Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
James Fuggle Rummery Solicitors (Offender)
File Number(s): 2017/184174
[2]
Judgment
HIS HONOUR: Sharon Margaret Edwards was a shining light within her family, amongst her many friends, and within the wider community of the Grafton region. She loved life and she was much loved.
Ms Edwards was murdered by her husband, John Wallace Edwards, at Grafton on the night of Saturday 14-15 March 2015. He dumped her body somewhere and it has never been found.
Ms Edwards and the offender met at teachers college in Milperra in Sydney and they were married in 1982. They moved to Lawrence, a small town about 30km north-east of Grafton, in 1987. They both worked as school teachers. The offender was "medically retired" in 2011.
Ms Edwards was aged 55 at the time of her death and the offender was aged 58. They had three sons: Joshua, Eli, and Zac who are now aged in their late 20s to early 30s. As at March 2015, they had one granddaughter who Ms Edwards absolutely adored.
Ms Edwards met William (Billy) Mills when she was a young woman. He was the coach of her touch football team. They formed a relationship and engaged in an affair early in her marriage to the offender. The relationship ended when she moved to Lawrence and they lost contact with each other. The offender told a close friend in 2015 that he "absolutely hated" Mr Mills, he thought he was a "terrible person, horrible person", and that one of the reasons they had moved to Lawrence was to get away from him.
Ms Edwards and Mr Mills reconnected over Facebook in late 2013. What was initially a friendship after their first face-to-face meeting soon blossomed into a loving relationship. Ms Edwards would travel to Sydney on occasion and would meet up and stay with Mr Mills. He said in his evidence, "She told me she loved me; she was very happy". He loved her in return.
Ms Edwards was clearly unhappy in her marriage to the offender. She confided her feelings to her friends and shared with them her happiness in her blossoming relationship with Mr Mills. She had told her closest friend, Ms Christine Kennedy, that the marriage was over as far as she was concerned. She spoke with a lawyer in February 2014 to get some advance advice about what a property settlement would entail. Ms Edwards was excited about the prospect of a future with Mr Mills and, in early 2015, spoke of buying a house in Forster and retiring there with him.
Ms Edwards attempted on several occasions to get it through to her husband that their marriage was at an end but he was not prepared to accept this and he would not discuss it.
The offender agreed, however, to purchase a house in Riverdale Court, Grafton with money he inherited from his late mother. The arrangement was that Ms Edwards would live there and he would continue to live at Lawrence, some 30 minutes' drive away. She moved in to Riverdale Court in October 2014.
The offender became increasingly aware that Ms Edwards was in a relationship with Mr Mills. He asked her whether she was seeing him when she made trips to Sydney. On one occasion in early February 2015, he asked why her bed was squeaking and on another he made a remark in vulgar terms about her sleeping with Mr Mills. Ms Edwards told him, in effect, that they were living separate lives and what she did was none of his business. However, he made it his business to be a frequent visitor to Riverdale Court, purportedly to do chores in the garden for her. It seems likely that he was trying to keep an eye on what was going on in the life of his estranged wife. For example, he turned up unexpectedly one night on the pretext of being there to mow the lawn the next morning, but the next morning he left without doing so.
On Sunday 1 March 2015 (Ms Edwards' birthday), the offender became aware that she had spent the weekend at Mr Mills' place.
In the week commencing Monday 9 March 2015, Mr Mills travelled to Coffs Harbour with the team he was coaching for a national touch football tournament. On the Wednesday evening, Ms Edwards flew to Sydney with Mr Hankinson (the school principal at the school where she taught) in order to attend a conference. She flew back to Grafton on the Friday afternoon and then drove to Coffs Harbour. She met up with Mr Mills and they stayed the night at the home of a friend of hers, Alison Roach.
Ms Roach gave evidence that on the Friday night, Ms Edwards had told her, "I rang John during the week and I told him not to come to the house over the weekend because Billy was coming up". Ms Roach asked what his response was. Ms Edwards replied that the offender never said a word, as if she had not said anything.
Ms Edwards drove back to Grafton on the morning of Saturday 14 March 2015 and then drove out to Lawrence to see her father who had recently had a short stay in hospital. She returned to Grafton and then went to play in her weekly club tennis competition. Meanwhile, Mr Mills drove up from Coffs Harbour to South Grafton to meet up with a friend (Graeme Weatherall) with a view to Ms Edwards joining them for drinks late in the afternoon. At around 4.00pm, the two men left Mr Weatherall's house and went to the nearby Good Intent Hotel. Ms Edwards arrived at the hotel and joined them at about 7.00pm.
