 |
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION
AT NEWCASTLE
No:70094/00
CORAM : O’KEEFE J
DATE: 8 November,
2001
REGINA v
KATHERINE MARY KNIGHT
SENTENCE
HIS HONOUR :
INTRODUCTION 1 Katherine Mary Knight (the prisoner) was
arraigned on 2 February, 2001 on a charge of having murdered John Charles
Thomas Price (Mr Price) at Aberdeen in the State of New South Wales on or
about 29 February 2000. She pleaded not guilty. The trial was initially
fixed for 23 July, 2001 but was adjourned due to the illness of her
counsel. She maintained her plea of not guilty and the trial was re-fixed
for 15 October, 2001.
2 There was some minor delay in the
actual commencement of the trial because of the need to augment the jury
panel. This arose because of, inter alia, the nature of the case and the
possible adverse effects on the members of the jury of the graphic and
disturbing evidence to be called in the trial. Members of the augmented
jury panel were warned of the problem and given an opportunity to be
excused if they felt that the nature of the material to which they would
be exposed would be likely to cause them physical or other harm in the
course of the trial or serious on-going upset. Counsel for the prisoner
and the Crown then sought a short adjournment to enable discussions to
take place between them concerning the possibility that the prisoner may
plead guilty to the charge of murder. I indicated that in view of the
nature of the injuries inflicted by the prisoner on the deceased and the
voluminous psychiatric evidence proposed to be called, there would need to
be an up-to-date medical assessment of the prisoner which demonstrated
that she was fit to plead before I would be prepared to accept a plea of
guilty in the matter. Such an examination was carried out and a report
prepared. It demonstrated unequivocally the ability of the prisoner to
understand the effect of a plea of guilty by her to the charge of murder
and the possible consequences which could flow such a plea.
3 On 18 October 2001 the prisoner
was formally charged with the murder referred to above and entered a plea
of guilty to such charge. The plea was accepted by the Court and a
conviction of murder was recorded. The matter thereafter proceeded as a
sentence hearing, but because of the nature of the crime and the need to
determine a number of issues of fact, both the Crown and the defence
called a good deal of evidence, both lay and psychiatric.
THE ONUS AND STANDARD OF PROOF
4 The decision of the Court
on sentence is an important matter for a prisoner, often no less important
than the decision as to the prisoner’s guilt or innocence. As a
consequence the standard of proof in a sentencing hearing is the same as
it is at trial, namely proof beyond reasonable doubt. This standard
applies to any disputed facts which are not covered by the verdict or plea
of guilty. In Regina v Storey
(1997) 89 A Crim R 519 a specially
constituted Court of Criminal Appeal in Victoria confirmed this statement
of the law. Winneke P, Brooking and Hayne JJA and Southwell AJA said:
“the judge may not take facts
into account in a way that is adverse to the interests of the
accused unless those facts have been established beyond reasonable
doubt. On the other hand, if there are circumstances which the
judge proposes to take into account in favour of the accused, it
is enough if those circumstances are proved on the balance of
probabilities” (at 530) 5 In determining what factors are adverse to the
interests of the prisoner and what are favourable, the Court must ask what
the tendency of the fact is in the particular case under consideration. As
was said in Regina v Storey
(supra):
“’Aggravating’ and
‘mitigating’ must be understood in a wide sense and without, eg,
drawing the distinction which might be drawn between the
significance for another purpose on the one hand of a circumstance
which renders the crime more serious (eg, the use of a weapon) or
on the other hand of a prior or subsequent conviction.
The test is not what tag
should be applied to any particular fact but what use the judge
proposes to make of the fact in relation to the offender. If it is
a use adverse to the interests of the offender then proof beyond
reasonable doubt is required; if it is a use in favour of the
offender then proof on the balance of probabilities will suffice.”
And
“We have spoken of disputed
’facts’ … there may be a large number of facts which it is
contended demonstrate a relevant conclusion. Just as on a trial
the Crown does not have to prove every fact on which it relies
beyond reasonable doubt in order to conclude that the offence is
proved, so too on sentencing, attention must be directed to the
relevant issue and it is the issue that must be established to the
requisite standard – not each of the individual facts which is
said to bear upon the issue” (supra at 531 – 532)
6 In dealing
with the sentence to be imposed upon the prisoner in this case I have
applied the law as set out above.
7 Mr Price was killed late on the night of 29
February 2000 or during the very early hours of the morning of 1 March
2000. His death was as a result of multiple injuries to various organs of
his body, secondary to multiple stab wounds.
8 The post mortem examination
revealed that Mr Price had been stabbed at least 37 times in various parts
of both the front and back of his body. There may have been more wounds
inflicted, but the extent of those found and the subsequent acts of the
prisoner in relation to Mr Price’s body rendered it impossible to know how
many more there may have been and in particular the number of wounds which
may have been inflicted in the area of his neck.
9 Many of the wounds were deep, and
extended into vital organs. These included the aorta, both lungs, the
liver, the stomach, the descending colon, the pancreas, and the left
kidney, the lower pole of which had virtually been sliced off.
10 The wounds inflicted on Mr Price
and the injuries which they caused resulted in the loss of a great deal of
blood. This was found splattered and smeared throughout various parts of
the house and in a pool, which was quite deep, and measured 1 metre x 2
metres. This pool was in the hallway of Mr Price’s home. At the time the
police arrived on the morning of 1 March 2000 the blood in it was not
fully congealed and had dried only at the edges.
11 The blows which inflicted the
injuries to Mr Price were in a pattern that spread from the upper part of
his body to his buttocks and below and had been struck with some
considerable force by a knife which had a long blade. A butcher’s knife
which answered such a description was found adjacent to the Mr Price’s
body. In addition, a butcher’s steel for sharpening knives was found on a
lounge chair next to his body. A sharpening stone was also found. It was
open on a bench in the kitchen, quite close to the sink and stove. It had
clearly been used.
12 An examination of the blood
stains, their differing characteristics and pattern of occurrence in
various parts of the house, establish that Mr Price was first attacked by
the prisoner in the principal bedroom of the premises at a time when he
was in a recumbent posture. The wounds then inflicted were to the front of
his body and it is clear that thereafter he got off the bed after, or as,
some further injuries were being inflicted on him in the course of his
attempts to escape from his assailant, the prisoner. He escaped from the
bedroom and moved down the hall in order to get outside the premises but
was pursued by the prisoner, who stabbed him in the back a number of
times. Whilst in the hallway he tried to switch on the light. At that time
he was heavily blood stained both front and back and appears to have then
had further stab wounds inflicted to the front part of his body. In the
course of his endeavour to escape Mr Price reached the front door and
opened it and, as is apparent from the blood stains on the outside knob of
the front door, he succeeded in getting outside the house. However, he did
not remain outside and was either dragged or, as is much less likely, came
back into the house and fell in the hallway quite close to the open
doorway that leads into the lounge room in which his body was later found
by police.
13 That he lay in the hallway for
some time is manifest by the considerable volume of blood found in the
pool in the hallway .
14 After he had been dead for some
time his body was dragged by the prisoner from the hallway into the lounge
room. That he had been dead for some time before this occurred is
demonstrated most graphically by the photographs which show the smearing
of blood caused by the moving of his body, especially by the thighs,
buttocks and thoracic area of his back which were in contact with the
floor. Those photographs and the evidence relating to them and the events
surrounding the death establish without doubt that at the time Mr Price’s
body was moved the blood in the pool was not fully fluid and thus did not
flow in to fill the gaps caused by the movement of the body.
