R v Walsh
[2000] VSC 433
•3 August 2000
| SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | |
| CRIMINAL DIVISION | Not Restricted |
No. 1497 of 2000
| THE QUEEN |
| v. |
| STEPHANIE WALSH |
---
JUDGE: | COLDREY, J | |
WHERE HELD: | MELBOURNE | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 3 AUGUST 2000 | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2000] VSC 433 | |
---
CATCHWORDS: Kidnapping – Reluctant participation by prisoner – Under influence of mother – Demonstrated concern for victim – Youthful first offender – Agreement to give evidence for prosecution – Effect of need for witness protection.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
For the Crown | W. Morgan-Payler | Solicitor for the Office of Public Prosecution |
| For the Accused | P. Duggan | Victoria Legal Aid |
HIS HONOUR:
Stephanie Joan Walsh, you have pleaded guilty to a charge that at Mitcham, on 16 May 2000, you took away and detained Dean Keith Reilly, with intent to demand from him a payment of the sum of $3,000,000 by way of ransom for his release. In simple terms the offence is one of kidnapping.
It is necessary to briefly set out the facts surrounding the commission of this offence since they are relevant to the sentence I must impose upon you. However, I do not intend to go into any great detail, not only because your own role in this incident was limited, but also because the prosecution of other offenders alleged to have been involved is yet to come before the Court. Further, the account of events outlined by Mr. Morgan-Payler on behalf of the Crown was not disputed by your legal representative, Mr. Duggan.
The victim, Dean Reilly, and his business partner, Peter Floyd, operated a company known as SLC Australia, trading as Tecom Systems. It designed and manufactured electronic security devices. In mid July 1999 the company was sold to American interests but Mr. Reilly and his partner continued to manage its operation. The sale of the business netted both men many millions of dollars.
In March 2000, Mr. Reilly met your mother, Toni Vodopic and her present husband Joe Vodopic at a Ferrari ball. Mr. Reilly's business partner was also present on that occasion. At the time your mother was operating a clothing store in Toorak while you were working as a bookkeeper/office manager at Stedfast Automotive, a business owned by Joe Vodopic.
Apparently your mother's enterprise experienced financial difficulties. On about 12 May this year, she told you, falsely, that Mr. Reilly owed her a large sum of money and was refusing to repay it. Your mother told you that force would be required to persuade Mr. Reilly to hand over that money and that a sedative would also be required. You were requested to obtain heroin for this purpose. You went with your sister to St. Kilda but were unsuccessful in your quest.
On 15 May, having obtained Mr. Reilly's mobile telephone number from his receptionist, your mother contacted him with the untrue story that she desired his assistance to hide a birthday present for Peter Floyd, namely a Ferrari wheel, on the business premises of SLC Australia at Mitcham.
Apparently that evening your mother told Joe Vodopic that she had to collect a debt on behalf of someone else and that this would involve kidnapping and drugging a person.
On the morning of 16 May you travelled in a Mercedes sedan to the Mitcham premises. Your mother contacted Mr. Reilly by phone and he left the premises to meet her. After some discussion at the car, it was agreed that the wheel would be delivered through the rear entrance of the premises. It was suggested that Mr. Reilly get in the back seat of the vehicle and you were instructed to drive it. At this stage your mother was in the front passenger seat of the car and Mr. Reilly was in the rear of the vehicle sandwiched between a large black sports bag and Joe Vodopic. On arriving at the rear of the premises your mother directed you to manoeuvre the vehicle warning you not to dent it. Mr. Reilly observed that you were becoming agitated. Eventually the car was parked in the street adjacent to the factory and your mother briefly alighted. This was followed by the pretence that the car doorlocks were not functioning. In fact the childproof locks had been activated so as to keep Mr. Reilly in the vehicle. You were then instructed by your mother to drive off rapidly. Initially the vehicle proceeded in Whitehorse Road and, during this time, Mr. Reilly was punched by Joe Vodopic and was also assaulted by Toni Vodopic who was reaching across from the front seat. Mr. Reilly endeavoured to escape from the car and he managed to open the rear driver's side window and to get his body half way out of it. In the course of the struggle, in which he was pulled back into the vehicle, his clothing was ripped from his upper body. Thereafter, further assaults occurred. Several motorists observed what was happening and informed the police of the registration number of the Mercedes vehicle.