Throughout that Saturday, the offender was seen by neighbours on a number of occasions at the Riverdale Court home, before he returned to Lawrence in the afternoon. He came back in to Grafton that evening. He rang Ms Edwards and she told him that she was with people including Mr Mills. He told her not to bring them back to Riverdale Court.
The offender drove around Grafton and South Grafton looking for Ms Edwards. He found her car parked at the Good Intent Hotel. He later told police that he "went around to all the pubs and I saw her car at the Good Intent over at South, so I knew that's where they were with all these, with all these people. See, it turned out to be touch football people … Billy Mills".
It is difficult to identify statements made by the offender that might be truthful because he later engaged in an extraordinary series of lies about what happened on that Saturday night. However, much of what the offender said in this respect was confirmed by Mr Mills. He said Ms Edwards told him that the offender had rang and asked where she was. She then told Mr Mills, "I didn't lie to him, Bill. I told him I was with you and Grahame, having a drink". She said the offender responded, "Don't bring him back here".
The offender drove back to Riverdale Court and took the unusual step of parking his ute in the garage; his usual practice was to park outside. Once inside the house, he disconnected the Wifi to prevent his wife from accessing Facebook when she got home and proceeded to "snoop around" through her personal papers (according to what he later told police).
Meanwhile at the Good Intent Hotel, after having some drinks, the group purchased some food from a nearby restaurant and went back to Mr Weatherall's home to have dinner.
At around about 10.30 to 11.00pm, Ms Edwards drove with Mr Mills to Riverdale Court. When they arrived, she opened the garage door with her remote control, but they saw the offender's ute parked in the garage. Realising that the offender must be inside the house - although Mr Mills could not see any house lights on - they decided to drive back to South Grafton where Mr Mills would stay the night at Mr Weatherall's home. Before he got out of the car, Mr Mills held Ms Edwards' hand, kissed her, and said goodbye. She drove back to Riverdale Court. She was never seen again.
Ms Edwards was not the type of person to go "missing". She loved her work, her family, and her social life. She loved Mr Mills. She was described by her eldest son as, "Probably the happiest she'd ever been". She had a good relationship with each of her sons. She adored her new granddaughter and was described as "over the moon" when she was born in April the previous year. She was looking forward to the marriage of her son Eli in Bali in May. She was involved in organising a big school reunion and she had an overseas holiday already booked and paid for later in the year.
Precisely what happened when Ms Edwards returned to Riverdale Court cannot be determined. Only one person alive knows that. There must have been a confrontation when she entered the house. What happened cannot have made much noise because no neighbours reported hearing anything.
What is known, by virtue of mobile phone data, is that the offender remained at Riverdale Court until sometime around 4.00am. It is most likely that he killed Ms Edwards not long after she had arrived home. It is likely that after killing her and before taking her body away, he was occupied with cleaning and tidying the scene as may have been necessary.
The offender sustained a fracture in a bone in his dominant right hand. He also had a laceration on the back of that hand near the fracture. He sought medical attention 12 days later. He gave a nonsensical explanation to medical staff and doctors that the fracture and laceration were caused by a gardening accident: he had dropped a rock on his hand and sustained the laceration from a Stanley knife that just happened to be on the ground, presumably with the blade somehow facing upwards. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the expert medical evidence should be accepted: this was a fracture commonly referred to as a "boxer's fracture" and that the laceration was what is commonly referred to as "fight bite". They are indicative of the offender delivering a heavy punch with a closed fist.
Aside from this, the mechanism by which the offender killed Ms Edwards cannot be determined. One possibility is that she was suffocated, perhaps after having been rendered unconscious, perhaps from being hit and/or strangled; but in the absence of evidence, this is just speculation.
At around 4.00am, the offender somehow put Ms Edward's body into his ute and drove it out of the garage. He then drove her car into the garage (because it would be unusual if people saw that it was parked outside). Taking her handbag and her mobile phone (and, either deliberately or inadvertently, her car key) he drove north to the general Lawrence area.
It is a fact that from 4.00am onwards, both the offender and Ms Edwards' mobile phones were within a relatively large area covered by a cell on a mobile phone tower pointing generally west of Lawrence. The area has many places where a body could be disposed of such that it would be unlikely to be found, including swamps, dams, and rugged bushland. Police would later search some areas where they suspected the body might be, but it was impractical for the entire area to be searched.
