Murderpedia has thousands of hours of work behind it. To keep creating
new content, we kindly appreciate any donation you can give to help
the Murderpedia project stay alive. We have many
plans and enthusiasm
to keep expanding and making Murderpedia a better site, but we really
need your help for this. Thank you very much in advance.
Victim profile:
John Charles Thomas
Price, 44 (her de facto husband)
Method of murder:
Stabbing with knife (37 times)
Location: Aberdeen,
New South Wales, Australia
Status:
Sentenced to life imprisonment without parole on November 9, 2001
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.
THE MURDER
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.
BACKGROUND
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.
As to (a)
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.
As to (b)
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.
As to (d)
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.
As to (e)
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.
THE SUICIDE ATTEMPT
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.
AMNESIA
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.
DR MILTON
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.
DR LAMBETH
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.
ANALYSIS
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.
MITIGATION
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.
Overriding mercy
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.
VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS
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.
SUMMARY
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.
SENTENCE
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.
