R v Douglass [2004] VSC 372

5. In order to sentence you, it is necessary to set out the facts surrounding the commission of this offence. Jenny Hu arrived in Australia from China in July 1999. She came seeking a new life in Melbourne about which she had read and which she believed was the world's most livable city. Ms Hu had obtained a degree in Computer Engineering at Shanghai University and, shortly after her arrival in Melbourne, obtained employment at Superpartners, Lonsdale Street, Melbourne, as an analysis programmer. She was a diligent and reliable employee and was intent upon saving money. At the time of her death she had accumulated over $50,000 in savings.

8. Although she maintained almost daily contact with her family in China, with whom she had a close relationship, she became a naturalised Australian citizen in November 2001. As early as April 2001, Ms Hu had informed her sister, Jia Ming Hu, of her desire to form a relationship and start a family. It appears that she contacted you as the result of a personal advertisement you had placed in a local newspaper. In an extract from her diary of either 8 or 9 June, following a telephone conversation with you, Jenny Hu described herself as having "helplessly fallen in love with this doctor whom I have never met before".

11. The reference to doctor was because Ms Hu believed you to be a wealthy heart specialist. The deposition material reveals that the promotion of this falsehood was part of your modus operandi to attract lonely Asian women. Another aspect of the technique was to show the prospective partner, to whom you professed a desire for marriage, a large seaside house in Brighton, which you falsely claimed was yours but which was being temporarily occupied by tenants.

14. In the meantime, you resided in a relatively modest unit at 12 Parton Court, Glenhuntly provided by the Ministry of Housing for persons with physical disabilities. You purported to be legally blind and suffering from a level of paralysis to the left side of your body as a result of a stroke sustained in 1998. In addition to the receipt of an invalid pension, you were looked after by carers provided, during this period, by Bayside Community Options. Another agency, Malvern East Community Welfare Association, was also involved. The care, which would usually occupy no more than an hour each day; included personal grooming, showering and dressing; household cleaning; transport for shopping or doctors' visits; and the provision of meals. During these household visits, you would either remain seated in your unit or move with the assistance of a walking frame.

17. It is fair to say that over time there was a level of suspicion engendered in the carers as to the extent of your physical and visual impairment. That scepticism was shared by your neighbours, the Morrisons. This scepticism was not surprising since none of these disabilities were apparent to the Asian women with whom you associated.

20. In early July 2001, Jenny Hu commenced to live with you in the Glenhuntly unit. One of the gifts you purported to make to her was a red Ford Festiva motor car. In fact, you hired the vehicle from Abbey Car Rentals in Levanswell Road, Moorabbin on 9 June 2001. You had Ms Hu believe that you would marry her as early as 8 July, but you consistently manufactured excuses as to why the marriage should be postponed. These included the supposed death of your brother and his three children in a motor accident that had left his wife in a coma. You told Ms Hu that the Australian tradition forbade the marriage occurring until after the family funerals.

23. Although Jenny Hu continued to live with you, she apparently learned of your contact with other Asian women and this, combined with the constant postponement of any marriage, resulted in her distrust of, and disillusionment with, you.

26. A neighbour, Marshall Morrison, heard an argument between you both at about October 2001, and a further argument in December 2001. Indeed, in October 2001,

Ms Hu had acquired a post office box at the GPO to which her mail was to be directed and she determined to seek somewhere else to live.

29. The deterioration of your relationship was interrupted by a trip Ms Hu took to Shanghai to visit her ailing father. She remained there from 9 December 2001 to 6 January 2002. During that time you contacted her via email, phone or fax at least twice a day claiming that you loved her and missed her very much. Nonetheless she was still determined to leave you once the opportunity arose, and, while in China, she expressed to her sister a fear of your future intentions.

32. Coincidently, during Ms Hu's absence overseas, you told one of your carers, Mr Peter Fisher, that you had acquired a second girlfriend and that there would be "all hell to pay" if the first girlfriend found out about the second one. You said you had to get rid of one of them. Although it appears that any other such relationship was temporary, your observations were prophetic.

