R v Karatzas
[2019] VSC 658
•26 September 2019
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S CR 2018 0164
| THE QUEEN |
| v |
| ANASTASIOS KARATZAS |
---
JUDGE: | Beale J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 24 July 2019 |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 26 September 2019 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v Karatzas |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2019] VSC 658 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Mid-range example of offence – D strangled wife with extension cord – No history of domestic violence – Offended during Major Depressive Episode – Verdins principles 1, 3 & 4 applicable – Remorse – Previously good character – No prior convictions – Good prospects of rehabilitation – Elderly offender – Limited life expectancy – Sentenced to 16 years’ imprisonment – Non-parole period of 11 years.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr M Rochford QC with Ms A French | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr P Tehan QC with Dr T Alexander | James Harris Lawyers |
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
Anastasios Karatzas, after a short trial, you were convicted of the murder of your wife, Georgia Karatzas, on 20 November 2017.
The only issue in dispute at your trial was whether you killed her with murderous intent, that is, with an intention to kill or to cause really serious injury. There was unchallenged expert evidence that you were suffering a Major Depressive Episode at the time you killed your wife. In the days leading up to your offence, your daughter Dimitra was so concerned about your deteriorating mental health that she made an appointment for you to see your GP on 21 November 2017. There was also unchallenged evidence that you loved your wife to whom you had been married for nearly 50 years and that you had never been violent to her before. But tragically, on the morning of 20 November 2017, after a disagreement between you and your wife, you “snapped” and strangled her with an electrical extension cord until she collapsed on the laundry floor, whereupon you fled the scene. Unsurprisingly, the jury were satisfied that, when you strangled her, to death, you at least intended to inflict really serious injury. But let me now turn to a more detailed account of the lead-up to your offending on 20 November 2017, and the aftermath.
Circumstances of Offending
On Monday 20 November 2017, your daughter Dimitra, who lived with you, got up at about 6.15am and commenced getting ready for work. Soon afterwards, you and your wife Georgia got up and walked into the kitchen.
Dimitra noticed you pacing around before you eventually sat down. Dimitra heard Georgia say to you:
Stop thinking, you are tiring yourself out, everything will be okay.
You then drove Dimitra to her work at Chadstone Shopping Centre.
After dropping her at work, you returned home to retrieve some tools that you had forgotten to take with you to the renovations you were doing on another house you owned in Glen Iris. You walked into the laundry where your wife was doing the washing. You had an electrical extension cord in your hand which you were taking to the renovations.
You told psychiatrist Dr Andrew Carroll that:
·your wife said to you “why did you forget [the tools], it shouldn’t happen”;
·your wife’s criticism made you “very upset, angry”;[1]
·you “put [the electrical cord] on [her] neck”, and demonstrated to Dr Carroll a strong pulling movement with both hands, horizontally, away from each other;[2]
·you denied any pre-planning to harm your wife and said that you had lost your temper in that moment “because of everything…enough - explosion”;[3] and
·you had not wished to kill your wife and that you did not know you had done so until the following day.[4]
[1]Transcript of Proceedings, R v Karatzas (S CR 2018 0164, Beale J, 18 June 2019), 319.
[2]Ibid, 320.
[3]Ibid, T321.
[4]Ibid, 338–339.
Whether that hearsay account is accurate I cannot say. You did not give evidence at your trial or plea hearing. I find that there was a disagreement between you and your wife that morning and you snapped, and then strangled her to death with the extension cord. The fact that you were suffering from Major Depression at the time explains in large measure why you snapped.
The pathologist Dr Joanna Glengarry, who conducted the autopsy, gave the following evidence at your trial:
·there was no evidence of defensive injuries;
·the cause of death was neck compression for not less than 30 seconds;[5] and
·the force applied to the neck was significant given the fracturing of the larynx.[6]
[5]Ibid, 36.
[6]Ibid, 26 and 34.
After strangling your wife, you left the house and drove to Mount Waverley Railway Station, where you remained for the rest of the day.
