R v Williams, Meyers & Egan
[2000] VSC 61
•8 February 2000
| SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA |
| CRIMINAL JURISDICTION |
| Not Restricted |
No. 1470 of 1999
| THE QUEEN |
| v. |
| BENJAMIN RICHARD WILLIAMS STEVEN CHRISTOPHER MEYERS AND ANTHONY JAMES EGAN |
---
JUDGE: | VINCENT, J. | |
WHERE HELD: | MELBOURNE | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 8 FEBRUARY 2000 20 DECEMBER 1999 (EGAN) | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2000] VSC 61 | |
---
CATCHWORDS: Murder – Guilty plea to manslaughter – Section 93(1)(e) Sentencing Act – Sentence to be served in an Approved Mental Health Service – Guilty plea to aggravated burglary – Suspended sentence imposed.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
For the Crown | Mr. G. Horgan | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused Williams | Mr. S. Langslow | Victorian Legal Aid |
| For the Accused Meyers | Mr. P. Morrissey | Clarebrough Pica |
| For the Accused Egan | Mr. S. Cash | Galbally & O'Bryan |
HIS HONOUR:
Benjamin Richard Williams, the jury empanelled upon your trial has found you guilty of the murder at Wodonga in the State of Victoria on 27 February 1999 of Edward John Melville Wilson. Accordingly, I must now impose sentence upon you.
Against that background, you have admitted the commission of a number of criminal offences arising from five court appearances before the Magistrates' Court at Wodonga and Wangaratta between 14 February 1995 and 30 September 1997. They relate to a variety of offences but relevantly for present purposes include theft, burglary, and the trafficking, possessing and using of a drug of dependence. I note that in no case was a sentence of imprisonment imposed and I have approached your criminal history as reflective of your unfortunate and unstable background. I have not otherwise regarded that history as a significant sentencing consideration.
The background to and circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime for which I must now impose sentence upon you have been canvassed in the course of the trial and need only be set out in a relatively brief form at this stage.
On the evening of 27 February 1999 you, in company with two other men named Steven Meyers and Anthony Egan, were present at a unit located in Paramount Court, Wodonga. The three of you, along with other young persons at the unit, were consuming alcohol by which, I accept, you were substantially affected. At approximately 10.30 p.m., Meyers, Egan and you walked from that unit to the residence of the deceased which was situated only a few blocks away. You each had a black stocking mask made from a pair of pantihose. The three of you had decided to "do over" the deceased's unit - that is, you planned to enter Mr Wilson's home and take marijuana and cash that you believed would be found in a safe at those premises. After arriving at the unit one of you knocked on the front door. The deceased opened and then immediately slammed the door, shouting "fuck off" as he did so, almost certainly alarmed by the presence of three masked individuals. You did not withdraw and the three of you then entered the unit through a living room window, after removing a flyscreen. In order to defend himself and his property against your invasion, the deceased grabbed a shotgun, presumably from his gun closet. I am satisfied that the firearm was not loaded but that there was, however, a discharged cartridge in one of its two barrels. This, according to the undisputed evidence of the deceased's father, was a practice adopted by his son to protect the firing pin.
Precisely what then occurred is uncertain but it is apparent that some form of confrontation and struggle took place with the deceased involving at least Egan and yourself. At one stage, when Egan and the deceased were engaged, you went to the kitchen and you took a large knife from a drawer. You returned to the scene of the struggle and without warning stabbed your victim three times in the back, inflicting the deep wounds which caused his death. You then fled the scene. Mr Wilson died within minutes of being stabbed. In addition to the stab wounds, he sustained a number of other injuries in the course of the struggle indicative of the severity of the attack made upon him.
It is apparent that your companions and you were determined to achieve your objective and were not prepared to withdraw even in the face of spirited resistance. Egan and you were apprehended on the following day and Meyers the day after.
It appears that you were acquainted with the deceased. You had both spent most of your lives in Wodonga and were roughly the same age. You had gone to his home about one week prior to his death. You told the police in your tape recorded interview that on that occasion he had pointed his gun at you and chased you from his property. I wonder whether, but, of course, do not find, and accordingly do not have regard to the possibility that you may have harbored some animosity towards the deceased as a result of that episode which influenced your conduct on this night.