The offender returned home to Lawrence. On Sunday 15 March 2015, he sought to create an impression of ignorance as to what had happened to Ms Edwards by making numerous calls and sending many text messages to her mobile phone. He rushed to her school first thing on the Monday morning to inquire if she had turned up for work. He then rushed to the police station to report her missing.
Thereafter, the offender set about creating the impression that he was a distressed husband whose wife had gone missing. He told many lies with many inconsistencies. He first claimed that he had not seen Ms Edwards on the Saturday night; then said he saw her when she came home but she went to bed and he returned to Lawrence. Then he claimed that there had been a verbal argument. Then he claimed there had been a minor scuffle.
On 1 April 2015, the offender appeared with his three sons at a media appeal arranged by the police. He tearfully pleaded in front of the camera for anyone with any information about his wife's disappearance to come forward.
The offender's counsel said to the jury in his closing address that his client was not a stupid man; after all, he had been a schoolteacher. However, whatever his level of intelligence, he was incapable of telling a coherent and convincing series of lies that people would not readily see through. His sons tried in vain to believe that their father had nothing to do with their mother's disappearance, but this became more difficult as time went on.
In 2016, the offender's sons were made aware by police of what the mobile phone data revealed about the movement of the two mobile phones from Grafton up to the Lawrence area at around 4.00am on the night Ms Edwards disappeared. This information completely conflicted with what the offender had told them up to that point. When they confronted him with this new information, all that the offender could say was to suggest for the first time that he had not been in possession of his phone that night, saying that he had found it on his front lawn on the Sunday morning.
The offender has never given a truthful account to anyone as to what happened on the night of Saturday 14 March 2015. He did not give evidence in his trial or in the sentence proceedings.
[3]
Victim impact statements
Statements by Ms Edwards' eldest son Joshua Edwards and Mr Mills were read at the sentence hearing. Each statement details the terrible loss that the offender's crime has caused to them and, by extension, to the many people who knew Ms Edwards, and to the community as a whole. Words are inadequate to describe their grief and despair. Not knowing what happened and not being able to lay their loved one to rest further amplifies their pain.
Despite the case against him being overwhelming, the offender has the right to say nothing and has chosen to exercise that right, notwithstanding that offering something might relieve the suffering that Ms Edwards' family and friends are experiencing. He cannot, of course, be punished more severely for doing so.
I reiterate my respectful condolences to all of Ms Edwards' family and the many others who loved her and who mourn her.
It was not disputed that the harmful impact of Ms Edwards' death on family victims is an aspect of harm done to the community and may be taken into account in determining the appropriate punishment for the offence.
[4]
Seriousness of the offence
It is very difficult to assess the objective seriousness of this crime in the absence of evidence as to how the offender killed the deceased and what he did in disposing of her body.
The motive for the killing is clear. The offender could not accept that Ms Edwards had a right to autonomy; a right to choose her own course in life. He could not accept that she no longer wanted to be in a relationship with him and was enraged by her choice to engage in a relationship with Mr Mills. He considered himself entitled to insist that Ms Edwards conform to his wishes rather than pursuing her own. The prospect of her bringing Mr Mills back to the home at Riverdale Court, a home which he had purchased with the proceeds of his late mother's estate, was galling to him. In response to her perceived temerity, he killed her; his own wife and the mother of his three sons.
It was submitted that it is unclear to what extent and at what time the offender became aware of the degree of Ms Edward's involvement with Mr Mills and that he had little warning of the impending visit of Mr Mills to Grafton on this particular weekend. This was said to indicate that the offence was likely spur of the moment and in consequence, little planning was involved.
I earlier summarised the effect of evidence from an abundance of sources as to the offender's awareness of Ms Edwards' relationship with Mr Mills. I am satisfied that the offender was aware of the existence of the relationship for a lot longer than he is prepared to admit.
As to his awareness of Mr Mills' impending visit to Grafton, it would not matter whether it was a matter of hours or days. I am satisfied that by the time he arrived at Riverdale Court on the evening of Saturday 14 March 2015 and parked his ute in the garage he had in mind the prospect of there being a confrontation, at least, with Ms Edwards about Mr Mills.
The proferred explanation for parking the ute in the garage, when his habit was to park outside for all to see, is troubling. The offender claimed that it would alert Ms Edwards and Mr Mills to his presence in the house and thereby discourage Mr Mills from staying the night. But parking his ute outside would have achieved the same objective.