15 I am satisfied that at the time
the prisoner dragged Mr Price’s body from the hallway into the lounge room
it was, subject to the wounds which had been inflicted and to which I have
already referred, still entire.
16 Thereafter the prisoner, who had
for many years worked as a meat slicer in abattoirs, skinned Mr Price’s
body. This was carried out with considerable expertise and an obviously
steady hand so that his skin, including that of the head, face, nose,
ears, neck, torso, genital organs and legs, was removed so as to form one
pelt. So expertly was it done that, after the post mortem examination, the
skin was able to be re-sown onto Mr Price’s body in a way which indicated
a clear and appropriate, albeit grizzly, methodology. One small segment
was left in place – the skin on the left upper chest.
17 At some time after Mr Price had
been skinned the prisoner hung his pelt on a meat hook on the architrave
of the door of the lounge room, where it remained until it was later
removed by investigating police.
18 As is apparent from the fact that
his head and neck were removed as part of one entire skin, Mr Price’s head
was in place at the time he was skinned. However at some time between the
time when the body was moved into the lounge room and skinned and about a
time before 7.30 a.m. on 1 March 2000 the prisoner decapitated Mr Price’s
body and at some stage arranged it with the left arm draped over an empty
soft drink bottle, and the legs crossed. This was said in evidence to be
an act of defilement demonstrating contempt for Mr Price’s remains.
19 The evidence of the Medical
Examiner establishes that the decapitation was effected at the C3/C4
junction and was done with a very sharp knife. The removal was clean and
left an incised type wound. To remove Mr Price’s head in such a way
required skill, which was consistent with the skills acquired by the
prisoner in the course of her work as a meat slicer. It also required a
steady hand at the relevant time.
20 Not only was Mr Price’s head
removed but parts of his buttocks were also sliced off. The excised parts
of Mr Price were then taken by the prisoner to the kitchen and at some
stage, after she had peeled and prepared various vegetables, she cooked Mr
Price’s head in a large pot together with a number of the vegetables she
had prepared so as to produce a sickening stew. The contents of the pot
were still warm, estimated to be at between 40 and 50 degrees centigrade,
when examined by police during the mid-morning of 1 March 2000. This
supports the conclusion that the cooking of Mr Price’s head took place at
a time into the early morning of 1 March 2000.
21 The pieces which had been cut
from Mr Price’s buttocks were baked in the oven of the premises by the
prisoner together with other of the vegetables she had peeled. The
gruesome steaks were then arranged on plates together with the vegetables
which she had baked and left as meals for the son and daughter of the
deceased, accompanied by vindictive notes to each in the handwriting of
the prisoner. A third piece was thrown on the back lawn, whether for
consumption by dogs or for some other purpose is not revealed in the
evidence.
22 In her record of interview taken
late in the morning of 4 March 2000, the prisoner claimed that she had no
recollection whatsoever of the events involving Mr Price’s death:
“Q.… Kathy, I am investigating
the death of John Price, known as Pricey to a lot of people in
Aberdeen, on or about Wednesday, the 1st of March this year. I
have reason to believe that you may be the person responsible. Is
there anything you can tell me about that matter?
A. I don’t know
anything on it.
Q.
Can you recall, recall the last thing that you remember.
A. The last thing I
remember was going out for tea with me daughter and the kids,
coming home.” (Q.44-45)
…
“Q… do you recall
going into Pricey’s at all?
A. I really don’t know nothing.” (Q.52)
23 A little
later in her record of interview she was asked:
Q. Can you just take me to the
last thing you actually recall which is the Tuesday the 29th
February?”
She answered:
“The last time I recall was I
don’t know about your dates, but I went inside and watched a bit
of TV” 24 The
interview then continued:
“Q. Right, was Pricey there?
A. M’mm
Q. Do you, can you
tell me where he was.
A. Not particularly.
Q. And do you
remember anything else after that.
A. No.” (Q.185- 188)
25 The
prisoner also claimed not to remember anything of the aftermath of the
killing. However, somewhat later she gave a detailed description of events
involving sexual intercourse between her and Mr Price on the night of and
shortly before she killed him and on 2 March 2000 she gave a history of
taking two of the nerve tablets that had been prescribed for her and some
of Mr Price’s blood pressure tablets. This must have been before Mr
Collison went to Mr Price’s house shortly after 7 a.m. and also before the
police came at about 8 a.m. Nonetheless, she claimed in her record of
interview on 4 March, 2000 that she has no recollection whatsoever of the
events which resulted in his death or of the skinning she carried out or
of in the decapitation she performed or of the cooking of parts of the
deceased which she undertook. I shall return to this claim to amnesia
later in the course of these reasons.
26 The circumstances of and
surrounding the killing of Mr Price can thus be seen to be horrendous.
Indeed they go far beyond the experience of any of the professional
people, including experienced psychiatrists, that were involved in the
case. A number of police officers who were highly experienced in examining
crime scenes found the need to take stress leave because of the situation
with which they were confronted when examining the crime scene at Mr
Price’s house. Objectively the circumstances mark the killing and its
accompanying incidents as being of the most gruesome kind, the murder as
being in the most serious category of that crime.
27 Mr Price had married in April 1973, but had
separated from his wife in January 1988.
28 There were two children of that
marriage. According to his wife Mr Price had never been violent, even when
affected by alcohol. She said their separation had been because they “were
not really completely compatible” and that, notwithstanding the long
separation, he had sought a reconciliation on many occasions and remained
a good provider. At the time of his death Mr Price and the prisoner were
in a de facto relationship, as they had been intermittently for a period
of some four to six years. It had been less than tranquil. Indeed on a
number of occasions in the past there had been arguments between them in
the course of one of which the prisoner stabbed or slashed Mr Price on the
left chest with a knife. I shall return to the prisoner’s relationship
with Mr Price later in these reasons.
29 As was her entitlement, the
prisoner chose not to give evidence. As a result there is no sworn
testimony to support the contentions by her as to her childhood and
earlier life or as to her various relationships. However, in her
interviews with the various psychiatrists she gave a history of having
been one of eight children, six of whom were boys and one of whom was a
twin sister. Her history included that one, possibly two, of her brothers
had sexually abused her when she was young and that there was a suggestion
that on one occasion her father may have engaged in activity suggestive of
some sexual connection with her. However, she was unable to provide any
details of the events involving her brothers which gave rise to doubts in
one of the psychiatrists about the authenticity of such allegations.
30 Her marital and de facto
relationships had all proved to be unsatisfactory. In 1974 she married
David Kellett. Two children were born of this marriage, which broke up in
1984 or thereabouts. She claims to have been physically abused by her
husband and that he was unfaithful to her as a result of which she claims
to have had a nervous breakdown. In a statement made by him, David
Kellett, who was at the material times a truck driver, denied any
incidence of violence on his part. He said, ”I never raised a finger
against her, not even in self defence. I would just walk away”. He
described the prisoner as “being unpredictably violent.” He further
recounted an event on their wedding night in which she choked him by
grabbing his throat because of what she perceived to be the comparative
inadequacy of his sexual performance. He said that at a later time not
only had she attacked him with an iron but on one occasion he woke one
morning with her sitting on his chest in bed holding a meat knife to his
throat and saying: “ You see how easy it is” and asking “is it true that
truck drivers have different women in every town?” He denied any such
infidelity. She also burnt his clothing.
