Regina v Crespin Adanguidi

[2005] NSWSC 519

CITATION:	Regina v Crespin Adanguidi [2005] NSWSC 519
HEARING DATE(S):	29 March 2005 - 14 April 2005, 20 May 2005, 3 June 2005
JUDGMENT DATE :	3 June 2005
JUDGMENT OF:	Barr J at 1
DECISION:	For the murder of Shiquin Zhu the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for life. The sentence will be taken to have commenced on 1 February 2003. For the murder of Pin Shen the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for life. The sentence will be taken to have commenced on 1 February 2003. For the murder of Christy Bo Shen the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for life. The sentence will be taken to have commenced on 1 February 2003.

PARTIES:	Regina, Crespin Adanguidi
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 2003/163
COUNSEL:	T Hoyle L Flannery
SOLICITORS:	S Kavanagh N Marshall

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

- 13 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

GRAHAM BARR J

3 JUNE 2005

2003/163 REGINA v CRESPIN ADANGUIDI

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: The offender, Crespin Adanguidi, was found guilty by a jury of the murders on 1 February 2003 at Rockdale of Shiquin Zhu, Pin Shen and Christy Bo Shen.

2 The deceased Shiquin Zhu was the mother of the other deceased. The offender did not know them well but he was friendly with Mr Raymond Shen, their husband and father. Mr Shen came to Australia from China in 1991. He studied at university and worked in the travel industry. In 1995 he was joined in Australia by his wife and children. In 2001 he established a travel agency in Sydney. He and the deceased lived together in a home unit at Rockdale.

3 The offender was born in Benin. He came to Australia in about 1998. In 1999 he formed a relationship with Ms Alicia Richards and she gave birth to a son in 2000. They married in 2001. Ms Richards gave birth to a second son in 2001. Until January 2003 the offender was living with his family in a unit at Maroubra. At the time of the events giving rise to the charges against the offender, however, they had separated. The offender occupied the home unit alone. The offender first met Mr Shen in 2000 while he was working as a security guard at the building in Rockdale in which the Shen unit was situated. A friendship developed between them. They discussed business ventures they might possibly undertake together. After some time, their friendship developed into a sexual relationship. While the offender still worked at the building in Rockdale they would meet in Mr Shen’s unit. The offender ceased working in that building in about 2001 and the two men thereafter usually met at Mr Shen’s office after hours.

4 In January 2003 Mr Shen travelled to China on business. He returned on 29 January. On the next day the offender telephoned him and said that he was eager to see him. He invited him to come to his unit at Maroubra at any time after 7:00pm in the evening.

5 I am satisfied that the offender issued his invitation with the intention of attacking, disabling and robbing Mr Shen and his family. In anticipation of a visit by Mr Shen, he provided himself with a loaded pistol, strong adhesive tape, strong cord, various tools, a torch, cloths and a device to enable him to see in the dark. He had a pair of rubber gloves and a bag in which to carry these things and the money he expected to steal.

6 As invited, Mr Shen arranged to visit the offender on the evening of 31 January. He telephoned him on the way and they arranged to meet near the University of New South Wales because Mr Shen had never been to the offender’s home and did not know the area well. They met as arranged and drove to the offender’s unit block. The offender parked both their cars under the building and they went to the unit.

7 Once inside, they spent some time talking and looking at photographs of the offender’s family. They moved into the bedroom and undressed and there was some intimate touching. As Mr Shen was putting on his clothes the offender took out the pistol and struck him hard on the back of the head. Mr Shen fell to the floor. The offender told him to remain silent and to lie on the floor. He placed one cloth in Mr Shen’s mouth and another around his mouth and head. He took the adhesive tape and bound his head, hands and feet. He continued to threaten him with the pistol, telling him to remain quiet.

8 The offender moved Mr Shen into a second bedroom and began to demand money from him. He said that a “Slovenian gang” was after him, that he needed money to pay a “Mascot cop” and that he needed to leave Australia because he had killed a pharmacist at Hurstville. None of these things was true. He accused Mr Shen of sending photographs of them to his, the offender’s, wife.

