Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R v Mottram [2018] NSWSC 873 Hearing dates: 26 April 2018 Date of orders: 14 June 2018 Decision date: 14 June 2018 Before: Hidden AJ Decision: Sentenced to imprisonment for 18 years, NPP 13 ½ years, from 19 October 2015 Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – plea of guilty – murder of offender's mother – spontaneous offence – background of troubled upbringing of offender in his mother's care – offender 19 years old – no prior convictions or history of violence – history of mental health issues – substance abuse Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s23A Category: Sentence Parties: Regina Bradley Craig Mottram Representation: Counsel: K Ratcliffe – Crown D Wilson - Offender Solicitors: Solicitor for Director of Public Prosecutions Legal Aid Commission NSW File Number(s): 2015/306401 Publication restriction: No Judgment 1. HIS HONOUR: The offender, Bradley Craig Mottram, has pleaded guilty to the murder of his mother, Simone Mottram, at her home in Inverell on 19 October 2015. I received a lengthy statement of agreed facts, setting out in detail the circumstances of the killing and the background to it, which I shall summarise. This background is essential to an understanding of the offence and it is necessary to deal with it first. Background 1. The offender was born on 7 May 1996, and was 19 years old at the time of the offence. His father was Craig Mottram, who died in 2002. 2. His mother, the deceased, had a history of mental illness from her late teenage years. In 1996, after the birth of the offender, she was hospitalised for post-partum psychosis. Her marriage to Craig Mottram broke down in 1998 and she suffered another period of psychosis. At this time the offender was 2 years old, and the Department of Community Services (DOCS) became involved in his care. He was placed in the custody of his father until that gentleman's death. The offender was then 6 years old, and the deceased regained custody of him. 3. Over the next 12 years the deceased continued to have periods of time where her mental health deteriorated, during which she was hospitalised and was unable to care for the offender. His life during this period was a troubled one. He was constantly exposed to men with whom the deceased had formed relationships after knowing them only briefly. He spent time with her at their houses, where she would drink alcohol, use drugs, and on occasions engage in sexual activity in his presence. Often these relationships ended as abruptly as they began. Numerous incidents of domestic violence perpetrated upon the deceased were reported to police, and the offender was present when some of this violence occurred. 4. The offender and the deceased had been living on the Central Coast of New South Wales, but moved to Inverell when the deceased formed a relationship with a man called Joe O'Brien in 2009. The offender became close to Mr O'Brien's sister, June O'Brien, whom he referred to as "aunty". Mr O'Brien himself was a heavy drinker and was prone to violence. On one occasion he held a gun to the deceased's head in the offender's presence. On another occasion he called the offender "an uncontrollable little faggot" and threatened to knock some sense into him. 5. Over this period the offender's paternal grandmother, Jocelyn Kennedy, was concerned for his welfare. She disapproved of the deceased's lifestyle, which she often voiced in his presence. She made repeated complaints to DOCS about her. Many of these complaints were unsubstantiated or could not be verified. The Department declined to take action in relation to them, citing case load and competing interests. Ms Kennedy continued to complain to DOCS, to the schools which the offender attended and, on one occasion, to a local member of parliament. Mr O'Brien made threats to Ms Kennedy, resulting in an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (ADVO) being made against him for her protection. 6. When the offender became a teenager, he and the deceased began to abuse each other verbally. On occasions the deceased also inflicted physical violence upon him. However, despite all this, and the inconsistency in the deceased's care of him, he attended school regularly and, indeed, excelled there. Numerous people describe him as intelligent, and his school records indicate he was an above average student. 