There was no cross-examination of
Mr Kellett on his statement although an opportunity for
cross-examination was afforded to counsel for the prisoner. Furthermore
there is no evidence either in the Crown case or in the case mounted on
behalf of the prisoner to gainsay Mr Kellett’s statement. His evidence
was not challenged in address. I accept Mr Kellett’s evidence as the
more correct version of what occurred in the marriage. In particular the
evidence establishes violent, vindictive, vengeful acts on the part of
the prisoner directed at her spouse.
31 The prisoner also complained about mistreatment
at the hands of her de facto husband, David Saunders, whom she met and
with whom she formed a relationship with in 1987. One child, a daughter,
was born of this relationship in June 1988. She claimed that Mr Saunders
also treated her very badly and was violent to her. In particular she
claimed that on one occasion he had kicked her in the stomach at a time
she thought she was pregnant, as a consequence of which she got a knife
and went immediately into the back yard and as an act of revenge cut the
throat of Mr Saunder’s eight week old puppy whilst Mr Saunders was
watching. On a later date the prisoner damaged Mr Saunders car. It was at
about this time that she took an overdose of sleeping tablets and was
admitted to a psychiatric hospital.
32 During the course of this
relationship the prisoner took out a number of Apprehended Violence Orders
against Mr Saunders and, according to one of the prisoner’s daughters,
there was violence by Mr Saunders towards her mother.
33 Mr Saunders made a statement
which was tendered in evidence. He was not cross-examined on this
statement although the opportunity for such cross-examination was also
afforded to counsel for the prisoner. His evidence was not challenged in
address. In his statement he claims not to have been keeping company or
sleeping with any other women at the time he was in the relationship with
the prisoner, although she constantly accused him of such behaviour.
Furthermore, he denies the incident of kicking as alleged by the prisoner
and claims that although the relationship was “ basically good” the
prisoner did take out domestic violence orders against him. However, he
says, “it was me that was being assaulted”. In particular he instances an
occasion when she stabbed him in the right side of the stomach with a pair
of scissors and another when she cut all his clothing into small pieces,
leaving him with only the clothes he was then wearing.
34 Whether Mr Saunders was the
aggressor in the relationship is not able to be resolved satisfactorily on
the evidence before the court. However, what is clear and uncontradicted
is that there were a number of violent and vengeful acts by the prisoner
towards Mr Saunders and his property and these included an instance in
which a stabbing instrument was used to inflict injury and another in
which she killed a puppy by cutting its throat as an act of malice and
revenge directed at Mr Saunders.
35 Her next relationship was with
John Chillingworth. It commenced in 1990 and a son was born in March 1991.
Again, the prisoner had nothing good to say about this partner and the
relationship broke up after some three years. Although the prisoner claims
to have been assaulted by Mr Chillingworth on many occasions, as is
recorded by Dr Milton, the available records do not support her claims.
Furthermore, in a statement made by John Chillingworth he denies violence
to her, except on one occasion when she snatched his glasses from his face
and broke them in front of him. It should, however, be noted that for a
time Mr Chillingworth was addicted to alcohol. Mr Chillingworth’s
statement was not the subject of cross-examination nor challenged in
address. Mr Chillingworth’s statement reveals a number of spiteful and
vindictive acts, including the smashing of his false teeth because it was
claimed that he had smacked one of the daughters of the prisoner – a claim
which he denies. The relationship between Mr Chillingworth and the
prisoner came to an end in December 1993 which was some two years after he
had given up alcohol and become a regular member of Alcoholics Anonymous.
36 Again, it is not possible to be
dogmatic about the exact relationship between Mr Chillingworth and the
prisoner. However, it is clear that she engaged in spiteful, vindictive
and vengeful behaviour when she felt, whether with or without
justification, that she had been slighted by her partner.
37 According to the prisoner her
relationship with Mr Price began some six years before his death. That
would place the commencement of the relationship in about 1994. According
to the prisoner she lived with Mr Price for about two years then broke up,
but then went back to live with him after some period apart. Mr Price’s
son, Jonathan, fixed the time of the commencement of relationship as about
1995 or 1996. Whatever the actual date of commencement of the
relationship, the evidence shows that it was less than stable and had been
neither continuous nor tranquil. There were incidents of violence on the
prisoner’s part and on Mr Price’s part as well. During the course of the
relationship she engaged in a number of acts of spite and violence towards
him. One of these involved the prisoner making a video, with an
accompanying commentary, of a first aid cabinet and some other items which
Mr Price had taken from his place of employment. At a later date, as a
result of Mr Price doing something which displeased her, the prisoner sent
the video to Mr Price’s employer. The result was that Mr Price lost his
job. This was said by her to have been done as an act of revenge. It is
significant to note that the prisoner was untruthful about the subject
matter of this video when she gave her history to Dr Lambeth and when she
spoke about the video to other people as well. Her untruthful description
of the contents of the video painted her as a victim of assault, rather
than Mr Price as being a victim of her malice.
38 On another occasion she sliced Mr
Price’s left chest with a knife. The scar from this was still visible on
his body following his death and skinning. It is perhaps not coincidence
that the only part of Mr Price that was not skinned by the prisoner was
that part of him which bore the scar which she inflicted.
39 In the course of the relationship
the prisoner made it known to a number of people that she intended to kill
or seriously maim Mr Price. Threats of such a kind were made to several
people as well as to Mr Price in the presence of other people. For his
part, Mr Price expressed concern for his safety and even his life to a
number of people and stated that he intended to terminate the relationship
and have the prisoner removed from his house.
40 On more than one occasion during
the course of the relationship the prisoner had sought to have Mr Price
give her his house or a share in the house, which she regarded as hers, at
least in part. She was not happy when Mr Price indicated that he did not
intend to confer any proprietary rights on her and that he intended that
his goods and his house should go to his children. In this regard it
should be noted that the prisoner said to Mr Price in the presence of one
of his friends, Trevor Lewis, “You’ll never get me out of this house. I’ll
do you in first.”
41 On the Sunday before the killing
there was an altercation between the prisoner and Mr Price. It is clear
that he assaulted her, but the circumstances in which this occurred are
less than clear. He left the house and sought refuge in the nearby house
of a friend, claiming that the prisoner had gone for a butchers knife and
that he was fearful for his life. The police were called and he repeated
this assertion to them. However, the prisoner denied to the police that
she had used or intended to use a knife on Mr Price. She was, however,
aware that Mr Price had told the police that he wanted to end the
relationship and had asked them to get the prisoner out of the house. The
police informed Mr Price that he would have to use court process for that
purpose. He protested and again expressed concern for his safety.
42 The evidence concerning the
interval between Sunday, 27 February, 2000 and the date of Mr Price’s
death does not reveal any further argument or disturbance between the
prisoner and Mr Price. It does however reveal that the prisoner showed her
bruises to many people. These included the police officers who attended Mr
Price’s residence on 27 February, 2000, her twin sister, both her
daughters, her sister-in-law and a friend as well as Dr Cook at whose
surgery she attended late on the afternoon of Tuesday, 29 February 2000.
Her attendance on Dr Cook was not for the purpose of any treatment, but
merely to have the doctor record his findings. On examination he found
three bruise marks on the prisoner’s right breast consistent with finger
marks, as if someone had grabbed the breast firmly. He also found a small
bruise on her left chin at about the jaw line. As the doctor commented:
“The consultation was fairly
brief, she seemed to be mainly concerned that the injuries were
recorded.” 43
From a review of the prisoner’s history, I am satisfied beyond reasonable
doubt that the prisoner was, throughout her various relationships, a
person who was prone to violence and vindictiveness, to malice and
possessiveness and to cruelty and that she was also a person who was
anxious to present herself as an innocent victim, whereas in fact she was
not infrequently a serious aggressor.
