R v Willis
[2000] VSC 297
•27 July 2000
| SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | |
| CRIMINAL DIVISION | Not Restricted |
No. 1520 of 1999
| THE QUEEN |
| v. |
| MICHAEL WILLIS |
---
JUDGE: | VINCENT, J. | |
WHERE HELD: | MELBOURNE | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 27 JULY 2000 | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2000] VSC 297 | |
---
CATCHWORDS: Guilty plea to murder – Alcohol abuse.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
For the Crown | Mr. J. Rapke Q.C. | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr. D. Wraith | Victoria Legal Aid |
HIS HONOUR:
Michael Willis, you have pleaded guilty to the murder, at Nyora in the State of Victoria on or about 30 March 1999, of a man named Colin Gene Lamb.
It is now my responsibility to impose sentence upon you.
In this context, it is noted that you have also admitted a number of prior convictions arising from six court appearances between February 1981, and August 1997. Save to the extent that they are reflective of your unfortunate addiction to alcohol, I do not consider that they can be regarded as assuming importance for present sentencing purposes.
The background to and circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence which has brought you before this Court, need only be set out in a relatively brief form.
It appears that you had known the deceased for approximately 19 years and that you were, generally speaking, on relatively good terms with him throughout that period. However, there was some underlying tension in your relationship and arguments did take place from time to time.
You are a chronic alcoholic and there is some suggestion that the deceased also had a history of heavy drinking. However, you reported to Mr Joblin, the forensic psychologist who conducted an assessment of you for the purposes of the plea advanced on your behalf, that Mr Lamb suffered from ulcers and did not drink as regularly or as heavily as yourself. I observe that a subsequent investigation indicated that at the time of his death he had a low blood alcohol reading consistent with that scenario.
The evidence indicates that you commenced drinking early on the morning of 30 March and continued in this activity at different locations and with different people, until you went to the home of the deceased at about 3 p.m., taking with you one or possibly two casks of wine and a quantity of beer. The deceased was not present when you arrived and you continued to drink whilst you waited for him.
Although it is possible on the basis of the material before the Court to speculate concerning your motivation in going to Mr Lamb's home on this day, the prosecutor, Mr Rapke, has properly conceded that no adverse inference for your reason for doing so can be drawn. I accept, for all relevant purposes, that your attendance at the home of the deceased was innocent and that you were simply looking for another drinking companion.
When Mr Lamb came home, the two of you conversed and you, at least, consumed some alcohol. As I have earlier indicated, it does not appear that Mr Lamb drank much, if anything, at that stage. You claim that some marijuana was smoked, but none was detected in the system of the deceased as might have been expected if he had participated in that activity. In any event, there is little to indicate that his behaviour may have been influenced by the consumption of either alcohol or marijuana.
The precise sequence of events and the development of the argument that led to the death of Mr Lamb is unclear.
What is obvious is that the underlying tensions in your relationship to which I earlier adverted, have emerged. I think that, given the substantial quantity of alcohol that you had consumed, it is highly likely that the situation and your mood were very volatile.
You claim, and I accept, that the deceased made a number of statements of a personally hurtful character to you, including some which denigrated your mother who had died only a short time before. Again the context within which they were uttered has not emerged. I suspect, but do not find, that they possibly represented a response to your developing aggression.
In any event, you told the police when subsequently interviewed that, after they were made, "I just lost the plot". You went to your utility vehicle which was parked outside the house and there obtained a wood splitter that you normally used for land clearing and cutting firewood.
You claimed that it was your intention, at that stage, to damage the house, but not to cause any injury to the deceased. I have grave doubts as to the honesty of this assertion. However, whether or not that was the situation, very shortly after you re-entered the premises, and possibly after a further interchange between the two of you, you deliberately and repeatedly struck the deceased with the implement, killing him.
The crime of murder which you committed must, of course, be regarded as a matter of the utmost seriousness. It is, and must remain, a fundamental proposition of our law that the life of every person in our society is inviolate. The courts must, through the sentences that they impose, reflect a commitment to that principle. As I have remarked in the past when imposing sentences in similar situations, that those who offend against this precept must anticipate that substantial penalties may be imposed upon them.
In making these comments, I am also conscious of the expressions of loss and anguish which so powerfully emerge from the victim impact statements that have been filed before the Court. With respect to those statements, I repeat the remarks I have made on a number of earlier occasions. The introduction of such statements was not intended to effect any change in the sentencing principles which govern the exercise of discretion by a sentencing judge. What they do is to introduce in a more specific way, factors to which a court would ordinarily have regard in a broader context. They constitute a reminder of what might be described as the human aspect of crime and draw to the attention of the judge who would of necessity have to consider the possible and probable consequences of criminal behaviour, not only its significance to society in general but the actual effect of a specific crime upon those who have been intimately affected by it. Victim impact statements provide an opportunity for those whose lives are often tragically altered by criminal behaviour to draw to the Court's attention the damage and senseless anguish which has been created and which can often be of very long duration.
The courts must, as far as it is possible to do so, and insofar as it is consistent with the proper application of other relevant sentencing principles, endeavour to deter those who may be so inclined from engaging in such serious criminal conduct.
Obviously when considering the proper sentence to be imposed upon an individual offender, it is necessary to deal with each person who comes before the Court in the light cast by the specific circumstances of the offence and the individual concerned.
As far as your own background is concerned, you are now aged 49 years. You were born in New Zealand where most of your immediate family still reside. There is nothing in the material before me that gives rise to any suggestion that your background or family situation were unfortunate or problematic in any way. You came to this country in 1973 to find work and as you had friends residing here. Thereafter you engaged in a variety of casual employments, generally living in the Gippsland area.
It is evident that you have had a serious problem with alcohol abuse for a long time and that it commenced prior to your arrival in Australia. Not surprisingly, as time passed, your capacity to work and to find work decreased so that by the time of the offence you were in receipt of an invalid pension and for practical purposes, unemployed although you may have performed some small tasks for people residing in the district in which you were living.
I accept that your actions were not premeditated and were very considerably influenced by a combination of what you perceived as hurtful and provocative comments and the effect of the consumption by you of a very substantial quantity of alcohol.
I accept that you have experienced genuine remorse for your actions. I have had regard to your plea of guilty which has obviated the need for a trial, albeit that the plea was entered at a relatively late stage.
I have had regard to the matters raised on your behalf by your counsel in the course of the plea and to the evidence of your good character given by Mrs Holmes, Mr Pratt and Mr Cantwell. I note particularly in this context the voluntary work which you performed for people in the district in which you were residing and the evidence of Mr Cantwell that you expressed and indicated genuine remorse to him.
On the basis of the material before the Court, including the opinion evidence of Mr Joblin, I am satisfied that your level of personal culpability must be assessed as being somewhat reduced. Nevertheless, it cannot be forgotten that you occasioned the death of your victim through the deliberate infliction of blows with a heavy implement designed to split timber.
In all of the circumstances, the sentence at which I have arrived is one of imprisonment for a period of 15 years and I fix a non parole period of 11 years.
I direct that the period of 485 days which you have undergone as pre-trial detention be reckoned as having been served under the sentence hereby imposed.
I direct that this declaration be entered in the records of the Court.
I have also signed the orders. The court will now adjourn.
---
0
0
0