9 He held Mr Shen there for hours, demanding that he make over money and other valuable things. Mr Shen told him where he could find such money as was available, including some that he carried with him and some that he kept in his car. The offender went to the car and took the money. Mr Shen was obliged to explain to the offender that he was unable there and then to sign over to him assets, property or the proceeds of bank accounts that the offender was asking for. The offender began to make threats against Mr Shen’s family and Mr Shen pleaded with him not to harm his wife or children. The offender produced a knife and cut off some of Mr Shen’s hair. He said that he was going to show it to his wife.

10 The offender left the room from time to time and made and received calls on his mobile telephone. He had a contract with the operator of the Ritz Cinema, Randwick to clean the premises and employees of his were there while he was holding Mr Shen captive. Some of his telephone conversations were with those employees.

11 After one such conversation the offender returned to the room where Mr Shen was and told him that the Slovenian gang were chasing him and that he had only ten minutes left. He counted down the ten minutes and as he did so he held the pistol to Mr Shen’s head. He left the unit, having stolen Mr Shen’s car and unit keys. As he did so he set the alarm.

12 Having left Mr Shen bound and gagged, he went to the Ritz Cinema, driving Mr Shen’s car, and spoke to his employees. After that he went to Rockdale. He knew the security arrangements at the building in which the Shen unit was situated and used Mr Shen’s keys to get in. It was then 2:54am. He travelled to the floor on which the unit was situated but before entering it he turned off the electric power to the unit and to adjoining units. He entered the unit taking with him the bag containing his various belongings. He put on rubber gloves and carried a torch.

13 The offender was in the Shen unit for about an hour and during that time he carried out a number of different acts. The evidence does not permit any confident conclusion about the order in which they took place. He stole money and valuable property, including jewellery, computer equipment and mobile telephones. Because he was wearing the gloves he left no fingerprints. It seems unlikely that all this property would have been on open display, particularly the substantial amounts of cash that he took, and probable that he found it after searching or after having been told by Mrs Shen where it was.

14 As the offender was going about his work a number of things happened. Pin Shen, who kept a tennis racket in his room, took it and approached the offender. Whether the offender was then stealing or attacking Mrs or Ms Shen or was merely an unwelcome entrant it is not possible to say. The offender, facing him, shot him through the head at close range. Pin Shen died straight away.

15 Ms Shen also was alarmed. The clothes she was wearing when she was found make it appear likely that she was in bed at the time. If she was, she got out of bed and, still in her bedroom, took her mobile phone and called triple 0. She managed to make the connection, but it was almost immediately broken. I think that the offender must have done that. He shot her through the back of the head from close range. She died, slumped over her bed.

16 The offender killed Pin Shen to prevent him from getting in the way of what he was doing. He shot Ms Shen for the same reason and in particular to prevent her from calling for help. His intent in shooting them was to kill.

17 The offender attacked Mrs Shen with the pistol, but he did not shoot her. He tortured her by pressing the tip of the barrel into her breasts and perhaps rotating it. He did so to hurt her, perhaps with the intent of making her tell him where valuable things might be found. Mrs Shen was unlikely to have told him voluntarily. He used some instrument, presumably the pistol, to cause a superficial injury to her sexual parts. There was damage to the fingers, with breaking of the finger bones, tearing of the soft tissues and dislocation of the joints. He killed her by striking her repeatedly in the face and head with a hard object. I think that that was probably the pistol. There was extensive fracturing of the bones of the face, some of them extending into the base of the skull. There was bleeding within the skull. There was brain damage. The lacerations so produced bled extensively and some blood was inhaled and some swallowed. There was bruising about the neck and fractures of the ribs. Those fractures may have been caused post mortem.

18 Shiquin Zhu died of these injuries and from inhaling blood. Her death was painful. She probably knew before she died that her children had been murdered.

19 The offender left the unit shortly after 4am, taking with him the money and other valuable things he had stolen, together with the pistol, the gloves, the infrared device and other things in a sports bag. He also had a backpack and a computer in a bag. He drove to the unit of a woman with whom he had a casual sexual relationship, got her out of bed and told her a false story about his wife’s having just left him. He left with her the bag containing the things I have mentioned, the backpack and the bag containing the computer. He made sure that she stowed them out of sight. He returned to his car and drove towards his own unit intending, no doubt, to deal in some way with Mr Shen.

20 In the meantime, after a long, difficult and painful struggle, Mr Shen had managed to free himself from his bonds. He got himself out of the offender’s unit. He could not use his car, of course. He knocked on doors and called for help but at that hour of the morning there was no help. Eventually he managed to find a public telephone and made a call to the emergency services. Police officers came and helped him. He told them what had happened and gave them his family’s telephone numbers. Ambulance officers took him to hospital, where he was treated.