44 I am further satisfied beyond
reasonable doubt that the prisoner had not had any stable relationship
with a member of the opposite sex, that all her relationships, marital and
de facto, had involved violence, certainly on her part, that such violence
included the use by her of knives and cutting instruments and that her
vindictive and violent behaviour was frequently in the nature of a “pay
back”.
WAS THE MURDER PRE-MEDITATED?
45 It was submitted on behalf
of the Crown that the prisoner had determined to kill Mr Price before 29
February,2000. In support of this submission the Crown instanced :
(a) Comments made by the prisoner
to other persons indicating such an intention.
(b) Comments of a similar kind made by the
prisoner to Mr Price in the presence of others.
(c) Comments made by Mr Price to others which
indicated his fears for his life.
(d) The conduct of the prisoner in the days
leading up to the murder.
(e)
The behaviour of the prisoner on 29 February 2000.
46 Some 16 months before
the murder the prisoner said to her daughter, Natasha,
“I told him if he took me back
this time it was to the death”.
This was said against a background of the
prisoner having resumed her relationship with Mr Price following a
period of separation. She also said, to the same daughter, ”If I kill
Pricey, I’ll kill myself after it.
47 About five months before the murder she said to
her brother, Kenneth Knight:
“I am going to kill Pricey and
I am going to get away with it I’ll get away with it cause I’ll
make out I’m mad”.
This conversation was also heard by the
prisoner’s niece, Tracy Knight.
48 About five weeks before the murder the prisoner,
who Mr Kenneth Knight says often told him she was going to kill Mr Price,
said:
“I am going to kill Pricey and
the two kids too. 49 The prisoner also made such a threat to one of
her friends, Geraldine Edwards.
50 The prisoner said to
Mr Price in the presence of a friend, Trevor Lewis,
“You’ll never get me out of
this house, I’ll do you in first”.
and, in the presence of Amanda Pemberton she
threatened Mr Price, saying:
“If you leave me I will cut
your balls out.”
As to (c)
51 Mr Price confided to his friend, Trevor Lewis
that he believed that the prisoner would end up killing him. To his
neighbour and friend, Anthony Keegan, (to whose house he repaired on
Sunday, 27 February, 2000 after the altercation with the prisoner), he
said:
“She’s gone for the butcher’s
knife so I got out of there”
He also informed Mr Keegan of his concern, as
later expressed to the police, about getting a knife in his back.
52 He informed his employer
that on Monday, 28 February 2000, he woke up in the dark of the early
hours of the morning to find the prisoner at the end of the bed with her
hands behind her back, it being his belief that the prisoner had a knife.
He said that he believed he was “ a gonna” and leapt out of bed and
escaped. However, he declined to leave the house because of his concern
that his children may become targets in lieu of him.
53 Mr Price attended a Chamber
Magistrate at Scone Court House on 29 February, 2000. He went to seek an
Apprehended Violence Order against the prisoner and informed the Chamber
Magistrate that he wished to end his relationship with her and to prevent
her from entering his house. On that occasion Mr Price informed the
Chamber Magistrate of the previous stabbing event which he had experienced
at the hands of the prisoner and also informed the Magistrate that the
prisoner had threatened to cut his penis off.
54 As indicated in
paragraph 42 above, the prisoner made considerable play of demonstrating
the bruises which she received at the hands of Mr Price on Sunday, 27
February 2000. The fact that she did not seek treatment and was so keen
for everyone to see them, in my opinion, was part of creating a suitable
setting into which the killing of Mr Price could be placed.
55 The behaviour of the
prisoner on 29 February, 2000 was quite unusual. The retrieval by her of
her video camera from the house of her twin sister was significant. It had
been at that house for a number of months. It was retrieved to record
quite unusual demonstrations of apparent affection to one of her daughters
and to record, inter alia, a curious statement :
“I love all my children
and I hope to see
them again ”
56 Coming on
top of the unexpected retrieval of the video camera and in the light of
subsequent events, this statement supports the conclusion that she had in
her mind circumstances which could mean that she may not see her children
again.
57 The prisoner’s decision to take
her daughter, Natasha, and others to dinner that night was also quite
unusual. So too was the statement of her reason, namely:
“I want it to be special”
No basis for
a special night was laid and when added to what was said on the video
(see paragraph 55) is an additional matter going to an ultimate
conclusion concerning the prisoner’s intentions in relation to Mr Price.
That such intentions were perhaps discussed with, and if not discussed
with at least manifest to, her family is clear from the statement of her
daughter, Natasha. She sensed that her mother was unstable within
herself and the events of the day and whatever was said or done caused
her to say that night :
“I hope you are not going to
kill Pricey and yourself” 58 The behaviour of the prisoner in leaving her two
younger children at the home of her daughter, Natasha, without clean
clothes and without their school requisites is also significant, the more
so since she gave different and inconsistent reasons for having done this.
The true explanation, in the light of subsequent events is that she did
not want to go to her own house with her children and that she did not
want the children at Mr Price’s house on that night.
59 One other factor which should be
taken into account in relation to this aspect of the case is the medical
evidence. As will be seen in more detail hereafter, all of the medical
witnesses expressed the opinion that the prisoner had determined to kill
Mr Price at least by Sunday, 27 February, 2000. I accept their opinions as
to her determination to kill Mr Price as correct, more particularly in the
light of the matters referred to above.
60 There are a number of other
indicators to which regard may be had. However, based on the material set
out above I am left in no doubt that the prisoner had determined, at least
by Sunday, 27 February, 2000, that she was going to kill Mr Price and
planned the method of his execution between then and the time she returned
to his home on the night of 29 February, 2000.
61 Counsel for the prisoner
has submitted that the events following the killing, skinning and
beheading of Mr Price and the partial cooking of his body, involved a
genuine attempt on the part of the prisoner to take her own life. I am
satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there was no genuine attempt on her
part so to do.
62 An examination of a sample her
blood taken at the hospital revealed that she had no alcohol in her blood
and that the levels of fluvoxamine and promethazine were respectively
0.22mg/l and 0.21 mg/l. These are well within the limits of a therapeutic
dose of the drugs in question. These drugs had been previously prescribed
for the prisoner and as a consequence she was well aware of the
therapeutic dose.
63 At the hospital on 2 March, 2000
she said she had taken only two nerve tablets. The Fluvoxemine had come
from a blister packet of fifteen which was found at Mr Price’s house. Each
tablet was of 100 milligrams. The antihistamine promethazine tablets
(trade name Phenergan) were taken from a blister pack of twenty, each
tablet in which was 25 milligrams. In the light of the half life of the
prescribed drugs in question, the limited dose taken, her knowledge of the
prescribed dose and importantly the views expressed by Dr Milton, namely
that it was not a genuine suicide attempt, I have come to the conclusion
set out above.
64 The prisoner claimed in her record of interview
to have no recollection whatsoever of the events of and surrounding the
death of Mr Price. The extent of her amnesia as claimed in her record of
interview was virtually total, extending back into part of the day of 29
February, 2000 and into 1 March, 2000. However, as set out in paragraph 25
above she was able to remember and detail quite vividly events which
appear to have immediately preceded Mr Price’s death. Furthermore, on the
morning after her admission to hospital she was able to give details of
the medication she had taken and its quantity. Although this was before
she was questioned by the police, she still claimed in the course of that
questioning that she had no recollection of such events. Piecing these
various strands of evidence together it results in a picture in which her
recollection ceases immediately before Mr Price’s death and recommences
after the skinning, dismemberment and partial cooking of Mr Price had
taking place. This is not a credible pattern for a true amnesia, according
to the psychiatric evidence which I accept. Moreover, during the time of
which she claims to have no recollection, she performed a number of tasks
that required a steady hand, the application of skill and an understanding
of driving a motor vehicle and of operating an automatic teller machine.