7. His relationship with the deceased broke down after an incident in late 2010. Her relationship with Mr O'Brien had come to an end a month previously, and at the time of the incident she and the offender were living in unstable accommodation in caravan parks and motels. He was 14 years old at the time. She threw him out, complaining that she no longer wanted to live with him. He spent the night with a friend and boarded a bus the next day to return from Inverell to the Central Coast. She became aware that he was boarding the bus and attempted to remove him from it, but he refused. The bus left and she followed it in her car, swerving in front of the bus and almost causing a collision. Police attended the scene, and subsequently an ADVO was made for the offender's protection. One of the conditions of the order was that there be no contact between them. 8. Following this incident, the offender returned to the Central Coast, where he took up residence with his grandmother, Ms Kennedy. He continued his education in that area. 9. Between November 2010 and June 2012, the deceased continually tried to contact him in breach of the ADVO. On some occasions this contact was preceded by her call to police, asking them to check on his welfare. These breaches led to her arrest a number of times for contravention of the ADVO. 10. From early 2013, the offender did not attend school regularly and he left school shortly after his seventeenth birthday in May of that year. His mental health was declining, and over the next 2 years he was admitted several times to the Mental Health Unit at Gosford Hospital. There were incidents of self- harm. At the end of 2013 he was diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder and moderate, recurrent Major Depressive Disorder. 11. In August 2013, he spent a period of time at a youth refuge after fighting with Ms Kennedy. In the following year he was supervised by the Youth Mental Health Team at Central Coast Community Health. He was discharged from that service shortly after his eighteenth birthday. He was abusing prescription medicine and regularly smoking cannabis. In February 2015, he attended two sessions with a psychologist, who described him as "largely misunderstood in his life", and as having "control issues" and behaving "in a way to elicit attention." 12. In May 2015, he told the Central Coast Mental Health Team that he had been drinking heavily and sought admission to a detoxification facility. After a further admission to hospital in the following month for risk of self-harm, during which he described heavy drinking and the use of cannabis, the Mental Health Team set in train arrangements for him to enter a drug and alcohol rehabilitation program. In late July 2015, he entered the GROW facility at West Hoxton. 13. When interviewed at his admission to that facility, he described his abuse of alcohol, cannabis, nicotine and codeine, as well as experimentation with ecstasy and hallucinogens. Initially he settled well into the program, but about a month later his mental health began to decline. He was self-harming, and described consistent thoughts of killing himself and others. The GROW staff attempted to obtain treatment for him, but were unsuccessful due to red tape and a lack of resources. There was an admission to Liverpool hospital in early September 2015, where medication was prescribed and he was discharged back to the GROW program. Later that month, he took a knife from the kitchen and made comments about wanting to stab people and throw acid in their face. This led to his being discharged from the program. 14. He returned to live with Ms Kennedy. He contacted the Drug and Alcohol team at Central Coast Community Health, explaining that he had relapsed immediately and had suicidal thoughts. However, shortly after his return, he made contact with a friend whom he had met during his time in detox. For some weeks thereafter he stayed with that friend and others. He began to drink again and his consumption of alcohol escalated. He was also smoking cannabis. On an occasion during this period there was an altercation in which a person threatened him and one of his friends with a pair of scissors. 15. Ms Kennedy did not hear from him for about 3 weeks and reported him as a missing person. However, in mid-October he returned to her home. He told her that someone he had been with had drugged him, raped him and gone through his belongings looking for money. He said that he had been with very dangerous people and that they had threatened Ms Kennedy. The following day he attended the Emergency Department at Gosford hospital, where he said that he had been taking methamphetamines for about a week and had no recall of events. 16. That same day the deceased rang her father, Leopold Purer, and asked him to pick the offender up from the hospital and have him stay with him. When Mr Purer attended the hospital with his partner, he was shocked by the offender's appearance. He was unkempt and dirty, and looked as if he had been homeless. He told Mr Purer that he had been drugged at a party and he thought he had been raped. He removed his pants to expose his buttocks, and Mr Purer noted red marks around his thighs which looked like ring marks. He said that the people at the party were bad people. He was fiddling with a pen and he lunged towards Mr Purer in a stabbing motion, stopping close to his neck. He said, "That is how quick it can happen." As a result of this, Mr Purer was reluctant to have the offender stay with him because he seemed unpredictable. He took him back to Ms