R v P S
[2005] VSC 117
•22 April 2005
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted | |
AT SALE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 1411 of 2005
| THE QUEEN |
| v |
| PS |
---
JUDGE: | TEAGUE J | |
WHERE HELD: | Sale | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 18 March 2005 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 22 April 2005 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v PS | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2005] VSC 117 | |
---
Criminal Law – Sentencing – Murder – Contracted execution in 1988 of young mother – Many mitigating circumstances including co-operations with authorities – Sentence of 16 years with non-parole period of 12 years
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr M. Gamble | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr N. Papas | Schembri & Co Lawyers |
HIS HONOUR:
You have pleaded guilty to the murder at Strathmore Heights on 6 May 1988 of Anne Crawford.
Before I come to the circumstances of the offences, I would note that I have made certain orders because of the opinion I formed as to the need to minimize the risk of endangerment to your physical safety. I have made a pseudonym order with a view to your being referred to publicly only as PS. I have also made an order directing the closing of the court on the hearing of the plea, but not on the handing down of this sentence. I have also made an order prohibiting publication until further order of a limited portion of what was said on the plea.
Included in the reasons for my accepting that there is a risk to your personal safety is that you have undertaken to give evidence against another man. You are likely to be called on to honour that undertaking soon. I am informed that a committal hearing, at which you would be called on to give evidence, is scheduled for 11 July next. Because of that hearing, I am obliged to be somewhat circumspect in what I say today. Media representatives will be aware of the need to be careful as to what is published by reason of my pseudonym and limited suppression orders, and of the law as to contempt, and by virtue of the provisions of the Witness Protection Act, which apply to you.
The murder of Anne Crawford in May 1988 was a cold-blooded contract killing. Anne Crawford was not known to you personally. You did to her what you had contracted to do. You killed her in such a way as to make it appear that it was an accident. When you went to her home during the morning of 6 May 1988, you had certain expectations. They included that she would be at home alone, and that a family car would be set up in a particular way in the carport.
You knocked on the front door. Anne Crawford opened the door. You promptly grabbed her by the arm. You pulled her into the house. You held her forcibly by the arm until both of you were well inside. You placed a pillow case over her head. You punched her with your clenched right fist forcibly to the side of the head. That knocked her unconscious as you had planned. You carried her in that unconscious state outside to the carport. You placed her under the car lying on her back. Her head and upper body were under the car near the driver’s side door. As had been planned, the front driver’s side wheel had been removed. That corner of the car was held up by a jack. You pushed the car in such a way that it came off the jack. The part that was above her head came crashing down onto her head. You left the scene.
Police carried out investigations in 1988. In the course of those investigations, on 20 June 1988, you were interviewed. You denied any involvement in the death of Anne Crawford. No charges were laid against you or anyone else.
In late 2003, the police commenced a re-investigation of the circumstances of Anne Crawford’s death. A series of preliminary steps were taken before you were contacted. You were aware of at least some of those steps. You had to consider your position. You could have maintained your earlier claim not to have been involved. On 10 December 2004, the police interviewed you again. This time, you indicated your willingness to assist them. You were interviewed at length. You took part in a form of re-enactment. You provided a detailed statement. You have sworn before me as to the truth of the matters contained in that statement. The credibility of much of what is set out in the statement has been verified from independent sources. You have undertaken before me to give evidence at the trial or trials of Ronald Crawford in accordance with the terms of that statement.
The murder of Anne Crawford was a very serious crime. It was a carefully planned mercenary execution of a defenceless young woman still raising her children, in her own home. It was carried out in a callous and cold-blooded way.
There are no victim impact statements before me. I was informed that steps had been taken to ascertain whether any member of the victim’s family might wish to make a statement. I was told that those steps had not led to a positive response. Given the scope for a conflict of emotions within the ranks of the members of the family of Anne Crawford, I have accepted that the matter need not be pressed further.
I turn to your background. You are now 53 years of age, having been born in July 1951. For a period of about 12 years from 1977 to 1989, you were a heavy criminal. You were sentenced to periods of imprisonment, first in Western Australia for theft, then twice in Victoria, in 1980 for rape and assault and more, and in 1989 for armed robbery and theft. The head sentences were respectively one, eight and six years. You mixed with Victor Pierce and other members of his family. 1988 was a year marked by three significant events. In January 1988, there was the armed robbery that resulted in the six year prison term in 1989. In May 1988, there was the contract killing of Anne Crawford. In October 1988, there was the Walsh Street killing of two young police constables.
It seems that the Walsh Street killings led to you reappraising your life. You decided to go straight. You decided to co-operate with the police. You gave the police information as to your former colleagues in crime. You were admitted to the witness protection program. You undertook to give, and you gave, evidence against your former fellow-criminals. You served your sentence for the armed robbery. You then took on a new name. You moved to a new locality. You worked as a truck driver. You got on with your life away from crime. I am told that, in the years since then, your only offence has been for driving over the speed limit. In 1999, you met your now wife. You have lived with her on a very low profile.
There is a big cloud over your life which is not linked to your past life of crime. You have two major health problems. The first concerns your back. During your work as a truck driver, you suffered a serious back injury. You have been receiving WorkCover payments which will cease upon the handing down of this sentence. Vertebrae in your thoracic and lumbar spine have been compromised. A spinal cord device to relieve pain has been implanted. The condition is permanent. The prognosis is poor. Continuing treatment is needed. You need to use crutch-like sticks to get around. The second major health problem arises out of the operation that you undertook shortly before your arrest, that was intended to bring about a considerable loss in weight. Your being overweight had led to diabetes and high blood pressure and high cholesterol problems. You subjected yourself to a stomach stapling operation. It had the good effect that you lost 45 kilograms in weight. It had the bad effect of making it not possible for you to have a meal of much more than yoghurt and mashed bananas without vomiting. You are facing the prospect of an operation to reverse the stapling.
I have to weigh against the grossly serious nature of your crime, several significant mitigating factors operating in your favour. There are several indications of your genuine remorse. The prospects of rehabilitation can only be assessed as excellent. You have an extremely supportive wife. You have pleaded guilty at an early stage. Your time in prison to date has been, and in the future will be, fearful. It will in other respects be onerous. You will have to remain in protection, with all the restrictions that that entails. You will continue to suffer more in protection from the health problems to which I have referred. Your age is also a factor to be taken into account in that regard.
The most significant mitigating factor is your co-operation with the authorities. You have given an undertaking which is to be noted in the court records. Specifically, you have undertaken to assist the police and give evidence for the prosecution against Ronald Crawford in relation to the charge against him of the murder of Anne Crawford as per your statement dated 10 December 2004. Your choice to assist the authorities has several implications. It warrants a very large reduction in the sentence imposed for purely utilitarian reasons dictated by the public interest. It is now imperative that you be provided with a high level of protection. If it had not been for the co-operation, past and future, and the other mitigating factors, you would have been sentenced by me to a period of imprisonment of at least thirty years.
I have signed the retention order as sought and not objected to. I impose a sentence of sixteen years. I set a non-parole period of twelve years. I declare that the period of 134 days is the period of pre-sentence detention already served by you as part of the sentence. I direct that that declaration be entered in the court records.
0
0
0