The Victorian Supreme Court in R v Baker [2012] VSC 19, a retrial, has sentenced Baker to 10 years imprisonment (minimum non-parole period of 7 ½ years) for manslaughter in a case where a 56 year old alcoholic assaulted a 76 year old whom he had visited with the intention of gaining money for sexual services. His seriously injured victim was left on the ground, being visited by Baker a day or so later and subsequently dying. Baker eventually alerted the police, after encouragement by a counsellor and solicitor. It's a sad tale, with questions about capacity and motivation.
The judgment notes that -
At the time of his death, Mr Pearce was a 76 year old retired butcher, who lived alone in a unit in Albert Street, Ballarat. You were a 50 year old unemployed alcoholic, living in various boarding houses. You had been friendly with Mr Pearce for several years. In the first part of 2006, he had allowed you to live in his spare room for about six months, and provided you with some financial support.A heavily intoxicated Baker subsequently visited an alcohol and drug counsellor, indicating that he had killed someone several days earlier.
Some time between the 8th and 15th of January 2007, most likely between the 12th and the 14th, you visited Mr Pearce, intending to get money from him in return for sex. The two of you argued over money, and you assaulted Mr Pearce.
You grabbed him in a choking fashion, causing extensive bruising around the neck. You punched him to the face with at least moderate force, fracturing his right eye socket and cheekbone. You caused the fracturing of two of his ribs, with either a kick or punch. You caused at least one other blunt trauma to the head, leading to an intense haemorrhage of the entire left temporal muscle and a subdural haemorrhage overlying the left cerebral hemisphere. This last trauma could have resulted from impact to the floor. The subdural haemorrhage is the most serious of the injuries contributing to Mr Pearce’s death. These several unlawful and dangerous acts form the basis of the manslaughter charge. Mr Pearce had no offensive or defensive injuries. ...
You left Mr Pearce lying naked, helpless and clearly seriously injured, on the floor of his unit.
Some time later, you went and spoke to your acquaintance, Robert Pinkerton, and told him you had visited Mr Pearce to get some money, lost your temper and assaulted him. You told Mr Pinkerton you believed Mr Pearce was badly injured.
A day or so later, you went and saw Mr Pinkerton again. You told him you had been back to see Mr Pearce, who was still alive but seriously injured, and had tried to give him some water.
On 16 January, Mr Pinkerton and another man, Scott Martin, spoke to you about wanting a car. You said you knew where to get one. You gave them Mr Pearce’s keys and showed them where Mr Pearce’s car was. You did this so that anybody visiting Mr Pearce’s unit would think he was not at home, because his car was not parked out the front in its usual place.
On 17 January, Mr Martin and Mr Pinkerton drove Mr Pearce’s car to Melbourne, where they eventually abandoned it. They caught the train back to Ballarat.
You said you had not intended to kill the person, but had a fist fight following an argument about money. You said the death was not immediate, and the man had been lying on the floor. You said you had returned to the man over the next two to three days, and tried to give him water. You told him that you had told two men about the assault, and they had stolen the man’s car. You said you were certain the man had died about the 3rd or 4th day after the fight.The counsellor encouraged Baker to see a lawye, arranged an appointment with a local solicitor and took Baker to the solicitor's office, stopping on the way so Baker could buy a stubby of beer to drink. The solicitor arranged for a written statement (provided to the Victorian Police after signature the next day), which indicated that
13 You told Mr Johnson you were very confused and had been drinking constantly. You said you wanted to contact the other two men, to tell them to go away, but [the counsellor] told you not to do so. You also expressed concern about the impact of these events on your own, elderly father.
you wished to report Mr Pearce’s death to the police [and] that on Monday 8 January 2007, Mr Pearce had indecently assaulted you “which resulted in [you] striking him several times”. The statement also said that “following the incident, Mr Pearce was still alive and able to talk and so [you] left the address.”The police visited the victim's unit, forced an entry through the locked front door and found Pearce dead on the floor.
The Court states that -
I am satisfied that the claim in your police statement – that you struck Mr Pearce because he had indecently assaulted you – was untrue. I am satisfied that you assaulted him because of an argument about money. Your statement to police also did not disclose that you had left Mr Pearce injured and lying on the floor, or that you were well aware that he had remained there over a number of days, apparently unable to get up.In sentencing the Court commented that -
The prosecution urged me to conclude that you deliberately lied to the police about the indecent assault, either because you did not wish to reveal past homosexual behaviour, or because you wanted to set up a possible defence of self-defence. Your counsel argued that you were so drunk when you made your written statement, that I could not be satisfied that your statement was a lie (or, if it was a lie, that it was made for either of the purposes suggested by the prosecution). ...
Irrespective of whether or not you deliberately lied to the police about the indecent assault (about which I make no finding), I am satisfied that you did not tell the police all the details that you had told Mr Pinkerton and Mr Johnson. Instead, you made a statement which significantly understated your culpability for Mr Pearce’s death.
The fact that you finally decided to come forward and tell the police about Mr Pearce’s death may demonstrate some degree of remorse, or it may be that you were motivated more by a concern to protect yourself (in case Mr Pearce’s death was discovered through some other means). The fact that you gave the police an account of what had happened, which considerably understated your culpability, causes me to have some doubts about the extent of any genuine remorse at that time. ... Apart from that very limited evidence, there is little to demonstrate any real remorse on your partHollingworth J concluded that -
As far as general deterrence is concerned, the taking of a human life is a most serious offence. The courts not only have a duty (by imposing appropriate sentences) to uphold the sanctity of human life, but must also try to deter others who, by resorting to violence, may cause loss of life. There is also a need for denunciation of what you did to Mr Pearce.
