night.
When you returned you asked if they were ready to go out, Wright said that there was a party on and you all left the bungalow. Lisa Brearley was the driver of a car with you sitting beside her. Wright drove his car with Strachan as a passenger. You drove through the hills, and during part of the travel there was a swapping over of cars and drivers as it was raining and boggy. At one stage the car became bogged and Lisa Brearley became frightened of your behaviour, you having threatened her on the journey. She told Strachan she was scared and kept saying to you, Wright and Strachan “I didn’t do anything, I didn’t tell on them, I haven’t done anything”.
You took hold of Brearley, walked with her a short distance away from the cars, you had with you one of the knives. Strachan heard a gurgling sound. When you returned to the car where Wright and Strachan were you said “You should see her. I stabbed her about forty or fifty times”. You were observed to have blood all over your chest and sprayed on your face.
Wright then told Strachan to help you move the body. Strachan observed the body to be a mess of blood and stab wounds. She was dragged to the side of the track and pieces of bark and bracken were thrown on top of the body in an attempt to conceal it.
Strachan then drove her car back to Lilydale Railway Station and left it unlocked. Her handbag was still in the car. On the return trip both you and Wright told Strachan to keep his mouth shut. You burnt your clothing and then returned to the car and cleaned it for fingerprints.
Strachan eventually spoke to the police and told them about the murder of Lisa Brearley. He accompanied the police to the area of Olinda and the body of Lisa Brearley was found. A post mortem found that she had a minimum of 157 stab wounds. She was your girlfriend at the time that this occurred.
In relation to Lisa Brearley, in Exhibit 7 you stated in part:
Leaving Lisa Brearley’s past, and what may have been my unfounded suspicion regarding her fidelity to me, her only wrong was to talk to her mother about having purchased semi-automatic .22 rifles for Robert Wright and myself. These ended up being used to kill Sheryle Gardner and Danny Mitchell, so Lisa Brearley became a loose end that had to be gotten rid of. Wright and myself did not want Brearley being able to say that Wright and myself were given the sort of guns that were used in a double murder, and the only way to assure that she did not speak further about the weapons was to take her life.
Wright and myself tricked Lisa into purchasing the guns for us with a firearms licence she got. We told Lisa that since our friend Wayne Smith had been killed, it would be good to have weapons around for protection in case they were needed. Wright’s and my real plan for the guns was to use them on an armed robbery on a jewellery store, but the latter never occurred. After getting the guns the plan was soon hatched to kill Sheryle Gardner, and the guns were used for that.
The way Lisa Brearley died was cold and ugly. She was lured to the hills on the pretext of going to a party with Robert Wright, Ernie Strachan, and myself, and on arriving in the isolated spot was regrettably raped by Strachan before regrettably being butchered by me. All three of us males knew that we were there to murder Lisa, but Strachan wanted to take advantage of her soon to be deceased body before such became the fact.
There was no gun to take Lisa’s life with, so unfortunately she went through the protracted nightmare of being stabbed. Her only real wrong was her honesty with her mother. That, in the murderer’s context that Lisa was ignorant of, led to her demise. Alas I can’t change the past.
As indicated you were ultimately arrested, charged and a trial was conducted in which you made an unsworn statement and claimed alibis for various of the murders and also tried to portray others as being responsible. You were convicted by the jury of all four murders.
(2) 2 counts of Murder sentenced to life imprisonment - 1 May 1986
The second group of offences for which you seek a minimum term to be imposed are a further two counts of murder. The circumstances of how these offences, and your involvement, came to light are that on 30 January 1986 the prison liaison staff at Pentridge prison contacted the homicide squad indicating that you desired to speak to them. On that date Detective Senior Sergeant Fry and Detective Chief Inspector Richie attended at Pentridge Prison where you spoke to them and handed them a nine page confessional document. On 7 February 1986 you were again seen by Detective Senior Sergeant Fry who advised you that the police intended to interview you on a video tape recording on 11 February and you consented to that proceeding.
The video recording took place and prior to that interview you handed the police a request to have the proceeding dealt with by way of hand up brief together with a request to waive the right to committal. You were charged on that day with two counts of murder. The first being that you did murder Evelyn Abraham at Prahran on 21 September 1978. The second count of murder was that you did murder Bruno Cingolani at Prahran on 10 September 1978. On 27 March 1986 you pleaded guilty to both counts of murder together with other charges and you were committed for trial in the Supreme Court.
You appeared before his Honour Mr Justice Kaye in the Supreme Court at Melbourne on 26 May 1986 for a mention. His Honour obtained a report as to your fitness to plead and sought further evidence from the police to establish the validity of the confessional material. There is no doubt at that stage a plea to a count of murder was considered most unusual.
You were unrepresented at the mention and you remained unrepresented at the trial. On 17 June 1986 you pleaded guilty to two counts of murder, three counts of armed robbery and one count of malicious wounding. You were again unrepresented. On that day you were sentenced to be imprisoned for the term of your natural life on the two counts of murder and various other terms of imprisonment in relation to the other offences to which you had pleaded, all of which were to be served concurrently with the life term imposed for the counts of murder.
You described the circumstances of these two separate murders in the document that you handed to police on 30 January 1986. This document forms part of an application for a minimum term to be imposed pursuant to s 18A of the Penalties and Sentences Act made on 2 February 1990. It is an attachment to the document marked with the letter H.
In relation to the murder of Evelyn Abrahams, you dealt with that on pages 1-3 of the document under the heading “Tattslotto murder” where you said:
This agency was not originally going to be held up. Rather, I was intending to assault the money bearer as the takings were transferred, and obtain the spoils in this fashion. As I became impatient, I later decided to dispense with the pugilism and to extract the takings at gun point.
The weapon used in this hold up was a sawn off double barrelled shotgun. It was a 12 gauge. I am not familiar with the different sorts of shot, and so I can only say the projectile was not as solid (the only term I know) but rather, what I think is called buckshot or the little pellets. On the occasion only one barrel was discharged.
You then described the clothes you wore committing this robbery. You continued:
On the day in question after completing preparations I walked along Chapel Street until I came to the Tattslotto agency. The description of events hereafter will be as clear as I’m able to make them, though I must emphasise that several factors weigh against a complete picture being given. These are fear at the time, and an aberrant psychological state that ensued on “things going wrong”.
I entered the agency with the gun in the bag. I recall I had the butt covered with something. I think that to my right on entering there were benches, and I vaguely recall there being a customer at this bench.
I approached the counter where a woman was working, and then produced the shotgun. I think I thrust a garbage bag at her, or the carrier bag, and said words to the effect of “fill it cunt. The money”.
The woman looked at me without responding, and rather than fulfil the demand when she did move, she totally surprised me by turning around toward a door that led from the shop, and moving away from me toward it.
I was confused by this. I was scared stiff to begin with. When this happened some strange psychological state overtook me. It was as if everything started to slow down and go in slow motion. Also, colour and vision changed. Things became grey, and the events were vague, as if in a dream. I recall thinking, on the edge of this state, “No, you’re not sending me back to jail”. I was then aware of the gun discharging, and my ears ringing. Through the haze I thought that I had hit the woman, but could not be sure if this was the case. I thought perhaps it was in the arm, though had no clear ideas on anything.
I then turned to flee, still in this state. I recall trying to put the shotgun back in the bag, but could not. Be it through haste or whatever, it would not fit. I think I kept the gun in my hand as I moved from the agency onto Chapel Street. I recall a woman screaming, and think that it may have been a pedestrian who saw the gun in my hand.
Things started to clear psychologically, though were by no means restored to normal at this point. I turned left, and walked briskly up the street whilst trying to conceal the weapon. I walked through some lawn area, I think on a school/campus block, made my escape, and disrobed.
I was not sure that I had shot the woman until I later heard on the news that this was in fact the case. That she had been shot in the head, and was dead.
I then recall getting my hair cut and shaving in order to change my identity.
In relation to the murder of Bruno Cingolani at page 3 of that document you state:
Pizza Parlour murder.
I planned to rob these premises at gunpoint from the outset. In fact, I recall it was on the same night that I had robbed the Kentucky Fried Chicken store. As I was not content with the spoils from the Kentucky store I decided to do another hold up. As I drove down the road I saw the Pizza Parlour, and decided it would do.
The car was pulled up a side street, and I then got out. My description on the night was as follows [You then described what you were wearing]. The weapon used on this night was a sawn off single barrel shotgun it was a 12 gauge, and again I used the term buckshot to describe the projectile. This gun was in poor condition, in that when it was cut down, the mechanical part slipped off of the wooden part; this was the result of cutting through the bolt that goes into the butt. This caused me much concern after the robbery.
I approached the pizza shop, and I recall that when I was at the door I pulled the stocking down over my face. I believe I had the gun secreted under my jacket.
The proprietor, a foreigner, I recall his name as Cignaloni or something, was behind the counter. I ran into the shop, which was devoid of customers, and jumped on to the counter. I pointed the gun at the proprietor, and I think I held out a bag, telling him some such thing as, “fill it with the money, cunt”.
The proprietor became a bit flustered at this, and said something to the effect, “The money”. He then dove towards a drawer, and started to rummage furiously in it. I recall that I was very puzzled, and wondered if he was in fact getting the money for me, and was merely agitated through his fear. I found out, however, that he was not getting the money at all. The next thing I recall was that he pulled a very large knife out of the draw and turned towards me, I was shocked by this, and then things started to go hazy again, as in the Tattslotto. I recall that I had the gun aimed at his mid section, and then through the haze there came a loud report as the gun discharged, and again my ears rang. I recall a scream coming from the rear of the shop. It was a woman’s voice.
After the shot was fired, I felt the proprietor grab the gun. Though shot at point blank range, he had not collapsed, but appeared to continue fighting. My impressions were vague once again.
I wrenched myself free from the grip he had on the gun, and jumped from the counter to flee. As I crossed the floor to the door I felt something hit me in the back. I thought at first that he had thrown the knife at me.
