New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : R v Eaglesham [2004] NSWSC 747 HEARING DATE(S) : 20/04/04, 21/04/04, 27/04/04, 28/04/04, 29/04/04, 30/04/04, 03/05/04, 04/05/04, 05/05/04, 06/05/04, 10/05/04, 11/05/04, 12/05/04, 13/05/04, 14/05/04, 17/05/04, 18/05/04, 19/05/04, 20/05/04, 21/05/04, JUDGMENT DATE : 27 August 2004 JUDGMENT OF : Barr J at 1 DECISION : The offender is sentenced to imprisonment for twenty years. His sentence will be taken to have commenced on 12 March 2002 and will expire on 11 March 2022. I fix a non-parole period of fifteen years. He will become eligible for release on parole on 11 March 2017. CATCHWORDS : Criminal law - sentencing - murder PARTIES : Regina Glenn William Eaglesham FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 70049/03 COUNSEL : Crown: P Barnett Offender: D Yehia SOLICITORS : Crown: S E O'Connor Offender: W Grant IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION GRAHAM BARR J Friday, 27 August 2004 70049/03 REGINA v Glenn William EAGLESHAM SENTENCE 1 HIS HONOUR: The offender, Glenn William Eaglesham, was convicted by a jury of the murder on 11 March 2002 at Taree of Petrina Joy Eaglesham. The offender and the deceased were married and lived in Taree with their two year old son. The deceased was employed in a bank in the town. Relations between them deteriorated during 2001. The deceased resented the disrespectful way in which the offender was treating her, swearing at her, belittling her and falsely accusing her of having affairs with other men. Just before Christmas she threatened to leave him, but he promised to mend his ways and persuaded her to stay. His attitude and his behaviour did not improve, however, and by Monday 4 March 2002 the deceased had had enough. She took the child with her and his and her belongings and moved into the premises of a work friend. 2 The offender was very fond of the child and by all accounts a good father. He pursued the deceased, partly to do what he could to save the marriage and partly because he wanted to continue to see and care for the child. Things reached the stage when the deceased told her colleagues at the bank not to put through to her calls that the offender was making. 3 On Tuesday 5 March the deceased was at the house of her mother, Mrs Fuller. The offender went there in the evening. After dinner the offender took the child's bag and said that he was leaving with the child. The deceased blocked his way and he took hold of her wrist and twisted it and tried to hit her. He told her that he could have knocked her out cold. He calmed down and they talked about the desirability of the deceased moving her belongings to Mrs Fuller's house. She did so on the following day. 4 On Friday 8 March a serious altercation took place at Mrs Fuller's house. Mrs Fuller was not at home. The offender tried to wrest the child from the deceased's arms and she resisted. She took the telephone and locked herself in the bathroom, intending to call for help, but the offender unplugged the phone. He forced his way into the bathroom and forced her out. He tried again to take the child, holding the deceased's arms behind her back. He said that it would not be hard to kill her and the child. When he let her go she ran to the garage and locked herself and the child in her mother's car. He called for her to come out of the car and tried to get in. He said that he wanted to scare her, to make her feel as he was feeling. He went into the house and emerged with a meat cleaver, though he did not try to attack the deceased with it and may have been threatening to injure himself. If he was, he did not carry out his threat. The deceased was terrified. She ran to a neighbour's house and telephoned Mrs Fuller from there. The offender followed her but the kindly neighbour refused to let him in. 5 When Mrs Fuller came home the offender became apologetic. She advised him to get medical help and he said that he would. He learned that the deceased was going to see about getting an apprehended violence order and begged her and Mrs Fuller not to do so. 6 These accounts are taken mainly from a record the deceased began to make when she realised that she was going to have to make a formal complaint about the offender's activities. I accept the account as reliable. 7 On the following day the offender told Mrs Fuller that he had seen a doctor as promised. She told him that the apprehended violence order papers had been issued and were at the police station. 8 Monday 11 March was a work day and the deceased was using Mrs Fuller's car. The bank where she worked was in the Taree City Centre and there was a car park there in which cars could be left all day. The deceased drove the car to work and left it in the car park. 9 During the day the offender rang the bank, pretending to be the deceased's karate instructor, and spoke to the deceased. She was very upset to receive the call. She told the offender that the apprehended violence order was in force. She telephoned the police and told them what had happened. They went to the offender's house at 4:05pm and tried to serve the order. The offender's car was there but there was no answer when police knocked on the door. 10 During the afternoon the deceased withdrew from her account at the bank the sum of $290, comprising five $50 notes and two $20 notes. She left work at about 4:40pm. 11 The offender had left work earlier in the afternoon to go home. It is not possible to say whether he was home when the police called at 4:05pm. A man answering his general description was seen in the car park, not far from where Mrs Fuller's car was, at about that time. A sporting colleague of the offender, Mr McIntosh, saw the offender walking towards the car park not long after 4:40pm. I accept the accuracy of his identification. The distances involved are not great. It was possible to walk from the offender's house to the car park in under seven minutes, so the accused could, consistently with that identification, have been at home or at the car park at about 4pm. 12 The offender went to the car park and there encountered the deceased. In his evidence he gave an explanation why he went there and how he came by chance upon the car and the body of the deceased. The jury obviously rejected the latter part of his explanation. I reject it all. I do not regard him as a witness of truth. 13 When Mr McIntosh saw the offender he was wearing shorts but no shirt and had nothing on his feet. He could have been carrying a knife, but the evidence does not enable me to say that he was. He had laid hands on a knife or other sharp weapon by the time he encountered the deceased. The injuries and blood patterns on the car and the floor of the car park show that the offender attacked the deceased from behind at the open front passenger door of the car. He held her by the hair and drew the weapon savagely across her throat a number of times, inflicting two very deep wounds. So deep were the wounds and so forceful was the use of the weapon that the cervical vertebrae were marked. The deceased died from massive blood loss and from heart failure caused by the entry of air into the vascular system. 14 Having murdered the deceased, the offender bundled her body into the car and closed the door. It is not possible to say precisely where his car was at the time. It may have been at the car park, but it does not really matter for, as I have said, distances between significant places were not great. He took the deceased's handbag and drove to a car park on the banks of the Manning River on the edge of town. He removed the cash and kept it. Police later found five $50 notes, one $20 note and one $5 note hidden in his shoe. I am satisfied that the money was what was left of the sum withdrawn by the deceased that afternoon. 15 The offender threw the deceased's mobile phone into the river. He strewed the bag and its other contents, which included cards and other documents identifying the deceased, on the riverbank where passers-by would see them. His intention was to make it look as though a robber had done the murder. Later on he suggested to his former partner that the police should be investigating drug dealers, who might have killed the deceased. 16 Having planted the deceased's bag and belongings, he drove home. There must have been a substantial amount of blood on his feet. Photographs of the scene of the murder show how he walked through the deceased's blood. There was probably blood on his clothes as well. He showered and thoroughly cleaned the bathroom. He removed all traces of the deceased's blood. He cleaned the car inside and out. He went out of his way to engage the attention of his next door neighbour and say to her things implying that he had been at home, working hard, for a substantial time. He was trying to establish an alibi. 17 At some time, it is not possible to say when, he carefully disposed of the murder weapon. 18 He sat down at home and wrote a letter to the deceased marked "Monday 6.30". It is in these terms- Well I feel better. Ive keep myself busy today washing clothes, cutting the grass. Kicked the top of my toe. & washed the car so since 4.00pm to 6.30pm I havn't stop (sic) . I worked harder at home that (sic) work. I was hoping you would come and talk to me today but you havn't. I won't pressure you babe. I love you tho. I wish you could give me a chance. Even to talk or something. I'm thinking about moving in with dad so you & (the child) can have this place. 19 He left the letter at his house where he knew that any investigating police would find it. His intention was to establish an alibi. 20 The deceased was not found until about midnight. At 5 o'clock on the following morning police officers called at the offender's house and told him that the deceased had been found dead. The offender went with them to the police station and made a statement. In it he said that he had left work at 3:30pm and had gone home and remained there washing, showering and cutting grass. He had left the house, he said, at about 5:30pm to buy a bottle of drink and had then walked the dogs. The account he gave was inconsistent with his having been at the car park at any relevant time. 21 He took the trouble in the statement to say that his former partner did not like the deceased but that of late they had had no arguments that he knew of. He mentioned that the deceased had told him that a member of her family (naming him) had touched her inappropriately and that a former male friend of the deceased had been unhappy when he and the deceased had begun their relationship. He made these hurtful statements in order to try to divert suspicion from himself. 