R v Goodwin [2001] VSC 519

Supreme Court of Victoria|2001-12-21|Before: COLDREY, J.

Albert Hilder Goodwin, you have pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of your wife, Anne Jessie Goodwin, at Viewbank on 4 April 2001, and it is now my responsibility to sentence you for that offence. In order to do so it is necessary to refer to the facts of the crime and the circumstances which led up to its commission.

As at 4 April 2001 you were 83 years of age and your wife, known as Nancy, was aged 82. You had been married for almost 60 years. For the previous decade your wife had been unwell. Her numerous ailments included rheumatoid arthritis, resulting in severe deformity of her hands and feet, osteoarthritis of the lumbar spine, deterioration of vision, and a weight problem. In 1990 her left cancerous kidney was removed and in 1996 she underwent chemotherapy for bladder cancer.

Family friends of both of you, such as Mrs Frances Matthews and Mrs Beryl Harris, referring particularly to the last five years, describe your wife as being the dominant person in the relationship. It was further indicated that she was prone to nag or ridicule you. These informants attested to your willingness nonetheless to assist her. In her deposition Mrs Matthews stated: "It would be fair to say that Nancy placed a lot of demands upon Albert. Albert did most of the cooking and housework. However, Nancy would not recognise Albert's contributions to the running of the household."

Mrs Goodwin's sister, Mrs Pearl McKinnon, speaking of your arguments, put it this way: "Both of them seemed pre-occupied with who owned which person's money. They won Tattslotto some years ago and I think that is when the money arguments began."

An independent professional view of your relationship was provided by Dr David Doig, who treated both of you over the last ten years. The report from

Dr Doig records: "During the consultations over the years I have been aware of the stresses that have been placed on Mr Goodwin by Mrs Goodwin because of her visual problems and her rheumatoid arthritis. Mrs Goodwin was very reliant on Mr Goodwin to do a considerable number of tasks for her. She was extremely frustrated by her inability to do simple matters and often got quite angry at her limitations both in visual acuity and in manual dexterity due to her rheumatoid arthritis. She was often quite angry and aggressive towards Mr Goodwin, despite being in a social circumstance where people would normally control their behaviour. And although at no time did I ever see him speak out against her, or be angry towards her, she would often make derogatory and disparaging remarks about him."

According to your son, during arguments your wife would refer to you as "a mongrel bastard". At one stage she accused you, without any basis, of being a homosexual. I should make it clear that none of the material to which I have referred is designed to denigrate your wife who, it should be said, had many admirable qualities. I shall refer to these shortly. However, it is necessary to realistically appraise what may be described as a turbulent emotional relationship during at least its final ten years.

Twice in that ten year period you left the matrimonial home. It appears that the first of these occasions was in early 1997 when you left suddenly, having rearranged the family's financial affairs, and rented a unit in Port Macquarie. It was several months before communication with your family was re-established and then initially only through solicitors. Eventually your wife flew to Port Macquarie and, having become reconciled, you returned to the matrimonial home at 60 Winston Road, Viewbank.

About the middle of 1998 you informed your son that you could no longer stand living with your wife and you returned to the Port Macquarie area, residing in the locality of Wauchope. You set in motion proceedings to divide up the matrimonial assets and solicitors' letters were exchanged between you and your wife. It is clear from the material that you regarded the marriage as at an end. You were, however, distressed at being separated from your son and his family. According to the Victim Impact Statement of your son, Martyn, you were happily settled in your new environment, however, your wife wished you to return and she wrote to you falsely claiming that she was dying and had only a few months to live. She also expressed her love for you and her desire for the whole family to be reunited. Thereafter she travelled to Wauchope and during the weeks that followed you ostensibly sorted out your differences.

Despite Martin Goodwin's advice to the contrary, you returned to the matrimonial home. Unfortunately arguments, primarily centred on money, recommenced, and you told your son on a number of occasions of your unhappiness and regret at resuming the relationship.

Against this background I turn to 4 April 2001. Your version of what occurred on that day has been a relatively consistent one. On that morning your wife initially accused you of turning your son's family against her. You denied this, and she called you "a mong". I assume the term "mong" is a contraction of "mongrel bastard". In any event you understood it to mean the lowest form of person.