One advantage to the offender of parking the ute in the garage was that it would be out of the sight of neighbours. Further, this would enable him to put something into it, like a body, without being seen. It is also troubling that the offender was inside the house without the lights on when Mr Mills and Ms Edwards arrived. Mr Mills was not challenged about his evidence about this; and the contention that all the blinds were closed was based upon that being the case when the police took photographs of the house some days later. Even then, the photographs indicate some blinds were open.
Those two aspects are deeply suspicious and suggest that the offender had forethought of doing what he did, but there is insufficient evidence for me to make adverse findings to the criminal standard.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offender acted with an intention to cause grievous bodily harm to Ms Edwards. He might have intended to kill her, but again, the evidence is insufficient to establish this beyond reasonable doubt. It remains, however, that in the course of intentionally causing her a grave level of injury in some form, he killed her.
The fact that Ms Edwards was a victim of extreme violence in her own home where she was entitled to safety and security is an aggravating feature. The fact that the offender had access to the home does not diminish this. He chose to be there against her express wishes to the contrary.
The dumping and concealment of the body is a further aggravating circumstance. It is an indication of the offender's callous indifference to the dignity of the human being whose life he had extinguished.
The circumstances in which murders occur are quite varied. Towards the higher end of the range of seriousness are, for example, those committed with premeditation and a specific intent to kill, and those committed for financial reward. Aside from intention, method and motivation, there are other factors relating to the crime that bear upon an assessment of its objective gravity, including the two I have just mentioned.
After referring only to the intention aspect, the Crown submitted that this was not a mid-range offence. Counsel for the offender submitted on the basis of an asserted lack of planning that "the offence doesn't reach the middle range of seriousness for such an offence". My assessment, having regard to all matters relevant to objective seriousness, is that if there is a relatively narrow band in the middle, this offence falls marginally below it.
[5]
Personal circumstances of the offender
It is necessary to have regard to some personal circumstances of the offender. The first matter to note is his age; he is now 63.
He has a criminal history. He was convicted in the Local Court at Grafton in 1999 for cultivating cannabis plants and was fined. He was convicted in 2015 in the District Court at Grafton for an offence of possessing three or more unregistered firearms, any one of which was a pistol or prohibited firearm. He was sentenced to imprisonment for 12 months with a non-parole period of 3 months. It was a condition of his supervised parole that there be focus upon mental health issues. This term of imprisonment commenced and expired before the offender's arrest for the present matter.
The offender was arrested and charged with the murder of Ms Edwards on 20 June 2017. He has been held in custody since. His sentence must be backdated to allow credit for this presentence custody.
A report by Dr Gerald Chew, psychiatrist, dated 11 December 2019, was tendered. Dr Chew had made assessments of the offender on two occasions in 2018 and he attended upon him on 2 December 2019 for a further assessment. Included in the material with which he was briefed were the records of the gaol medical service.
The offender told Dr Chew that he continued to "adamantly deny harming his wife". He said he was "shattered" to have been found guilty by the jury.
Since Dr Chew last saw the offender a little over 12 months ago, he had "continued to engage in treatment and was continuing to take olanzapine", an antipsychotic medication. This was not explained by Dr Chew. Counsel for the offender indicated that the "treatment" was simply taking the medication. The offender told Dr Chew that it helped him with sleep and stress.
There is reference to the offender having persecutory beliefs that had been "outlined in previous reports". No previous report was tendered. Counsel indicated that such beliefs related to being under surveillance in various forms (e.g. listening devices, telephone intercepts). As it turned out, his beliefs were founded upon fact.
The offender had a prior admission to a psychiatric hospital eight years ago. He said he was not diagnosed with any mental health condition but had a condition that could be remedied by vitamin B12.
Details of the offender's life history are scant and there is nothing particularly relevant for sentencing purposes. His father died around the time of his birth in a car accident and he was raised by his mother. He had been employed for most of his life as a primary school teacher. He retired in 2011 and attributed this to an "intrinsic factor" deficiency. He has a new partner, Sue Pace, who visits him regularly in custody. It was common ground that the offender had an affair with Ms Pace during his marriage and the relationship resumed soon after Ms Edwards' death.
The offender told Dr Chew that alcohol and drugs were not an issue; his usage was quite modest in terms of cannabis and he had rarely consumed alcohol.
Dr Chew noted under the heading "Medical History" that the offender had "MGUS [Monoclonal Gammopathy Uncertain Significance] - under haematology follow up". He said that people with this condition are at risk of developing a blood or lymph cancer, but there is no suggestion that this has occurred. The records indicated that he has received regular follow up and his condition was clinically stable.