35. Upon returning to Australia Jenny Hu continued to reside with you.

38. In about the second week of January 2002, another Asian lady, Ms Bei Wang advertised for a husband in the "Talking Friends" section of the Leader Newspaper. You responded to the advertisements describing yourself as a 45 year old widower who was a successful heart surgeon operating your own clinic called Bayside Stroke Association. In mid January you had a number of conversations with Ms Wang and you would send her flowers with messages of love. On 24 January Jenny Hu transferred a quantity of her property (principally clothing) from your unit to her office. It was the same day that you arranged to meet Ms Wang. On that morning you arranged the delivery to her of an envelope of photographs. These depicted not only the interior of the Glenhuntly unit, but also photos labelled "my home-Brighton" and "my yacht." You arrived at her residence in the red Ford Festiva and together drove to Williamstown Beach. Apart from discussing marriage, you promised Ms Wang that, being a wealthy doctor, you could organise with immigration authorities the conversion of her mother's temporary visa to permanent residence.

41. On Friday 25 January, about 5.30 p.m. you again visited Bei Wang at her flat where her mother gave her permission for you to marry her daughter. You took the two women for dinner at a restaurant at Highpoint West before returning to your own unit about 11.30 p.m.

44. In the meantime, as security and railway records attest, Jenny Hu had left her place of employment and, using her Metrail pass, had taken the train from Parliament Station to Glenhuntly. This was to be her last journey.

47. On 26 January, you contacted Ms Wang on a number of occasions. You stated that you were meeting with a friend from the Immigration Department to resolve her mother's visa problems. Your final call was a text message of goodnight at 11.30 p.m. If you had not killed Jenny Hu by then, it is highly likely that you did so soon after.

50. The forensic tests which revealed Ms Hu's blood in the unit suggested the killing occurred in the main bedroom (probably when she was in bed). The post mortem revealed three stab wounds to the chest and one to the back and five stab wounds to the abdomen. But Ms Hu did not die without a fight. At 8 a.m. on 27 January, you rang Ms Wang claiming that you and your friend from the Immigration Department had been attacked by a dog the previous night. You asserted that the friend had been taken to hospital with a badly bitten nose and that you had scratches on your hands and face. You asked Ms Wang to obtain some bandaids and antiseptic and come over to the Glenhuntly unit to assist you. You also asked Bei Wang if she had any carpet cleaning products as there was dog excrement on the carpet that you were trying to clean. Of course your carers could have been of assistance in this regard but on Friday 25 January, you had rung Ms Waddell of Bayside Community Options cancelling all weekend care. On Sunday 27 January, you phoned to cancel care for the Monday.

53. On arrival at the unit Ms Wang observed that portions of the carpet in the master bedroom and the loungeroom were damp. As for you, scratches were visible on the bridge of your nose, on your right upper cheek and the right jaw line. Additionally there were scratches to the backs of both your hands. You also complained of a bad back and a sore toe on your right foot.

56. Another observation made by Ms Wang was that the shower curtain depicted in the photographs that you had sent her was missing. Subsequent to 28 January, you told another carer, Judith Prescott, that you and Jenny had spent the weekend scrubbing down the bathroom and that a mildewed shower curtain had been thrown out. I think it highly likely that the curtain was used for transporting Ms Hu's body from inside the unit. Significantly, at the same time, Ms Prescott noticed that a ten inch non-serrated edged knife was missing.

59. In the succeeding days and weeks you prepared to wed Ms Wang, filling out a Notice of Intention to Marry on 29 January, and booking a wedding ceremony for 1 March.

62. On the afternoon of 27 January, you drove Ms Wang to view your illusory Head Street Brighton house, where you told her you planned to hold a big reception on 16 March.

65. It may well be that the body of the deceased was stored in the garage of the Glenhuntly unit (where a small amount of her blood was located) until 29 January, when you bought a mattock from Broadbent Garden Supplies. In any event you buried Ms Hu's body in a shallow grave in the back garden of your unit, covering the site with a large quantity of potting mix. When the carer, Ms Prescott, visited you later that week, you told her to check for the terrible smell which you said was emanating from the back patio area of the unit. She told you that she could detect no smell. This incident was indicative of your concern that the odour from the gravesite may expose your criminal actions.

68. At about the same time you removed the red Festiva car from your premises relocating it (at least at one stage) in the car park of the Safeway supermarket at Manchester Grove, Glenhuntly.

