R v Jones

REMARKS ON SENTENCE 1On 12 May 2014 at Coffs Harbour, Wayne Edward Jones (the offender) was arraigned before a jury panel and me. The indictment contained a single count alleging that, between 11 December 2012 and 17 December 2012 at Coffs Harbour, he murdered Michelle Jane Reynolds (the deceased). In my summing-up, I left to the consideration of the jury the lesser form of homicide, manslaughter. After a short retirement, the jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder. 2On 17 October 2014 at Sydney, the offender was arraigned before me on an indictment containing a further count. It alleged that, on 15 December 2012 at Coffs Harbour, the offender had supplied a prohibited drug, namely methylamphetamine, in the amount of 81.9 grams. The offender pleaded guilty to that count. In fact, he had pleaded guilty in the Local Court many months before, and the arraignment was required merely because of a technical defect in the document committing him for sentence. 3The maximum penalty for the offence of murder is imprisonment for life without parole. The learned Crown Prosecutor did not submit that that ultimate sentence would be appropriate. In the circumstances of this case, Parliament has prescribed a standard non-parole period of 20 years. I have regarded both the maximum penalty and the standard non-parole period for murder as important guideposts in my exercise of sentencing discretion. 4The maximum penalty for the offence of supplying a prohibited drug, when dealt with on indictment, is imprisonment for 15 years. There is no standard non-parole period. Again, I regard that maximum penalty as an important guidepost. 5Much of the evidence before the jury with regard to the murder was not in dispute. With regard to the supply offence, agreed facts were tendered. 6My approach to the determination of any disputed facts is as follows. Any fact that is adverse to the offender, above and beyond the elements of the offence, must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. A fact that is in his favour need be proven on the balance of probabilities only: The Queen v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; 199 CLR 270. Some facts may be unable to be determined by me. It is not my role to attempt to construe the findings of fact that may have underpinned the verdict of the jury. Rather, I must make my own findings, consistent with that verdict: R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374; (1997) 90 A Crim R 587. 7The facts underpinning the two counts are very much bound up with each other, and it is convenient to discuss them together. Undisputed facts 8The deceased was born in August 1978, and accordingly at the date of her death was aged 34 years. Her family connections were on the Central Coast of New South Wales. Between about 1998 and 2008, she gave birth to four sons. In 2008 or 2009 she separated from the father of her children. 9In early 2011, the deceased began a relationship with Mr Adam Smedley. Although the deceased told Mr Smedley that she was "against drugs", he observed aspects of her behaviour during their relationship that suggest that she may well have been involved with prohibited drugs. 10Separately, in the latter half of 2012, the offender, who was himself living on the Central Coast, met a Mr Matthew Hoare. Mr Hoare was the mentor of the offender in his efforts to free himself from a dependence on prohibited drugs. 11On Sunday 18 November 2012, Mr Smedley suggested that he and the deceased have a break from their relationship because of ongoing arguments between the two of them. The deceased went to live with her mother, Ms Jeanette Reynolds, at her home in Woy Woy. The deceased was "down" as a result of the difficulties in her relationship with Mr Smedley. She was not working, but would attend karaoke evenings with her family. A number of people who were close to her saw aspects of her appearance and behaviour that suggested that she was using prohibited drugs. 12On one of the karaoke evenings, the family circle of the deceased was introduced to the offender. 13On what was in all likelihood 22 November 2012, the offender arrived at the home of Ms Reynolds. The deceased was present. The offender was in possession of cannabis, various pills, and amphetamines. He also possessed a small set of digital scales. In the presence of Ms Cavers, the offender supplied the deceased with $150 worth of amphetamines. Later that day, the offender travelled to a hospital car park, and obtained some syringes from an automatic vending machine there. Clearly enough, the offender was both an intravenous user and supplier of prohibited drugs. 14On Friday 23 November 2012, the deceased saw her estranged husband in order to have an access visit with one of her sons. He formed the opinion that she was affected by a prohibited drug. The deceased introduced the offender, who was with her, as "Ozzie". When they returned to her mother's home, she also formed the view that her daughter was affected by some sort of drug. 15On Sunday 25 November 2012, the deceased saw Mr Smedley at a party. She wished to come home with him, but he wanted more time to reflect on the relationship. The deceased began to cry. 16The following day, the deceased left her mother's home with only a bag, her son's phone, and her own mobile phone. She told her mother that she was going to Woy Woy and would not be long. Her mother never saw her daughter again. 17Over the next several days, SMSs passed between Ms Reynolds and the deceased. Their general flavour was that Ms Reynolds feared that her daughter was abusing amphetamines, and urged her to come home. The deceased told her mother to mind her own business. 18On 7 December 2012, Ms Reynolds reported the deceased as a missing person to Woy Woy Police Station. 19At 5:05 PM on Sunday 9 December 2012, CCTV cameras recorded the offender and the deceased present together at a railway station in the Newcastle area. From there they travelled by train to Coffs Harbour, arriving a little after 1 o'clock the following morning. Shortly after that, the two of them checked into the Golden Glow Hotel in Coffs Harbour. The proprietor, Ms Towler, saw the offender and the deceased walk towards room nine. 20On 10 and 11 December, Ms Towler did not see the offender or the deceased leave that room. It will be noted that the commencement date in the indictment for murder is 11 December 2012. 21On that morning, the offender booked the room for another two nights by telephone. He also ordered a very large meal by way of room service. Ms Towler delivered the food to the room. The offender opened the door very slightly, and kept the security chain on. Ms Towler noted that he was shirtless and sweating profusely. He opened the door a little wider so that Ms Towler could lean into the room and place the food on a single bed near the door. Ms Towler did not see the deceased. 