At approximately 8.30am, your mother-in-law Magdaline, who lived with you, woke up to find her daughter in her nightgown, lying face down in the laundry. Her arms were tucked into her body and underneath her. Magdaline made her way into the backyard and yelled out to her neighbour for assistance.
He entered the house, found Georgia’s body and contacted ‘000’.
At 9.12am, paramedics arrived. Georgia was pronounced dead at the scene.
CCTV footage at Mount Waverley Railway Station reveals that you got out of your car from time to time but you spent the majority of the day sitting in your car in the car park.
At approximately 7.45pm, two Protective Service Officers (PSOs), who were patrolling Mount Waverley Railway Station car park, approached your car and spoke to you. You told them “I just had an argument with my wife during the day and I am just sitting here”.[7] The PSOs suggested that you go home. You said you were scared to go home but did not elaborate on why you were scared. The PSOs then gave you directions to go to Mount Waverley Police Station. You never attended the police station.[8]
[7]Ibid, 233.
[8]Ibid, 289.
Your whereabouts are then unknown until on the next day, 21 November 2017, you arrived at the home of your sister and brother-in-law, Efthalia and George Papaemmanouil, in Malvern. When you arrived at your sister’s house you asked if you could have a shower and a change of clothes.[9] Your niece, Betty, contacted your daughter, Dimitra to tell her that you were at the house. Dimitra got off the phone and notified the police, who had been searching for you. At approximately 8.25pm, police attended and arrested you in relation to the murder of your wife. You were transported to the Melbourne West Police Complex.
[9]Ibid, 225.
Upon arrival at the Melbourne West Police Complex, Dr Sophie Ping examined you and formed the opinion that you were fit to be interviewed. You were then interviewed by members of the Homicide Squad in relation to your wife’s death. You said:
Look, no excuse what I done it, I done it.
Because - I done it, because I'm not - I'm not a hundred percent health. I admit.
Because I have - I have long, 10 - 15 years, I can't remember, 10 - 15 years, big depression.[10]
[10]Transcript of Record of Interview on Tuesday 21 November 2017, Q &A 38, 39, 41 (as contained in the Depositions, R v Karatzas (S CR 2018 0164, 13 June 2018), 358–359).
Victim Impact Statement
I received one victim impact statement. It was from your daughter, Dimitra.
Her statement, which she read aloud at your plea hearing, is a moving one. She says that her life changed forever on 20 November 2017, as on that day, she lost both her parents. She says that her mother’s death did not seem real to her and was beyond comprehension. She says that her mother was her “rock”.
Notwithstanding her loss, Dimitra writes “I love my father more than ever and I have forgiven what was done”.
She describes your marriage to Georgia as one of love and respect and that the two of you worked, cooked and did chores together; you would even finish each other’s sentences. She says that your relationship with Georgia is something that she would look for in a relationship herself. Dimitra says you and Georgia met when you were 18 and married soon after. She says that the two of you worked tirelessly so that your two daughters would not go without.
Dimitra also writes of your long battle with depression for 15 or more years and remarks how as at 20 November 2017 you were not well and “something snapped”. Dimitra concludes, powerfully, that:
The last 46 years, I have watched a man show love, respect, loyalty and devotion to his wife, his daughters, his family and friends. One tragic moment does not define who Anastasios Tom Karatzas was and is to me. A loving father, husband, friend and so much more to so many people.
Objective seriousness of offending
Murder involves the taking of human life and is one of the most serious offences known to our law. It is for this reason that the maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment. However, like any other offence, there is a spectrum of seriousness for the offence of murder and I am obliged by High Court authority to consider where your offending falls on that spectrum.[11]
[11]R v Kilic [2016] 259 CLR 256.
The jury’s verdict means that they were satisfied that you had murderous intent. But given the unchallenged expert evidence that you were suffering from a Major Depressive Episode at the time of your offence, which may have clouded your thought processes and your appreciation of the consequences of your actions, and the unchallenged evidence that you loved your wife and had never been violent to her before, the jury may not have been satisfied that you intended to kill your wife. Speaking for myself, I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you intended to kill her and so will sentence you on the basis that your intention was to inflict really serious injury. This finding, which is consistent with the jury’s verdict, somewhat reduces your moral culpability but more importantly, your moral culpability is reduced significantly by the fact that you were in the grip of a Major Depressive Episode at the time of your offence.[12] I accept Dr Carroll’s evidence that, had it not been for your mental illness, it is very unlikely that you would have committed the offence for which I must sentence you today.
