DPP v Stevenson [2008] VSC 30

2 Briefly, the circumstances of these offences are as follows.

3 At some time near the beginning of 2005, you were living in a unit at St Georges Road, Corio, with the deceased and her boyfriend Mr Matthew Hueber. However, in May 2005, Mr Hueber went to prison and for a time only you and the deceased lived in that unit.

4 During this period you maintained a relationship with Mr Hueber's sister,

Ms Michelle Hueber. The evidence suggests that your relationship with Ms Coles, the deceased, was poor. There is some evidence of arguments and verbal clashes between you, although there is no suggestion that you were ever violent towards Ms Coles until the night on which she met her death.

5 During the time you were living at St Georges Road, Corio, you fell behind in rental payments or contributions and you were either asked or instructed to leave the premises. It appears that this was at the instigation of Ms Coles, although the instruction for you to leave was apparently passed on to you by Mr Hueber and

Mr Keith Hutchison. You did as you were asked but having departed from the unit you did not take all of your possessions. There was, therefore, reason for you to return to the unit at some time after your departure. After your departure from that unit you effectively had no permanent place to live.

6 I have been told by your counsel that your relationship with Mr Hueber's sister, Michelle, was important to you and the evidence suggests that you held Ms Coles responsible for the break-up of that relationship. That relationship had begun in November 2004 and ended in about August of 2005.

7 On Monday, 21 November 2005, you had a conversation with Ms Coles at the home of another friend, Mr Shaun Hutchison, at No. 5 Wren Street, Norlane. The conversation concerned the fact that the police were looking for you because, as you put it, you had "skipped court". The conversation may have also touched on issues concerning unemployment payments to you from Centrelink. You told the police in your second record of interview that the exchange between the two of you was fine at that point. As I understand it, you assert that during this conversation Ms Coles in fact invited you to come to her unit some time later in the day or the evening.

8 In the early morning of Tuesday, 22 November 2005, you went to the home of the deceased. Why you were there at that hour is not entirely clear to me but the Crown does not contend that you went there for the purpose of doing harm to the deceased. Indeed, the Crown accepts that you did not go there with that intention. You did have belongings to collect from the premises but whether that was the main reason for your attendance is unclear. Your attendance may have also been connected to issues about the police interest in your whereabouts.

9 Prior to going to Ms Coles' unit you had been consuming alcohol and marijuana. Some time after you arrived at the unit you and Ms Coles had what appears to have been consensual sexual intercourse. The crime scene evidence supports the fact that that occurred and the evidence also suggests that a condom was used, adding weight to the view that whatever occurred was consensual.

10 At some point after that occurred, you attacked the deceased. The reasons for that attack are also not entirely clear but there is some evidence which refers to possible reasons. There are conversations you have had with people in which it is alleged that you made admissions about what occurred. First, you had a conversation with your sister, Ms Jessica Scholer, and your aunt, Ms Barbara Clausen, on 3 January 2006. In that conversation you recounted what occurred. You told them you went to Ms Coles' unit to find out why the police had been coming around. You then described the attack against Ms Coles, saying that you had dragged her down the hallway from where the attack had initially begun to a bedroom where you kept hitting her with a hammer. You told them you left Ms Coles' premises at about

5:30 am and threw the hammer you had used in the attack into a creek. The weapon has never been recovered. You denied that you had sexual intercourse with the deceased. In that conversation you also referred to "blacking out" or "buzzing out" while the attack was occurring.

11 On 4 February 2006, you spoke to Ms Michelle Hueber. In conversation you told

Ms Hueber that Ms Coles had asked you to come to the unit and you admitted to her that you and Ms Coles had sexual intercourse. Ms Hueber also alleges that you told her that after the sexual encounter the deceased had informed you that she could have you charged with rape and also that she had punched Ms Hueber in the stomach to "... make her lose the baby" said to have been fathered by you. The second part of this statement concerning the loss of a baby is unlikely to be true because Ms Hueber's evidence was that she was not pregnant to you at the time. I do, however, act on the basis that things were said to you about the end of your relationship with Michelle Hueber and also the consequences for you of the sexual contact you and Ms Coles had just had. Those statements caused to you to attack Ms. Coles following some form of loss of control and therefore have some effect in reducing your culpability.

12 You told Ms Hueber that you "just lost [your] temper", hitting Ms Coles with your fists and with a hammer, which you later threw away. Finally, on 16 January 2007you were interviewed by Dr Lester Walton at Port Phillip Prison and told him similar things.

13 These remain extremely serious offences, as are all cases of murder. During the course of the attack, you inflicted fatal injuries on Ms Coles with a blunt instrument being a hammer. Clearly, you struck her a number of times about the head and mouth and those injuries caused her death. The learned Prosecutor was correct to point to your attack on Ms Coles as brutal, and as he submitted, made the worse by the fact that it was an attack which occurred in the home of the deceased. She was 21 years of age and had her life ahead of her.

14 Realising that Ms Coles was dead, you took several steps to conceal what you had done. First, you endeavoured to start a fire in three places in the bedroom in which part of the attack occurred in the hope that it might in some way conceal your crime. I do not accept the submission made on your behalf that for the count of arson, your sentence should be totally concurrent with your sentence for murder. The arson was a deliberate act on your part, and caused some damage to the property which is owned by the Victorian Department of Human Services. Part of that fire was started on the body of the deceased and the evidence indicates that there was a substantial disfigurement of Ms Coles' body by the lighting of that fire. After you left the premises and returned to Norlane, you removed your clothing and washed it and also washed some shoes.

