R v Howard (No 2)
[2006] VSC 376
•16 October 2006
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 1477 of 2002
| THE QUEEN |
| v |
| PETER JOHN HOWARD |
---
JUDGE: | HARPER J | |
WHERE HELD: | MELBOURNE | |
DATES OF HEARING: | 8, 11-15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29 SEPTEMBER, 2-6, 9-11 OCTOBER 2006 12 OCTOBER 2006 (Plea) | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 16 OCTOBER 2006 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v HOWARD (No. 2) | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2006] VSC 376 | |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Female victim stabbed in her home – Plea of not guilty – Prior convictions for armed robbery and kidnapping – No evidence of remorse – Sentence to a maximum of twenty years with a non-parole period of fifteen years.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr C. Hillman SC | Angela Cannon, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr C. Dane QC with Mr P. Bourke | Simon English & Associates |
HIS HONOUR:
Peter John Howard, you have for the second time been found guilty by a jury of the murder of Olive Maas. The first verdict was overturned on appeal. You did not, however, appeal against the sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment (with a non-parole period of 15 years) that, on 12 March 2004, was imposed by the trial judge, Justice Williams, following your earlier conviction.
In these circumstances, it seemed to me that, unless I have some appropriate reason for imposing a different sentence, I should make no change to that pronounced by her Honour on the previous occasion. Both your counsel and the prosecutor agreed. Nevertheless, the decision must be mine. I must examine with care the reasons expressed by Justice Williams in her sentencing remarks, and take into account the evidence called in the trial over which I recently presided. I must also have regard to the submissions made by counsel during the plea hearing that took place last Thursday, 12 October 2006, and to all relevant statutory provisions. These of course include, in particular, the provisions of the Sentencing Act 1991.
The death of Olive Maas was an example of the inexplicable savagery with which humans are sometimes capable. Without any apparent motive, you attacked your neighbour early one morning while she was, as she must have thought, secure in the comfort of her home. On some 30 occasions (an exact calculation is impossible) you plunged a knife into her body. One blow penetrated the area surrounding her left eye, including her skull and her brain. One of her ribs was fractured. A number of the blows injured her lungs and heart. While this was happening, she was attempting, with her bare hands and arms, to protect herself. As a final searing indignity, the knife was left where it last entered her body, penetrating the side of her chest to its hilt. You subjected Olive Maas to almost as horrible a death as any person in this country can ever have endured.
For this, you have exhibited no remorse. Justice Williams could find none, and nothing has been put to me to suggest its presence.
Nor is there any reason to think that you have any prospects of rehabilitation. Your age is of course a factor in this, as it is a factor to be taken more generally into account when fixing an appropriate sentence. But, as Justice Williams remarked, you were on 1 April 1976 sentenced to seven years gaol, with a minimum of two years, after a plea of guilty to one count of robbery and seven counts of kidnapping following an armed robbery on a bank. Any rehabilitation and deterrence that might have resulted from that sentence was not enough to prevent the murder of Ms Maas at a time when you were 70 years of age.
I know of your life only that fragment which was revealed during the trial, and that to which Justice Williams referred in her sentencing remarks. You are now 75 years old, having been born in Tasmania on 28 September 1931. The judge by whom you were sentenced in 1976 noted that you had not worked since 1970, and that you had, before then, resigned from an unusually large number of jobs. What these jobs were, and why you resigned, remains unknown, save that nervous troubles and personal difficulties seem to have played a part. It also seems that, between 1970 and 1976, you supported yourself by managing a small portfolio of shares; but you lost them, and your confidence, in an economic recession. By 1976, you were living with no wife, no friends, and no money. It may be that none of this was any fault of yours. It is certainly not for me, with my very limited knowledge, to make any judgment about that. Possible sources of difficulty could include psychiatric or psychological problems; but neither Justice Williams nor I have been given any reason to think that you suffer from any mental disease or intellectual disability. On the other hand, there was evidence before the court in 1976 that you are subject to severe personality disturbances, have a low tolerance for stress, and have exhibited a tendency towards medically significant anxiety. I have taken this into account when considering the appropriate sentence.
It has been said that age is always a relevant sentencing factor.[1] But so is deterrence, the denunciation of the conduct that resulted in Olive Maas’ death, and the protection of the community from any further offences which - even at your age and given that you are perhaps less physically capable of committing now the crime that you perpetrated in 2002 - might be committed by you were you not in prison. All these considerations must be given sufficient weight, even if the result is a sentence that leaves little prospect of life after release.
[1]R v Whyte [2004] VSCA 5; R v Bazley (1993) 65 A Crim R 154.
You have some health problems, but they will probably be managed as well or better in prison than they would outside. Indeed, it may well be that you will more readily obtain in prison than elsewhere the generally acceptable minimum standards for human life. Certainly, it could not be said that, by reason of your health, imprisonment will be a greater burden upon you than it otherwise would. Nor could it be said that there is a serious risk that your incarceration will have a gravely adverse effect on your health.
Like Justice Williams, I have read the victim impact statements. Like her, I was moved by them. They paint a picture of Olive Maas as a person of substance: with an excellent sense of humour, a love of her local Lutheran church, and a warm and generous personality. In Justice Williams’ words, Olive Maas “gathered neighbours and friends together.” That she is no longer available to her friends, neighbours and relatives is the occasion for them of much very understandable sadness and anger.
Mr Dane has made the point that you are not now the person you were when sentenced by Justice Williams. Doubtless that is true, if only because you are now three years older than you were then. But this factor will be taken into account when calculating the time you have already spent in gaol. I have already referred to the possible diminution of your physical capacity; otherwise, the passage of time is not a matter of such substance as to warrant, by itself, any change in the sentence previously imposed.
Taking into account all the relevant considerations, I can find no basis for coming to a different sentencing result than that which was fixed upon by her Honour. Accordingly, I sentence you to imprisonment for 20 years, and direct that you serve at least 15 years before becoming eligible for parole. I declare that the period of 1578 days be reckoned as already having been served under this sentence, and direct that this declaration and its details be entered in the records of the Court.
---
0