New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : R v Bond [2001] NSWSC 1059 FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 70005/01 HEARING DATE(S) : 29/06/01, 10/08/01,12/10/01 JUDGMENT DATE : 7 December 2000 PARTIES : Regina v Colin Thomas Bond JUDGMENT OF : James J at 1 COUNSEL : BC Newport QC - Crown MC Ramage QC/M Thangaraj - Prisoner SOLICITORS : SE O'Connor - Crown J Harris - Prisoner CATCHWORDS : Criminal Law and Procedure - Murder DECISION : Sentence - 30 years commencing 30 June 2000. Non-parole period of 25 years. OF NEW SOUTH WALES CRIMINAL DIVISION JAMES J Friday 7 December 2001 70005/01 – R v COLIN THOMAS BOND SENTENCE 1 JAMES J: On 29 June 2001 after a trial presided over by me a jury found the prisoner Colin Thomas Bond guilty of the murder of Donna Gaye Wheeler on or about 2 November 1999 at Berala, a suburb of Sydney. In these remarks on sentence I will sometimes refer to Donna Gaye Wheeler by her name and sometimes refer to her as "the victim". 2 Immediately after the verdict of guilty was returned by the jury the proceedings on sentence commenced. The Crown Prosecutor tendered four documents all of which were admitted into evidence. Counsel who had appeared for the prisoner at the trial, who is a junior counsel, then applied for an adjournment of the proceedings on sentence, on the grounds that the prisoner wished to be represented in the proceedings on sentence by senior counsel. I granted the application for an adjournment and adjourned the proceedings on sentence to 10 August. 3 On 10 August an application for a further adjournment of the proceedings on sentence was made on behalf of the prisoner, on the grounds that the senior counsel by whom the prisoner wished to be represented was unable to appear for him on that day. I granted this application for a further adjournment and the proceedings on sentence were adjourned to 12 October. 4 The hearing of the proceedings on sentence continued and was concluded on 12 October. On 12 October no further evidence was adduced by the Crown. The prisoner did not give evidence in the proceedings on sentence and no evidence was adduced on his behalf in the proceedings on sentence. At the conclusion of the hearing on 12 October I informed the parties that I would need time in which to consider what sentence should be imposed on the prisoner. 5 At the trial there was no dispute that the victim had been killed by someone. However, there was no direct evidence that it was the prisoner who had killed the victim. The Crown case that it was the prisoner who had killed the victim was a circumstantial one. 6 I am satisfied to the requisite standard that the following facts relating to the offence of murder committed by the prisoner are established by evidence given at the trial or must be taken to have been established by the jury's verdict of guilty. 7 In early November 1999 the prisoner, who was then fifty-one years old, his brother Keith Bond and a man named Peter McDougall were living together in a house at 88 Amy Street, Regents Park. The victim, who was then thirty years old, was living alone in a house at 9 Kingsland Road, Berala, which was not far from 88 Amy Street, Regents Park. 8 For about five years down to about May 1999 the victim had lived in a de facto relationship at Waterloo with a man named James Wellfare, by whom she had had a son when she was only seventeen years old. 9 After separating from James Wellfare in about May 1999 the victim lived firstly with her mother and then in a flat at Bankstown. 10 While the victim was living at Bankstown she entered into a relationship with the prisoner's brother Keith Bond. During this relationship Keith Bond was sometimes physically violent to Donna Wheeler. She obtained an apprehended violence order against him, which he breached. Keith Bond also performed acts of vandalism on Donna Wheeler's car. At times Keith Bond behaved obsessively towards Donna Wheeler. He wanted to marry her and have children by her but she rejected this proposal. By October 1999 Donna Wheeler had clearly shown that she did not wish to have any further relationship with Keith Bond. 11 On 16 October 1999 Keith Bond met another woman named Debbie Howarth. Before 2 November 1999 he had entered into a sexual relationship with Debbie Howarth, which continued for another two or three months after 2 November 1999 and then ended. After Keith Bond had met Debbie Howarth and formed a relationship with her, Donna Wheeler told James Wellfare that Keith Bond had a new girlfriend, that Keith Bond was not bothering Donna Wheeler any more and that she felt much more at ease. 12 After, or shortly before, the relationship between Keith Bond and Donna Wheeler ended, the prisoner himself entered into a relationship with Donna Wheeler. The prisoner and Donna Wheeler spent time together at the Regents Park Hotel and the Regents Park Bowling Club. 13 The 2 November 1999 was the day that year on which the Melbourne Cup was run. The prisoner, who worked as a furniture removalist, did not go to work that day. He went to the Regents Park Hotel in the morning and he spent much of the day either at the Regents Park Hotel or at the Regents Park Bowling Club. While at the Hotel he watched the running of the Melbourne Cup on television. 