R v Horrocks
[2000] VSC 467
•5 October 2000
| SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | |
| CRIMINAL DIVISION | Not Restricted |
No. 1429 of 2000
| THE QUEEN |
| v. |
| JONATHAN BRETT HORROCKS |
---
JUDGE: | VINCENT, J. | |
WHERE HELD: | MELBOURNE | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 5 OCTOBER 2000 | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2000] VSC 467 | |
---
CATCHWORDS: Guilty plea to murder, attempted murder and reckless conduct endangering life.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
For the Crown | Mr. J. Dickson QC | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr. N. Papas | Victoria Legal Aid |
HIS HONOUR:
Jonathon Brett Horrocks, you have pleaded guilty to the murder at Bundoora in the State of Victoria on 3 August 1999 of Leonardo Michael Capraro, and at the same time and place, of the attempted murder of Sally Virginia Mitchell and engaging in conduct endangering the life of Michael Robert Torney.
It is now my responsibility to impose sentence upon you.
In this context, I note in your favour that you have no prior criminal history and accept that, until the time of the commission of the crimes which bring you before this court, you conducted yourself as a socially responsible person of good character. I have heard a deal of evidence, which I accept, with respect to your personal history and your contributions to the community in this regard.
The background to and circumstances surrounding the commission of these offences have not been the subject of any controversy in the proceeding and need only be set out in a relatively brief form at this stage.
At approximately 11.05 a.m. on the morning of 3 August 1999, you left your accommodation at Chisholm College which is situated in the grounds of La Trobe University campus at Bundoora. You were armed with a .38 calibre six shot Smith & Wesson revolver and you had in your possession 45 rounds of live ammunition. On a desk in your room you left a note reading:
"I'm not crazy. I tried every legal way possible to find justice for being wronged. This is a warning to employers, politicians and corrupt men of authority. The little guy is getting tired of being used and shat upon with no avenues for fair play".
The note contained a concluding quotation from Shakespeare, "Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war." How different is that note in tone and content from the one handed to me by your counsel at the completion of the plea made on your behalf. Before reading it, I should point out that a judge neither has nor would want the kind of arbitrary personal power to which you advert and which you attempted to arrogate to yourself on the occasion that brings you before this court. Judges are representatives of the community bound by an oath of office and obligated to deal with those that come before the courts in accordance with concepts and principles of justice laid down by Parliament or established by precedent.
The note reads:
"Your Honour, I stand here as your suppliant. I know I have done a terrible, terrible thing and caused great sorrow and pain to the family of the victim. Please believe me that I am very remorseful for my crime and find it difficult to come to terms with. Every day I think of what I have done and still cannot believe what drove me to it. My plea to you, Your Honour, is for leniency despite the degree of culpability of my crime and it is my heartfelt wish to one day be allowed to go back to my small home town and look after my ageing mother and at the same time help the community in any way I can. My life is in your hands. I thank you, Your Honour."
Returning to the events, your specific objective at the time that you left your accommodation was to kill Mr Capraro, Ms Mitchell and a man named Kevin Coates. However, you also intended to shoot whoever else you may have encountered in the course of your rampage. You anticipated that there could have been another four or five persons who might have fallen into this category. These people, who are at that stage unknown to you, and who you may never have even met, were to become your innocent victims in the true sense of that term. You subsequently asserted that you wanted to create a dramatic situation in which there would be an ensuing shoot-out with the police in which you would be killed. It seems that you reasoned that the more people you killed, the more likely it would be that you would in turn be shot. Whilst I have some reservations that you unequivocally encompassed your own destruction in this fashion, noting that you had a car parked nearby and you had car keys available to you, I consider that I should in the proper application of sentencing principles approach your actions on this basis.
You walked to a location known as the Eagle Bar which was situated on the lower level of the La Trobe University Union Building. You were aware that the bar, a licensed liquor outlet, was not due to open until midday, but you expected that two of your intended victims would be present, whilst the third was likely to be found in his office on an upper floor in the building.
You entered the main bar area where Ms Mitchell was making a cup of hot chocolate for herself before commencing work. You walked to a position behind her and said, "Hi Sally". She responded cordially, turned and observed that you were pointing a handgun in her direction. Without warning or explanation of any kind you then fired at her. Remarkably she received a grazing injury to the upper right chest. She stumbled backwards and then ran behind an island style bar.
You did not pursue her and walked a short distance to the office of Mr Capraro who was the bar manager. You fired five shots in his direction hitting him four times and killing him. Having emptied your revolver, you then commenced to reload the weapon. Whilst your attention was directed away from her, Ms Mitchell escaped from the bar area and ran from the building to seek assistance. As she did so, you moved up the stairs to an administration area that was located on the second floor of the building in search of the third of your specific victims, Mr Coates.
