Regina v Wright

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES CRIMINAL DIVISION

1 HER HONOUR: On 23 August 1999 the prisoner, David John Wright, was arraigned on an indictment charging him with the murder of Geoffrey Compton at Riverwood on 16 October 1996. To this indictment he entered a plea of guilty to the manslaughter of Mr Compton which was accepted in full discharge of the indictment. I am informed that the basis upon which the plea was accepted was one of manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act. It is upon this basis that the prisoner will be sentenced. 2 On the evening of 16 October 1996 Geoffrey Compton was drinking at the Riverwood Inn, Riverwood. It appears that he was intoxicated and his behaviour towards a number of patrons of the hotel was disruptive. At about 9.30pm the prisoner became involved in a verbal altercation with the deceased. The prisoner did not initiate this incident. It led to the two of them leaving the hotel and going outside to the carpark where they started fighting. At one point the deceased was seen to be holding the prisoner in a headlock and punching him about the head. During this fight the prisoner stabbed the deceased with a knife which he, the prisoner, was carrying. The deceased suffered four stab wounds, one to the ear, two small wounds to the groin area, and the fatal wound, a 20 millimetre wound to the heart. It was while the prisoner was seen to be being held in the headlock that other patrons came over and separated the two. The prisoner walked off in the direction of Bonds Road. It was not clear at that time that the deceased had received a fatal injury. Patrons of the hotel held the deceased over a car bonnet in the immediate aftermath of the fight and attempted to calm him. 3 At the time of his death Geoffrey Compton was aged 23 years. He was the father of an infant boy, Brett. He came from a very close family who have been devastated by his loss. I have received victim impact statements prepared by Dawn Compton, his mother, Michael O'Driscoll, his stepfather, Bernadette Le-Anne Compton, his sister, and Darren Compton, his 11 year old nephew. The court extends its sympathy to the Compton family who have suffered the tragic loss of a son, brother and uncle who was much loved and who formed an important part of family life. 4 I note the approach adopted to the receipt of statements pursuant to s 23C(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 by Hunt CJ at CL in Regina v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76 at 85. I have applied that approach in the instant case. 5 The prisoner was aged 31 at the date of the offence and is now 34. He appears to have had a relatively unremarkable childhood. He was raised in a family where there was some conflict between both parents but they made an attempt to keep this from him. He was particularly close to his mother. When he was a young man his parents separated and his mother moved to Queensland where she remarried. The marriage was an unhappy one characterised by violence towards her. The prisoner has shown a caring concern for his mother. When she decided to leave her second husband he helped her move back to Sydney. In 1986 she suffered a disabling stroke and the prisoner has been endeavouring to look after her since that crisis. 6 The prisoner is described as having had a normal psychosocial development not characterised by any problems in engaging in social relationships. 7 He left school in Year 9 and commenced working with Eastway Wire Works doing welding work. He was only 14 years and 10 months at this time. He left that employment for a better job at Scanlons Sweets where he worked for three years. At the age of 18 he obtained employment with the Sydney City Council. He started off as a street sweeper but progressed to become a mechanical plant operator. He enjoyed his job, he made friends and remained with the council for nearly nine years. This employment came to an end in early 1991 when he was imprisoned following his conviction on a charge of robbery with wounding. 8 The prisoner was released from custody in 1993. Prior to release he had been working with Hearne Body Works under the day-release work program. He appears to have been a good employee and the firm offered him full-time employment upon his release. He remained in that employment until the end of 1994. He left Hearne Body Works to work as a nurses aid in a nursing home. Following this he was employed by Linfox as a truck driver. While engaged in this employment he was hospitalised following an injury to his foot. This was in late 1995. 9 The prisoner did not resume employment after discharge from hospital. He was unemployed at the date of the offence. I accept that the prisoner has generally been an adaptable and hard working individual. 10 The prisoner met his first girlfriend, Dorothy, when he was 14 years old. They were later to form a defacto relationship and lived together for 17 years. They have two children, Garry who is 17 and Corey aged 5. The prisoner maintains a close relationship with Corey. He sees less of Garry who is presently seen to be making his own way in life. 11 It appears that when the prisoner was aged about 24 he and a friend experimented by taking some liquid amphetamine. The prisoner had not previously used this drug although he was a regular user of marijuana. While under the influence of the amphetamine he committed the offence of robbery with wounding. I have been furnished with some material concerning that offence. It occurred on 30 September 1990 and involved the robbery at knife point of the proprietor of a milk bar in Cabramatta. In the course of the robbery one of the victims took hold of the prisoner and sustained a laceration to his mouth area and to his right index finger. On 24 May 1991 the prisoner was sentenced to an overall sentence of three years penal servitude comprising a minimum term of two years and three months and an additional term of nine months by the presiding judge at the Liverpool District Court. 