22Later, the offender paid in cash for an extra night and the room service. Ms Towler returned to the room with change. Again, that money was passed through the doorway with the chain still attached. 23At 4:03 PM that day, the offender and the deceased were captured by CCTV at Coffs Harbour Woolworths. There was nothing about their appearance to suggest that anything was amiss. 24On Wednesday 12 December 2012, the offender and the deceased were supposed to vacate room nine at the Golden Glow Motel. They did not do so. Ms Towler called Coffs Harbour police for assistance. The police arrived at 5:10 PM, and knocked on the door to room nine. The offender answered, and police noted that he was sweating profusely. Two uniformed officers entered and saw the deceased. She said nothing. The offender departed with a large shopping trolley overflowing with grey plastic shopping bags. The deceased left room nine a very short time later and caught up with him. 25Once it was vacated, Ms Towler went to the room. The room was messy but not damaged. The bedding seemed damp to Ms Towler. She also noticed an odd, overpowering smell in the room. 26The deceased and the offender travelled to another motel some distance south of Coffs Harbour. They arrived at about 7 PM. Mr Shaw, the proprietor, saw the deceased walk into the reception area and commence to fill out a registration form. She appeared to be gaunt, skinny, tired, and stressed. Her pupils were enlarged. She also smelled as if she had not washed for some time. Her false fingernails were extremely long. 27The offender stayed outside the reception area, but spoke to Mr Shaw. Mr Shaw saw the two of them walk away together from the reception in the direction of room seven. That was the last time that any person saw the deceased alive. 28At about 10:20 the following morning, Thursday 13 December 2012, Mr Shaw went to room seven and knocked on the door. He wished to enquire how long the offender and the deceased intended to stay. The offender opened the door but kept the security chain still attached. Mr Shaw saw that the room was dark, with the lights off, the blinds down, and the air-conditioner on. Mr Shaw heard no other sounds. He asked the offender to take the chain off the door. He did so and opened the door about 30 centimetres. The offender angled his head and torso around the door. Mr Shaw saw that he was shirtless. Mr Shaw did not see or hear anything of the deceased. 29In the vicinity of the light switch near the door to the room, Mr Shaw noted two red marks. Each of them was about 150 centimetres from the floor, and was about the size of a five cent piece. They were later analysed, and one cannot safely infer that they contained the blood of anyone other than the offender. 30At the request of Mr Shaw, the offender walked from room seven to the reception area, and paid for another night's accommodation with EFTPOS. 31The motel cleaner did not clean room seven that day. Instead she left towels, toilet paper and a garbage bag outside the door. 32At 9:55 on the morning of Friday 14 December, the offender telephoned Mr Shaw and said that he wished to book another night, and would be over to pay shortly. Again, he attended at reception and paid for another night by EFTPOS. 33On that day, the cleaner adopted the same procedure as the day before. She did not clean the room. 34At some indeterminate time before Christmas 2012, the offender called two friends. He told Mr Eron Fisher that he was in Coffs Harbour and wanted to be picked up. Mr Fisher refused to do so. Ms Debra Pollock also recalled receiving a call at night. She recalled that the offender had told her that he was in Brisbane, and offered to pay her well if she would collect him. Again, Ms Pollock refused to do so. 35At 10:15 AM on Saturday 15 December 2012, Mr Shaw called room seven to remind its occupants to pay for that evening. The offender said that he would come to reception shortly. 36Meanwhile, at 10:20 AM, hundreds of kilometres to the south on the Central Coast, Mr Hoare noted a missed call on his mobile phone from the offender. 37At around the same time, the offender walked to reception and paid for another night's accommodation, again by EFTPOS. The offender told Mr Shaw that he was "really hungry" and wondered whether a pizza could be delivered to his room. Mr Shaw agreed to phone a pizza delivery service for him. He dialled it and handed the telephone to the offender. The offender thanked Mr Shaw, who noted that he appeared to be in a good mood. The offender then walked back to room seven. 38At 11:15 AM, a young pizza delivery man delivered three pizza boxes, garlic bread, and a soft drink to room seven. The offender opened the door and put his head around it. It was open about 30 centimetres. The offender kept one foot braced against it. He was wearing a T-shirt, and the pizza delivery boy noted that his eyes were darting from side to side. He saw behind the offender that the room was dark and quiet. The items were handed over without the delivery man entering the room. 39At 1:12 PM, Mr Hoare called the offender back. He asked how the offender was. He replied "I'm not travelling well, can you come and get me, I'm in Coffs Harbour". When Mr Hoare refused, the offender said "Please, I need you to come and get me", and offered Mr Hoare several thousand dollars. The offender said "[S]omeone is after me". Mr Hoare ended the call by telling the offender to "[G]et to a meeting", referring to a meeting for people trying to free themselves from prohibited drugs. 40Shortly before 5 PM, Mr Geoffrey Allen, a Coffs Harbour taxi driver, received a call from the offender, who requested that a taxi pick him up from the Arosa Motel. Mr Allen drove there and met the offender. At 4:59 PM the offender asked Mr Allen to help him move some luggage from the room into the taxi. Mr Allen obliged. At 5:09 PM, the offender asked Mr Allen to help him lift the contents of a white sheet that was bundled up and tied together into the taxi van. Mr Allen did so, and the bundle was placed inside the rear of the taxi. Completely unbeknown to Mr Allen, contained in that bundle was the battered and bloodied body of the deceased. 41Mr Allen and the offender got into the taxi. The offender told Mr Allen that he was looking to buy real estate in the general vicinity of Coffs Harbour, and wished to be driven around the area for an inspection tour. That was a lie; the offender had no such intention. In truth, he was looking for an isolated spot at which he could dump the body of the deceased. 