Kennedy's home. 17. On 16 October 2015, the deceased arranged for a friend of hers to drive her to the Central Coast to pick up the offender and take him to Inverell. In the course of their journey to the Central Coast, the offender rang the deceased and told her that the "bad people" were after him and wanted to kill him. The offender was picked up and on the way back to Inverell, at Armidale, he bought a new mobile phone and SIM card so that the "bad people" could not contact him. 18. In the evening of 17 October, the deceased and the offender arrived at the address in Inverell where she was then living with her partner, Robert Hawke. Both of them were heavy drinkers and, although the relationship was generally happy and stable, there had been reported incidents of domestic violence. 19. That same evening the three of them were at a club. The offender saw a friend of his from school, Jasmin Elliot. He asked her whether she was happy and she said that she was. He said, "Hold onto that." Later he said to Mr Hawke, "If you knew something was going on about something would you tell someone?" Mr Hawke replied, "It depends what it's about." He also asked Mr Hawke whether he knew where to "score" cannabis, but Mr Hawke said that he did not. 20. Mr Hawke told the offender that the deceased had applied for an ADVO against him (Mr Hawke) and he was facing criminal charges. Later, after the offender had become quite intoxicated, he asked the deceased why she was "trying to put assault charges on" Mr Hawke, to which she replied that it had nothing to do with him. 21. The following morning, the offender told Mr Hawke that he was in trouble. In summary, he said that he met a person while he was undergoing rehabilitation who wanted him to "do something with ice." When Mr Hawke said that he should stay away from such people, the offender said that they knew bikies and they would "get" him. He added, "For the last 8 days I don't know what I've been doing. They have threatened me and held a knife against my throat. They said don't leave town and that they know my phone number and address." 22. Later in the morning the offender rang Ms June O'Brien and said, "Mum hasn't changed has she? She has got Rob in trouble with the cops just like she did Joe. She still drinks and smokes and then goes to church just like a hypocrite. She'll never change. I fuckin' hate her." Ms O'Brien was concerned about the way he was acting. 23. It was a Sunday, and the offender, the deceased and Mr Hawke had a roast for lunch at the home. After lunch the deceased gave the offender a number of presents, which she had bought for him during their period of estrangement. In the afternoon the three of them drove to Copeton dam. There the deceased took photos of the offender but he covered his face. He and Mr Hawke walked towards the edge of the dam. The offender said, "Would you die if you fell over there?" Mr Hawke said, "Yes, you would." 24. It was on the next day, 19 October, that the offence occurred. In the morning the deceased rang Mr Purer and told him that she was going to take the offender shopping and then was going with him to the RTA to get his driver's licence. Mr Purer thought that she sounded happy. However, a number of witnesses saw the deceased and the offender at the public library later in the morning, and noticed that the deceased seemed worried and was not her usual self. 25. At the library the offender again ran into Jasmin Elliot. He was crying. Ms Elliot asked what was wrong and he said, "I fucked up, I fucked up real bad and got involved with some bad people." Ms Elliot noticed that the deceased seemed concerned about him. He was writing furiously in a notebook, and he seemed very distracted and unable to focus. He tried to give Ms Elliot a book and said, "I'll likely be dead tomorrow. Keep it." He then said, "Let me sleep it off. I'll be fine." Just before he and the deceased left the library, he cupped Ms Elliot's cheek and said, "Never stop writing, you have potential, promise me you'll never stop writing." 26. Still later in the morning, the offender attended a bank to make a cash withdrawal and was observed by the teller to be uncommunicative. He attended a liquor store, where he bought some alcohol and other items, and was observed to be sober but agitated. After that, the deceased drove her car past a friend of hers, who observed that there was a man seated directly behind her in the car who was leaning forward as if he was whispering to her. That man, no doubt, was the offender. The offence 1. The offender and the deceased returned to the Inverell home, and were there alone between 11.30am and 1.30pm. During this time the deceased said something to the offender which made him snap. He punched her in the face several times. He hit her over the head with a bourbon bottle, striking her in the right temple and possibly causing her to lose consciousness. He obtained a carving knife from the kitchen and returned to the deceased, who was in her bedroom. He stabbed her in the left breast area four times. In two of those blows the knife entered her chest cavity and completely dissected her aorta in two places. 