R v Watson
[2009] VSC 261
•24 June 2009
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted | |
AT BENDIGO
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 1660 of 2008
| THE QUEEN |
| V |
| RICHARD JAMES WATSON |
---
JUDGE: | WHELAN J | |
WHERE HELD: | Bendigo | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 23-27 February, 2-6, 10-13, 16-20, 23-26 and 30-31 March, 1-3 and 6 April, and 23 June 2009 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 24 June 2009 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v Watson | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2009] VSC 261 | First Revision: 25 June 2009 |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder and arson – Victim stabbed and strangled – House and two vehicles burnt – Total effective sentence of 22 years’ imprisonment – Non-parole period of 17 years and six months.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Ms M Williams SC with Mr T Hoare | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr D Brustman | Victoria Legal Aid |
HIS HONOUR:
Richard James Watson, on 24 February 2009 you were arraigned on one count of murder and three counts of arson. On 6 April 2009 a jury of 12 found you guilty of all four counts, and on 23 June 2009 I heard a plea in mitigation on your behalf. The charges relate to the murder of your wife, Anne Watson, on 13 July 2003, and to a fire that same night which destroyed the house you and your wife were living in, which also destroyed your Holden Statesman, and which damaged a bus that you were converting into a mobile home.
The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment. The maximum penalty for arson is 15 years’ imprisonment.
I am bound to sentence you on a factual basis which is consistent with the jury’s verdict. Otherwise, in relation to matters adverse to you, I must be satisfied of those matters beyond reasonable doubt, but I may take into account matters in your favour which are established on the balance of probabilities.[1]
[1] R v Storey [1998] 1 VR 395 at 369; R v Olbrich (1999) 1999 CLR 270; R v Cheung (2001) 209 CLR 1; and R v Ramage [2004] VSC 508 at [25].
On this basis, the circumstances of your offending can be summarised as follows.
Your wife’s parents, George and Brigitte Cain, had a business named Pyramid Hill Pet Food, which George Cain had started in the late 1980s. In late 1999 George Cain requested that you come to Pyramid Hill, in Victoria, to assist in the running of the pet food business. You and Anne were living in Sydney at the time. Anne remained in Sydney. You moved to Pyramid Hill. Soon after your arrival in Pyramid Hill, you replaced your brother-in-law, Jim Sandercock, as manager of the pet food business.
George Cain was admitted to hospital in early 2000, and died there of cancer in August 2000. A few days later you terminated the factory’s business agreement with JJ Processing, a meat sourcing business owned by Jim Sandercock and another of your brothers-in-law, John Eade.
In late October or early November 2000, Anne joined you in Pyramid Hill. You and Anne moved into a house owned by Brigitte Cain at 4 Factory Lane, Pyramid Hill in late 2000. You made an agreement with Brigitte to purchase the property for $22,000.
In early 2001 Anne received a threatening letter in the mail. Police investigated, but the author was never identified. You later claimed that you and Anne received a further three threatening letters; on 7 August 2001, 22 March 2003 and 17 June 2003. You emailed a scanned copy of the letter Anne had received and of three further threatening letters to your friend, Werner Munzberg, on 4 July 2003. The prosecution submitted to the jury at your trial that you were the author of those three further letters.
On the plea the prosecution initially submitted that the jury must have been satisfied you wrote the three further threatening letters yourself. In oral submissions counsel for the prosecution resiled from that, accepting that the case put to the jury was that the letters were one factor amongst many, which, when all taken together, established guilt. The prosecution submission on the plea was that I should be satisfied not only that you wrote the three further letters, but that in doing so you created a false environment of antipathy and fear in which Anne lived during the months leading up to her death. The prosecution submitted this was an aggravating feature of your crimes.
The only threatening letters in evidence on your trial were the copy ones you had sent to your friend, Werner Munzberg, attached to the email of 4 July 2003. Many witnesses in the trial referred to having been shown a letter or letters, or having been told of a letter or of letters, by you or by Anne. In view of the way the matter was put by the prosecution on the plea, I have specifically reviewed the evidence of Anne’s knowledge of threatening letters. I am not satisfied to the requisite standard that Anne was living in fear as a consequence of threatening letters written by you.
