R v Ryan

R v Ryan - [2020] NSWSC 1629 - NSWSC 2020 case summary — Zoe

[3]

Objective features

To recap briefly: the offender did not deny at trial that he had unlawfully killed the deceased, and indeed he entered a plea of guilty at its commencement to that effect. The issue was whether the partial defence of substantial impairment could be established by him on balance, thereby reducing his culpability from murder to manslaughter, the offence that he admitted.
I readily accepted the concession, and the overwhelming evidence, that the offender had indeed killed the deceased in circumstances that, subject to the success of the partial defence, amounted to murder. And although I found that he suffered from two relevant impairments at the time of the homicide, I did not accept that either of them was substantial. Entirely separately, I also did not accept the proposition that community standards warranted reduction from murder to manslaughter. Those were the bases upon which I came to my verdict.
To outline the context in which the offender had committed the murder: he and the deceased were both in their 60s, and had been in a romantic relationship that stretched over decades, and had led to the birth of two sons, by then both adults.
For many months before November 2018, the intimate side of the relationship had come to an end, not least because of the chronic alcoholism and dependence upon prescription drugs from which the offender suffered, and the distortions they brought to his behaviour. The deceased was pursuing a new romantic relationship with another man, who lived hundreds of kilometres to the south on the mid-North Coast. She was murdered in her own home the evening before she was intending to take the first steps into a new life with that other man.
About a month beforehand, the offender had been recorded making threats over the telephone of physical violence against the deceased if she did not bring the new romantic relationship to an end. On a straightforward analysis, the offender simply did to the deceased precisely what he had threatened to do, if she continued to disobey him.
Furthermore, one evening two weeks before the murder, the deceased had called police to the apartment that she and the offender shared, because of his threatening and abusive behaviour towards her. The police imposed a provisional AVO upon the offender. It had been extended as an interim AVO by the learned Magistrate in the Local Court at Tweed Heads on the very morning of the day that the offender brought the life of the deceased to an end.
The offender effected the murder by stabbing the deceased repeatedly in the kitchen of her own home, disregarding her pleas. The precise details of how the attack commenced are unclear, but it is certainly the case that at least two knives were used. Many of the wounds were inflicted from behind.
Prior to or during the fatal ordeal, the offender held a knife to the throat of the deceased; ordered her to telephone her sister and brother-in-law in Menindee, Mr and Mrs Reid; and demanded that Mrs Reid advise the deceased not to leave him. He also spoke of his readiness to slit the throat of the deceased in profoundly contemptuous and vulgar terms; the exact words appear in my reasons for verdict, and there is no need to recount them again. Shortly after that, words were replaced by murderous actions.
Neighbours heard the pleas for help of the deceased; the police and emergency services promptly attended; nothing could be done to save the life of the deceased; the offender was arrested at the scene; he has been in custody ever since.

[6]

General background

The offender was born in February 1954, and accordingly was aged 64 as at the date of the offences, and is now aged 66. He grew up in the Sydney suburb of Camperdown, in circumstances that were neither grossly deprived nor in any way privileged. He was not a good student, and it is possible that he suffered from some undiagnosed condition that made learning difficult, with the result that he left school at the age of 15. Thereafter the offender engaged in a number of unskilled jobs, seemingly successfully. It is noteworthy that alcohol played a negative role in the lives of some of the adults around him when he was growing up, and I think that that fact played its part in the offender becoming a heavy drinker even before he became an adult. There was an early marriage that gave rise to youthful fatherhood, but the marriage came to an end many years ago, and as I understand it the offender has no contact with his firstborn. The offender and the deceased met in about 1980, and although, as I understand it, they never formally married, their romantic relationship was more or less continuous for many years thereafter.
The employment of the offender came to an end more than a quarter of a century ago, when he suffered an injury to his feet and legs whilst working as a porter in a hospital. Ever since, I accept on balance that he has been in significant pain, although I also think that that has its psychological aspects. Regrettably, his severe drinking problem combined with a subsequent dependence on prescription drugs, which I infer began with an effort to obtain pain relief. Each of those dependencies was, as I said in my reasons for verdict, completely unaddressed at the time of the murder.
Over the years, the offender and the deceased lived modestly, including at one stage in a caravan park in the Northern Rivers region, and, at the time of the murder, in an apartment available to them through the combination of an insurance payout and an arrangement with one of their sons.
It was only a few years after his workplace injury that the offender spent three months in a psychiatric unit, having attempted to commit suicide and having been diagnosed as suffering from psychotic depression.
Poignantly, in the trial, there was evidence of a period of about a decade in which the offender was able to be abstinent from alcohol and drugs. During that time, one of his sons said, the offender was an excellent father, and there were many happy memories of family holidays and the like. In contrast, by November 2018, the offender was leading a disorganised and dependent and degraded life that featured frequent hospitalisations, declining functioning, and poor physical and emotional health.