2. He also inflicted a large number of other stab wounds. He stabbed her five times in the upper abdomen, penetrating her liver. He stabbed her multiple times in the neck, causing an almost complete transection of the neck. This involved considerable force, inflicting three deep incised wounds to the C4 and C5 vertebrae. He stabbed her a number of times in the face. He then lay the carving knife on her chest and covered her with a doona. 3. These wounds were identified in the course of an autopsy performed on 21 October 2015, the details of the pathologist's findings being set out in the statement of facts. The cause of death was considered to be a "complex pattern" of multiple injuries. 4. The offender left the scene in the deceased's car. He was observed by witnesses to be driving erratically. He turned onto the Copeton dam road, and at a point about 8-10 kilometres past the dam he ran off the road onto a steep embankment. 5. Witnesses saw him in that position. He was distressed, screaming, crying and generally appearing very disturbed. He made repeated admissions about what he had done. He described in summary form the violence he had inflicted upon the deceased. He called himself a "murderer", and asked whether he was "going to go to gaol forever." However, he also said that the killing was not pre-meditated and that he was not a "bad man." He added that, having covered the deceased's body with a blanket, he had hidden the knife under the blanket because he felt ashamed. 6. He said that he and the deceased had had an argument that morning, that she was screaming and he had to "shut her up." He complained that she "kept nagging" him and "wouldn't give up harassing" him about drugs. He also said that she "gets good boyfriends and turns them into alcoholics." He described her as "mean", a "bad woman" and a "bitch", and said that she "had to die." 7. He produced some notes on a bundle of white paper. He said that he had destroyed other notes he had made because they contained the names of bikies from whom he had bought amphetamines "on tick", and that the bikies would kill him if police found them. He recounted having been in rehabilitation and, when he got out, having become mixed up with bikies who taught him how to "cook meth." He added that he owed money to the bikies for "meth and having to cook ice." 8. He started burning some of the notes. When a witness warned him that he may start a fire, he said, "That's alright. I wanna die... ." He later said, "I drink all the time and sit in my room reading and on the internet. I've got no friends, I only drink to suppress my feelings about killing myself." He added that he had tried to jump off Copeton dam and but that he didn't "have the balls." 9. Witnesses had called the 000 emergency line, and eventually police arrived at the scene. The offender was arrested. He said to police, "I killed her" and that it was "just an accident." He later said, "I didn't mean to do it. She just wouldn't shut up." He denied having used any illicit drugs prior to the car having run off the road, and said that he had last used cannabis on the previous Friday or Saturday. I shall deal later with the question of his consumption of alcohol prior to the killing. 10. Witnesses handed to the police his bundle of notes. He was transported to Inverell police station. He was observed to be confused and disoriented, but appeared to calm down while he was there. After receiving legal advice, he declined to be interviewed but participated in a number of forensic procedures. 11. Police examined the offender's notes and found relevant material on various pages. It is appropriate to set out this material in full. 12. In a document entitled "My Last Words" was the following: "This was not planned. I was drunk, it was an accident. She just, she wired me from birth, it was an accident, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to. I can't turn myself in, I would die in jail. I'm sorry, holy shit, I'm sorry. This was not planned. This was not planned. This was not planned. Oh Jesus, what have I done. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to. She just wouldn't shut up. I don't know whether to keep driving, or turn around, hand myself in or jump off this bridge. Holy Shit I'm sorry." 1. On other pages there appeared the following: "Always on tick, everybody leeching off you. ... The easiest (Coward!) decision is to die now before the faces & guns in bushes come after me. Holding fucking knives to my throat. I'm just a weird little bookworm. I gotta have self-respect. I don't. All I wanted to do was sit in a room, stoned & play my music. They probblee (sic) gave me Hep C anyway so I'm a dead man walking. ... Back to Inverell again she won't drive any further. My life ain't worth shit right now. I'm ready to die, I'm scare of life more, ..? go to the RTA she seze but I can't even cope with putting my shoes on. She ... my dad (& ruined him) of Ettalong Monolith Club. Vulnerable and distorted. I must protect my skin, with nuffin in but the same old shame, up n down n up n down n up n down. ... Delusions, cruising to nowhere. I don't care anymore. You sure? Yes. To kill or not to kill? I'm so lonely if only. I know one thing tho, I'm not to blame. I'm just a neurotic incapable ... Ricky you bastard. Why? ...Fuck it, it ends today." 