R v Whittle

[2000] VSC 119

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION	Not Restricted

No. 1466 of 1999

THE QUEEN

v.

CRAIG JOHN WHITTLE

---

JUDGE:	TEAGUE, J.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF SENTENCE:	9 MARCH 2000
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSC 119

---

CATCHWORDS:      Criminal Law – Sentencing – Murder – False Imprisonment – Accused with intellectual disability

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Prosecution	P.A. Coghlan QC with S. Pullen	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	D. Drake	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

1           Craig John Whittle, you have been found guilty by a jury of the crime of murder.  Before me, a jury has returned a verdict that you murdered Judith Fowler at Narre Warren on or about 2 December 1998.  You have also pleaded guilty to three other offences.  You have pleaded guilty to a charge of false imprisonment arising out of events that occurred on 9 May 1998.  You have pleaded guilty to burglary and theft arising out of events that occurred on 27 March 1998.

2           On 27 March 1998 you were in the Doveton area, homeless and cold.  You decided to remedy that situation.  You entered a house accommodating persons with intellectual disabilities.  You were familiar with the home, as you have an intellectual disability and have friends similarly handicapped.  Having entered the home, you went into a room there and removed a doona, pillow and a packet of cigarettes.  Relative to the other offences, those March 1998 offences are quite minor.

3           On 9 May 1998 you were again in the Doveton area.  You went back to a house that you knew to be occupied by a woman in her 30s.  You had broken into the house two years earlier.  You were to say later that your aim in setting out to see the woman in May 1998 was to tell her you were sorry for having earlier broken into her house.  The circumstances in which you went about that were extraordinary.

4           On 9 May she arrived home about 2 a.m. And opened the door to her home.  You came up to her with a knife in your hand.  She called out and struggled to prevent you entering her house.  She was no match for you and you forced your way in.  Inside you held the knife out towards her.  She grabbed your wrist.  You took her by the throat and told her to be quiet.  She found that she could not breathe and could not talk because you held her so tight.  Eventually she managed to get you to take your hand from her throat.  She then talked with you at some length.  You told her that you were upset with her in that she had reported you to the police.  The physical damage that you did to that woman was relatively mild; some bruising to the throat and lacerations to her fingers, yet your actions that night were terrifying in the extreme.  That is clear both from her statement to the police made that night and in her victim impact statement made recently.

5           I turn to the murder.  In and for some time before December 1998, the deceased, Judith Fowler, was renting a home at 83 Darling Way, Narre Warren.  During November 1998 you were a boarder at the house for a couple of weeks.  On the night of 2 December you went to the house with two male acquaintances for what was intended to be merely a social visit.  One of the acquaintances was a Gary Spokes.  You became upset by certain things that occurred.  You left the house and went for a walk.  You were upset with the deceased in part because you thought she had dobbed you in to Gary Spokes by telling him that you had taken a can of alcoholic drink that belonged to him.  You returned to the house after the two men had gone.  The deceased was alone.  You went to the deceased in the kitchen.  You said to her that you were upset with her for dobbing you in.  You hit her a number of times about the face.  An injury caused by your assault caused bleeding.

6           The deceased went from the kitchen to her bedroom.  You followed her.  In the bedroom you told her to take her clothes off.  She complied.  You hit her again about the face.  Your blows to the face of the deceased caused fractures and bleeding and bruising.  The bleeding would have been extensive.  It is not possible to say how extensive because you were later to wash the bloodied linen.  I find that you then formed the intention to strangle the deceased to death.  You put your hands on her neck and you squeezed hard and long until you killed her.  You then took the bloodied and dead body of the deceased.  You placed it in the bath.  Whilst she was in the bath you hit the deceased again about her bloodied face.  You then turned on the tap.  You substantially filled the bath with water.  You then worked hard and long on removing the worst areas of blood in the bedroom and bathroom.  Some areas were extensively wiped.  You took several items, such as linen, and washed them in the washing machine.  Some items were gathered together and put in the garbage can.  The garbage was removed the next morning and so the items were never recovered.