71. While you were engaging in these activities, Jia Ming Hu had been unsuccessfully attempting to contact her sister by email on 29 and 31 January. On Friday 1 February, Jia Ming Hu contacted Jenny Hu's workplace. She was becoming increasingly concerned about her sister's safety. At the same time, Ms Michelle Clarke, a Human Resources Consultant with Superpartners, was attempting to trace Ms Hu because she had uncharacteristically failed to attend at her workplace. On that day, 1 February, Ms Clarke notified the Victoria Police and the investigation, which led to your being charged with murder on 24 April 2002, commenced.

74. It is not necessary to catalogue in detail your lies and dissembling conduct in the interim period as you attempted to avoid detection. On 5 February, you told Sergeant Neville that you thought Ms Hu had gone to friends in Preston after having stayed at your house for about three months. You denied that she was your girlfriend. On 14 February, and 6 March 2002, you provided statements to the investigating police. In the first of these you conceded intimacy with Ms Hu and that, at one stage, you had both talked of marriage. You falsely claimed that Jenny Hu had hired the red car. You asserted that, having said she needed a break from the relationship, Ms Hu had moved out on Thursday 24 January.

77. In the second statement you persisted with this account stating that Jenny Hu had driven off in the red car on 24 January. You also claimed to have had no other relationships or girlfriends since you met Jenny. This was one of your many lies since you had married Bei Wang on 1 March 2002. Indeed, in mid-February you had given her the gift of a jade Buddha pendant to wear for protection. You said that you had bought it from The Grotto, a St Kilda store. This was another lie. In fact it was a pendant given to the deceased by her father and which she wore constantly.

80. On 7 March, you were observed by a police surveillance team entering the red Ford Festiva in the car park of the Glenhuntly Safeway supermarket. Ultimately you drove to the Maribyrnong address of your new wife (Ms Wang). On this, and indeed on subsequent occasions, you were observed by police to walk without the aid of your walking frame. In her statement to police Ms Wang recorded that apart from a slight limp, which you claimed was from a football injury, and a lack of full mobility in the right wrist, you were a big strong man. Further, you only wore glasses for reading and did not require them for driving.

83. On the following day (8 March) you left the red Ford vehicle outside Abbey Car Rentals in Moorabbin. Inside the vehicle, along with the keys, you left a note: "Please send me an invoice so I can pay, thanks."

86. Your marriage to Ms Wang unravelled quickly. One factor was her anger when informed by Immigration officials that your own handwritten notation on her mother's passport - namely that the holder was permitted to stay in Australia - was rubbish and that her mother must leave the country.

89. Before turning to matters personal to you I wish to say something about the deceased. Jia Hong Hu was aged 34 at the time of her death. To her workmates at Superpartners, she was a reserved person who was pleasant, reliable, trustworthy and hardworking. As the Victim Impact Statement of her elder sister Jia Ming Hu makes clear, Jia Hong Hu came from a closely knit family who were devoted to each other. Jia Ming Hu describes her sister as a lovely, kind-hearted person. When she wanted to make her life in Australia, having first seen the movie "The Thornbirds" and then having read about the Australian culture and people, her family were supportive of her. As her sister records, Jia Hong Hu loved life and she loved Australia very much. She wanted to marry and raise her family here. As a highly skilled IT professional she was an asset to her adopted country.

92. The terrible stress on her family (including her father who was seriously ill with cancer) during the month the deceased was missing, as well as during the investigation phase when the family had to provide DNA samples, and subsequently throughout the Court hearings, is graphically described by Ms Hu in the Victim Impact Statement.

95. It is clear that the death of Jia Hong Hu, and the manner in which it came about, is something from which her family will never fully recover.

98. Insofar as your personal history is concerned there is a plethora of information contained in the reports of the professionals with whom you have come in contact. These include Mr Martin Jackson, Clinical Neuropsychologist, who examined you in February 1999; Mr Bernard Healey, Clinical Psychologist who assessed you in December 2003; as well as Dr Don Senadipathy, Visiting Seasonal Psychiatrist to Port Phillip Prison, and Dr Debra Wood, Consultant Psychiatrist, Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health, who examined you on 29 July and 10 August 2004 respectively. There is also a report from Dr Eugenie Tuck, Director of Medical Services, St Vincent's Correctional Health Service, dated 13 August 2004. The result is a mass of material containing some significant factual contradictions, making it difficult to determine precisely where the truth lies.

