The Queen v Giles [2014] VSC 210

2 You committed these offences in company with Christopher Leigh Coulter. Coulter was dealt with by Hollingworth J for the same charges of which you have been convicted. Coulter was found unfit to be tried by a jury on 10 September 2013 and, after a special hearing conducted under Part 3 of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997, he was found to have committed all of the offences charged, namely, one charge of murder, one charge of arson and two charges of theft. Her Honour subsequently determined that, there being no practical alternative to imprisonment and no services suitable or available in an 'appropriate place' as specified in the Act, a nominal term of 25 years should be imposed. No review period was specified.

3 At the time of the offending you were 24 years of age and are currently 26. Your cooffender, Christopher Coulter, was aged 18 at the time of the offending. He was assessed as functioning within the intellectual disability range, with an overall performance better than only 0.2% of his same aged peers.

4 The victim in this matter, Russell Hammond, was the oldest of three children and was 49 years of age, almost 50. You originally met Mr Hammond some years earlier when you were both involved in a work for the dole scheme, which he had begun after his return from Japan. You became the beneficiary of his generosity when he permitted you to share the accommodation of his home at Drysdale during the time that you had been homeless and having difficulties with your mother and siblings. The circumstances relating to that are that approximately five years before the murder of Mr Hammond, you had left home after some sort of dispute with your family. Mr Hammond allowed you to stay at his premises in the spare room and assisted you financially and in respect of things such as the use and obtaining of a computer. You stayed there for some time until your mother eventually tracked you down and you returned home to live with her. There was nothing sought by Russell Hammond from you in return for his kindness. After you returned home to live with your mother you had no further contact with Mr Hammond over a period of some years.

5 Subsequently some time in 2011, you saw Mr Hammond driving his motor car one day, in an area not far from your home, and he stopped his car to speak to you on that occasion, and apparently you spoke in a friendly manner about what you had both been up to since you had last seen each other. It is believed that you may have been to visit him once since that time, other than on the occasion of his death, but that is not a matter about which I can be certain.

6 On 5 January 2012, you, together with Christopher Coulter, left your mother's premises in Leopold, saying that you were going to the local service station to obtain some cigarettes, which was clearly untrue. You and Christopher Coulter, who was also residing at your mother's premises, being your sister Brianna's partner and father of her then unborn child, went to the bus stop and caught a bus from Leopold to Drysdale. You had with you at that time your backpack. It is not possible to state with certainty everything that was contained in the backpack, but I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that you had with you some materials which you intended to use in respect of the killing of Mr Hammond, as well as your computer.

7 You caught a bus to Drysdale and walked from the bus stop to the home of Russell Hammond. What occurred from that point on is, by necessity, a matter of circumstantial and inferential reasoning, in that you and Christopher Coulter both denied killing Mr Hammond, with each of you claiming in your interviews that you emerged from Mr Hammond's toilet to discover the other strangling Mr Hammond. It would appear, however, that when you knocked at Mr Hammond's house, he invited you both in, made you a drink and behaved in a friendly manner towards you. This was the situation in which he found himself; Mr Coulter, he did not know, and you were a person he would have considered a friend. You had with you rope, duct tape, all of which was similar to the material used to tie Mr Hammond up. At some point, you, and in all probability assisted by Mr Coulter, started choking Mr Hammond. I am unable to say whether he was tied up first or subsequent to the choking, but to a large degree that is irrelevant. Nothing had been done or said by Mr Hammond to in any way provoke or cause feelings of anger, outrage or any other possible motivation for your actions. This was a senseless, inexplicable, vile, random murder of another human being.

8 The body of Mr Hammond was placed in the boot of his Mercedes motor vehicle, which was stored in the garage under the house. You and Mr Coulter took from the house a laptop computer, a flat screen television and a wallet. From the garage you took two shovels and a can of petrol. You drove from Drysdale through Geelong to an isolated part of Corio, near to where Coulter lived with his father, and transported his body to the top of a hill in that isolated location, doused it in petrol and set it alight. You then drove back through Geelong to an area near your home a few hundred metres away.

9 You removed from the vehicle the items that you had stolen, being the wallet, the television and the computer, leaving the shovels and petrol can in the car. You doused the car in petrol and set it alight. The two of you then walked up the track to your home. The flat screen television was found in Mr Coulter's bedroom. Mr Hammond's wallet was found in your bedroom lying casually under some shelves.

