R v Karen Kramer

[2005] NSWSC 910

CITATION:	R v Karen Kramer [2005] NSWSC 910
HEARING DATE(S):	29/08/2005, 31/08/2005, 02/09/2005
JUDGMENT DATE :	8 September 2005
JUDGMENT OF:	Buddin J
DECISION:	Murder: Tudor Llewellyn Jones: Sentenced to 17 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 11 years. That sentence will commence on 27 May 2004. Murder : Della Jones: Sentenced to 17 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 11 years. That sentence will commence on 27 November 2008 and will expire on 26 November 2025. The non-parole period in respect of that offence will expire on 26 November 2019 at which time you will be eligible for release on parole.

CATCHWORDS:	Criminal law - sentence - murder of offender's elderly parents - pleas of guilty - offender suffers from mental condition.
LEGISLATION CITED:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
CASES CITED:	Cameron v The Queen (2002) 187 ALR 65 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 R v Cikos [2001] NSWSC 35 R v Engert (1998) 84 A Crim R 67 R v Hammoud (2000) 118 A Crim R 66 R v Harris (2000) 50 NSWLR 409 R v MA (2004) 145 A Crim R 434 R v Peters [2002] NSWSC 1234 R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704 R v Taouk [2004] NSWSC 981 R v Thomson v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383 Veen v The Queen (No2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
PARTIES:	Regina Karen Kramer
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 2005/260
COUNSEL:	R Herps (Crown) P Winch (Offender)
SOLICITORS:	S Kavanagh Legal Aid Commission

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

BUDDIN J

THURSDAY 8 SEPTEMBER 2005

2005/260 - REGINA v KAREN KRAMER

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: Karen Kramer (whom I shall refer to as the offender) pleaded guilty to having murdered her parents, Tudor Llewelyn Jones and Della Jones, at Ingleburn between 19 November 2002 and 22 January 2003.

The facts

2 The offender was born in the United Kingdom in 1962. She is now aged 43. She migrated to Australia in 1972 with her parents. She is their only child. The family eventually settled in the Sydney suburb of Ingleburn, where the offender’s parents remained living for the next 30 or so years. For the 8 or 9 years preceding their death the offender had been living with her parents. At the time of their deaths the offender’s parents were each in poor health and close to 80 years of age. The evidence suggests that the family lived a sad and socially isolated existence.

3 The family’s only surviving relative is the offender’s cousin, Lyn Mannering, who lives in the United Kingdom. Ms Mannering maintained intermittent contact with the offender’s parents over the years, particularly by way of exchange of birthday and Christmas cards. Somewhat curiously, given the dates contained in the indictment, she said that she had last spoken to the offender’s mother on 26 March 2003.

4 In any event, Ms Mannering said that the offender rang her in July 2003 to inform her that she had arranged for her parents to “go into a home as she couldn’t cope any more”. Ms Mannering then rang the offender in August 2003 to let her know that she had booked a flight to Australia and that she was intending to visit the family at Christmas time. Shortly thereafter the offender rang Ms Mannering and informed her that her parents had both died. Ms Mannering nonetheless went ahead with her trip. During her stay in Australia, the offender took Ms Mannering to Ingleburn Weir in order to show her where she (the offender) had, so she maintained, spread her parents’ ashes.

5 As a result of her visit, Ms Mannering’s suspicions were aroused. She said that the offender’s explanations as to what had happened to her parents became increasingly bizarre. Upon her return to the United Kingdom Ms Mannering made inquiries through various agencies as to the whereabouts of her aunt and uncle. It is unnecessary to refer to the fine detail of the steps which she undertook in that regard. Suffice it to say that in due course, after being unable to locate any record of their deaths, she decided to contact the police.

6 Police went to the Ingleburn premises on 27 May 2004. The offender immediately confessed to having killed her parents. The offender had the following conversation with police at her premises:

The police said, “Miss Kramer, we received a telephone call from your cousin in England, she has concerns for your parents. Can you please tell me where they are?”
She said, “They’re both dead.”
The police said, “When did they die?”
She said. “They both died about a year ago, on the same day .”
…
The police said, “So where are your parents?”
She said, “They are both dead.”
The police said, “Are you sure?”
She said, “Yes”.
The police said, “What really happened?”
She said, “I killed them both.”
The police said, “Are you kidding?”
She said, “No I stabbed them both”
The police, “Miss Kramer, are you suffering from any illness?”
She said, “Yes, I’m schizophrenic, and I’m taking medication.”

7 After being cautioned the offender said:

“I stabbed them both, and put them under the house. I’m so glad you are here. I’ve been waiting for you to come for all this time. I keep looking out the window waiting for you to get me. I’m glad it’s over, I’ve taken a couple of pills to calm me down.”
The police said, “What about the smell?”
She said, “I used silicone to block the gaps.”
The police said, “What made you think of that?”
She said, “I saw it on T.V.”
The police said, “Why did you kill them?”
She said, “I was on a drunken rampage, I needed money.”
The police said, “Where is the knife?”
She said, “It’s in the kitchen, come and I’ll show you.”