[12]See R v Verdins; Buckley; Vo (2007) 16 VR 269; [2007] VSCA 102.
Domestic violence murders are often upper range examples of the offence of murder, particularly where there has been a history of domestic violence. That is not your case. The fact that you killed your wife of nearly 50 years was a gross breach of trust which elevates the seriousness of your offending but, having regard to all the circumstances, and particularly your mental illness, I find that yours is a mid-range example of the offence of murder.[13]
[13]Your counsel accepted that your offence is a mid-range example of the offence of murder. The prosecution submitted that your offence is at least a mid-range example. See Transcript of Proceedings, R v Karatzas (S CR 2018 0164, Beale J, 24 July 2019), 18 and 23.
Circumstances of offender
Let me turn to your personal history and circumstances.
Your date of birth is 15 May 1949 and you are now 70 years’ old.
You were born and raised in Avlona — a small inland village in Greece. Your parents had two girls and four boys, you being the youngest. Three of your siblings are still alive, one in Melbourne, two in Greece.
Your parents were subsistence farmers. You told Dr Carroll that you have “good memories” of your childhood and that your parents were “amazing, I’m very lucky for my parents”.
You also have happy memories of school. Consistent with local practice at that time, you finished school around the age of 13 to work on the family farm.
As a teenager, you briefly trained as a mechanic in Greece before your parents sent you to Australia in 1966, at the age of 17. You travelled to Australia alone by boat.
You initially settled in Malvern and after a year or two you met your wife, Georgia. You were soon married and bought a home in Glen Iris. In 1969, your first daughter, Elizabeth, was born. Your second daughter, Dimitra, was born in 1973. At your trial, Dimitra gave evidence that you and Georgia absolutely loved each other and that you had never been violent towards Georgia, Elizabeth or herself, or even raise your voice in anger.[14]
[14]Transcript of Proceedings, R v Karatzas (S CR 2018 0164, Beale J, 13 June 2019), 186.
You have led an industrious life. After your arrival in Australia, you worked in various factories. In the late 1970s, you and your family moved to Albury for a year or two, where you had a fish and chip shop. You and your family then moved to Athens, Greece, where you ran a fruit shop for several years. You eventually decided to return to live in Australia. Following that, you purchased a fish and chip shop in Blackburn, but continued to live in Glen Iris. After some five years, that shop was sold, and you and your family moved into the home in Mount Waverley.
Following that, for approximately 25 years, you and your wife worked as contracted cleaners at Canterbury Primary School, a job which you would later describe as “one of the best”. You said that your job involved a lot more than cleaning. You have very positive memories of your time at the school. One of your character referees who gave evidence at your trial, Terry Poulton, was the principal at Canterbury Primary School between 1988 and 2007. He said you were extremely reliable and affable and always prepared to do jobs outside your job description if the need arose. He said nothing flustered you and that both you and your wife were highly regarded by the whole school community. He said you were extremely caring towards Georgia.
At your plea hearing, a written character reference was tendered from the former Physical Education teacher at the school, Barbara Chapman. She writes:
Tom’s relationship with the children at school from Prep to Year 6 was friendly and they always relied upon Tom to retrieve their balls from various roofs, which he willingly did for them. The school population treated Tom and Georgia with respect and it was obvious they appreciated their role at the school. There was no better indication of their respect and fondness than at the final school assembly each year. The school captains always presented Tom and Georgia with a gift of thanks and the enthusiastic response from the children was overwhelmingly sincere. This reaction was exactly the same during each of the 25 years I worked alongside Tom and Georgia.
You and Georgia were on a rolling five-year cleaning contract at the school. Unfortunately, in 2014, after a change in the administration of the school, the contract was not renewed but not because of any fault on your part. According to your daughter, Dimitra, you “never got over it”.