42The two of them visited a number of locations on the pretext given by the offender. At one point on Butlers Road, near the township of Bonville, the offender asked Mr Allen to stop so that the offender could relieve himself in the bush. Both men alighted from the cab. Mr Allen stood in the centre of the road and smoked a cigarette. He did not take particular notice of what the offender was doing. By the time Mr Allen had finished his cigarette, the offender was ready to return to the front passenger seat and proceed. 43During the time that Mr Allen had smoked his cigarette, the offender had surreptitiously removed the bundle from the taxi and dragged it a short distance into the bush. 44The offender told Mr Allen that he had absentmindedly left a bag at the Arosa Motel and needed to return. Mr Allen agreed to drive him back there. On arrival Mr Allen parked outside, and the offender entered room seven again. Mr Shaw, the proprietor, was having a coffee and heard a number of bangs coming from the direction of that room. He walked outside and saw the offender leaving room seven carrying a motel bedspread with things bundled inside it. The proprietor grabbed one side of the bedspread, the offender grabbed the other, and the two men engaged in a tug-of-war over it. When Mr Shaw insisted that the offender would not be permitted to leave with the bedspread, the offender agreed to empty it into the taxi. When he did so, Mr Shaw saw that bundled inside the bedspread had been things such as small items of rubbish, personal effects, and a large number of pieces of yellow foam rubber that were similar to the foam rubber in the motel bed mattress bases. Mr Shaw also noted that the offender was very agitated, and speaking very quickly in a high-pitched voice. At that stage, Mr Shaw came to the view that the offender was affected by some sort of drug. 45Mr Shaw walked to room seven. The door was wide open. Mr Shaw entered and immediately saw that the whole of the room had been, to use his word, "trashed". Amongst other things, the bathroom was flooded, a picture that had been hanging above the bed was smashed and lying near the fridge, the base of the bed was badly ripped, the carpet was wet and featured some dark patches, and there was general debris and food items all over the floor. Mr Shaw also noted an overpowering, sickly sweet smell that he thought was of semen or menstrual blood. 46Mr Shaw angrily left the room and walked to the taxi. He accused the offender of trashing room seven. The offender begged Mr Shaw not to call the police, and said that he would be back in 30 minutes to pay for the damage and to clean up. The offender was seen to be highly agitated and in a panic. The taxi drove off. Mr Shaw walked back to reception and called police. That call was logged at 6:25 PM. 47Police were dispatched to the motel. They also became aware that the offender had requested Mr Allen to drive him to Brelsford Park, near the centre of Coffs Harbour. On arrival at the car park near the toilet block in the park, Mr Allen stopped the taxi and told the offender that the fare was over. Mr Allen also activated the emergency alarm in his vehicle. By that stage, Mr Allen noted that the offender had become erratic, anxious, jerky, agitated, and angry. 48Both men alighted from the taxi. The offender ran to an area near the toilet block and commenced digging in the dirt and leaves. Other people noticed the behaviour of the offender, and some of them became afraid and left the area. The offender was pacing around and throwing items into the bushes. The offender returned to the taxi and said loudly to Mr Allen "Where the fuck is it, it was here before". 49Meanwhile police had arrived at the Arosa Motel. They noted blood on the walls of room seven. 50Uniformed police arrived at Brelsford Park. They approached the offender, and saw that he was jerky in his movements, walking back and forth, and agitated. He was waving his arms around and rubbing his hands together. Police also noticed that the offender had sores, open wounds, and scabs on his arms. A red substance was on his lips and teeth. His eyes were wide and it seemed that he was having difficulty focusing. His speech was hard to follow. The police formed the opinion that the offender was very much affected by some sort of prohibited drug. 51When the police spoke to the offender at the park, he immediately tried to implicate Mr Allen in the death of the deceased. That gentleman was, of course, completely innocent of any wrongdoing. The offender emptied his pockets, and it was noted that he was in possession of a wallet and three mobile phones. The offender agreed that he had been staying at the Arosa Motel, with a woman whom he knew only as "Michelle". He gave a garbled version that he and the deceased had been attacked by persons with shotguns, and that those persons had disposed of the body of the deceased. That was, of course, a further lie. 52The offender also informed police that he had taken a "bad mix" of cocaine. One police officer noticed that the offender was literally foaming at the mouth. In due course the offender was arrested and taken by uniformed police to Coffs Harbour Police Station, where he was entered into custody. He has been in custody ever since. 53Examination of the taxi and the scene at Brelsford Park revealed items including food scraps, containers full of some sort of paste, clothes, a backpack, a suitcase, phone chargers, and resealable plastic bags, some of them containing a white powdery residue. In fact, almost 90 grams of methylamphetamine was located in various containers at that scene. Its purity has never been determined. By way of his plea of guilty to the offence of supplying a prohibited drug on that day, the offender has admitted that at least some of that drug was in his possession for the purpose of supply. 54Police spoke to the offender again at the police station. He continued to appear to be badly affected by a stimulant. He repeated his false allegation that the taxi driver was criminally involved in the death of the deceased and the disposal of her body. At 10:30 PM, when spoken to by detectives, the offender was noted to be very animated, scratching at sores on his arms, moving his arms around, and pacing back and forth. The detectives did not believe that it was appropriate to engage in a formal interview with the offender at that stage, in light of his mental state. 55Meanwhile, on the outskirts of Coffs Harbour, Mr Allen was being driven around by the police in an effort to find the deceased. They were unable to do so. The investigations of the police also continued at the Arosa Motel and at Brelsford Park. 56At 1:45 PM on Sunday 16 December 2012, police located a cardboard box in a green dumpster at the rear of the Arosa Motel. Two blood stained sheets were found in that box. 57At 4:39 PM, the bundle that had been dumped in the bush by the offender was located by police. Flattened grass showed that it had been dragged from the roadway to the location at which it was found. The layers of wrapping around the body of the deceased were removed. She had been dead for some time. Her body was surrounded by a white sheet loosely wrapped; a white sheet tied with two knots; sundry items such as foam rubber, newspapers and cloth; and two cream blankets. 