I arrived back at the car my senses stopped reeling, and I’m looking at the gun I was horrified to find that the barrel and all mechanical parts were missing. I then assumed, and do to this day, that the object which hit me in the back was in fact the barrel etc off the gun. I assume that this came free when the proprietor grabbed the weapon.
I recall great concern over this, and I think it was due to the fact that I may not have had the gloves on. I feared my prints would be all over the weapon, and therefore I was looking at a life term in prison.
The proprietor did not die immediately, I recall, but rather a day or two later. I have neglected to say that at this time I had a beard, cut close to the face. I shaved this off after the offence, in order to change my identity.
In the document referred to as Exhibit 7 on this application, you made references and comments about Evelyn Abrahams and Bruno Cingolani,
These were the first two people I murdered, and both deaths occurred during the course of separate armed robberies that went wrong. In both of these hold ups I ended up suffering from an altered state of consciousness, that was brought about by circumstances that arose during the course of each of the crimes.
Evelyn Abrahams was my first victim. She was working in the Tattslotto agency and was, as far as I recall and know, a respectable spinster who was in her late 50s.
Bruno Cignaloni was my second victim. He was the proprietor of the Pizza Parlour and was, as far as I recall and know, a respectable man of 45, who was married and had children.
These people were going about their normal lives when I, a young criminal, killed them. I had no right being armed or on the premises with my unlawful intent, and I accept responsibility for my terrible offences.
What is clear from Exhibit 7 is that you draw a distinction between Evelyn Abrahams and Bruno Cingolani and your other victims which followed, being Wayne Smith, Sheryle Gardner, Danny Mitchell and Lisa Brearley, in that, in relation to those persons with the exception of Danny Mitchell there appears in your document to be at least an attempt to justify their deaths.
(3) Subsequent Offending
The subsequent murder of which you have been convicted and sentenced was the murder of Donald Hatherley on 14 November 1991. The circumstances relating to the murder are taken from the sentencing remarks of Coldrey J who presided over the trial.
Coldrey J, stated at page 170 of the transcript of 26 May 1993:
Some days prior to 14 November Donald Hatherley expressed to you his wish to die. You determined to assist him in achieving that desire. You discussed with him various methods of ending his life, including strangulation. Ultimately, hanging was the means selected.
In preparation for this event, you examined various areas such as the toilets in “B” division annexe as a possible venue and you also obtained from the Division gymnasium a length of nylon cord. Eventually, it was decided that the hanging would take place in Hatherley’s cell after the evening meal and before the 4.10 pm lock-up. You selected a plastic pipe which transversed the cell wall and tied the rope to it. With the assistance of the deceased, you tested its capacity to carry his weight. You then affixed the moose around Hatherley’s neck and, at his request, you tied his hands with a piece of material.
After ascertaining his resolve to continue this path to self destruction, you pulled away the small cupboard on which he was standing, leaving him suspended. But Donald Hatherley did not die immediately. He continued to take shallow breaths. On your account, you rubbed his chest whilst saying “let go of your breath, my friend.” However the breathing continues. After about one and half minutes, you then, explaining what you intended to do, reached behind his back with your hands and applied a steady downward pressure on his shoulders for some ten to fifteen seconds. The purpose of this action, which was to cut off his air supply, succeeded.
You sought to avoid implication in the death of Hatherley by having him salivate on the material binding his hands so it would like he had tied the knot himself and by your positioning of the cupboard so it would look like Hatherley had kicked it over. Indeed, it appears that you successfully avoided suspicion falling upon you.
Whilst your action which brought about Donald Hatherley’s death may be simply described, the psychological imperatives which motivated those actions are more complex.
You have asserted that your actions were motivated by the desire to assist a fellow prisoner to escape from you perceived to be the anguish and torment of his own unresolved mental conflicts, which manifested themselves in depression, anxiety and self mutilation, and to free him from the rigours of a prison regime which afforded him no horizon of hope. However, your motivation extended beyond any altruistic concern. Hatherley was, to you knowledge, a vulnerable man whose problems had, in the past, resulted in a number of suicide attempts by him. Although you may initially have attempted to dissuade him from the course upon which eh wished to embark, you made no concerted or persistent attempt to discourage him. On the contrary, you assisted him in his preparation to die in every practical way. Indeed, you told the police you were glad that Hatherley wanted to commit suicide because of the benefit you could get out of it. That benefit was the opportunity to expose yourself to a “new plane of experience”, as you perceived it, by assisting someone to die without any malice. This participation was seen by you to be in stark contrast with the intent and motivation involved in the previous six murders you had committed.
You also described your participation in Hatherley death as “an adventure” and there are passages in your own documentation of this event which suggest that you regarded your involvement as a challenge and as a vehicle for personal growth.
You had pleaded not guilty to one count of murder and were convicted by a jury. Coldrey J, sentenced you to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 15 years for the murder. This is not a murder for which you seek a minimum term, and it’s relevance is only as to the issue of your antecedents or criminal history.
Judges sentencing remarks
The sentencing remarks of the Judges who dealt with you provide some assistance as to the courts and community’s then view of the crimes you had committed, and the person they were sentencing.
There are no sentencing remarks of Anderson J, as he pronounced a sentence of life imprisonment for the four murders. Kaye J, who imposed sentence on the two murders on 17 June 1986, also heard no plea and made no sentencing remarks in respect of the imposition of life imprisonment for those offences. The sentencing regime for murder was altered on I July 1986, when, for the first time, a court could impose a sentence other than mandatory life imprisonment with no minimum term. That was the result of an amendment to the Penalties and Sentences Act 1985, and the Crimes Act 1958. It also introduced the sections that enabled a minimum term to be set for those who had previously been sentenced to mandatory life.
The sentencing remarks of Kaye and Coldrey JJ are available and I will refer to them. When asked if you had anything to say before sentence was passed upon you, you stated to Kaye J “ I would like to apologise to the people who have lost their loved and the people I have subjected to trauma. That is all I want to say.” Kaye J also sentenced you for the other offences, being armed robberies and infliction of violence, to which you had pleaded guilty and during the plea asked:[1]
[1]Trial and sentence transcript 18 June 1986 R v Haigh page 38
His Honour: Haigh, what do you want to say to me about the sentence to be passed in relation to these matters?
Prisoner: You have already pointed out the consequences of confession to me, saying that in your opinion I won’t be released in the future Anything you give me today is a drop in the ocean and not of any consequence at all. I have nothing to say in mitigation of the offences.
There were further discussions that occurred between yourself and the Judge during the sentence he was in the process of passing in which he made comment about your other offending and the murders:[2]
[2]Trial and sentence transcript 18 June 1986 R v Haigh page 42 ff
His Honour: Having been sentenced to life imprisonment on two counts of murder yesterday and having been sentenced on 11th November 1980 to life imprisonment on each of the four counts of murder, it might be said that you had nothing to lose by making these admissions of your criminality.
Prisoner: You have already pointed out that I had plenty to lose, so it doesn’t stand to reason that I would ….
His Honour: You have a shocking criminal record. Between 24th December 1974 and 30th October 1978, you sustained fifteen convictions from five court appearances.
For the purpose of sentencing you, I do not take into account the convictions for murder, because those convictions occurred after the commission of these offences for which you presently stand to be sentenced.
You are a brutal man, notwithstanding, however, that you might be described in the media, and presented as a man who has apologised to your victims. There can be no solace to them that you have apologised now. They endured the suffering and those who loved them have suffered as well.
Prisoner: Getting revenge now. Big deal. It is people like you and others who have shaped me into what I am, so don’t blame me too badly, because you are looking at part of yourself.
His Honour: Mr. Haigh, you profess to be repentant about your crimes.
Perhaps you have satisfied your own conscience by making these admissions. I am satisfied that you are a man of above average intelligence. You are very articulate. You were given every opportunity to explain yourself in this court and you did so very, very clearly.
During the course of his sentencing remarks Coldrey J stated:
It may be that your attitude towards Hatherley’s death is the product of long years in prison which have brought with the development of moral perspectives designed to ensure your own physical and mental self-preservation. As you say in your own unsworn statement: “Because of my circumstances and pursuits, my perspective differs from others.” You have elaborated further your viewpoint in your statement to the court this morning. Certainly your personal approach to Donald Hatherley’s death represents a morality which the general community would regard as quite distorted.[3]
…………
Although I accept that you were to a degree , activated by sympathy for Hatherley’s situation and that you did not believe your participation in his demise to be murder, and I also accept that your actions were carried out with his consent, you were ready and willing to utilise the death of an unstable and vulnerable man as a vehicle for self-fulfilment. A further and most disturbing aspect of this case, in your willingness, yet again, to involve yourself in the killing of another human being.[4]
[3]R v Haigh transcript sentencing remarks page 173
[4]R v Haigh transcript sentencing remarks page 174
The law in relation to the fixing of minimum terms is currently governed by the Sentencing Act1991 in s 13 (2) which reads:
13 Fixing of non-parole period otherwise than by sentencing court
(2)The Supreme Court may fix a non-parole period in accordance with section 11 in respect of a term of imprisonment or detention being served by—
(a)any person who at the commencement of this subsection is serving a sentence of imprisonment for the term of his or her natural life in respect of which a non-parole period had not been fixed; or
(3)The Supreme Court may fix a non-parole period under subsection (2) on the application of the offender or of the Secretary to the Department of Justice and it may do so as if it had just sentenced the offender to that term of imprisonment or detention and, in the case of detention, as if the detention were imprisonment for a term of not less than one year.
(4)For the purposes of Part VI of the Crimes Act 1958 sentence includes an order made under subsection (2) and that Part applies, with any necessary modifications, to an appeal against such an order as it applies to an appeal against the sentence passed on a conviction.
