IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 1684 of 2008
THE QUEEN
v
DAVID JOHN REID
---
JUDGE: WHELAN J
WHERE HELD: Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING: 1-5, 9-12, and 15-17 June and 15 July 2009
DATE OF SENTENCE 10 August 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: R v Reid
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: [2009] VSC 326
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Manslaughter by criminal negligence and recklessly causing injury – Victim was
domestic partner of offender - Victim was hit on the head with a coffee cup by the offender – Offender omitted to
obtain assistance and abandoned victim, who later died – Total effective sentence of five years’ imprisonment –
Non-parole period of three years.
---
APPEARANCES: Counsel Solicitors
For the Crown Mr M Lincoln Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused Mr G Georgiou Victoria Legal Aid
HIS HONOUR:
1 David John Reid, on 17 June 2009 a jury found you guilty of one count of manslaughter and one count of
recklessly causing injury, in relation to the death of your de facto wife, Nola Ritter, on 21 May 2006.
2 On 15 July 2009 I heard a plea in mitigation on your behalf.
3 The maximum penalty for manslaughter is 20 years’ imprisonment. The maximum penalty for recklessly
causing injury is five years’ imprisonment.
4 The circumstances of your offending can be summarised as follows.1
5 You and Ms Ritter spent much of 20 May 2006 drinking cask wine together from ceramic coffee mugs. At
1 I am bound to sentence the accused on a factual basis which is consistent with the jury’s verdict. Otherwise, in relation to
matters adverse to the accused, I must be satisfied of those matters beyond reasonable doubt, but I may take into account matters in his
favour which are established on the balance of probabilities: R v Storey [1998] 1 VR 395 at 369; R v Olbrich (1999) 1999 CLR 270; R v
Cheung (2001) 209 CLR 1; and R v Ramage [2004] VSC 508 at [25].
some stage that evening, you argued over who would drink the last cup of wine. You swung your mug at Ms
Ritter, causing a cut on the back of her head measuring 40 by 12 millimetres and penetrating the full
thickness of the skin through to the muscle. The evidence of the forensic pathologist, Dr Woodford, which I
accept, was that significant force would have been necessary to cause this wound. The force of the blow
caused the cup handle to break. By finding you guilty of recklessly causing injury, the jury must have been
satisfied that you knew your act would probably injure the deceased.
6 At some point that night you also gave Ms Ritter what you referred to in your records of interview as a ‘
backhander’, cutting her lip.
7 You both went to bed shortly after the coffee mug incident. You woke at about 7 am to find the pillows and
sheets soaked with blood. Ms Ritter moved out of the bed and went to sleep on the bedroom floor. You got
up intending to go back to sleep in the lounge room. You saw blood all over the kitchen and bathroom floor.
At some point, you made some attempts to clean up the blood.
8 In your records of interview you maintained that you repeatedly offered to take Ms Ritter to a doctor or to call
an ambulance. I will return to that. You did not at any time attempt to bandage the wound or staunch the
flow of blood yourself.
9 At about 9 or 10 am you left the deceased and drove to your brother, Ian Davidson’s house, which he
shared with his partner, Sheryl Dyke. You and Mr Davidson spent the day watching football on the
television and drinking beer. At no stage did you mention Ms Ritter’s condition. You went home at about
5.30 or 6 pm. You found Ms Ritter lying dead on the floor. You drove back to your brother’s house,
distraught. Ms Dyke called an ambulance, and the three of you returned to your house.
10 According to Dr Woodford, the cause of Ms Ritter’s death was the interaction of the haemorrhage from the
head wound and pre-existing conditions from which she suffered, being an enlarged heart and
alcohol-related liver disease. Dr Woodford’s evidence was that medical intervention would have increased
her chances of survival.
11 In finding you guilty of criminal negligence manslaughter, the jury must have been satisfied that, having
caused Ms Ritter’s initial injury recklessly with the coffee mug, you neglected to take any step to either
staunch the blood flow or to obtain medical or other intervention, and that this involved such a great falling
short of the standard of care that a reasonable person would have exercised, and involved such a high risk
of causing death or really serious injury, that it deserves to be criminally punished.
12 It is important to emphasise that the conduct which constitutes the manslaughter is not the coffee cup blow
itself; rather it is your lack of response to the position in which Ms Ritter was placed by that blow.
13 The offers of assistance are important. In your records of interview you stated that you repeatedly offered to
obtain medical assistance but that the deceased rejected your offers. I accept that offers were made, but
those offers have to be seen in the following context.
14 First, the scene which you observed when you rose on the fateful morning was horrific. The bed clothes
were drenched in blood. There were literally pools of blood throughout the house. Passive acceptance of
the deceased’s rejection of your offers seems to me to have been an extraordinary reaction to that
situation.
15 Secondly, the terms in which you yourself described some of your conversations with the deceased do not
reflect genuine concern. In this respect I refer to the following passages in your records of interview:
“I think she started bleedin’ so she went and got a flannel and patted it dry, and it wouldn’t
stop bleedin’ because - I said, ‘You’re – you’re makin’ a mess all over the floor’…And I just
said, ‘Look, come on, get in the car or I’ll ring an ambulance. Take your pick’.”
“I got out of bed because it was too – our pillows were soaked. So I said, ‘Out of bed. Can’t
sleep in this mess’.”
16 Finally, notwithstanding the extraordinary situation existing in the house that morning, you left her, and spent
the whole day drinking beer and watching football at your brother’s, without ever checking back on her and
without even mentioning to your brother or his partner what had happened.
17 I do accept that when you discovered the tragic conclusion to these events after you arrived home from your
brother’s, you were genuinely distraught.
18 I turn to your personal circumstances.
19 You are 51 years old, having been born in Melbourne in 1958. You were raised in a loving and caring
family, though both of your parents were heavy drinkers. You adopted that habit at an early age. You left