58It will be remembered that the last date in the indictment is Monday 17 December 2012. 59At 9:30 AM on 19 December 2012, a forensic pathologist commenced the post mortem examination of the body of the deceased. It was hampered by blood pooling in the lowest points of the body, combined with its decomposition. 60The forensic pathologist found a length of cloth had been ripped and looped around the neck of the deceased three times, with a single knot behind the left side of her head. That length of cloth was not attached to any other binding on the body of the deceased. There was also a length of cloth tied around the wrists and looped three times behind the back of the deceased. There was also a length of cloth around the ankles, looped twice with one knot. Finally, there was a length of cloth in a figure eight that linked the hand tie with the ankle tie. In other words, the deceased was tied up in such a way that both her wrists and her ankles were bound behind her, and were themselves connected to each other in such a way that, if her arms were moved they would exert pressure on her legs and vice versa. Tying up a person or animal in such a way renders them immobile and helpless. It is colloquially referred to as "hog-tying". 61The forensic pathologist noted many lacerations to the head and face of the deceased. Her nose was broken. He came to the opinion that there had been at least four applications of significant blunt force trauma to the head of the deceased. He also came to the opinion that those injuries were not the cause of death. 62The forensic pathologist also saw a large, generally circular area of abrasion or skin loss to the abdomen of the deceased. He described it as a "chemical type burn", as if something corrosive had been poured on to the stomach of the deceased. He regarded it as relatively fresh, and likely to have been inflicted before death. There were also other injuries on the arms of the deceased suggestive of chemical burns. The forensic pathologist formed the opinion that it was impossible to age the injuries to the body of the deceased with any precision, because of the blood pooling and decomposition. 63Finally, the forensic pathologist formed the opinion that the cause of death was asphyxiation; that is, the cutting off of the oxygen supply to the deceased. Although able to rule out manual strangulation, the forensic pathologist considered that the mechanism of asphyxiation was either forceful suffocation (such as the face of the deceased being forced into a pillow) or ligature strangulation by way of the length of cloth around her neck. As for the latter mechanism, the forensic pathologist noted that there were no injuries to the neck of the deceased, in contrast to her wrists and ankles at the sites of the binding. However, he considered that fatal ligature strangulation could have occurred without a physical injury being caused to the neck of the deceased. Resolution of disputed facts 64The verdict of the jury determines that, between the dates in the indictment, the offender voluntarily did an act that caused the death of the deceased and, at the time of doing that act, he intended to kill or inflict really serious physical injury. As I have said, any aggravating feature above and beyond those elements must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. 65I turn to consider whether I am satisfied of any such aggravating feature. 66There was a very small amount of evidence that the offender assaulted or threatened the deceased before he inflicted the injuries to her face. That was based on things heard by the younger sister of the deceased, Ms Cavers, when she got through to her at one stage on her mobile phone. The other evidence, much of which I have summarised, supported the proposition that the deceased was in the company of the offender from 9 December 2012 freely and without oppression. Because of the limited evidence from Ms Cavers, and a degree of confusion that surrounded it, I am not persuaded to the criminal standard that the offender inflicted violence upon the deceased, or threatened to do so, before the assault in room seven that led to the injuries to her head and face. 67Separately, the parties were in dispute in the proceedings on sentence as to the intention that I would find established, and the related question of the mechanism of death. The learned Crown Prosecutor submitted that I would be satisfied that the offender possessed an intention to kill. That submission was founded in turn upon the proposition that the offender deliberately asphyxiated the deceased, either by strangling her with the ligature, or by forcefully suffocating her. In support of the former possibility, he noted that the binding around the neck was not connected at all to any of the other bindings to the body of the deceased. In other words, it was not a mechanism of restraint; its only purpose must have been to harm. If I were satisfied that death was inflicted by ligature strangulation or deliberate suffocation, he submitted that I could not, as a matter of common sense, find that there had been anything less than an intention to kill. 68Learned defence counsel submitted that it is reasonably possible that, whilst both the offender and the deceased were grossly intoxicated by amphetamines, the offender punched the deceased several times to the head with significant force, and at the time he intended to inflict really serious physical injury. As a result, the deceased collapsed or fell, perhaps unconscious, and thereafter suffocated face down without further intervention by the offender. Defence counsel submitted that that was a reasonably possible mechanism of death that was consistent with the verdict of the jury and the elements of murder, and that I would not go beyond that with regard to circumstances of aggravation. 69I respectfully reject that submission. As defence counsel accepted in discussion between Bench and Bar table, that hypothesis accepts that the deceased was asphyxiated, but implicitly asserts that the fact that she was found to have a cloth wrapped around her neck had nothing to do with her asphyxiation; to the contrary, the two findings are merely coincidental. 