1. While in custody on remand the offender made telephone calls to several people, in the course of which he made admissions. He did so, aware that the calls were being recorded. In particular, he had a number of phone conversations with Ms Kennedy in which, among other things, he said that he did not know what had caused the argument leading to his attack upon the deceased. He said, "She said one thing and I snapped," but he did not remember what it was she said. He added, "I was paranoid, I was still coming down from the drugs that I'd been using when I was with those people." On another occasion he said to Ms Kennedy, "I was so fucked up the grog and the alcohol, on drugs and pot." 2. In other calls to Ms Kennedy he maintained that he did not mean to do what he did and that it was "an accident." He said "... I only remember like 5% of what happened. I'm glad I don't remember. ... The bits I do remember is so horrible that I'm glad I only remember a little bit." 3. Among other people he phoned was the deceased's father, Leon Purer. He said to Mr Purer, "... I know I can never be forgiven but I just wanted to apologise." Psychiatric evidence 1. I received in evidence a report of Professor David Greenberg, a respected forensic psychiatrist, engaged by the Crown. Professor Greenberg was supplied with the statements of relevant witnesses, whose evidence is summarised in the statement of facts, and records of the offender's treatment for mental health issues, the salient features of which also appear in the statement of facts. The professor also interviewed the offender, obtaining his account of his background and of relevant events. That account was broadly, although not entirely, consistent with the statement of facts. Finally, he examined Justice Health records relating to the offender during the period he has been in custody. 2. Professor Greenberg's report is lengthy, setting out in some detail his examination of the material with which he had been supplied and containing a careful examination of the psychiatric issues raised. In large part the report was devoted to a consideration of the availability of the partial defence of substantial impairment by abnormality of mind. Of course, the offender having pleaded guilty to murder, that issue need not now be addressed. Nevertheless, the offender's state of mind remains a central issue for the purposes of sentence. 3. In written submissions counsel for the offender, Mr Richard Wilson, and the Crown prosecutor joined issue about the offender's consumption of alcohol prior to the killing and the extent to which he was affected by alcohol at that time. As noted above, in his handwritten note entitled "My Last Words" he said that he was drunk. He described to Professor Greenberg a pattern of drinking which was undoubtedly substantial. In his written submissions, Mr Wilson argued that the offender was significantly affected by alcohol at the time, calling in aid evidence of the alcohol he had purchased at the liquor store in the morning of 19 October, and the observations of one of the witnesses who saw him at the embankment after the killing and of the police officers who later came to that area. The Crown prosecutor in her written submissions argued that there was no evidence of significant intoxication. She relied on observations by crime scene officers at the home of unopened bottles of liquor which appeared to be among those purchased by the offender that day, and noted that none of the witnesses at the embankment, including the police officers, described him as appearing heavily intoxicated. 4. In the event, in oral submissions Mr Wilson accepted that the evidence did not support a finding that the offender was any more than perhaps moderately affected. Given his pattern of alcohol abuse, it is likely that he had been drinking prior to the killing and was to some extent affected. However, the evidence does not support a conclusion that alcohol played a significant part in his conduct. 5. What is clear, however, is that he was in a disturbed state of mind at the time of the killing and the period leading up to it. So much is apparent from the unusual features of his behaviour on the two days prior to 19 October and on the morning of the 19th itself. It is put beyond doubt by his conduct observed by witnesses at the embankment in the afternoon of that day. In particular, it is apparent that he was preoccupied with what Professor Greenberg saw as largely paranoid fears of violence, indeed death, at the hands of people with whom he had been involved in the drug milieu. As noted, he said to Ms Kennedy in one of the phone calls in custody that he was "paranoid" and was "still coming down from the drugs" which he had been using when he was with those people. I accept that assertion, which I do not understand the Crown prosecutor to have challenged. 