R v Walsh
[2005] VSC 233
•30 June 2005
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted | |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 1432 of 2005
| THE QUEEN |
| v |
| JOAN MARY WALSH |
---
JUDGE: | TEAGUE J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 24 May and 2 June 2005 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 30 June 2005 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v Joan Mary Walsh | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2005] VSC 233 | |
---
Criminal Law – Sentencing – Attempted Murder – Unprovoked stabbing attack on helpful security guard – Very serious injuries – Early plea of guilty – Prison for 11 years – Non-parole period of 8 years
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr J. Rapke Q.C. | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr W. Stougiannos | Paul Vale and Associates |
HIS HONOUR:
You have pleaded guilty to the attempted murder on 27 December 2004 of Karen Emmerzael.
Karen Emmerzael was not known to you. She was a security guard. In December 2004, she was working for a company that was engaged to protect premises of the Commonwealth Bank in Batman Street Melbourne. You drove your car to those premises very early on a Monday morning last year. It was shortly before 1 a.m. on 27 December. Karen Emmerzael was in the foyer of the premises, inside the locked doors. You attracted her attention. You told her that your car had broken down. You asked if you could use the telephone. She let you in to use the telephone. You started to dial. You then hung up and asked to use the toilet. You said that you were a member of the Commonwealth Bank staff. Karen Emmerzael allowed you access to the toilet. She then escorted you back to the foyer.
You then attacked her with a knife from behind. When she realised what you were about, she tried to defend herself. In so protecting herself, she suffered major cuts to her hands. During the attack, you stabbed her to her face. You stabbed her in the lower back. Despite the savagery of your attack, she was able to escape. You left the premises and drove away.
The victim impact statement of Karen Emmerzael has been read out in open court. It made for depressing listening. The very serious stabbing injuries that you inflicted will have major long-term repercussions for her. She is disfigured. She is incapacitated. She will be severely limited in many activities. Her capacity to work has been impaired in many ways. As well as the major physical injuries, she is left with bad psychological scarring.
I have great difficulty understanding what factors contributed to your choosing to attack your victim. That is the more troubling given that I have been supplied on the plea with copies of a number of medical and like reports. The factors that are of a short-term nature that are very perplexing include the following. You did not know Karen Emmerzael. She went out of her way to help you at what she believed from your actions was a time of need for you. You had taken the knife that you used from your home. After the attack, you went home and washed the knife and put it away. You initially sought to mislead the police. In your favour, you then chose to co-operate fully. When the police interviewed you, you told them that if Karen Emmerzael had not fought back and escaped from your attack, you would have killed her. Asked to explain why you did what you did, you could only say that something came over you, and you could not stop yourself.
There are other factors that are of a long-term nature that only add to the perplexity. Those matters include the following. You were abused as a child. You have had abusive relationships as an adult. You have lost a son in a motor car accident. You were an employee of the Commonwealth Bank for some years up to 1999. You had worked at the Batman Avenue premises. You had left the employ of the bank after an incident of dishonesty, that led to your being convicted of theft. You had gone to the Batman Avenue premises almost exactly one week before the attack on Karen Emmerzael, only to be rebuffed by the male security guard then on duty.
I turn to your background generally. You are aged 45. You were born in India in September 1959. You were one of a large family. You came to Australia with your parents and most siblings in 1968. You were subject to sexual abuse in your childhood by an extended family member. As to that, you were much later a witness in a stress-provoking criminal proceeding that did not lead to a conviction. Save as to your brother, Cyril, you have not remained close to your family. That appears to have been your choice, not theirs. Their letters only speak well of you. You were married at a young age. You had three children. In 1998, you separated from your husband. In part, that was linked to the aftermath of the earlier sexual abuse. In 1999, your older son was killed in a motor car accident. You then suffered a severe grief reaction and remained depressed subsequently. As to your mental state, I have particularly noted the contents of the reports of Dr Walton and Dr Sullivan. It seems that that depression was severe and persistent. It has responded only partly to antidepressant medication. In 2001, you received a suspended sentence for the theft and other offences linked to your prior employment with the bank. The convictions are a factor going to the matter of special deterrence. In December 2004, you were living in Sunbury with a man who seems to have been only supportive. There were not the outward signs of your suffering some form of crisis that might lead to your acting as irrationally as you did in attacking Karen Emmerzael. Indeed, many of the references tendered on the plea contain indications of the attack being quite out of character.
The seriousness of the injuries suffered by Karen Emmerzael at your hands is a significant factor warranting stern punishment. The community expects that this kind of vicious and unprovoked attack on an innocent, even kindly victim, leaving the victim with permanent serious injuries, is to be denounced strongly. An element of attempted murder being an intention to kill, general deterrence is also a factor of considerable significance.
On the other hand, there are many mitigating factors. They contribute to making more difficult the choice of the number of years of imprisonment for both the head sentence and the non-parole period. I have studied most, if not all, of the recent sentences for attempted murder imposed in this court. Some have been reviewed in the Court of Appeal. While one must allow for many variables, the broad picture is that many sentences imposed recently for attempted murder have not been very substantially below those fixed for murder itself.
I accept that there is genuine remorse. I must and do allow for your early plea of guilty, and for your co-operation with the police. The indications from recent activity and contacts by you are that your prospects of rehabilitation are at least reasonably good. The indications are that you will have strong family support, if your are minded to take advantage of it.
I have signed the disposal and retention orders, there being good reasons and no objection to my doing so.
I impose a sentence of imprisonment of eleven years. I fix a non-parole period of eight years. I declare the period of pre-sentence detention to be 184 days to today. I direct that that be entered in the court records.
0
0
0