Regina v Grant John COLB [2006] NSWSC 811

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Regina v Grant John COLB [2006] NSWSC 811 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S) : 23 June 2006; 27 July 2006

JUDGMENT DATE : 11 August 2006

JUDGMENT OF : Latham J at 1

DECISION : Non-parole period of 14 years to date from 20 May 2005 expiring 19 May 2019. The balance is 4 years to date from 20 May 2019 expiring 19 May 2023.

CATCHWORDS : Murder - sentence - plea of guilty - role of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in commission of offence - past sexual assaults on offender.

LEGISLATION CITED : Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED : R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168 ; [2004] NSWCCA 131 [85-86]

PARTIES : Crown - Regina Offender - Grant John Colb

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 2006/580

COUNSEL : Crown - P Calvert Offender- A Haesler SC

SOLICITORS : Crown - S Kavanagh Offender - SE O'Connor

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES CRIMINAL DIVISION

LATHAM J

11 AUGUST 2006

2006/580 REGINA v GRANT COLB

SENTENCE 1 The prisoner, Grant John Colb, pleaded guilty on 5 May 2006 to the murder of David Richard McKeever on 12 May 2005. The offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. 2 The deceased, a 68 year old male, was found in his home in the afternoon of 13 May 2005 at South Durras (near Bateman's Bay) with a number of stab wounds to the head, the most significant of which was a 20 mm wide stab wound to the left upper eyelid which penetrated about 115 mm into the head to the base of the skull and through to the brain. There were also stab wounds to the right eyebrow, right cheek and left side of the neck. The wounds to the left upper eyelid, right cheek and left side of the neck were inflicted with considerable force, causing fractures to the base of the skull, the cheekbone and penetration through to the airway. The deceased's nose had been broken and he had been struck about the body and forearms. 3 The prisoner and the deceased were well known to one another, albeit the precise nature of that relationship from the prisoner's perspective is a matter of some complexity. The prisoner was in the company of the deceased from the late afternoon of 12 May 2005. The prisoner left the deceased's home in the deceased's vehicle later that evening, then abandoned it at Bomaderry railway station, where the prisoner boarded a train at 8:30pm. The prisoner's fingerprint was found on the inside glass of the driver's door of that vehicle and the prisoner's DNA was found in the deceased's home on 19 May 2005. 4 A warrant obtained for the prisoner's arrest on that day was executed in the afternoon of 20 May 2005 at Kings Cross. Later that evening whilst in custody and in the course of two ERISP interviews on 23 May 2005 and 15 June 2005, the prisoner admitted killing the deceased. Various reasons were advanced by the prisoner for his assault upon the deceased, including that the deceased made unwelcome sexual overtures to him and that the prisoner believed at the time that there had been a sexual encounter between them when the prisoner was a child. The latter belief is now acknowledged by the prisoner to be false. Whatever the nature of the contact between the prisoner and the deceased in the late afternoon of 12 May, any reliance upon the partial defence of provocation has been abandoned by the prisoner's plea. However, the objective evidence, the prisoner's accounts of the offence, and more particularly his psychological state at the time, tend to suggest that this was a sudden, explosive act of violence, possibly triggered by something said or done by the deceased. 5 This rather superficial outline of the circumstances surrounding the offence belies a much more complicated history, both with respect to the prisoner's family relationships and his association with the deceased. It is necessary to examine those histories in some detail in order to place the offence in a proper context and assess its objective gravity. 6 It should be stated at the outset that these remarks are not intended to blame or attribute responsibility to the deceased for the prisoner's actions. The deceased's homosexuality provided no excuse, justification or warrant for what was inflicted upon him. It is true that the deceased was known to the authorities at Goulburn gaol as a regular visitor of young adult male inmates and that he offered his home as temporary accommodation for such offenders while on bail or parole. It was in similar circumstances that the deceased came to know the prisoner and the prisoner's brother. However, this is not a court of morals.