At about mid-afternoon, you were outside reading the newspaper when your wife said "I've made a cup of tea for the mong". While you were going inside the house your wife produced about $250 in notes and asked you whether it was yours. You answered affirmatively and said you had saved it from your pension payments. You asked her where she had obtained it and your wife said she had been through your drawers. (Apparently you kept the money in a bedside drawer along with your wallet and bank book.) You told your wife that she had no right to do that, and demanded the money back. Your wife refused to give it to you claiming that it was hers. You then went to the front door and noticed that the keys to the house and car were missing from the lock in which you had left them. You asked your wife where the keys were and she responded that you were not getting them.

In your version of events to the interviewing police you had your wife saying "You're not getting nothing, you're just a mong". You told the police that you then went right off. You grabbed your wife by the jumper and she dropped the dinner plate that she was holding. You asked your wife "Are you going to put that money back and the keys?" to which she replied, "No, I'm going." She pulled away from you and ran out the back door of the premises.

Grabbing a black handled kitchen knife with a 13 centimetre blade from a carving block adjacent to the kitchen sink, you pursued your wife down the side of the house where you again grabbed her. You asked her "Are you going to give me that money and the keys which belong to me?" She replied, "No, mong". You described your mind as then having gone blank. In fact you stabbed your wife five times to the upper chest, such wounds penetrating the left ventricle and cutting the aorta. There were also some defensive wounds to your wife's hands and arms, no doubt occasioned by her efforts to fend off your attack. However, it was the multiple stab wounds and associated haemorrhaging that caused her death. The sum of $250 was later found on her person.

After the stabbing, and in an upset state, you phoned the police. You told them there had been a tragedy, that you had done away with your wife. Asked what happened, you responded "I just - my nerves broke and I stabbed her to death I think." To an ambulance officer, Anthony Coffey, you expressed disbelief at what you had done, and after giving him an account of events similar to that contained in the police interview, you told him that you had "just snapped". Similarly, you told Detective Senior Constable Campbell Davis, who attended the scene, "I just snapped and I stabbed her. I'm sorry." You also said "I just snapped, I couldn't stand her any more."

You now apparently have no actual memory of your precise state of mind when you wielded the knife. Professor Mullen, a prominent Forensic Psychiatrist, and Mr Ian Joblin, an experienced Forensic Psychologist, both of whom provided material to this court, regarded this as a defence mechanism employed to protect an individual in your situation from having to confront the terrible reality of their actions.

However, from the legal perspective your plea to provocation manslaughter involves the acknowledgment that you stabbed your wife with the intention of either killing her or causing her really serious bodily injury. It also involves the acceptance by the Crown that such stabbing might have occurred at a time when as a result of your wife's provocation you had lost your self-control. And further, that an ordinary person of your age and in the precise situation you found yourself might also have lost their self-control and acted as you did.

On this view your conduct on this afternoon has to be seen in the context of the tense and volatile relationship you had with your wife. The incident of the money and keys, although trivial in itself, was the culmination of what you regarded as years of verbal abuse, ingratitude and humiliation. It shattered the wall of your self-control which had held back years of frustration and resentment and resulted in a torrent of anger.

Professor Paul Mullen, who holds the post of Professor of Forensic Psychiatry of Monash University and Clinical Director of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health, provided the court with a report dated 7 December 2001. In it he analysed what occurred in clinical terms. He described aspects of your personality as obsessive, namely, an intense concern for order and neatness, together with an intolerance of change. He saw you as "a very controlled man who attempts to suppress the expression of anger or even dissent." It is worth quoting at some length his assessment of you and your situation:

"He" [being you] "struggles to control his temper despite provocation and maintains a placid and sensible approach in the face of difficulties and demands. Unfortunately such a personality if pushed beyond the bounds of even their self-control are prone either to flee from the stressful situation or to explode in totally uncharacteristic violence. The vast majority of those with these personality attributes will live out their lives without ever being pushed to the point where they explode. Sadly, in Mr Goodwin's case, when he finally lost control the result was catastrophic."

"This killing arose in the context of many years of escalating interpersonal difficulties between Mr Goodwin and his wife. He is not a man prone to violence, in fact quite the reverse. In my opinion it will be extremely unlikely that Mr Goodwin would ever again be placed under such stress that his normally controlled and placid temperament would be driven in the direction of violence. Mr Goodwin is not an alcohol or drug user. He does not have any dementing illness which might reduce his self control and he does not suffer from any form of mental disorder which might predispose to violence. The absence of these factors increases the sense of security that there will be no recurrence of any such violent incident."