The cases to which I have been referred include:
DPP v Robert Farquason[5]
DPP v Peter Norris Dupas[6]
The Queen v Bandali Debs[7]
The Queen v Leslie Camilleri [8]
R v Coulston[9]
R v Lowe[10]
R v Denyer[11]
The Queen v Raymond Edmunds[12]
The principles from those cases are clear. It is a most exceptional course not to set a minimum term[13]. The imposition of a sentence of life imprisonment without a non parole period is an extreme penalty, which should only be imposed in the most serious of cases. Such cases would be the exception to the rule:[14]. Sentences are not precedents which must be applied unless they can be distinguished:[15]
[5][2007] VSC 469
[6][2007] VSC 305
[7][2007] VSC 220
[8](2001) 119 A.Crim. R 106
[9][1997] 2 VR 446
[10][1997} 2 VR 465
[11][1995] 1 VR 186
[12][1994] VSCA 177
[13]DPP v Farquason para 22
[14]DPP v Bandali Debs Para 17
[15]R v Coulston 461
The court in R v Coulston stated a number of propositions with which they specifically disagreed, including the proposition that it will scarcely ever be appropriate to refuse to fix a non parole period in a case of murder. Most importantly they stated:[16]
As regards what may for brevity be called multiple murders, generally speaking at all events, the fact that the offender has committed not one but two or more murders is an important matter in considering whether to decline to fix a non parole period. Judges who sentence murderers must not fail to have a proper regard to what used to be called the sanctity of human life – a phrase not heard nowadays in the criminal courts. – in considering what justice according to law requires having regard to the terms of s. 11 (1). Perhaps in recent years the criminal who kills not but two three or four human beings can be given no longer sentence that the killer of a single victim. Two, three or four life sentences, served, as they must be, concurrently, are of the same duration as a single one. Differentiation is possible only as regards the non parole period – by increasing that period or by refusing to fix one at all. Of course, everything depends on the circumstances. The perpetration of multiple killings may in a given case not even warrant the imposition of a life sentence, let alone the momentous step of denial of the possibility of parole. We wish to make it plain that, while everything depends on the circumstances of the particular case, those who kill a number of victims in horrendous circumstances, where no substantial factor pointing towards clemency is present, must in general expect to be seriously considered for the possible imposition of life sentences unmitigated by the hope of parole.
[16]R v Coulston 462
Further in the judgment, in a reference to the decision in R v Iddon and Crocker[17], the court stated:
It is probable that the passage referred to has on occasions led to an undue reluctance on the part of judges to deny a prisoner the possibility of parole in murder cases, upon the basis that this should very rarely if ever be done. Sentencing judges must remain full conscious of what has been said in decisions of the highest authority about rehabilitation and the beneficial objects to be served by the fixing of a non parole period. They will remain well aware that a sentence of life imprisonment with no possibility of parole is a sentence of the utmost severity. It is a dreadful sentence, at all events for an offender who is not of an advanced age. But dreadful crimes, especially where the past history is bad, may require a dreadful punishment[18]
[17](1987) 32 A. Crim R 315
[18]R v Coulston 462
In relation to the offending of which you have been convicted, there is in my mind no doubt that neither Anderson J or Kaye J, would have, even if permitted, passed any sentence upon you at the time of the passing of their respective sentences other than a term of life imprisonment with no parole.
The offences which demonstrate - by their callous nature, the loss of innocent lives, particularly in the case of Evelyn Abraham, Bruno Cignaloni and Danny Mitchell, that two of the murders were carried out during the robbing of those persons, that the majority of the murders were committed to ensure your safety, on the basis that these people may have presented some danger to you or a friend being arrested for your earlier criminality - that no community would have contemplated you being released into society again, despite your youth. Just punishment, protection of the community, your prospects of rehabilitation, your criminal history would all have compelled a court to refuse to impose a non parole period. Your counsel during discussions rightly conceded that if you were being sentenced today for those crimes that you had committed, even if aged only 21, you would not have received a non parole period.
The situation in your case is that you are not being sentenced for crimes that you committed recently, but for crimes that you committed between 30 and 31 years ago. There have been 31 years that have elapsed since those crimes to enable you to have become rehabilitated, and to come to an understanding of the heinous nature of your crimes.
It is argued that s 11 of the Sentencing Act imposes an obligation to set a minimum term unless the nature of the offence or the past history make the fixing of the term inappropriate. Whilst not deciding that question, it is clear that it is appropriate to examine what has occurred since the time of your sentencing to life imprisonment, including your behaviour, your psychiatric history, your rehabilitation, your future prospects and your overall circumstances. I intend to do this by reviewing chronologically firstly the exhibits and documents tendered during the hearing and also provided to the court as part of the history of your continuing application. I will then review the evidence in the hearings before me over the relevant days.
Adult Parole Board Victoria Report – 3 September 1982
This was a report which set out your background and nature of offences. Reference was then made to a report by Dr T.O. Clark, consultant psychiatrist at Prison Pentridge, who examined you and submitted a report on 12 August 1982. After canvassing your childhood and medical history, the psychiatrist turned to describing your current state. He noted that you had a ‘fine tremor and sweaty palms, obviously a tense and intense individual.’ The psychiatrist also noted a history of depressive disorder, despite which he found your thought processes lucid and coherent. He defined your condition as a long standing character disorder of great severity, and diagnosed you as having a borderline personality disorder. The next part of the report contains the remarks of Mr Firmager, your parole officer. That report again talks of your history of offending in some detail, explaining the motivation behind ‘silencing’ murders and the kind of company that you found yourself in at the time of the offending. You still denied all charges.
Parole Officers Report of 22 May 1987
The report outlines details of the four murders, as well as offences committed prior to the murders, in 1970. The report then outlines your family history and health, including your period of self harm during your early years in prison. This included cutting off a part of your ear, attempting to hang yourself and consuming faeces, as well as drug use. The report notes that this behaviour improved from 1983 onwards. The writer of the report stated he has known you “for about 13 or 14 years”, during which time “the transformation in Haigh’s personality… [was] quite remarkable.” It was asserted that on rare occasions, “a hint of his earlier instability” was displayed, but that it was “well controlled.” The report concludes that you had “done as much as he can in prison to change his earlier dangerous aspects of his personality.” Despite this, the writer states that it “is quite impossible… to provide a certain forecast of whether Haigh will revert to his former lifestyle or not.”
Psychiatric report dated 18 August 1989
This was a report following an interview with you/ held on 8 August, 1989, prepared for the purposes of your request for a minimum term. The psychiatrist noted you were “polite and cooperative throughout the interview, answering questions in a thoughtful way and giving the impression of being truthful in his answers.” Deliberate emotional distancing was noted, but considered normal. The report then canvassed your family and personal history. The personal history noted that you were “very scared of other children” as a child and that you didn’t feel you fitted anywhere as a child. You cut your wrists, took tranquiliser pills and attended a programme for disturbed children at the Alfred Hospital. You began to get into real trouble from the age of 14: breaking and entering, car theft, assault. At the age of 17, you began to be involved in more serious crimes, finally elevating your criminality including murder. The report notes your mental state as “normal”, “not grossly disturbed”, or “unduly anxious”. You claimed to the psychiatrist that initially you felt no remorse, later felt guilty, but ultimately decided you shouldn’t feel guilty, since you are paying the price for your crimes. The report concludes that you were not suffering, or had ever suffered, from a psychotic disorder, your only difficulty being in relating to other people. Overall functional improvement was noted.
Psychiatric report 11 April 1990
This was a report following an interview with you on 6 April 1990. During the interview, you allegedly stated that “he might stuff up again if he was released. He might even kill, but only with a good reason.” According to the report, you gave a “jovial account of his brutal murders”, for which you apologised, saying “that he saw the amusing inappropriateness now.” No evidence of psychiatric disorder was uncovered, but the report described you as “an angry and aggressive young man despite learning to play the game”, and with a continuing “ability to justify homicide.”
Parole Board report of 27 April 1990
Report made in relation to your applications for an order fixing a minimum term, lodged on 8 and 9 December 1986. The report canvasses briefly your history of offences, incarceration and early reports, which indicated that you were “a major management problem for prison personnel.” (see report dated 1982) However, even at the early stages, you were “engaged in full time study and involved in many of the activities offered within Jika Jika High Security Unit.” Your next review was meant to take place in 1987, but it was not conducted due to your application to the Supreme Court of Victoria for the fixing of a minimum term. This report included a Parole Officer’s report of 22 May 1987, a psychiatric report of 4 April 1987, and classification reports of 4 January 1988, July 1989 and 28 March 1990.
Parole Officers report of 22 May 1987
This report was initially prepared on 22 May 1987 and updated following an interview with you on 28 March 1990. The writer of the report had known you since your reception in prison, prior to your initial sentencing in September 1980.
In the initial period and up to August 1984, “Haigh was having difficulty accepting his sentence and was responsible for many problems.” Between 1984 and 1988, you progressed to a different division, but your stay there was interrupted due to consumption of drugs (speed). You attempted to commit suicide by consuming a large quantity of the pills, and this resulted in you being transferred to hospital for several days. Subsequent to this episode, you were once again placed in your previous division, where your conduct remained “affable”, “good mannered”, “quiet” and “conformist.”
The report comments on your improved relations with your adoptive parents, and failed attempt at connecting with your natural parents and siblings. In addition to contact with the adoptive parents, you had a number of female friends, one of whom was a regular visitor at the time of the writing of the report.
At the time of the report, you were also participating actively in yoga, undertaking introspection and writing, which included printing of two articles in Latrobe’s University’s magazine, “Rabelais” in 1989. The writing of the book, “The House of Blue Light” commenced at the time this report was being prepared. The article in Rabelais was part of your file and I have read that article. It is an articulate and lengthy discussion of your behaviour and background and why you should be released.