14 On 2 November 1999 Donna Wheeler went to work. After work she went to the Regents Park Hotel and joined the prisoner there some time late in the afternoon. 15 At about 6.35, while the prisoner and Donna Wheeler were at the Hotel, a woman named Monique Damaso telephoned Donna Wheeler on her mobile telephone and Monique Damaso and Donna Wheeler made an arrangement to met at Donna Wheeler's house at 7.30. At about 7.15 Donna Wheeler and the prisoner left the Hotel and travelled together to 9 Kingsland Road in Donna Wheeler's car. At about 7.30 there was a meeting at Donna Wheeler's house between Donna Wheeler and Monique Damaso, in the course of which Donna Wheeler supplied some marijuana to Monique Damaso. 16 The prisoner and Donna Wheeler then went in Donna Wheeler's car to the Regents Park Bowling Club, intending to have a meal at the Bowling Club. While Donna Wheeler and the prisoner were together at the Bowling Club, Donna Wheeler received a call on her mobile telephone from James Wellfare. In this telephone conversation Donna Wheeler and James Wellfare made an arrangement to met each other at Strathfield. 17 The prisoner and Donna Wheeler then left the Bowling Club in Donna Wheeler's car. Donna Wheeler dropped the prisoner off at the Regents Park Hotel and she proceeded on to Strathfield. At Strathfield she had a meeting with James Wellfare. After the meeting Donna Wheeler drove back to the Regents Park Hotel, where she joined the prisoner at or shortly after 9 o'clock. The prisoner and Donna Wheeler bought a takeaway Chinese meal and went by car to Donna Wheeler's house at 9 Kingsland Road. 18 It is relevant to note the movements on 2 November of Keith Bond and Debbie Howarth. 19 Unlike the prisoner, Keith Bond went to work on 2 November. He also was a furniture removalist. Debbie Howarth arrived at the Regents Park Hotel some time in the afternoon. Keith Bond left work and himself went to the Hotel. Keith Bond and Debbie Howarth were together at the Hotel around Melbourne Cup time. At about 4 o'clock in the afternoon they travelled together to 88 Amy Street, where Keith Bond changed out of his work clothes. Keith Bond and Debbie Howarth then went to the Regents Park Bowling Club, where they spent some time together. 20 From about 7 o'clock to about 9 o'clock or shortly afterwards Debbie Howarth played bingo at the Bowling Club. At about 7 o'clock or a quarter past 7 Keith Bond left the Bowling Club and went to the Regents Park Hotel. He remained at the Hotel until about ten to nine, when he left the Hotel to return to the Bowling Club. Keith Bond and Debbie Howarth were together at the Bowling Club, where they were seen by a number of people, until some time between 10 o'clock and a quarter past ten. Keith Bond and Debbie Howarth then left the Bowling Club and, after giving someone else a lift home, they returned to 88 Amy Street. Shortly afterwards they went to bed in Keith Bond's bedroom at 88 Amy Street. 21 On the afternoon of Wednesday 3 November James Wellfare was expecting Donna Wheeler to come to his place at Waterloo to pick up their son. When she did not arrive, James Wellfare made a number of unsuccessful attempts to contact her or find out where she was. He became alarmed and drove to Donna Wheeler's house at 9 Kingsland Road. When he entered the lounge room of the house he discovered Donna Wheeler's body lying on the floor of the lounge room. James Wellfare telephoned an emergency number and ambulance officers and police arrived at the house shortly afterwards. 22 A forensic pathologist Dr Cala attended at 9 Kingsland Road, Berala at about 3.16 in the morning of Thursday 4 November. I am satisfied that the body of Donna Wheeler had not been disturbed since James Wellfare had discovered it. 23 Dr Cala observed that Donna Wheeler was lying on her back, that she had clothing on the upper part of her body but apart from a sock on one foot was naked from the waist down and that there were three stab wounds in her left upper chest. 