R v Wathen
[2004] VSC 354
•21 September 2004
| Do Not Send for Reporting | ||
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted | |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 1454 of 2004
| THE QUEEN |
| v |
| IAN MARK WATHEN |
---
JUDGE: | TEAGUE J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 16 August, 13 September 2004 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 21 September 2004 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v Ian Mark Wathen | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2004] VSC 354 | |
---
Criminal law – Sentencing – Murder of wife – Arson of home – Plea of guilty and other mitigating considerations – Effective sentence of 18 years – Non-parole period of 13 years
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr C. Hillman S.C. | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr C. Rozencwaj | Lethbridges |
HIS HONOUR:
Ian Wathen, you have pleaded guilty to the crimes of murder and arson. On 28 May 2003 at 14 Lewis Street Ormond, you stabbed to death Joanne Beaumont, and you set fire to the house, causing its effective destruction.
Joanne Beaumont was your wife. She was some 15 months younger than you. The two of you met in around 1990. In 1992, you commenced a relationship. You were married in 1998. It was around that time that you bought the house in Lewis Street. In 1999, there were problems in the marriage arising from your drinking to excess. You and your wife received counselling over a period of about 8 months. You stopped drinking altogether. The two of you worked full time. You worked as a gardener. She worked as a business development manager with a finance company. She took up the study of psychology, and was clearly doing well in her studies. In October 2002, she told you she wanted a temporary break in the marriage. You did not want her to leave you. You were confused as to her motives.
In May last year, you formed the impression that your wife was acting strangely. You spoke to the counsellor with whom you had worked in 1999. Your description of your wife’s behaviour triggered a concern on the part of the counsellor that she may have had mental illness problems. The counsellor consulted a doctor, who spoke with you. That led to your suggesting to your wife that she should see a doctor. She reacted adversely. She moved out of the Lewis Street home and into the home of her brother Mark. The doctor consulted a Crisis and Treatment Team. On 22 May 2003, the CAT team assessed your wife, an action scarcely likely to please her. On assessment, she presented well. She explained sensibly the behaviour that you had claimed was strange. The team was satisfied that there was no psychotic problem. Your wife was displeased at you for your part in arranging to have her assessed. She moved to finalise the separation. On 23 May 2003, she opened a new back account. She transferred money from the joint account into that new account.
On 27 May 2003, she moved back into 14 Lewis Street. She met there an estate agent. She arranged to meet the estate agent again the next day. She made it clear to you that she was planning to leave you. She had prepared a list of matters to be attended to, to be sorted out with you. She set herself up to sleep that night in the lounge room.
It is not possible to say with precision how and why you then acted as you did. Not long before 6.45 a.m. on Wednesday 28 May 2003, you took a knife. You used the knife to stab your wife as she slept in the lounge room. You stabbed her some 10 times. She was dead within minutes. You then stabbed yourself. You set fire to the house. In what order and precisely how those further steps were taken is not clear. The indications are that you had in mind to kill yourself. The prompt intervention of a man working nearby led to your life being saved. When, in hospital, you later spoke to treating staff, you spoke in a way suggesting that you had little memory of the events.
I have taken considerable time to read the victim impact statements of members of the family of your wife. Clearly, much time and trouble went into their preparation. Not surprisingly, they made for depressing reading. That is particularly so of the statement of Joan Beaumont, your wife’s mother. Your wife was the kind of person that made a real difference to the lives of those near to her. They have been, and will remain, much saddened and traumatised by her death.
I turn from them to you. You are 35 years of age. You were born in June 1969. You were the youngest of four boys, raised in a substantially supportive family. The family history is indicative of significant mood problems and alcoholism. You were educated to Year 11. You were an average student. You did well at sport. You have been a good worker over many years, as testimony led before me confirmed.
There are indications both ways on the issue of whether the murder by you of your wife was pre-meditated. On balance, I accept that it was not planned, although your perception was that she was treating you badly. I accept that you acted as a man stressed and depressed, rather than as one in control. It is inevitable that many marriages will fail. When they do, most partners move on. They get on with their lives, and they let their former partner do the same. The community expects that those, like you, who resort instead to violently killing the partner must be sentenced to a long prison term. I accept that, while general deterrence must play a part in governing the sentence that I impose, it can be sensibly moderated to a degree by reason of your mental state. Your account to Dr Walton has you puzzled as to how you could have come to do what you did. He found no evidence of psychotic disturbance. He concluded that you had been depressed for some time before you killed your wife. Indeed his assessment was that you then had a diagnosable depressive illness. He notes the favourable response to medication and counselling.
There are other mitigating considerations. You have no prior convictions. You have pleaded guilty. Even though the case against you was strong, the plea warrants a relatively significant reduction for reasons that include that witnesses have been relieved of the potential trauma of giving evidence, and that the plea is an indication of remorse. I do accept that there is real remorse. I also accept that you have indicated your desire for rehabilitation in ways that include your willingness to do programs in prison.
A period of substantial but not total concurrency is called for. The setting fire to the house is an aggravating circumstance. It is less so given that your apparent plan was to kill yourself rather than to hide evidence or to further demean your wife’s body. This means that I must appropriately moderate and cumulate.
I have signed disposal and body sample orders. I declare that you have served by way of pre-sentence detention 483 days. I direct that that be entered in the court records. I imposes sentences as follows. For the murder of Joanne Beaumont I fix 17 years imprisonment. For the arson, I fix 4 years. Of the 4 years imposed on the arson, I make 1 year cumulative on, and 3 years concurrent with, the 17 years imposed on the murder. The effective head sentence is 18 years. I fix a non-parole period of 13 years.
0
0