70But I do not accept that there is any innocent coincidence in the fact that this woman was asphyxiated and that her body was found with a cloth around her neck. 71The unconnected cloth around the neck of the deceased did not form part of her restraint. And nor could it, of course, have assisted in the transportation of the body of the deceased once it was wrapped inside the sheets and other items. It could only have assisted, at most, in moving the body from a location in the small motel room into the sheets in another part of the room no more than a few metres away. 72In the circumstances, I am satisfied that that cloth was wrapped around the neck of the deceased in order to asphyxiate her, and had nothing to do with the transport or restraint of the deceased, whether within or outside the room. I also accept the evidence of the forensic pathologist that ligature strangulation could have occurred without leaving any marks around the neck of the deceased. In short, on all of the evidence, I am satisfied that the death of the deceased was caused by the offender strangling her with the piece of cloth that was still around her neck when her body was located. 73As for the intention with which that act occurred, it is to be noted that at some stage reasonably shortly before death, the offender inflicted a brutal bashing to the face of the deceased. Either before or after death by strangulation, the deceased was bound in an extreme position. After the strangulation, the offender did nothing to suggest that her death was unintended, such as seeking urgent medical help or asking Mr Shaw to do so. I accept that it is possible to envisage circumstances in which one strangles a person with no more than an intention to inflict really serious physical injury, but nevertheless causes the death of that person without intending to do so. But in all of the circumstances that I have recounted, I am satisfied that the offender did indeed intend to kill when he used a ligature to strangle the deceased. 74In short I am satisfied of the aggravating feature that the offender used ligature strangulation to asphyxiate the deceased. I am also satisfied that he intended to kill her when he did so. 75Separately, it is impossible to determine when the deceased was bound as she was. If it was before death, that method of restraint must have been painful and terrifying. Having reflected on the matter, I am not satisfied of that fact beyond reasonable doubt. I proceed on the basis that it is reasonably possible that her body was restrained in that way after her death in order to facilitate her transport. 76Another objective feature that was in dispute between the parties was with regard to the corrosive substance that injured the abdomen of the deceased. I am well satisfied that the offender applied a corrosive chemical to the deceased at some stage after they checked into the Arosa Motel. I believe that he had such an item in his possession in order to prepare prohibited drugs for use or sale. The more difficult question is whether he did so when the deceased was alive or dead. 77The forensic pathologist expressed the opinion, based upon the reaction to the chemical, that it was done shortly before death. To my mind, it is impossible to imagine that that was done to a person who was conscious at the time. If that were the case, the victim would scream and struggle, and the pattern of injury would not be basically circular. To my mind, reconciling these two analyses, it must be the case that the offender applied the chemical to the body of the deceased whilst she was alive but unconscious. It is possible that that was done to torture the deceased. It is also possible that it was done to dispose of her body, the offender believing her to be dead at that time. However, I am unable to determine the motivation for doing so beyond reasonable doubt. 78The final aggravating feature requiring resolution is the question of when it was that the offender murdered the deceased. It will be recalled that the last time the deceased was seen alive was about 7 PM on Wednesday 12 December 2012. It will also be recalled that Mr Shaw noted blood near the light switch near the door to room seven on the morning of Thursday 13 December 2012. It could be, perhaps, that fatal violence had already been inflicted upon the deceased at that stage, and the offender had deposited his blood at that location in the process. However, I think that it is reasonably possible that the blood of the offender was at that location at that time as a result of him injecting prohibited drugs, or as a result of his scabs and sores. I think it is also reasonably possible that at that stage the offender refused to open the door to Mr Shaw in order to hide from him the chaotic state of the room and the prohibited drugs and associated paraphernalia that were there. Accordingly, I put any suspicion that the deceased was dead at that time to one side. 79However, it will also be recalled that Mr Hoare saw the missed call from the offender at 10:20 AM on Saturday 15 December 2012. The return telephone call permits one safely to infer that the original call from the offender was an effort on his part to flee the scene with the paid assistance of Mr Hoare. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that, at that stage, the deceased had been murdered. What is noteworthy is that, after that, the offender was content to order a large amount of takeaway food. And he was content to consume it in a small motel room in which, no more than a few metres away, was the body of a woman whom he had bashed and thereafter strangled to death. The ghastliness of that image requires no elaboration by me. Assessments of objective seriousness 80I turn to assess the objective seriousness of these offences. I shall first discuss the offence of possessing methylamphetamine for supply. 81The offence is by no means trivial. The amount of amphetamines involved is not insubstantial. It must also be the case that the drugs that were to be supplied would be sales, not gifts. Having said that, the purity of the drugs is not known. Nor is it known how much of the drug was actually for supply, and how much of it was intended to be used by the offender and the deceased. In short, I regard the drug offence as below the mid-range of objective seriousness. 82Turning to an assessment of the objective seriousness of this murder, of course all murders are extremely grave, featuring as they do the unlawful taking of the life of another human being in the most serious circumstances known to law. Still and all, it is possible to construct a hierarchy of seriousness depending upon various aspects of the offence. For example, it could generally be said to be the case that a cold-blooded, calculated killing carried out by a contract killer with a silenced pistol will very often be more serious than a spontaneous murder effected by a single punch in a brawl in a hotel, and to which one is an accessory. 