SENTENCE
1 HIS HONOUR: The offenders Peter David Taber and Ian Craig Styman were both found guilty of the manslaughter of Joy Golbie Alchin, whose body was found in her home at 23 Spies Avenue, Greenwell Point on 19 January 2001. The verdicts of the jury on 2 November 2005 followed a lengthy trial which began on 19 September 2005.
2 Both accused stood trial previously charged with the murder of the deceased. They also stood trial previously charged with breaking entering and committing a serious indictable offence in circumstances of aggravation (which I will call "aggravated robbery" for the purpose of these remarks). They were further charged with sexual intercourse without consent in circumstances of aggravation. The jury following the earlier trial found both offenders guilty of murder and aggravated robbery. They were found not guilty of the sexual offence charged. Following conviction, each offender was sentenced to imprisonment for life for the crime of murder and to imprisonment for twenty years for the offence of aggravated robbery.
3 There was a third offender joined at the earlier trial, namely Shannon Styman, who was the nephew of Ian Craig Styman. Unlike the other offenders, Shannon Styman pleaded guilty to the aggravated robbery charge and was convicted accordingly. Also unlike the other offenders, he offered a plea of guilty to the crime of manslaughter. Whilst the Crown did not accept that plea, the jury found Shannon Styman guilty of manslaughter. Following his conviction, Shannon Styman was sentenced to fourteen years imprisonment for manslaughter with a non parole period of nine years, and to eight years imprisonment for the aggravated robbery. Against those sentences, Shannon Styman did not appeal, and he is presently serving those sentences.
4 However, both offenders presently before the Court did appeal and the convictions of murder were quashed (R v Styman; R v Taber [2004] NSWCCA 245). The Court of Criminal Appeal determined, having regard to the 000 call I shall refer to later, that it was not open to the jury to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that at any time before she died, the offenders fully realised that the deceased would probably die unless they rescued her (see p 117 of the joint judgment at para [326]). Hence it was determined that the convictions for murder could not stand. The court proceeded to order that the offenders stand trial again, charged with manslaughter. The court did not disturb the convictions for aggravated robbery but it did quash the sentences imposed for that offence.
5 In the circumstances each offender is now to be sentenced for the crime of manslaughter and for the crime of aggravated robbery. The maximum penalty for which s 24 of the Crimes Act makes provision for the crime of manslaughter is twenty-five years imprisonment. Section 112(2) of the Crimes Act provides a maximum penalty of twenty years imprisonment for the offence of aggravated robbery.
6 This brings me to a consideration of the objective features of these crimes.
7 The deceased was seventy years of age. According to Dr Bradhurst, who performed the post mortem examination, she weighed forty-eight kilograms and was 1.49 metres tall. Hence, she was a slight lady. The deceased was found in her bedroom, securely bound. Her wrists were tied behind her back. Silver coloured duct tape and black plastic cable ties were used (see Exhibit B, photograph 27). The ankles of the deceased were also bound together and photograph 29 shows silver coloured duct tape around those ankles as well as black plastic cable ties. There was a pillowslip placed over the head of the deceased, with the opening of the pillowslip secured loosely around the neck with duct tape. Underneath that there was a gag made up of a wad of underpants and that was held against the mouth with grey duct tape wound around the mouth, face and neck. Dr Bradhurst said it was not clear how many times that tape was wound around the face and neck, but that it was wound around tightly (T 938).
8 The body was found lying face down on the floor near the side of the deceased's bed. There were lacerations to the left corner of the mouth where Dr Bradhurst said she had received a blow; there was bruising of the upper and lower lips; and there was bruising of the lower part of the left upper arm. There were also abrasions over her left shoulder blade and right buttock, consistent with having been caused by dragging of her body.
9 Following post mortem examination, Dr Bradhurst concluded that the cause of death was smothering and dehydration associated with restraint.
10 It is apparent from the photographs in Exhibit B that the wrists and ankles were both tightly secured.
11 The manner of restraint was cruel indeed.
12 The deceased lived by herself in her modest one-bedroom home at 23 Spies Avenue, Greenwell Point, where the evidence discloses she led a lonely life. She did not drive and rarely ventured out of the house. She was dependent upon others to bring food, other supplies and newspapers to her. Mr and Mrs Reeves were shop keepers who made deliveries to her. According to Mrs Reeves, the last delivery was made on 5 January 2001 and it was Mrs Reeves who carried out that delivery. Because the Reeves were concerned when the deceased failed to place later orders, Mr Reeves attended the home of the deceased on 19 January 2001, having been unsuccessful in reaching her by telephone. His visit led to the discovery of the body of the deceased.