101. You are presently 55 years of age, having been born in Perth in August 1949, the younger of two brothers. Your father was a meteorologist possibly with the Commonwealth Government Bureau of Meteorology, and your mother a nurse's aide. It appears that your father's employment involved the family travelling to various locations throughout Australia. You described your childhood as very unhappy and your father as an alcoholic who perpetrated violence against all family members. Both your parents are now dead and you have no contact with your brother.

104. Your instructions to your counsel were that you suffered from bilateral talipes, a condition where the feet are turned inwards in the womb. The straightening of the feet required orthopaedic intervention and hospital records indicating such intervention at Children's Hospitals in Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne, were tendered on your behalf. It seems that treatment continued at least until you were 12 years old. As a result of this disability much of your primary education was by correspondence.

107. Your family moved to Melbourne when you were aged about 10 and your secondary education took place at Watsonia High School. In your account to Dr Debra Wood, you stated that you failed Year 10, yet on another occasion you told Mr Bernard Healy that you passed Year 12. You informed Dr Don Senadipathy that you were not a bright student, but despite your weak legs you used to participate in school sports. I interpolate that you have subsequently told others, including Mr Ian Joblin, a Forensic Psychologist who saw you in May 1998, of a heavy involvement in football and cricket. Indeed you have made the claim that you played football for North Melbourne and District cricket for Richmond. Your counsel disavowed both claims.

110. Your account is consistent insofar as you claim that, after leaving school, you worked as a messenger boy for your father's organisation until about the age of 19. The objective documentation indicates that in October 1966, at the age of 17, you enlisted in the CMF with the rank of signalman. You were discharged in January 1969, for the purpose of undertaking National Service Training. Your location was New South Wales. Your discharge is recorded as occurring on 27 February 1970, and the reason shown is "Being Medically Unfit". I have not been provided with the details of such unfitness. I note that you told Dr Senadipathy that you had served in Vietnam and were suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. Indeed, you told Dr Eugenie Tuck that you had received shrapnel wounds during that conflict. In fact you never served outside Australia.

113. In February 1999, you were assessed by Mr Martin Jackson. He reports:

"Mr Douglass completed secondary and, according to him, went on to complete several tertiary degrees in politics, sociology, business, recreation and teaching. He described himself as a 'professional student'. He has had many jobs including teaching for the government (Weather Bureau); Department of Labour; for the Labor party (campaign director); own messenger business and youth worker. He was not sure when he last had a job."

"After discharge from the Army he attended two universities as a mature aged student - 12 months at one, and at the other 3 years in what he described as 'recreational studies'."

"He stated that he went to Murdoch University (in Western Australia) and studied politics and sociology, passing 2 out of 3 years of this degree, but eventually left because he re-married and his new partner wanted to move to Melbourne."

125. There is no objective evidence to support any of these claims to tertiary education and they were not asserted by your counsel on your plea. Indeed, Mr Martin assessed your full scale I.Q. as 75 and Mr Healy, who tested you in December 2003, found an overall I.Q. of 77. However, Mr Healy also had this to say:

"The view that he had under-performed was reinforced on the Test of Memory Malingering, which indicated that he made a conscious attempt to perform badly. Personality testing produced such a high level of invalidity (in his attempt to convey as much disturbance as possible) that a reliable profile could not be obtained."

129. Indeed, insofar as your intellectual capacity is concerned, your activities, if not the intelligence testing, indicate that you are not unintelligent. As Dr Senadipathy said of you:

"There was no evidence of disorders of form of thinking or perception. His memory and concentration seems to be selectively impaired."

"Mr Douglass appeared a man of average intelligence as judged by his vocabulary, comprehension of language and concepts and detailed discussion of his current and future legal proceedings."

137. In terms of employment, you told Mr Healy that you could not recall any work involvement after your discharge from the Army. This contrasts with what you stated to Mr Jackson and your account to Dr Wood where you reported part time work for about two years in your mid 30s with the Department of Employment, Education and Training in Bunbury (Western Australia). You were unable to provide details of that work. You also described odd cleaning jobs lasting up to three months in the 1990s and claimed voluntary work for underprivileged people and slow learning children. Details of these groups and your role with them was not forthcoming.