8 The offender then showed police the knife that she claimed to have used in attacking her parents. She had put it in a kitchen drawer and it still had blood on it. She also showed police the location in which the bodies had been secreted under the house. However, when police opened the door to the area under the house the offender became very distressed. She repeatedly said, “I don’t want to see this”. She also told police that the offences had occurred on 21 January 2003.

9 After the offender had shown police the location in which her parents’ bodies were to be found, the following conversation took place:

The police said, “Why did you put them there?”
She said, “Because I killed them. I was scared and didn’t know what to do.”
The police said, “Why did you kill them?”
She said, “Because they pissed me off. What happened is they accused me of stealing which got me into a rage. I picked up a knife and stabbed them both. After I did it, I didn’t know what to do. I knew they were dead. I just let them lie there for two days. Then I dragged them out and put them underneath the house.”

10 As I understand the situation, the dates in the indictment reflect the period between the date on which the deceased were last seen alive (by Dr Nino Sa-Cordeiro, whose surgery the offender’s mother visited on 19 November 2002) and the date which the offender nominated as having killed them both on. The offender apparently informed Dr Sa-Cordeiro’s wife that her parents had died sometime in early December 2002.

11 For completeness, it may be observed that the offender proffered false stories about what had happened to her parents to those few other people with whom she came into contact in the aftermath of their deaths.

12 Following the conversations to which I have referred, the offender was arrested and conveyed to Macquarie Fields Police Station where she entered into a lengthy electronically recorded interview with police. Thereafter she returned to her home with police and participated in a “walk around” of the premises which was also recorded on video. At the invitation of the parties I have viewed both those videos.

13 The offender told police at the outset of the interview that she had been given legal advice, the effect of which was to exercise her right to remain silent. However, she said that she did not think that that was “the right thing to do”. Accordingly she decided to participate in the interview. She also said that “there are things I want to tell you. It would be terrible not to say anything. I’m not a cold-blooded killer.” It is clear from what the offender said that she was anxious to clear the air, having endeavoured for a lengthy period of time to cover up the circumstances surrounding her parents’ deaths.

14 During the course of the interview the offender provided the following explanations for her behaviour:

Well……. I was drinking, I was drinking Kahlua straight and I had been stealing money from my parents…… to buy alcohol because I’m on a pension and it doesn’t really pay for all the alcohol that I drink ‘cause it’s $35 a bottle what I drink. So I was stealing money from my parents’ wallet and they suddenly, I don’t know whether they’d been wondering about it or whatever but they said, “You’re stealing from us”, I said, “No, I’m not”, and then that ended that. Then I started drinking more because I realised that they believed I was stealing from them and I didn’t want them to know and I really, I, skulled pretty much a bottle of Kahlua. And, then what. It was so hard because I was drunk. ….. I think there was an argument, and it was an argument about the money and my drinking because my parents didn’t approve of my drinking and they wanted to stop me drinking. ‘Cause, being parents, they don’t want their daughter to be an alcoholic. And there was a row but I can’t remember exactly what happened and I remember, shit. I think I did something to my mum first, knocked her over or something. Then my dad came out and he was struggling with me and the knife was in the drawer and I, I realised the knife was in the drawer and so angry I was fuming and I took the knife, I took something else, too, but I can’t remember what it was, I don’t remember, and I started killing them but I didn’t mean to and I, you know, I never cried about it, you know, I miss them terribly. My emotion (sic) just doesn’t seem to work properly, you know. I mean, if my dog died then I’m devastated. I mean, like everyone, I love my parents and they were really supportive for me when, when my schizophrenia, and when I went, because I’ve been in drug and alcohol rehabilitation but it didn’t really rehabilitate me that time. ……., you know …….
….
And I was …… not to drink, not to drink, ….. your medication and I’d start seeing things. Like seeing horrible gruesome faces and I knew they weren’t there. I’d go to my parents and I’d say, “I’m seein’ that face again, I’m seein’ that face again”, and they’d give me a hug, you know. I miss those hugs.
…
So when I sobered up which was, after I’d killed them, I think I sobered up or something, I don’t know but, I took them into the bathroom and just vomited and I felt terrible, I cried but I haven’t cried since and I was crying and hugging them and cuddling them and I was getting blood all over me and, oh shit. I didn’t know what to do with them and I sobered up. So they stayed and mum was in the bath and my dad was in the hallway. ….I, I kept them in the house for two days and I didn’t want to ……….them anyway, I just wanted to leave them there but they started to smell.
…
Yeah, the actual murder was so blurry, you know, I don’t remember who I killed first, I don’t remember if they fought me, I don’t remember if I fought them, I don’t remember. I’m not going to touch that again. I was just in a drunken stupor but, I mean, when I realised what I’d done it was too late, they were dead.