13 There was a 000 call made at 4.54 am on 7 January 2001. I shall refer to this call again later but I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that shortly before that call was made the deceased had been bound, gagged and robbed by these offenders, together with Shannon Styman, and had been left secured in the manner in which she remained secured at the time her body was discovered.
14 According to a neighbour of the deceased, Mrs Batchelor, she noticed a terrible smell some three days or so before the body of the deceased was found, but Dr Bradhurst considered the time of death was likely to have been between 16 January and 18 January 2001. Dr Bradhurst observed early decomposition was occurring but said this: (T 940)
"In view of the post mortem appearances, the regional temperatures for the period and taking into account Dr Ryan's assessment (with which I agree), in my opinion death most likely occurred two to four days prior to the autopsy, that is, any time between 16 and 18 January 2001, but death occurring even before 16 January cannot be entirely excluded."
15 Dr Ryan, the Government Medical Officer for the Nowra Police District, attended the deceased's premises before the body of the deceased was removed. His assessment was that the deceased had been dead for some seventy-two hours, which would fix the time of death as being on 16 January or thereabouts.
16 I accept the opinions expressed by the two medical experts and find that the deceased in all probability died no earlier than 16 January 2001. This means, of course, that the deceased lay bound and gagged with her head secured inside the pillowcase for nine days, or a period approaching nine days, before death by smothering and dehydration. Her fate was truly horrific.
17 The deceased used to keep large sums of cash in her house. Her sister, Margaret Jones, said that the deceased did not believe in banks and that she horded her money (T 378). In the year 2000, the deceased lent $22,000 to her sister, Cheryle Ravell. The loan was in cash, including a lot of old $100 notes and some old $50 notes. According to Cheryle Ravell, the money had a musty smell and was presented to her in the deceased's home in a brown paper bag. Following a disagreement with her sister, Cheryle Ravell repaid the loan in full in November 2000.
18 Cheryle Ravell's daughter, Melinda, borrowed money from the deceased in 1999. The amount lent was $3500, and Melinda Ravell described the cash as including old grey $100 notes that had a smell about them. One or two months later, the deceased advanced to Melinda an additional sum of $20,000, again in old $100 notes in lots of $1000 secured by rubber bands. Melinda repaid the loan in full, having engaged a solicitor after there was some disagreement with her aunt.
19 Leonie Ravell was aware of the loans by the deceased to her mother and to her sister, Melinda. Indeed, she was with Melinda when Melinda picked up her substantial loan. Leonie Ravell formed a relationship with the offender Peter Taber, who went to live with Leonie at 211 Old Southern Road in September 2000.
20 The offender, Peter Taber, had no trade qualifications but he had periodic employment erecting prefabricated sheds. The evidence established that he was frequently short of money. He had no significant funds in any bank account and he often pawned tools and other items. Two pawnbrokers gave evidence of their dealings with him. Mr Edwards had dealings with him from July 1999 onwards. As late as 30 December 2000, Peter Taber pawned a number of tools for $300. He paid the redemption sum on the day after the aggravated robbery. Mr Mitzikis had dealings from May 2000 onwards. As late as 3 January 2001, the offender pawned a drill and a circular saw for $100 and they were not redeemed.
21 The offender Peter Taber had discussion with Leonie Ravell about going for a holiday in Queensland. According to her, there was discussion with the offender Taber about borrowing money from Leonie's family to fund the holiday. Peter Taber asked Melinda for a loan but this was declined. According to Leonie, the offender suggested that an approach be made to her Aunt Margaret and also to the deceased, but Leonie declined to make any such approach.