school at the age of 15 and subsequently held a succession of manual labour jobs. At one point you
worked for Jayco Caravans for a period of eight years. In 1991 you were placed on a disability pension
when, as your counsel explained, ‘alcohol got the better’ of you.
20 You have an adult daughter from a former relationship with whom you are no longer in contact.
21 You originally moved in with Ms Ritter as a boarder, but a romantic relationship developed, and lasted for
five years until her death.
22 You have since formed a new relationship with a person named Leanne Sullivan. This relationship has
existed since April 2007.
23 You have 22 prior convictions from 8 court appearances between 1976 and 2001. Many of these are
dishonesty offences. Two are drink driving offences. Of most relevance to my current task are an unlawful
assault in 1976, and offences of possessing an offensive weapon and resisting arrest in 1998. Your
counsel told me that the offence in 1976 related to a dispute with a taxi driver, and that the offences in 1998
related to an argument in a caravan park where the offensive weapon was a beer bottle. You have never
before been sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Counsel for the prosecution conceded that your prior
convictions are, for present purposes, minor.
24 Your counsel tendered a number of character references on your plea. They were written by your new
partner, Leanne Sullivan; her father, Keith Wright; her sister, Sharon Oppedisano; your sister, Gail Rosse;
and your friends, Gavan Fraser and William Butchers. The references describe you as a caring man who
has struggled to overcome alcoholism. It seems that you have reduced your alcohol consumption in recent
times. The references describe your distress regarding Ms Ritter’s death.
25 Your counsel submitted that your offending only narrowly falls into the gross negligence category. I accept
that, in terms of culpability, your offending is at the lower end of the negligent manslaughter spectrum.1 Most
notably, your negligence was by omission and your offending conduct did not involve the callousness and
deliberate cover-up present in some other criminal negligence cases.
26 Further, although there is no inflexible rule governing the approach to sentencing for the different categories
of manslaughter, manslaughter by negligence generally involves less culpability than other forms of
manslaughter.2 This is the situation in your case.
27 Manslaughter is, however, a serious offence. You have, by your criminal neglect, caused a death. You had
a responsibility to care for Ms Ritter, and yet you chose to abandon her in her moment of need.
28 At your plea, counsel for the prosecution tendered victim impact statements by Nola Ritter’s daughter, Lindy
Ritter (with an attachment by her son Anton); and Lindy Ritter’s partner, Anton Gogerly. I have taken these
statements into account to the extent allowed by the Sentencing Act 1991.
29 Nola Ritter’s death has clearly had a devastating effect on her family. Lindy Ritter describes her as a loving
mother and grandmother. She says: “I am not as light hearted as before. This sadness and despair for
Mum is always in the background.’
1 Compared to circumstances such as those in R v Jagroop [2009] VSCA 46 and R v Vandergulik [2009] VSC 3.
2 As recognised recently by the Court of Appeal in R v Jagroop [2009] VSCA 46 at [58] and [64].
30 At your plea your counsel tendered a report by the clinical neurologist, Dr Ian Stuart, dated 14 April 2009
and a report by the psychologist, Mr Jeffrey Cummins, dated 10 July 2009.
31 According to Dr Stuart, testing revealed a marked impairment in your executive skills (which he says is the
ability to sum up a situation and take appropriate action) and severe impairment of memory for verbal
information. These deficits are a product of your alcohol abuse.
32 Mr Cummins assessed you as being severely depressed.
33 Both reports note that you have suffered from chronic alcoholism for many years.
34 I accept that imprisonment will be a greater burden on you than on others by reason of your state of health. I
take that into account.
35 I also accept that specific and general deterrence, while still relevant to sentencing here, ought be
moderated by reason of your ill health at the time of your offending.1 In this regard, I refer in particular to your
depression, and to your marked impairment of executive skills due to your alcoholism.
36 Denunciation, just punishment, and protection of the community remain relevant sentencing factors.
37 Your counsel submitted that I should mitigate your sentence by virtue of the delay between the commission
of these offences (in May 2006) and the date you were charged (in September 2007), and the fact that you
have committed no further offences. I do take these matters into account in your favour.
38 Your counsel submitted that your not guilty plea should not be taken to indicate a lack of remorse, and that
in fact you are very remorseful for your offending. He referred to two suicide attempts and relied upon a
suicide letter which you wrote as evidence of remorse. Mr Cummins is of the opinion that you are genuinely
remorseful for your behaviour. You were co-operative when interviewed by police and you made frank
admissions. I accept that you are genuinely remorseful for what you have done.
39 Your counsel submitted that you are unlikely to re-offend. At least some of your past offending would seem
to be linked with your alcoholism. These offences were certainly a product of your alcohol abuse. You have
the support of your family and your partner’s family. Your future depends upon your capacity to cease
alcohol abuse. I cannot be confident that you will succeed in that.
40 At your plea the prosecutor submitted that an appropriate head sentence would be between four and five
years, with a non-parole period of between two and three years. Your counsel, on the other hand, submitted
that a suspended sentence would be appropriate in this case, perhaps in combination with a community
1 R v Tsiaras (1996) 1 VR 398; R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269.
based order.
41 You have been in custody since 17 June 2009, and accordingly I declare that the period of 55 days is to be
reckoned as already served.
42 On the count of manslaughter, I sentence you to five years’ imprisonment. On the count of recklessly
causing injury, I sentence you to one month’s imprisonment. The sentences on the two counts are to run
concurrently with each other, producing a total effective sentence of five years’ imprisonment. I fix a
non-parole period of three years.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25652460-2862,00.html