7           It was five days later before the body was found in the bath.  The police saw you the day after the body was found.  You chose to tell them only part of the story.  It was another 14 days later before you gave the police a fuller story then acknowledging that you had killed the deceased.

8           There are five victim impact statements filed with the court.  I have read them attentively.  One statement has been prepared by the victim of the false imprisonment.  As was noted earlier, she was greatly traumatised by your treatment of her.

9           A statement has also been prepared by each of the four children of Judith Fowler.  They are moving reminders of the consequences of loss to a child of a mother.  Almost always such a loss will be traumatic.  In the circumstances of this case, the effects of the death have been devastating.

10         You are 36 years of age having been born on 6 November 1963.  You come from a deprived background.  Your mother appears to have been a loving woman.  You relied considerably upon her, despite her trouble with alcohol, until she died a few years ago.  Your father and stepfather appeared not to have had much good influence upon you.  Your intellectual difficulties have meant that your limited education was mainly at a special school, that you have worked very little over the years and that you have relied on a pension.

11         You have had many appearances before the courts.  I have noted that as well as having done a stint in a youth training centre, you have had several periods in prison.  I noted that Mr Drake had little to say to me as to the events which led to your being sentenced to four and a half years imprisonment in February 1992.  Three and a half of that four and a half years was for aggravated indecent assault.  Mr Drake told me little more than that and other offences occurred when you went to see a woman seeking repayment of $3000 owed to your uncle.

12         I have noted the circumstances leading to your being convicted in April 1996 for recklessly causing serious injury and other offences.  In short, you fell out with a woman and that led to a screaming match.  You said to her that you were upset with her in that she was involved with another man.  You then grabbed her by the throat with one hand.  You then stabbed her in the stomach with a knife held in the other hand.

13         The matters that I have noted are relevant to my assessment of the prospects of your being rehabilitated and of the need for special deterrence.

14         I have weighed against aggravating matters a number of mitigating factors.  I have reviewed what has been said about you by each of Drs Sturup and Walton and Mr Cummins.  I propose to direct that a copy of their reports be sent to the Adult Parole Board with a copy of what I am now saying to you.  It is clear from the reports that the evidence would not come close to warranting a finding of mental impairment in the sense of the former legal insanity.  On the other hand, your intelligence is well below average.  I propose to proceed on the basis that considerations of general deterrence operate, but sensibly moderated.

15         I weigh in your favour that the murder of Judith Fowler was not premeditated.  You did not, at the time you first went to her house or when you went back to her house, intend to kill her.  Your plan on returning was only to remonstrate.  As event developed, your intention changed.  It is of great concern that your relatively spontaneous reaction to circumstances was so terrifying and so brutal.

16         You were co-operative with the police on being interviewed on 28 May as to the events earlier in the year and on 21 December as to the death of Judith Fowler.  On the other hand, I have noted that you chose not to co-operate more fully on 8 December.  You have shown remorse, which I accept is genuine, although it would have been more obviously so if demonstrated earlier.

17         The effect of imprisonment upon you will be somewhat greater than for most other offenders for reasons that will or might arise from circumstances such as your intellectual problems, your size and last week's newspaper picture of you with a story wrongly attributing to you the actions of another man.

18         I have now signed the orders for the giving of a blood sample and for the forfeiture of the knife used in March 1998.

19         I declare that you have spent 445 days in prison up to today, 9 March 2000.  I direct that that declaration be noted in the records of the court.

20         On each of the counts of burglary and theft I impose a fine of $100.  For the crime of murder, I impose on you a sentence of 17 years imprisonment.  For the crime of false imprisonment, I impose on you a sentence of three years imprisonment.

21         To obviate the latter sentence being seen to have a crushing effect, I direct that one year of the three years be cumulative on the 17 years imposed for murder.  The effective term is 18 years imprisonment.

22         I fix a non-parole period of 13 years.

---