You were also seeing a prison psychologist for several months, which you reported as useful. The report summary reads as follows:
Haigh presented as a well-spoken, self-educated, introverted man, bent on meticulous self-examination. … He believes he is not criminally oriented anymore, nor does he believe there is a place for him in the general community. … The present contrast in Haigh’s conduct and attitude is remarkable compared with earlier knowledge of this man. Neverless (sic), his presentation remains calculated and lacking in any emotional involvement. He is fixated on a path towards self realisation and barely seems to discern the everyday world surrounding him. It appears increasingly evident that his learned survival techniques have distanced him from those around him. … it would therefore be hoped that every opportunity be offered to this man to come to terms with his finite sentence and continue his further application to self development activities.”
Psychiatric report 4 April 1987
Psychiatrist originally saw you in June 1986. On re-examination in April 1987, he wrote that his “comments in regard to [Haigh] exhibiting a grandiose manner previously do not apply. On the latest occasion he was courteous and his mental state remains within normal limits.” The report comments that although somewhat idiosyncratic, your world view did “not constitute evidence of mental illness.”
The report maintains that it would be difficult to assess at what point it might be safe to release you into society. It notes that “it is not uncommon in persons labelled as personality disorders to observe a maturation process which begins around the age of 30 years and perhaps such a process is discernable in this man at present.” The report concludes that “from a psychiatric point of view… a sentence which at least contained an element of encouraging [Haigh] on what appears to be a genuine course of rehabilitation would be appropriate.”
Classification reports 4 January 1988
This was a report prepared from Departmental files and interviews with you, detailing your life from reception into prison until December 1988. This report lists the early period of self-harm in prison, including two six inch cuts to your abdomen. Self-administered poison in November 1979 and transferred to hospital. Violence to others was also recorded. You had another prisoner cut off the top of your right ear, you tried to hang yourself, after smearing yourself with excreta. After June 1981, you were described as “began a process of change” and “began to settle”, joined a bible study group and started to practice Yoga and Meditation.
In May 1982, you overdosed on tablets and hospitalised. Later that year, you assaulted another prisoner. You finally appeared to be settled by 1984. However, in 1988, you again tried to suicide, by taking a large quantity of amphetamines. The report writer nevertheless concludes that have a “capacity to change” and to remain an easily managed prisoner.
An addendum to the report, dated 4 January 1989, stated that you had settled well since the last incident in 1988, and were working in the wooden products industry, as well as seeing a Psychologist on a regular basis. At that time, you were reported as presenting no management problems.
Transcript of plea and sentencing hearing 26 May 1993
This was a hearing related to the murder of Donald George Hatherley at Coburg on 14 November 1991, to which I have earlier made reference. His Honour Coldrey J. commented that:
·Haigh described his participation in the death as “an adventure”. “In such circumstances, it cannot be suggested that Haigh feels any remorse for what has occurred.”
·Haigh’s morality was one which “the general community would regard as quite distorted.”
·Haigh only confessed to his involvement to demonstrate the “grievous shortcomings of the prison system..”
·Haigh’s involvement in the death “went beyond mere assistance to the perpetration of the fatal acts with the requisite intent to constitute murder.” It was not a mercy killing.
At the time of this hearing, you were 35. By this time, your involvement in prison activities included “typing, mathematics, English, psychology and behavioural studies, as well as yoga.” He was reported as being “articulate and well-read and very intelligent” but that his “intelligence had not been fully developed.”
Coldrey J. commented in relation to the murder sentences, that “parole reports do not reveal any mitigating factors.” Furthermore, his Honour held that “on the state of the material before me, it is impossible to reach any optimistic conclusion as to Haigh’s prospects of rehabilitation.”
Judgment delivered 14 February 1994
Application heard by Phillips CJ, Southwell and Cummins, JJ. The purpose of the application was for an extension of time within which to lodge notice of application for leave to appeal against sentence. The sentence in question was related to the murder of Hatherley. Counsel argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that you were in a depressed mental state at the time the sentence was delivered, which prevented you from making an informed decision about appealing the sentence. The Court held, by majority, that the applicant had failed to show an arguable case against the 15 year sentence. Cummins J dissented, on the grounds that the applicant had made out the case for the delay, and that the pivotal matter was the one killing, not the previous killings. His Honour felt that the matter could be given more consideration and could not be considered hopeless
Parole Board Report – 27 May 1994.
This report was prepared in relation to the application for an order fixing a minimum term of the sentence of imprisonment – an update on the Report dated 27 April 1990). Report contained three reports: psychiatric report from Dr R. Vine; classification report from Mr R. Orr, Acting Deputy Superintendent of Classification and a Community Corrections Officer’s report from Coburg Community Corrections Centre.
Report of Dr Ruth Vine 2 May 1994
Dr Vine saw you on 26 April 1994, for approximately one hour. You were diagnosed as free of psychiatric illness, but Dr Vine commented that you “may have evidence of a personality disorder which influences his relationships with other people…” Dr Vine described your background as “deprived and disturbed” and that you had “behavioural difficulties from an early age.” Due to the amount of time spent in incarceration, “Haigh had few opportunities for long term relationships outside the prison environment.” The report documents “extensive history of self harm” by you, including amputating your ear in 1980, trying to hang yourself in 1981, taking an overdose and in 1982 cutting an artery in your arm. But Dr. Vine noted in that in the years immediately preceding the report, no incidents of self harm were reported.
Dr Vine described you as “an articulate man of above average intelligence who was able to think through his actions.” You apparently stated that you no longer felt the need to kill, except in self defence, but that you feared society would still judge you, and “ignore the many advancements he has made…”
The report concludes that you had “little ability to empathise with others and a degree of egocentricity and self satisfaction.” Dr Vine expressed concern that “what Mr Haigh says may be at odds with his actual behaviour.” Consequently, she concluded that “until this is able to be more fully assessed, I would have concern about the setting of a minimum sentence.”
Report by Correctional Services Division – 9 May 1994
This report canvasses the period from 28 March 1990 to 29 April 1994. During the period 28 March 1990 to 16 July 1991, you are reported as being “easily managed” and continuing to receive “favourable reports for conduct and industry”. However, on 16 July 1991, you were transferred to a different Division after having admitted you were under the influence of magic mushrooms.
From 17 July 1991 to 29 April 1994, you were reported as continuing to consume the drug, and requesting to be isolated in a single cell, to better explore your mind. During this period, you admitted to your involvement in Hatherley’s death. The report notes that when talking of the death, you were “quite calm, clear and coldly calculating.”
The report mentions that you allegedly claimed you wished to be “better than Julian Knight”, a matter that you dispute. As it is disputed I will accept what you stated to the court during your evidence about this matter, which I deal with when discussing your evidence. Further the report said, that a conspiracy was formed between you and another prisoner, for you to injure the prisoner and the two to share any compensation money. The prison authorities state they found you together and upon searching, found one of you had a weapon. The other prisoner was Dane Sweetman, and the matter related to obtaining compensation and sharing the proceeds. However, the prison authorities formed the opinion that you were intending to kill the other prisoner. I am not prepared to draw that inference, and I will not act upon the basis that you were intending to kill Sweetman.
At the last review on 21 July 1993, you were assessed as “a high risk prisoner” requiring “a high level of supervision.”
Report by Community Corrections Office, Pentridge – 29 April 1993
The report notes only a few minor instances of disorderly behaviour, a marked improvement to the previous period. The report states that aside from a couple of short periods outside your cell each day, you were choosing “to spend his time in his cell on personal reflection and writing down his thoughts”.
You are noted as having a girlfriend (Elysse) and of pursuing some study, though nothing significant. The main focus of Haigh’s studies is reported to be “spiritual improvement”, or as the report puts it, “protection of his fragile ego.” The report summary reads as follows:
Haigh presents as a special challenge to society, not only because of the nature of his offences and the lengthy period of detention he received as a consequence, but also to redress what, (in Haigh’s mind), were systemic injustices throughout his life and the consequential radical re-orientation of thought processes he has adopted to survive these perceived injustices. With his present order of mental and emotional priorities, Haigh can see no fault in his behaviour regarding the victim and is critical and/or indifferent to other moral perspectives on the issue.
He has however, shown an adaptability over the years to accommodate what he perceives as his own best interest and it is hoped this process will continue and be further facilitated with the provision of appropriate constructive supports.
The establishment of a finite release date could help with this process. This aim may be furthered by forwarding a copy of this report to the Adult Parole Board and, if the court approves, a copy could also be sent to the relevant prison authorities.
Letter from Paul Haigh to Justice Bongiorno – 9 July 1994
Set out in handwritten, numbered points, this letter seeks that your application for a minimum sentence be heard, rather than be adjourned for 10 years. You stated that you would be happy for the matter to be heard before Justice Hampel. You cited the reason for your request the fact that it would assist you in coping with life in prison and give you motivation to participate in studies.
A series of letters relating to this issue followed, of no real relevance to my decision.
Transcript of proceeding – 2 March 1995
Proceeding brought before the Honourable Mr Justice Hampel, as you wanted certain matters to be heard, rather than wait ten years for another hearing relating to his minimum sentence application. Matter adjourned to a date to be fixed.
Corrections Victoria report of annual review – 1999 – Exhibit 5
Report comments that you were supposed to be moved to an induction unit in 1998, and then to Waaksembyd, but that these moves did not occur. Notes on program participation refer to you being involved in literacy and computer courses, and developing an interest in theology. You are also noted as having attended the TAFE building for computer classes, where you successfully integrated with other mainstream prisoners.
Notes on work indicate that you had been working in the prison laundry for two months and received excellent reports of never being idle, always being helpful and polite to staff.
The report notes you were severely beaten by another prisoner in March 1999, and that you still report constant anxiety. You were reported to be using a mantra to block negative thoughts, something you claimed you had been doing since the mid 1980’s.
The report noted significant changes in you, as being more open about your past and more realistic about your future. Proposed sentence plan included a move to Penhyn, depending on a psychiatric report. Security rating of A2 was noted.