These views were supported by Mr Joblin who prepared a report dated 10 December 2001 and who also gave evidence on your plea. In his report Mr Joblin said of your actions:

"This is to be seen as an isolated explosive incident. It is a single, discrete episode of the failure to resist an impulse that led to a single, violent, externally directed act that had a catastrophic effect. There is no doubt, in my opinion, that the history of difficulties this man reported accumulated to an intolerable level. Mr Goodwin had previously answered this by leaving home. Following the catalyst, outlined in the material,... relating to the money his threshold was finally crossed. This does not mean there is an ongoing explosive disorder and this instance seems to be an isolated occurrence."

I accept these opinions, but it must also be accepted the offence of provocation manslaughter is a serious one. The courts must be seen by the sentences imposed to uphold the sanctity of human life. The courts must also endeavour to deter others from resorting to violence as a technique for solving domestic problems. A violent death caused by the hand of an elderly person is no less terrifying or permanent. Mrs Goodwin, herself an elderly lady, might reasonably have expected that the end of her long life would be peaceful and not traumatic.

On the material before this court, the domestic situation with which you were daily confronted was an extremely difficult one and I take that into account, but your circumstances were not as desperate as those confronting battered wives who have the misfortune to find themselves before these courts from time to time.

Indeed, as you demonstrated in the past, you have had the capacity to leave the matrimonial home and you had the support of your son and daughter-in-law had you chosen to do so, although it may well be, as Professor Mullen suggests, that a sense of loyalty or duty to your wife played some part in your remaining in the matrimonial home. It may also be that you did not wish to be separated from your family.

The sentences imposed for the crime of manslaughter necessarily vary widely according to the circumstances of the offence and the antecedence of the offender. I have already referred to the facts and circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence.

I now turn to deal with those matters personal to you which I must take into account in considering an appropriate sentence. Before doing so, however, I would like to say something about the deceased.

Nancy Goodwin was aged 82 at the time of her death. As the Victim Impact Statements make clear, she was a loved and valued member of a closely-knit family. In a most comprehensive statement, her son Martyn speaks of the very strong and loving bond he had with his mother. He frankly chronicles both the good and bad aspects of his parents' long relationship and their personality.

Whilst it is clear that Mrs Goodwin could be stubborn, argumentative and pig-headed, she was kind, generous, open, loving and protective of those she cared about, which included her husband, her son, her daughter-in-law Ann, and her granddaughter Kathryn. These sentiments are endorsed by Mrs Ann Goodwin, who had found, in Mrs Goodwin Senior, a friend and confidante throughout her marriage to Martin. To Kathryn Goodwin her grandmother was a kind, generous and caring person who taught her to sew, cook and knit.

The death of Mrs Goodwin has affected each member of her immediate family. All were traumatised when they visited the scene of the crime. Mr Martyn Goodwin has, understandably, undergone counselling and has to face the extraordinarily difficult task of managing the affairs of the person who was responsible for his mother's death. In his statement he expresses remorse for having failed to protect his parents from each other. In my view, the role he undertook throughout was that of a supportive and concerned son. No one could have foreseen this tragic and traumatic end to a relationship that had lasted almost six decades. He has no need to reproach himself.

Mrs Pearl McKinnon has expressed great anxiety since her sister Nancy's death and this has placed great stress on her relationships with other people.

In short, Nancy Goodwin's death and the manner in which it occurred is something from which her family and friends will never fully recover.

Albert Goodwin, you are presently 83 years of age, being born on 19 February 1918. You are the youngest of seven children and the only other surviving sibling is a 91 year old sister who lives in a Sydney nursing home. You spent your early years in Fitzroy, attending George Street State School and later Collingwood Technical School. The onset of the Depression with its catastrophic effects on many working class families caused you to leave school before attaining your Merit Certificate and you undertook various menial jobs to support the family finances. Eventually you gained employment at Stokes, an engineering company, where you were working when World War Two commenced. The firm was declared a protected industry and you were required to work in the production of war materials, such as munitions.