22 Her evidence differed in this respect from the evidence of Donyelle Turner who was living in December 2000 at 211 Old Southern Road. According to Donyelle Turner, she was present when Leonie and Peter Taber had a discussion about borrowing money. Donyelle Turner gave evidence that Peter Taber made a telephone call to Melinda and when that proved unsuccessful he suggested that he go with Leonie to see the aunt at Greenwell Point. It was submitted that Donyelle Turner was not a reliable witness, principally because of her drug abuse. Moreover, she searched Leonie Ravell's wallet whilst Leonie was out. Notwithstanding those matters, I consider her evidence was credible and I accept that she heard the offender Taber and Leonie discussing the making of an approach to the deceased to borrow money.
23 The offender Peter Taber denied any approach to the deceased for money, but whether there was an actual approach or not, the evidence does establish that at the time of the commission of the crimes on 7 January 2001 Peter Taber was short of money, and I am satisfied that he knew of the deceased and that she kept substantial sums of money in her house.
24 The offenders were very good friends who spent much time in each other's company. Ian Styman did work on computers and Playstations and, whilst he claimed to work long hours in his garage at home, he, too, seemed to be short of money. He had no funds in his bank account, although he claimed to keep money at home in the drawer where he kept his socks. He did assembly work with Peter Taber and from time to time each did security work. Ian Styman was drawing pension benefits, as was his wife.
25 There was an unsuccessful attempt to break into the deceased's home just before Christmas 2000. Constable Shepherd, who attended on the deceased, advised her to take security measures, and the deceased acted to have a security door fitted at the rear of her home. Mr Bennett attended to install the security door on 8 January 2001. Tragically, he was unaware of the deceased's plight as she lay bound and gagged a short distance from where he was working on the installation.
26 Shannon Styman was living at Old Erowal Bay in December 2000. He had a close relationship with his uncle, Ian Styman, and spent much of his time in Ian Styman's company. He refused to give evidence at the second trial, but the evidence that he gave at his own trial was introduced and he claimed he was recruited to join the two offenders in breaking into the deceased's home with a view to robbing her. He claims the proposed crime was discussed with the other offenders on 4 January, 5 January and 6 January. His evidence was that all three men entered the deceased's home where the deceased was bound and gagged in the manner I described earlier. He asserted that $23,300 in cash was found before the three men left 23 Spies Avenue. According to Shannon Styman, on the distribution of that cash Peter Taber took $14,000, Ian Styman received $7000 and Shannon Styman $2300. Of the $14,000 Peter Taber took, he gave half of that to Leonie.
27 The evidence establishes that it was Ian Styman who called 000 at 4.54 am on 7 January. Ian Styman gave the police operator a false account of what had happened. I refer to the evidence concerning the text of the conversation which he had with the operator:
"V2: No one there
V1: Hello
V2: Oh, Hello
V1: Could you send a car out please?
V2: Where to?
V1: Spies
V2: Where?
V1: Spies Avenue, Greenwell Point
V2: What's happening there?
V1: There was a couple of blokes that went in with guns, second house from the corner.
V2: What do you mean,…a couple of blokes went in?
V1: That went in the house, there's a little old lady there…
V2: Break and enter?
V1: I can't talk but there there here
V2: What, What number?…
CALL TERMINATED BY CALLER"
28 The call line indicator alerted the operator to exactly where the 000 call was coming from and the operator was aware that the caller was ringing from a position sixteen kilometres from Spies Avenue, Greenwell Point. Of course, Ian Styman lied to the operator concerning what he had claimed to have seen at Spies Avenue.
29 The 000 call was not acted upon by the police and the deceased was left in her helpless condition. The verdicts of the jury reflect that the jury rejected the submission advanced on the offenders' behalf that the making of the 000 call and the failure to respond to it broke the chain of causation. In my opinion the jury was correct to do so. The Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that the conduct of binding and gagging the deceased, and abandoning her in that condition was causative of her death.
30 I do not propose in these remarks to review in any detailed way the evidence in the Crown case.
31 Andrew Peake gave evidence concerning the activity and behaviour of the offenders on the day he claimed to have journeyed with them to Spies Avenue on what could be described as a reconnaissance mission. On that same day he claimed to have seen the two offenders using cable ties to secure the wrists the one by the other. The credibility of this witness was attacked by the offenders, and the attack may have created uncertainty as to whether the drive-around he described in December 2000, as the witness claimed, took place. He also gave inconsistent accounts about who he saw tying who with the cable ties. Nevertheless, it was well open to the jury to find the evidence to have been reliable in all material respects even if he was wrong about the date at which that happened.
