R v Morgan & Tamme
[2002] VSC 574
•19 December 2002
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 1531 of 2001
| THE QUEEN |
| v |
| NATASHA LISA MORGAN EMMA-JAINE TAMME |
---
JUDGE: | TEAGUE J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 14 October - 9 November, 5 December 2002 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 19 December 2002 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v Morgan & Tamme | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2002] VSC 574 | |
---
Criminal Law – Sentencing – Murder – Frenzied killing of one woman by two others – Significant mitigating considerations – Parity considerations - Prison for one for 18 years, with non-parole period of 12 years - Prison for other for 17 years, with non-parole period of 11 years.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr R Elston | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused Morgan | Mr D Allen | Amad & Amad Lawyers |
| For the Accused Tamme | Ms F McNiff | Yianoulatos Lawyers |
HIS HONOUR:
Natasha Morgan and Emma Tamme, you have both been found guilty by a jury of the murder of Katriana Smyth at Little River on 16 February 2001.
In February 2001, the two of you were working in the sex industry. So too was the deceased. So too was Michelle Jackson. I have already sentenced Michelle Jackson to imprisonment for manslaughter for her role in the killing of Katriana Smyth.
Late in the year 2000, Michelle Jackson was on good terms with Natasha Morgan. The two lived together at a flat in Fawkner. Emma Tamme was then an acquaintance of Michelle Jackson. She had not then met either Natasha Morgan or the deceased. Late in the year 2000, Michelle Jackson was also on good terms with the deceased. The deceased had been to the Fawkner flat. She was there one day with both Michelle Jackson and Natasha Morgan when a Mohamed Oueida came to the flat. Mohamed Oueida was a friend of both Michelle Jackson and Natasha Morgan. He confronted the deceased. He accused her of being a dog, an informer. He told Michelle Jackson and Natasha Morgan that the deceased was not to be trusted.
In January 2001, Natasha Morgan suffered an injury that led to her being hospitalised. She went from hospital back to the Fawkner flat. There was a disagreement as to how the flat had been used while she was in hospital. She told Michelle Jackson to find another place to live. Michelle Jackson contacted the deceased. Those two lived for a time in motel rooms together. They made plans to move into more permanent accommodation together. The deceased did not go ahead with those plans. She chose instead to go her own way with a male friend. Michelle Jackson was left to fend for herself. She moved back into the Fawkner flat with Natasha Morgan. She was angry at what the deceased had done to her.
Early on Thursday 15 February 2001, Michelle Jackson was out partying. The use of mind-altering drugs was an integral part of such partying. She met up with Emma Tamme, and two men, Terrence and Sam. In the early morning, the four went to the Fawkner flat. Later that morning, Emma Tamme was introduced to Natasha Morgan. The two men left, but Emma Tamme stayed. Later in the day, Michelle Jackson bought a bottle of wine. It was a Jacob’s Creek red. Wine from the bottle was consumed at the flat. During the day, there was talk about the deceased. The deceased was not known to Emma Tamme. But she was in the same industry. And she had acted badly towards Michelle Jackson. And she had been accused of being an informer, by someone who might have been thought to know. Talk about the deceased led to talk about bashing the deceased. Talk about bashing her meant working out how to meet up with her. A pretext was needed. The pretext was about a job in Geelong. The job was to be portrayed as involving good money and ample drugs. The deceased was telephoned. A meeting was arranged. Natasha Morgan, Emma Tamme and Michelle Jackson left the Fawkner flat to meet up with the deceased. Before the three left, there were two troubling activities. As to the first, it involved all three. There was more than a little illegal drug use. Some marijuana was consumed, as was some cocaine and some ecstasy. As to the second, I cannot make a finding as to who was responsible. But, from the Fawkner flat, two potential weapons were taken and placed in the Gemini, which was to be driven by Natasha Morgan to the meeting with the deceased. One was a knife. The other was the empty Jacob’s Creek wine bottle. The three women went off in the Gemini for what was to prove a long drive.
The first stop of significance was the Frankston flat of the deceased. There, there was more talk. More cannabis was smoked. Money for more drugs was obtained. Some cocaine was acquired. The four women were high on a cocktail of mind-altering drugs. The four left Frankston heading, or ostensibly heading, for Geelong. There was a stop for the snorting of some cocaine at Williamstown. At Werribee, Natasha Morgan drove the Gemini off the main highway. Having lived in Werribee for a time, she knew her way around. She headed for Little River. Just outside Little River, she drove the Gemini onto the wide grassy verge of a back road. The deceased was told that she was an informer, and was to be dealt with accordingly. She was told that she was not going home. Emma Tamme pulled the deceased out of the Gemini by her hair.
I cannot provide the details of what happened from that point with accuracy. It is substantially as follows. There was argument. There was shouting and screaming. The deceased was knocked to the ground. The two of you punched the deceased around the face and the top of her body. The deceased was able at one point to get up and run, but then she tripped and went to ground again. At different stages, two weapons were produced. One was the empty Jacob’s Creek red wine bottle. The other was the knife from the kitchen at the Fawkner flat. The bottle was smashed on a rock by Natasha Morgan. A piece of the broken bottle was then used to assault the deceased. At another stage, Natasha Morgan had the knife in her hand. Michelle Jackson asked Natasha Morgan for the knife and was given it. Michelle Jackson straddled the deceased, keeping her pinned to the ground. Michelle Jackson did not use the knife to stab the deceased. Instead, she stabbed the knife into the ground, away from the head of the deceased. The two of you pushed Michelle Jackson to one side. The deceased was then assaulted with a vengeance. She was stabbed a number of times with the knife. She was stabbed a number of times with the piece of broken bottle. Then a third weapon was used. I cannot say by whom it was used. The third weapon was a rock almost the size of a football. It was brought down on the head of the deceased with considerable force. The blow or blows with the rock fractured her skull.
The two of you picked up the deceased and put her in the boot of the Gemini. The car was driven off. Some thumping sounds came, or seemed to come, from the boot. The music was turned up to drown out the sounds. The car was driven back to Fawkner. At the Fawkner flat, the two of you were asked by Michelle Jackson what each had done. Both confessed to having stabbed the deceased. Neither spoke of striking her with the rock. Both of you were at times crying and at times casual. There was talk about how to dispose of the body, which was still in the boot. There was talk of torching the Gemini and the body. Terrence and Sam came to the flat. They eventually offered to lead the way to a possible gravesite. The two of you went off with Michelle Jackson in the Gemini, following Terrence and Sam. You went to a place off the Kilmore-Wandong Road. You stopped near a dry creek. The body of the deceased was removed from the boot. Shovels were taken up, but the ground proved to be too hard for even a shallow grave to be dug readily. The body of the deceased was dumped on the dry creek bed. You returned to the Fawkner flat. On the next day, the two of you and Michelle Jackson went your separate ways.
The prosecution case against you was that the two of you planned the death of the deceased. Hence the taking of the knife and empty bottle, and the long drive to a remote location, culminating in a brutal execution. I would need to be satisfied as to that beyond reasonable doubt, before I could sentence you accordingly. In the end, I have not been so satisfied, for reasons which include these three. One, there was scarcely a convincing motive for your planning to kill the deceased. Two, Michelle Jackson did not say there was a plan to kill the deceased. Three, mind-altering drugs played a substantial part in this brutal frenzied killing.
As to motive, the prosecution said it was linked to the deceased being perceived to be an informer. In this case, and for a variety of reasons, a dislike of informers has been shown to be an important consideration. It was apparent in several aspects of the evidence of Michelle Jackson. It was apparent in what Natasha Morgan said, and did not say, in her police interview. It was apparent in what Emma Tamme said to Jeffrey Cummins, and has not said to others. Nevertheless, I find thin the evidence of motive, given the remoteness of the links of both of you with the deceased.
As to Michelle Jackson, I have no doubt that the jury was impressed with her evidence. The jury would have allowed for the manifest deficiencies highlighted in cross-examination during the trial. In too many respects, her evidence had support from other evidence to be disregarded. In one significant respect it was not challenged. That was that she said that you both confessed to stabbing the deceased. One thing she was not prepared to say was that you had planned to kill the deceased.
