R v McArdle
[2000] VSC 161
•19 April 2000
| SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | |
| CRIMINAL JURISDICTION | Not Restricted |
No. 1417 of 2000
| THE QUEEN |
| v. |
| DARREN JOHN McARDLE |
---
JUDGE: | TEAGUE, J. | |
WHERE HELD: | MELBOURNE | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 19 APRIL 2000 | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2000] VSC 161 | |
---
CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law – Sentencing – Murder – Plea of guilty – Gambling on poker machines.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
For the Prosecution | J. Dickson Q.C. | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | T. Danos | Aughtersons |
HIS HONOUR:
Darren McArdle, you have pleaded guilty to the murder of George Rakos at Upper Ferntree Gully on 14 September 1999. George Rakos was a work-mate and a close friend of yours. He was then aged 33.
A few days before you killed him, he asked you to do him a favour. He wanted to borrow money from a bank. His financial standing was not good. He proposed to tell the bank that he was going to buy your car, his claim being that he had a plan to purchase a car which would enable him to get a bank cheque to pay for the car. He asked you to help him by banking the bank cheque that he would obtain, and that would be payable to you. His plan was that, after the money had been in your bank for a few days, you were to take it out and to hand it over to him. You agreed to help him. He gave you the bank cheque for nearly $7000 and you banked it. You should have held on to the money in your bank to pay over to the deceased. You had the money at your call and you felt the temptation of poker machines. You gambled all the money away in a couple of days on the pokies. You said nothing to the deceased about your gambling spree. You could not bring yourself to tell your friend what you had done with his money.
On the morning of 14 September 1999 you and the deceased had worked on night shift. You both left work and spent a couple of hours at the Ferntree Gully Hotel. The deceased asked for part of his money and you were able to organise that. He then indicated that later that morning he expected you to hand over the rest of his money. The two of you left the hotel and went to the home of the deceased. The two of you had coffee and he had breakfast. It was arranged that you would go to your bank at some time after 9.00 a.m. He was lying on the couch watching television. You went outside to your car. You contemplated just driving away. In the car was a steering wheel lock which comes in two parts which can be locked together. It is commonly known as a Club lock. As a makeshift weapon it had the benefits of being heavy and reasonably readily wielded. You took up the Club lock, you went inside and struck the deceased forcefully to the head with the Club lock about five times. There would be no doubt that that was done with the intention to kill.
After the battering, you cleaned yourself up to some extent and then left the deceased's home. You discarded the lock driving along in your car. You then went to your own home. You told no one what had happened. You were interviewed by the police the following day. You told the police a number of lies. You were allowed to go your way after being warned that you were still a suspect. You spoke with members of your family and a solicitor. You went back to the police. You then co-operated with the police. You accepted that you had killed the deceased. You said that you could not recall your precise actions at the crucial time. What you did make clear was that you could not face up to telling the deceased that you had gambled away his money.
For some time you have had a bad problem with gambling. Most of your weekly earnings, in excess of $700, went on poker machines. The deceased also had a bad problem with gambling. Losses from playing the poker machines created financial difficulties for both of you. The lure of poker machines, and the financial difficulties they created, contributed to your being in the situation where you acted as you did. This is not an occasion for me to reflect publicly on the downside of poker machines, but I can understand why others might feel strongly enough to do so.
I have read carefully the four victim impact statements filed with the court. They have been thoughtfully written. They are moving. One can never be reminded too often of the tragic impact of the loss of a beloved family member. I have noted the particular concern expressed at the consequences to the deceased's two year old son, Joshua, of having to grow up without a father. If you have not read those statements already, you should read them, despite the anguish that the reading of them causes you.
You are 38 years of age having been born on 7 July 1961. You have been a member of a large, law-abiding and supportive family. They are to be commended, as you are, on your switching from a resistant to a compliant attitude to the police investigations.
Over the years you have worked hard and have kept out of trouble with the law. I have carefully reviewed what the psychologist, Mr Joblin, has said about you. He cannot supply answers to the intriguing questions of why you should act so inexplicably out of character and why you should have a memory gap. He notes the high level of remorse.
I must take, and have taken, into account a number of mitigating factors, including the plea of guilty, the time that the taking of that plea was indicated, the remorse and the absence of prior convictions.
General deterrence must play a part in the sentence I impose. There are many Club locks around that could be used to inflict death. The community would expect that, in a case of the use of such a weapon by a mature man with the intention of causing death, the punishment would be appropriately severe.
I declare that you have spent 217 days in prison up to today, 19 April 2000. I direct that that declaration be noted in the records of the court.
I impose on you a sentence of 17 years imprisonment. I fix a non-parole period of 12 years.
---
0
0
0