32 There was a considerable body of circumstantial evidence pointing to the guilt of the offenders: there was evidence that each was in possession of substantial funds on 7 January and each had available old $100 notes. These notes were removed from circulation on 15 May 1996 (T 1059). The offenders each spent money on motor vehicles; Peter Taber to buy a Ford utility and Ian Styman to buy a Suzuki. There was a deal of evidence as to the moneys that became available to Leonie Ravell on and shortly after 7 January and the spending on items for the house at 211 Old Southern Road. $1700 was spent at K Mart alone on household appliances. Meegan Herne went shopping with Leonie Ravell about 14 January, and described Leonie's wallet as being "too fat to fold" (T 351). The witness said that the wallet was "full of old $100 bills", ½ - ¾ cm thick (T 351).
33 On 24 January 2001 a search warrant was executed at 211 Old Southern Road. In the course of that search warrant being executed, cable ties were found in the lounge room and rolls of duct tape in an unused state were found in the bedroom occupied by the offender Peter Taber. Further duct tape was found on the grass in the backyard and further duct tape was found scrunched up in the back of Peter Taber's utility. The tape in the utility was later straightened and closely examined. It was found to have coarse wool, consistent with carpet wool, adhering to it. That fibre had blood on it, which was described by the forensic scientist, David Royds, as being thoroughly infused into the fibre. Scientific evidence established that the blood found in that fibre matched the blood in the pillowcase that had been removed from the head of the deceased. DNA testing established that the blood on the pillowcase matched the blood of the deceased. According to the forensic scientist, Ms Sutton, the DNA profiles obtained from the pillowcase and from the blood-soaked fibre on the duct tape were indistinguishable from each other at ten regions of the DNA. Ms Sutton's unchallenged opinion was stated thus:
"It can be stated with ninety-five percent confidence that the true frequency of the DNA profile as identified from both items is between 1 in 13.6 billion and 1 in 39.1 billion in the general ACT population."
34 That, of course, is only a statistical figure, but what it does point to is the extreme likelihood of the blood found on the tape in the back of the offender Peter Taber's utility being the blood of the deceased.
35 I do not propose to review further the circumstantial evidence upon which the Crown relied. In my assessment, Shannon Styman's account of events was broadly consistent with the other evidence upon which the Crown relied.
36 According to Leonie Ravell, the offenders were in each other's company and the company of Shannon Styman on the evening of 6 January 2001 at 211 Old Southern Road prior to the time that she fell asleep shortly after 8.00 pm. The offenders were in each other's company early on 7 January, when, with Leonie Ravell and Shannon Styman, they set off for Sydney for the purchase of the motor vehicles. It was altogether understandable that the jury rejected the offenders' version as to what occurred overnight.
37 The offender Peter Taber gave evidence Shannon Styman appeared back at 211 Old Southern Road at 3.00 am or 4.00 am on 7 January, stating he had robbed a drug dealer. Peter Taber said that the appearance of Shannon Styman and his assertion prompted Peter Taber to ring Ian Styman and a meeting was arranged to consider what was to be done. Later, after Ian Styman joined the others at the appointed meeting place, Shannon Styman was alleged to have changed his account and to have given an account of the robbery at Spies Avenue. This in turn was claimed by both offenders in their evidence to have prompted Ian Styman to make the 000 call.
38 Both offenders claimed that Shannon Styman gave them substantial sums of money out of the proceeds of his crime. The offender Peter Taber asserted that whilst he was at a caryard in the company of Shannon Styman and Ian Styman on 7 January, Shannon Styman handed him a wad of cash folded in half, and according to Peter Taber he could not recall what Shannon Styman said at that time. A similar account was given by Ian Styman. He said that whilst he was in a caryard Shannon Styman gave him $5000 in cash, and when doing so said "Buy something decent and pay us back when you can" (T 1451). Plainly, and understandably, the jury rejected the assertions of the two offenders, on whose versions Shannon Styman was alone responsible for taking the money from the deceased.
39 The jury obviously disbelieved the evidence given by both these offenders and, in my opinion, they were correct to do so. The accounts given by both offenders were simply incredible. I hasten to record that neither offender is to have his sentence increased because of the evidence that he gave.
40 The Crown put the case on manslaughter in two ways: