REGINA v William Harold MATHESON [2006] NSWSC 332 | Case summary

William Matheson, the offender, was born on 10 August 1982 and was thus three years older than Lyndsay. He was a skilled cellist, and obtained work as a musician whenever it was available. He and Lyndsay first met on 13 April 2001 when Lyndsay's mother married her stepfather, David Pleasance. Matheson was playing the cello as part of a string quartet which performed at the wedding. A friendship developed between the two of them which gradually became closer and more intimate. On all accounts, however, it was an unusual type of relationship. They rarely, if ever, went out on normal dates. Lyndsay at that stage was living with her mother and stepfather in Carrington Road, Queens Park. The offender was living in Coogee. They used to regularly go out late at night and take long walks together, returning in the early hours of the morning. 4 At the same time, Lyndsay was developing a close relationship over the Internet with an American, Brandon Leonard. They both became so involved in this relationship that Brandon proposed marriage to her in June 2003. When she accepted, he posted her a ring which arrived in July. Brandon himself then arranged to come to Australia. He arrived in Sydney on 9 September, a few weeks after Lyndsay had commenced working for Disney Toons. 5 The impending arrival of Brandon Leonard meant that Lyndsay was forced to do something about her relationship with William Matheson. She discussed this with her sister, Louise Betts. Two days before Brandon's arrival, she told Matheson that she did not want to see him any more. She did not tell him about Brandon Leonard. However it did not take long for Matheson to find out about Brandon. Within a very few days of the latter's arrival, Matheson followed Lyndsay near her workplace when she and Brandon were walking arm in arm. He later discovered that they were engaged.. 6 It is clear that Matheson's attitude toward Lyndsay changed dramatically when he realised that there was another man in her life. Whereas previously their relationship, although close, had been a relatively casual one, he became intense and obsessive. He told Lindsay's sister Louise that he could not live without her. He started to follow her around and was often seen waiting outside her workplace at lunchtime or when she was due to finish work. In current parlance, he was clearly stalking her. 7 On Friday 21 November Lyndsay told her mother how concerned she was about Matheson. She said: "Mum I don't know what to do about Will, he won't leave me alone and I'm getting very frightened. I don't know what to do about it." 8 At about lunchtime, on Saturday 22 November Matheson went with his father to the Bondi Junction Shopping Centre where he purchased a very large cricket bag at the Rebel Sports Store. This bag assumed great significance during the trial, and I will be returning to discuss it later. 9 In the meantime Lyndsay's relationship with Brandon Leonard had flourished. They were living together in an apartment directly behind the home where her mother and stepfather, Cynthia and David Pleasance lived. It was planned that the two of them, Lyndsay and Brandon would go to the United States for Christmas. Lyndsay was very excited about this. 10 On the morning of Monday 24 November 2003 Lyndsay went to work as usual. At lunchtime, when she left the Disney building with work friends, William Matheson was waiting outside. Lyndsay spent about ten minutes with him and then rejoined her friends. That evening she left work at the normal time, about 5.30, and took a train to Bondi Junction. She started to walk home from the station. Matheson was waiting for her outside the Cock & Bull Hotel, not far from the station. He later said that they walked together towards her home and then parted company near Queens Park, a few blocks from her home. He himself then walked across Queens Park, and went straight to his own home. That night he played the cello in a concert at the Entertainment Centre. Others who were there with him described him as acting quite normally. 11 Lyndsay Van Blanken was never seen alive again. When she failed to come home that night and her mobile phone did not respond to calls, the police were called in. By Wednesday 26 November the matter was being treated very seriously. That day the police conducted an electronically recorded interview with William Matheson who described his movements on the Monday and confirmed that he had last seen Lyndsay at the corner of Edmund and Victoria Streets, Queens Park, which was not far from her home. He was asked about his relationship with Lyndsay and he said that he was naturally upset when she broke it off, but that they had remained friends since then and had seen each other at least once a week. He said that Lyndsay seemed perfectly normal when he last saw her. She was very excited about her proposed trip to the United States with Brandon Leonard. 12 All police investigations as to the whereabouts of Lyndsay Van Blanken proved fruitless until 10 January 2004. On that day, complaints from residents of an apartment block at 52 Queens Park Road, Queens Park, that there was a very bad smell in the building, finally led to investigations being conducted. In a storeroom off a car park on the ground floor of the building a large cricket bag was discovered containing the heavily decomposed body of Lyndsay Van Blanken. Cable ties were found around her neck, indicating that the cause of death was strangulation. 13 When William Matheson heard of the finding of Lyndsay's body he became extremely disturbed. On 12 January he was admitted to the "Kiloh" Unit, which is the Psychiatric Unit of the Prince of Wales Hospital. He was in a state of great distress: weeping and incoherent and talking about suicide. He was diagnosed as suffering from possible schizophrenia and/or possible schizotypal personality disorder, accompanied by depression. He was placed on medication for these conditions but it took some time for his condition to stabilise. 14 It was not until 22 March that Matheson's treating psychiatrist said that he was fit to be interviewed by the police. The police attention was focussing on him at that point, because of the cricket bag in which Lyndsay's body had been found. Inquiries revealed that only one bag of its type had been sold in the whole of Sydney's Eastern Suburbs in the previous six months. That bag was sold from the Rebel Sports Store at Bondi Junction on 22 November 2003 at precisely the same time as William Matheson was in the area, having been driven there by his father. His father had told the police that when his son returned to the car he was carrying a large sports bag. 15 On 22 March 2004, a further electronically recorded interview took place between Detective Sergeant Doueihi and the offender William Matheson. He repeated the account he had given earlier of his movements on 24 November, the day Lyndsay went missing. The police then asked him about the sports bag which he had with him when he rejoined his father on 22 November. Matheson said that he had found it in the street, and he described the precise location where he said he had found it. However film that was taken on a security camera outside the Cock & Bull Hotel at Bondi Junction clearly contradicted his version. This film footage assumed central importance in the trial, for it pointed convincingly to the fact that the bag which was carried by the offender when he got into his father's car was the bag which had been purchased only a few minutes earlier at the Rebel Store, being the same bag which was later found to contain the body of Lyndsay Van Blanken. Moreover, it showed that Matheson had lied about how he had acquired this bag. 16 A few days later, on 26 March 2004, the police took Matheson on a "walk through" to the locations at Bondi Junction where he said he had found the sports bag and the point where he said he had parted from Lyndsay on the evening of 24 November. He said that after leaving her, he walked straight across Queens Park. Later evidence showed that this would not have been possible, as sports games were taking place on the park at the time. Very significantly, he said that he was familiar with the apartment building at 52 Queens Park Road, Queens Park as he and Lyndsay used to go there and spend some time in one of the storerooms. The room he described was different from the storeroom in which Lyndsay's body was located. 17 On 31 March 2004 Matheson requested that he be re-interviewed by the police. In this interview he told them that he had experienced auditory hallucinations for a number of years. Voices ordered him to harm or kill people and also to harm himself. He denied however that any of these voices related to Lyndsay Van Blanken. Specifically he denied that the voices had ever told him to harm her. He said that he had never told anyone about these voices because he did not want people to be nervous around him. He told his parents about them for the first time on 11 January 2004, the day before his admission to the Kiloh Centre. He said he had heard these voices for about six years but had never acted on them as he did not want to hurt anybody. He would go out and walk the streets or sleep in parks rather than stay home and risk burning the house and harming his parents, as the voices were telling him to do. 18 Only a small part of this interview was placed before the jury at the trial. The defence had objected to evidence relating to the accused's mental state going before the jury, and after a voir dire hearing relating to this material I ruled that its prejudicial effect exceeded its probative value and that it was not to be admitted. 19 On 19 May 2004 Matheson was arrested and charged with the murder of Lyndsay Van Blanken. He has been in custody ever since. 20 The Crown case at trial was dependent upon circumstantial evidence, as Matheson had consistently denied his guilt. The purchase of the sports bag was the most powerful single piece of evidence against him, but there were other matters linking him with Lyndsay's death. These included the fact that he was later found to be in possession of Lyndsay's art diary, a book which her mother and sister both said she kept with her at all times. There was also evidence of unusual scratches and other markings on his body immediately after 24 November 2003. In addition there were audio tapes and writings made by Matheson. These indicated the extent of his obsession with Lyndsay Van Blanken. Some of them also appeared to reveal knowledge that Lyndsay was dead, although they were made before her body was located. The cumulative effect of all this evidence made for a strong Crown case, and it was not surprising that the jury brought in a verdict of guilty. 21 I turn now to say something about William Matheson himself. Most of this comes from the psychiatric and psychological reports which were tendered on sentence. He described himself as having had a relatively happy childhood and a "wonderful" relationship with his parents. Nevertheless, there were some very disturbing events during his childhood. When he was nine, his brother, his only sibling, who was then seventeen years old, committed suicide by jumping off the top floor of the Price of Wales Hospital. It is understood that his brother was suffering from schizophrenia. Matheson's parents also have a history of psychiatric problems. His father, a retired school teacher, was said to have a schizotypal personality disorder and his mother also suffers from a form of personality disorder. Following her older son's death, she was involuntarily committed to a psychiatric institution for a period of time. The household has been described as extremely disorganised. 22 William Matheson did his secondary schooling at the Waverley College. On all accounts it was a difficult time. He was the butt of some serious bullying and clearly felt himself to be an outsider. Although he was said to be above average intelligence, his scholastic results were generally poor to average. He remained at school for his Higher School Certificate but obtained quite a poor result. The one field in which he excelled was music. His mother was an accomplished cellist and he also was very skilled in this instrument. 23 After leaving school Matheson obtained a job as an apprentice doing panel van conversions but he was not interested in this work and he left it after about six months. He has had no full time work since then, but has played the cello in orchestras or groups when called on to do so. 24 When he was about thirteen or fourteen years old Matheson had a period when he took cannabis in quite large doses. It seems that the onset of his auditory hallucinations commenced not long after he ceased taking this drug. He has no other history of substance abuse. 25 Matheson has continued to take anti-psychotic and anti-depressive medication throughout his time in custody. He was placed into protection within a few days of going into custody and is likely to remain there for the foreseeable future. He has been maintaining his studies in music and Latin and has had regular visits from his parents. 26 Two psychiatrists gave evidence on sentence, Dr Michael Giuffrida and Dr Stephen Allnutt. Dr Giuffrida interviewed Matheson at Silverwater on 8 March 2005 and again on 3 January 2006. The doctor had been provided with the major documents in the prosecution brief, including the medical records from the Kiloh Centre relating to Matheson's presentation between January and March 2004. The doctor provided the defence lawyers with two lengthy reports dated respectively 16 March 2005 and 13 January 2006. 27 Dr Giuffrida noted a marked improvement in Matheson's mental state on the second time he spoke to him. In March 2005 Matheson had presented as cautious and vague with a remarkably poor recollection of events and times in the past and a significant paucity of understanding as to the meaning and significance of issues. In January 2006 Dr Giuffrida noted that he was relaxed, polite and co-operative and not at all guarded or cautious as he had been previously. On this occasion he was able to provide a clear and coherent account of his history. Dr Giuffrida found no evidence of thought disorder or cognitive impairment. He considered that Matheson suffered from schizophrenia. This had responded reasonably well to medication but a number of the symptoms were continuing. Dr Giuffrida assessed Matheson's risk factor as being 22 out of 40. 28 Matheson has always maintained his denial of killing Lyndsay Van Blanken and he asserts that he has no memory of anything unusual happening between the two of them on the evening that she went missing. Given that he had already been convicted of Lyndsay's murder by the time Dr Giuffrida wrote his second report, Dr Giuffrida posited in that report two psychological mechanisms which he said might account for Matheson's amnesia about the killing. The first related to the illness of schizophrenia, and the second to the horrific nature of the events themselves, which could lead to amnesia, even in persons not suffering from psychosis. 29 Dr Giuffrida was called by the defence on sentence. During his evidence he was told about the evidence that the accused had bought the sports bag in which Lyndsay's body was later placed, only two days before the killing, and had then lied about how he had acquired the bag. I asked the doctor how that form of preparation, two days earlier, could sit with the killing being the product of a psychiatric illness. Dr Giuffrida answered that that would "tend to go against the likelihood that there was a psychotic mechanism involved in the killing." The doctor did not resile from his opinion that Matheson was suffering from schizophrenia at the time (or, at the very least, a schizotypal personality disorder), but said that this degree of planning was inconsistent with him being severely psychotic, as a severely psychotic person's capacity to organise and plan is impaired. Matheson's schizophrenia might have impaired his judgment and affected his decision making processes, but it could not be put higher than that. 30 Dr Stephen Allnutt, a forensic psychiatrist, did not believe that Matheson's psychiatric condition was as serious as diagnosed by Dr Giuffrida or that it played any causative role in the killing of Lyndsay Van Blanken. Dr Allnutt saw Matheson on three occasions in February and March 2006 and provided the Crown with a lengthy report dated 9 March 2006. In his report, and again in his evidence, Dr Allnutt expressed scepticism about the diagnosis of schizophrenia in Matheson's case. He preferred a diagnosis of schizotypal personality disorder. I do not propose to explore this difference in diagnosis in any detail. As Dr Allnutt pointed out, it is a difference of degree only, namely the point on the spectrum of mental health where the offender lies. There is no doubt that Matheson lies towards the disturbed end of the spectrum. Precisely where he lies on that end is, in my view, of not great significance in the circumstances of this case. This is because, as Dr Giuffrida conceded, the offender's illness, if it was that, did not have a significant causative effect upon this killing. The most that can be said is that it might have led to some impairment of judgment, a matter which Dr Allnutt strongly disputed. 