12 Among the materials before me is a report of Dr Robert Lewin dated 6 May 1991 which appears to have been before the court at the sentence hearing on the robbery matter. Dr Lewin detailed the prisoner's account of long term problem marijuana use. Otherwise, the doctor detected no signs of an antisocial personality. He had regard to the prisoner's background of stable employment and relationship and considered that it was unlikely that the prisoner would re-offend. 13 Following his release from custody in 1993 the prisoner encountered a number of difficulties. Dorothy had become involved in a relationship with another man while he was in custody. The couple made attempts to preserve their relationship but ultimately they separated in 1996. Dorothy now lives with the other man. The break up in the relationship with Dorothy occurred only a matter of months after the prisoner's mother suffered her stroke. There is evidence before me which I accept that the prisoner was profoundly affected by both incidents. 14 Not long after his release from prison, at a time when the prisoner and Dorothy were fighting over her affair, he moved out of home for a while into accommodation with some male friends. It was at this time of crisis in his life that he commenced using heroin. He appears to have been a heroin user for a period of four yours. Ultimately he decided to enter the Langton Clinic detoxification program. He was motivated to overcome his drug problem in order to properly care for his mother. On first admission to the Langton Clinic he left following the detoxification phase without completing the after care component. He subsequently sought re-admission as soon as the mandatory "ten day re-admission turnaround" period had passed, and successfully completed the program some two weeks prior to the commission of the present offence. 15 The prisoner told Dr Devlin, psychologist, that while on remand he had been abusing various prescription medications. At the time Dr Devlin assessed him he presented as despondent and gave a history of suicidal thoughts. He described himself as being depressed and complained of poor sleep and generalised anxiety. He was suffering obsessive thoughts in relation to the offence. 16 On 24 September 1996 the prisoner was the victim of an assault. He had been spending time with a woman named Petina. Her boyfriend became jealous, believing that the two were having a sexual relationship. It appears that the boyfriend made threats on several occasions to the prisoner, saying, among other things, "I know where you live". Ultimately the boyfriend is said to have carried out the threat and to have struck the prisoner across the face with a crowbar. Details of the prisoner's injuries are set out in the notes of the St George Hospital which were tendered on the prisoner's behalf. The prisoner's assailant smashed the headlights of his car and warned him to stay away from Petina. It was after this incident that the prisoner started to carry a knife as a means of protection. 17 On the day of the killing the prisoner was drinking alcohol in the company of some other men. I have been assisted by a report prepared by Assistant Professor Starmer, pharmacologist, concerning the probable level of his alcohol consumption. The Professor based his opinion on the statements of the various witnesses who were present at the hotel on that evening and the prisoner's account. It is not necessary to detail the contents of the Professor's report. Suffice to say I accept his opinion that the prisoner was at the time of the killing grossly affected by alcohol. The prisoner does not have a history of alcohol abuse. His consumption on this occasion was, I accept, uncharacteristic. 18 The prisoner gave an account to Dr Devlin that he had few memories of the night of the offence. He was not able to recall any verbal altercations with the deceased prior to the fatal fight. He says that as he was leaving the hotel the deceased followed him to the door. They arrived at the door simultaneously and he, the prisoner, became frightened. Once outside he recalled the deceased had grabbed him and placed him in a headlock and was punching him in the vicinity of the jaw and the head. Dr Devlin said this in her report: "... it is quite possible that he was hypervigilant to the potential for serious harm being done to him and that the attack brought about memories associated with the previous assault and that he overreacted as a result." 19 Dr Devlin was cross-examined at some length. I was impressed with her. Her report was based upon two interviews with the prisoner. In total she had spent about five hours with him. She had gone back on the second occasion with a list of questions to take up with the prisoner. She struck me as a careful and thorough psychologist. Her qualifications are impressive and include a background in policing. She assessed the prisoner as having been frank in his interviews with her and I accept that assessment. 20 Dr Devlin considered that during the fight with the deceased the prisoner had what she described as "an exaggerated sense of danger". I accept this evidence and propose to approach the sentencing of the prisoner upon this basis. It was Dr Devlin's view that the prisoner's exaggerated fears for his safety, arising out of the earlier attack, made the present offence qualitatively different to the earlier robbery matter. 21 Generally, it was Dr Devlin's opinion that the prisoner presents a greater threat to himself than to others. He was severely depressed in her view and suicidal when she spoke to him. She assessed the prisoner's prospects of rehabilitation in these terms: "(they) are reasonably good if he can get some psychological assistance, psychiatric assistance, or something of that nature specifically targeting relapse prevention". 