15 The offender said that two days after she killed her parents, she dragged their bodies outside one at a time under the cover of darkness and put them under the house. She was able to do this on her own because each of her parents was small and frail. She repeated that she had used silicone to block the vents in the brick work of the house in order to stop the smell.

16 Ultimately the offender disposed of most of her parents’ furniture and other possessions. She also endeavoured, somewhat unsuccessfully, to remove the bloodstains which had been left in the house. She said that she tried to do so because they reminded her of what she had done to her parents.

17 The offender was unable to provide police with a detailed account of how she had killed her parents. She could not, for example, say whether she had stabbed each of her parents with the knife or indeed if a second weapon had been used. I am not inclined however, in the circumstances, to conclude that she was deliberately withholding the truth. It may be that her recollection was clouded by the effects of the alcohol that she had consumed or it may be that she had blocked out the memory of the traumatic events. In any event, little turns upon her inability to more fully recall what occurred. I also observe that there is nothing in the material before me to suggest that there was any time lag between the two killings.

18 The offender did however deny that her actions were premeditated, as the following exchange makes clear:

Q Is this something that you had thought about for a while, killing your parents?
A No, no, never, I loved them, we were a close family.
Q That’s, you just said earlier though that you had been taking some money from their wallet to pay for the alcohol.
A Yeah, I’d been taking money but, but I didn’t, I didn’t kill them because I planned to get their money or something. It wasn’t premeditated if that’s what you mean.
Q No, no, I was just asking you, yeah.
A It wasn’t no. Yeah, I just snapped, I just snapped and I was so drunk but I don’t know. Like, normally, when I’m drunk I just tend to fall over a lot but I must have been so angry that, I don’t know, I killed them.

19 To similar effect are the following answers:

Next thing I know they were dead, I didn’t I didn’t know. I didn’t realise what I was doing. I love my parents, I love ‘em, I miss ‘em like mad.
…
Look, the bottom line is I loved my parents, right, I didn’t mean to kill them, I didn’t want to and there was no way, it just happened, everything went mad. It was no preconceived idea, I loved them, I still love them, I wish to God they were alive. I miss their hugs and kisses, you know.

20 The offender told police that she began abusing illicit drugs as a teenager but that she had later managed to “get off drugs”. She then developed a dependency upon alcohol. She recognised that she had become an alcoholic by her early twenties. That progression coincided with her being diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia.

21 She said that as at the time of her parents’ deaths she was spending as much as $100 a day on alcohol. She was unable to support her drinking habit on her disability pension alone and that is what prompted her to steal from her parents. She told police that she continued to access their bank account after their deaths because, as I understand the situation, their Centrelink benefits continued to be paid into that account. She conceded that although she was on medication she sometimes forgot to take it when she was intoxicated. There was other material before me, including observations made by Ms Mannering and by the offender’s long-term partner Margaret Kramer, which confirmed that the offender did in fact engage in bouts of excessive drinking.

22 Post-mortem examinations were performed upon the skeletal remains of each of the deceased by Dr Little on 28 May and 11 June 2004. There had been significant decomposition and other damage to the bodies in the interim. The offender’s father had received sharp force injuries or stab wounds to the skull and to the area of the left ribs. The offender’s mother had sustained an apparent fracture to one of her left ribs and there was apparent blood staining over her clothing which was “suggestive of haemorrhage from trunk wound(s)”.

The offender’s mental condition

Dr Sa-Cordeiro

23 The offender began seeing Dr Sa-Cordeiro, a local GP, in 1992 following her discharge from Waratah Psychiatric Unit at Campbelltown Hospital. She had been discharged with a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia by her psychiatrist, Dr Barraclough.

24 The offender thereafter attended Dr Sa-Cordeiro’s surgery on a monthly basis. Dr Sa-Cordeiro was aware that the offender had a history of drug and alcohol abuse. He was under the impression however that the offender had stopped drinking and said, further, that he saw no indications that she had relapsed into alcoholism. He was also of the view that she was compliant with her medication. At the time of her parents’ death the offender was taking, on a daily basis: 300 mgm of Largactil to relieve anxiety and to enable her to sleep; 100 mgm of Deptran to relieve her depression; and two anti-psychotic drugs, being 5 mgm of Risperdal and 20 mgm of Fluanxol (the latter which she took only every three weeks). He said that her main complaint was severe paranoia and a fear of going out which restricted her socialisation.