10 In relation to this matter, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that this was a premeditated and planned murder on your part. You had previously had discussions with a young man with whom you had been friends for many years, about what could be described as odd and unusual matters, some of which were about killing innocent people, about going to gaol and wondering what gaol was like. Equally, and far more significantly, the police located in a file on your computer a step-by-step murder plan which had been created in November 2011, some two months or so prior to the murder of Russell Hammond. The document found on your computer was called "The Advocate document". It was an 18-step plan and corresponds in a breathtaking way to a large number of the steps that you took this night. I shall read only those that matched:

(2) Advocate makes an entrance (I omit what follows that, being "baseball bat to vic's kneecaps").

(4) Take vic's possessions, ie car keys, shovels, wallet.

11 What is not included are items (9) to (12), which detail the burying of the victim and the collecting of his skull. The victim does not have a name, it is just "vic". It is a chilling document, because it is a plan to kill an unknown, random person. Here, you killed a known person, albeit one you had not seen or had dealings with for many years. Whether this document was created before or after you met up again with Russell Hammond is something I am unable to determine.

12 The Crown put the case before the jury as being one in which you were either the perpetrator of the actual crime or you were party to a joint criminal enterprise to murder Russell Hammond and steal his property. Whilst I strongly believe that you are the person who did in fact strangle him, I am not in a position to say that I am satisfied of that beyond any reasonable doubt. Despite that, I am certainly satisfied to the required standard that you were the instigator of this plan, this decision to murder Russell Hammond, and that you did it just to see what it felt like. Equally I have no doubt that you were the leader and Coulter with his low-level intelligence was no more than a follower of you and your plan. I have no knowledge at all of Coulter's motivation, as I have not dealt with his circumstances at all. Your crime is callous, despicable and utterly devastating to both the Hammond family and the wider community.

13 Russell Hammond was a real person. One who was loved and who loved in return. You have taken his life wantonly and in the most callous and chilling way, just to see what it felt like. I am unsure whether it really fits the category of what some may call a "thrill kill", as I do not believe you have sufficient emotional awareness to even understand the feeling of being "thrilled". But regardless of that, I am satisfied that your crime falls into one of the higher categories of murder, requiring significant and appropriate punishment.

14 You then exacerbated your crime by taking his body away and burning it to such an extent that his parents were advised not to view his body, denying them the opportunity to at least say farewell to their son. It is hard to comprehend how a human being can do this to someone else. Snuff out a human life as though it was worth nothing. Kill someone just to see what it felt like.

15 You have caused devastation to the family and friends of Russell Hammond. They sat through the trial stoically. They gave their evidence before me about the impact that Russell's death has had upon their lives. You have a significant problem in respect of empathy, but anyone else in the courtroom would have understood clearly how bereft these people feel; his parents, his brothers, his friends and his colleagues. All of them have lost someone that they considered was special and important in their lives.

16 As a judge, you sit in court and listen, and observe the pain and the anguish of people such as Mr and Mrs Hammond and the other members of the family, and realise that there is nothing that you can do to ease their pain. No sentence I impose upon you will ever make it better for them, because nothing will return their son, brother or friend. You have taken from them someone that they loved. A quiet, unassuming man, living a happy and contented life, with many friends, employment he enjoyed and family he loved. To the family and friends of Russell Hammond, I want to say to you that you were fortunate to have such a son, brother or friend. One that you were able to love and cherish and be loved by, for all of his nearly 50 years. The appalling circumstances and manner of his death, I hope, will not be your major focus when you think about him, but instead you will think about the joy, pleasure and comfort he brought into your lives, rather than the tragedy of his death. He deserves that, and I hope the time will come that when you think of Russell or hear his name, you will smile at the remembrance of him, rather than remember your pain at the circumstances of his death.

17 I do take into account in sentencing you the Victim Impact Statements I have received in this matter, and although whatever sentence I pass may seem insufficient to represent their loss, everyone who is related to or cared about Russell Hammond needs to understand that the sentence does not, and does not pretend to represent, Russell Hammond's worth as a human being. It is the sentence that I impose, balancing, as I must, the many factors as set out in the Sentencing Act passed by the Victorian Parliament.