6. Professor Greenberg's opinion, which I accept, is that at the relevant time the offender suffered from a pre-existing Borderline Personality Disorder and substance induced paranoid psychotic symptoms. Professor Greenberg set out in his report the characteristics of Borderline Personality Disorder, noting that it is not considered a mental illness. He described it as "an enduring pattern of inner experience and behaviour that deviates markedly from expectations and is pervasive and inflexible." Individuals with the disorder "make frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment", which may include "impulsive actions such as self-mutilation or suicidal behaviour." They may display "affective (observable emotion) instability that is due to marked reactivity of mood with lability of mood." They "frequently express inappropriate intense anger or have difficulties controlling their anger." These symptoms "tend to be transient, lasting minutes or hours." People with the disorder "tend to be impulsive with behaviours such as substance abuse... ." 7. Professor Greenberg also diagnosed the offender as suffering from alcohol use disorder and cannabis use disorder (querying poly-substance use disorder). In addition, he referred to alcohol intoxication and substance induced psychosis at the time of the offence, but the conclusion of alcohol intoxication was based upon the offender's history of the level of intoxication which I do not accept. Other subjective matters 1. The offender has no criminal record, and there is no suggestion of violent conduct on his part in the evidence of his background. 2. He has been in custody since his arrest on 19 October 2015. In May 2017, his legal representatives conveyed his offer to plead guilty to manslaughter on the basis of substantial impairment, for which they apparently had a favourable psychiatric opinion. However, Professor Greenberg did not support that partial defence and the offer was rejected at the end of September 2017. Early in the following month, while the matter was still before the Local Court, the offender pleaded guilty to murder and was committed to this Court for sentence. 3. Apart from the plea of guilty, there is evidence that the offender is remorseful. It is true, as the Crown Prosecutor pointed out, that remorse was not apparent from what he said to witnesses at the embankment on the afternoon of 19 October. While he acknowledged his crime and the gravity of it, he expressed animosity towards the deceased in no uncertain terms and attributed the killing to provocative conduct on her part. He emphasised that the crime was not planned, indeed describing it as "an accident." However, in his handwritten note entitled "My Last Words" he wrote more than once that he was "sorry." As noted above, he apologised to Mr Purer in a telephone conversation while he was in custody. 4. Professor Greenberg, who assessed him almost 2 years later, on 12 July 2017, reported that throughout the interview he expressed remorse, which appeared to be sincere. Professor Greenberg noted that he stated that he needed to be punished, and appeared to accept full responsibility for his behaviour. I received in evidence a handwritten statement prepared by him which contains an apparently heartfelt expression of contrition for his crime and, in particular, acknowledges its effect upon Mr Purer and Mr Hawke. 5. In the same handwritten statement the offender writes that he has been attending education courses and courses relating to addiction while in custody. He expresses his goals upon his release as furthering his education, obtaining a professional qualification and achieving a stable lifestyle. He adds that he wants to obtain a qualification in psychology so as to be able to assist young people who are heading down the path which he has trodden. He concludes by again acknowledging the effect of his crime upon others, as well as himself, and expressing a determination never to kill again. 