Partner left gran to die while he drank and watched footy

Article from:

Font size: Decrease Increase
Email article: Email
Print article: Print

Paul Anderson

June 18, 2009 12:00am

THE family of a fun-loving grandmother who died of complications caused by a head injury inflicted by her de facto husband while he drank beer and watched football are overjoyed he has been found guilty.

A Supreme Court jury found David John Reid, 51, guilty of manslaughter despite his lawyer arguing he was guilty of nothing more than poor judgment by deciding to leave Nola Ritter, 62, lying alone in a pool of blood on their bedroom floor.

Reid, of Cranbourne, admitted to giving Ms Ritter a "passing backhand" across the face and smashing a coffee cup over her head during a row before later going to his brother's house Ian Davidson of 20 Darwin St Nth Dandenong Vic for a day of beers and football on TV.

While he was gone, Ms Ritter died of health complications triggered by heavy blood loss.

"All he did was take from her, and in the end he took her life," Ms Ritter's adult daughter, Lindy Ritter, said after yesterday's verdict.

"This ends three years of hell for us.

"Mum was a very caring person.

"A loving grandmother to Anton. She used to love coming over to our house and looking after him and helping out while I ran my small business."

During the trial, pathologist Noel Woodford said he believed the blood loss caused Ms Ritter's heart to stress and go "into some sort of rhythm disturbance".

"Given that I think the blood loss here is a significant factor in the death, any medical attention that was able to be brought to bear to stop the bleeding is likely to have increased her chances of survival," he told the court.

In a police record of interview, Reid told detectives there was "blood everywhere" after he hit Ms Ritter with the cup on the night of May 20, 2006.

"I said, 'Do you want to go to the doctor's?' She goes, 'No I'll be right', and then I'm thinkin' 'Thank Christ for that because I'd be too pissed to drive'," he said.

The two went to sleep but later woke in a blood-stained bed.

Reid said he found blood in the bathroom and kitchen and said he thought that the situation was "serious".

He said he left to go to his brother's house after again offering Ms Ritter medical treatment because the amount of blood "spooked" him.

He said Ms Ritter again declined any help.

Reid drank about eight stubbies of beer throughout the day at his brother's nearby home.

He did not once mention his injured wife.

Reid returned home that night to find Ms Ritter dead.

Prosecutor Maitland Lincoln told the trial that Reid left Ms Ritter helpless and caused her death through criminal negligence.

Reid was remanded in custody by Justice Simon Whelan for a pre-sentence hearing.

Coffee Cup Killer

Sunday, November 15, 2009

APPEAL

Monday, October 26, 2009

Internet related articles

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Artist impression from channel 7 news

Monday, August 10, 2009

Supreme Court of Vic Trial Division Decisions

Channel 2 news article

Sentencing

Friday, July 17, 2009

Grand Mother Killer - Herald Sun Report

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25652460-2862,00.html

Partner left gran to die while he drank and watched footy

Followers

About Me

Blog Archive

Search This Blog

HITS!

Sunday, November 15, 2009

Monday, October 26, 2009

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Monday, August 10, 2009

Friday, July 17, 2009

Partner left gran to die while he drank and watched footy

Subscribe To

Followers

About Me

Blog Archive

Search This Blog

HITS!