R v Kaine (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 1824

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Kaine (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 1824 Hearing dates: 6 December 2013 Decision date: 06 December 2013 Before: R A Hulme J Decision: Imprisonment for 30 years with a non-parole period of 22 years 6 months Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - murder - intention to kill - exceptionally savage and sustained unprovoked assault of disabled older man in his own home - mistaken vigilantism - use of a weapon - serious example of offence - partial defences of provocation, excessive self-defence and substantial impairment rejected - some evidence of mental illness to slightly reduce importance of general deterrence - risk of future offending against other inmates Category: Sentence Parties: Regina Michael Peter Kaine Representation: Counsel: Mr L Carr (Crown) Mr R Cavanagh (Offender) Solicitors: Solicitor for Public Prosecutions O'Brien Winter Partners File Number(s): 2011/405549

Judgment 1HIS HONOUR: Michael Peter Kaine ("the offender") is to be sentenced for the crime of murder. It is a crime that carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for life. There is also a standard non-parole period of 20 years.

The victim 2Mr Dennis Griffin was a 62 year-old disability pensioner who lived in a single bedroom unit in a complex in Platt Street, Waratah. He had suffered from cranial dystonia for some 20 years. He was described as being very thin (he was 177cm tall and weighed some 60kg), unsteady on his feet, and he constantly twitched. He was hunched over when he walked; he had a limp; and a speech impediment. His sister said that he was "pretty weak"; she did not think he had much strength at all. A neighbour said that he had difficulty holding on to things and would often drop them. 3Mr Griffin was security conscious and he was described as a very private person. He did, however, have regular outings to a hotel next door. He would go to the Town Hall Hotel around opening time and ask for a Diet Coke and a glass of ice. He would talk to whoever was there; consume usually only half of his drink; and then leave. Most Saturdays he would make his way to a shopping centre where he would do his shopping and then meet up with his sister who would drive him home. 4Mr Griffin was acquainted with a man named James Chasty. Mr Chasty was in turn acquainted with Neroli Whyborn and the offender. Ms Whyborn had a falling out with Mr Chasty. She accused him of being paedophile and let others know of this, including the offender. Seemingly because of Mr Chasty's acquaintanceship with Mr Griffin, she falsely and maliciously accused him of being a paedophile as well. She told the offender and, even though he had never met Mr Griffin, he believed her. 5The offender subsequently told Dr Bruce Westmore, forensic psychiatrist, that he felt that Mr Griffin was "pretty evil". He thought, "what if he hurt any children and he probably has in the past". He also said that Mr Griffin and his friends had been "doing some bad things for some time". He told Dr Olav Nielssen, also a forensic psychiatrist, that he felt Mr Griffin was a threat to children in the community. 6The offender was a person who had extreme views about paedophiles. This possibly arose from having been molested when he was young. A number of witnesses in the trial spoke of him being passionate and filled with hatred about such people. A report of a psychiatric evaluation of the offender in February 2012 described him as having "over-valued pre-occupations about paedophiles".