I accept that you did not go to Mr Wilson's unit on the occasion with which I am concerned intending to kill or even to injure him. I observe in this context that your companions and you carried no weapons, only the masks which were presumably meant to frighten the deceased and to conceal your identities. You may not even have anticipated any form of resistance from him when confronted by three persons, although you were aware that he had a gun. I suspect that you were all taken by surprise when he persisted in struggling against you. Fuelled by alcohol and emboldened by the presence of your two companions, one of whom was older than you and was more criminally experienced, and being probably both angry and fearful, you went to the kitchen and obtained a large knife with which you inflicted the fatal wounds. I am satisfied that your actions were spontaneous and were performed to end the struggle which was obviously turning against your companions and yourself. I accept, as I have indicated, that you experienced a measure of alarm in that situation, but it cannot be forgotten that yours was the power and the panic of a cowardly criminal, brave enough when he thought that he was in the company of a sufficient number of similar companions to impose his will but who was not so courageous when his intended victim fought back.
You inflicted three wounds which measured between four and six inches in depth. Each punctured the deceased's lungs, collectively causing massive blood loss and deflation of the lungs, resulting in his rapid death.
As I have earlier indicated, after stabbing Mr Wilson you fled the scene. You returned to the unit in Paramount Court where a young woman named Shontel McLaughlin had remained. She gave evidence in the course of the trial, which I accept, that you were in a very distressed state. I am confident that by that stage you had begun to develop a sense of the enormity of what you had done and considerable fear of the personal consequences to which you were exposed. You told her, in general terms, what had occurred and you raised the issue of self-defence as a possible answer to your predicament although you did not suggest that you were so acting at the time of the stabbing. I accept that, although you were primarily concerned with your own situation at this time, you were already experiencing feelings of regret and remorse.
You will understand that the crime of murder which you have committed is, for practical purposes, the most serious known to our law. Its significance arises from the fundamental importance that is attributed in our society to the life of each of those who dwell in it.
Accepting that you acted without premeditation and in a state of heightened emotions, your conduct constitutes a very serious example of a most serious offence. In the present case it does not matter that your victim was a person who engaged in the unlawful activity of marijuana dealing. He, in common with everyone else in this community, was entitled to enjoy the sanctuary of his own home and entitled to defend both himself and his property against criminal invasion of the kind in which you engaged.
As a consequence of your actions, a young person is irrevocably dead and his family and friends, as is so often the case, are left with the deep sense of anguish and loss evident in the victim impact statement before the Court.
The courts must reflect in their response to the commission of such offences not only the seriousness with which they are regarded by our society and the deep commitment of our community to its stated values, but must also endeavour, insofar as they are able to do so through the imposition of appropriate sentences, to deter those who may contemplate acting as you have done. They must, in addition, and where appropriate, effect just retribution upon perpetrators.
Nevertheless, these are not the only considerations to be taken into account and each occasion and each offender must be viewed in the light cast by all of the circumstances relevant to the individual offence and perpetrator.
In this context, regard must be had to the extremely unfortunate and unstable background to which I have earlier adverted. You are now aged 22 years. As a child did you not know your father and it appears that he was unaware of your existence until he was contacted by your mother in 1996. By the time you had started school you were living in a house, with your mother and uncle, where there were frequent parties at which drinking and cannabis smoking were commonplace. Over the years your mother has associated with drug abusing, violent men who have, on occasions, physically and sexually abused you. By the time you were 14 years of age the family had moved to Wodonga, but due to a conflict between yourself and your mother's then husband, you ran away. When you returned home you were ordered to leave. You lived for a few weeks on the streets of Melbourne before returning to reside with friends in Wodonga. You returned to school to complete Year 10. At about this time you commenced using amphetamines. When aged 18, as a result of a conviction for trafficking, possessing and using cannabis, you were ordered to reside with an organization called Triple Family Care. You apparently enjoyed the relative stability which you then experienced and you enrolled in a course at the Sydney University of Technology. However, you did not complete the course as you could not cope with the discipline involved. This is perhaps not surprising when regard is had to the general absence of guidance which you had had to that stage. At around this time you met your natural father for the first time and you lived with him for about eight or nine months before going to live with a girlfriend, who was a heroin addict. By this time you had also commenced to use heroin and the relationship ended whilst you were attempting to withdraw from it. You then returned to live with your mother and young half sister.
