AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 8 September 2005

R v Karen Kramer

[2005] NSWSC 910

Homicide
CRIMINAL LAW SENTENCE MURDER OF OFFENDER'S ELDERLY PARENTS PLEAS OF GUILTY OFFENDER SUFFERS FROM MENTAL CONDITION.

Citation: R v Karen Kramer [2005] NSWSC 910
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 8 September 2005
Judge(s): Buddin J

Background

The offender, a 43-year-old woman, pleaded guilty to the murders of both her elderly parents at their home in Ingleburn, Sydney. The killings occurred on or around 21 January 2003, when the offender, in a drunken state, stabbed both parents following a confrontation about money she had been stealing to fund her alcohol consumption. The parents were in poor health and close to 80 years of age. The family had lived a socially isolated existence, and the offender was their only child.

After the killings, the offender concealed the bodies beneath the house, using silicone sealant to contain odours. She maintained the deception for over a year, offering false accounts to the few people she had contact with. Discovery came only after the family's sole surviving relative, a cousin in the United Kingdom, grew suspicious during a visit and subsequently contacted police.

When police attended the Ingleburn premises in May 2004, the offender confessed immediately and cooperated fully. She disclosed that she suffered from schizophrenia and was on medication. She participated voluntarily in a lengthy recorded police interview, stating that she did not believe silence was "the right thing to do."

  • What weight should be given to the offender's mental illness (schizophrenia) in determining the appropriate sentence?
  • How should the guilty pleas and the offender's cooperation with police affect the sentence?
  • How should sentences for two murders be structured, including the application of the totality principle across multiple offences?
  • What overall sentence properly reflects the objective gravity of two murders while accounting for the offender's subjective circumstances?

Decision

Buddin J accepted that the offender's schizophrenia was a relevant mitigating factor, but noted that mental illness in sentencing operates in a nuanced way: it may reduce moral culpability while simultaneously diminishing the relevance of general deterrence, and may in some circumstances warrant a longer period in custody for the protection of the community. The court found that the offender's mental condition did not excuse her conduct but was taken into account in assessing her overall culpability.

The offender's guilty pleas, her immediate and full confession to police, her cooperation throughout the investigation, and her evident remorse were all treated as significant mitigating factors. The court described her as a "deeply troubled woman" who was genuinely distressed by what she had done and who desperately missed her parents. These subjective matters were weighed against the objective seriousness of two murders.

On the question of sentencing structure, Buddin J applied the totality principle, ordering that the two 17-year sentences be served partially concurrently and partially cumulatively. This produced a total head sentence of 21 and a half years with a total non-parole period of 15 and a half years, which the court considered appropriately reflected the gravity of two unlawful killings without producing an unjust aggregate.

Orders Made

  • For the murder of Tudor Llewellyn Jones: 17 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 11 years, commencing 27 May 2004.
  • For the murder of Della Jones: 17 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 11 years, commencing 27 November 2008 and expiring 26 November 2025; non-parole period expiring 26 November 2019.
  • Total aggregate sentence: 21.5 years imprisonment with a total non-parole period of 15.5 years.

Key Takeaways

  • Schizophrenia and other mental illnesses do not automatically reduce a sentence for murder; the court must balance diminished moral culpability against community protection concerns and the objective gravity of the offence.
  • A prompt, unequivocal confession combined with voluntary cooperation in a recorded police interview, entered before any legal obligation to speak, carried meaningful weight as a mitigating factor in the sentencing exercise.
  • Where an offender is sentenced for multiple murders, the totality principle requires the court to structure concurrent and cumulative components so that the overall sentence is just and proportionate, rather than simply imposing wholly cumulative terms.
  • Remorse, personal hardship, and a socially isolated background are relevant subjective considerations, but the Supreme Court affirmed that two murders require substantial custodial sentences regardless of mitigating factors.
  • Comparative sentencing decisions involving multiple homicides in domestic settings (including R v Cikos, R v Peters, and R v Taouk) provided limited but relevant guidance, consistent with the recognised principle that such comparisons assist rather than dictate the exercise of sentencing discretion.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), including s 3A

Cases:
- Cameron v The Queen (2002) 187 ALR 65
- Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
- R v Cikos [2001] NSWSC 35
- R v Engert (1998) 84 A Crim R 67
- R v Hammoud (2000) 118 A Crim R 66
- R v Harris (2000) 50 NSWLR 409
- R v MA (2004) 145 A Crim R 434
- R v Peters [2002] NSWSC 1234
- R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704
- R v Taouk [2004] NSWSC 981
- R v Thomson v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
- Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465