The Queen v Albury [2004] NTSC 59

The Queen v Albury [2004] NTSC 59 - NTSC 2004 case summary — Zoe

[13]

1. A 6.5cm irregular laceration with a surrounding rim of abrasion was present in the right posterior parietal area running almost vertically. This terminated at a 5cm oblique laceration situated above and behind the right ear.

2. A horizontal 1.8cm laceration surrounded by an irregular wide rim of abrasion present just above and in front of the upper right ear.

3. An almost vertical laceration with surrounding abrasion was situated in the region just lateral to the right rim of the eye running upwards and slightly backwards.

4. A 4.5cm laceration running obliquely forwards and laterally situated on the left crown of the head.

5. A 2.3cm parallel laceration of similar appearance was situated approximately 2cm lateral to this.

6. A 5cm laceration with surrounding irregular abrasion started almost at the external occipital protuberance and ran upwards and to the left.

7. A similar 3.3cm laceration and abrasion ran parallel to this and approximately 1.5cm to the right of it.

8. A 5cm almost horizontal laceration and abrasion was situated approximately 1cm below the external occipital protuberance and ran to the left.

9. There was an irregular deep laceration with central tissue loss involving the outer half of the left eyebrow region.

10. There was an irregular laceration and abrasion of bursting type situated just above the midpart of the right eyebrow, extending to a point lateral to this.

11. There were diffuse abrasions with deep crushing injury involving the left temple and the area between this and the outer left eyebrow.

12. There was light abrasion scuffing of much of the rim of the left ear.

13. There was downward scuffing abrasion of the inner right cheek and similar injury just below the eye.

14. There was a 3.0 x 0.6cm deep incised wound extending from the region of the left nostril almost to the left angle of the mouth.

15. The tip of the nose and the lower part of the right bridge of the nose were absent showing signs of having been cut off.

16. There was abrasion and bruising of the entire area of the upper and lower lips.

17. There was an area of heavy roughly transverse bruising involving the entire area of the lower front of the throat with a contained shallow incised wound on the lower left side. This tapered up towards the midline.

18. There was diffuse ill-defined bruising in a wide band surrounding the abraded area extending down to the level of the collar bones and up as far as the underside of the jaw bone.

19. There were an irregular series of shallow incised parallel injuries extending from the region of the sternal notch approx two thirds of the way down the sternal body.

20. There was a heavy vertically scuffed abrasion involving the front of the left shoulder from the inner part of the lower clavicle area almost as far as the point of the shoulder. The front prominence of the shoulder had totally lost its skin cover.

21. There was a long curved shallow incised wound which ran across the chest from the right side into the region of the left armpit.

22. There were a series of vertical patterned abrasions and lacerations involving the upper part of the right breast and extending down on to the nipple region. The nipple had been excised.

23. There were a series of criss-cross shallow incised wounds, some running almost vertically and others running almost horizontally, involving the upper half of the left breast. The nipple was cut but still present.

24. A series of small injuries of similar appearance to the previous ones were present in the area between the breasts.

25. There was a 3cm deep incised injury approximately 7cm long and gaping to 2.5cm present in the left inguinal area. This was associated with an irregular series of shallow almost parallel incised wounds. Some of these ran transversely across the lower abdomen and the other major series ran almost vertically or obliquely down the left thigh. These extended almost to knee level and totalled approx 22 injuries.

26. There was a shallow laceration which had undergone postmortem change due to ant-biting present on the back of the left upper thigh.

27. There was a heavily abraded injury of the back of the left elbow.

28. There was an irregular scuffed abrasion at the junction of the middle and lower thirds of the left shin."

[14]

[12]

On internal examination, the pathologist found moderately heavy bruising underneath the external scalp injuries together with a small bone flake related to the laceration of the right supra-orbital rim. The bone flake was not significantly displaced. He found both subarachnoid and subdural haemorrhages. The haemorrhages were light and of generalised distribution.

[13]

The left side of the deceased's jaw was fractured and the inner aspect of both upper and lower lips were heavily lacerated and bruised. The hyoid larynx area was bruised as was the thyroid gland. There was extensive local haemorrhage of the anterior neck musculature.

[14]

The right eye had been removed from its socket. There was extensive local haemorrhage in that region. There was no evidence of the use of a sharp instrument in connection with the removal of the eye.

[15]

The deceased's left lung was bruised as was her liver.

[16]

The pathologist found abrasions on the right and left of the labia minora which he described as tearing type injuries not associated with any bruising or haemorrhage. The pathologist expressed the view that any hard blunt object could produce such an injury.

[17]

The deceased's anus was lacerated both anteriorly and posteriorly. The lacerations were not associated with any evidence of haemorrhage or the presence of seminal fluid. The pathologist expressed the view that any hard blunt object could have produced such injuries.

[18]

The absence of swelling or haemorrhage associated with the vaginal and anal injuries suggested very strongly to the pathologist that circulation had ceased at the time the injuries were inflicted. In his view, the deceased was either in the process of dying or already dead when those injuries were inflicted.

[19]

The deceased's left fourth to eighth ribs were fractured on the outer side more or less from the region of the left armpit downwards. The fractures were not associated with any external injury such as bruising or abrasion.

[20]

There were no signs of any defence injuries.