18 It requires equally that I have to take into account your personal circumstances. You are now 26 years of age. As I indicated, you were 24 at the time of the offences, having been born on 24 August 1987. You are one of four children. You have two older half-sisters and one younger half-sister. The older sisters, Janet and Michelle, were from an original relationship that your mother had, which ceased at some stage of which I am unaware. They are 29 and 30 respectively. Your mother then had a relationship with your father, Gary Ballis. Your father left when you were aged around two and returned, for a short time, in the final years of your primary school, for about a year on and off. You described your father as eccentric and peculiar, and there has been no ongoing contact. Your younger sister, Brianna, was born during your mother's remarriage to Brianna's father. He was involved in your family's life for approximately eight or so years and then your mother and your stepfather separated.

19 Your personal history, from the time you were young, is not a particularly happy one, in that you were clearly a different child. You described your family as cold and distant, without affection, and I recall noting at the time of your conviction that you were alone in the courtroom, unsupported by anyone, but I have subsequently received a letter from your mother which seems to indicate to me a considerable degree of affection for you. She describes you as having been a quiet person who kept a lot to yourself, and also described what appeared to be a significant act of bullying of you, whilst you were only in Grade 3, which involved you being whipped by older boys with bamboo.

20 You attended primary school in Newcomb and from Grade 2 at Leopold Primary. You reported to psychologist Patrick Newton that you had been "relentlessly bullied and harassed". You commenced dealing with this by starting to cut yourself. This was when you were still in primary school, but at that point it was predominantly scratches, but it became more significant cutting at a later age of your life. You had virtually no friends at school. You did not succeed at school academically and, apart from maths, you struggled significantly with your schooling. Despite this, you were promoted from year to year, ultimately attending secondary school at Newcomb Secondary College, completing Year 10, at which stage you left school. You developed very little in the way of friends from school. You participated in no extracurricular activities and you spent a lot of your time in what could only be described as social isolation. As indicated, you had one friend who lived nearby named Ryan Hall, with whom you would discuss some of the quite strange ideas that you had.

21 You have spent very little time in employment since leaving school, working as a kitchen hand, washing dishes for some three months, and then for some time later as a labourer. You have been involved with an organisation called "Matchworks" in Geelong, which is a disability employment service, who were attempting to overcome what was described as your "barriers to employment". You had little social contact, even within the family, preferring activities that were isolated or solitary, such as video games, reading fiction, theorising, and you were, very obviously, exceedingly introverted in terms of your interaction with others.

22 Various assessments had been sought relating to you over the period of the last few years. Assessments such as psychiatric, neuropsychological and neurologist's reports had all been suggested, but no such neuropsychologist or neurologist report was ever obtained prior to this offending occurring, despite the concerns of different people.

23 A report was prepared for this case by Mr Patrick Newton, psychologist, and tendered on your behalf. In paragraph 28 of that report dated 17 November 2013, after discussing your reactive depression at point 4, Mr Newton stated as follows:

1. Mr Giles' social difficulties are an entrenched and central part of his personality. They have been constant throughout his life from childhood to the present day. These difficulties have had such a profound effect upon his capacity to communicate with others that his treating doctor (and others) have questioned whether he may be suffering a form of brain damage. A comprehensive neuropsychological evaluation, however, definitively ruled this out.
2. In my opinion, Mr Giles' interpersonal deficits are best understood as the manifestation of a 'schizoid personality disorder' by DSM5 criteria. The main differential diagnostic possibility is an 'autism spectrum disorder', but Mr Giles' good intelligence would tend to rule that out.
3. Mr Giles is not suffering any active psychosis or thought disorder. His reality testing is intact on gross examination. Notwithstanding his idiosyncratic approach to the world, there is no evident defect in his capacity to understand the wrongfulness of his behaviour.

24 The neuropsychological report to which Mr Newton referred was a report from Mr Martin Jackson, clinical neuropsychologist, dated 25 January 2013. In that report, there were two references to you suffering from head injuries; the first being when you were quite young, a metal grate fell on your head, and secondly, whilst you were still in primary school, you ran out onto the road to get a ball and were hit by a car. You were not hospitalised on either occasion, and you believe that you blacked out for possibly one second in relation to the motor vehicle collision. He noted at page three of his report, in relation to assistance you received prior to this offending, that your support worker at Matchworks was particularly concerned about you, as you took a long time to respond to questions, or would often say you did not know, and she considered you had a poor memory, as she found it difficult to obtain information from you. As a result, she was of the view that you were in fact unemployable and should perhaps be placed upon the disability support pension. You were sent to see your general practitioner, Dr Stephen Wride, and as the report from the neuropsychologist states from that point:

[Dr Wride] also took the view that there must be some underlying pathology and initially referred him to a neurologist (Peter Batchelor). The neurologist said he should see a neuropsychologist and he was referred to Suzanne Brown. She wouldn't see him and said he should see a psychiatrist, so he was referred to Dr Brendan Marr at Mind Health. Dr Marr apparently said a neuropsychological assessment was indicated, so Dr Wride called Suzanne Brown, who placed him on her waiting list. As a result of this running around, he did not actually get assessed.

