AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
2
Supreme Court 5 June 2017

R v Lock, Thomas

[2017] NSWSC 715

Homicide
MURDER SENTENCE GUILTY BY JURY VERDICT WHERE THE VICTIM IS A CHILD NO ISSUE OF PRINCIPLE

Citation: R v Lock, Thomas [2017] NSWSC 715
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 5 June 2017
Judge(s): Latham J

Background

The prisoner was convicted by jury on 19 May 2017 of the murder of a two-and-a-half-year-old child, referred to as TM, on 20 April 2014. TM was the daughter of the prisoner's de facto partner, and the three had lived together for approximately three months before TM's death.

The central factual dispute at trial was whether the prisoner inflicted the blunt force trauma to TM's abdomen that caused massive internal bleeding and her death. The cause of death and the events of Easter Sunday up until TM was put to bed at around 7:00 pm were not contested.

A significant aspect of the trial was the admission of tendency evidence: prior incidents in which the prisoner allegedly assaulted TM in the weeks before her death. The sentencing judgment addressed the weight to be given to that evidence, the objective gravity of the offence, and the appropriate sentence in light of the prisoner's personal circumstances.

  • Whether the court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the tendency evidence established deliberate prior assaults on TM by the prisoner
  • How those prior assaults affected the assessment of the objective gravity of the murder
  • What sentence, including non-parole period, was appropriate having regard to the standard non-parole period of 25 years, the subjective circumstances of the prisoner, and all relevant aggravating and mitigating factors

Decision

Latham J was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the prisoner had deliberately inflicted scalding burns on TM on 10 April 2014 by forcibly immersing her in hot water. The court accepted the expert evidence of Dr Norrie that the burn patterns, including full-thickness third-degree burns with clear margins and the absence of splash marks, were consistent with forced immersion and inconsistent with accidental contact. The prisoner's various accounts were rejected as unreliable and internally inconsistent.

The court was also satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the prisoner intentionally assaulted TM on three separate occasions in the weeks before her death, causing bruising to her arm, face and neck. Those findings rested on a combination of the child's spontaneous complaints to her carer, her maternal grandmother, and her mother, together with observed bruising corresponding to those complaints.

Latham J found that the prisoner struck TM in the abdomen on the evening of 20 April 2014 during a window of approximately 15 minutes when he was alone with her. The blow caused a 12-centimetre tear to the mesentery of the small intestine, rapid and torrential internal bleeding, and death. The court found that it would have been immediately obvious to the prisoner that TM required urgent medical attention, yet he told her returning mother that the child was "okay." The prior course of deliberate assaults aggravated the objective gravity of the murder.

On subjective matters, the court accepted that the prisoner had a limited prior criminal history involving no violence, that he had strong family support, and that he was likely to serve some portion of his sentence in protective custody. However, his refusal to acknowledge guilt weighed against a finding of promising rehabilitation prospects. The court declined to find special circumstances and imposed a sentence above the 25-year standard non-parole period, fixing the non-parole period at 27 years.

Orders Made

  • The prisoner was sentenced to imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of 27 years, commencing 1 May 2014 and expiring 30 April 2041, with a balance of term of 9 years expiring 30 April 2050.
  • The prisoner is eligible for release to parole on 1 May 2041.
  • The charge of Possess Prohibited Drug on the section 166 certificate was remitted to the Local Court for hearing.

Key Takeaways

  • A deliberate course of prior assaults on a child victim, established beyond reasonable doubt from tendency evidence, directly aggravates the objective gravity of a murder charge at sentencing, as confirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Baines v R [2016] NSWCCA 132 and Ross v R [2016] NSWCCA 176.
  • The standard non-parole period of 25 years for the murder of a child operates as a guidepost for mid-range offending; where the objective gravity is elevated, a non-parole period above that standard is available and appropriate.
  • Spontaneous complaints by a very young child to multiple carers, corroborated by observable injuries, can ground findings of deliberate assault beyond reasonable doubt for sentencing purposes.
  • A prisoner's continued refusal to acknowledge guilt, where the Crown case is strong, is a factor that weighs against a finding of good rehabilitation prospects.
  • Likely protective custody conditions may be taken into account at sentencing, but only to the extent the evidence actually establishes what those conditions will be; the court here noted significant uncertainty about the nature of the prisoner's future custodial arrangements.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 21A

Cases
- Baines v R [2016] NSWCCA 132
- Ross v R [2016] NSWCCA 176