21 Police officers telephoned the Shen unit. Only one of the several calls that they made was answered and on that occasion nobody spoke but the police could hear noises. They went to the unit and found the bodies of the deceased.

22 When the offender arrived at his unit block, waiting police officers arrested and disarmed him. He was taken into custody.

23 When police officers recovered the bag from the home of the offender’s friend it contained the items I have mentioned, including the bloodstained gloves. Patterns on the fingertips of the gloves matched impressions left in blood on surfaces in the Shen unit.

24 On 2 February the offender was found, collapsed and unresponsive, in his cell at the police station. Ambulance officers attended and examined him. They assessed his Glasgow Coma Score at seven. The Glasgow Coma Score is a method of assessing the level of consciousness of a patient. The maximum possible score is fifteen and the minimum three. The patient is assessed in various ways, including by apparent reaction to light and painful stimulus and according to whether the patient appears to know who and where he is and what day or time it is. It is possible to feign reduced consciousness by appearing to be disoriented and by resisting reaction to stimuli.

25 The ambulance officers took the offender to hospital. An emergency registrar saw him there. The offender would not say where he was from or what his occupation was. He admitted having taken soap and agreed when asked that he had intended in so doing to kill himself. He denied killing anyone and said that he had been set up. He was fully conscious. The emergency registrar formed the view that he was trying to fake unconsciousness.

26 The offender was next examined by Dr O’Neill, a neurosurgeon. Dr O’Neill could find no clinical explanation for any loss of consciousness. The offender was next examined by Dr Atherton, a psychiatric registrar. The offender repeatedly denied killing the deceased. He denied any unusual experience, persecution or change in life. Dr Atherton found no sign of psychosis.

27 The offender was kept in hospital for observation. Dr McDonald, psychiatrist, saw him on 3 February. He noted that he appeared fearful, highly aroused, hypervigilant, suspicious, paranoid and frequently unable to answer questions in an appropriately oriented or coherent fashion. He appeared distressed and dysphoric and his level of distress fluctuated during the course of their brief interview.

28 The offender described perceptual disturbances and hearing a male voice coming from behind him. He was turning to look for the source of the voice. The voice was saying “I’ll get you”. He said that he had been hearing the voice since yesterday. He said that he was not eating or drinking anything because he was afraid that he would be poisoned. He believed that the police officers positioned outside his room were his friends and were there to protect him. He said that he was in great danger and that something was going to be taken away from him, but he could not say what.

29 Dr McDonald asked him why anyone might wish to harm him and he gave an account of entering a room, feeling cold and feeling drunk even though he had not been drinking. He described in vague terms a bloody scene with at least two young people, picking up a pistol and putting it in the front of his shorts and a bag with money. He said repetitively and tearfully, “I did not help them. Oh God, nobody will ever forgive me”.

30 Dr McDonald concluded that the offender was at risk of harming himself and that he needed to be watched. He was unable to make a diagnosis but thought that his mental state suggested psychotic and dissociative features. He was of the opinion that such a mental state could occur in response to extreme stress.

31 Dr Wilhelm saw the offender on 4 February. She noted that he was alert and co-operative but appeared to be having hallucinations. He appeared startled and looked around the room suspiciously. He told her that he could hear voices but that there was no one there when he looked. He was still not eating or drinking and said that he did not trust the food. Dr Wilhelm thought that he remained a high suicide risk and might become more distressed upon returning to gaol. He was oriented in time and place and his mood was labile.

32 The offender was taken to Long Bay and placed in the general medical ward. Dr Varga saw him there. The offender was recorded as being in a foetal position under the bed, anxious and distressed and crying out “Don’t beat me” and “I didn’t do it”. On 8 February 2003 he was again found distressed, clutching his head. He said that he could hear voices. He was transferred to the acute psychiatric ward on 17 February 2003. Dr Varga saw the offender three times but did not note any evidence of psychosis. He noted that he was obviously distressed and thought him a high suicide risk.