By that time, a number of members of the staff of the union who were present in the building had been warned about what was happening and had commenced to barricade themselves in their offices. Mr Michael Torney, who also had an office on the second floor, was attempting to lock an access door to the staff work area in order to protect other personnel and himself when he was suddenly confronted by you. You were holding the handgun in both hands and pointed towards the floor in what has been described as "the classical at the ready position" when he grabbed you in an attempt to remove the firearm from your possession. At that stage the gun discharged, but fortunately no injury was sustained by anyone. I accept, for present purposes, that the weapon was not intentionally fired. Mr Torney struggled with you until he was able to cause you to drop the gun. With the assistance of other staff members, he then managed to overpower you and you were held until security staff and police arrived. You told investigating police members, when subsequently interviewed, that it was your intention to shoot Mr Torney but that he seized you before you were able to fire.
There are no mitigating features of which I am aware associated with the offences themselves. Indeed, the evidence which includes your own confessional statements clearly shows that, had you not been stopped by Mr Torney, an even greater tragedy probably would have resulted.
With respect to the origin of the weapon that you had in your possession, you also told interviewing police members that you had purchased it from some unknown male at a Port Melbourne hotel about a week earlier.
Mr Dickson of Her Majesty's counsel, who appeared as prosecutor, said that the Crown did not accept the explanation that you provided on this aspect, on the basis that it was highly implausible and, in some respects, inconsistent with evidence concerning the withdrawal of money from your bank account in previous weeks. Whilst I consider that their scepticism is certainly justified, I do not think that the precise origin of the gun assumes much significance in the overall context of this matter. Of considerably more importance are the facts that you had been planning and preparing for some time for the possible commission of crimes of the order which you committed. The putting aside of money over a period of weeks to secure the weapon and ammunition, whatever its precise origin, emphasises and demonstrates the deliberateness with which you ultimately acted. Even if what you said to the police was true, you would still have obtained the gun a week before it was used and in the clear contemplation that it may become a murder weapon.
Your state of motivation for engaging in what you intended to be a destructive orgy resulting in your own death, was a sense of grievance concerning the way in which you perceived that you had been treated by Mr Capraro, Ms Mitchell and fellow workmates at the Eagle Bar where you had been employed as a casual barman for approximately two years. At its heart lay a reduction in the number of hours which had been allocated to you for work. You considered that no appropriate explanation had been provided for what you regarded as an arbitrary and unjustified decision that had significant impact upon your financial situation as a student at the university and represented a serious personal slight to you. It appears that you associated the approach that had been adopted with a rumour that you were responsible for the theft of some liquor that was missing from bar stocks; an allegation, it should be pointed out, that you have always denied.
As Mr Coates was at that time the business manager of the La Trobe University Union at the Bundoora campus, you regarded him as the person who bore the ultimate responsibility for the injustice which you perceived had been perpetrated and you decided that he too should suffer your vengeance in the event that you were unable to obtain satisfaction.
You sought redress through the making of complaints concerning this decision and felt that these were treated in a cavalier fashion. A claim which you lodged for compensation through the WorkCover authorities resulted in an unsuccessful conciliation process that was concluded only a short time before you acted.
Whilst there is uncertainty as to the point at which you finally resolved to carry out your plan, as I have earlier indicated, it is apparent that you had given much thought to the matter and for some time had been harbouring the idea of killing those who you regarded as responsible for your situation. You raised the possibility on more than one occasion with a counsellor employed by the university and again with a psychologist who examined you for the purposes of your WorkCover claim. It appears that you were seriously contemplating the possibility of staging an incident of the kind that took place in the event that your claim was not satisfied well before 3 August.
However, to approach your conduct on the limited basis discussed to this stage would, of course, be simplistic. It is evident that your rampage represented the expression of a long-standing sense of personal insecurity and deep hatred and anger towards a world with which you found it extremely difficult to cope in an adequate fashion. You wanted to make heroic, a life of disappointment, perceived rejection and unfilled aspirations, whilst at the same time bringing death and pain to persons who symbolically represented the causes of your alienation and unhappiness.
I have read the victim impact statements filed in the court and have yet again observed the terrible legacy of continuing pain and distress that is occasioned by conduct of the kind in which you engaged. Sadly you have to that extent achieved your objective. There is, of course, no heroism in discharging four bullets into the body of an unarmed man who was quietly working in his office or firing your revolver at Ms Mitchell who was engaged in nothing more aggressive than making a cup of hot chocolate or in confronting Mr Torney with a loaded weapon; a man incidentally that you referred to as an idiot because he had possessed the courage to attempt to disarm you. Nor could there, to the normal mind, be any sense of justice achievable by your actions even if you had been most grievously wronged by some of those who you encountered in a difficult or unhappy life and even if your actions were directed against those specific persons. The infliction of pain or death upon the innocent is even further removed from any notion of justice.
However, as I have indicated, these are not the only matters to which a sentencing judge must have regard. Each case and each offender must be considered in the light cast by all of the circumstances relevant to the particular case and the individual concerned.