Corrections Victoria report of annual review – 2000 – Exhibit 5
Report noted you had a ‘good year’ undertaking education in English levels 1-4 and kitchen management, cleaning and computers. When challenged as to why you were not participating in more programs, you stated you are only partaking in things that are interesting and assist you in practical ways.
Notes on work indicate that you were working as contact visit billet and cleaning Governors function room which enabled you to exercise, while allowing you to meditate when you wished. You requested to remain at this location, and this was considered appropriate by the authors of the report. Notes on behaviour indicate you had received good reports in relation to your behaviour, both towards staff and in dealing with other prisoners.
Correspondence relating to Haigh’s request for counselling – 2 April 1996 and 18 April 2001 – Exhibit 8
This is a copy of correspondence from you to various professionals, including Dr Ruth Vine, Dr Asger Sturup, Mr Michael Hepworth (legal aid solicitor), Mr Ian Barlow (psyche nurse), the Honourable Justice F. Vincent, Mr Ian McPhee (secretary of the Adult Parole Board). These are a series of requests for long term counselling, and the responses, which indicate a clear frustration on your part at the inability to obtain those services to assist you in respect of your application for a minimum term.
Correspondence relating to Haigh’s attempts to contact the families of the victims – 2 June 1997 to 16 June 1998 – Exhibit 10.
In 1997 and 1998, you made repeated efforts to contact the families and friends of your victims. You claimed the purpose was to apologise and offer the families a chance to communicate with you, if they so wished. No example of a letter to a victim is included, with the exception of a letter you wrote to a Mr. Edwards, a person whom you saw on a television show. Mr Edwards wife had been killed and you were writing to offer yourself as someone who could help by giving Edwards an insight into your mind.
The bulk of the correspondence included are letters to the Victims of Crime Assistance league and to Ray Martin, asking their assistance in contacting the families. By letter dated 16 June 1998, the Victims of Crime Assistance League declined your request, as not being in the best interests of the people in question.
Education Certificates – 1982, 1991, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2003 and 2004 – Exhibit 11
During 1982, you completed a correspondence course in psychology 1, provided by the Technical Education Division of the Education Department of Western Australia.
During 1986, you completed behavioural studies at the Preston College of TAFE – Exhibit 11.
During 1987, you completed the following subjects with the Preston College of TAFE – Off Campus Study Centre: Preliminary English and Preparatory trade mathematics
During 1991, you completed a TAFE course entitled “Introduction to furniture studies”.
In 1997, you completed a stress management program facilitated by the Port Phillip Prison.
During 1999, you obtained certificates from Kangan Batman TAFE, in:
·Literacy through computers
·Reading & writing
·Health, safety and security procedures
·Workplace hygiene procedures
·Clean & maintain premises
During 2000, you obtained certificates from TAFE in:
·Word processing
·Occupational health & safety for cleaning
·Hard floor cleaning
·Soft floor cleaning
·Bonnet buffing
·Wet area cleaning
In 2003, you attended treatment at UnitingCare at Port Phillip Prison, for alcohol and other drugs, and completed the following programs:
· Drug education
· Relapse prevention
· Cannabis education
You were deemed unsuitable for further programs, based on a clinical assessment of his substance use history. In other words, the fact that you had not consumed any substances for 13 years, precluded you from participating in further substance abuse programs.
In 2004, you undertook a course in understanding anger, provided by the Port Phillip Prison’s Therapeutic Services. The programme covered
· Physiological, emotional, behavioural and cognitive basis of anger
· Costs and benefits of anger
· Identifying high risk situations
· Cognitions, values and beliefs
· Relaxation
· Self-talk
· Relapse prevention
Letter from Michael Amad Lawyers – 5 December 2003
Letter addressed to the Registrar of the SCV, advising that they act you, and that you had appeared before Justice Hampel ten years previously in relation to an application for a minimum term. The letter seeks information on the status of the matter and when it might be listed for a hearing, noting that Justice Hampel adjourned it for a period of not less than ten years.
Transcript of Proceedings – 10 June 2004
Proceedings brought before the Honourable Justice Teague, in relation to an application for the setting of a minimum term. The prosecution outlined your criminal offences and informed Justice Teague that you had sought to prematurely reactivate the application in March 1995, at which point the application came before Justice Hampel. The matter was adjourned until the date of the present hearing.
The prosecution and defence counsel agreed that the application was at a fairly preliminary point and that it would be appropriate to adjourn the matter. The guidance on this viewpoint was obtained from Practice Note No.2 of 1986, which stated that “when the application is ready to be heard, the Director of Public Prosecutions shall notify the Director of Criminal Listings who shall arrange for a fixing of a date for the hearing of the application and notify the parties accordingly.”
Defence counsel then sought that orders be made for the Adult Parole Board to compile a report for the purposes of the application. Justice Teague agreed to make a request to that extent from the Parole Board.
Complaints re Psychiatrists – February to October 2004 – Exhibit 12
Between February and October 2004, you wrote a series of letters to the Commissioner of Corrective Services, complaining about your psychiatrist. The complaints referred to the psychiatrist’s failure to attend and communicate, as well as his behaviour, which you say caused you offence. Correspondence from psychiatrists, including Dr Asger Sturup and Dr Douglas Bell, was also included. The conclusion to all the correspondence was that Professor Ogloff would handle your case.
Adult Parole Board Report – 24 January 2005
This was a report prepared for the purposes of the minimum term application. Sources of information contained in the report include interviews with you, Senior prison management, various prison officers, Dr Ruth Vine, prisoner individual management plan file, adult parole board file, offender automated system information service and prisoner information management system.
The report first outlines the nature of your offences. It then describes your attitude to those offences, your prior offences and past parole history and your personal history. Regarding your institutional conduct, the report noted that you were at that time classified as a special category/high profile individual. Your general demeanour is described as acceptable, with a settled daily routine and excellent work reports.
Christmas cards / poem
The report goes on to describe what could be described as disturbing occurrences that were not recorded as prison incidents, but were documented on your file. The kissing of the shoes of staff members is listed here, as is the incident with Christmas cards. The report goes on to quote what was included in some of the Christmas cards. I have read those materials and what is contained in the cards does not reflect well upon you, and is a matter discussed in your evidence in the hearing.
Interests
The report notes your interest in theology and furthermore, that your studies have been demonstrated in your actions and interpersonal relationships. You are also noted as having undertaken art work, but that you had lost interest after staff began to monitor your art activities. The reason the art work was monitored was that your earliest works included offensive material (including a figure with an exposed skull and a rat eating the brain).
Physical and mental health
The report describes your multiple ailments, including hepatitis C, depression, and multiple tattoos and the significance of the wording of those tattoos: hell, heaven, love, hate, rewards, loss, good, evil, sane, judgment, reap what’s sewn, consequence and choice. Your sexual factors are mentioned, including past tendencies to paedophilia, rape, necrophilia, bestiality and prostitution. But it should be noted that on reading your book ‘the House of Blue Light’ it does not appear that paedophilia was ever a real issue and neither was necrophilia or bestiality, while prostitution occurred for reasons not related to sexual perversion. Accordingly I will not act upon the reference to those matters in this report.
Conclusion
The report authors conclude that you “are a man of limited social skills, shows no remorse, has no clear perception of boundaries, and becomes easily frustrated or prone to sulking if his routine is broken. In addition, he struggles to demonstrate an ability to empathise with any individual who possesses a different belief or set of moral values to his. Mr Haigh presents as a significant risk to the safety of the community and an individual who requires constant challenging for inappropriate and offensive behaviours.”
Letters to Professor Ogloff, regarding the Christmas card incidents – Exhibit 9
Letter dated 11 September 2006
You wrote to Professor Ogloff regarding the Parole Board Report prepared for the purpose of your application for a minimum term sentence. You claimed the report misrepresented your case, evidence and thoughts. You stated, “How can anyone justify cutting corners when the consequence to me is so great?” You claimed the report erroneously stated that you had shown no remorse for your actions. You stated that you have demonstrated remorse, through admitting to murders you were not convicted of ,to unburden your conscience, and through apologising to people you had hurt.
Mr Haigh: Not so much in the criminal regard it was more specific to my daily problems. I didn’t have in depth counselling about how it’s manifested in criminal ways.
Mr Tehan: Has it manifested itself in criminal ways?
Mr Haigh: Yes, I used to have strange rituals when I absconded as a youth, when I was 17. I would have to perform rituals at the window of a night to satisfy myself that the police weren’t coming before I could retire. It manifested in the murder of Lisa Brearley in that I obsessively kept stabbing her because I kept losing count. I had set myself an obsessive limit of 20 times to stab and when I lost count I kept stabbing.
[31]Transcript of proceedings 25 January 2008 page 148 ff
Cross examination about the murder of Lisa Brearley
In cross examination you were asked about this murder[32]
[32]Transcript of proceedings 25 January 2008 page 190 ff
Mr Elston: Lisa Brearley was someone you had known for a while and had an intimate relationship with.
Mr Haigh: Yes that’s right.
Mr Elston: You formed the view that she was a warm and caring sort of a person.
Mr Haigh: Yes.
Mr Elston: A very decent young girl.
Mr Haigh: Yes.
Mr Elston: From a reasonably stable background.
Mr Haigh: Arrr no, no, she wasn’t as deeply involved in stuff as we were but she dabbled on the dark side so to speak. Things like prostitution and drugs things like that. She had a disturbed history but leaving that aside she was a nice young woman.
Mr Elston: She made choices too.
Mr Haigh: Correct.
Mr Elston: Which brought her to her position.
Mr Haigh: Correct.
Mr Elston: She hadn’t spoken out of turn about going to the gun shop and getting weapons had she?