24 On 5 November 1999 Dr Cala conducted a post mortem examination of the dead body of Donna Wheeler. 25 Dr Cala found gross fracturing of facial bones with complete disarticulation and gross fragmentation of the cheek bone, two fractures of the lower jaw and a fracture of the hyoid bone. In Dr Cala's opinion the amount of force to produce the head injuries would have been severe to extreme. The head injuries could have been produced by the attacker using his fists, feet or knees. 26 Dr Cala observed that there were three stab wounds in the left chest, which had passed into the lung and two of which had penetrated ribs. There was a stab wound in the abdomen but the absence of any abdominal bleeding associated with the stab wound suggested to Dr Cala that the stab wound had been inflicted when the victim was already dead or nearly dead. 27 Dr Cala found petechial haemorrhages on the eye lids, suggestive of compression of the neck by the attacker using his hands, fingers or elbow. 28 Dr Cala considered that Donna Wheeler had died as a result of the combined effects of the blunt force head injuries and the stab wounds to the left lung. 29 Although the victim was naked from the waist down, there was no evidence of sexual intercourse. 30 After Donna Wheeler's body was found investigating police, quite naturally, initially suspected the prisoner's brother Keith Bond of being the culprit, because of his previous, sometimes violent and obsessive, relationship with Donna Wheeler. 31 On the morning of 4 November investigating police came to the house at 88 Amy Street, intending to interview Keith Bond. Keith Bond was not at home and the police spoke to the prisoner. There was a short interview of the prisoner by police at his home on the morning of 4 November, a longer electronically recorded interview of the prisoner later the same day and a further electronically recorded interview of the prisoner on 15 November. On 15 November the prisoner was arrested and charged with the murder of Donna Wheeler. Keith Bond was interviewed by police on 4 November and 11 November. 32 At the trial the Crown presented a strong circumstantial case that it was the prisoner who had killed Donna Wheeler. The circumstances relied on by the Crown included that he was last person known to be alone with her and had been alone with her in the room in which her dead body was subsequently found, that he had lied about the circumstances in which he claimed that he and Donna Wheeler had separated on the night of 2 November, that according to evidence from Keith Bond and Debbie Howarth the prisoner washed the clothes and shoes he had been wearing on the night of 2 November, starting the washing machine at 88 Amy Street at or shortly after midnight, that the prisoner was observed to have a recent injury to his right hand consistent with the prisoner having used his right hand to punch someone, that on a towel in the lounge room of Donna Wheeler's house where her body was found there were four areas of blood having the same genetic profile as Donna Wheeler's blood and one area of blood having the same genetic profile as the prisoner's blood, that a finger print of the prisoner in blood which had the same genetic profile as Donna Wheeler blood was found on a plastic shopping bag lying near Donna Wheeler's head, that blood having the same genetic profile as Donna Wheeler's was found on the face of the watch the prisoner had been wearing that night, that there was no evidence of any forced entry to Donna Wheeler's house and that the prisoner had told lies in consciousness of guilt on a number of occasions after 2 November. 33 I have already noted that the prisoner did not give oral evidence at the trial. Keith Bond did not give oral evidence at the trial, although evidence of the interviews of Keith Bond by the police, evidence of a statement made by Keith Bond and evidence given by Keith Bond in the committal proceedings was admitted. Keith Bond had been subpoenaed by the Crown to give evidence for the Crown at the trial but he failed to appear at the trial. He was clearly aware of attempts by police officers to find him. On 5 June 2001 Keith Bond made a telephone call to one of the investigating police officers, leaving a message on that officer's mobile telephone to the effect of "stop bothering looking for me". 