22 Just after 1pm on the same day the police arrested the offender and searched his house. He was taken into custody. At the Local Court he heard the prosecutor tell the magistrate that his fingerprints had been found in blood on the car. He began to tell a different story. He wrote letters to his mother and to Mrs Fuller describing how he had been to the car park and had come accidentally across the deceased in the car. He had lifted her and realised that she was dead and then, panicking, had run home without telling anybody. I am satisfied that he wrote those letters and maintained that version because he realised that the police would probably be able to prove that he had been at the car park. 23 The offender continued to tell that false story. He gave evidence on oath to the jury to the same effect. More recently he has said the same thing to Dr Wilcox, a psychiatrist whose report has been tendered on his behalf on sentence. 24 The several measures taken by the offender to hide evidence and try to divert suspicion from himself and onto others resulted from careful planning. The submission that there was no premeditation must be rejected. It is not possible to say when the offender laid hands on the murder weapon, but obviously he had it when he went to the car. He was then intending to use it. I have dealt in some detail with the careful attempts he made to avoid detection and try to throw suspicion onto others in order to show, as I have concluded, that his individual acts were not spontaneous but parts of an integrated scheme which he devised before he sought out the deceased. 25 The offender was born on the 8th July 1971. He left school at the beginning of year 11 and began working as a labourer for his father, a plumber. He has generally been in work in labouring jobs. He was employed in a fish processing factory at the time of the events giving rise to the charge. He commenced a substantial relationship when he was quite young and he and his partner had two children. He remained on good terms with them after the relationship ended and was seeing them regularly up to the time of these events. He and the deceased lived together for a number of years before they married. 26 In November 2001, when relations between him and the deceased were bad, the offender consulted Dr Keegan, his general practitioner. He was teary, angry and complained of loss of sleep and appetite. He was stressed by his work and by the presence of a new baby. He had lost motivation and had had some ideas of suicide. Dr Keegan prescribed an antidepressant. 27 By December his mood and sleep had improved, though he reported a troublesome side effect with the antidepressant which, I think, caused him to stop taking it. 28 He saw Dr Keegan again in February complaining about pain in one of his feet. According to Dr Keegan's notes, the offender looked well and fit. His depression had lifted. 29 On the 28th March he was seeing Dr Keegan again, telling him about the break-up of the marriage and about a problem with anger. Dr Keegan recorded that there was no history of violence but that the offender had threatened to take the child. According to the note, the offender was contrite. Dr Keegan prescribed a different antidepressant and referred the offender to a counsellor. 30 There seems no doubt that the offender was depressed about the position he found himself in. There seems no doubt that, for a time at least, he wanted to win back the affections of the deceased. He obtained a book called "Absolute Happiness," which advocated self-examination and prescribed written exercises in which things desired were repeated many times. He read the book and wrote out the exercises. 31 The offender spent a number of hours telling Dr Wilcox his story. He said that he found it hard to tell the deceased that he loved her and that after the separation he was telephoning her and speaking to her in order to apologise. It is difficult to accept at face value that that was his reason in view of the aggressive way he conducted himself, especially in the presence of the child. He told Dr Wilcox several lies, repeating to her the story about coming upon the deceased by accident and finding her dead. 32 During his time in custody the offender wrote a letter to his mother telling her, for the first time, that when he was young he had been raped by a friend of his sister. It is possible that he was sexually assaulted when young, but if he was I would not regard that as mitigating his criminality. The difficulty is that the offender is such a cunning planner and is so ready to tell a false story that he thinks will improve his position that I cannot accept the assertion unsupported by reliable evidence. 