25 Dr Sa-Cordeiro offered the following assessment of the offender:

Her mental state has been consistent over the years that she has been a patient of mine. Her psychosis was under good control with treatment, except for brief and fleeting visual experiences, and occasional nightmares. Their content was the same over the years, and had to do with knives, and blood, experiences she had since early childhood in England. Sometimes these experiences were acted out by self-mutilation in the past.
Around Dec 2002, her mental health was no different from any other time in the previous years, and she gave no cause for concern, that her psychosis was uncontrolled. She presented well mannered, polite; had no thought disorder or psychosis. Her perennial problem is always anxiety and severe paranoia, for which she found chlorpromazine very effective.
On the 19.11.02 she stated that “she had been getting hallucinations of an elderly face slashed to pieces and covered with blood lasting about 2 minutes and followed by a bad mood for 2-3 hours”. However, during the consultation she displayed no signs of psychosis, was in a stable mood, and generally affable and normal. However, it was decided to increase her Risperdal to 6 mgm to see if this would reduce the hallucinations.

26 He added this:

Alcohol, especially in uncontrolled amounts would have a de-stabilising effect on her schizophrenia, through a direct effect of intoxication, and by interference with the effects of her medication. Her depression would have become worse under the influence of alcohol. Her violent outburst and aggression would have easily unleashed, and become difficult to control. This was the effect of alcohol on her psychopathology previously, when she would attack her partner in a drunken rage.

27 As I have said, the offender’s parents also consulted Dr Sa-Cordeiro. Apart from the state of their physical health, each required medication for psychological problems. The offender’s mother, in particular, exhibited severe symptoms of anxiety and depression. Dr Sa-Cordeiro was of the opinion that she suffered from severe paranoia and that there were delusional aspects to her anxiety. He also placed her on anti-psychotic medication.

Dr Nielssen

28 Dr Nielssen, a forensic psychiatrist, prepared a report at the request of the offender’s legal representatives. Dr Nielssen provided the following summary of the offender’s personal history:

Ms Kramer understood that her early physical and intellectual development was normal. However, she said that her emotional development was badly affected by the abusive behaviour of her father in particular, of which sexual abuse was a part. She said that she was very withdrawn and had no close friends in primary school and did not do well because of her lack of participation at class activities. She said that she did better in high school particularly in the two years after she left home when she said she completed the Higher School Certificate by correspondence with an above average pass.

Ms Kramer said that she thought that she was “born gay” and did not think her homosexual interest developed as a result of her sexual abuse. She said that she had her first sexual encounter with a female at the age of ten with an older neighbour she described as backward and said that she had her first intense relationship at the age of fifteen with a Canadian woman some years older, who later returned to Canada.
Ms Kramer said that she was “hopeless at relationships” and had a number of unstable relationships until she met her long term partner, Margaret when aged twenty-three. She said that their relationship was formalized with a ceremony at a Church in Paddington and she adopted her partner’s surname. However, she said that after seven years she left Margaret for her best friend, Lee, with whom she was in a relationship of four years including a period living together at her parents’ home. She said that the relationship ended and she had been on her own for several years prior to her parents’ death.
…
Ms Kramer said that her work history had also been unstable, as she said that she was usually dismissed after conflict at work. She said that her longest position was for three years at a factory making bathroom fittings, but had also worked as a telephonist, receptionist and on a CES sponsored employment scheme with the local council. She said that she had not worked for around ten years prior to the offence and was receiving the Disability Support Pension at the time of her arrest.

29 Dr Nielssen’s report continues:

Ms Kramer said that the sexual abuse by her father began when she was around five years old. She said that it began with inappropriate touching and digital penetration and by adolescence took the form of regular sexual intercourse, as often as every day of the week. She said that she told teachers at the primary school she attended in England and at schools she attended in Australia but said “they did not believe me because I was so strange”. She said that when her parents found out she had spoken to her teachers they became angry and told her that it should “stay within the family”.
…
Ms Kramer said that despite the abuse she remained fond of her parents and had lived with them for nine years prior to the offence, partly because she had no choice because of the severity of her psychological problems and alcohol abuse.

30 Dr Nielssen reported that the offender had informed him that her father endeavoured to sexually interfere with her the day before the offences. According to the offender, when she told her mother about the incident her mother had said “let him do it”. This incident made her very upset and angry. The offender told Dr Nielssen that she “believed her behaviour was due to a reaction to her father’s sexual advance, rather than because of any dispute over money”.

31 The offender provided Dr Nielssen with a history of her psychiatric problems which included hearing voices from early childhood. She told him of her fear of being in public places. She told him that in the past she had drunk to excess to reduce those feelings of anxiety. She also said that she sometimes experienced a transitory visual hallucination of a face covered in blood. She reported having sudden mood swings, including outbursts of anger and depression. She told him that there was a period during her twenties when she had cut and burnt herself.

32 I interpolate that the offender’s former partner, Margaret Kramer, provided a statement in which she said that the offender had regularly engaged in acts of self-harm and self-mutilation. She also confirmed that the offender had been admitted to Waratah House on occasions after she had harmed herself or following episodes in which she had taken on the persona of a Canadian woman named Natalia. It seems that Natalia was an ex-girlfriend of the offender who had tragically died in a car accident in which the offender had also been involved but which she had managed to survive.