She also showered, changed her clothes and walked from her house back to
Mr Price’s house.
65 I do not believe the prisoner’s
statements as to her claimed amnesia. For reasons set out above and are
further dealt with in the course of examining the medical evidence, I am
satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that she has much more recollection than
she has claimed and that her claimed extent of amnesia is convenient for
her, both emotionally and litigiously.
66 Although this issue was debated
at some length both during the course of the hearing and in addresses, in
one sense whether she had and has amnesia for the events is of little or
no account in relation to the question of the penalty to be imposed upon
the prisoner. Whether she remembers the events or not they are as
horrendous. Whether she remembers the events or not, they were
premeditated. Even if she has no recollection of the actual killing,
dismemberment and partial cooking of Mr Price, that may be regarded as no
more than a blocking out by her of events that are so horrendous as to
cause revulsion and rejection by her as the person responsible for such
acts.
DIAGNOSIS AND PROGNOSIS
DR DELAFORCE
67 Dr Delaforce, a
psychiatrist, who was called in the Crown case, interviewed the prisoner
for nearly nine hours in June, 2000. In the course of his interviews he
obtained a great deal of information. This included his being made aware
of the prisoner’s interest in violent and macabre videos. For example, he
was made aware of the gruesome videos borrowed by the prisoner, one of
which was entitled Resurrection. This particular video had been seized by
police in the course of executing a search warrant at the prisoner’s house
on 1 March 2000. It was a video to which the prisoner referred by name in
her early interviews with Dr Delaforce. As he later ascertained, this
video depicted gruesome murders, decapitation, a skinned body and the
hanging of a body on a meat hook.
68 Additional information that was
available to Dr Delaforce at the time of the preparation of his second
report in October, 2001 included not only the content of the video
entitled Resurrection, but also information that following Mr Price’s
death, two amounts each of $500 were withdrawn by the prisoner from Mr
Price’s account through an automatic teller machine (ATM) at Muswellbrook
at 2.30 a.m. and 2.35 a.m. on 1 March 2000. The ATM card used for this
purpose had later been replaced by the prisoner in Mr Price’s wallet. That
Mr Price was dead at the time of the withdrawals is certain. Whether he
had been skinned and beheaded and cooked in part is not.
69 Another matter of which Dr
Delaforce became aware in the course of his interviews was the prisoner
arranging for her nephew, in return for a payment of $500 to steal Mr
Price’s uninsured Mondeo motor vehicle and destroy it, so as to inflict
financial harm on Mr Price. He also became aware that the same person had
been asked by the prisoner to throw acid in Mr Price’s face. In addition,
Dr Delaforce learned of a number of statements by the prisoner that she
intended to kill Mr Price and that on one occasion she claimed that she
would be able to do so with impunity by claiming she was mad. He was also
made aware of the fact that the prisoner had videoed items stolen by Mr
Price from his employer and that she had sent the video to his employer
with a view to harming him – an act which resulted in him losing his job.
70 Dr Delaforce was of opinion that
all these matters were indicative of her proneness to want to ”
pay back ” persons who crossed her, even though she may have
been in a relationship with them. He also considered that gruesome videos
of the kind borrowed by the prisoner, and were of a kind that she enjoyed,
were relevant to the violent fantasy life which the prisoner experienced.
The particularly disturbing and gruesome video, to which I have already
referred, entitled “Resurrection”, was he said, not only extremely
violent, but directly related to the charge against the prisoner. That
video gave to the actions by the prisoner in relation to Mr Price’s body a
sense of “copy cat”.
71 In the ultimate, Dr Delaforce was
of the view that there were many indications that in killing Mr Price the
prisoner was carrying out planned behaviour and that this was consistent
with her on-going violent fantasies and vindictive characteristics. He was
of the view that she suffered from a borderline personality disorder, but
that “ probably her killing of Mr
Price and the mutilation of his body were pre-meditated acts of revenge
and perverted pleasure derived from her grossly violent fantasies
.”
I have no doubt that he is correct.
He expressed the view that the borderline personality disorder which he
diagnosed had no significant, (i.e. immediate) connection with what she
did on the night of 29 February 2000. He said:
“What she did on the night was
part of her personality, her nature, herself, but it is not a
feature of borderline personality disorder. It is not even
significantly connected.”
and that there was much to indicate that she
enjoyed doing what she was doing as she skinned and dismembered Mr Price
and cooked parts of his body.
72 He had no doubt that at the time the prisoner
committed the murder and engaged in the subsequent acts of defilement of
Mr Price’s body “ she knew the
nature and quality of the acts that she was doing and she was aware at
that time that those acts were wrong.” In his opinion the elements of pay back and gratification were at the heart of what
occurred. He said:
“It is very important to
realise that the pleasure in getting rid of him and getting away
with it by making out that she is mad, that in a sense is a pay
back, but it is the way she gets rid of him that shows the
absolute depravity of what she was doing. But that does not in
itself mean madness, that type of interest; not to a psychiatrist,
but to a lay person it would.” 73 He assessed the dangerousness of the prisoner to
the community and concluded that :
“… there are considerable,
very considerable concerns.
Q. And that future violence going to the
extreme, as exhibited in this case?
A. It includes the risk of extreme
violence, yes.”
Q.
In particular, Dr Delaforce, do you see at risk any particular
members of the community?
A. Anybody that has already caused problems
to her or will in the future, and that would therefore include
some members of the Price family, his children. I don’t rate that
highly but it is a matter of significance to look at. I think it
would be more to do with what would happen in the future”
“… It is a matter
of opportunity that is related to when people act violently – the
opportunities they get …” 74 As to the future he was of opinion that her
personality traits would probably not change significantly. This evidence,
which was cogent and convincing, strongly supports a conclusion that the
prisoner is and will remain indefinitely a significant threat to society.
75 Dr Milton, who was also called in the Crown
case, took a somewhat broader approach to the prisoner’s mental state and
its relationship to the killing and mutilation of Mr Price from that taken
by his medical brethren. Doctors Delaforce and Lambeth concentrated their
diagnostic approaches on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders, 4th Edition (DSM-IV). Dr Milton pointed out that DSM-IV itself
had shortcomings and that it was but one in a series of different
approaches that had been adopted historically towards the characterisation
of aberrant behaviour in human beings. He expressed the opinion that :
“The personality problems
demonstrated in the history of Ms Knight’s life are not in my view
psychiatric disease – they are her nature. These personality
problems did not stop her from knowing what she was doing or
whether it was right or wrong. Nor did they stop her from
exercising control over her actions when she chose … The main
effect of Ms Knight’s personality problems was to cause difficulty
for others. I question whether that should be regarded as an
‘abnormality of mind’ and think on balance it is not; but it is
probably a decision for the court.”
He stressed the following:
“The problem is not that she
did not know it was wrong to do such thing, but that she did not
care about doing them. Callousness is not an absence of knowledge
or what is right or wrong.
Ms Knight did not lack ability
to control herself … I am of the view that Ms Knight had the
ability to control herself at the time she killed Mr Price. She
could have decided not to kill him. I do not believe her ability
to control herself was impaired.” 76 I accept these views as expressed by Dr Milton.