33 Dr Ellis was senior registrar in psychiatry in the acute psychiatric ward. He first saw the offender on 9 February and recorded that he told him that he believed that strangers were looking at him and having him followed. He said that he had thought so for several weeks. He said that people on the television were looking at him, so he stopped watching. He said that he was hearing voices, male and female, outside his head, saying “We are going to get you” and “Help me”. He believed that people were continuing to watch him and that he could somehow “feel” it. He attributed the voices he was hearing to dead people.

34 He told Dr Ellis that he had been asked by a friend, Raymond Shen, to hit him, take his belongings from his house and burn his car in an insurance scam. He said that he had agreed to do so after much pressure and after having drunk half a bottle of wine. He told Dr Ellis that he had hit his friend with binoculars and had drawn blood. When he went to the house, he said that he had found three bodies and a gun. He had taken the gun and the friend’s belongings and had left them at a friend’s house. He recognised the gun as Mr Shen’s as he had looked after a gun for him in the past. He said that he had been arrested when he drove Mr Shen’s car home.

35 Dr Ellis’ assessment of the offender’s mental state was that he was guarded, quiet and staring at non-apparent stimuli. When asked, he told Dr Ellis that it was the voice. His mood was “scared” and his affect was “perplexed and fearful”. He appeared to be experiencing referential delusions, auditory hallucinations and some thought disorder.

36 Dr Ellis thought that the offender was suffering from a schizophreniform disorder or a brief psychotic episode. He noted that he should be observed for any self-harm.

37 Dr Ellis’ notes include an entry on 10 February about information obtained from the offender’s wife. She told him that she had never seen unusual or psychotic symptoms. He had not complained of hearing voices or of having delusions.

38 Dr Ellis last saw the offender on 12 February. The offender reported that the frequency and intensity of the voices was less but still felt that he was being watched and that people on the television were watching him. Dr Ellis thought that his affect was a little more open, that he was less agitated and that his thought form was more coherent. He concluded that the psychosis was improving.

39 Dr Reznik, consultant psychiatrist, was in charge of the offender’s care for about the next two years. He saw him approximately once per month. He noted that when the offender had been admitted to the ward by Dr Cassidy, that doctor had noted him as “constantly looking around in response to internal stimuli”. Dr Cassidy had thought that he was suffering from an acute psychosis with restriction of food.

40 On Dr Reznik’s first examination the offender said that he felt afraid, that there were people watching him, that there was somebody there whom he could not see and that he could hear a voice like a little boy’s voice. He said that he was leaving food because he wanted to help the little boy. Dr Reznik thought that the diagnosis was unclear but that the offender might have had an acute stress reaction, a brief psychotic disorder or that he might be reacting to substance abuse. He saw the offender at least twice over the next week, and he presented in much the same way.

41 On 3 March Dr Canessa, a registrar, noted that the offender had been depressed since about early December 2002 and was describing auditory and visual hallucinations and feeling paranoid in that people were looking at him.

42 On 13 March the offender again told Dr Reznik that he had been hearing voices. There were a little boy and adults. He told Dr Reznik that he had started hearing the voices before the night that he was arrested, perhaps a month before. He appeared distracted and responding to hallucinations.

43 Dr Wilcox saw the offender on 20 October and thought that he had a “resulting” (which may mean “resolving”) psychotic illness.

44 By November, Dr Reznik thought that the offender was no longer acutely ill and that he could be managed outside the acute psychiatric ward. So he was removed from the ward, but Dr Reznik continued to see him. He noted continuing fluctuation of symptoms, including hearing voices.

45 Dr Reznik’s last note is of 30 November 2004. The offender was still complaining of hearing voices every day but could not say what they were saying. Dr Reznik never came to a final diagnosis. He believed that the offender was suffering from a fluctuating psychotic illness. Towards the end of the time of treatment he had doubts about the genuineness of the offender and made a note on 8 June 2004 querying whether he was malingering. On 30 November 2004 he thought the offender might have been faking symptoms.

46 Dr Mastroianni succeeded Dr Reznik as the offender’s treating psychiatrist. His report was tendered on sentence. He described the course of the offender’s symptoms and treatment up to the time of his latest assessment on 5 May 2005. Dr Mastroianni is of the opinion that the offender is suffering from chronic mental illness. The provisional diagnosis is chronic schizophrenia, but the illness may possibly be schizoaffective disorder. He has limited insight into his illness. His symptoms may intensify in response to increasing stress but respond to drugs, increased where necessary.