33 The offender acknowledged to Dr Nielssen that her alcoholism exacerbated her mental health problems. It appears that her drinking increased after she returned to live with parents. Nevertheless she was able to abstain from drinking for periods of time, at least whilst she was an in-patient in a rehabilitation centre. However it seems that she always relapsed upon her release into the community.

34 Based upon that material, Dr Nielssen offered the following opinion:

Ms Kramer reported a pattern of unstable mood, relationships and employment and also a pattern of impulsive and self defeating behaviour of sufficient severity to meet the accepted criteria for the diagnosis of personality disorder. She also reported experiences associated with unstable personality, including severe rages, sudden depression, deliberate self harm and periods of dissociation or detachment from her surroundings. Her personality structure was consistent with having been subjected to sexual and emotional abuse during her upbringing.
Ms Kramer also reported a pattern of alcohol dependence for most of her adult life. She also reported several episodes of withdrawal delirium that are often associated with alcohol related brain damage. However, there was no clinical evidence of any form of brain damage at interview, including clinical evidence of damage to the function of the frontal lobes of the brain.
Ms Kramer reported perceptual disturbances that she said began in childhood. Her symptoms have led to her receiving the diagnosis of the chronic mental illness schizophrenia and treatment with relatively high doses of anti-psychotic medication. However, the onset of symptoms in early childhood, her description of the symptoms themselves, the absence of any delusional explanation for the symptoms, the absence of objective features of mental illness and the lack of response to treatment with antipsychotic medication does not support the diagnosis of a psychotic illness such as schizophrenia.
Ms Kramer may have experienced episodes of alcoholic hallucinosis in addition to her longstanding pseudo-hallucinations. She was also receiving treatment with anti-psychotic medication at the time of the assessment, which may have affected her ability to describe her symptoms and also had the effect of reducing the outward signs of a psychotic illness. However, I believe it is unlikely that she has schizophrenia and her symptoms are more likely to be a feature of her unstable personality, during which transient psychotic symptoms are often reported.
Even if it does emerge that Ms Kramer had a chronic psychotic illness, there was no evidence from the history elicited or the other information available to me that she was affected by a defect of reason either in the form of a delusional belief or a disturbance in reasoning that was so severe that she was completely deprived of the ability to know that her actions in killing her parents were morally wrong. Hence I do not believe she has the defence of mental illness available to her.
A severe personality disorder is an underlying condition that can produce an abnormality of mind within the meaning of Section 23 A of the Crimes Act, as amended. Abnormal mental states arising from her personality disorder include a heightened perception of threat, a tendency to distorted interpretations of events, transient psychotic symptoms, impaired capacity for empathy, sudden mood swings and a tendency to act on impulse. Ms Kramer also reported episodes of dissociation in response to stress, and a state of dissociation at the time of the offences is one possible explanation for her reported amnesia of killing her mother.
I believe Ms Kramer’s severe personality disorder produced an abnormality of mind at the time of the offence that resulted in a distorted perception of events, impaired ability to judge right from wrong and also significant impairment in her capacity to control her actions that was independent from the effects of intoxication with alcohol.

Dr Allnutt

35 Dr Stephen Allnutt conducted a psychiatric examination of the offender, at the request of the Crown. He provided the following opinion:

In the past, your client has been reported to manifest unusual visual, auditory and tactile perceptual disturbances, anxiety and paranoia. She has a history of prior admissions to psychiatric hospitals and prescription of antipsychotic medications; clinicians have considered a diagnosis of schizophrenia.
She describes a long history of an unusual belief involving the “dream warrior”, with whom she communicates and hears speaking to her; she also describes tingling sensations that occur intermittently. There is evidence of deterioration in her functioning over time. It is not unreasonable to consider a diagnosis of a chronic psychotic disorder in someone with this kind of history. However complicating her presentation is a long history of alcohol abuse and dependence. Chronic alcohol abuse and dependence can affect the sufferer’s capacity to function and cause the person to have unusual perceptual experiences. In addition your client manifests a number of personality traits that would support a diagnosis of a borderline personality. Individuals with borderline personality disorder can experience a wide range of unusual symptoms, such as unusual beliefs and paranoia and mild perceptual disturbances. While a chronic psychotic disorder cannot be definitively ruled out in this case I believe it unlikely. The most likely psychiatric diagnosis explaining her symptoms is a combination of chronic alcoholism and borderline personality disorder.
The defendant manifests a history of emotional instability, a tendency to engage in self destructive behaviours when she feels slighted or hurt, likely identity difficulties, possibly a tendency to idealise and evaluate people that she was having interpersonal relationships with, to the extent that a diagnosis of probable Borderline Personality Disorder can be made. However, consideration also does need to be given to a tendency for her to fabricate and antisocial personality traits may be evident.
…
I do not believe there is adequate evidence to support the view that the defendant’s personality traits were such that she was significantly impaired in her capacity to understand events or judge right from wrong. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that she had any unusual beliefs that relate to the “dream warrior”, visual or auditory perceptual phenomena or tactile experiences active at the time or driving her behaviour.
…
In my opinion the most significant factor contributing to her actions at the material time of the alleged offence was disinhibiting effects of alcohol abuse coupled with a characterological tendency to lose her temper easily.