Mental illness
I now turn to your mental health history. You have a long history of depression and were diagnosed with Major Depression in 2005.[15] Since then you have been taking the anti-depressant Zoloft (also known as Sertraline).
[15]Ibid, 120.
You told Dr Carroll of a number of significant life stressors in the lead-up to your offence. These included: the loss of your much loved job at Canterbury Primary School; subsequent employment at a fish market not working out; a major infection which required hospitalisation; the ill health of your mother-in-law, taking up more of your wife’s time and energy; and the mental health issues faced by your daughter, Elizabeth, who also suffered depression.
On 13 October 2016, your family GP, Dr Medhat Youssef, increased your dosage of Zoloft from 100mgs to 150mgs. You were referred by Dr Youssef to Mr Alex Panagiotopolous, a psychologist who consulted with you on five occasions between November 2016 and July 2017. Mr Panagiotopolous, who determined that you presented with Major Depression and generalised anxiety gave evidence at your trial that you felt trapped as a result of your personal circumstances, stating “it’s like I’m in a gaol”.[16] Dr Carroll gave evidence at your trial that the metaphor of feeling trapped, or in the “prison of depression”, is common in the context of Major Depression.[17] Dr Carroll opined that you suffered a relapse of your Major Depressive Disorder in 2016.
[16]Transcript of Proceedings, R v Karatzas (S CR 2018 0164, Beale J, 13 June 2019), 163–164.
[17]Ibid, 315.
After you returned from a trip to Greece in September 2017, your mother-in-law suffered a fall and her health took a turn for the worse. As a result, your wife had to spend even more time caring for her mother. In addition to Dimitra, your daughter Elizabeth and her son, Anthony, would often stay over at your house.
You mentioned to Dr Carroll that having three generations living in one place was not working, and that your wife having to care for her mother was causing you a degree of stress as you did not have the same level of contact with your wife as you had previously.[18]
[18]Ibid, 313.
Your mood further declined and you returned to your GP in October 2017 and were again diagnosed with a Major Depressive Episode. On 12 October 2017, Dr Youssef increased your dose of Zoloft to 200mgs and added 2.5mgs of Zyprexa (also known as Olanzapine) as a mood stabiliser to help you sleep and relax.[19]
[19]Ibid, 120, 159.
It is clear on the evidence led at your trial that over the two months leading to the death of your wife, you showed symptoms of a Major Depressive Episode, including persistently lowered mood; diminished motivation and interest; irritability; reduced appetite; poor sleep; and anxious ruminations. By around the middle of November, your daughter Dimitra was so concerned about your condition that, as previously mentioned, she booked a further appointment for you to see Dr Youssef on 21 November 2017.[20] During the weekend prior to the offence, Dimitra noticed you deteriorate further, reporting that you said that you were not feeling well, you felt lifeless, restless and you were not talking much.[21] On Monday 20 November 2017, in the kitchen not long before you strangled your wife, Dimitra noticed that you were pacing around and staring out the kitchen window, not acting like yourself, lifeless. Your wife at this stage patted you on the back. You did not speak at all when driving Dimitra to work that morning.[22]
[20]Ibid, 200.
[21]Ibid, 202.
[22]Ibid, 202, 203.
At your trial Dr Carroll gave the following evidence as regards your likely mental state at the time of the offence:
·your violent outburst was not part of a pattern of repeated episodes of violence by you,[23] there was no evidence of any prior episodes of you losing your temper to the extent that you had been violent in this way[24] and there was no evidence in the materials indicating a history of arguments between Georgia and you;[25]
[23]Ibid, 338.
[24]Ibid, 350.
[25]Ibid, 355.