34 I am satisfied that Keith Bond deliberately avoided giving oral evidence at the trial, because he did not want to give evidence which might be adverse to his brother the prisoner. The evidence which Keith Bond could give which might be adverse to the prisoner included some evidence tending to incriminate the prisoner but also, importantly, included evidence tending to exculpate Keith Bond himself. Keith Bond was the only person apart from the prisoner who, as a matter of practical reality, might, conceivably, have killed Donna Wheeler. Keith Bond had been assured by police, while police were still in contact with him, that he was no longer regarded by police as a suspect for the murder of Donna Wheeler. 35 In the absence of direct evidence, only a limited number of findings can be made beyond reasonable doubt about the actual killing of Donna Wheeler by the prisoner. 36 At the trial the Crown accepted that it could not establish any motive for the killing. I find that a dispute of some kind occurred between the prisoner and Donna Wheeler. The prisoner became enraged. He struck Donna Wheeler on the face a number of times with his fist, with severe to extreme force, fracturing a number of bones in her face. The prisoner then obtained a knife from within Donna Wheeler's house and stabbed her three times in the chest with a sufficient degree of force to penetrate two of her ribs. The prisoner then stabbed her in the abdomen. The prisoner removed the clothing from the lower part of Donna Wheeler's body. Despite removing the clothing, the prisoner did not have sexual intercourse with Donna Wheeler. The prisoner wiped his bleeding hand on the towel which was found in the lounge room. After killing Donna Wheeler he returned to his house. 37 The killing of Donna Wheeler was brutal and violent and the prisoner clearly had an intent to kill. However, the killing was not premeditated. 38 I turn to the subjective circumstances of the prisoner. 39 The prisoner did not give evidence at the trial and did not give evidence in the proceedings on sentence and no evidence was tendered on his behalf at the trial or in the proceedings on sentence, apart from two letters written by the victim which were tendered at the trial. Accordingly, there is very little evidence about the subjective circumstances of the prisoner. 40 The prisoner was born on 10 September 1948. Accordingly, he was fifty-one years old at the time of committing the offence and was still fifty-one years old at 30 June 2000, which, as I will explain later in these remarks on sentence, is the date from which any sentence I impose must commence. The prisoner is at present fifty-three years old. 41 Some evidence given at the trial shows that the prisoner has sometimes worked as a furniture removalist. 42 The prisoner has a substantial criminal history. Many of his convictions have been for offences of dishonesty or for driving offences and I do not attach any significance to them. Twice in 1970 and again in 1987 the prisoner was convicted of assaulting a female but the penalties imposed on the prisoner suggest that the courts which imposed the penalties regarded the offences as minor. 43 The offences previously committed by the prisoner to which careful consideration must be given are offences committed by the prisoner on 9 December 1987, in respect of which he was indicted before Allen J on 16 March 1989. 44 On 16 March 1989 the prisoner was indicted before Allen J on charges that on 9 December 1987 at Chester Hill he had murdered a woman named Margaret Smyth, that he had inflicted grievous bodily harm on Margaret Smyth with intent to have sexual intercourse with her and that he had robbed Margaret Smyth with striking. The prisoner pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to the manslaughter of Margaret Smyth and he pleaded guilty to the other two charges. The Crown accepted the plea of guilty to manslaughter in full discharge of the count in the indictment charging murder. 45 On 2 June 1989 Allen J sentenced the prisoner to penal servitude for twenty years for the offence of manslaughter, to penal servitude for thirteen years for inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent to have sexual intercourse and to penal servitude for eight years for the offence of robbery with striking. His Honour fixed a non-parole period of fifteen years and ordered that all the sentences be served concurrently. 46 These sentences were, of course, imposed before the coming into force of the Sentencing Act and the nominal length of the sentences and of the non-parole period would have been substantially reduced by the effect of remissions, if the Sentencing Act had not been enacted and had not come into force. 