Dr Lennings

36 I have also been provided with a report from a consultant psychologist, Dr Lennings. He offered the following opinion:

It seems that Ms Kramer became locked into an uneasy dependence on her parents prior to their death, and on her account, her extreme emotional reaction to what she saw as a reprise of the abuse she suffered as a child triggered a rage episode. Her alcohol use at the time, as well as possibly her underlying mental state, seems to have contributed to that. It seems that Ms Kramer feels very remorseful about what she has done. Paradoxically, the 16 months she has spent in gaol seems to have helped establish a much more sane and reasonable psychological state. Although she is still struggling to come to terms with the fact that she murdered her mother, she seems also to have finally been able to find a time and place where she has had the chance to sober up, and make significant inroads on her psychological difficulties.
Ms Kramer has pleaded guilty to serious charges involving violence. She presents with a history of very severely disturbed behaviour and severe alcoholism. She reports a history of volatile relationships and has not been able to achieve psychosocial stability. She appears to have had a chance, since being in gaol, to make major differences to her personality functioning. Despite the nature of the crime, she appears to display appropriate remorse and does not present as psychopathic. There seem to be particular circumstances involved in the current crime that are unlikely to be repeated in the future, if for no other reason than she has no other family and no committed relationships. As far as I can gather, other than the assault against her parents, she has no other record of violent crime.
Her rehabilitation potential seems to be significant, although given the history considerable support will be required. The major issues for her will be stabilising her personality and avoiding a return to alcohol abuse. Her risk factors will be engagement in volatile relationships, especially ones in which her partner may have an alcohol problem. Factors that suggest she may make a good response to her rehabilitation include her intact cognitive ability, the fact that she has achieved abstinence and seems to value that state, that her mood has responded well to the structured environment of gaol, compliance with medication, and her apparent remorse. Despite her history she does appear able to find a plateau of reasonable functional ability.

Sentencing factors

37 It is trite to say that murder is regarded as the most serious offence in the criminal calendar. The maximum penalty prescribed by the legislature is life imprisonment. That indicates the seriousness with which the community views the offence. The starting point for any consideration of the appropriate penalty is the fact that a human being’s life has been taken.

38 The Crown did not submit that the murder of the deceased fell within the worst category of case. I accept that the present offences, serious as they are, do not warrant a sentence or sentences of imprisonment for life as provided for in s 61 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. That being so s 21 of that Act, which provides for the imposition of a “sentence of imprisonment for a specified term” in circumstances such as the present, applies. Accordingly I propose to impose determinate sentences upon the offender.

39 I am also required to bear in mind the relevant statutory framework that pertains to the sentencing of offenders and to the principles which are enunciated in the authorities that bear upon the issue. That being so, I must have regard to the purposes of sentencing set out in s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, which is in the following terms:

3A . The purposes for which a court may impose a sentence on an offender are as follows:
(a) to ensure that the offender is adequately punished for the offence,
(b) to prevent crime by deterring the offender and other persons from committing similar offences,
(c) to protect the community from the offender,
(d) to promote the rehabilitation of the offender,
(e) to make the offender accountable for his or her actions,
(f) to denounce the conduct of the offender,
(g) to recognise the harm done to the victim of the crime and the community.

40 The Court of Criminal Appeal in R v MA (2004) 145 A Crim R 434 characterised s 3A as being a codification and elaboration of the purposes of criminal punishment, which were described by the High Court in Veen v The Queen (No2) (1988) 164 CLR 465. In a passage which is particularly apposite to the present case, a majority of the court in Veen (No2) said:

[S]entencing is not a purely logical exercise, and the troublesome nature of the sentencing discretion arises in large measure from unavoidable difficulty in giving weight to each of the purposes of punishment. The purposes of criminal punishment are various: protection of society, deterrence of the offender and of others who might be tempted to offend, retribution and reform. The purposes overlap and none of them can be considered in isolation from the others when determining what is an appropriate sentence in a particular case. They are guide posts to the appropriate sentence but sometimes they point in different directions. (at 476)

41 In determining the appropriate sentence I must also have regard to the various aggravating factors which are set out in s 21A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. It is apparent from the concluding words of s 21A(1) that the list is not exhaustive. I must also weigh in the balance those matters upon which the offender is entitled to rely in order to mitigate the otherwise appropriate penalty: see s 21A(3) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. As long as I take into account those factors that are relevant and known it is not necessary, as I understand the situation, to deal seriatim with each matter which is identified. I will make specific reference to those matters which I regard as being relevant. Suffice it to say that I have had regard to the statutory requirements to which I have just referred, and given due weight to the matters which I consider as being of particular relevance.