Your history is one with which I am regrettably far too familiar. Until this time you have lived an unsettled life that has been marred by alcohol and drug abuse and it is evident that through no fault of your own you have developed into a badly damaged adult. It appears from the psychological report prepared by Mr Healey that you have a history of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. I think that it is likely that this is a product of your history of abuse and disadvantage. There is much in your background that can reasonably attract compassion. Unfortunately, the simple fact remains that you have unlawfully taken the life of another young person who, as I mentioned earlier, remains irrevocably dead. Your companions and you forced entry into his home, knowing of his presence in the premises, and with the intention of robbing him of property that you believed was located there.
Obviously, I have, in attempting to fix an appropriate sentence, had regard to the importance of your youth and the prospects of your eventual rehabilitation into the community as sentencing considerations. I have had regard to the report of Mr Healey and the submissions advanced by Mr Langslow of counsel for your behalf. I have also noted that you are presently in a protection unit in prison due to threats made against you and I accept that that will render any period of incarceration more onerous.
I am prepared to take into account in your favour the fact that you have, from an early point, expressed a deep sense of regret and remorse for your crime.
In view of your age I think there is a realistic prospect that with increasing maturity and some effort on your part you could be successfully rehabilitated.
I am familiar with and have had regard to the range of sentences that have been imposed by this Court over recent years in respect to the crime of murder when committed by young persons, bearing in mind that each case must be considered in the light cast by its own particular circumstances, including those of the individual offender.
Ultimately I have arrived at the view that the appropriate sentence in your case is one of imprisonment for a period of 17 years and I fix a non-parole period of 12 years.
I declare that the period of 345 days which you have undergone as pre-sentence detention is to be reckoned as having been served under the sentence hereby imposed and I direct that this declaration and its details be entered in the records of the Court.
Steven Christopher Meyers, you have pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of the deceased, although you also were initially charged with his murder. The Crown have accepted your plea on the basis that you were involved in an unlawful and dangerous act which resulted in the death of Mr Wilson and it is on that basis that sentence is to be imposed upon you.
You have, against that background, admitted that you have appeared before the courts on 16 occasions between 21 March 1990 and 6 November 1997 in relation to a large number of offences, some of which have involved violence and the threat of violence. They include, inter alia, convictions for theft, causing wilful damage, attempted armed robbery, the assault of a member of the police force in the execution of the member's duty, intentionally or recklessly causing injury, reckless conduct endangering life, burglary, causing serious injury recklessly, driving whilst disqualified and whilst over the prescribed alcohol limit, being in possession of a pistol without a licence and discharging a firearm in a public place.
You have a bad criminal record indicating a propensity to acts of dishonesty, the abuse of alcohol and the employment of violence, all of which features were associated with the circumstances under which the deceased met his death.
I do not need to recite again the factual framework within which the crime for which I must now pass sentence upon you was committed. It is necessary only to state, I think, that you were a willing participant in the violent invasion of the home of the deceased man. You acted in company with two other persons, all three of whom were probably affected by alcohol. Your actions were clearly unlawful and objectively it would have been obvious to any reasonable person that to engage in them what create an appreciable risk of at least serious significant injury to the deceased should he attempt to resist you.
The remarks which I made concerning the cowardice of the actions of your co-offender in the robbery enterprise, Williams, have some application in your case as well. It must not be forgotten that your crime was committed against the background of that criminal and cowardly enterprise.
Nor is it necessary to set out again the broad sentencing considerations that are applicable in this matter. You have committed a very serious crime. Its significance must be reflected in the sentence to be imposed upon you.