Furthermore, since the prisoner pleaded guilty to the charge of murder, no
question of insanity, automatism or diminished responsibility remains
open. The plea closes off those areas of consideration as defences.
77 Dr Milton also dealt with the
dangerousness of the prisoner. He agreed with Dr Delaforce that she was a
person who would be dangerous if released into the community. He added:
“Ms Knight’s personality
characteristics are well established and are unlikely to change by
the intervention of doctors or psychologists, a view expressed at
least 25 years ago. Ms Knight will retain a capacity for violence
and for being affronted by any challenge to a relationship, and
she will continue to feel entitled to express herself in any way
she deems appropriate (violent or otherwise) to gratify her
feelings. There is particular concern about John Price’s children
and other members of his family.” 78 In his oral evidence Dr Milton confirmed this
opinion and added that it was supported by a number of factors including :
(a) The nature of the offence.
(b) The acts already
committed both against Mr Price and others.
(c) That the prisoner’s behaviour in the past
demonstrates that retribution would be likely without the normal limits
or restraints that ordinary people impose upon themselves.
(d) The prisoner’s feeling
of being entitled to do things which are aberrant in relation to other
people.
(e) The prisoner’s
absence of guilt and shame.
(f) An underlying hostility to the male sex on
the part of the prisoner.
(g) The tendency of the prisoner to blame others
for what she does, rather than being prepared to accept that her actions
are wrong.
(h) The
satisfaction derived by the prisoner from committing quite cruel acts.
79 Dr Milton firmly rejected
the genuineness of the amnesia claimed by the prisoner. His view in this
regard was shared, but with less emphasis, by Dr Delaforce and even to an
extent by Dr Lambeth. I am satisfied that Dr Milton is undoubtedly
correct.
80 The evidence of Dr Lambeth, who was called in
the defence case, does not differ substantially in its effect from that
given by Dr Delaforce nor do the salient conclusions as to the
dangerousness of the prisoner, the pre-meditated nature of her crime and
the fact that she enjoyed doing what she did, differ from those of Dr
Milton. Dr Lambeth was of opinion that the prisoner had a borderline
personality disorder. Whilst he was of the view that her borderline
personality disorder was not the proximate cause of the means of killing
and mutilation of Mr Price, he was of opinion that the prisoner probably
made the decision to kill Mr Price on or about Sunday, 27 February 2000,
as a consequence of the altercation which took place that day, the calling
of the police and the attempt by Mr Price to terminate the relationship
and put her out of his house. This he thought led to her then deciding to
kill and thereafter planning the killing of Mr Price. However, he thought
that the precise time and ultimate mode of killing and degradation of his
body were in a different category. He was firmly of the opinion that the
prisoner was a dangerous person. His concern in this regard was heightened
by the fact that in his interview with the prisoner she has been less than
frank. She had not told him about a number of relevant and adverse matters
including the following:
1. Retrieving her video camera from
her twin sister’s place on the afternoon of the killing.
2. That she claimed to have
left her two younger children at the house of her daughter, Natasha,
because it was too late to take them anywhere else. This reason is to be
contrasted with a quite different reason that she advanced to him.
3. Her choice of violent
videos and that she enjoyed watching them. This is to be contrasted with
the impression given to him that her style of video was “Lady and the
Tramp” and “X-Files”.
4.
That she had stabbed her husband, Mr Kellett.
5. That she had stabbed her de facto, Mr
Saunders, in the stomach with scissors.
6. That she had previously attacked Mr Price with
a knife and wounded him in the left chest.
7. That she had threatened to cut the throat of a
second dog.
81 When the Crown
prosecutor put to him the events of and surrounding Mr Price’s death, Dr
Lambeth agreed that it indicated “ a certain satisfaction being derived from that type
of behaviour”. He was then asked:
“Q. That is not borderline
personality disorder, is it?
A. It may be part of the pay back feature
of personality disorder, yes.
Q. See, a person who demonstrates that type
of behaviour is a very very dangerous person indeed, isn’t she?
A. With that degree
of anger, yes.
Q.
And may I take it doctor that from the way in which you have
expressed yourself here today, the chance of that dangerousness
being ameliorated in any particular way does not stand a very good
chance?
A. No, that
is true.
Q. So
whichever way we look at it, the court is confronted with a
prisoner who is and will continue to be of great danger to the
community if she were permitted to return to it?
A. Yes.”
This was his
final view. It is a view that accords with those of Doctors Delaforce
and Milton. It is undoubtedly correct.
82 Dr Lambeth was asked about the prospects of
successful treatment of persons diagnosed as having borderline personality
disorder. Although Dr Delaforce been quite negative in this regard, Dr
Lambeth approached the matter on a somewhat more optimistic view, at least
at first blush. He pointed out that there had been attempts at treatment
through a combination of pharmacology and psychotherapy. This involved the
use of a number of anti-depressants combined with various types of
psychotherapy. They included “insight oriented psychotherapy”, “analytical
psychotherapy” and “ dialectical behaviour therapy” - a form of therapy he
was unable to explain.
83 These various treatments had been
beneficial to some extent in some cases. He relied in particular on a
study by Carpenter & Colleagues. None of the persons involved in that
study was in prison; all had been involved in fairly intensive out-patient
psychotherapy as well as drug therapy. This best case study to which he
adverted involved 51 cases. None was shown to have been cured. Eleven
cases (22%) showed dramatic improvement. Twenty one cases (41%) showed no
improvement at all. The residue showed modest gains at best. No
correlation was able to be given between the extents of the disorder in
particular patients on the one hand and the outcomes on the other. What
did emerge from this study was that no one recovered and that in 78% of
the cases there was no dramatic improvement. There is no suggestion in the
evidence that there is any treatment which could be afforded to the
prisoner which would rid her of the borderline personality disorder
diagnosed by the various medical witnesses.
84 From the foregoing it can be seen
that two of the psychiatrists called in the case (i.e. other than Dr
Milton) were of the view that the prisoner had a borderline personality
disorder, that the prospects of ridding her of such disorder were in
essence nil, that she was and would remain a person dangerous to others if
set at large in the community and that she continued to be capable of
inflicting quite serious physical harm, even death, on members of the
community, particularly on any one who crossed her. These included the
family of Mr Price.
85 In a practical sense the nuances
of difference between the doctors do not matter. I am satisfied beyond
reasonable doubt that the end point of their evidence is that she is and
will continue to be a very dangerous person and so continue indefinitely.
Furthermore, her history of serious violence, particularly involving
knives and extending over a long period, strongly supports the conclusion
that were she to be released into the community at any time she would be
likely to inflict serious injury, perhaps death and even mutilation, on
those who cross her.
86 Section 19A of the Crimes Act 1900 provides that :
(1) A person who commits the
crime of murder is liable
to imprisonment for life.
(2) A person sentenced to
imprisonment to life for the crime of murder is to serve that
sentence for the term of that person’s natural life.
However, the
power of the court under s.21(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
to impose a lesser sentence is
preserved. In this regard it should be noted that s.61 of that Act
provides that a court is to impose a sentence of imprisonment for life
on a person who is convicted of murder if the court is satisfied that
the level of culpability in the commission of the offence is so extreme
that the community interest in retribution, punishment, community
protection and deterrence can only be met through the imposition of that
sentence.