·the pattern of your psychiatric history was consistent with a recurrent Major Depressive Disorder, that is, a disorder which has involved more than one episode over the years.[26] In at least the one to two months prior to the death of your wife, you showed evidence of a moderately severe Major Depressive Episode, the symptoms of which included diminished motivation and interest in your renovation work, some degree of irritability, reduced appetite, slight weight loss, poor sleep, and anxious ruminations about day-to-day stressors;[27]
·Major Depression is something more substantial than normal sadness or day-to-day depression, resulting in actual neuro chemical changes within the brain which affects how a person affected thinks about themselves and the world, which might manifest in many ways. The core symptoms are lowered mood and lack of capacity to obtain pleasure from activities that a person would normally find pleasurable and very commonly one will see both;[28]
·adverse life events, such as the loss of your job at Canterbury Primary School, can act as risk factors for subsequently developing Major Depression;[29]
·your pacing around in an agitated manner in the days prior to the offence is consistent with what psychiatrists informally refer to as agitated depression, which is where Major Depression manifests in an inner sense of restlessness, which is common in older age groups;[30]
·there was a gross discrepancy between whatever your wife said to you that morning in the laundry and your severe reaction but the disagreement was “[the] straw that broke the camel’s back”;[31]
·whilst in the midst of a Major Depressive episode, your higher centres of control in the pre-frontal cortex had been considerably weakened at the relevant time and that a poorly regulated, primitive reaction (one that may be described as a fight or flight type reaction), materialised in you in a fit of anger.[32] In other words, the incident was consistent with you momentarily becoming very angry with your wife in the context of her remonstrating with you over the matter of forgetting something when you returned to the house on the morning. This is a recognised feature in major depressive illnesses.[33] This was grossly out of character with everything Dr Carroll had been informed about your pre-existing character;[34]
·your minor neuro cognitive disorder would have further compromised your capacity for self-control in a situation of high arousal or high stress; however, this is not a full explanation for what occurred and it was your Major Depressive Episode that was the predominant psychiatric problem that was relevant and operative at the time of the killing;[35]
·you do not have an antisocial personality disorder or personality disorder, where episodes of violence are common, and it is difficult to explain this offence without reference to significant mental illness;[36]
·if you were in a normal state of health the likelihood of this incident occurring would be “very, very low indeed”;[37]
[26]Ibid, 308.
[27]Ibid, 337 and 338.
[28]Ibid, 310.
[29]Ibid, 313.
[30]Ibid, 318–319.
[31]Ibid, 321.
[32]Ibid, 322.
[33]Ibid, 340.
[34]Ibid, 322.
[35]Ibid, 339–340.
[36]Ibid, 341.
[37]Ibid, 341.
Dr Duff, a psychologist and neuroscientist, who assessed you five months after the offence, gave the following evidence in relation to his examinations of your brain as summarised in his report dated 18 June 2018:
·due to certain abnormalities in your brain at the time of offending your ability to make judgements, make informed decisions and to inhibit your impulses would have been impaired;[38] and
·he agreed with Dr Carroll that your condition was a “minor cognitive impairment” that was not “severe”, a common phenomenon in people as they age and that this would have no significant implications on how you currently function day to day.[39]
[38]Ibid, 379.
[39]Dr Duff did not agree with Dr Carroll “unilaterally”. Dr Duff qualified his opinion by stating that what was happening in the accused’s brain at the time he killed his wife would be different to when he assessed him five months later. See Transcript of Proceedings, R v Karatzas (S CR 2018 0164, Beale J, 18 June 2019), 384.
At your plea hearing it was agreed by the parties that principles 1, 3 and 4 from R v Verdins[40] apply in your case. In Verdins, the Court of Appeal said relevantly at [32]:
[40]R v Verdins; Buckley; Vo (2007) 16 VR 269; [2007] VSCA 102.
Impaired mental functioning, whether temporary or permanent (“the condition”), is relevant to sentencing in at least the following … ways:
1.The condition may reduce the moral culpability of the offending conduct, as distinct from the offender’s legal responsibility. Where that is so, the condition affects the punishment that is just in all the circumstances; and denunciation is less likely to be a relevant sentencing objective.
…
3.Whether general deterrence should be moderated or eliminated as a sentencing consideration depends upon the nature and severity of the symptoms exhibited by the offender, and the effect of the condition on the mental capacity of the offender, whether at the time of the offending or at the date of sentence or both.