22 The prisoner is presently involved in a relationship with Sarah-Jayne Van Sydam. Prior to being taken into custody on remand the two were living together. Ms Van Sydam comments on her observations of the prisoner's concerns about his mother's illness. She describes the prisoner as being generally responsible in the conduct of his family life. 23 A letter from the prisoner's mother, Mrs Maralyn Lowe, attests to him as a devoted and caring son. Dr Grahame Browne, a Fairfield general practitioner who has been treating the prisoner, described him in this way: "David presents as an anxious but friendly young man interested in progressing with his life. He is afraid of being attacked in gaol and worries about his mother's poor health. He has developed a stable, loving relationship and his drug dependency problem is well managed." 24 It is to be noted that whilst in custody on remand following his arrest in relation to this matter the prisoner was assaulted. He was apparently hit on the head from behind. He was not able to say with what he was hit. He lost consciousness for a period. He was examined by medical staff attached to the Corrections Health Service who observed lacerations to his scalp and several areas of contusion involving the left forearm, right index finger, right ribs and upper lip. He was placed in protective custody following that assault. 25 I was referred to a number of cases involving the sentencing of offenders for manslaughter: Regina v Taouk (unreported, CCA, 20 March 1992); Regina v Azar (1991) 56 A Crim R 414; Regina v Owen (unreported, CCA, 5 June 1996); Regina v Sofokleous (unreported, CCA, 13 December 1993); Regina v Bryant (unreported, CCA, 26 June 1999) and Regina v Lamb (unreported, Hidden J, 20 March 1998). 26 In Regina v Blacklidge (unreported, CCA, 12 December 1995) his Honour Gleeson CJ in a judgment, with which Grove J and Ireland J agreed, observed: "It has long been recognised that the circumstances which may give rise to a conviction for manslaughter are so various, and the range of degrees of culpability is so wide, that it is not possible to point to any established sentencing tariff which can be applied to such cases. Of all crimes, manslaughter throws up the greatest variety of circumstances affecting culpability."

27 I must have regard to the consideration that the unlawful taking of a human life is always to be viewed as a serious crime. The respect for and protection of human life is a primary objective of our system of criminal justice; R v MacDonald (unreported, NSWCCA, 12 December 1995). 28 I accept that the prisoner was not the aggressor at the commencement of the incident which led to the death of the deceased. The accounts of the witnesses Peter McCaw and Adrian Newman suggest that the deceased in his intoxicated state was harassing a number of patrons of the hotel. It appears from Mr McCaw's statement that the deceased was being somewhat aggressive towards the prisoner during a verbal exchange inside the hotel. Marc Jones, another patron, attempted to reason with the deceased and was abused by him. The witness Dean Velovich described the deceased as being aggressive and drunk at the time of the incident. On his account there had been verbal altercations between the prisoner and the deceased on several occasions inside the hotel. In each instance it was the deceased who commenced the incident. Mr Velovich had on one occasion taken the deceased aside and unsuccessfully sought to quieten him down. 29 In the light of the evidence of Dr Devlin I accept that the prisoner had, in the weeks prior to this incident, taken to carrying a knife for the purposes of his own protection. Notwithstanding the earlier robbery offence, in the light of the evidence of Dr Devlin, and having regard to the prisoner's background of stable employment and relationships, I am prepared to accept that he is not a person generally given to violence. 30 Notwithstanding the circumstance that the prisoner had taken to arming himself with a knife for reasons of self protection, the fact that the offence was carried out with a knife remains a matter of aggravation: Regina v Azar; Regina v Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58. 31 I take into account the prisoner's plea of guilty. 32 I consider that the present offence occurred spontaneously against a background involving the prisoner being grossly affected by alcohol. The circumstance that he was not a regular drinker to my mind means that the alcohol intoxication does not aggravate the offence. 33 I consider the offence is mitigated by my acceptance that the prisoner was not the aggressor and that he entertained genuine, if exaggerated, fears for his safety following the assault upon him weeks earlier by a person armed with a crowbar. 34 Notwithstanding the prisoner's criminal record I am of the view that he has reasonable prospects of rehabilitation. 35 I was invited to find special circumstances within the meaning of s 5(2) of the Sentencing Act 1987 arising out of the evidence of Dr Devlin as to the prisoner's need for professional support in the nature of counselling targeting relapse prevention. The Crown joined in this submission commending it as an appropriate course in the light of that evidence. I do find special circumstances justify a departure from the statutory relationship between minimum and additional terms. 36 The prisoner was arrested on 18 October 1996. He was refused bail and remained in custody until his release on bail granted by a Justice of this Court on 26 March 1997. I remanded him in custody on 23 August 1999 when he entered his plea. I propose back-dating the sentence which I impose to 23 August 1999. I consider that an appropriate sentence in the circumstances of this case is one of seven years comprising a minimum term of four years and an additional term of three years. I intend reducing this to take into account the period of five months and eight days already served on remand in relation to this offence alone. 37 David John Wright, I sentence you to serve a minimum term of three years and six months and twenty-two days penal servitude to commence on 23 August 1999 and to expire on 16 March 2003. I impose an additional term to commence on 17 March 2003 and to expire on 13 March 2006.

Last Modified: 11/17/1999 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.