87 I have already
determined that the murder committed by the prisoner was horrendous and of
such a gruesome kind as to place it in the most serious category of that
crime. In short the murder falls into the worse case category. The level
of culpability of the prisoner is, as I have determined, extreme. The
murder was premeditated. The prisoner not only decided to murder Mr Price,
but planned the timing and what she was going to do in a manner which left
open to her, as she thought, a way of escaping punishment, namely that she
would considered as mad. Furthermore, the prisoner as I have already
determined has no real prospects of rehabilitation and would be highly
dangerous to the community were she to be allowed out of prison.
Imprisonment is the only way in which the element of personal deterrence
can operate in relation to the prisoner. Whilst it is a common place that
the element of general deterrence should be given little weight in the
case of a prisoner suffering from a mental abnormality ( Regina v Scognamiglio (1991) 56 A Crim R 81) nonetheless it should not be
overlooked that borderline personality disorder is found in about 2% of
the general population and in about 10% of persons seen in out-patient
mental health clinics. Thus, although the question of general deterrence
is somewhat muted because of the borderline personality disorder of the
prisoner, it nonetheless, in my opinion, is a consideration.
88 The community interest in heavy
punishment and in retribution for the terrible crimes committed by the
prisoner is high. A sentence is called for which accords with the general
moral sense of the members of the community who are aware of the facts and
who have taken the opportunity to consider the penalty imposed in that
light as well as in the light of any subjective factors in favour of the
prisoner ( Regina v Purdey
(1993) A Crim R 441 at 445).
89 In imposing a sentence in a case
such as the present it should also be borne in mind that the violence
exhibited by the prisoner to Mr Price was not an uncharacteristic
aberration. Rather her history of violence shows that violence, albeit not
to the extent manifest in the present case, was part and parcel of her
behaviour and a characteristic of her personality. In such a case
considerations of retribution, deterrence and protection of society all
indicate that a most severe penalty is warranted ( Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1987-88) 164 CLR 465 at 477.
90 In considering the penalty
appropriate to the crime committed by the prisoner, it should be borne in
mind that the principal of proportionality precludes the imposition of a
sentence which extends beyond what is appropriate to such crime merely to
protect society. The protection of society is, however, a material factor
in fixing an appropriate penalty ( Veen v The Queen (No 2)
supra at 473).
91 Having considered the facts of
the matter in detail and in the light of the analysis of such facts,
including the horrendous nature of the crime committed by the prisoner,
the fact that it objectively falls into the most serious category of
murders, the fact that the murder was premeditated, the prisoner’s long
history of serious violence, malice, vindictiveness, possessiveness,
cruelty and dangerousness to the community if released and her on-going
incurable borderline personality disorder, the case is marked out as one
for which the maximum penalty of life imprisonment would, subject to any
subjective matters in mitigation, be appropriate.
92 Counsel for the prisoner has raised four matters
in mitigation of the penalty which should be imposed on the prisoner.
These are:
(i) The fact that the prisoner
pleaded guilty to the charge of murder.
(ii) The borderline personality disorder
diagnosed in the prisoner.
(iii) The absence of any prior relevant criminal
record on the part of the prisoner.
(iv) That the quality of mercy would not be
strained were a finite sentence to be imposed on the prisoner.
These must be considered
before a final determination is made as to the sentence to be imposed.
The plea of Guilty
93 Counsel for the prisoner
correctly submitted that in passing sentence the Court is required to take
into account the fact that a plea of guilty has been entered as well as
when it was entered. Section 22 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
so mandates. However, although the
Court must take such a plea into account and is empowered, as a
consequence, to impose a lesser penalty than it would otherwise have
imposed, it is not required to impose a lesser penalty.
94 In Regina v Thomson and Houlton (2000) 115 A.Crim.R 104 a specially constituted
Court of Criminal Appeal delivered a guideline judgment which dealt with
the beneficial effects that may flow from the entry of a plea of guilty,
particularly if entered at an early stage. Whilst it is true that a
discount of up to 25% may be applied where an early plea of guilty has
been entered, the discretion not to allow a discount in a particular case
remains and “ in some cases no
discount is appropriate at all ” (
Regina v Thomson and Houlton,
supra at 138). Such cases include
those in which the protection of the public requires a long sentence to be
imposed or where the crimes in question “ so offend the public interest that the maximum
sentence, without any discount for any purpose, is appropriate. This
includes situations in which a life sentence can be and is imposed
notwithstanding the plea. ” (
Regina v Thomson and Houlton
supra at 138)
95 The plea of guilty in the present
case was entered on the second day of the hearing. However, because of the
circumstances referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 above, the Court accepted
that the plea should be received on the basis that it had been proffered
on the first day of the trial.
96 This was not the earliest time at
which such a plea might have been entered and in accordance with the
authority of Regina v Thompson and
Houlton (supra) was in fact a late
plea. However, it was submitted that the particular circumstances of the
case should not result in the discount, if any, otherwise available under
this heading of mitigation being lost. In this context counsel for the
prisoner submitted that the fact that the prisoner was suffering from a
genuine amnesia impacted on the outcome. It made it difficult to obtain
proper instructions in relation to a plea of guilty. He submitted that it
meant the prisoner was not aware, until immediately before the day
scheduled for the commencement of the trial, what it was that she had done
and hence was not in a position either to form a view in relation to a
plea of guilty or to give instructions in that regard.
97 In determining the sentence to be
imposed I have had regard to the fact that a plea of guilty was entered,
albeit not at an early stage. However, I do not think that any discount
should be given on this account to the sentence which should otherwise be
imposed. My reasons for so determining are:
1. Whether the prisoner genuinely
suffered from amnesia or not she was made aware shortly after her actual
arrest on 1 March, 2000 that she had killed Mr Price.
2. In the interview which
was conducted by police on 4 March 2000 the fact that Mr Price was dead,
that the prisoner was believed to have killed him and that she was under
arrest for and would be charged with his murder, was made abundantly
clear.
3. The prisoner had
been interviewed by her legal representatives in connection with the
killing even before the police saw her on 4 March 2000.
4. The medical records
indicate that the fact that the prisoner had killed Mr Price was brought
to her attention while she was in hospital.
5. The prisoner was well aware by the time she
was interviewed by Dr Delaforce on 21 and 22 June, 2000 that she had
murdered, and was charged with having murdered, Mr Price
6. The nature of the
circumstances of and surrounding the murder and the fact that the crime
is, even on the most beneficial view, at the very top of the range of
seriousness.
7. Whether a
discount should be given or not is a discretionary matter and the
present case is one in which the protection of the public requires a
long sentence so that no discount for the plea is appropriate.
8. The absence of any
element of contrition or remorse involved in the plea.
9. The fact that there was a
strong Crown case confronting the prisoner.
10. Even on a purely utilitarian
approach, the investigation had been completed and the preparation of
the trial had been undertaken. The extent of the saving in human and
economic terms was therefore limited.
Furthermore, the nature of the crime committed by
the prisoner so offends the public interest that the maximum sentence,
without any discount, would be appropriate.
Borderline personality disorder
98 The prisoner’s borderline
personality disorder which was diagnosed by Doctors Delaforce and Lambeth,
is not inconsistent with either pre-meditation or a natural cunning which
may cause a prisoner to put the best gloss or spin on the situation
confronting her. I have already found that I am satisfied beyond
reasonable doubt that the murder committed by the prisoner was
pre-meditated. The prisoner’s antecedent reported statements, her previous
violent behaviour in relation to partners who crossed her, her violent
fantasies and the firm opinions of the psychiatrists all support such
conclusion. As I have already said, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt
that the prisoner made up her mind to kill Mr Price not later than the
late afternoon or early evening of 27 February, 2000 and that thereafter
she created a situation which gave her the opportunity to implement her
decision and weave a web of surrounding circumstances which could be used
to support a claim of insanity. Far from being a situation of mitigation,
her behaviour highlights the malign nature of the prisoner, whether that
be expressed in terms of a borderline personality disorder or whether as
Dr Milton puts it, “they are her nature”.