47 After the coming into force of the Sentencing Act the sentences imposed by Allen J were converted into a minimum term of penal servitude of nine years five months eleven days, which would expire on 23 May 1997, and an additional term of three years one month four days. 48 On 12 April 1990 the Court of Criminal Appeal by majority dismissed an appeal by the prisoner against the sentences imposed by Allen J. 49 In his remarks on sentence delivered on 2 June 1989 Allen J found the facts of the offences in a way which was not the subject of any criticism by the majority in the Court of Criminal Appeal. In his remarks on sentence Allen J said inter alia:- "The offences were committed shortly before 11.00 p.m. in a small park at the corner of two streets in that suburb. The prisoner had been drinking that night at a local hotel in the company of two other men. The victim was observed drinking alone and was invited to join them. She was not previously known to them. She accepted their invitation and at closing time went with the prisoner, at his invitation, to the R.S.L. Club which was nearby. They were not admitted to the Club as the victim was not a member and it was after the time during which non-members would be admitted. The victim requested the prisoner to walk her home and it was in the course of that journey that the offences were committed'. . . . "..as they got near to the corner of the two streets she said to him: 'You can piss off now, I'm nearly home' . . . This summary dismissal incensed the prisoner. The message he had got from the victim's behaviour was a firm promise of her sexual favours. In the upshot what occurred was, in the prisoner's words: 'With a few beers under my belt, I got the shits and hit her'. That the prisoner was incensed there is no doubt. His statement that he 'hit her' is, however, a quite inadequate description of what he did. She was found on the following morning at about 5.35 a.m. in the park, devoid of clothing from the waist down. She was unconscious, lying on her back and in the words of the gentleman who found her: 'She was gurgling'. Her face was so badly battered that in the words of that gentleman it appeared 'just pulped'. She was taken by ambulance to the Bankstown Hospital but transferred almost immediately, because of her condition, to the St George Hospital. Upon examination she was found to have gross facial and neck swelling with bruising around both eyes and the throat. There was a 5 centimetre laceration of the left cheek and her mandible was fractured. There was leakage of cerebro-spinal fluid from the left ear and the left tympanic membrane was found to be ruptured. Both upper arms were bruised. She died on 25 December, 1987, 16 days after the bashing, without having regained consciousness. What happened? I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that after being rebuffed the accused in his rage and frustration dragged her into the park where he proceeded cruelly to bash her. I accept that where the bashing occurred it was dark and that in the emotional storm which possessed him, the prisoner, whilst intending to punish the victim by inflicting pain and humiliation upon her did not realise, carried away as he was, that he was inflicting grievous bodily harm. Had he intended to inflict grievous bodily harm, he would have been guilty of murder – not manslaughter. It is manslaughter to which he has pleaded. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that in his enraged and frustrated state, he also stripped her of the bottom half of her clothing and, by his plea to the second charge, he has admitted that he intended to have sexual intercourse with her. I do not accept his claim in his record of interview that he did not remove the clothing. I do accept however, that he did not carry out his intention to have sexual intercourse. The paroxysm of violence had ended and the realisation that he had gotten himself into serious trouble was taking its place. But he did leave her, alone in the park, collapsed on the grass naked from the waist down and obviously badly hurt. He simply took himself home – taking the victim's two handbags with him. These bags he later threw into an industrial waste bin not far from his own house". 50 There are obvious similarities between the killing of Margaret Smyth and the killing of Donna Wheeler. There are also some differences. One difference is that the prisoner was convicted, not of the murder, but only of the manslaughter of Margaret Smyth and the Crown must be taken, by its acceptance of the plea of guilty to manslaughter, to have accepted that the prisoner did not intend to kill Margaret Smyth or to inflict really serious bodily injury on her. 51 The prisoner was not released immediately after the minimum term of his converted sentence expired. He was, however, released on parole on 6 February 1998. He was on parole for the offences committed by him against Margaret Smyth at the time he committed the present offence of murder and this is an important circumstance of aggravation. After the prisoner was arrested for the present offence, his parole was revoked and his sentence for the offences committed against Margaret Smyth did not expire until 30 June 2000. 