140. Your employment record, even if it was accurately portrayed by you, is minimal. No doubt your considerable contact with health professionals over the past 35 years has limited your employment opportunities. I shall turn to your medical history shortly.

143. Subsequent to your discharge from the Army you married your first wife Diane with whom you had two children, a boy and a girl now aged 28 and 25 respectively. Your wife left you for another man after 10 years. There followed a custody dispute during which you abducted the children. You were ultimately extradited from either Perth or Queensland (depending on which of your versions is accepted) and you instructed your counsel that you were gaoled pursuant to provisions of the Family Law Act. You have had no contact with these children for about 15 years.

146. You married for a second time in the mid 1980s and lived with your wife for about five or eight years (again depending on the account accepted). A daughter, now aged 10, was the result of that union. You have not seen her since the late 1990s; you are unaware of her whereabouts and have not sought to gain access to her. To Dr Wood you described yourself as "always being a loner".

149. I have already referred to your treatment for bilateral talipes. You have also asserted to Dr Wood that your medical discharge from the Army was the result of Kine boxers blood disorder resulting in nine months' hospitalisation. Dr Wood was not familiar with that disorder.

152. On your account you were admitted to Graylands Psychiatric Hospital (Western Australia) on four or five occasions in your 20s and 30s, being diagnosed with schizophrenia or paranoia. Indeed, you claimed to have heard voices for 20 to 30 years. These voices including one who introduces himself as "Little Johnnie" make denigratory remarks about you. You also claimed to have been admitted to a repatriation hospital in South Australia on two occasions after going off your anti-psychotic medication. No medical records from these institutions were provided to the Court. What is significant, however, is that none of the psychiatrists who have examined you regard you as suffering from any psychosis. Indeed, in the absence of other psychiatric symptoms Dr Wood is of the opinion:

"That these 'voices' either represent self talk or fall under the rubric of intentionally produced symptoms."

156. Since 1995, there are copious medical records of your interaction with St Vincent's Correctional Health Service; St Vincent's Hospital; Pentridge Prison Hospital; Melbourne Assessment Prison; St Johns Port Phillip Prison; Caulfield General Medical Centre; Glen Eira Medical Clinic; Royal Melbourne Hospital; and the Royal Eye & Ear Hospital. These reports were comprehensively reviewed by Dr Glen Howlett, a Forensic Medical Officer with the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine. The review was undertaken in light of your claim of having suffered two strokes in 1996 and 1997 which had significantly affected your mobility, as well as being responsible for your purported lack of vision resulting in your classification as legally blind. Dr Howlett's reports were not the subject of any challenge. I will quote some extracts to give the flavour of his summaries.

"At the time of Douglass' release from prison on 27 August 1998, there was no evidence, that I can establish from the recorded notes, that he was suffering from any ongoing impairment of the use of his limbs, or any difficulties with his speech, swallowing, or vision. On 9 September 1998 he was referred to the Caulfield General Medical Centre for rehabilitation, for a stroke apparently suffered in June 1998." ... "Douglass was assessed at Caulfield General Medical Centre by a neurologist, Dr Richard Starke. After a second assessment, and in the light of the investigation results, Dr Starke wrote that: 'All, or the vast majority of this trouble is non-organic.' An entry in the medical records proffers the possibility that Douglass may have had a lacuna infarct originally. This is small stroke, that may not show up on a CT scan. These strokes may occur without symptoms. However, it was considered that such a stroke did not explain the degree of disability that Douglass appeared to demonstrate, or the inconsistencies that were observed."

160. In early 1999, you were referred to Royal Talbot Rehabilitation Centre but prior to admission you were reassessed by Dr S. de Graaf, also of the Caulfield General Medical Centre. On 7 May 1999, Dr de Graaf wrote to you:

"Although it is quite apparent that you had had a small stroke at some stage, the actual deficits that you presented with were exaggerated in terms of their functional effect. There were inconsistencies in your history throughout ... some of the diagnoses that you have stated that you have had have never been confirmed, and with reflections on medical records that have been made available to us, this has clearly been the case. During your inpatient stay ... it was quite clear that your symptomatology did not always meet your neurology. Some of the signs and symptoms that you presented were not compatible with your neurological features. It has also been the case since your discharge ... that your mobility in the community has been witnessed by a number of staff ... and relatives and friends of patients who knew you at Caulfield General Medical Centre. The witness accounts suggest that your actual functionality in the community is much greater than you ever reported to us."