6. Professor Greenberg concluded his report as follows: Mr Mottram is an intelligent young man. Unfortunately, he has significant personality difficulties which may in the long term, improve over time. He may be assisted by long-term psychological counselling. I do not believe, at this time, he suffers from any major mental illness such as a schizophrenic illness. It is difficult to assess his prognosis at this time; however, I am of the view that should be cease all alcohol and illicit substances for an indefinite period and his response to future psychological counselling and psychiatric treatment leads to significant changes in his maladaptive patterns of behaviour, there is a real potential for his rehabilitation in the future. Victim impact statements 1. For the purpose of giving reasons for sentence it has been necessary to recount the deceased's own difficulties in life, and the effect they had upon the offender. In doing so it is no part of my function to pass judgment upon her, and I would not presume to do so. The positive side of her character emerges from the victim impact statements I received from Mr Hawke, Mr Purer, and her biological mother and Mr Purer's former partner, Ms Maureen O'Bryan. Mr Hawke and Ms O'Bryan read their statements to the Court. Mr Purer's statement was read by a homicide victim support person, Ms Trish Malone. 2. In their different ways each of them expressed their love of the deceased, the grief and outrage engendered by her violent and untimely death, and the enduring affects this tragedy has had upon their lives. At the sentence proceedings I expressed my deepest sympathy to all of them, and I do so again now. The sentence I pass must balance a number of competing factors and, while it may afford these people some measure of closure, I realise that it could never relieve their pain. Findings 1. Viewed purely objectively, and putting aside the background and the offender's mental state, this was a serious offence of its class. The offender mounted a brutal attack upon his mother. He punched her, felled her with a blow from the bottle, went to the kitchen and seized a knife, and continued his attack by stabbing her repeatedly to the head and upper body. Clearly, as Mr Wilson accepted, his intention was to kill her. 2. However, I accept that the attack was spontaneous, triggered by some kind of angry exchange between the two of them. As I have said, I also accept that the offender was in a disturbed state of mind, fuelled by the mental conditions (a Borderline Personality Disorder and substance induced psychosis) identified by Professor Greenberg. These contributed to a lack of self-control and sound judgment on the offender's part. It is apparent that his mental state had been deteriorating since his discharge from the GROW program a month previously. 3. On this issue, the Crown prosecutor raised the opinions expressed by Professor Greenberg in his report that at the time of the killing the offender had the capacity to understand events and the ability to judge whether his actions were right or wrong. Professor Greenberg did consider that his capacity to control himself was impaired but, on the history he received, concluded that it would not have been if he were not intoxicated. 4. It must be understood, however, that the professor was expressing these opinions in the context of the partial defence of substantial impairment by abnormality of mind, and addressing the elements of that defence set out in s 23A(1) of the Crimes Act, 1900 (NSW). Having found that the offender's intoxication was material to his loss of capacity for self-control, he noted that, by subs (3) of that section, self-induced intoxication was to be disregarded in determining whether the defence was made out. However, the partial defence focuses on whether there was substantial impairment of one or more of the relevant faculties, so substantial as to warrant liability for murder being reduced to manslaughter. The fact that the defence could not be made out does not necessarily mean that there was not some measure of impairment of a person's judgment and capacity for self-control. 5. In the case of the present offender, I am satisfied that those faculties were impaired to a significant extent. Having told Professor Greenberg what he claimed to have drunk that day, the offender said that he would not have committed the offence if he had been sober. I do not accept that and, if it were a candid observation by him, it demonstrates a lack of insight into his disturbed state of mind. As I have said, he is a person with no history of violence, and the impairment of his judgment and self-control is demonstrated by the very ferocity of the attack. 6. Further, as I said at the outset of these reasons, the offence must be understood against the whole of the offender's background, including his turbulent lifestyle with the deceased throughout his early and teenage years. Indeed, it seems that underlying this killing was the offender's long standing resentment of the deceased because of that background. This emerges from the disparaging remarks he made about her after the killing to witnesses at the embankment, and his statement in the document entitled "My Last Words" that she "wired me from birth... ." However that may be, it is particularly tragic, as Mr Wilson pointed out in oral submissions, that he should have killed the deceased at a time when she appeared to have achieved some stability in her own life and, it would seem, had brought him to Inverell out of concern for him and to help him do the same. 7. As I have said, he was 19 years old at