R v Rye
[2006] VSC 6
•6 April 2006
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted | |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 1403 of 2005
| THE QUEEN |
| v |
| CRAIG STEVEN RYE |
---
JUDGE: | TEAGUE J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 1-5, 8-12 August and 30 September 2005 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 6 April 2006 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v Craig Steven Rye | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2006] VSC 6 | |
---
Criminal Law – Sentencing – Murder – sexual attack and strangling by 41 year old male of former female partner – various aggravating and mitigating factors – sentence of 20 years, non-parole period of 15 years.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Ms G. Cannon | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr L. Lasry Q.C. with Ms P. Murphy | Robert Stary and Associates |
HIS HONOUR:
Craig Rye. You have been found guilty by a jury of the murder of Sharon Judd on or about 17 January 2002. For about 3 years before the murder, you and Sharon Judd were in a relationship. You met her after your marriage, and hers, had broken up. In 2001, major problems emerged in the relationship. Twice in that year, she left you temporarily. In December 2001, she moved out of your house. She then made it clear to you that she was leaving you for good. You resented her moving out. You pressed her to return. The pressure you applied was extreme. At times, you were obviously obsessive. You made phone calls to her excessively frequently. You talked to your friends and to hers about your need to get her back. You talked to them about your need to have sex with her again.
Sharon Judd had two daughters, to whom she was a loving mother. Over the Christmas 2001 holiday period, they had been staying with their father. Between 15 and 17 January 2002, she was preparing to have her daughters back with her. She was happily catching up with friends, and doing some shopping, including for a stereo and VCR. She still treated you as a friend. Indeed, during the afternoon of 17 January, you visited her at the home she had rented. It was only a couple of minutes drive from where you lived. You asked her for sex. She knocked you back. Your behaviour on that visit caused her concern. The last two conversations she had with others before you murdered her were with Karen and Michael. Karen was a close friend of hers, and Michael a close friend of yours. She told both Karen and Michael of her concern as to your behaviour. You were with Michael until just before 10 p.m. on the night of 17 January.
It is not possible for me to spell out precisely what you did after leaving him. You told the police later that you were at home alone for the rest of the night. Clearly, the jury did not accept that that was so. I can make a number of findings by way of reasonable inference. They include that, after leaving Michael, you went to Sharon Judd’s home and she let you in. You attacked her sexually. You inflicted upon her the injuries that were found at the autopsy. At one stage, you penetrated her vagina with some object. Only you know what it was. But it was such as to cause a laceration to her vagina that was about 8 cm long. You then strangled her. You left her body on her bed.
After murdering her, you carried out a series of actions to conceal her death and your part in it. I characterise those actions as calculating. Those actions are to be treated as factors aggravating the seriousness of the murder. You turned off Sharon Judd’s mobile phone. You removed from her house the brand new stereo and VCR that she had purchased just hours earlier. You moved her car to the car park at the nearest railway station, leaving it in an inconspicuous place. You devised lies to pass on to her friends as to her having told you that she was depressed and that she wanted to be alone. When you realised that the stereo and VCR were a liability, you passed them on to your brother.
I turn briefly to a matter that was in contention at the hearing of the plea. That was as to your having returned to the room where the body of Sharon Judd lay, after learning of the police having been contacted, and of your having then started a fire that disfigured her body. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities, but not beyond reasonable doubt, that you did so act. However, for the reason that the higher standard was not satisfied and for a further reason, I cannot and do not treat the burning of the body as an aggravating circumstance, for the purpose of fixing a sentence. The further reason is that I am not satisfied that, on applying the legal principles as to what is appropriately characterised as an aggravating circumstance, there is the necessary close connection between the killing and the burning.
I have reflected upon the way that you handled events after the killing. I did consider whether it was appropriate to find that you had a similar calculating approach before it. I am aware, on the other hand, that the evidence of your conversations shortly before the murder points strongly the other way. The prosecution has put to me, and I accept, that the killing was not premeditated. I propose to sentence you on that basis.
I have read carefully the victim impact statements that have been placed before me. Sharon Judd was a woman who seems to have been very specially regarded, and particularly by other women. I am not only referring to her two beloved and loving daughters, Stephanie and Hannah. I am referring to her many close female friends. Many of them had cause to give evidence before the jury. Many of them stayed in court throughout the trial. Indeed, there was a strong outpouring of emotion immediately upon the jury giving its verdict. You might well have thought that some of that emotion was directed at you. It seemed to me to primarily reflect satisfaction that justice had been done.
You are not to be in any way punished for exercising your rights. But you cannot have exercised in your favour the benefits that flow from mitigating factors such as a plea of guilty or an exhibition of strong remorse. It is to be weighed in your favour that there was an impeccable handling by your counsel of the appropriate testing of the prosecution case.
You are 45 years of age, having been born in August 1960. There are a number of mitigating considerations to be allowed for in your favour. You have no prior convictions. You have had a particularly stable and law-abiding background. You have had a good work and sporting record. I have read the testimonials tendered on the plea. All the indications are that you are a good rehabilitation prospect.
I have signed the body sample retention order. I declare that you have served by way of pre-sentence detention 710 days. I declare that that be entered in the court records. I impose a head sentence of 20 years. I fix a non-parole period of 15 years.
0
0
0