As to the excessive use of mind-altering drugs, I need say little. All four women, before getting to Little River, had overindulged in a cocktail of stimulants. I have never before encountered a situation where such awful injuries have been inflicted by a woman or women. They could only have been inflicted in a drug-induced frenzy. Particularly as neither of you has a background indicative of a propensity for violence.
I have read the victim impact statement of the mother of the deceased. I have also re-read Mrs Smith’s earlier statement. She writes of the adverse effects of the death to her and to the deceased’s two children and their father. Although in recent times, the deceased chose to distance herself from her mother and from her daughter and son, more than they would have liked, the indications are still that she will be much missed.
I turn to matters which I must allow for in mitigation in favour of both of you. You both have no prior convictions. You both have your youth in your favour. You both have the support of your mother, and other relations.
I now turn to each of you individually. Natasha Morgan, you are 24 years old, having been born in July 1978. Your parents separated when you were quite young. You were raised partly in New Zealand and partly in Australia. Living for a time with each parent must have been unsettling. You did well at school, until you chose to leave at Year 11. As a teenager, you moved from partying to prostitution. You had a serious relationship for a time, but your partner resorted to violence, and you left him. You returned to partying and prostitution. There are a number of considerations for which I must allow in mitigation. The prospects of your rehabilitation appear to be very good. The indicators are generally one way. You co-operated with the police to a significant degree. You have shown signs of remorse. Early this year, you offered to plead guilty to manslaughter. You have been undergoing appropriate courses and individual counselling in prison. I have been shown an impressive array of certificates that evidence the very many steps that you have taken already towards rehabilitating yourself. You are in protection. I must allow for that because it is a factor which has made, and will make, a prison term more onerous.
Emma Tamme, you are 23, having been born in March 1979. Your parents separated when you were around 12. Not long after that, you were raped by a neighbour, but chose to keep that quiet. After your parents separated, you spent time with each of your father and mother. Your father appears to have introduced you to drugs, and to unsavoury friends and activities. You completed year 9 at school at age 14, then left to work, but returned to study at the age of 18. In 1997, your studies at Swinburne produced commendable results. You have for considerable periods worked commendably in the sale of computers. You have mixed a relatively normal life with unsavoury activities. Illegal drugs have been a part of your life for many years. At times, the cost to you of procuring those drugs has been high. The drug-taking has been linked to partying and to prostitution. You have had two long term partners. Your links to them have affected your involvement in drug-related and other activities. More than Michelle Jackson and Natasha Morgan, you have chosen to exercise your legal rights. You cannot be punished for that. But you cannot expect to have made in your favour, the allowances which sentencing principles allow for those who provide information and give evidence that facilitates the course of justice. I make some allowance for your having offered to plead guilty to manslaughter shortly before the trial began. You have scarcely shown any other sign of remorse. I am told that you have been undergoing appropriate courses in prison. The prospects of your rehabilitation are somewhat problematical at this stage. I do allow in your favour for the complimentary things said of you in the letters tendered on the plea.
I must, and do, take account of the sentencing principles as to parity. I have reviewed the 1992 reported case of Howard and found it instructive. There are some similarities. There are also some significant differences. I am unable to treat the sentence that I imposed on Michelle Jackson as an appropriate starting point for setting the prison term that I must impose on you. I was satisfied that she had no hand in any violence to the deceased, and that her offer to give evidence facilitated the course of justice to a very significant degree. My preferred starting point is to be guided by the hundreds of penalties imposed on persons convicted of murder in this Court, as adjusted on appeal from time to time. As between the two of you, there are sufficient reasons for differentiating between you, but not to a major degree. As to your moral culpability, I am unable to distinguish between the two of you. There are other factors which warrant an appropriate reduction for Natasha Morgan. I refer to her co-operation with police, the indications of remorse, the high level of rehabilitative work and the need to spend prison time in protection.
Natasha Morgan, you have served to today, 668 days by way of pre-sentence detention. Emma-Jaine Tamme, you have so served 658 days. I direct that those figures be entered in the court records. Natasha Morgan, I impose on you a sentence of imprisonment of seventeen years. I fix a non-parole period of eleven years. Emma Tamme, I impose on you a sentence of imprisonment of eighteen years. I fix a non-parole period of twelve years.
0
0
0