Dr Chew also referred to "Pernicious anaemia - with regular vit B12 injections under haematology follow up". The injections were later noted to be "lifelong" at 2-3 month intervals. It was said in submissions that the offender had instructed his solicitor that he had only received two such injections in the past two and half years. However, the offender did not tell Dr Chew that, and Dr Chew saw nothing in the medical records that prompted him to express any concern. Anything said by the offender that cannot be independently verified has to be viewed with scepticism.
The gaol medical records included that a mental health clinical nurse consultant saw the offender in June 2018 and opined that he was suffering from a psychotic illness and she commenced him on olanzapine. A psychiatrist, Dr Hearps, saw the offender about a week later and was of the opinion that the offender had schizophrenia. He doubled the dose of olanzapine. He saw the offender about six weeks later when his "impressions" were "Schizophrenia, attenuation of persecutory beliefs with olanzapine".
However, Dr Chew said, "I wonder if his diagnosis is best conceptualised as a more transient psychotic episode on the background of a Cluster A personality rather than Schizophrenia". I take this to be a description of the offender's type of personality and it being the background for him having experienced some short-term psychotic episode whilst he was in custody, the features of which are not described. It is not a diagnosis of the offender having a mental illness. Dr Hearps cannot be taken to have made such a diagnosis either; what Dr Chew saw in the medical records was simply Dr Hearps' "impressions".
Dr Chew does not describe any mental condition relevant to the offender's functioning at the time of the offence and his description of the offender now is that he appears to be stable both mentally and physically.
Dr Chew concluded his report by saying that the offender "is an older gentleman who is more vulnerable in jail [sic] particularly with his mental health and physical health issues. As such it is my opinion that incarceration will be more harsh on him." It is difficult to know what to make of this. Counsel's attempts to explain the assertions were less than satisfactory. It seems that the only basis upon which it could be relevant is that the offender is older than most inmates and less physically able to "stick up for himself". No evidence was provided as to the offender's custodial conditions to date, or anticipated in the future, or as to any actual difficulties he has experienced, or might experience in the future.
[6]
Other matters relevant to sentence
Punishment, denunciation, and deterrence are particularly important aspects of the assessment of sentence in a case such as this. I endorse the following observations recently made by Wilson J: [1]
"[D]omestic violence is a profoundly serious problem in this community, extending, not infrequently, to the murder of a spouse or partner …
Too often, these are crimes committed by men against women who have chosen to live a separate life - a decision the male partner is not prepared to accept …
… The courts must ensure that those who commit offences like those now before this Court pay a heavy price for their crimes, to punish them, to denounce the crime, and to deter others. The victims of domestic violence must be protected insofar as the courts are able to afford them protection."
Counsel for the offender submitted that, because of the offender's likely age upon release, there should be a finding that he is unlikely to reoffend. I accept this is so and will take it into account. Its significance is somewhat limited; it would be more significant in a case in which an offender has the capacity to reoffend, but is assessed as unlikely to.
No submission was made that there were any other statutory mitigating circumstances. It was realistic not to submit that the offender is remorseful. Clearly he is not.
It was submitted that there should be a finding of special circumstances which would justify a reduction of the non-parole component of the sentence. I do not accept this. I have taken all subjective aspects of the case into account in setting the overall term of the sentence and there is nothing that has specific impact upon the length of the non-parole period that would necessitate or justify a shorter period.
It is necessary to have regard to the guidelines provided by Parliament: the maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment and there is also a standard non-parole period of 20 years.
As the Crown has reminded me, it is mandatory that a direction be made that the offence for which the offender is being sentenced is recorded on the offender's criminal history as a "domestic violence offence". [2]
It is also mandatory that the offender be informed of the existence of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) and its application to the offence for which he is being sentenced. [3]
[7]
Sentence
John Wallace Edwards, for the murder of Sharon Margaret Edwards you are convicted.
You are sentenced to imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of 18 years and a balance of term of 6 years. That is a total sentence of 24 years and it will date from 20 June 2017. You will become eligible for release on parole when the non-parole period expires on 19 June 2035.
Pursuant to s 12(2) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), I direct that this offence be recorded on the offender's criminal history as a domestic violence offence.
I request that the offender's legal representatives advise him of the existence of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) and its application to this offence.
[8]
Endnotes
R v Keith Owen Goodbun [2018] NSWSC 1025 at [202]-[204].
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), s 12(2).
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act, s 25C(1).
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.
Decision last updated: 18 December 2019