R v Marshall

Police and ambulance officers who arrived at the scene at about 7.30 pm observed the victim lying on his back in the front bedroom of the unit with his legs in the hallway.

He ceased breathing shortly thereafter and attempts to revive him by police and paramedics at the scene and on the way to Royal Prince Alfred Hospital failed as did further resuscitation attempts at the Hospital.

At 2.00 am on 14 May, 1988 Detectives went to the applicant's Stanmore flat and were eventually allowed into the flat after he had initially prevented them from gaining entry.

After informing the applicant that he was under arrest for inflicting the fatal wounds on Burridge Detective Halpin asked him the location of the knives he had used and received the response 'Silky's got them'.

Detective Bramann then showed him two knives which he had found in the flat which appeared to be bloodstained and asked him whether they were the knives he had used. The applicant's response was 'I haven't seen those for months'.

He was then transported to Petersham Police Station where he consented to a blood sample being taken.

Commencing at 4.55 am and concluding at 7.20 am the applicant took part in a six page signed Record of Interview in which he denied stabbing Rick (Burridge) and claimed that he had seen 'Silky' (Glenda Browne) stab him apparently accidentally, while he and Burridge were scuffling with each other…

At a post mortem examination of the deceased carried out by her early in the morning of 14 May, 1988 Dr Sylvia Hollinger observed seven stab wounds to the body of the victim located as follows: (1) & (2) right side of upper chest (3) & (4) to the right groin one of which wounds was wide and gaping and had entered the inferior vena cava; (the large vein which enters the right atrium) causing extensive internal bleeding, (5) & (6) to middle of abdomen and (7) to the left groin. The Doctor certified the cause of death to be multiple stab wounds.

There was evidence at trial about the blood alcohol level of the applicant and the deceased to the effect that the respective levels were .06 and .210. It should be borne in mind that the applicant's blood was obtained some nine hours after the offence and he consumed alcohol at a hotel(s) after leaving the murder scene.

There was also evidence in the Crown case at trial from a Mark Madigan, who shared a cell with the applicant, to the effect that after first stating it was 'Silky' who had stabbed Burridge, the applicant admitted a couple of days later that he had done the stabbing as he was 'going to fix Ricky for good'. He added that he was trying to 'pin it on Silky'.

In his case at trial the applicant made a statement to the jury which was substantially in accord with his record of interview to police and included the claim that he had not stabbed the victim but Silky apparently had when she lunged at them while they were scuffling." 7 As required under Practice Note 57 the applicant responded to the service of the statement of facts, indicating he accepted such statement save as to the following: "(i) The 'scuffle' referred to paragraph 13 did not occur on the street but in the front yard of the premises. (ii) The applicant denies demonstrating his skill with knives to Riley as alleged in paragraph 16. (iii) The applicant denies that he forced his way into the unit as alleged in paragraph 17. (iv) The applicant denies he prevented or attempted to prevent the Detectives from gaining entry to the flat as alleged in paragraph 22. (v) The applicant denied he 'claimed that he has seen Silky (Glenda Browne) stab him apparently accidentally' in the Record of Interview referred to in paragraph 26." 8 For present purposes I do not consider anything turns on the matters disputed by the applicant in the above paragraphs (i) to (iv). As to (v), the following questions and answers are recorded in the record of interview which police conducted with the applicant on 14 May 1988: "Q29. What happened when you went back to the unit about teatime last night?

A. I said Are you there Helen and Rick came out with an iron bar and told me Helen's not going home she's staying here and told me to piss off. And then started to swing the bar. It struck me on the hand and the head. Silky came running down the hall brandishing a knife I tried to avoid the knife and in the scuffle Silky must have stabbed him instead of me.

Q30. Did you actually see Silky stab Rick with a knife?

A. It was a kitchen handle knife. Not as long as that bone handled one you showed me, about ten inches long.

A. I seen her lunge with the knife, I don't know if it actually penetrated." 9 I observe that each page of the record of interview, including the page upon which the above questions and answers are recorded, was signed by the applicant and I accept that the applicant made the responses attributed to him by the answers to the above questions. 10 I have regard to the circumstances surrounding the offence as outlined in the above statement of facts, save for the matters not accepted by the applicant as above identified. I do, however, have regard to the record of interview and the questions and answers thereof above set out. Plainly the applicant sought to convey to the police that it was "Silky" who wielded the knife.

The applicant's convictions 11 The applicant was born on 13 March 1938 so that he is now sixty-one years of age. He has been in custody continuously since his arrest on the relevant murder charge on 14 May 1988. He has a formidable criminal record beginning at the age of nineteen. In all there are forty convictions recorded against the applicant; they include many offences for dishonesty, convictions for robbery, assault with intent to rob, assault, assault police, and I note that in July 1979 the applicant was sentenced to five years penal servitude in the Central Criminal Court for two offences of maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm. The statement of facts presented to the sentencing judge in 1979 was tendered on this application. That statement discloses that the applicant used a knife to stab two victims on 26 December 1978. Fortunately they survived, but it is disturbing that the applicant did not learn from his earlier experience not to use a knife as a weapon again. 12 The applicant has many convictions for offences under the Motor Traffic Act. In all, the applicant's criminal record is a bad one, and it reflects a problem with alcohol abuse.

Report of the Serious Offenders' Review Council 13 I have had the advantage of considering a report from the Serious Offenders' Review Council. This gives some picture as to the applicant's progress whilst he has been in prison. He has thus far served his sentence in a number of institutions that include Parklea, Lithgow and Long Bay. In December 1997 he was placed at the Industrial Training Centre at Long Bay where he enjoys now a C1 classification. His progress in prison appears to have been reasonable but I do note references that he does not seem to have acknowledged his problem with alcohol and I do note further that in 1993 he was asserting his innocence of the murder and was blaming his wife for it. 14 In March 1998 an assessment committee reviewed the applicant at the Industrial Training Centre and reported: "His work and conduct reports were, as usual, good. His damaged musical instruments had been repaired and he was again teaching music. [The applicant apparently has skill as a musician but his instruments had been damaged by other inmates.] He was still however refusing to have contact with drug and alcohol and psychological services. The committee stressed the importance of his contacting the services for assessment and if necessary counselling." 15 The Serious Offenders' Review Council concluded its report dated 13 October 1998 as follows: "In the event that the Supreme Court grants Marshall's application for the re-determination of his sentence, then the Serious Offenders Review Council will develop a plan for his management during the remainder of any minimum term imposed. Subject to satisfactory behaviour, conduct and attitude, Marshall will be progressively reduced in security classification leading, hopefully, to his inclusion in unescorted, external, pre-release leave, such as Day Leave and Work Release programs, in preparation for his eventual return into the community." 16 A supplementary communication from the Serious Offenders' Review Council dated 26 October 1999 contained more recent information as to the applicant. The case officer's assessment of 26 November 1998 is in these terms: "Inmate Marshall cooperates very well and is not a problem Inmate. He is well groomed and looks healthy. He seems to be a Jack of all Trades and participates in many activities, mainly the Gaol Music Band. He keeps contact to his family through phone calls and gets visits." 17 The supplementary material was generally favourable, although again I note an entry as late as 3 December 1998 when the applicant was maintaining his innocence in respect of the murder. 18 The applicant's conduct overall in the prison system in the period of some eleven years seven months that he has been in custody for this crime has been good. Mr Webb, who appeared on the applicant's behalf, submitted that the applicant has made a useful contribution in prison life. He has learned the skill of hairdressing, having recently been issued with a licence, he has utilised his skills as a musician and has contributed to prison concerts and he has, according to references tendered, worked well in various other prison activities. 19 Mr Taylor, psychologist, assessed the applicant in April 1999. The two features I mentioned earlier appearing from his prison history are reflected again in the psychologist's report. The first of these is the applicant's denial that he has had an alcohol problem. The second of these features is that when he saw Mr Taylor he was still denying that he had killed the deceased and he was still asserting that the guilty party was his de facto wife. In blaming his wife I observe he appears to have shifted blame away from the woman referred to in his record of interview as "Silky". 20 Mr Taylor commented upon the failure of the applicant to accept responsibility for his crime, and expressed an opinion as to the risk of the applicant re-offending if released: "Mr Marshall was able to discuss his plans for the future, should he be released. He stated that he still has contact with his sister and stated that he would be able to live with her. He is also still very much involved in his music and feels that he would have the opportunity to play professionally if he is released. Actuarial assessment of his potential to reoffend was assessed at being in the average range. This assessment however does not take into account his present age or aspects of his behaviour over the last ten years in gaol. When these are taken into account it seems very likely that his potential to reoffend would be lower than the assessment provided by the Statistical Information on Recidivism Scale. By way of conclusion then I was unable to find any indication from the information available to me to suggest that Mr Marshall would reoffend in the future. The aspect of his stated alcoholism is a matter which could properly be monitored as could other aspects of his functioning." 21 The evidence indicates that the applicant has not yet faced up to the fact that he murdered the deceased. There are the various records that refer to this, and there is the report of Mr Taylor. When last he gave evidence before me following his conviction and before sentence in 1989 he did not acknowledge his guilt, and he claimed that it was Silky who had the knife. On the present application he has given no evidence. 22 The lack of contrition is a relevant matter for me to consider on this present application, impacting as it does upon the applicant's rehabilitation: see R v White (unreported, NSWCCA, 23 June 1998) and R v Stephens [1999] NSWCCA 80. It is also relevant that the applicant, notwithstanding his obvious alcohol problem in the past, has not freely acknowledged the problem and submitted adequately to counselling for it. 23 In considering this application I have regard to all the various matters addressed in s 13A of the Sentencing Act. 24 It has not been contended by the Director of Public Prosecutions that it would be inappropriate to grant this application. Indeed, the application of the applicant is not opposed, and after reflection I have come to the conclusion that I should accede to the application. During the remainder of the minimum term which I intend to fix, in the interests of the applicant's rehabilitation, he should undertake further counselling for alcohol abuse and attention should be directed to what appears to be a failure on his part to accept his guilt. Doubtless the applicant's progress in these areas will be assessed when he is being considered for parole in due course. 25 The objective features of this crime I regard as very serious. There were a number of knife wounds as disclosed in the post mortem findings I recorded earlier. The conclusion is inescapable that the applicant must have inflicted those wounds at the very least with an intention to cause serious bodily injury and the jury's verdict demonstrates that the jury so found. The Court of Criminal Appeal has repeatedly stressed the abhorrence with which the use of a knife as a weapon is regarded: see, for example, Rothapfel (unreported, NSWCCA, 4 August 1992). 26 I have regard to Mr Taylor's opinion concerning the risk of the applicant re-offending. I have regard to sentences imposed by this court in other crimes of murder, whilst recognising that each case depends very largely upon its own particular facts. 27 I have concluded that the appropriate sentence in this case is one of nineteen years penal servitude and I now fix a minimum term of thirteen years six months and an additional term of five years six months. The sentence is to be backdated to 14 May 1988 since which date the applicant has been continuously in custody for this crime. The minimum term will thus expire on 13 November 2001. The additional term of five years six months will commence on 14 November 2001 and expire on 13 May 2007. I specify 14 November 2001 as the first date upon which the applicant is to be eligible for release on parole. **********

Last Modified: 12/21/1999 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.