52 I note that I have received a victim impact statement from Mrs Carol Ann Wheeler, Donna Wheeler's mother. 53 Under s19A of the Crimes Act the maximum penalty for murder is imprisonment for life but s 19A does not affect the operation of s 21(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, which authorises the imposing of a lesser sentence, that is a sentence for a specified term. 54 Under s 61(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act the Court is to impose a sentence of imprisonment for life on a person 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. 55 In R v Harris (2000) NSW CCA 469 the Court of Criminal Appeal held that under s 61(1) the assessment of the level of culpability has to be directed to "the circumstances surrounding or causally connected with the offence" (par 60). 56 In R v Harris the Chief Judge at Common Law, with the concurrence of the other members of the Court, said: "It is not at all clear to me that the assessment whether the case falls within 'the worst case category' at common law is any different from that postulated in s 61(1)". (par 87) 57 The Chief Judge went on to say that "the decision in Veen (No 2) (1987) 164 CLR 465 permits reference at common law to background material for the purpose of assessing moral culpability and dangerous propensity". 58 In his submissions in the proceedings on sentence senior counsel for the Crown submitted that it would be open to me to impose a life sentence but that I could properly impose a lesser sentence, provided that it was a very substantial sentence. Counsel for the Crown said that the Crown accepted that the offence was un-premeditated. The Crown submitted that I should find that the offence had been committed by the prisoner in an explosive outburst of violence, like the offence of manslaughter committed by the prisoner against Margaret Smyth. Counsel for the Crown said that the absence of premeditation might have the effect of removing the case from the worst category of cases at common law and from the category of cases within s 61(1) where the level of culpability in the commission of the offence is so extreme as to require the imposition of the maximum penalty. 59 The Crown accepted that the prisoner had not gone to the victim's house armed with the knife which he used to stab the victim but had obtained a knife from within the victim's home during the explosive outburst of violence. 60 The Crown submitted that principles stated by the High Court in Veen v The Queen (No.2) at 477 were applicable to the present case. At p 477 Mason CJ, Brennan J, Dawson J and Toohey J said:- "The first principle is that the antecedent criminal history of an offender is a factor which may be taken into account in determining the sentence to be imposed, but it cannot be given such weight as to lead to the imposition of a penalty which is disproportionate to the gravity of the instant offence. To do so would be to impose a fresh penalty for past offences… The antecedent criminal history is relevant, however, to show whether the instant offence is an uncharacteristic aberration or whether the offender has manifested in his commission of the instant offence a continuing attitude of disobedience of the law. In the latter case, retribution, deterrence and protection of society may all indicate that a more severe penalty is warranted. It is legitimate to take account of the antecedent criminal history when it illuminates the moral culpability of the offender in the instant case, or shows his dangerous propensity or shows a need to impose condign punishment to deter the offender and other offenders from committing further offences of a like kind." 61 It was submitted by senior counsel for the prisoner that both at common law and under s 61(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act the focus is on the level of culpability in the commission of the offence. It was contended that there were a number of reasons why the present offence, grave though it was, should not require a life sentence. These reasons were:- (i) Unlike a number of notorious other cases, the prisoner was being sentenced for the murder of a single victim. (ii) There had not been any enduring hostility by the prisoner against the victim. (iii) No motive had been shown. (iv) The offence had been unpremeditated and unplanned. (v) The prisoner had not armed himself in advance of committing the offence. (vi) The prisoner had not committed any other connected offence. (vii) Unlike some other notorious cases, the victim had not been subjected to a prolonged ordeal. 