25 It is a sad indictment on our system. You told the neuropsychologist that you were a slow reader and that you often had to re-read the document you were reading to comprehend what was written. During that process of speaking to the neuropsychologist you had trouble finding the answer to general questions, but you considered you were much better when given a specific question. From watching the record of interview conducted by the police it became apparent that the specificity required by you is to the level of minutiae, and that you needed to drill down to the absolute core of what the question was asking. You told Mr Jackson that you had memory problems, that you had to be reminded about any appointment you had or you would forget, and that your mind had trouble working through things, which is why you like the questions to be so very specific.

26 The conclusions of the neuropsychologist, Mr Jackson, are to be found at pages 9 and 10 under the heading, "Opinions, Recommendations and Specific Questions". He is answering specific questions the first of which is: "Does Mr Giles have any cognitive impairment? If so, what is the likely cause of his condition?". His response to that was:

The results of the current neuropsychological assessment indicate that the vast majority of Mr Giles' cognitive skills (perceptual intellectual skills, verbal intellectual skills, processing speed, working memory, higher attention skills, new learning and memory, language skills and executive skills) were within the average to high average range. He had specific strengths (superior to very superior) in mental arithmetic, novel word pair learning and category fluency. The only mild weakness (lower average) that he had was his immediate memory span.

27 Under the heading, "Are there any other comments or recommendations?, he stated:

It is important to note that there is a clear discrepancy between Mr Giles' actual cognitive abilities (average to high average or better) and his past education and occupational achievement. He would be considered to have 'under achieved' considerably both at school (Year 10) and any employment (short term unskilled jobs) given his actual level of cognitive ability. There is also a discrepancy between his actual abilities and his presentation. This is evidenced from various sources such as his support worker at Matchworks (Malee), who was particularly concerned about his memory and felt he was unemployable and (that) he should be placed on the disability support pension (DSP). Also, his general practitioner (Dr Stephen Wride) felt that there must be 'some underlying pathology' and a neurologist (Peter Batchelor) and psychiatrist (Dr Brendan Marr) were concerned enough to suggest a neuropsychological assessment should be performed. Clearly, none of these perceptions are supported by his actual cognitive abilities. I am of the opinion that Mr Giles' 'problems' may lie in the area of personality. He described himself as a loner and that he has no friends. He doesn't like being in large groups. He reported interests that would not be considered mainstream, including wildlife, evolution, physics, psychology, philosophy, space and the supernatural."

28 As a result of the reports I had received, I requested a pre-sentence psychiatric report from Forensicare. This was provided by Professor Paul Mullen, forensic psychiatrist, on 15 January 2014. The Court had provided Professor Mullen with information relating to the offences and medical reports from his treating general practitioner, the neuropsychological assessment, the psychological assessment, multiple student reports relating to Mr Giles between 2000 and 2004, and a transcript of the medical notes covering Mr Giles' treatment whilst on remand.

29 Professor Mullen described you as an interesting man to interview. Your assessment of yourself and your life as reported by Professor Mullen is disturbing. It is overwhelmingly one of, in your view, rejection. You told him that the only two close relationships you had ever had were with a young niece and your dog. He reported on page 2 of the report that you had told him: "He does not describe either neglect or abuse. Simply a rather distant interaction, polite rather than affectionate in nature". That was in respect of your dealings with your mother, stepfather and siblings. You told him you were the object of systematic and violent bullying over many years, which you never reported to your mother or stepfather and, despite coming home with bruises, no-one at home ever asked how those bruises were acquired.

30 In terms of your friendships, you told Professor Mullen: "Mr Giles recounted a number of friendships with other boys of his own age during his school years. He said they would often spend considerable time together for a period, but after a matter of weeks or months the new friend would either leave or transfer their attention to others, returning Mr Giles to isolation. As a result, he said "he gave up on friendship". You have never had a relationship with a female that has lasted longer than a month, and the last of those being at least five years earlier. You informed Professor Mullen that you spent much of your time caught up in computer games or watching DVDs. Reading caused some difficulties because you would often find yourself distracted by a particular sentence over which you would puzzle as to the exact meaning, to the point that you lost sense of the book itself.