You were employed as manager of the factory until 30 June 2001. The business did not prosper. The company which operated the business was placed into administration and the business was eventually taken over by new owners. After termination of your employment at the factory you were unemployed. You were still unemployed at the time of Anne’s murder in July 2003. You did not claim unemployment benefits. Anne worked part-time at a school in Echuca as a food technical assistant.
On 24 July 2001 you bought a 1974 Dening bus. You began converting the bus into a mobile home, and you planned to travel around Australia in that bus with Anne upon completion of that project. There was evidence at your trial from a number of witnesses that Anne was supportive of this project and of the proposed trip. I accept that that is what she told those people. There were two witnesses who gave evidence to a different effect. One said that Anne had indicated to her that she was not overly happy about going on the trip. The other said that Anne had told her about 4 weeks before she died that she had decided to move back to Sydney. I also accept that that is what Anne told those witnesses.
On 8 April 2002 you requested a valuation of the house at 4 Factory Lane. The subsequent valuation indicated the property had a market value of $22,500 and a replacement value of $85,000.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that by the time of the fire in July 2003 you were in serious financial trouble. You were unemployed but not receiving unemployment benefits. Anne had sought to have her work hours increased and had expressed concern about her finances to others. Bank records show you and Anne had exhausted your bank savings. It was suggested in your trial that you had substantial cash hidden under the floorboards of 4 Factory Lane. You may have had cash under the floorboards at some point, but I am satisfied that by the time of the fire, if there remained any hidden cash, it was not of an amount sufficient to cause me to alter the conclusion that you were in serious financial trouble.
On the fatal night you and Anne were at home alone. You were then aged 56 and Anne was 48. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you had planned to burn your house and vehicles so as to claim money on insurance, and that you proceeded to put that plan into effect that night. Before the fire that night you removed items of particular value to you from the house.
At some point you formed the intention to kill your wife, Anne. I cannot determine when that was or why you formed that intent. Perhaps she interfered in your plan to burn down the house. Perhaps she was intending to leave you and return to Sydney. Only you know why you chose to kill your wife of 31 years. I make no finding as to your motivation save that, because the arsons and the murder occurred at about the same time, I am satisfied that there was some connection between them.
You stabbed Anne in the left side of her chest between two ribs, penetrating her left lung. You also strangled her. You used flammable liquids to burn her body. Dr Noel Woodford, who performed the autopsy on Anne’s body, concluded that Anne was dead before there was any fire. I accept that.
Either before or after murdering Anne, you splashed kerosene, diesel and petrol throughout the house, throughout your Holden Statesman, and in the bus. You then ignited the house, the car and the bus.
At approximately 2.30 am a neighbour called the fire brigade, and CFA personnel began to arrive at the house shortly thereafter. The house was well ablaze. The Statesman was also on fire. You were found lying on the back lawn apparently unconscious. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that your unconsciousness was feigned. Fire fighters found you and attended to you. One of them attempted to perform mouth-to-mouth resuscitation on you, at which time you pretended to have a fit. You pretended to suffer a number of seizures over the next half hour, at intervals of approximately 5 minutes. An ambulance paramedic arrived at about 3.05 am. You deliberately did not respond to tests designed to produce a score measuring consciousness, known as the Glasgow Coma Scale. You were eventually transported to Bendigo Hospital. Throughout, you maintained a calculated charade designed to suggest that intruders had rendered you unconscious, and that was the false account you subsequently gave police.
You had insurance on the house and its contents, the Holden Statesman, and another vehicle which was damaged. The bus was not insured. Anne’s life was not insured. You were paid $187,781.25 by the insurer.
The evidence at your trial was unanimous in describing Anne as a gentle and kind person, who was liked by everyone and loved by many.