62 Reference was made by counsel for the prisoner to the prisoner having been intoxicated. I accept that the prisoner had drunk a considerable amount of alcohol on 2 November. However, he was accustomed to heavy drinking, any intoxication was self induced and he knew that he had attacked Margaret Smyth after he had been drinking. 63 Counsel for the prisoner accepted that the decision of the High Court in Veen (No 2) was relevant but he submitted that Veen had been sentenced at a time when release on licence was permitted, that the decision of the High Court in Veen (No 2) does not authorise the imposition of a sentence disproportionate to the offence for which the prisoner is being sentenced, that the commission by the prisoner of two offences twelve years apart on Margaret Smyth and Donna Wheeler did not show that the prisoner had a syndrome of violently attacking females and that it must be borne in mind that the previous offence of which the prisoner had been convicted was an offence of manslaughter and the Crown had accepted that the prisoner had not had the intent required for murder. 64 Senior counsel for the prisoner suggested that a sentence in the order of twenty-eight years with a non-parole period of twenty-one years would be an appropriate sort of sentence. 65 In reply counsel for the Crown submitted that, if a determinate sentence was imposed, the non-parole period should be longer than twenty-one years. 66 After considering the submissions made by counsel, I have reached the conclusion that I should not impose a life sentence. I consider that the circumstances referred to by counsel, including, particularly but not exclusively, the absence of any premeditation or planning on the part of the prisoner, require the conclusion that the present case, although grave, is not one of the limited number of cases of murder which fall within the worst category of cases of murder or in which the level of culpability in the commission of the offence is so extreme that a life sentence is required. 67 On the other hand, the objective facts of the commission of the offence require the imposition of a long determinate sentence. A circumstance of aggravation is that the prisoner was on parole for the offences committed against Margaret Smyth at the time of murdering Donna Wheeler. 68 Subject to the limitations stated by the High Court in the passage from Veen (No 2) which I have quoted and keeping in mind the submissions made by counsel for the prisoner including that the previous offence committed against Margaret Smyth was an offence of manslaughter and not of murder, I consider that the previous offence committed against Margaret Smyth does show that the offence committed against Donna Wheeler was not an uncharacteristic aberration, that it illuminates the moral culpability of the prisoner, that it shows a dangerous propensity on his part and the need to impose condign punishment. 69 There is almost a complete lack of any subjective circumstances which might have attracted some leniency. The prisoner stood trial and did not plead guilty. He has not shown any contrition. There is no material on which I could find that he has any prospects of rehabilitation. Apart from the offences committed against Margaret Smyth, he has an extensive criminal history. There is no material on which I could make a finding of special circumstances. 70 I consider that a determinate sentence somewhat longer than that suggested by the prisoner's counsel is required. I realise that the prisoner may die in custody before he completes serving a sentence of the length I intend to impose. 71 The sentence will commence from 30 June 2000, from which date the prisoner's custody has been exclusively referable to this offence. The non-parole period will be more than three quarters of the total term of the sentence and represents a period which I consider the prisoner should have to serve in custody before being eligible to be released. 72 Mr Bond, I sentence you to a term of imprisonment for thirty years commencing on 30 June 2000. I set a non-parole period of twenty-five years, commencing on 30 June 2000 and expiring on 29 June 2025. The earliest date on which you will be eligible for release on parole is 30 June 2025. ********** Last Modified: 12/10/2001 DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.