[10]

Remorse?

As for the attitude of the offender to what he has done, in his recorded interview with police reasonably shortly after the offence, he showed few signs of regret, and was equivocal about accepting the obvious fact that he had indeed killed the deceased. Having said that, I think that he may have been in an extraordinary emotional state at that time, perhaps a state of shock or disbelief at what he had done.
It is also noteworthy that the offender has made a number of exculpatory or mitigatory claims - for example, that he had tried "ice" for the first time, moments before the offence - that I do not accept as true. But, as defence counsel has said, I think that alcoholic confabulation may have played a role in that regard, as opposed to craftily constructed lies.
Finally, in some of the earlier psychiatric reports, there is a flavour of self-pity and focus upon his own predicament, rather than the fate of the deceased. But at least one of those reports was based on an interview very soon after he was imprisoned, and I accept on balance that his thinking and feeling has been developing in the many months since the first shock of arrest and incarceration.
As I have said, by the time of the arraignment that commenced the trial, the homicide was solemnly and publicly accepted by way of a plea of guilty to manslaughter. A significant portion of the basis for the denial of guilt of murder was the expert opinion evidence of a psychiatrist. The offender gave evidence neither in the trial nor on sentence, with the result that I certainly approach what he has written to me - about how he now feels about what he has done - with caution. Even so, I do think that the extended process of the trial, the patent suffering that has been occasioned to many, the period of incarceration so far, and the accurate written acceptance by the offender that it is quite likely that he will die in gaol have, on balance, led to an appreciation of the gravity of what he has done that extends beyond a focus upon himself.

[12]

Victim impact statements

So far I have spoken at some length about the offence, and the offender who will be sentenced for it, as the law requires me to do. But it should not be thought that I have neglected to think about Marie Van Beers as a person, and not just a victim. Nor have I neglected to reflect upon the effect that her death has had upon others. There was no objection by defence counsel to the following being able to be taken into account on sentence, as part of the harm done to the community.
Ms Jessica Reid, daughter of Mrs Moya Reid and niece of the deceased, has spoken of the terrible day when her mother, in a hysterical state, telephoned with the news of what had happened. She relied upon her aunt as a rock of support, and is now bereft of her rock as she struggles with her own challenges. She has spoken of the fact that an extended family has been robbed of mother, grandmother, sister, aunt, and great-aunt. She has also spoken of wounds too deep to be repaired.
Ms Betty Craddock, sister of the deceased, has spoken of her initial disbelief that her sister had been taken from her in this way. She has spoken of the burden of the many court appearances in this matter, and the fact that the conclusion of the trial many weeks ago was not yet the end of the courtroom ordeal. She recounts a period of lack of contact with her sister that came to an end in 2016, after which there were many happy times, part of an effort to make up for lost time that is now itself cut short. She is incapable of putting from her mind the final moments of suffering and terror of her sister.
Finally, Mrs Reid has spoken of the deceased as an earthy, fun-loving person who is terribly missed. She has spoken of the whole family being subjected to a devastating tragedy, and of mental scars that are very deep, and cannot be erased. She has also spoken of her own feelings of guilt about the fact that, from hundreds of kilometres away, she was unable to save her sister during the telephone call. I venture to say to her, respectfully, that her feelings of guilt are completely misplaced, because only one person is responsible for this tragedy.
A murder trial very often focuses on the events leading up to and culminating in the homicide, and one hears little during that process of its aftermath. As the tribunal of fact in this trial by judge alone, that was my role. But it is impossible to read and hear the victim impact statements in this matter without coming to an appreciation of the grievous and permanent damage, to many persons, that has been done here. I extend my condolences to all those who are suffering, and express the hope that the conclusion of these legal proceedings today may provide some measure of relief.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (15 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (1)

Cited By (2)