Following the murder, you attempted to protect yourself by suggesting others were responsible, including your two brothers-in-law, John Eade and Jim Sandercock, and a deceased police officer, Kevin McCarthy. On the plea it was submitted by your counsel that at trial there had been no submission to the jury that any particular person was responsible for the murder and arsons. That is so. But each of Mr Eade and Mr Sandercock were cross-examined about antipathy they felt towards you, Mr Eade was asked whether he had anything directly or indirectly to do with the death of Anne Watson, and Kevin McCarthy’s widow was cross-examined on her late husband’s whereabouts during the relevant period and on a comment her late husband had made upon hearing about the fire on the news. I make no criticism of your counsel for this. He conducted the trial impeccably in the circumstances. He was bound to test the prosecution case and to do so focusing on the account you had given to police and to others.
I turn to your personal circumstances.
You are 62 years of age and have no prior convictions. You were the fourth of eight children, and grew up in rural New South Wales. You left school at about age 15, and from that time held various jobs. You met Anne in your early twenties and married her in Sydney in 1972. You and Anne had a daughter, Caroline, who was born in 1974. Tragically, Caroline was born with a heart defect and suffered health problems throughout her life as a result. She died in 1993 at the age of 19. In the late 1980s the three of you spent several months living in the United Kingdom while Caroline underwent a heart transplant. Otherwise you lived in New South Wales until you moved to Pyramid Hill in late 1999, in circumstances I have already described. Prior to that move you had a variety of occupations including caretaker, taxi operator, and café proprietor.
At your plea hearing your counsel tendered a psychological report from Carla Lechner dated 25 May 2009 and a psychiatric report from Dr Danny Sullivan dated 18 June 2009. You maintained your innocence to both Ms Lechner and Dr Sullivan.
You told Ms Lechner that from the age of 10 you were the victim of sexual abuse at the hands of a local priest and two police officers for a period of three years. You told her that your mother failed to act to stop the abuse, and that you had a ‘distant relationship’ with your mother and an ‘inadequate relationship’ with your father. When Dr Sullivan asked about emotional or sexual abuse you said you did not wish to discuss these matters.
Ms Lechner assessed you as being in the ‘borderline’ range of verbal intelligence, with approximately 94% of the adult population performing better.
Both Ms Lechner and Dr Sullivan diagnosed you as depressed.
Dr Sullivan said there was no clear evidence of your having a significant personality disorder, and found no indication of psychotic illness, clinically significant cognitive impairment or substance abuse. He said there were no features of your self-reported mental state at the time of the offences which are relevant in disposition.
On the plea your counsel also tendered nine character references. Four are from your brothers and sisters: Rodney, Julie, Trish and Jane. Two are from your in-laws: your sister-in-law, Gerie, and your brother-in-law, Jeffrey. Three are from friends of yours, including your long-time friend Werner Munzberg, who also gave oral evidence. The references and the oral evidence portray you as a hardworking man, as a good husband, and as a loving father. I accept that all these people are honestly describing characteristics they have seen in you. I must, of course, have regard to this material in the light of the jury’s verdict. You have no prior convictions and I proceed on the basis that prior to these events you were a person of good character.
The prosecution tendered seven victim impact statements at your plea hearing. They are from Anne’s mother, Brigitte Cain; and her siblings, George Cain, Michelle Eade, Lynne Sandercock, Raymond Cain, Loris Wood and Jean Cain. Rather than attempting an inadequate summary I will briefly quote from each of them.
Brigitte Cain describes: “years of psychological pain, suffering and disbelief, not knowing who or why someone could inflict such trauma. Only a mother would know the inner suffering from such a crime. Nothing will ever heal the wounds”.
George Cain writes: “I feel that it’s going to take months, maybe years to recover from the emotional and physical trauma and stress that has evolved because of what Richard James Watson did to my older sister Anne Lorraine Watson in 2003”.
Michelle Eade writes: “Life since the murder of my sister Anne has been filled with sadness. I feel empty and numb”.
Lynne Sandercock writes: “Anne gave me love and nurture when no-one else noticed me”. She also writes: “I feel so cheated. I was never given a chance to say goodbye or how much I loved her or how glad I was that she was always there for me”.
