R v Herman
[2005] VSC 234
•1 July 2005
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted | |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 1482 of 2005
| THE QUEEN |
| v |
| TANIA LEE-ANNE HERMAN |
---
JUDGE: | TEAGUE J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 28 June 2005 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 1 July 2005 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v Tania Lee-Anne Herman | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2005] VSC 234 | |
---
Criminal Law – Sentencing – Attempted Murder – Planned attempt to strangle another woman – crime of passion – extensive co-operation with authorities – Sentence of twelve years in prison – Nine years non-parole period.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr J. Rapke Q.C. | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Ms J. Sutherland | Victoria Legal Aid |
HIS HONOUR:
You have pleaded guilty to the attempted murder at Mickleham on 9 February 2005 of Maria Korp. As I pass this sentence, Maria Korp is not dead, but she is close to death. She remains in the Alfred Hospital, having been there now for over 4 months. Despite the best efforts of doctors and nurses, she has remained unconscious. She is unlikely to survive much longer.
The attempted murder of Maria Korp was a planned callous attack on a devoted mother of two children in her own home. Maria Korp was not known to you personally. Most, if not all, that you knew about her was what had been told to you by her husband, Joe Korp. In February 2005, you were passionately in love with Joe Korp. You did to Maria Korp what you had agreed with Joe Korp to do. Your attack was intended to result in her death in a way that would not be traced to you or to Joe Korp.
You were driven to the Korp home in Mickleham around 6 a.m. on 9 February 2005 by Joe Korp. You stayed in the garage. You waited for Maria Korp to go to her car to drive to work as per her usual routine. You had a strap ready. The strap was to be used to strangle Maria Korp. That strap was but one of a number of items that were part of the plan. Things did not go altogether according to plan. When you came at her, and got the strap around her neck, Maria Korp resisted. She screamed. She struggled. You pulled the strap tighter. In the struggle, you lost balance and the two of you went to the floor. You kept the strap tight. You were too strong for her. She went limp. She bled from the nose and mouth. You concluded that she was then dead. You bundled her into the boot of her own car. You drove out of the garage. You headed for the city. At one stage, as you were driving, you heard the sound of gasping for air. You chose not to check. You parked the car near the Shrine of Remembrance. You took from the car anything that might identify you. You locked the car. You went to where your brother worked in the city. You prevailed on him to drive you home.
9 February was a Wednesday. That evening, the police were notified by Joe Korp that Maria Korp was missing. The police investigations led them to speaking with you on the Thursday. You denied any involvement in the disappearance of Maria Korp. You did nothing to alert anyone, save Joe Korp, as to the whereabouts of Maria Korp after you left the car on the Wednesday morning. On the following Sunday, police learned of the car’s location. They found Maria Korp unconscious and barely alive in the boot. The police spoke to you again on the Sunday. You maintained your denials, your lies. Events over the next three days led to the police interviewing you again on 16 February. By then, you had decided to co-operate with the police. Your co-operation from that point has been invaluable.
It is appropriate to outline but a short summary of events prior to 9 February in order to provide some background to understanding how you came to do what you did. You came into contact in late 2003 with Joe Korp through an internet service. It appears that in what followed, you were upfront as to what you were looking for, but that you were hopelessly naïve as to what Joe Korp was looking for. You became besotted with him. You believed his lies. You allowed him to control your life. Your family and friends could see what was happening. But you were blinkered, if not blinded, by your passion for him. How he strengthened your dependence on him by staging his own death and re-appearance during 2004 is a striking instance of how he came to control you. His words were ringing in your ears as you went about your plans to murder Maria Korp.
I return to the subject of your co-operation. On 16 February, you were interviewed at length. You made significant admissions. You also provided information as to means of confirming your story. A few days ago, you have provided a detailed statement. You have agreed to provide further statements if needed. You have sworn before me as to the truth of the matters contained in that statement. The credibility of much of what is set out in the statement has been verified from independent sources. You have undertaken before me to give evidence at any committal or trial of Joe Korp in accordance with the terms of that statement. You have assured me that you understand that not to comply with that undertaking would result in your being re-sentenced.
There is a victim impact statement before me from Laura, the daughter of Maria Korp. Most of it has been read in court, and appropriately so. It is an important balancing aspect of the sentencing process to have the serious consequences to loved ones made known. Laura’s life has forever been changed for the worse because of what you did to her mother and friend. What she has said as to her step-brother Daniel, makes it clear that he too has suffered badly.
I turn to your background. You are now 38 years of age, having been born in November 1966. You were the youngest of four children, born and raised in northern Victoria. Between the ages of 8 and 14 you suffered sexual abuse. I accept that there can be sound reasons for your choosing not to disclose the abuser. The courts are too well aware of the adverse consequences of such abuse. The evidence of Patrick Newton before me related how the abuse and other aspects of your past have had links to failures in your relationship with three men before Joe Korp came along, and to your having developed a dependent personality disorder. His evidence was that you have a level of intelligence well above normal. Of course, emotional maturity does not equate with a high IQ. But you now face a long period in prison. You will have the chance, as well as the capacity, to do studies that will aid in your rehabilitation.
You have two daughters, whose care must now be left to others. You have a supportive family, who will assist as to the younger daughter. She and you have in recent times had health scares.
I have to weigh against the extremely serious nature of your crime, several significant mitigating factors that operate in your favour. You have pleaded guilty at an early stage. You have no prior convictions. There are many indications of your genuine remorse. I assess the prospects of rehabilitation as excellent.
The most significant mitigating factor is your co-operation with the authorities. Your co-operation may mean that you will have to spend some time in protection, with all the restrictions that that entails. You have given an undertaking which is to be noted in the court records. Specifically, you have undertaken to assist the police and give evidence for the prosecution against Joe Korp in relation to any charges against him arising out of the causing of injuries on 9 February 2005 to Maria Korp. Your choice to assist the authorities has several implications. It warrants a very large reduction in the sentence imposed for purely utilitarian reasons dictated by the public interest. If it had not been for the co-operation past and future and the other mitigating factors, you would have been sentenced by me to a period of imprisonment that would have been a number of years greater than I am about to impose.
I have signed the order for a buccal swab as sought and not objected to. I impose a sentence of twelve years. I set a non-parole period of nine years. I declare that the period of 136 days is the period of pre-sentence detention already served by you as part of the sentence. I direct that that declaration be entered in the court records.
0
0
0