With respect to your personal circumstances I note that you are now aged 39 years. You appear to have been born into and raised in a relatively stable environment, but one in which some tension developed between your father and yourself from a quite early stage of your development.
You have been described as a relatively lonely child who was subject to bullying at school, not involved in sport and who is seemingly less successful than your siblings.
You are intelligent but you did not develop any scholastic ambition until considerably later in life.
Upon leaving school you attempted to join the police force but were rejected by reason of a hearing difficulty. You then pursued a fairly aimless life travelling around Australia and New Zealand, engaged generally in construction work.
You have experienced episodes of serious depression in the past and received some psychiatric assistance following at least one suicide attempt. Your last such attempt was made whilst you were in custody a few months ago.
Although you suffered no mental impairment of a kind that would absolve you of criminal responsibility, it is important when considering your motivation and the degree of your personal culpability to take into account the evidence given by two very experienced forensic psychiatrists, Professor Mullen and Dr Barry-Walsh, and the equally experienced forensic psychologist, Mr Joblin. They have all expressed the opinion that you have suffered from a long-standing depressive condition which impacted in a variety of ways upon your capacity to deal with the shocks and slights of ordinary existence. Ultimately they opine, unprepared to endure the situation any longer, you struck out committing acts of an extraordinarily violent and self-destructive character.
As my earlier comments have indicated, I consider that there is much force in this analysis. However, it does not in my opinion, necessarily provide a complete explanation for your behaviour. If you were as depressed as has been suggested, it is surprising that you managed to conceal a condition of that degree of intensity as successfully as you obviously did in the weeks and days leading to 3 August. The approach is also based on the assumption that your feelings of anger represented the expression of underlying depression, a proposition that I regard as somewhat problematic.
As I have remarked, you are an intelligent person who understood the nature and significance of the actions which you undertook after considerable deliberation.
I have availed myself of the opportunity to view the video recording of the interview to which I have earlier adverted. It is notable for the depth of the hatred which you displayed and which extended well beyond your victims. Nevertheless, I consider that I should approach the matter on the basis that you were at the time in a deeply disturbed state of mind and suffering from depression and that your intense anger may well have been the product and expression of that situation. That finding carries a number of consequences. Among other matters, it impacts upon your level of personal culpability which must be regarded as reduced. It has relevance to the significance of the principle of general deterrence as a sentencing consideration which should in the circumstances be regarded as lessened. Whilst that principle has application, in my opinion, in your case, I do not consider that it would be proper to give full effect and force to it in a situation where the functioning of the perpetrator can be seen to have been impaired and his level of personal and moral culpability accordingly reduced. And, of course, it must be taken into account when considering your prospects of eventual reintegration into the community. With the passage of time and the provision of appropriate assistance, hopefully your underlying condition can be addressed and your successful reintegration achievable.
However, it cannot be forgotten that you staged what you declared and intended to be an act of war against specific individuals and symbolically against the wider community. This court representing a community, which has experienced other such incidents over recent years, must through the sentences that it imposes upon those who act in this fashion express societal denunciation and make it perfectly clear that conduct of this kind will not be tolerated. Those who act in the fashion that you have done must anticipate that, as a matter of just retribution, if committed, very substantial penalties will be imposed. Additionally, the courts have a duty insofar as they are able to do so and to the extent that it is consistent with the proper application of other sentencing principles endeavour to protect the citizens of this community against such outrages and the risk that you pose.
I accept and take into account possibility that you may well have experienced a degree of remorse, although it seems that you still have limited insight into your actions and their significance and you consider that you were only partially responsible for what occurred.
I have had regard to and take into account your plea of guilty which has obviated the need for a full trial.
I am familiar with and have had regard to the range of sentences which have been imposed in the courts over recent years for the offences to which you have pleaded guilty, bearing in mind that each situation must be approached separately and only general guidance can be derived from the sentences handed down in other cases.
In all of the circumstances I consider that the following sentences should be imposed: For the murder of Leonardo Michael Capraro (Count 1 on the presentment) you are sentenced to imprisonment for life. For the attempted murder of Sally Virginia Mitchell (Count 2 on the presentment) you are sentenced to imprisonment for a term of nine years. For engaging in conduct endangering the life of Michael Robert Torney (Count 3 on the presentment) you are sentenced to imprisonment for a term of four years. Two years of the sentence imposed on Count 3 is to be served cumulatively with the sentence imposed on Count 2. Both of those sentences are to be served concurrently with the sentence of imprisonment imposed on Count 1.
I fix a non-parole period of 23 years.
I declare that the period of pre-sentence detention, being 430 days, be reckoned as having been served under the sentence hereby imposed and I direct that this declaration and its details be entered into the records of the court.
HIS HONOUR: Is there anything else I have to do at this stage?
MR DICKSON: No, Your Honour.
---
0
0
0