Raymond Cain writes: “I suffer with a lack of motivation, emptiness, anger and helplessness for not being able to assist my sister Anne”.
Loris Wood writes: “Anne was my best friend…We used to talk about growing old together, and how we would spend our days. Even cooking a simple meal with Anne’s recipes brings me to an emotional state”.
Jean Cain writes: “I found it very hard that my sister Anne has not seen my son. It came to my mind all the time. I will never be able to share my son’s achievements with her”.
The prosecution submitted that the planning of the arsons and the creation of the false story implicating others were aggravating features. I agree.
The prosecution also submitted that the burning of Anne’s body was an aggravating feature.[2] Your counsel submitted that the burning of the body here should not be equated with situations where bodies have been defiled or mutilated. I agree with both submissions. Defilement or mutilation would have been worse, but the burning of your wife’s body after you had killed her is an aggravating feature of the crime.
[2]DPP v. England (1999) 2 VR 258.
The prosecution submitted that you have shown no remorse for your offending. You maintain your innocence. The jury found you guilty. There is no remorse.
On the plea your counsel emphasised as mitigating factors, or as factors calling for moderation in sentence, your advanced age and your poor health.
Your counsel submitted that your age meant that, given the seriousness of the offences, it was inevitable that the sentence would be very likely to remove all but a very small chance of any meaningful life in society again. He submitted the sentence should be moderated by that factor.
You are now 62 years of age. At the time of these offences you were 56 years of age. Age, whether young or old, is always a factor relevant to the exercise of the sentencing discretion, and I take it into account here. But those of advancing years who commit serious crimes cannot expect to escape appropriate punishment by reason of that factor alone.[3]
[3] R v Belbruno (2000) 117 A Crim R 150.
I was told by your Counsel that you suffer from type 2 diabetes and neuralgia. You have also recently had a knee operation. According to Ms Lechner, you exhibit symptoms of clinical depression. Dr Sullivan also assessed you as depressed. I accept that imprisonment will be a greater burden on you than on others by reason of your state of health. I take that into account.
Your age and poor health must be balanced against other sentencing considerations. Your offences are of the most grave kind. You murdered your wife, burnt her body, engaged in a calculated charade to deflect blame away from yourself, and then suggested others were responsible for what you had done. All this occurred after you had planned to burn your house and vehicles for insurance, and at about the same time as you carried that plan into effect. Your culpability is very great and the need for manifest denunciation of such conduct is also very great. It needs hardly to be said that general deterrence is a most significant factor here. I accept that specific deterrence and the prospects of rehabilitation are less important given your age.
Your case requires some cumulation between the arsons on the one hand and the murder on the other. The arson of the house and vehicles occurred at a similar time to the murder, but constituted separate offending. This is not a case where arson was essentially a part of the murder, or of an attempt to conceal the murder.[4]
[4]In that respect it is unlike R v Shiers (2003) 7 VR 174, R v Wathen [2004] VSC 354, and R v Kuster [2006] VSC 78.
You are to be sentenced as a serious arson offender on counts 3 and 4, pursuant to Part 2A of the Sentencing Act 1991. Accordingly, protection of the community must be regarded as the principal sentencing purpose. The prosecution has conceded that in the circumstances of this case a disproportionate sentence is not called for.
You have been in custody since 29 January 2008. After allowing for two days in custody in 2003, you have spent a total of 514 days in custody already and I declare that period is to be reckoned as already served.
For the murder, I sentence you to 20 years’ imprisonment. On count 2, being the arson of the house, I sentence you to 3 years’ imprisonment. On the third count, being the arson of the car, I sentence you to 1 year’s imprisonment. On the fourth count, being the arson of the bus, I sentence you to 6 months’ imprisonment. 18 months of the sentence on count 2, 3 months of the sentence on count 3, and 3 months of the sentence on count 4 are to be cumulative with each other and with the sentence on count 1, producing a total effective sentence of 22 years’ imprisonment. I fix a non-parole period of 17 years and six months.
0
8
0