47 The prognosis is guarded. It is encouraging that the offender complies with his treatment, which is at least partially effective. His family supports him. On the other hand, there are “some core psychotic features”, which I think is a reference to auditory hallucinations, which persist despite high doses of drugs. His symptoms deteriorate in response to increased stress. Court hearing dates produce stress but, more importantly I think, life in gaol will do so. He has had unprovoked thoughts to harm others in prison and in Dr Mastroianni’s opinion they are psychotic.

48 Dr Mastroianni believes that it is imperative for the offender to continue to receive anti-psychotic drugs but cannot yet say whether his present regime will bring his psychotic illness into remission or whether further hospitalisation or other drugs may be needed in the future. Since he has been found guilty of the murders he will be housed within the main prison system. There he will be unable to receive the regular supervision, monitoring, counselling and psychiatric services that would be available if he were a forensic patient. Dr Mastroianni thinks that that may impede his recovery or his long-term prognosis.

49 Two consultant psychiatrists gave evidence at the trial, Dr Westmore and Dr Neilssen. Dr Westmore first saw the offender in May 2003 and was then concerned with the question whether he was unfit to be tried. He thought that he was unfit and that he might have suffered a psychotic illness. He next saw him in February 2004, again to consider the question of unfitness. Dr Westmore thought that he was fit, had a mental illness, was responding to treatment but had not yet gone into full remission. He saw the offender again in March 2004. He remained of the view that he was fit to be tried and considered whether there was available to him the mental illness defence. The offender told him that Mr Shen had told him that he was having problems with his family and had asked him to kill them. He said that he had gone to Mr Shen’s apartment with a gun, found his wife sleeping and hit her with it. Mr Shen’s son had come into the bedroom with a tennis racket and had started hitting him. They had struggled and he had shot the son. He had gone outside and had seen the daughter on the telephone. He had run to her and shot her. He denied having attacked Mr Shen and tying him up. He denied knowing what was in the bag that was recovered from his friend’s premises.

50 The offender told Dr Westmore that the voices were asking him to help Mr Shen. Thus the offender offered two explanations, one non-psychotic and the other psychotic. Dr Westmore thought that the offender was suffering from a psychotic illness when he killed the deceased and that the illness played a direct and relevant role in the offences. He was of the opinion that he was suffering from a disease of the mind which would have totally deprived him of his capacity to know that he ought not to do the act of killing each of the deceased. Dr Westmore agreed that there was little objective evidence for mental illness. As to whether the offender knew that he was doing wrong, Dr Westmore distinguished between legal and moral wrong. He thought that the offender’s ability to know that what he was doing was wrong in the moral sense was compromised.

51 When asked how he thought that the offender’s ability to reason had been affected, Dr Westmore said that it was his ability to consider all his proposed actions in a logical and reasonable fashion that was affected. He based his opinion firmly upon an assumption that the offender was mentally ill before the offences and in coming to that assumption he relied on changes described by the offender’s wife before the offences, the fact that the killings were out of character and the victims virtually strangers to him and the evidence of an assault on the offender’s son.

52 Dr Neilssen saw the offender in June and July 2004. In June the offender told him that he was intending to plead not guilty to the charges because he was sick at the time and that if he had not been sick he would not have done what he did. He said that he had heard the voice of a young boy, beginning around September 2002, and that that had increased before the offences. Voices had asked him to do things and had told him that they were out to get him and that they were watching him. When asked by Dr Neilssen, he agreed that witchcraft might possibly explain his behaviour. He said that he had pulled over at times when driving to let suspicious cars go past. He had purchased a bug detector to check his flat. He said that he had been hearing voices while his wife was living with him. He had become angry at little things and had screamed at her. He had told her that he thought that someone was watching him but did not tell her about the voices.

53 Dr Neilssen asked the offender whether he was hearing messages from the television or being watched by people on the television and he agreed that that was so. He said that he was in danger but did not know what the danger was. He denied planning to abduct Mr Shen or to extort money from him. He maintained that Mr Shen had given him the gun and the keys and had asked him to kill his family. He did not tell Dr Neilssen that the voices had directed him in any way at the time of the offences.

54 Dr Neilssen was not prepared to accept that the offender was mentally ill before and at the time of the offences. The only evidence to support the proposition, he said, was the offender’s own account of the onset of symptoms. He said that the offender was suggestible about psychotic symptoms. He thought it a possibility that the offender was malingering at the time of the interviews. He noted that the offender did not give any spontaneous account of the offences or any delusional explanation about them to him or apparently any other treating doctor, and thought that that spoke against the probability of mental illness.

55 Dr Neilssen thought that the offender knew that what he was doing was legally wrong, as evidenced by his attempts to conceal his involvement. He thought, however, that there was a strong possibility that he had a schizophrenic illness.

56 He was of the view ultimately that the offender did not have the defence of mental illness but would have favoured the defence of substantial impairment by abnormality of mind. So he accepted that the offender had an abnormality of mind at the time of the offences. In this respect he drew upon the opinion of Dr Ellis that signs of mental illness were present a short time after the killings. He assumed that those features were present at the time of the offences as well. He thought, on the balance of probabilities, that the offender was psychotic at the time of the offences. So his perception of events, his concentration, his reasoning abilities and his ability to judge right from wrong were disturbed. He thought, on the balance of probabilities, that the offender had a chronic psychiatric illness, most probably schizophrenia, in 2003. He thought that the changes in the offender’s behaviour before the killings could be evidence of the prodromal phase of a mental illness.

57 An important feature of the evidence of Dr Neilssen was that before he had access to the medical records of the psychiatric registrar, who recorded no psychotic symptoms, he thought that it was probable that the offender had a psychotic illness on 1 February 2003. After he saw the records he changed his opinion and considered only that it was possible. As the offender was able to form purposeful action, Dr Neilssen thought that his reasoning in other respects was not greatly affected. He acknowledged, however, that there may have been some effect upon his moral reasoning ability.

58 The defences of not guilty on the ground of mental illness and of not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter on the ground of substantial impairment by abnormality of mind were left to the jury. As to the mental illness defence, the offender did not set out to prove that he did not know the nature and quality of his acts. Accordingly, the jury were instructed that to make out the defence the offender had to prove that he was suffering from a disease of the mind such that he did not understand that what he was doing was wrong by the standards of ordinary reasonable people.

59 Thus there were two questions for the jury, namely whether when he killed the deceased the offender was suffering from a disease of the mind and, if so, whether that disease was such as to prevent him from reasoning with a moderate degree of calmness about the moral quality of what he was doing.

60 The verdicts of the jury show that the offender failed to prove both those things. However, a finding that the offender was mentally ill when he killed the deceased would not of itself be inconsistent with the verdicts.

61 As to the defence of substantial impairment, the jury were instructed that the offender had to prove that at the time of the acts causing death his capacity to understand events or judge whether his actions were right or wrong or to control himself was substantially impaired by an abnormality of mind arising from a underlying condition and, if so, that the impairment was so substantial as to warrant his liability for murder being reduced to manslaughter. Plainly, the offender failed to prove both those things, but a finding that the offender’s capacity to understand events or judge whether his actions were right or wrong or to control himself was substantially impaired by an abnormality of mind arising from an underlying condition would not of itself be inconsistent with the verdicts.

62 It is necessary to ascertain if possible whether the offender was suffering from a mental illness or any abnormality of mind when he murdered the deceased. The experts all agreed that psychotic illness tends to develop slowly. There is usually a more or less long prodromal phase during which symptoms emerge and gradually intensify until they become recognisable for what they are.

63 I am satisfied that the offender tied up Mr Shen so that he could steal his keys and money. He stole his keys so that he could go to his unit and steal more money and valuables. I am satisfied that he tortured Mrs Shen to find out where the money and valuables were kept. I am satisfied that he killed all three deceased to prevent their stopping him doing what he was doing or reporting him for what he had done. I am satisfied that he made careful preparations for the attack by inviting Mr Shen to his unit at a suitable time and having ready the means of attack and restraint of Mr Shen and the means of carrying out the rest of the project. His telephone conversations with employees at Randwick and his attendance there were designed to give an appearance of innocent ordinariness to the night. I am satisfied that he dealt with the stolen money and valuables and with all the things that might incriminate him in a way that would conceal them for the time being and enable him to retrieve them in due course. His motive for the whole enterprise was his desire for money.

64 The intricate detail of his preparation and precaution shows that he was acutely aware of the legal wrongness of what he was doing and that he had the ability to reason and plan in great detail. Nothing about the objective facts of what the offender did suggests in any way that he was suffering from any mental illness or other abnormality of mind or inability to reason calmly or control himself. The degree of control he exercised over himself during the whole of the evening is quite remarkable. He was quiet and watchful when appropriate. He was ruthless and violent when it suited his purposes.