[21]

The pathologist expressed the view that multiple injuries were the cause of death. In his view no particular injury was a fatal injury. He described the assault which caused the injuries as a "fairly long one" and expressed the opinion that the deceased had probably died towards the very end of the assault.

[22]

In the context of injuries caused either when the deceased was dying or after death, the pathologist identified the slash wounds, particularly those on the breasts and legs. The pathologist expressed the view that these injuries had occurred fairly late in the assault. By way of contrast, the head, face and neck injuries, including the injury to the right eye, were associated with a considerable amount of bruising and swelling and were, in the opinion of the pathologist, inflicted fairly early in the assault.

[23]

The respondent murdered the deceased late in the evening of Friday 25 November 1982. It appears that he was heavily intoxicated. When interviewed by police on 26 November 1983 the respondent made full admissions.

[24]

The respondent told police that he approached the deceased in Mitchell Street and that he and the deceased walked to the vacant lot next to Lameroo Lodge. They had a conversation, the details of which the respondent was unable to recall. According to the respondent, after about five or ten minutes he "stood up and killed her".

[25]

The respondent referred to the deceased as a "gin". He said he did not know why he went with the deceased to the vacant lot.

[26]

The respondent described kicking the deceased in the body, neck and head. He said he kicked her as hard as he could, but it was not very hard because he kept falling over. He kicked her all over the body and then punched her a few times.

[27]

The respondent then described grabbing a broken stubby bottle and slashing the deceased with the jagged edges. It is unnecessary to canvass the details of those particular admissions.

[28]

The respondent said he "ripped" the deceased's eye out and "took off". He said he put his finger in the eye socket. He threw the eye away.

[29]

The respondent was asked about his reason for removing the deceased's eye:

[24]

[34]

As to matters personal to the respondent, he was born on 20 November 1961 and was, therefore, aged 22 years at the time of the murder. He had limited education reaching only grade 7 at a primary school in Darwin. According to information provided by the respondent's mother to the investigating officer, at the age of about 15 or 16 years the respondent became uncontrollable and was placed in a boy's home for nearly a year.

[35]

In 1979 the respondent was employed as a contract pet meat shooter for nine months. Before and after that employment he spent periods on the dole. In 1981 he joined the army. The respondent told the investigating officer that he could not accept the discipline and faced a number of disciplinary charges. According to the respondent, in October 1981 he threatened to shoot one of his officers. He was discharged on 7 December 1981.

[36]

The respondent also told the investigating officer that he had a hatred of persons of Aboriginal descent. He said he believed in the ideals of the Ku Klux Klan.

[37]

On 17 June 1984 the respondent was examined by a psychiatrist. The report of the psychiatrist sets out the respondent's personal history in some detail and it is unnecessary to canvass that history.

[38]

As to the respondent's attitude to Aboriginal persons, the respondent told the psychiatrist that when younger he and his friends often pursued Aboriginal persons with sticks and beat them. The respondent spoke in disparaging terms about persons of Asian descent. He expressed a dislike for Aboriginal persons and for persons he described as "wogs and homosexuals".

[39]

The respondent professed little interest in sex. He told the psychiatrist "you go out and fuck a woman, I go and have a fight". The psychiatrist described the respondent as becoming restless and looking uncomfortable when asked about specific sexual aspects of the incisions upon the deceased's body. The psychiatrist reported that the respondent eventually evaded the issue and dismissed it as accidental, rather than a deliberate occurrence.

[40]

The respondent told the psychiatrist that he viewed killing people as "about the same as thumping on a cockroach". Asked about his wish to commit aggressive acts, he dismissed the question by saying "I don't particularly want to kill people - if it happens, it happens." When asked about one of the answers in his interview suggesting there might have been a thought of killing the deceased when he saw her, the respondent replied:

[41]

[57]

The hearing of the Director's application commenced on 26 July 2004. At the conclusion of submissions by counsel for the respondent, counsel conveyed a request from the respondent that the respondent be permitted to address the court directly. The respondent was connected to the court by video link and through that medium spoke for some minutes in a calm and rational manner.

[58]

In substance, the respondent said that if he was released from prison he would kill again. He said that everybody knows that he will never be released and that he will be a risk forever.

[59]

I have no doubt that the respondent was making a calm and rational self assessment of his own condition and of the likelihood that he would kill again if released. When the hearing subsequently resumed, there was no attempt by the respondent to lead evidence or persuade me that his self assessment was inaccurate or exaggerated.

[60]

On 27 July 2004 the applications were adjourned to enable further material to be obtained. On 3 August 2004 the court received a letter from the respondent addressed to me. The respondent wrote that he was rejecting his solicitor's advice in writing the letter and that he was writing it as a "tenderable legal document" which could be used by the court.

[61]

In the letter the respondent stated that he had murdered three people, including the deceased Ms Pindan. He wrote of crimes other than murder that he had committed and said that when he committed the other crimes he intended to kill the victims. The respondent wrote that he accepts full responsibility for what he has done and that he deserves never to be released.

[62]

The respondent wrote of everyday needs which he requires to make his life tolerable. These were the types of matters about which the respondent spoke when addressing the court directly. Both the letter and the respondent's address to the court demonstrate vividly the dreadful consequences of lengthy periods of imprisonment.

[63]

The respondent wrote that he was dealing in reality and not fantasy land. In the respondent's words:

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (60 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (2)

Cases Cited (3)