Mr Haigh: Yes she’d spoken to her mother, that was why she was deemed a liability and why we decided to kill her. She was specifically asked or instructed not to say anything and this was agreed upon. I’ve got to say at the time she bought the weapons they weren’t for use in a murder she bought the weapons thinking that we wanted them for defence against Wayne Smith’s killers, because she was not aware that we were in fact the murderers. We intended to use the guns on an armed robbery on a jeweller’s store in Carnegie which never came about, and subsequently we formed a plan to kill, murder – to kill Sheryle Gardner, and because she was talking she had to go.
Mr Elston: Had you no longer had pistols or firearms?
Mr Haigh: Well we didn’t have many pistols to start with we just had a rickety old 25 which was used on Wayne Smith and ---
Mr Elston: You had a pistol though, didn’t you?
Mr Haigh: I had the pistol, it wasn’t my gun I didn’t own it.
Mr Elston: What did Wright have?
Mr Haigh: He had a semi-automatic rifle, a Winchester I think a full length rifle.
Her Honour: What guns did Lisa obtain for you?
Mr Haigh: She I think obtained two Sterling .22 semi-automatic rifles.
Her Honour: Did you have those?
Mr Haigh: Pardon.
Her Honour: Did you have those rifles?
Mr Haigh: I had those rifles when I killed Sheryle Gardner.
Her Honour: Did you still have them?
Mr Haigh: No everything was dumped after the shootings, immediately after the shootings.
Mr Elston: Were drugs freely available to you at that stage?
Mr Haigh: Yes they were freely available but I took more marijuana, Serapax, Tussionex cough mixture generally the gutter drugs.
Mr Elston: Was there any way you could have determined to kill Lisa Brearley in a less violent manner?
Mr Haigh: I suppose if we would have put our minds to it, yes, but the knife was the next best option we had since we, I can’t remember, didn’t have bullets for a gun that we had or didn’t have a gun I can’t remember, but because of the absence of a firearm, which would have been used to give a quicker death to the poor woman, the knife was used.
Mr Elston: That was after Strachan had raped ---
Mr Haigh: That was after Strachan had raped her and I believe sodomised her.
Mr Elston: You let him do that because you knew what was going on up the lane didn’t you?
Mr Haigh: That’s correct.
Mr Elston: Thereafter you extinguished her life by stabbing her a great number of times?
Mr Haigh: That’s correct.
Mr Elston: In fact subsequently you learned it was at least 157 stab wounds?
Mr Haigh: Correct.
Mr Elston: You talk in terms of losing count and that that’s part of your obsessive, compulsive aspect of it because you intended to stab her at least 20 times in every organ of her body is that right?
Mr Haigh: I intended to stab her 20 times and when I kept losing count I kept starting again, in the end I got sick of losing count so I just started stabbing the major organs and turning her over and stabbing her here and there. When I felt satisfied that there was no chance for a miraculous recovery I stopped.
Mr Elston: So are you saying that this was not a frenzied attack but a careful, purposive attack designed to do a particular job?
Mr Haigh: It was an attack by, to say the least, a neurotic it wasn’t a frenzy. There was a frenzied struggle at the start because she fought furiously, it wasn’t like something you see in a movie, and it actually fazed me. The intensity of the fight. After she became still the pressure was off, so to speak, and it became a more calculated, obsessive thing.
Mr Elston: Couldn’t you have at least knocked her unconscious before you stabbed her?
Mr Haigh: I suppose I could have but I didn’t think of it, it was seeing it’s just easier to use a knife.
Mr Elston: You say, you must have stabbed her more than just on her torso it was all over her arms and legs and head as well wasn’t it?
Mr Haigh: I think she would have had defensive wounds on her arms, and I can’t remember about her legs but I didn’t as far as I remember now spare any part of her torso, I perforated all of the frontal parts of the body and I in fact turned the body to make sure I punctured her back as well.
Mr Elston: In her own life you say she’d made choices which brought her to that situation.
Mr Haigh: She unfortunately had a beautiful relationship with her mother and she’d told her mother about the purchase of the guns, apparently they shared everything, and of course that wasn’t any good to Robert and me because that put us at risk of being suspected of the Gardner/Mitchell murders, so unfortunately Lisa got killed off, again, us wanting to save our miserable skins.
Mr Elston: You talk about these obviously these matters fairly substantially in all of your correspondence, don’t you?
Mr Haigh: Yes.
Mr Elston: So far as she was concerned I think probably her death was one that you had in some way reflected on as being someone that you had a good relationship with?
Mr Haigh: Yes.
Mr Elston: And that it was pretty much just bad luck for her.
Mr Haigh: Yes but she decided to speak, it troubled me immediately. I had some trouble speaking, though I did get to sleep, and afterwards it’s the only one that I’ve ever had a nightmare about.
The sending of the Christmas cards
The issue of the sending of Christmas cards and the explanations for those cards provided to Professor Ogloff and tendered as an exhibit was dealt with by your counsel;[33]
[33] Transcript of proceedings 25 January 2008 page 148
Her Honour: Can you tell me about sending the Christmas cards to the warders. Is that in any way related to the OCD?
Mr Haigh: No that’s related to my dark humour and poor judgement.
Mr Tehan: Now your Honour has raised that can we… we had better deal with the issue of the Christmas cards. What does this involve, the Christmas card exhibit?
Mr Haigh: I generally try to look after animals that are in need, birds and things like that there might be a semi-wild ferret that will need feeding or in the old days there were rabbits that would be dug up and the mother would be killed so I tried to find homes for the bunnies amongst the staff. Well on a particular occasion I was told there was a rabbit in the admissions part of the prison and I said that I would look after it. Well, the rabbit didn’t come down to the unit so I became concerned. My mother had told me you have to stimulate their stomachs with a warm rag in order to make them urinate or they would blow up and die. So when I went up to admissions to see if I could get the rabbit to save it from being harmed, I was informed that my work supervisor, who I thought that I got on well with, her name was Jill Law, was holding the rabbit when it died in her arms, so thereafter I had a joke with her about it and I used to wave my fist at her in a joking way and say “bunny killer” and then, as was my custom with staff that I knew reasonably well and thought I got on well with, I give them Christmas cards and sometimes I would express myself humorously with them in a way that is acceptable humour in prison, and I took the opportunity to use the rabbit case for Jill’s card.
Mr Tehan: And was it the card to Jill Law?
Mr Haigh: Jill Law.
Mr Tehan: Was that was the subject of complaint?
Mr Haigh: That was the subject of complaint. The other foot kissing issue that arose at that time was another thing that was just an example of my dark humour, it was not a sexually oriented thing. I kiss the feet of men sometimes. In fact the prison officers who knew me over a period of time accepted it. On one occasion I’d known a prison officer for 20 something years, he originally was working at Jika Jika I used to kiss his foot as a joke. On the occasion that Jill Law told me that she’d got a card and deemed it sick I tried to kiss her shoe as a funny gesture, an inappropriate one, but the staff members who knew me and knew my humour around her at that particular time laughed and got themselves into trouble for supporting the joke. It was Jill that couldn’t see the funny side of it.
Mr Tehan: That’s the incident about the Christmas card?
Mr Haigh: Yes, that’s the rabbit one.
Mr Tehan: The rabbit one. Were there other Christmas cards that were the subject of complaint?
Mr Haigh: Yes, there was one that was deemed inappropriate between a female prison officer and myself.
Mr Tehan: Why was that deemed inappropriate?
Mr Haigh: It was deemed to be too intimate.
Mr Tehan: And what did you say in it?
Mr Haigh: I can't remember exactly what I said I’ve got a record of it here but reflecting on it, it’s embarrassing because it’s poorly composed, but as to the incident itself, I don’t have any embarrassment because she was the one that opened that door on that level of relationship, she had made personal remarks about me and we had got on well in the past.
Mr Tehan: Did the intimacy go any further than remarks between you and her?
Mr Haigh: Oh absolutely not. I knew where the line was in that respect.
Mr Tehan: Did you write to Professor Ogloff regarding these matters?
Mr Haigh: Yes I did.
Mr Tehan: Would you have a look at these two documents?
Mr Haigh: Yes.
Mr Tehan: Are these the copies of letters that you sent to Professor Ogloff regarding what you referred to, what I will refer to is the Christmas cards incident?
Haigh: These are the originals. I never sent him these, I sent him copies so that I would be able to retain these in case I needed to photocopy them.
Tehan: Your Honour I understand the objection about it being self-serving but I do seek to tender these documents.
Her Honour: They are clearly self-serving but he’s kept the originals on the basis that he might want to use them some day so I’ll take them in that light when I read them. In relation to the bunny card you say here that Jill is referred to in her card, and as to the reference to sodomy in it “This is part of jail life”, that you would imagine a prison officer wouldn’t be aghast at that. It seems to go with jail like feathers go with birds, so there was more than just a reference to what you said in relation to bunny killer?
Mr Haigh: Yes there was a poem compiled that included Santa Claus that was part of the objectionable material.
Her Honour: And it would appear to include sodomy as well?
Mr Haigh: As part of the thing yes. I’ve got a copy of the poem if you want to look at it your Honour.
Cross examination about the sending of the Christmas cards[34]
[34]Transcript of proceedings 25 January 2008 page 199 ff
Mr Elston: One of the reports you didn’t like when you wrote to Professor Ogloff, a psychologist’s report, a female?
Mr Haigh: One of the psychologists I did.
Mr Elston: Yes one of the psychologists you were seeing at the prison you didn’t like the report she’d put into the parole board is that right?
Mr Haigh: No I don’t think they were psychologists I don't know whether they were.
Her Honour: It was two members of staff wasn’t it?
Mr Haigh: Two members from the parole board came to see me over a span of time. And I adopted the same policy of being honest with them, but they stitched a report together like a Frankenstein’s monster and I thought it was outrageous.
Mr Elston: That was there idea of you which didn’t fit in with your idea of you.
Mr Haigh: That’s true, but I don’t expect to be spoken of as if I’m the epitome of Godliness, I know that I’m flawed and that some things are going to be said of a negative nature but they were ridiculous.