31 You listed the same types of interests to Professor Mullen as you did to Mr Newton. When Professor Mullen explored your interests in these areas, he found there was a vagueness and a lack of focus, in that you rarely sought information about these areas in which you espoused interest, but spent quite some hours thinking about them. Professor Mullen referred to your increasing cutting episodes, which had commenced when you were quite young. He stated at page 4:

Mr Giles was rather more able to discuss his experience of himself and his internal world than is usual. He stated that as long as he can remember he felt lonely and cut off from the world. As noted earlier, the only closeness he can remember is with a young niece and his dog. He said that on occasion, he was overwhelmed by what he called 'emotional pain'. This emotional pain he found difficult to characterise other than a sense of being lost and unable to make contact with the world of others. He said, 'I've been lost for most of my life'. His description of his internal world conveyed a sense of bleakness and emptiness.

32 Professor Mullen, at page 5 of his report, under the heading "Opinion", states:

Mr Giles despite his superior intellectual abilities in some areas failed academically and socially at school. He appears never to have made the transition from school to either work or further education. Similarly his functioning and interests seem not to have changed much over the last decade. If anything, there is a suggestion of a decline in his functioning. In his teens he did have periods of working in unskilled occupations and having sexual, if not particularly close, relationships with women of his own age. In recent years he has lived the life of a recluse in a bedroom in his mother's house. It does not appear he even use the social media opportunities available on the internet.

There are, in Mr Giles, indicators of considerable psychological and social problems. He has resorted to self-harm in the form of cutting his torso over many years. He has a history of suicidal preoccupations and an attempt.

More dramatic is his sense of being separated from other people and about the possibility of any true connection. This is not, he says, based on a sense of superiority to others, nor overt fear of them. The isolation he feels stems from an inability to maintain any sense of being able to understand others or to feel understood, by others.

...

... Mr Giles' eccentric interests, declining functions (from a very low starting base) and oddities of speech and emotional responsiveness raise the possibility of a disorder in the schizophrenic spectrum. I note Mr Newton considered him to have a 'schizoid personality disorder'. This is understandable as he does have some of the features described in the DSM5 category. The alternative would be the WHO International Classification of Diseases category of a schizotypal disorder. This is the less dramatic end of the schizophrenic spectrum in which obvious hallucinations and delusions are absent or marked, but in which there is the sense of being cut off from others, vague and often pseudo-philosophical preoccupation, declining interpersonal and social functioning and impairment of common sense and prudence.

The court may conclude that given Mr Giles is far more intelligent, older and knew the victim that he is more likely to have played the lead role in the killing. On the basis of what was found on Mr Giles' computer they may also consider the killing to have been an acting out of a fantasy or plan.

Should this be the situation it would raise concerns about the risk of a recurrence of such violence. The usual risk assessment tools and approaches would probably rate Mr Giles as having a low risk of reoffending. He has no prior criminal history. He has no history of threatening, violent or antisocial behaviour. He does not have marked psychopathic traits. He does not use or abuse either drugs or alcohol. The risk might be considered higher, however if he carried out a planned attack which had been generated over a long period of reflection and fantasising. Such crimes are rare. ...

One might speculate about long held resentments towards the victim based on what may have occurred when they lived together. Equally it is possible that Mr Giles has lived so long cut off from his own world that he lost a sense of the reality and implications of acting on murderous fantasies. Mr Giles is a highly intelligent man who has never been able to use his abilities effectively either in education or relationships. If he were to find an outlet in real intellectual attainments rather than pseudo-philosophical ruminations, this might make him less alienated from others. If he were to learn to interact with others and value their company this would, in my opinion, reduce any future risk of violence. There was some evidence in the interviews that he has, perhaps for the first time, made effective contact with at least two or three fellow prisoners. The very fact of being forced out of his bedroom into contact with others seems to have been beneficial. If Mr Giles has a disorder in the schizophrenic spectrum, as I suspect, he may become more withdrawn and eccentric as time passes, or with luck improve in these areas. Unfortunately the former is most likely. Should he deteriorate further it would be a tragedy for him but would reduce any risk there may be of violence towards others if not himself.