"Douglass was also assessed by an eye specialist whilst an inpatient at Caulfield General Medical Centre. The vision in his right eye was recorded as 6/6 (normal) and 6/36, corrected to 6/9, in his left eye. Restriction of his field of vision in his left eye was noted (assessment on 12 November 1998)."

168. Indeed, having viewed some of the surveillance videos namely 5-8 March and 9 April 2002, Dr Howlett commented:

"The male subject observed in the surveillance videos appeared to have significantly fewer physical restrictions than those described for Terrence Douglass in the most recent medical records available to me (those from St Vincent's Correctional Health Service, 25/04/02 - 16/5/02). In those records, Mr Douglass was said to have had two strokes, which left him with a left hemiplegia, and to be legally blind, with 6% residual vision. Mr Douglass is noted to ambulate consistently with a frame and to require assistance with showering. It is not clear from the records the degree to which Mr Douglass appears to be affected by his sight impairment. However, a diagnosis of legal blindness implies a significant degree of visual impairment (less than 10 degrees of visual field remaining or less than 6/60 in the better eye). I did not observe anything in the videos that would prompt me to inquire about the presence of a significant visual impairment in the male subject".

172. I should add that a recent report of tests conducted on you in May 2004, by Associate Professor David Mackey, an Opthamologist attached to the Royal Victorian Eye & Ear Hospital, was submitted to the Court. In commenting on the tests, Professor Mackey stated:

"I have no clear diagnosis for what his underlying problem is but suggest from his acuity, his field, his visual evoked response and his ERG, all being abnormal, there is some underlying problem. He definitely functions better than the tests would indicate, and thus I think there is a functional overlay."

176. I am prepared to accept that you have some visual impairment but it is impossible to accurately gauge its extent.

179. Investigation of your claim that you were prescribed the anticoagulant Warfarin on the advice of the Royal Melbourne Hospital produced no such record and the report of Dr Eugenie Tuck indicates that such medication was terminated. Dr Tuck also remarks:

"Repeated neurological examination revealed no signs consistent with organic illness and following a long period of observation it was assessed that Mr Douglass' symptoms were not likely to be organic."

"I note that almost every clinician who treated him has had significant doubts about consistency and validity of various physical symptoms he has manifested in the past and present. He has given inconsistent histories to different people. He has claimed that he has served in Vietnam and suffered from PTSD. He seems to have changed his story when the truth is challenged. Still there is no clear evidence when he suffered strokes or visual impairment and where he was treated initially."

"Following his imprisonment in 1998 he seems to have begun to feign physical illness and symptoms that have challenged and bewildered every physician. I note that whenever his demands are not met he has become litigious and threatening."

189. I have quoted your medical history at some length because the question was raised as to whether you were suffering from what is termed factitious disorder. This involves the feigning or intentional production of physical or psychological symptoms in order to assume what is termed "the sick role".

192. In endeavouring to answer that question I have had the benefit of the psychiatric reports of Doctors Senadipathy and Wood to which I have already referred.

195. The line between factitious disorder and malingering appears to be one of degree. Malingering is motivated by external incentives such as economic gain, avoidance of legal responsibility or the obtaining of drugs.[1] Dr Wood agreed with the earlier opinion of the experienced psychiatrist Dr Ruth Vine that your presentation is consistent with either malingering or factitious disorder. She stated:

"What differentiates factitious disorder and malingering is, to a large extent, the degree to which an individual engages in such behaviour. In Mr Douglass's case the 'gains' would appear to be the gratification of the ordinary human needs for company, attention and to be cared for. I should emphasise that these are not Mr Douglass' words, but rather my inference."

199. Dr Senadipathy, who does not appear to be aware of the surveillance tapes, expressed the view that your presentation was diagnostic of factitious disorder with predominantly physical symptoms.