With regard to your background, it appears that you also have had a troubled upbringing. You are now 26 years of age. Your parents separated when you were three years old. Your father was an alcoholic and violent man, and, not surprisingly, it seems that you have never had a good relationship with him. Shortly after your parents separation your mother became involved in a de facto relationship, which lasted about 13 or 14 years. That man, like your father, also abused alcohol and behaved in an aggressive and abusive fashion towards you at times. Your mother later formed a relationship with a man who was your accomplice in the offences that occurred in September 1990 when you were only a teenager. It appears, and again not surprisingly, that you did not think highly of this person either. As a result of those offences you were placed on a youth attendance order. You successfully completed the requirements of that order but by early 1992, after committing further offences and realizing that you had an alcohol and drug problem, you voluntarily placed yourself in Odyssey House. You undertook a 14 month programme during which time you demonstrated a great deal of discipline - you did not give into the temptation of drugs or alcohol, and you engaged in many hours of unpaid community work. This period was probably the most stable and productive of your life so far.
However, after completing the programme you learned that your half sister had been sexually interfered with by your mother's then partner. This produced a considerable amount of distress and you reverted to your earlier pattern of drug and alcohol abuse. Your offending behaviour recommenced. Not only were you an unhappy and vulnerable person at that stage but you also commenced to evidence the symptoms of a serious mental disorder.
At the time of the commission of the offence which brings you before this Court, you were apparently quite drunk and also under the influence of prescription pills. I accept that you, like Benjamin Williams and Anthony Egan, did not intend on this night to cause Mr Wilson any serious harm. I am satisfied that when you set out your sole objective was to rob him of his marijuana and cash.
I accept that your conduct on the night in question may also have been influenced by the condition of schizophrenia from which you suffer. It appears that you were suffering from a mental disorder at that time. The courts have many times expressed the view that in the cases of persons who are subject to such conditions, concepts of general and specific deterrence assume less significance as sentencing considerations than might otherwise be the case. A similar approach must be taken when levels of culpability and the degree of importance to be attached to the retributive function of the sentencing process are considered. Those principles are applicable in your situation.
In the circumstances, I consider that in view of your youth and your unfortunate background, the prospect of your eventual rehabilitation must assume significance as a sentencing consideration. Hopefully, with appropriate assistance, you may be successfully reintegrated into the community.
I have taken into account in your favour your plea of guilty. It has not been suggested that you have experienced any real sense of remorse to this stage, having been primarily concerned about your own situation. Accordingly, I cannot take that factor into account in your favour. Although you have now pleaded guilty to the crime of manslaughter, it must also be remembered that you were, for a lengthy period of time, awaiting trial for the crime of murder. Regard must be had to the additional stress imposed upon you in consequence of that situation.
I have received an assessment from Dr Andrew Taylor, a consultant forensic psychiatrist, with a view to the possibility that you may serve the sentence that I will impose upon you in an approved mental health facility. He has expressed the opinion that you suffer from schizophrenia and that you would be suitable for a hospital security order under s.93(1)(e) of the Sentencing Act. I am satisfied, having received a report in the prescribed form from the authorized psychiatrist -
1. That you appear to be mentally ill and require treatment for your condition.
2. That an appropriate treatment can be obtained by admission to, and detention in, an approved mental health service.
3. That you should be admitted and detained as an involuntary patient for your own health and for the protection of the community.
Accordingly, I order by way of sentence that you be admitted to and detained in an approved mental health service for a period of nine years. I fix a non-parole period of six years and six months under s.93(4) of the Sentencing Act.
I declare that the period of 343 days detention which you have undergone as pre-sentence detention be reckoned as having been served under the sentence thereby imposed. I direct that this declaration and its details be entered in the records of the Court.
It is desirable that I should make a brief reference to the sentence earlier handed down on 20 December 1999 in relation to Anthony Egan.
Mr Egan was not convicted of any offence in relation to the death of the deceased, nor for any assault upon him. Whilst it is evident that his conduct merited the imposition of a gaol sentence, he had undergone a substantial period of incarceration. I considered that the immediate serving of any further period would be inappropriate in the circumstances and imposed the following sentence: That he be imprisoned for a period of two years, the service of all of which, save the period of 296 days already served as pre-sentence detention, be suspended. The operative period under s.27(2A) of the Sentencing Act 1991 I fixed as two years. I declared that the period of pre-sentence detention, being 296 days, be reckoned as having been served under the sentence imposed and I directed that this declaration and its details be entered in the records of the Court.
I do not think that I need, in the current context, to repeat the matters set out in the course of his plea.
Is there anything else that needs to be done?
MS PULLEN: No, Your Honour. If your Honour pleases.
---
0
0
0