33 You, Mr Giles, are a most difficult sentencing conundrum. You are still young. You have no prior convictions. You have not behaved in the past in any antisocial manner. You have led, in the main, a quiet but reclusive life. You are highly intelligent, and one would have expected, capable of learning and understanding the mores and social values of this country. It is clear, however, from all of the material presented in this case, including your record of interview and the medical reports obtained and tendered, as well as your mother's letter, that you have an inability to understand or empathise with people on any ordinary, recognised level.

34 You have thought and talked about killing someone over a period of some time. You have then, at some stage, some months, at least, prior to this murder, sat down and prepared a plan on how you would go about killing someone. I am unable to say whether you had anyone particular in mind at the time you prepared that document or not. I am of the view that it matters little either way. Your discussions with Ryan Hall referred to what it would be like to kill an innocent person, and that was precisely who you murdered; an innocent man going about his normal life. The crime was entirely motiveless, except for your expressions to your friend about your curiosity and your desire to see what it felt like to kill, all of which makes you a person that in my view may be considered very dangerous to our community.

35 Considering one of the matters which I have to take into account is the issue of totality, as well as parsimony, I should say that there will be no cumulation for the more minor offences of which you have been convicted as I consider the crime of murder which you committed and the sentence necessary to impose for that crime, will be sufficient total punishment for the criminality which you engaged in on that day. The serious circumstances of the murder will result in a very significant sentence and if such a sentence was cumulated upon the other sentences imposed the totality of the sentences would, in my view, be excessive. It is important that the penalty for the charge of murder of which you have been convicted demonstrates the seriousness with which the Court views your criminality for that offence.

36 Pursuant to the Sentencing Act there are many factors which I must consider when determining the appropriate sentence to impose for the crimes that you have committed. Section 5 of the Act sets out the purposes for which sentences may be imposed including just punishment, deterrence both specific and general, rehabilitation, denunciation and protection of the community. All of those purposes have a role in the sentences that I have to impose in your case. General and specific deterrence have an obvious role, in that behaviour of this type must be denounced in the clearest possible manner in the expectation that you, and others considering such actions as yours, may be deterred from following through on whatever ill-conceived fantasies or musings they have indulged. Yours is also a case where protection of the community is an active consideration, and I will give that matter some weight in the sentence I will impose. In relation to the prospects of rehabilitation, I find it difficult to know where you will fall in that area. I do not presume you to have no prospects, but they are certainly and unfortunately not high prospects of being rehabilitated.

37 I am also obliged to consider the maximum penalty for the offences, which in the case of murder is one of life imprisonment, arson 15 years and theft 10 years. I also have to consider current sentencing practices, the nature and gravity of the offending, your level of culpability and responsibility for the offences. I am also bound to have regard to the impact of your offending on any victim of the offence both physically and emotionally. I need to consider your own character, whether you pleaded guilty and any aggravating or mitigating factor.

38 In this case you contested the trial and have not expressed any remorse for your behaviour. That is not surprising as you maintain that you did not kill Russell Hammond, nor do you have any real understanding or genuine feelings of empathy towards other people. You will not be punished for that, but you will fail to attract any reduction for remorse or a plea of guilty in the sentence that I will impose.

39 I have dealt with the matters relevant to the Sentencing Act that I have outlined earlier in my sentencing remarks, and I will not repeat those matters. They relate to your personal circumstances, your mental processes and issues, the nature and gravity of the offending and your culpability, including the aggravating factor of the desecration of Mr Hammond's body. Equally I have considered the mitigating factor that your time in prison may be more burdensome than others by reason of your personality issues, and depression, although the depression at least appears to be resolving to a degree. I am aware of current sentencing practices within Victoria for the offence of murder, and I am equally aware that the sentence I am imposing is one that is higher than the median sentence for murder. I have thought long and hard before imposing such a sentence on a person of your age and background but have concluded that no other sentence is applicable taking into account all of the circumstances to which I have referred in these rather lengthy reasons.

40 Accordingly, you are convicted and sentenced to be imprisoned for 26 years for the charge of Murder of Russell Hammond, 1 year imprisonment on each of the charges of theft and 18 months' imprisonment on the charge of arson. I declare that such sentences are to be served concurrently, making a total of 26 years.

41 I declare that you are to serve a minimum of 21 years' imprisonment before being eligible for parole.

42 I declare that the number of days you have served in pre-sentence detention is 840 and that they be noted in the records of the court.