4.Whether specific deterrence should be moderated or eliminated as a sentencing consideration likewise depends upon the nature and severity of the symptoms of the condition as exhibited by the offender, and the effect of the condition on the mental capacity of the offender, whether at the time of the offending or at the date of the sentence or both.
Remorse
Let me now turn to the issue of remorse. Based on the statements you made to the police, your statements to Dr Carroll, the evidence of your daughter Dimitra and the prosecution’s concession;[41] I accept that you are remorseful for what you have done.
[41]At the plea hearing, the prosecutor conceded that you are remorseful. See Transcript of Proceedings, R v Karatzas (S CR 2018 0164, Beale J, 24 July 2019), 21.
Character references
At your trial, good character evidence was adduced from: Dr Youssef, your family’s GP; Alex Panagiotopolous, your psychologist; Terry Poulton, the former Principal of Canterbury Primary School; Dimitra, your youngest daughter; and George Kolliou, a solicitor.
On your plea hearing, written character references were tendered from Barbara Chapman, former Physical Education teacher at Canterbury Primary School and George Plantzos, who is married to your niece.
Your character referees collectively paint a vivid picture of a loving husband and family man, a man who has been a hard worker and a generous contributor in various personal and employment settings.
Prospects of rehabilitation
Given the unchallenged evidence regarding your previous good character,[42] and your remorse over having killed your wife, I find that you have excellent prospects of rehabilitation.[43]
[42]The prosecution accepted in written submissions that prior to the offence, you were a man of good character insofar as you had no criminal history and that you had been a loving husband for 50 years prior to killing your wife.
[43]The prosecution submitted in its written submissions that your prospects of rehabilitation are good.
Comparable cases
As for comparable cases, the prosecution drew my attention to the case of Dutton.[44] He was a 60-year-old offender of previous good character who, when suffering from a mental illness, strangled his lover with a lamp cord when she was staying overnight at his apartment. After pleading guilty at a late stage, he received a sentence of 16 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 years, which was confirmed on appeal. Whilst you ran your trial, you are decade older than Dutton was when he offended, and your life expectancy is considerably shorter.
[44]Dutton v The Queen [2011] VSCA 287.
I have gained some assistance from the other cases referred to by the prosecutor, but each case, of course, has to be decided on its own facts, and no two cases are exactly alike.[45]
[45]In addition to Dutton v The Queen [2011] VSCA 287, the prosecutor also referred me to the cases of DPP v Dookheea & Anor [2014] VSC 611; and McPhee v The Queen [2014] VSCA 156.
Summary of mitigating circumstances
At this point let me summarise the mitigating circumstances in your case. First, your mental illness, Major Depression, at the time of the offending and your reduced moral culpability as a consequence. Second, your remorse. Third, your previous good character. Fourth, your excellent prospects of rehabilitation. Fifth, your age.[46] Sixth, the punishment you continue to experience knowing you killed your beloved wife and beloved mother of your children.
[46]I have had regard to the principles set out in R v RLP [2009] VSCA 271 at [39], which the defence referred me to in written submissions. The prosecutor submitted that your status as a senior offender is a matter in mitigation of your sentence (see Transcript of Proceedings, R v Karatzas (S CR 2018 0164, Beale J, 24 July 2019), 21.
Sentencing purposes
The sentence I impose on you must constitute just punishment for what is an extremely serious crime. Because of your mental illness at the time of your offending, which was so out of character, I do not consider you an appropriate medium for general deterrence, that is, deterring others by the sentence I impose on you. Further, having regard to your mental illness at the time of the offence, your excellent prospects of rehabilitation and your age, I do not consider that specific deterrence needs to be given any weight in working out the sentence I impose on you.
Sentence
Anastasios Karatzas, please stand.
I sentence you to 16 years’ imprisonment.
I fix a non-parole period of 11 years.
I declare that you have served 674 days of pre-sentence detention, not including today.
Having regard to that pre-sentence detention, you will be eligible for parole a few months before your 80th birthday.
Ancillary Orders
By consent I make the disposal order sought by the prosecution.
0
6
0