R v Lock, Thomas [2017] NSWSC 715

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Lock, Thomas [2017] NSWSC 715 Hearing dates: 5 June 2017 Decision date: 05 June 2017 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Latham J Decision: 1 Sentenced to a term of imprisonment, comprising a non parole period of 27 years to date from 1 May 2014, expiring 30 April 2041, with a balance of term of 9 years, expiring 30 April 2050. Eligible for release to parole on 1 May 2041. 2 The charge set out in the s 166 certificate, tendered by the Crown on sentence, remitted to the Local Court for hearing. Catchwords: MURDER – sentence – guilty by jury verdict - where the victim is a child – where there is intention to cause grievous bodily harm – where tendency evidence found beyond reasonable doubt – no issue of principle Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 21A Cases Cited: Baines v R [2016] NSWCCA 132 Ross v R [2016] NSWCCA 176 Category: Sentence Parties: The Crown (Crown) Thomas Lock (Defendant) Representation: Counsel:

W Creasey SC (Crown) G Scragg (Defendant)

Solicitors:

Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown) Jefferys Lawyers (Defendant) File Number(s): 14/131951 Publication restriction: NON-PUBLICATION ORDER RE IDENTITY OF DECEASED CHILD'S NAME TM, CHILD'S MOTHER MW AND NEPHEW DM AND NATURAL FATHER JM

sentence 1. Thomas Lock was convicted by a jury on 19 May 2017 of the murder of TM on 21 April 2014. TM, who was the daughter of the prisoner's partner MW, was then two and a half years old. The prisoner and MW had resided in a de facto relationship, together with TM, for approximately three months at the time of TM's death. On occasions, another relative DM, stayed at the unit. 2. The offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and carries a standard non parole period of 25 years. The maximum penalty and the standard non parole period reflect the gravity with which the law regards the murder of a child of tender years. The standard non parole period applies to a notional offence which falls in the mid-range of objective gravity for offences of this kind. It falls to the court to assess the objective gravity of this offence, bearing in mind the operation of the standard non parole period and the maximum penalty as guideposts, before arriving at a sentence appropriate to the objective and subjective circumstances of the case. 3. Much of the evidence at trial was not in dispute. The single issue at trial was whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that the prisoner inflicted the blunt force trauma to the abdomen of TM that resulted in massive internal bleeding leading to her death. There was ultimately no dispute about the cause of death, nor about the events of that Easter Sunday, 20 April 2014, up until the child was put to bed at about 7:00pm. 4. The most contentious aspect of the trial was the tendency evidence which was admitted against the prisoner, on the basis that if the jury were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he had deliberately inflicted injuries to the child in the weeks preceding the child's death, it rendered it more likely that he had also inflicted the fatal injuries. For the purposes of sentence, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the prisoner was responsible for assaulting the child on the three occasions of which she complained, causing bruises to her arms, face and neck, and that the prisoner deliberately placed the child in scalding water, causing burns to her feet and buttocks.