31 As Dr Allnutt pointed out, the ERISP between the police and Matheson on 26 November 2003 provided significant insight into Matheson's mental condition less than two days after the killing. Dr Allnutt said that he saw in that interview little or no evidence that would lead him to believe that Matheson was suffering from a major mental illness. Matheson dealt with questions as to what might have happened to Lyndsay in a manner that Dr Allnutt said showed "quite excellent judgment" given that it was Matheson himself who had killed her, and he therefore had to be dissembling in his answers. Dr Allnutt pointed out that later on the night of the killing Matheson went home, got changed and went to the Entertainment Centre where he played the cello in a public performance. The doctor could find no evidence to support the conclusion that he was suffering from an impairment of judgment at that time. 32 In my view Dr Allnutt's analysis is very compelling. In the end, I find that whatever psychiatric condition the offender was suffering from at the time had little causative effect upon this killing. It might have and probably did produce some impairment of judgment, but its ameliorating effects were of a minor order only. 33 Where does all this lead to in the sentencing process? The sentencing legislation requires that the court first set a non-parole period and then the balance of the sentence which, in the absence of special circumstances, is not to exceed one third of the non-parole period. The standard non-parole period for the crime of murder is twenty years. This is applicable to offences in the middle of the range of objective seriousness for the crime in question. The objective circumstances of this case must, in my view, put it in the more serious range. Lyndsay's killing was clearly premeditated and planned. Both the buying of the sports bag and the preparation of the cable ties with which she was strangled, bear testament to this. It is therefore difficult to see it as a "crime of passion", as urged by the defence. The killing itself was brutal and cruel to the extreme. The cable ties used to strangle Lyndsay were such that, once in place, they could only be tightened. It was impossible to loosen or release them. We will never know the ruse by which Matheson lured Lyndsay to the place where she met her death. Once there, when she realised what was going to happen, one can only start to imagine the horror she must have suffered. It is a horror which haunts her mother and her sister to this day, as attested in their very moving victim impact statements. 34 I should say that I have taken those statements into account, but in accordance with the legislation I have not used them in determining the sentence in this matter. 35 All these matters lead me to conclude that the objective circumstances of this killing brings it above the mid-range of seriousness, even for the crime of murder. This is, however by no means the end of the matter. I am also obliged to take into account aggravating and mitigating features under s 21A of the relevant legislation and under the common law. The aggravating features under s 21A which are relevant to this case (and which are not inherent in the charge of murder) are, under paragraph (c), that it involved the use of a weapon, and under paragraph (n) that it was part of a planned or organised criminal activity. 36 There are no mitigating features whatsoever in relation to this offence. However there are a number in relation to the offender himself. He is still a very young man, only twenty-three years old. He was a person of prior good character with no record of previous convictions. Whilst his mental disorder may have had little causal relationship with this killing, it is still a highly relevant matter in relation to other aspects of the sentencing process, particularly relating to risk factors and to his need for continuing treatment and supervision. In this regard it is worth noting that Matheson's presentation has visibly changed since his first ERISP in November 2003. In later ERISPS his affect has been much flatter, and he has put on a great deal of weight. I can only assume that this is the product of the medication he has been taking. 37 Imprisonment is particularly harsh for this offender. Since very shortly after going into custody he has been kept in protection, and he is likely to remain there for most of, if not all, of his sentence. His present regime allows him only about two hours each day outside his cell. 38 Assessing the offender's risk factor is a very difficult exercise given that we know so little about what motivated him to carry out this brutal and apparently senseless killing. Dr Giuffrida assessed it in the middle range, and in the absence of any contrary evidence I think I should accept this as generally correct. There is no doubt that Matheson will need to continue his medication, probably for the rest of his life. This, if nothing else, provides "special circumstances" which entitle me to vary the normal proportion between the non-parole period and the total sentence, so that his medication regime can be supervised for a significant period after his return to the community. 39 The objective seriousness of this killing is, as I have already said, above the mid-range of seriousness even for an offence of murder. On the other hand, the mitigating features relating to the offender personally, as opposed to the offence, require a significant reduction in what would otherwise be the appropriate non-parole period. Balancing all these features I consider that a non-parole period of eighteen years, should be applied in his case. The head sentence is to be twenty-seven years. 40 WILLIAM HAROLD MATHESON for the murder of Lyndsay Van Blanken I sentence you to a non-parole period of eighteen years to commence on 19 May 2004 and to expire on 18 May 2022. The balance of your term of imprisonment will be nine years, expiring on 18 May 2031, a total sentence of twenty-seven years.

REGINA v William Harold MATHESON

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (14 paragraphs)

Parties

Cited By (1)