42 It is impossible to state with any confidence precisely what circumstances surrounded the commission of these offences. The only version of events comes from the offender. I have already commented upon the evident frailties in her recollection of events. Moreover the forensic evidence, somewhat understandably given the passage of time, was unable to shed much additional light upon the situation. Nevertheless, it seems safe to proceed upon the basis that the offender stabbed each of the victims to death with a knife.

43 One issue which assumed some significance during the sentencing hearing was the assertion made by the offender, to the various clinical experts who examined her, that it was her father’s sexual misconduct towards her that triggered the violent outbursts visited upon both her parents. This is a matter which could potentially operate as a mitigating factor by reason of s 21A(3)(c) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.

44 This suggestion arose for the first time when the offender was examined by Dr Nielssen some months after she went into custody. It was subsequently repeated to Dr Allnutt and to Dr Lennings, although it must be said that there was some inconsistency between the various accounts that she gave. However the offender made no reference whatsoever to either the particular triggering event or to the history of sexual abuse in the lengthy ERISP interview which was conducted with her by police. Further, Margaret Kramer indicated that from her observations, made over the period of her relationship with the offender, the offender adored her father but had a strained relationship with her mother.

45 But more significantly the offender did not give evidence during the course of the sentence proceedings and so the material concerning this issue remains to be assessed upon the basis that it is untested. The burden of establishing matters in mitigation falls upon the offender (albeit on the balance of probabilities). I am unable in the circumstances, particularly in the absence of sworn evidence about the matter, to conclude that the onus has been discharged. Mr Winch, who appeared on behalf of the offender, readily acknowledged the obstacle that he faced in that regard.

46 I would not be disposed however to go so far as to conclude that the history provided by the offender – that is, of sexual misconduct perpetrated upon her by her father – must be rejected. It will simply play no part in the sentencing process and in particular will not operate to mitigate the otherwise appropriate penalty. Accordingly, I will proceed to sentence the offender upon the basis of the version of events that she gave to police in the ERISP.

47 Putting this issue to one side, the parties were otherwise on common ground not only as to the matters which were relevant to the question of sentence but also as to the appropriate range of sentence that ought to be imposed for the present offences.

48 Ultimately the matters which appear to aggravate the offences are the fact that a weapon was used and the fact that the victims were vulnerable by reason of their ages and the fragility of their physical and mental health. Having said that, I accept that the difference between a homicide committed with a weapon and one committed without it, particularly in circumstances such as the present, may not be all that significant. Nevertheless the community is quite properly concerned about the use of knives to commit offences of violence.

49 I would not treat the fact that there were two victims as a matter that further aggravates each separate offence, although plainly enough the fact that the offender committed two separate crimes increases the overall objective gravity of her conduct: see generally R v Harris (2000) 50 NSWLR 409. Nor, although it does not reflect particularly favourably upon the offender, have I had any regard to her post-offence conduct.

50 I must also weigh in the balance those matters upon which the offender is entitled to rely in order to mitigate the otherwise appropriate penalty. Of particular relevance are s 21A(3)(b),(e),(f),(g),(h),(i),(j) and (k). As the offender’s actions were clearly not premeditated it is apparent that they did not form “part of a planned or organised criminal activity”. It is to the offender’s credit that she does not have a criminal record of any kind and that she is otherwise a person of good character. That is no mean feat given the state of her mental health as well as her alcohol dependency.

51 The offender is entitled to an appropriate measure of leniency on account of her pleas of guilty. That is a matter that I expressly take into account in her favour: see s 22 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The offender’s case proceeded to this Court by way of a “paper committal” and she was not required to enter pleas at the pre-trial arraignment hearing. Although the pleas of guilty were not entered at the first available opportunity, the Crown was nonetheless notified a couple of weeks before the trial was scheduled to commence that pleas would be entered. To plead guilty to murder is, of course, a significant step for an offender to take. It is apparent from the admissions that she made that the offender accepts responsibility for having caused the deaths of her parents. She thereafter explored, as was her entitlement, the issue of substantial impairment before determining what pleas she should enter.

52 I was informed that had the matter proceeded to trial it would have occupied at least three weeks of hearing time. That time has of course been saved. It may also be observed that the offender’s pleas have obviated the necessity for a number of witnesses, including her neighbours and her cousin, having to undergo the ordeal of giving evidence. Although as I have said the offender did not plead at the first available opportunity, I am nonetheless of the view that in accordance with the range identified in R vThomson v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383, a discount in the order of 20% is called for in the circumstances of the present case.

53 The offender is also entitled to have weighed in her favour the fact that she has expressed contrition for her actions. First and foremost the offender made immediate admissions concerning her involvement in these offences when questioned by police. She expressed a strong desire not to avail herself of her right to silence and then proceeded to exhibit, by her words and actions, genuine remorse for what she had done. Those admissions were sufficient to render her conviction all but inevitable. She has now clearly accepted full responsibility for the legal consequences of her actions and has thus revealed a “willingness to facilitate the course of justice”: see Cameron v The Queen (2002) 187 ALR 65. That is particularly demonstrated by her decision not to seek to rely upon any “defence” or other material that may have had the consequence of reducing her culpability for these crimes from murder to manslaughter. I note that the opinion of Dr Nielssen, in particular, may have given her some cause for optimism in that respect.