99 Dr Lambeth, the psychiatrist
called in the prisoner’s own case, said:
“I think … that the
personality disorder very possibly determines, if you like, the
decision – ‘I will do this’. The way that decision is carried out,
if you like, a plastic part of the decision is determined by other
factors, not including the personality but also including
experience, social mores and generally the way the person lives.
Q. But if we take
this case, according to the history that you got and what emerges
from what was said by the prisoner to others; she had a joyous day
apparently filled with loving grandchildren and children, followed
by enjoyable sex, with no hint of any aggression, then a claim not
to remember anything, but the most frightful events then
occurring?
A. Yes.
Q. Now does that
suggest that there is a planning that is part of a personality
disorder but that the circumstances of when that plan will be
implemented etcetera are advantageous, or does it indicate
something else?
A.
It may indicate what you suggest … and then I believe there would
need to be some trigger to start the actions off.
Q. We don’t have a
trigger?
A. We
don’t have a trigger.
Q. We don’t have a trigger at all. The only
trigger that we have in this case that is apparent on the evidence
…is that there was an event on the preceding Sunday involving
violence and the threat to get her out of the house. That is 48
hours before. Now, is that sufficient or appropriate as a time
frame for that to be a trigger?
A. In my opinion it is sufficient for that
to be the trigger for the killing. It certainly does not explain,
nor do I think one can explain the full circumstances of the
killing.” 100
Thus, on the most favourable case made on behalf of the prisoner it is
clear that she planned to kill Mr Price and that while the diagnosed
borderline personality disorder was involved in her decision to kill, it
does not explain the time and the full circumstances of the killing, which
come from factors not associated with the borderline personality disorder.
101 This consideration raised in
mitigation of penalty does not, in my opinion, operate to reduce the
penalty which should otherwise be imposed.
Absence of prior relevant
criminal record.
102 It is
true that the prisoner has no significant criminal record. However, her
history of serious violence in relation to the persons and property of her
partners must be weighed in the balance against this. In my opinion the
absence of previous criminal convictions is of no real consequence when
set against her history of violence. Furthermore, it is of even less
consequence when regard is had to the nature of the crime to which the
prisoner has pleaded guilty.
103 This consideration, in my
opinion, does not operate to mitigate the sentence which should otherwise
be imposed.
104 The final submission in
mitigation of sentence is that the quality of mercy would not be strained
by the imposition of a sentence for a period of years, albeit a long
period, instead of a sentence to imprisonment for life.
105 The task of the Court in
imposing a sentence is not an easy one. It must give due weight to all
relevant factors. These include the protection of society, retribution and
where appropriate deterrence and reformation. Mercy is also one of the
factors. In a given case some of these may overlap. In another, some will
be inappropriate.
106 Whilst there is a place for the
exercise of mercy and consequent leniency in some cases it should be
remembered that, as Gowans J said in Regina v Kane (1974) VR 759:
“… mercy must be exercised
upon considerations which are supported by the evidence and which
make an appeal not only to sympathy but also to well balanced
judgment. If a court permits sympathy to preclude it from
attaching weight to the other recognised elements of punishment,
it has failed to discharge its duty” (at 766)
107 In the
present case the submission that mercy by way of a lesser sentence should
be extended to the prisoner does not in my opinion have any place. I have
already found that the prisoner showed no mercy whatsoever to Mr Price and
that indeed she enjoyed what she did to him. Furthermore, mercy is
normally extended to those who confess their wrongdoing and genuinely
express their contrition and remorse for what they have done. In addition,
the extending of mercy generally involves a firm conviction on the part of
the Court that if mercy is extended, the prisoner to whom it is extended
will be unlikely to repeat the criminal conduct that brought him or her
before the Court.
108 The prisoner in the present case
does not qualify for mercy on any of these grounds. She engaged in cruel,
vicious behaviour to Mr Price. She showed him no mercy. She has not
expressed any contrition or remorse ( Regina v Short [2000] NSWCCA 462;Court of Criminal Appeal,
unreported 3 November 2000). If released she poses a serious threat to the
security of society. In my opinion it would be a failure on the part of
the Court to perform its duty if it were to extend mercy by reducing an
otherwise proper sentence in the instant case.
109 From the foregoing examination
of the factors prayed in aid of the submission for mitigation it can be
seen that none operates to reduce the penalty which should otherwise be
imposed on the prisoner, namely the maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
110 Statements from the
children of Mr Price were tendered without objection. These detail their
concern, loss and lack of understanding of the events which led to and
followed the death of their father. They feel that their lives have been
altered in a fundamental way. They detail the psychological and other
effects on their lives of the events in question. Their statements mirror
to an extent the reactions of ordinary members of the community, but
because of the intimate connection between the makers of the statements
and Mr Price the effects on them are, as is to be expected, much more
profound. I have considered those statements but conformably with
authority ( Regina v Previtera
(1997) A Crim R 76;
Bollen v Regina (1998) 99 A Crim R 510) have not made use of them
in any way so is to increase the penalty which should otherwise be imposed
or even as confirmation that the conclusion to which I have come is the
appropriate one.
111 The prisoner has pleaded guilty to a murder
which falls into the most serious category of murders. I am satisfied
beyond any doubt that such murder was pre-meditated. I am further
satisfied in the same way that not only did she plan the murder but she
also enjoyed the horrific acts which followed in its wake as part of a
ritual of death and defilement. The things which she did after the death
of Mr Price indicate cognition, volition, calm and skill. I am satisfied
beyond reasonable double that her evil actions were the playing out of her
resentments arising out of her rejection by Mr Price, her impending
expulsion from Mr Price’s home and his refusal to share with her his
assets, particularly his home, which he wanted to retain for his children.
I have no doubt that her claim to amnesia forms part of her plan to affect
madness in order to escape the consequences of her acts and to provide a
convenient basis, on which to rely to avoid detailed questioning by the
police and escape punishment.
112 As I have said, the prisoner
showed no mercy whatsoever to Mr Price. The last minutes of his life must
have been a time of abject terror for him, as they were a time of utter
enjoyment for her. At no time during the hearing or prior thereto did the
prisoner express any regret for what she had done or any remorse for
having done it; not even through the surrogacy of counsel. Her attitude in
that regard is consistent with her general approach to the many acts of
violence which she had engaged in against her various partners, namely “
they deserved it” . In addition the prisoner’s history of violence
together with her flawed personality cause me to conclude, along with Dr
Milton and the other psychiatrists called in the case, that she is without
doubt a very dangerous person and likely, if released into the community,
to commit further acts of serious violence, including even murder against
those who cross her, particularly males. A crime of the kind committed by
the prisoner calls for the maximum penalty the law empowers the court to
impose.
113 An examination of the cases
referred to by counsel supports the view that I have formed, namely that
the only appropriate penalty for the prisoner is life imprisonment and
that parole should never be considered for her. The prisoner should never
be released.
114 Katherine Mary Knight you have pleaded guilty
to and been convicted of the murder of John Charles Thomas Price at
Aberdeen in the State of New South Wales on or about 29 February 2000. In
respect of that crime I sentence you to imprisonment for life.
|
] [First Hit
] [Back to
Results 
] [New Query
] 
.gif){kind=small}
.gif){kind=small}