33 It was submitted that the murder was committed while the offender was depressed and that it was more than cold-blooded, it was an irrational and impulsive reaction to the offender's intense sense of rejection and abandonment. I accept that the offender was depressed when the deceased left him and that he felt rejected and abandoned. But I do not think that he murdered the deceased because he was depressed. There are two reasons for this conclusion. First, Dr Keegan prescribed antidepressant medicine and the offender took it. It might have been expected to work, as the first drug had. It was likely to lift his depression. Secondly, and more importantly, the offender showed none of the signs of depression in the positive way he went about his task. Far from being teary and unmotivated, he carefully planned and executed the murder and the steps calculated to divert suspicion from himself. Those steps required him to think clearly and to present to others, particularly his neighbour, his family and the police, an appearance of normality. I do not think that he could have done these things if he had been significantly affected by his depression. 34 No doubt the offender felt rejected and abandoned, but there was nothing impulsive or irrational about the way he went about his work. The murder was born out of the offender's anger about and resentment of the deceased's leaving him and obtaining the apprehended violence order. This was not a spontaneous welling-up of anger. 35 Court orders have been made for the custody and welfare of the child. They prevent the offender from ever seeing or speaking to him. He will not see the child grow up and will play no part in teaching and guiding him. He will never know what the child knows or thinks about him, at least before the child becomes an adult. I accept that the offender will suffer because of this severance. I assume also that his relations with the children of his first relationship will be affected. However, these are the inevitable consequences of his offence. They do not mitigate his criminality. 36 The offender continues to deny his criminality. There is no contrition. He has denied to his parents that he murdered his wife. He cannot now turn round and admit his guilt because he thinks that if he did he would lose the support of his family. 37 The offender has made no attempt to harm himself since he has been in custody. He is no longer depressed. 38 His inability to take responsibility for his action will, Dr Wilcox thinks, hamper his rehabilitation. I am not prepared to conclude that there are no prospects of rehabilitation, however. As things stand they are poor, but things can happen in time and the offender may acknowledge his offence in due course. 39 Dr Wilcox observes that when his state of denial comes to an end he may become depressed and suicidal. She also believes that once the offender's preoccupation with legal proceedings comes to an end his sense of loss will intensify, perhaps leading to further periods of depression. Undoubtedly the offender is going to need counselling, and perhaps psychiatric, services during his time in custody. 40 During 1993 the offender went to Coonabarabran to seek work and moved into the house of his partner's parents in that town. Also living at the house was her sixteen-year-old brother. On an occasion in November the offender, his partner and members of her family went camping. The offender accused her brother of stealing money and began to attack him with his fists. Others intervened. The offender carried on the attack, punching his partner's father, her brother and his male companion. He knocked her father unconscious and broke his cheek bone. He was convicted and fined. I do not regard his actions as aggravating the murder, but they disentitle him to the leniency that might otherwise have been extended to him. 41 It was submitted that there were special circumstances justifying the fixing of a parole period exceeding one quarter of the head sentence. They were said to be the offender's probable need for counselling and professional assistance in view of the likely intensification of his sense of loss once these proceedings are over and, in view of the history of depression, and his need for counselling over the loss of contact with his children, maintaining and establishing relationships with others and containing his anger. The second reason was that this is the first time the offender has served a custodial sentence. 42 I accept that there are the risks pointed to by Dr Wilcox. I think that the offender's sense of loss and rejection will probably intensify and that he will need professional services. However, the non-parole period which it is necessary to impose in order to reflect the great seriousness of the offence is a long one. It is not to be supposed that problems of the kind pointed to will not be broached until the commencement of the period of parole. The offender will have therapy, over years if necessary, during the non-parole period of his sentence. I find it impossible to estimate what professional services and counselling he may need at the commencement of his period of parole, but I have no reason to believe that all that must then be done will not be able to be done within the period I have allowed. 43 The offender intentionally killed the deceased in a particularly brutal way. This was a very serious offence of its kind. 44 Glenn William Eaglesham, you are sentenced to imprisonment for twenty years. Your sentence will be taken to have commenced on 12 March 2002 and will expire on 11 March 2022. I fix a non-parole period of fifteen years. You will become eligible for release on parole on 11 March 2017. ********** Last Modified: 08/27/2004 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.