65 It is difficult to draw any conclusions from what the offender himself has said from time to time. He has given widely differing versions of the facts to different people on different occasions, and I think that it would be quite unreasonable to suggest that those differences are psychotic in origin. He gave Dr Westmore a version of the killings which was probably true or almost true, yet denied attacking Mr Shen or knowing what was in the bag. On another occasion he said that he had arrived at the Shen apartment and found the three deceased dead. On another he denied any knowledge of the events. His first recorded statement was to the effect that he had been set up. I am satisfied that he feigned unconsciousness at the police station. He has been ready to tell lies when it suits him. As Dr Neilssen observed, he was readily suggestible to exculpatory explanations, like witchcraft.

66 I do not accept that the offender killed the Shen family because he believed that voices had told him to do so or because he believed that they had told him to help Mr Shen. I do not accept that he believed that Mr Shen had asked him to do so. I do not accept that the offender believed that Mr Shen wanted him to do so. The evidence for the offender’s belief that voices were speaking to him at the time of the murders is weak. He never told anyone until after the murders that he had been hearing voices. He told Dr Westmore that he had told his wife that he was hearing voices and that she had told him to see a doctor. His wife, on the other hand, did not remember such a thing. She would not have forgotten it if it had happened.

67 It may well be true, as reported, that the offender suffered episodes of mania or depression as a child and as a young man. However, there is no evidence to show how such events might make it more likely that his mental state was affected in any relevant way at the time of the murders.

68 There were noticeable changes in the offender’s behaviour during the weeks immediately before the murders. The offender’s wife, whom I accept as an honest and reliable witness, said that he was not himself. He appeared depressed and withdrawn. He was suffering from nightmares. He complained of headaches and chest pains. He had always behaved pleasantly and gently towards her and others. On 10 January 2003, however, he slapped their young son across the face. That was out of character. The offender’s wife was so alarmed that she got in touch with the police and obtained an Apprehended Violence Order. The couple separated. In the offender’s flat, police found an electronic device for detecting the presence of listening devices.

69 These facts, which do not depend upon any history given by the offender, show that changes were probably taking place in his perception of events. The evidence supports the conclusion that the offender was developing an unreasonable belief that others might be watching him.

70 I think that what the offender’s wife was witnessing was the prodromal phase of a psychotic illness. I think that that illness continued to develop after the murders. It is significant, I think, that the offender told nobody about hearing voices until after the murders. It is also significant that he told nobody about the voices on his admission to hospital. He was undoubtedly trying to attract sympathy on that occasion and I think that if he had been hearing voices he would not have failed to tell the emergency registrar, the psychiatric registrar and the neurosurgeon. Yet it was not until the following day that he told anybody that he had been hearing voices.

71 The facts of the murders were horrific. The offender’s contemplation of what he had done must have been horrific. It was the sort of experience that I think might have affected the mind of a man who had an inchoate psychotic illness. The psychiatric experts all agreed that though symptoms of psychosis generally develop gradually, particular stressful events may cause them to develop more quickly. I think that that is what probably happened. I think that the offender’s contemplation of what he had done and the sights that he had seen and the sounds he had heard probably accelerated the development of his mental deterioration.

72 At the time of the murders, however, although the offender was developing an illness, he was not badly affected by it in any relevant way. The evidence offers no recognisable connection, causal or otherwise, between the offender’s state of mind and his commission of the acts causing death. He may have felt ill. He may have felt uneasy about people watching him. He may have been troubled in his mind. The difficulty is to understand how such feelings or beliefs could have affected the way he acted in any way that made him less blameworthy, less responsible for the consequences of his acts. There is no satisfactory evidence that his stories about the gang, the pharmacist, the cop and the photographs were the product of mental illness. His capacity for logical thought and planning was unimpaired. There is no ready distinction attributable to his probable state of mind between the legal and the moral wrongness of what he was doing. I do not think that the offender’s capacity to understand events or judge whether his actions were right or wrong in a moral sense or to control himself were impaired at all. I do not think that his capacity to reason about what he was doing was impaired. His illness, his belief that he was being watched and the other effects that it was having upon him, were incidental. No doubt they affected his life and relationships, but they did not mitigate his criminality any more than any physical illness would have done.