Ultimately, after being instructed to drive to various locations, you arrived at the Glen Iris address of Joe Vodopic's parents. After being removed from the vehicle Mr. Reilly spent some hours in the rear yard of these premises where demands were made that he transfer $3,000,000 from the company's business accounts to the trust account of a solicitor acting on behalf of Toni Vodopic.
After being taken inside the house, Mr. Reilly was interrogated as to his financial affairs. Various demands were made of him by Toni Vodopic, many of which were conflicting and confusing. It is unnecessary for me to canvas them.
During the course of the night Mr. Reilly was further assaulted by the Vodopics. At one stage he was tied up and his mouth and eyes covered with plastic tape. On another occasion a plastic bag was placed over his head.
The injuries sustained by Mr. Reilly included lacerations to the forehead and nose; abrasions to the forehead, both cheeks, the neck, back, upper arms, hands, elbows and left leg. There was bruising to the right eye, gums, right thigh, both ankles and the back, as well as tenderness over the right clavicle and lumbar spine. An x-ray revealed no abnormalities and hospitalisation was not required.
It was not suggested that you played any role in the assaults upon Mr. Reilly. Indeed, you assisted in treating Mr. Reilly's injuries.
In the early hours of 17 May handwritten documents, prepared mainly by your mother, were signed by Mr. Reilly. They purported to order the National Australia Bank to transfer $3,000,000 to her solicitors trust account. Further, the victim agreed to sign a document indemnifying his captors from any civil or criminal liability.
At the commencement of business hours on 17 May contact was made with the bank and the transfer document was faxed to the relevant branch. As a result of the crude nature of the handwritten document, and irregularities within it, the bank contacted Mr. Reilly's business partner, Mr. Floyd, who directed that no transfer of funds be made.
Mr. Reilly remained at the Glen Iris premises until that afternoon when he was driven by the Vodopics to Knox Private Hospital. This is just another aspect of the bizarre nature of this whole episode.
You had nothing to do with any of these transactions having left the Glen Iris address early that morning.
In an interview conducted with police on 24 May, you outlined your reaction to these events. I do not intend to quote from your description but, in essence, you mention your fear of your mother when she ordered you to keep driving the vehicle after the abduction; your efforts to distance yourself from the events occurring at Glen Iris; your treatment of Mr. Reilly's injuries at that time; and your continued presence at the premises in an effort to protect Mr. Reilly from any further violence.
I note that in his police statement Mr. Reilly described your efforts to clean and dress his wounds. He noted that you seemed upset almost to the point of crying. Additionally, although the source is the record of interview of your co-offender Joe Vodopic, his account provides support for your assertion. Joe Vodopic expresses his view of your ignorance of where you were expected to drive the vehicle and of the extent of your mother's plan to extract money. He also records your opposition to such plan and your request that the victim be released. In a subsequent statement to police Joe Vodopic describes you at the house as being hysterical, genuinely upset for the victim, and crying and apologising to him.
In the course of your plea the Crown accepted that you remained at the scene out of concern for Mr. Reilly, but, additionally, out of concern that your father, Noel Faure, who was a person with a propensity for violence, might attend and create even greater problems for the victim.
Additionally, the Crown acknowledged that you were placed under considerable pressure from your mother to initially become involved in this enterprise.
Once you were arrested, you made full admissions to police in a lengthy interview and participated in a video taped re-enactment. You later made a detailed statement in which you set out your role.
All that having been said, the offence of kidnapping is a serious one. The victim in this case had to endure over 24 hours of psychological and physical trauma. Although I have no Victim Impact Statement, one would expect that these events will have a long term psychological effect upon him. In the absence of significant extenuating circumstances a participant in an offence of this type could expect an immediate custodial sentence.
In the course of your plea, the informant, Detective Senior Constable Brett Smith spoke of your remorse for what had occurred and expressed the view that your recorded interview and subsequent statement accurately reflect your relatively circumscribed role in this offence.
Indeed, I was informed that he had recently spoken to Mr. Reilly who was of the opinion that you had little role to play in this incident and were present as an unwilling party.