202. I have earlier made reference to the surveillance tapes. For example, those taken between 5 and 8 March 2002, are instructive. On 5 March, whilst you were shown with a walking frame, you were pushing it down the street like a supermarket trolley being in no way reliant upon it for balance or support. Moreover, you were not wearing any glasses. On 7 March you drove the red hire car, PUX 775 out of a Glenhuntly supermarket car park. You were then observed driving that vehicle in various locations including Caulfield North, St Kilda East and Prahran. You were also observed parking the vehicle without any problems at the kerb of a suburban street between other vehicles. You alighted from it without difficulty and walked off without the aid of a walking frame. Again you were not wearing glasses. On the same day you were shown on surveillance tapes walking unaided and without glasses to and from the Peking Duck Restaurant in Russell Street, Melbourne in the company of your wife, Bei Wang and her mother. On 8 March, you were shown at your residence using both hands to pull a wheelie bin behind you.

205. When confronted with the evidence of the surveillance tapes you told Dr Wood (perhaps predictably) that the tapes were not you but were computer generated images.

208. I am quite satisfied on all the evidence, including that which indicates your capacity to selectively exhibit your purported disabilities, that you are a malingerer rather than a person specifically suffering from factitious disorder, although you undoubtedly exhibit elements of factitious disorder in your behaviour.

211. The protracted consideration of your present physical state has arisen because it became a sentencing issue as to whether the sentence that you will be required to serve will be rendered more onerous because of any physical or mental disability. Even if you were to be regarded as having a factitious disorder, and some visual impairment, I am not satisfied that your sojourn in prison would be any more onerous than the life you would lead in the community.[2] In reaching this conclusion I have had regard to the assessment of your situation made by Dr Senadipathy. He expressed the opinion:

"He is functioning comfortably in prison where all his medical needs are met without challenge. He is well supported by other prisoners, prison educational facilities and organisations like Vision Australia. His medical and psychological symptoms could be managed in a Victorian prison setting using prison medical facilities".

215. Insofar as your counsel pointed to disciplinary problems you had encountered with prison authorities because of a failure to produce a urine sample within specified time limits, this is an area in which you can take legal action if you believe you have been treated unjustly.

218. The gravity of the offence you have committed is exacerbated by the circumstances of the killing which indicate that the elimination of Ms Hu from your life was premeditated. Once the investigation of your crime commenced your dissembling conduct and systematic lies, perpetrated in an effort to avoid detection, caused the deceased's relatives great anguish and distress.

221. The value of your initial plea of guilty has been tarnished by your subsequent efforts to resile from it. For one thing your conduct indicates a total lack of remorse for this offence. Further, your leal manoeuvres have prolonged the anxiety and distress of Ms Hu's relatives and friends. However, the fact of your being held to your original plea has had the practical effect of saving witnesses from the trauma of having to give evidence and the State from the expense of a full-blown trial. Accordingly, you are entitled to some measure of credit by way of a sentencing discount for the guilty plea.

224. This is an offence where both denunciation and general deterrence are important. The courts, by the sentences imposed, must make it abundantly clear that personal problems may not be solved by the extermination of those who are perceived to stand in the path of personal gratification. In your case specific deterrence must also be given weight.

227. On all the material before this Court you have all the hallmarks of a con man and compulsive liar. You were prepared to prey on Asian women in a manner both amoral and callous. Further, you have, in my view, blatantly manipulated the social welfare system for your own benefit. However, it needs to be made clear that you are not to be punished for these repugnant activities.

230. You have no prior convictions for violence but you have 26 prior convictions between May 1977 and May 1998 for offences of dishonesty. These include theft, obtaining property by deception, forging and uttering, using a false document and making a false report to police. The penalties you have received have ranged from bonds, probation and fines to periods of imprisonment.

233. In all the circumstances your capacity for rehabilitation cannot be viewed with much optimism.

236. Your counsel urged that given your age of 55, I should moderate the sentence imposed so as to avoid it being crushing and to preserve for you some prospects for the future. I do take your age into account but it is only one factor in a mix which necessarily includes the gravity of the offence and the circumstances surrounding its commission.

239. Balancing as best I can the principles enunciated in the Sentencing Act, I have concluded that you should be sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of 20 years. I fix a period of 15 years before you become eligible for parole. Further, I declare that the period to be reckoned as already served under the sentence is 878 days inclusive of today's date. I direct that the details of this declaration and its having been made be noted in the records of the Court.

[1] See DSM-IV (4th ed) American Psychiatric Association Washington DC, p.471-2; p.683

[2] See for example, R v. Boyes [2004] VSCA 97