Citation: R v Helen Ryan; R v Coralie Coulter [2011] NSWSC 1249
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 21 October 2011
Judge: Latham J
Background
The two offenders, a wife and her mother, were convicted after trial of the murder of the wife's husband. The victim was shot dead on his rural property near Tamworth on 23 October 2009 by a hired killer. The wife had contracted with a third party to carry out the killing for $30,000.
The marriage had deteriorated significantly in the preceding 12 to 18 months. The husband had commenced divorce proceedings, changed his will to the wife's detriment, and was living separately on the property following an apprehended violence order. Rather than pursue legal avenues, the wife arranged for a hitman, contributing $15,000 as a downpayment and providing photographs of the victim and details of his location.
The mother contributed $10,000 toward the contract, knowing the purpose was to have her son-in-law killed. In the months following the murder, both offenders took steps to obstruct the police investigation, and the wife later attended the hitman's residence to pay the outstanding $15,000, at which point she was arrested. Both offenders continued to protest their innocence at sentencing and showed no remorse.
Legal Issues
- What sentence was appropriate for each offender, having regard to the objective gravity of a contract killing and their respective roles?
- How should the court apply the standard non-parole period of 20 years and the maximum of life imprisonment as guideposts under the framework confirmed in Muldrock v The Queen?
- Was there any basis for finding special circumstances to depart from the statutory ratio between the non-parole period and the balance of term?
- Should the advanced age of the second offender and the likelihood that she would die in prison affect the sentencing approach?
Decision
Latham J assessed the objective gravity of the offence as very high, placing it close to the worst category of murder. The killing was premeditated, methodical, and motivated substantially by financial self-interest, specifically the wife's desire to retain jointly held assets rather than face the consequences of divorce. The court rejected the wife's trial account that she had only intended her husband to be assaulted, noting the jury's verdict and the weight of evidence against that claim.
Regarding the first offender, the wife, the court found her conduct warranted the description "wicked" and "gravely reprehensible." She had persisted in the plan over several weeks, was aware of lawful avenues available to her, and had deliberately exaggerated claims of domestic violence to enlist family members. She demonstrated no contrition, and the court found no basis for a finding of special circumstances that would justify adjusting the statutory ratio between the non-parole period and the balance of term.
The second offender, the mother, was found to have played a lesser, though still serious, role. Her criminality was of a lower order than the wife's because she neither originated nor directed the plan, and her contribution, while knowing and deliberate, was secondary. She also showed no remorse.
The court acknowledged that any sentence commensurate with the objective gravity of the offence would, for the mother given her age, probably mean she would spend the remainder of her life in prison. Citing Barton v R, Latham J confirmed that this outcome alone did not justify a lesser sentence, but it did justify an adjustment to the statutory ratio to allow for likely deterioration in health and future medical needs.
Orders Made
- The wife was convicted of murder and sentenced to a non-parole period of 27 years, commencing 8 February 2010 and expiring 7 February 2037, with a balance of term of 9 years expiring 7 February 2046. Eligible for parole from 8 February 2037.
- The mother was convicted of murder and sentenced to a non-parole period of 18 years, commencing 10 February 2010 and expiring 9 February 2028, with a balance of term of 9 years expiring 9 February 2037. Eligible for parole from 10 February 2028.
Key Takeaways
- Contract killings motivated by financial self-interest, where the principal offender methodically planned the killing over an extended period, will attract sentences at or near the upper end of the range for murder.
- The Supreme Court confirmed, applying Muldrock v The Queen, that the standard non-parole period of 20 years and the maximum of life imprisonment operate as guideposts, not mandatory benchmarks, to be weighed alongside all objective and subjective circumstances.
- A co-offender who contributes funds knowing they will be used to finance a murder is guilty of murder, but a sentencing court may find that their criminality is of a lesser order than that of the person who conceived and directed the plan.
- The prospect that a sentence will result in an elderly offender spending the rest of their life in prison does not, of itself, justify reducing that sentence to a level below what the offence objectively warrants, as confirmed in Barton v R.
- Where an elderly offender faces a sentence likely to extend beyond their life expectancy, an adjustment to the statutory ratio between the non-parole period and the balance of term may be warranted to account for probable health decline, even where no special circumstances are otherwise established.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases
- Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39
- R v Kalajzich (1997) 94 A Crim R 41
- Barton v R [2009] NSWCCA 164