83It was agreed between the parties that I would proceed on the basis that this murder was unplanned. I accept that submission. If it were otherwise, the offender would surely have had a far less chaotic and easily detected plan for the disposal of the body and the other incriminating items. As a result of the effects of prohibited drugs upon him (a topic to which I shall return later), the offender engaged in a spontaneous and unpremeditated act of great violence. 84Having said that, the offender bashed and strangled a young woman who was alone in his company. She was also isolated, in that she was in a small motel room near Coffs Harbour, hundreds of kilometres from those who loved her on the Central Coast. Before death, she was bashed to the face with sufficient force to break her nose. The murder was effected by way of ligature strangulation. Although that act was spontaneous, being strangled to death must surely be a terrible way to die. Strangling or garrotting is a form of killing for which I consider the community has a particular abhorrence. At the time of the murder the offender intended to kill. Before death the deceased was injured by way of the application of some sort of corrosive chemical to her. After death the body was treated with contempt, in that it was tied as one might tie an animal, and wrapped up with sundry bits of household rubbish. Eventually, the body of the deceased was dumped in the bush, in the same way that some citizens dump their unwanted household refuse. 85Whilst it is true that the murder was spontaneous and not premeditated, in the circumstances that I have described it must be regarded as being of the utmost seriousness. Subjective features 86I turn from a discussion of the offence to a discussion of the offender. With regard to the offence of supplying a prohibited drug, the offender pleaded guilty at the first opportunity. I propose to discount that sentence by 25 per cent to reflect the usefulness of that plea. It is also the case that he has accepted responsibility for that crime. I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that he regrets it. 87As for the murder, the offender pleaded not guilty and stood his trial by jury, as he was perfectly entitled to do. Since that time he has not expressed the slightest remorse for the death of the deceased, or even a grudging acceptance of responsibility. It is noteworthy that he has said nothing to his father about it, to whose evidence I shall turn in a moment. 88I have already found that the offender intended to kill the deceased. I have also found that the offence was completely spontaneous and unplanned. Turning to the closely related but separate question of motive, both parties were unable to suggest a motive for this murder. I respectfully agree that one is unable to understand why the offender committed this crime. There is nothing to suggest that the deceased stole his drugs, or anything of that nature. The most one can do is ascribe this senseless tragedy to the abuse of prohibited drugs, a topic to which I now turn. 89I am quite satisfied that both the offender and the deceased were heavily abusing amphetamines from the time they arrived in Coffs Harbour until her death. Indeed, the offender continued to do so after she died. All of the observations made of the two of them, and the rooms in which they stayed, support that proposition. I am also satisfied that, when he murdered the deceased, the offender was grossly affected by those substances and in some sort of drug-fuelled rage. The Crown Prosecutor did not submit to the contrary. On the other hand, defence counsel accepted that, in accordance with s 21A(5AA) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), the self-induced intoxication of the offender cannot be taken into account as a mitigating feature in his favour. 90The offender was born on 14 April 1971, and accordingly was aged 41 years as at the date of the offence, and is now aged 43. The evidence about his life and background comes from three sources: his criminal record (as illuminated by the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal in Jones v R [2005] NSWCCA 443), a psychiatric report, and the oral evidence of his father. 91Mr Allan Jones gave evidence before me on sentence that I accept as truthful. He explained that he was aged 72, and that the offender was one of his three children. Mr Jones senior had worked for many years with Telstra, and there was no suggestion in his evidence that the upbringing of the offender was marred by violence, the abuse of alcohol or prohibited drugs by those around him, or gross disadvantage. Mr Jones explained that he regarded the upbringing of his son as relatively normal. He gave evidence that many years ago the offender developed a relationship with his partner Marie, and they had five children together. Mr Jones described the relationship as "a bit volatile". He observed that his son loved his children, and often spoke of his desire to be with them. 92The offender had worked on the Central Coast in various labouring jobs. At one stage he rented a farm on the Central Coast, and was trying to make a success of raising calves. He went into custody in around 2003 or 2004, and was not released until about 2008. His parole was revoked in early 2011, and he was incarcerated again for a few months. As it turned out the breach was ultimately not established, but by the time the offender was released he had "lost everything". His father noticed a change in his mood, and understands that it was at that stage that the offender commenced to abuse prohibited drugs more heavily than he had in the past. 93Turning to the criminal record of the offender, it is noteworthy that it began with him being charged in January 1993 with possession of a prohibited drug when he was aged 21 years, over 20 years ago. In December 1994 he was sentenced for one count of armed robbery (with another charge taken into account on a Form 1) in the District Court of New South Wales at Parramatta. He was placed on a three year good behaviour bond, and it is noteworthy that he was also ordered to undergo psychiatric treatment. In March 1996, he was again convicted of two counts of possessing a prohibited drug and fined. Yet again, in October 1996, he was convicted of possessing a prohibited drug. In May 2001, he was fined for possessing a prohibited drug and cultivating a prohibited plant. On the same occasion, for the offence of possessing a pistol, he received a suspended sentence of 12 months. Again, one of the conditions of that sentence was that he subject himself to drug and alcohol counselling. 94In February 2003, the offender was charged with inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent to do so. Although the facts as found by the sentencing judge were not placed before me, I am prepared to infer from the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal with regard to an unsuccessful appeal against conviction that they were as follows. 