15 You were apprehended by police on 7 December 2005. You had already been interviewed on 23 November 2005 and then a further record of interview was held on the date of your arrest.

16 As I have indicated you assert, and the Crown accepts, that your killing of Ms Coles was a spontaneous act on your part and not a planned or premeditated killing. I also accept that and sentence you on that basis.

17 Some of the evidence also indicates you have accepted responsibility for what you have done. Your counsel submitted that you made several confessions to your sister and friends on visits because you felt what he described as "true remorse" for what had happened. It is difficult to accept that submission when, in the discussion with Ms Hueber as she describes it, you did not show any concern or regret for what you had done and, in fact, blamed the deceased for what had occurred.

18 The Prosecutor contends consistently with the judgment of the Court of Appeal in DPP v England[1] that your conduct in lighting a fire on the body of the deceased was a circumstance of aggravation. Mr Langslow, on your behalf, raises some issue about that. It is my view that, consistently the judgment of the Court of Appeal in that case, the incineration of the body of the deceased or a significant attempt to do so is a circumstance of aggravation which points to a "greater severity of sentence".[2] Indeed, in your discussion with Ms Hueber you allegedly said "I had to burn the evidence" when asked by her about how badly the deceased had been burnt.

19 The court has been provided with a victim impact statement prepared by the mother of Ms Coles, Ms Jeanette Moelaart, dated 1 February 2008. She describes the trauma of being informed of her daughter's death and the effect of the subsequent publicity in the media. She describes her need for medical attention and the effect that her daughter's death has had on her ability to work and to live a normal life. Ms Moelaart has been present in court and I have taken the material to which I have just referred into account in the sentence I am about to pronounce.

20 Mr Langslow of counsel, who appeared on your behalf before me, outlined what on any view was a life of severe emotional deprivation. You are now 30 years of age. It appears from what Mr Langslow told me and what you told Dr Walton, that your mother was 16 when you born. By the time you were five years of age you were rejected by your mother and spent much of your youth in foster care. You were diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder at the age of six and prescribed Ritalin over a number of years. You have no contact with your father. It is put that at the age of 14 you were sexually molested by an older man. Your education ended at Year 9 level.

21 Your mother is now deceased and at the age of 18 years, you were informed of her death by your brother. You have some contact with your half-sister, Ms Jessica Scholer and, indeed, she was a friend of Ms Coles. However, you lost contact with her after your mother's death until 2004 when some contact resumed. I have referred to the discussions you have had with her.

22 You seem to have a long history of substance abuse being mainly cannabis and alcohol. You have used heroin in the past, and contracted Hepatitis C in about 2002. You have also used amphetamines and "ecstasy". As the evidence reveals, for some time prior to the killing of Ms Coles you maintained a relationship with Ms Michelle Hueber. Mr Langslow submits that relationship was very important to you and you were very sorry to see it end. In recent times whilst in custody you have been given anti-depressant medication and Dr Walton has diagnosed a depressive disorder. Dr Walton has also described you as being "psychologically damaged" due in part to your upbringing and much of that damage is irreversible.

23 So far as your rehabilitation is concerned it is not significantly progressed, and is unlikely to further progress during your sentence. I do accept that given the opportunity and the necessary assistance there are prospects for rehabilitation to occur. However, such family connection as still exists for you is of limited value so far as emotional support or assistance is concerned. Your expectation is that during the time of your custody for these offences, you will be likely to have no visitors at all. I act on the basis that you face your sentence largely alone and that you will not receive psychological counselling at the intensity that Dr Walton considers is necessary.

24 You have a number of prior convictions, and several additional convictions which do not form part of the further presentment have been referred to by the learned Prosecutor. The presentment reveals fifty-two convictions from four court appearances between 1996 and 2005. The additional 10 convictions are from three court appearances in Taree in New South Wales in 2001 and 2003. Although these convictions are relevant in the sentencing process, they are not convictions which display any earlier history of violence against individuals.

25 I am informed by Mr Langslow that while in custody you have had some training in the field of industrial cleaning, and that is an activity you are interested in and hope to pursue when you are eventually released. For about one year in 2002 you held a job in that field in New South Wales, being your longest period of employment.

26 I am also told that you either are, or have been, held in protective custody in either knowledge or anticipation of hostility from Mr Hueber over the death of Ms Coles. However, Mr Hueber has been released from custody and whilst that does not remove any possible threat you, it may diminish it to some extent.

27 You have pleaded guilty to the presentment brought against you. You had originally denied involvement in the offences in two records of interview and on

2 August 2006 you were committed for trial and reserved your plea. Your plea of guilty was first entered by you before me on what was to have been the first day of your trial. However, it is nonetheless, in my opinion, a significant matter to plead guilty to the offences of murder and arson. You are entitled as a matter of law to a significant and transparent discount on the sentence which I would otherwise impose by reason of such a plea of guilty. Your plea has saved the community the inconvenience, expense and trouble of a trial. It has also avoided the need for

Ms Coles' family to be further traumatised by a trial. I do not think your plea of guilty was motivated entirely by self-interest and I do regard it as indicative of some level of remorse for what you have done.

28 I declare that 509 days is the period of pre-sentence detention. I direct that be recorded. For the murder of Ms Natalie Coles I impose a sentence of 18 years. For the offence of arson, I impose a sentence of four years, concurrent as to three years and cumulative as to one year. That results in a total effective sentence of 19 years and I fix a non-parole period of 16 years. I have signed the forensic sample orders as requested by the Crown which you did not oppose.

[1] [1999] VSCA 95; [1999] 2 VR 258.

[2] See [1999] VSCA 95; [1999] 2 VR 258 at 263 and 266.