54 It is common ground that the evidence to which I have referred in some detail concerning the offender’s mental condition is a matter that assumes considerable significance in the sentencing process. Not only is there a documented history of her condition but the evidence reveals that her underlying personality disorder appears to have been operative at the time when she committed these offences. Ms Mannering, for example, described her behaviour at Christmas time in 2002 as being like that of an “out of control teenager”. That being so, I conclude that she “was not fully aware of the consequences … of her actions because of [her] disability”: s 21A(3)(j) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. In the circumstances, it is appropriate to give somewhat less weight to general deterrence than would otherwise be the case: see generally R v Engert (1998) 84 A Crim R 67.

55 Dr Nielssen expressed the view in a supplementary report that an assessment of the future risk that the offender posed depended, in part, upon whether she was able to abstain from consuming alcohol and was able to achieve “some stability in her mental state”. He also commented favourably upon her progress whilst in custody, as did Dr Lennings. In that respect I observe that there has been a remarkable transformation in the offender’s physical appearance since the time of her arrest.

56 Dr Nielssen made the following further observation:

The natural history of personality disorder is one of gradual improvement over time, especially in stable settings such as long term institutional care. It would be expected that as Ms Kramer approaches release in her fifth or sixth decade she will be less affected by unstable mood and self defeating behaviour. Her psychiatric diagnosis and need for treatment with large doses of antipsychotic medication may also be clearer.

57 In view of the fact that the offender has no prior convictions, her pleas of guilty and expressions of remorse, and the progress which she has made since being in custody, and particularly given the opinions expressed by Dr Nielssen and Dr Lennings, I am of the view that there is room, as Mr Winch puts it, for cautious optimism concerning the offender’s prospects of rehabilitation. Much of course will depend upon her capacity to both avoid relapsing into alcoholism and to stabilise her personality. I am of the view that it is unlikely that the offender will re-offend, primarily because of the age which she is likely to have attained when she is eventually released from gaol.

58 Given that the offender stands for sentence in respect of two separate and extremely serious offences, I must apply the principles enunciated in Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610. In my view this is a case which calls for the imposition of sentences which are partly concurrent with, and partially cumulative upon, each other. As I have said, there are two separate offences albeit that they were committed during the one episode of criminality and involve common features: see R v Hammoud (2000) 118 A Crim R 66. I am prepared to make a finding of “special circumstances”, but only insofar as I will be imposing sentences which are partially cumulative upon each other.

59 Because the offences were committed before 1 February 2003, it will be necessary to sentence the offender in accordance with the scheme of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 which was then in existence. This has the consequence that the current provisions relating to standard non-parole periods have no application to the present case. In determining the overall effective non-parole period I have not overlooked the need to fix the minimum period that the offender must spend in custody: see R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704.

60 I have been provided with the details of other cases which may be said to bear some comparability to the present case. As has been well recognised, material of that kind has only limited value in assisting a judicial officer in the exercise of the sentencing discretion. Nevertheless, I have derived some guidance from cases involving multiple homicide victims, particularly where the offences occurred in a domestic setting and were not premeditated. In that context I have had specific regard to the decisions in R v Cikos [2001] NSWSC 35, R v Peters [2002] NSWSC 1234 and R v Taouk [2004] NSWSC 981.

61 This is indeed a sad and troubling case. Although the offender may have held ambivalent feelings towards her parents, the family was undoubtedly very close. The members of the family were also dependent upon one another. In fact, it could fairly be said that all they had was each other. The fact that there was no victim impact statement only highlights that fact. The offender must live with the consequences of her actions. She has torn the world in which she lived asunder. On the other hand, she was at the time of the offences a deeply troubled woman who no doubt desperately misses her parents and is extremely remorseful that she was the instrument of their deaths.

62 Notwithstanding the offender’s favourable subjective matters and the other features of the case to which I have referred, it is necessary to impose sentences that properly reflect the objective gravity of the offences and which give effect to the various matters referred to in s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. This case involves the senseless and tragic loss of two lives and accordingly nothing less than substantial custodial sentences can be countenanced.

Sentences

63 Karen Kramer, for the crime of murdering Tudor Llewellyn Jones I sentence you to 17 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 11 years. That sentence will commence on 27 May 2004. For the crime of murdering Della Jones I sentence you to 17 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 11 years. That sentence will commence on 27 November 2008 and will expire on 26 November 2025. The non-parole period in respect of that offence will expire on 26 November 2019 at which time you will be eligible for release on parole. The total overall head sentence is thus one of 21½ years imprisonment with a total overall non-parole period of 15½ years.

**********