95The offender and his partner Marie confronted a woman in a Central Coast car park. The offender struck the woman to the head with a motor vehicle "club lock" a number of times with great force. The background and motivation of that offence is unclear. Nor is it clear whether the offender was intoxicated at the time. As one would expect, the injuries to the victim were severe: according to the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal, she described her injuries as being that the whole left side of her face was "totally smashed in". 96For that offence, the offender was sentenced to a head sentence of imprisonment for seven years six months with a non-parole period of four years six months. No doubt, that reflected the period of incarceration about which his father gave evidence before me. 97On release, the offender was dealt with for contravening an apprehended violence order in 2010, and fined. In 2011, he was convicted without penalty for possessing prohibited drugs again, and having custody of a knife in a public place. On the same occasion he was sentenced to imprisonment for possessing an offensive implement, though on appeal the sentence was markedly shortened. 98In November 2011 he was imprisoned again for two charges of having a knife in public. He was also placed on bonds for driving while disqualified, dealing with the proceeds of crime, and possessing identity information in order to commit an indictable offence. Those bonds commenced on 19 November 2011, and the longest of them would have expired on 18 November 2014. It is a matter of serious aggravation that, far from being of good behaviour, the offender breached that bond by committing the most serious offence known to law. 99In short, the criminal record of the offender confirms that he has had a very longstanding problem with prohibited drugs. It also shows that he has previously been imprisoned for a lengthy period for an offence of wanton violence against a defenceless woman. That must disentitle him to any leniency with regard to this murder of another defenceless woman. It also raises a real question about his prospects of refraining from such behaviour in the future. I shall return to that general topic in more detail shortly. 100The third and final source of evidence about the offender is the report of Dr Antonella Ventura, a psychiatrist, of 16 July 2014. I have borne in mind the respectful reminder of the Crown Prosecutor that matters in mitigation that appear in such reports, unsupported by sworn evidence, should be approached with considerable caution: see R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353. I have approached the document carefully; still and all, I am in the main prepared to accept its contents on the balance of probabilities. 101The offender commenced using cannabis at the age of 12. He quickly went on to abuse alcohol, amphetamines, LSD, and cocaine. By the age of 23 he was using heroin. Abuse of prohibited drugs has been a constant theme in his life. At time of the offences, his drug of "choice" was amphetamines. 102To his credit, he has tried to do something about his dependence in the past: he has attended at more than one residential rehabilitation centre, and it will be recalled that Mr Hoare had been his mentor at some stage prior to the offences. Regrettably, those efforts culminated in the complete failure to deal with the issue that led to him committing this murder. 103The offender experienced learning problems at school and was unable to keep up academically. He left school in year 10, and has worked mostly as a labourer. He was last employed in 2010. 104He reported a childhood marred not only by physical abuse by his brother but also by witnessing the sexual abuse of his sister by the same sibling. I am prepared to accept the former on the balance of probabilities; in light of the absence of any sworn evidence in support of the latter, I do not act upon it. 105As for the offence, the offender told the psychiatrist that he had no memory of it, or of disposing of the body, or of being arrested. Indeed, his first clear memory is coming to his senses in a prison in Sydney. The last thing he remembers before that is taking some prohibited drugs that he believed to be "synthetic coke". After that he suffered some extremely distressing hallucinations, which included believing that he was trapped in a "pit of snakes". 106Having reflected on those assertions, in light of the plethora of evidence of the very heavy use of prohibited drugs by the offender before and after the murder, I am prepared to accept on the balance of probabilities that he has no memory of it. That finding does not mean, of course, that the offender is to be excused in the slightest for what he has done. Nor would that amnesia prohibit him from having, at the least, accepted responsibility for his actions, a step that he has been unwilling or unable to take. 107The psychiatrist diagnosed the offender with "stimulant use disorder". I accept that diagnosis. I am quite satisfied on the balance of probabilities that this man has been abusing prohibited drugs for three decades, and that his life and behaviour have been distorted as a result. 108The psychiatrist also raised the possibility of a "major or mild neurocognitive disorder" that could be "periodically affecting his level of consciousness and memory". That possible thesis was founded upon various parts of the history that the offender gave the psychiatrist, including a number of head injuries leading to loss of consciousness, seizures as a child, learning difficulties, and alcohol induced blackouts. It was also founded on the possibility that the amnesia of the offender and his presentation to police when arrested was suggestive of such a disorder. 109I accept that that is a bare possibility. However, I consider that it is much more likely that the presentation of the offender to the police was the result of his ingestion of very large quantities of prohibited drugs. I also think that his amnesia is the result of the same actions. His father gave no evidence to support such a theory, directly or indirectly. In light of the absence of firm evidence supporting it, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that at the time of the offences the offender suffered from any disorder other than his chronic dependence on prohibited drugs. Prospects of rehabilitation 110It will be many years before the offender is at liberty again. By that stage he will not be a young man. He will have had a very substantial period in custody to try to address the problem with prohibited drugs that has marred his life. He will also have had time to reflect upon the fresh start that he could make upon his release. 