Mr Elston: The September 2006, this is now six years after the Christmas card episode, but you spend a lot of time in that report to Ogloff about that episode don’t you?
Mr Haigh: Yeah, because I want to vindicate myself. I want to give it my view. I’m obviously going to be challenged about it at some point later on, so I want to I suppose be affirmed by somebody that’s more aware than those women.
Mr Elston: The point is that this is six years after the event. Were you obsessed with this Christmas card episode?
Mr Haigh: No. I wasn’t obsessed with it but I’m well aware of what was being made of it and of what it could be used for in the future. So my letters were to some extent self-serving in that respect too, in that I wanted something to be able to present in my defence.
Mr Elston: Had you been writing as of 1999, had you been writing those bits and pieces for The House of Blue Light by then?
Mr Haigh: Yes, some parts I started in Acacia Unit.
Mr Elston: Was that just kept private to yourself or for the contents of that material?
Mr Haigh: Generally its kept private because I’d get my head cut off if people knew the contents of it.
Mr Elston: I just noted that you talk in terms of in that Christmas card and the poem we don’t need to know the details I suspect, about sodomising some person or something in …
Mr Haigh: Yes, Santa Claus.
Mr Elston: In that did you discuss whether there were any deviant sex problems with Professor Ogloff, or whether you had any difficulties in that regard?
Mr Haigh: I can’t recall specifically but we don’t need a professional to tell me that I was a deviant, because obviously I was you read the book.
Mr Elston: I think there is a note on that at the front which is dated 2004 is that basically when you concluded?
Mr Haigh: That was when I decided not to add any more it was just the finished product.
Mr Elston: Is it fair to say that throughout that work there is a fairly strong obsession – I put to you – there’s a strong obsession with the concept of death and dying and all its manifestations?
Mr Haigh: Yes.
Mr Elston: Is it something you are obsessed with?
Mr Haigh: It is something that I very much wanted to understand. It was something that made me scared and I wanted to thrash it out so I wouldn’t be taken off guard by any aspect regarding death. I wanted to be comfortable with it.
Comments about comparisons to Julian Knight
As I indicated earlier in this ruling, you positively refuted that you had any comparison of yourself to Julian Knight, who was responsible for the deaths of a large number of people in Hoddle street. I indicated then, and I repeat it, that I accept what you say on this issue which is:[35]
[35]Transcript of proceedings 25 January 2008 page 163 ff
Mr Tehan: In a classification report by Mr Ron Orr dated 9 May 1994 it is said that in May 1993 you made comments comparing your activities to Julian Knight and expressing a wish to be better than Knight?
Mr Haigh: That’s nonsense.
Mr Tehan: Did you make those comments?
Mr Haigh: No I didn’t. I’ve heard them spoken of before, and the source was as I recall it attributed to jail intelligence. There isn’t any intelligence in that remark. It’s certainly not the case. If I was competing with Julian Knight then we both had an ample opportunity to increase the homicides, so its rubbish.
Mr Tehan: Have you ever said anything to the effect of comparing your murders or the murders in which you were convicted to those that Julian Knight was convicted of?
Mr Haigh: No, I made a joke with Julian one day when I first met him but certainly nothing about the crimes specifically.
Mr Tehan: What was the joke that you made?
Mr Haigh: He was introduced to me by another prisoner and when we starting talking I casually joked and said “You’re just a flash in the pan whereas I have been” excuse the French “consistently a cunt”. That was the extent of things, there was never any mention to a competition or trying to better him in toll.
And then:[36]
[36]Transcript of proceedings 25 January 2008 page 166 ff
Tehan: Reference is made in the materials to you saying to Dr Hutchinson, admittedly this is again back in 1990, that you might stuff up again if you were released, that you might even kill but only with a good reason. Did you say that to Dr Hutchinson?
Mr Haigh: Perhaps I did, yes.
Mr Tehan: And it is also said that in comparing yourself to Knight, which I think you’ve denied is that right?
Mr Haigh: Yes.
Mr Tehan: That it is said he declared that he was totally different because he had killed for a reason. Have you ever said that?
Mr Haigh: No.
Mr Tehan: That’s in a health department report dated 11 April.
Mr Haigh: I have no recollection of that.
Mr Tehan: 1990.
Mr Haigh: Who was I suppose to have said that to?
Mr Tehan: A Dr Brian Hutchinson.
Mr Haigh: Well if its in the report I may well have said it, but that is the fact, isn’t it. I have killed for personal reasons so it wouldn’t be outrageous to assume that I have said that to him. So I will say for the sake of convenience that yeah, I did say that I’m different to Julian because in fact I am.
A few questions further on:
Mr Tehan: And that you compared yourself to Knight, saying that Knight was different because you killed for a reason, did you say that?
Mr Haigh: I don't remember saying it but it being the truth, in that I am different to him in that I had personal reasons for shooting the people etc for convenience I will say that I quite possibly said it.
Her Honour: What were your reasons for shooting the two people in the armed robberies?
Mr Haigh: Fear. They threatened my freedom.
Mr Tehan: How. How did the lady in the Tattslotto agency threaten your freedom?
Mr Haigh: She was heading to the door. The last thought I had before pulling the trigger was “You are not sending me back to jail”.
Mr Tehan: You understand of course that what you did was not only wrong but whilst you perceive of it as having a reason, it was wrong was it not?
Mr Haigh: Absolutely.
Mr Tehan: And you knew that at the time?
Mr Haigh: Right on the spur of the moment I didn’t go through a list of rights and wrongs and morality. I was, of course, aware that what I did was against the law and that even robbing the place was against the law, so I’m clearly owning what I did and seeing it for what it was.
On the issue of rehabilitation
Mr. Tehan asked you finally a number of questions relating to rehabilitation and your attitude towards rehabilitation and your future[37]
Mr Tehan: Perhaps if I could ask the applicant this, do you perceive that you can do any more towards rehabilitating yourself in the prison environment you are in?
Mr Haigh: No. I have no interest in general study topics. As far as rehabilitation goes, I’ve striven throughout the years to better myself. I’m not without fault at the moment but I’m a long, long way from what I was and I think I have in the environment I’m in done as much as I can. I need some place else to go.
Mr Tehan: Why do you seek a minimum term?
Mr Haigh: So I can be released, or so I’ve got the hope of being released anyway, its up to the parole board, but it’s pretty bleak at the moment and I’m running out of steam, and I’d just like to have a bit of light at the end of the tunnel, something to aim at, otherwise I have nothing to motivate me.
[37]Transcript of proceedings 25 January 2008 page 180 ff
Cross examination about motivation and rehabilitation
Mr. Elston cross examined you about your motivation for seeking the imposition of a minimum term[38]
Mr Elston: Motivation has been something that you could have been addressing all through your period of incarceration isn’t it?
Mr Haigh: I have been motivated to do some things so its not been absent.
Mr Elston: When did you start to feel that you wanted to be motivated. I mean you’ve had this application on foot for some time haven’t you?
Mr Haigh: About 20 years.
Mr Elston: It’s only at more recent time quite frankly that you’ve settled down in jail isn’t it?
Mr Haigh: No. No, I wouldn’t agree with that. I’ve in about the last 20 years had about two fights. There are peccadilloes in my history.
[38]Transcript of proceedings 25 January 2008 page 181ff
Cross examination as to future offending
You were asked questions about your attitude to future offending and your behaviour if released into the community[39]
[39]Transcript of proceedings 25 January 2008 page 208 ff
Mr Elston: You are now extremely keen to have a court set a non-parole period for you aren’t you or a minimum term?
Mr Haigh: Yes I am.
Mr Elston: To that end I suggest you will say and do what you need to do to try and convince the court to give you one?
Mr Haigh: Well, I haven’t been shy in coming forward with the truth. If I wanted to manipulate things then there’s a heck of a lot that I could have left out, I could have left my book out for instance, I didn’t have to give that to the Professor, I didn’t have to ask my counsel to give that to the judge. There is some awful perversions and monstrosities in that. I presented other stuff that I was advised not to give because I’ve had the policy of sticking to the truth, I have not shied from anything that I’ve been asked here, I’ve tried to answer honestly. So I’m just interested in presenting the facts and if people think based on that I’m worth letting out then do so, if they don’t want to let me out, then don’t. Just so long as I know where I stand I’m sick of living in limbo.
Mr Elston: You had a violent history Mr Haigh.
Mr Haigh: That’s true. I’ve had a violent history. History is the word here.
Mr Elston: If you don't think it is wrong you can do it can’t you?
Mr Haigh: Well it comes down to personal issues where we tend to disagree strongly, such as things like suicide. I don’t see that as a wrong. I know the law don’t see smoking drugs to be acceptable, but I like a smoke of dope, though I haven’t had any for many years. If I were released I’d probably get myself some marijuana to smoke, that’s against the law but it is something that’s alright to me, and laws change with time.
Her Honour: But you would be immediately breached from your parole,
Mr Haigh: I suppose that would depend upon the conditions your Honour if I didn’t have ……….
Her Honour: You are not allowed to commit a crime, there is no condition that allows you to smoke marijuana.
Mr Haigh: Well if I wasn’t being urine tested then I’d probably deceive people by saying that I’m not taking drugs when I was but if I was …
Her Honour: Can I say Mr Haigh you are not helping yourself on this point at all.
Mr Haigh: I can understand that your Honour, I’m just being honest with you.
Her Honour: But what it’s doing is its giving me a picture of someone who says “I will do really what I think is right, not what I think society believes is right”.
Mr Haigh: How many people do drugs out there now your Honour, smoke dope though it is illegal but they’re not seen as monsters for it. And if they were asked by a police officer…
Her Honour: No, sorry, the point is, this is only just one small example so it causes me, as you can imagine, some concern because I don’t know what your attitudes are to everything else.
Mr Haigh: Well, on small things and on personal things then I would have choices.