Detective Senior Constable Smith also stated that your willingness to give evidence for the Crown in this ongoing prosecution, and a further matter currently under investigation, (an intention which you confirmed on oath), could place you in some danger. In normal circumstances you would be a candidate for the witness protection program.
Given your family background, with both your father and uncle having criminal records for violence, including manslaughter convictions, I am prepared to accept that assessment. Nor do I underestimate the courage it has taken in these circumstances for you to agree to give evidence for the prosecution against family members, particularly your mother.
On your behalf Mr. Duggan outlined a number of factors personal to you which are relevant to the sentence to be imposed.
You are only 19 years of age having been born in Melbourne in September 1980. You were the second of four children, although you do not presently have any contact with your siblings. Your parents separated when you were about 10 years old. Up until that time the family lived in a number of addresses on the Mornington Peninsula and you attended many primary schools. You have memories of frequently being taken to visit your father in prisons and your family virtually lived within the criminal community.
In 1989 your father was charged with murder following a shooting at Rye. In the subsequent trial your mother decided to give evidence against her then estranged husband. This involved the rest of the family initially moving into a protective security unit before being relocated under assumed names and profiles. The use of assumed names was by no means foreign to you, having accompanied your father on many interstate trips when this device was employed by him.
In 1993 your sister Kelly, who was then 16 years old, was killed in a motor accident. She had been your confidant and friend and a mutual ally in surviving a family lifestyle involving violence and alcohol and drug abuse. Her death was devastating for you and, indeed, for your family.
After that death your mother's behaviour became erratic and, being either unable or unwilling to care for you and the other children, she returned you to your father. Having been convicted of manslaughter, he had completed his prison term. By this time you were attending Rosebud Secondary College. You continued your studies there for two years until, when undertaking year 11, you felt unable to continue to live with your father and, in effect, ran away from home. For the next six months you stayed with various friends while endeavouring to complete your education.
Your mother subsequently re-established contact with you and, with her promise of assistance and support, you stayed with your sister Julie in apartments in Toorak Road and Chapel Street. That relationship was volatile and she eventually moved out. At the time of your arrest you were living with friends in Camberwell.
On your return to Melbourne you obtained work in the hospitality industry and you have been in constant employment for some years in various restaurants and hotels. At the start of this year you accompanied your mother to Indonesia when she travelled there to purchase stock for her clothing business. You commenced work with Stedfast Automotive where you were employed at the time of this offence.
In summary, this is the situation. I accept that you were pressured into participating in this venture by your mother; that your relatively limited role in it was performed reluctantly, and that ultimately you sought to assist the victim in the face of violence which you did not condone. Upon your arrest you co-operated fully with investigating police.
Your antecedents are remarkable in that despite your exposure to a disruptive lifestyle in a dysfunctional family living in a criminal milieu, you have not acquired a single conviction. Indeed, the Crown conceded that you came before the Court as a person of previous good character. Further, you have determinedly pursued your secondary education and thereafter have been gainfully employed. On these grounds alone it could be said your prospects of rehabilitation are excellent.
I also have regard to your remorse, which I accept is genuine.
You are further entitled to a sentencing discount because of your plea of guilty to this offence.
A further factor in your favour is your age. As a youthful first offender, the Court should place great emphasis upon your rehabilitation.
Additionally, the Court must take into account your willingness to give evidence on behalf of the prosecution. Not only may that be regarded as a courageous course to follow, but it will probably result in a complete severance of any ties with your family. Moreover, it appears that you will initially be placed within the witness protection program which may require relocation and the possibility of having to acquire a new identity. Any of these outcomes will not be easy burdens to bear and may in themselves be regarded as constituting a punishment.
The constellation of factors to which I have referred leads me to the conclusion that any sentence of imprisonment imposed upon you should be wholly suspended. I note that this is a sentencing option which the Crown conceded would not be inappropriate.
In all the circumstances I regard the proper sentence as one of 2 years.
Ms Walsh, for the reasons I have outlined, I propose to give you the opportunity to rehabilitate yourself and to avoid any actual imprisonment. The term of imprisonment will be 2 years but the whole of that period will be suspended so that you do not spend any time in custody. During that period of time you must not commit any further offence which is punishable by imprisonment or you may be required to serve some or all of the suspended sentence.
Accordingly, you are sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment, but I order that the whole of that sentence be suspended for a period of 24 months.
0
0