111It is not clear on the evidence whether he will have contact with his partner and children, or indeed whether that romantic relationship is continuing. I infer from the fact that his father was prepared to endure the painful process of giving evidence in his son's proceedings on sentence for murder that he will support his son as best he can in the years ahead. 112It is certainly true that the offender has demonstrated a disturbing tendency to the infliction of serious violence, culminating in a brutal murder. It is also true that the offender will require a great deal of assistance upon his release to reintegrate successfully into society. Nevertheless, if the offender is able to obtain help with regard to his dependence upon prohibited drugs, and if he is able to abstain from them when he is released, I possess a guarded optimism about his prospects for rehabilitation at the end of his minimum term of imprisonment. Various matters 113I turn to deal briefly with a number of separate aspects of my task. 114First, the parties were in agreement that any sentence structure that I impose should commence on the day that the offender came into custody; namely, 15 December 2012. I accept that joint submission. 115Secondly, I do not propose mechanistically to state the aggravating and mitigating features that I have taken into account for the purposes of s 21A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. These remarks on sentence fulfil that role. I have referred to the section, and taken care to avoid double counting. 116Thirdly, defence counsel did not submit that there were special circumstances that would justify a reduction in the statutory ratio between the non-parole period and head sentence. Nevertheless, I have considered that question for myself. The offender has been in custody for a substantial period in the past. He is not a young man. The sentence I impose will include a parole period that is lengthy in any event. In those circumstances, I do not consider that there are special circumstances that should lead to a variation in the statutory ratio. 117Fourthly, I am required by s 25C of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) to inform the offender that he may be detained even after the complete expiry of his head sentence, if it is considered that he remains a danger to the community. Aspects of sentence structure 118These two offences of supplying a prohibited drug and murder are very much bound up with each other. The abuse of stimulants played a very large role in the commission of this senseless homicide; it is the possession of those stimulants for supply that founds the drug offence. I think that there should be a substantial degree of concurrence between the two sentences. I also accept that the seriousness of the drug offence pales into insignificance when it is compared to the seriousness of the murder. 119Having said that, I consider that a small proportion of the time that the offender is to spend in custody should be solely referable to the drug offence. I shall structure the sentences accordingly. With regard to the drug offence, I shall impose a fixed term that is intended to replicate the head sentence that I would have imposed if the offender were to be sentenced for that offence alone. 120Finally, I shall reduce the non-parole period of the murder sentence to a small degree, in order to maintain a ratio of 75 per cent between the overall non-parole period and the overall head sentence. As well as that, a few weeks will be shaved off that non-parole period because the law does not concern itself with trifles. Victim impact statements 121I was provided with a victim impact statement prepared by the mother of the deceased, Ms Jeanette Reynolds, that spoke as well for the siblings, children and nephews and nieces of the deceased. Pursuant to s 28(4) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, I take the contents of that statement into account in determining the appropriate sentence for the murder of the deceased. 122Michelle Reynolds was a much loved mother, daughter, partner, sister, family member, and friend. Her mother has spoken of her daughter's love for her children and her enjoyment of the simple pleasures of life such as singing with friends and family at karaoke evenings. The deep pain of many is worsened by their inability to understand the motivation for this murder, a question that may never be answered. 123Ms Jeanette Reynolds has spoken of the "torment" suffered by the children of the deceased at the loss of their mother. And speaking for herself, she described the loss of her daughter in stark terms: "the devastation is unbearable". 124On behalf of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, I extend my condolences to all of those who have loved and lost Michelle Jane Reynolds. The conclusion of the proceedings today may provide some relief to those who are suffering. But I accept that the after-effects of the murder of this young woman will be felt for many decades. Conclusion 125In short, the offender bashed and thereafter strangled to death a defenceless woman. His intention at the latter time was to kill. Before death the deceased was injured with a chemical. After death her body was treated with contempt. Although this unplanned and motiveless course of action was caused by the gross intoxication of the offender by prohibited drugs, I do not take that fact into account in mitigation. At the time, the offender was in possession of prohibited drugs, some of which were to be supplied for profit. The offender has expressed no remorse whatsoever for what he has done. When he committed these offences the offender was subject to conditional liberty imposed by a criminal court. Regrettably, the previous act of brutal violence inflicted upon a defenceless woman that led to him being imprisoned for many years was unable to deflect the offender from progressing to the worst crime known to law. The criminal justice system must respond with a sentence of due severity. Imposition of sentence 126Wayne Edward Jones, you are convicted of the offence of supplying a prohibited drug. For that offence, I sentence you to a fixed term of imprisonment of 18 months to date from 15 December 2012 and to expire on 14 June 2014. Because of the sentence structure, there will be no non-parole period. 127Wayne Edward Jones, you are convicted of the offence of murder. For that offence, I sentence you to a non-parole period of 20 years to date from 15 September 2013 and to expire on 14 September 2033. There will be a parole period of 7 years that expires on 14 September 2040. The first date upon which you will be eligible for release to parole is 14 September 2033. 128To express my orders another way, the offender is subject to an overall head sentence of imprisonment for 27 years 9 months, with an overall non-parole period of 20 years 9 months.