73 The Crown has submitted that the level of culpability of the offender is so extreme that the community interest in retribution and punishment can only be met through the imposition of the maximum penalty. Section 19A Crimes Act relevantly provides as follows -

19A Punishment for murder

(1) A person who commits the crime of murder is liable to imprisonment for life.

(2) A person sentenced to imprisonment for life for the crime of murder is to serve that sentence for the term of the person’s natural life.

(3) Nothing in this section affects the operation of section 21 (1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (which authorises the passing of a lesser sentence than imprisonment for life).

74 Relevantly, s61 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act is as follows -

61 Mandatory life sentences for certain offences

(1) A court is to impose a sentence of imprisonment for life on a person who is convicted of murder if the court is satisfied that the level of culpability in the commission of the offence is so extreme that the community interest in retribution, punishment, community protection and deterrence can only be met through the imposition of that sentence.

...

(3) Nothing in subsection (1) affects section 21 (1).

75 Section 21(1) of the same Act provides as follows -

21 General power to reduce penalties

(1) If by any provision of an Act an offender is made liable to imprisonment for life, a court may nevertheless impose a sentence of imprisonment for a specified term.

76 The offences were of great heinousness. The totality of the offender’s criminality encompasses the three killings, two carried out with the intent to kill and one after torture, the assault, robbery and restraint of Mr Shen and the robbery of his family. The attack on Mr Shen, his restraint and the robberies of him and his family were carefully planned. I do not think that when he left Mr Shen the offender was intending to kill his family. He was bent on robbery. However, he had no intention of failing in his endeavour and took with him a pistol with which to subdue and kill if necessary. He did not hesitate to use it on those who would have stopped him. So careful were his preparations and measures that if Mr Shen had not managed to escape from his bonds the offender might never have been identified as the person responsible.

77 Everything the offender did was done out of greed.

78 The offender’s initial explanation, that he had been set up, was a lie. His assertion that Mr Shen wanted him to attack his family was a lie. I am also satisfied that his claim that the voices told him to help Mr Shen was a lie.

79 It was submitted on behalf of the offender that although there were three deaths there was only one episode of criminal conduct, and further that the offender did not initially set out to kill anybody, but only to rob. Those submissions may be accepted, but they do not to my mind take the murders out of the worst category of case. I should also acknowledge the benefit which resulted to the community from the efficient and economical conduct of the defence. However, the offender’s criminality was so grave as to make it impossible for the Court to mark that efficiency and economy by any reduction in sentence.

80 It was submitted that the offender was not fully aware of the consequences of his actions because he had an abnormal state of mind and that notwithstanding the jury’s rejection of the defences set up at trial, the Court ought to find that the offender’s abnormal state of mind had some effect upon his ability to judge right from wrong and on his capacity to reason so that his ability to consider the moral wrongness of his acts would have been compromised. There was evidence to support that submission, notably from Dr Neilssen. However, I am unable to accept these submissions. While I am satisfied that the offender was suffering from a developing illness, I am not satisfied that his illness affected his ability to judge right from wrong or to reason about the moral wrongness of his acts.

81 It is unnecessary to come to any conclusion about the future course of the offender’s illness or about whether he will in the future constitute a danger to others. In any case, the evidence would not permit any confident findings about such matters.

82 Of the Shen family, only Mr Raymond Shen survived. In assessing the gravity of the offences I have taken into account the assault and beating that the offender gave him and the pain and agony of mind that resulted from them and from the restraint under which he was put. I cannot take into account the far greater agony of mind that Mr Shen has felt and will feel because of the loss of his wife and children. I express the sympathy of the Court to Mr Shen and the hope that as time goes by his hurt will become less and that he may gain some peace of mind.

83 I am satisfied that the level of the offender’s culpability is so extreme that the community interest in retribution, punishment, community protection and deterrence can only be met through the imposition of the maximum sentence for each offence.

84 Crespin Adanguidi, for the murder of Shiquin Zhu I sentence you to imprisonment for life. Your sentence will be taken to have commenced on 1 February 2003. For the murder of Pin Shen I sentence you to imprisonment for life. Your sentence will be taken to have commenced on 1 February 2003. For the murder of Christy Bo Shen I sentence you to imprisonment for life. Your sentence will be taken to have commenced on 1 February 2003.

************