Her Honour: I don’t consider dope smoking a personal thing, I really don’t. I see the consequences in this court every day. There is nothing personal about it, there is nothing about it that’s even remotely right.
Mr Haigh: In my view, your Honour you will obviously disagree, is that if I’m purchasing the marijuana with legally earned money, and I’m not hurting anybody else in the process, then it’s somewhere I’d step regardless of what the law says. But I wouldn’t behave outrageously in order to bring about my own ends. I’ve certainly developed a lot there. Where my own suicide or the help of a loved one is concerned, if their suffering goes, because of my particular views on euthanasia and things, though it’s against the law, through love I’d help and through my own desire to avoid suffering I’d go there, but in monstrous ways, such as those I’ve clearly shown myself capable of in the past, I wouldn’t go there. I wouldn’t cut off somebody’s toes in order to get myself a new car. I’ve got no aspirations in that sort of sense, I’m not concerned with reputation, I’m not concerned with belongings, I’m not concerned with prestige or position.
Her Honour: I’m more concerned about people who cross you Mr Haigh.
Mr Haigh: People that?
Her Honour: Cross you.
Mr Haigh: I’ve proven over ---
Her Honour: You mightn’t kill them but I don’t know, I mean, at what point do you draw a line?
Mr Haigh: If they make it necessary for me to harm them, then they’ve put me in a corner, but I don’t see myself acting violently towards anybody unless it’s a situation that anybody else would be entitled to act likewise in. I’ve grown a lot. Through my day-to-day experience I have ample opportunities to attack people for some outrageous things that they do but I don’t do it. I calculate things. I’m very calculating. I say “ok this means a small loss in belongings or a big dint in pride but the consequences are going to far outweigh this small loss so I won’t go there I will just suck it up and move along”, and I’ve proven myself I think in hostile environments very capable of putting up with pressures that a lot of people outside wouldn’t be able to cope with. It’s not been an easy road and staff members too are very provocative in that respect but I don’t abuse them for their lackadaisical attitudes or the deliberate wickedness or their stupidities.
Her Honour: They are in a position, the problem I have is that the staff are in a position that if you do abuse them or behave in ways like that there is an immediate consequence for you of which you are fully aware, right? Equally if you do something wrong in respect to fellow prisoners there are immediate consequences?
Mr Haigh: Maybe not your Honour.
Her Honour: More than likely?
Mr Haigh: It’s a perhaps, I’d say you are perhaps right there considering people these days.
Her Honour: But if, for example, you are released and you are driving a car and involved in a road rage incident I don’t know what’s going to happen there because they’re the sorts of pressures you’ve not been under, there’s no one immediately there, there’s no guards, there’s no immediate consequence.
Mr Haigh: I’ve thought about that.
Her Honour: So I just wonder about your sense of right and wrong.
Mr Haigh: I’ve looked at the road rage thing because its become such a problem in society and I’ve thought how I would avoid that, and I thought primarily by having an old jalopy, cos it wouldn’t matter if somebody got out of their car and started banging mine with a hammer, because my property wouldn’t be of a great value and I’d have no need to protect it, to my detriment or anyone else’s, so the point you’re making is a valid one, but it is something that I’ve considered. I’ve looked at ---
Her Honour: I’m just using that as an example because there are obviously all sorts of pressures that happen day-to-day in society very different to the pressures that happen in jail and what I’m – I just don’t know where you’d fall in respect to that.
Mr Haigh: Jail is a microcosm your honour it’s not devoid of everything that society ---
Her Honour: No I understand. But you have been without the societal pressures, which are, for what I can see, quite different. I have no doubt that there are pressures in jail but they are quite a different sort of pressure and I just wonder how you’d cope with an entirely fresh set of pressures.
Mr Haigh: They have more reasonable avenues of resolve your Honour out there. If I’m not happy with somebody’s actions there’s means of addressing them. I’m not a man that will rush into something any more. I will go through the options before it ever came to contemplating anything extreme, and there is so many options out there that I see violence as a negligible possibility. Also that’s were structure comes in I believe. I would be closely supervised and have a support system that I would be able to go to and depend upon. I don’t say that I wouldn’t have any problems establishing myself in society I think it will be very, very, very difficult but I hope to have professionals guiding me and professionals there to consult with to counsel me.
Letter to Court – 25 January 2008 (Exhibit 6)
This was a hand-written letter to the court, stating that you are a changed man, that you have experienced remorse for what you have done, and that you have suffered greatly in prison (“prison has been a crucible for me ever since I first embraced the hard truth about myself”). You wrote that to prolong your sentence into “a pointless and unnecessary torture” would amount to “interminable revenge” and defeat the purpose of rehabilitation.
With regard to your feelings, you stated that you have feelings, but are always controlling them, that this was something you have had to do throughout your life. You wrote that you are not “the terribly dangerous creatures others may think” you are. You say that during your time in prison, you have learnt how to “reason, judge, and choose”. As proof of this change in yourself, you point to the fact that you have served most of your sentence without any serious problems.
Letter from Dr Sarah Miller – 26 February 2008
Letter confirming that you have requested access to offence specific counselling at Port Phillip Prison, and that you will be assessed for your treatment needs following your court outcome. The process will be undertaken by Ms Nicole Sakellaridis, Senior Clinician, Major offenders Unit, Corrections Victoria.
I received written submissions from both the crown and the Applicant in this matter.
Transcript of proceeding – 19 June 2008
Defence counsel made a further submission in addition to their written submissions, being that as far as they are aware, there has never been a case where an applicant for a minimum term has not ultimately succeeded in obtaining one under the provisions under which this application is made. There was some discussion of the length of the minimum term and it is was confirmed that you did not feel that there would be any benefit from a minimum term of 40 years. The defence further argued that you had undertaken rehabilitation without the encouragement of a minimum term, and that this should be taken into account.
The prosecution argued the rehabilitation was not as extensive as suggested and that the risk of recidivism is still great. The prosecution submitted that Haigh follows the law as he sees fit, according to his own morality, which is distorted compared to general society.
The House of Blue Light
I have not discussed the contents of the book written by you, as I found it not particularly helpful in determining your current attitudes, and the subject matter that you discussed does not assist you, or the court in deciding the issues. It does not indicate that you are a well balanced person, and as it has been written over a period of many years earlier, I prefer to rely upon the more current information supplied to the Court in the form of your evidence and various documents you have compiled in more recent times, for example exhibits 6 and 7.
Conclusion
This application has caused me great concern, you have been in custody for a very long time, and without a minimum term face many more years of incarceration. I have read and re read the materials numerous times, as well as recalling the evidence of witnesses, most particularly your evidence.
You were, I have no doubt, being honest in your answers to the court, and sometimes, in fact, many times, to your own detriment. That may well be part of your personality, I am unable to say, but I did find you an honest witness. The task of determining whether a minimum term should be granted is a serious task, that requires the court to examine the matters from the community’s perspective as well as the applicant’s.
Pursuant to the Sentencing Act 1991[40] the court must fix a period during which an offender is not eligible to be released on parole, unless it considers that the nature of the offence, or the past history of the offender make the fixing of such a period inappropriate.
[40]Section 11(1) (a)
The circumstances of the separate murder of six members of the community, together with the callous and brutal manner in which they were murdered would in my opinion make the fixing of such a period inappropriate. The fact that some of them were involved in criminal activity does nothing to demean the value of their lives. You are not the Judge, jury and executioner, who can determine who may live and die, and they were as entitled to live as any other member of this community. They undoubtedly had people who loved them, who mourned their loss, who grieved for many years, as would the families of your other victims.
Many of the witnesses called to give evidence in support of you stated the obvious – the courts have not had to deal with some one who’s offences were so many, so brutal and so harsh. That is what places you into the category of someone who would be expected to remain incarcerated for your remaining years.
The fact that you come before this court so many years after the offences have occurred, and having had so many years in which to reflect and consider the crimes you committed, has placed you in an exceptional position. You have had the opportunity to demonstrate that you are a person who has changed and understands and accepts the values and mores of this community.
This you have failed to do.
I am not satisfied that you are a person who accepts society’s values and laws. I find that you accept only those laws that you agree with, and reject those laws of which you do not approve or with which you disagree. I find that you are still predominately concerned with yourself, what the experts have called egocentric, and although it has been modified to a significant degree, it is still an obvious feature of your demonstrated personality. You are capable of understanding and feeling remorse, but once again to a very limited degree, and I find that you have no real empathy with your fellow man. You are able to understand the issues intellectually, but are not capable of feeling true sympathy or compassion for any person unless they are someone that you love and care about. You remain a callous individual, although like aspects of your personality this has also been tempered over time, and by the aging process. It is clear from your evidence that you believe that to punish you any longer for these crimes is unfair, and your own self interest is evident. You are still quick to react to any perceived unfairness, and whilst this is tempered while you are detained in an institution, it is entirely unpredictable what may occur when you are so restrained.
The object of this legislation is not preventative detention, but amelioration of a sentence already imposed, if such is applicable, in light of the circumstances of the offending and your past history. I am of the view that the combination of those matters makes the imposition of a minimum term not appropriate.
You informed the court that you would not be interested in a minimum term that exceeded 30 years, and certainly not as high as 40 years. At no time, even if I considered a minimum term appropriate, would the minimum term have been any less than 40 years, and may well have been more, had I been convinced it was appropriate.
To refuse to grant a minimum term is an extreme punishment, but the task of court in this application is one that is dealing with extreme crimes. As I referred to earlier in this judgment[41]
Sentencing judges must remain full conscious of what has been said in decisions of the highest authority about rehabilitation and the beneficial objects to be served by the fixing of a non parole period. They will remain well aware that a sentence of life imprisonment with no possibility of parole is a sentence of the utmost severity. It is a dreadful sentence, at all events for an offender who is not of an advanced age. But dreadful crimes, especially where the past history is bad, may require a dreadful punishment.
[41]R v Coulston 462
The application for a minimum term is refused.
---
0
0