the time of the offence and his age is a matter properly to be taken into account. While he had passed the age of majority, he was still a very young man. Professor Greenberg, interviewing him when he was 21 years of age, considered him to be immature. These matters bear upon his moral culpability for his crime and, in accordance with authority, his relative youth warrants lesser emphasis on retribution and more on rehabilitation in sentencing, even for a crime as serious as this. 8. The utilitarian value of the offender's plea of guilty should be recognised by an appropriate reduction in sentence. Mr Wilson submitted that there should be a reduction of 25%. The Crown prosecutor made no submission to the contrary, and I accept that a reduction of that order is appropriate. 9. I also accept that the offender is remorseful for his crime. It is true, as the Crown Prosecutor pointed out, that he expressed his remorse in this Court by a written statement rather than by evidence which could have been tested by cross-examination. Nevertheless, the statement appears to me to be sincere and, particularly in the light of the observations of Professor Greenberg about this matter, I accept that over the period of time which has elapsed since his arrest he has gained insight into the gravity of his crime and has come to accept responsibility for it. 10. Finally, I accept Professor Greenberg's favourable assessment of the offender's prospects of rehabilitation. This crime, committed by a young man with no prior criminal history, arose specifically from his interaction with the deceased against the background of their relationship over the years. I think it unlikely that he would offend again in this way or, indeed, at all. It is worthy of note that he had voluntarily attempted to undergo rehabilitation shortly before the offence. 11. Accordingly, I see little room for specific deterrence in this case. General deterrence remains a factor which should be reflected in sentence but, again in accordance with well-worn authority, its significance is reduced to some extent by the offender's mental conditions at the relevant time. 12. Mr Wilson submitted that I should find special circumstances warranting a departure from the statutory proportion between the sentence and the non-parole period. It is true that the offender has serious personal issues to deal with and, no doubt, will require long term treatment and counselling. It is in the community's interest that, upon his release into the community, he be subject to supervision and the sanction of parole for an extended period. However, the application of the statutory proportion to the sentence which I propose would achieve that end. Sentence 1. Mr Wilson supplied sentencing statistics for murder, together with schedules of sentencing decisions in cases of the murder of a parent and in cases of murder committed by persons between the age of 18 and 20 years. He did so acknowledging the limited assistance this kind of material can afford and recognising that this case must be assessed on its own facts and circumstances. I have found this material of little assistance. The schedules summarise cases over a very wide spectrum of objective gravity and subjective circumstances, and I have not found them of any guidance for the resolution of the present case. 2. This tragic case presents me with a very difficult sentencing exercise. A dreadful crime has been committed by a very troubled young man. The sentence I pass must give effect to an appropriate measure of retribution and deterrence, while recognising the offender's disturbed background and fostering his prospects of rehabilitation. I have decided that the appropriate sentence, before taking account of his plea of guilty, is imprisonment for 24 years. Allowing a 25% reduction of that sentence for the utilitarian value of the plea of guilty, the sentence will be 18 years. Applying the statutory proportion, the non-parole period will be 13 ½ years. Having regard to the period that the offender has been in custody, the sentence will date from 19 October 2015. 3. The offender was also charged with some offences arising from his driving from the scene in the deceased's car after the killing: taking and driving a conveyance without the permission of the owner, negligent driving and driving without a licence. Those matters have been placed on a Form 1, and are to be taken into account in the sentence which I pass for the murder. 4. Bradley Craig Mottram, for the murder of your mother, taking into account the matters on the Form 1, you are sentenced to a non-parole period of 13 ½ years, commencing on 19 October 2015 and expiring on 18 April 2029, and a balance of term of 4 ½ years, commencing on 19 April 2029 and expiring on 18 October 2033. You will be eligible for release on parole on 19 April 2029. ********** Amendments 18 June 2018 - Paragraphs renumbered. 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. Decision last updated: 18 June 2018