In 1942 you met and married your wife and your only son Martyn was born in 1945. After the war you joined the Melbourne and Metropolitan Tramways for a period of time. However, you had attained some panel-beating skills during your wartime employment and subsequently you opened a panel-beating business in North Fitzroy. Ultimately you joined the State Electricity Commission as an Insurance Assessor, a position you held until your retirement at the age of 65. At times you apparently took on extra work in an endeavour to improve the material wellbeing of your family. You and your wife both regarded education as important and sacrificed to send your son to Essendon Grammar School.

You moved house from North Fitzroy to Pascoe Vale and then in 1982 to Viewbank. This last move was undertaken in order to be closer to your son and daughter-in-law once you learned that they were expecting a child. The purchase of the Viewbank home was made possible by your sharing in the first prize in Tattslotto, an amount of about $160,000. You also used the money to pay off the mortgage on your son's house and to assist his family financially from time to time.

Following your retirement you worked with the Red Cross for six years as a volunteer driver, ferrying terminally ill patients to and from hospitals. A colleague during that period, Mr Robert Gill, described you as compassionate and charitable and very popular with the patients. You continued this service until an accident in which you fractured your hip.

Since this offence you have re-signed an Enduring Power of Attorney in favour of your son and you have also waived any claim to your wife's property. Until this tragic incident you have never been before a court. Your history reveals that over the seven decades since your childhood you have been a hard-working and productive member of this society, a caring family man and parent, and a person prepared to undertake voluntary work in the community in which you live. This record over that time must be placed in the balance in your favour.

In essence, you are an old man who up until this event had lived an exemplary life. The objective facts demonstrate that your offence is, as the experts assert, an isolated incident quite out of character. At the subjective level this is affirmed by family friends, Mrs Matthews and Mrs Harris. In the circumstances I regard your prospects of rehabilitation as excellent and the principle of specific deterrence need be given no weight in the sentence to be imposed. You represent no future danger to the community.

Your distress at what has occurred is attested to by a number of persons who have subsequently associated with you, including Mr Gill, Professor Mullen, and Mr Joblin. Mr Joblin, who has had frequent contact with you, spoke specifically of your contrition. Although your family express some reservation about your distress, believing that it relates more to your own situation than to what you have done, I am prepared to accept in your favour the opinion of the independent professionals, which does indicate remorse on your part. I also take into account in your favour your plea of guilty.

Further, I have regard to your age. Being almost 84 years you are oldest person charged with homicide to come before this court.

A Dr Okraglik, who examined you on 11 December last, told the court that although you have underlying problems such as an irregular heartbeat and peripheral vascular disease, these may be treated. He described you as fit and well for your age.

Mr Joblin pointed to cognitive deficiencies which are developing due to the ageing process. Whilst you are presently reasonably well the effects of ageing make your future uncertain. It is appropriate that I take that factor into account. Most importantly I take into account the fact that any prison sentence you were required to serve must represent a substantial period of the life that is left to you. Because of that circumstance alone I intend to be as merciful as possible to you in the length of the sentence to be imposed.

Finally, in considering the weight to be accorded to the principle of punishment I cannot overlook the fact that the family you held dear, your son, daughter-in-law, and granddaughter, the people closest to you who you worked to assist, and to whom you extended your love, want nothing more to do with you. You are, as your counsel, Mr McIvor, eloquently stated, condemned to spend your remaining years in a virtual wasteland with what has had great meaning for most of your life, gone forever. Mr Joblin spoke of your distress at this prospect. Indeed it is a punishment far beyond any that this court may inflict.

All that being said, the gravity of the offence itself together with the requirement for general deterrence do not allow me to accede to your counsel's plea that any sentence imposed should result in your immediate release from prison.

This is a unique case and one which presents difficult sentencing problems for any judge. But balancing as best I can the sentencing principles enunciated in the Sentencing Act, and being as merciful as I can in the circumstances that I have outlined, I have concluded that the appropriate sentence be that you be imprisoned for a period of six years. I fix a minimum period of two years and eight months before you become eligible for parole. Further, I declare that the period to be reckoned as already served under this sentence is 262 days inclusive of today's date. I direct that there be noted in the records of the court the fact that such a declaration is made and its details.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (47 paragraphs)

Parties