STATE OF TASMANIA V DARREN WARD GALE WOOD J
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE 2 AUGUST 2019
The defendant, Darren Ward Gale, has been found guilty of one count of murder. It is necessary for me to make findings of fact about matters which have a bearing on the sentence to be imposed, based on the evidence at his trial. I may only make findings of fact consistent with the jury’s verdict.
The defendant murdered Mr Noel Ingham in late July 2016, on approximately 28 July. The defendant was living with Mr Ingham at Colac Court, West Ulverstone, having moved in as a tenant a few weeks beforehand. Mr Ingham was in his late 50’s, in poor health with a number of medical conditions, including diabetes and alcohol dependence. They knew each other at a superficial level, having met at the Burnie Lodge some two years beforehand. Mr Ingham’s home was a well-kept housing department two bedroom unit, where he had been living for a couple of years. He had improved and maintained the garden, the unit was recently furnished and the second bedroom was set up with a recently purchased bed and television.
When the defendant moved in, he brought little with him and freely used Mr Ingham’s property. Mr Ingham generously allowed that. Mr Ingham spoke without guile about his financial situation and accessing his superannuation. The defendant became attached to his new environment and the living arrangements, which were more comfortable than he was used to. He also wanted to exploit the situation and he saw a financial opportunity to be recognised as Mr Ingham’s carer, which would mean he would receive a Commonwealth carer’s benefit. He assumed this role, or, at least, revealed his intention to assume this role and his sense of entitlement to do so. He was preoccupied with taking on this role and it was prominent in his mind. However, Mr Ingham did not need a carer, while he had physical frailties, he was living independently. The defendant’s assumptions and sense of entitlement about taking on this role led to tensions. Mr Ingham regretted renting out his room to the defendant. The defendant had previously been a heavy drinker, had ceased drinking, but he took up drinking alcohol while living with Mr Ingham.
I do not know what precise turn of events precipitated the violence. The only eye-witness account is the defendant’s evidence, which I reject. I find the murder occurred against the background of the tensions I have identified which boiled over, likely fuelled by alcohol, and there was a physical altercation; a one-sided physical altercation. The defendant attacked Mr Ingham and for the duration of the attack retained the upper hand. Mr Ingham was physically vulnerable and did not inflict any injuries upon the defendant, and indeed did not present a threat to him in any way. By contrast, the defendant inflicted a decisive blow or multiple blows to the head of Mr Ingham. In the course of the attack Mr Ingham’s hand was broken. I find that was a defensive injury resulting from the application of blunt force trauma as Mr Ingham held his hand up to protect his head. The defendant may have used a weapon but I am not able to make a definitive finding about whether a weapon was involved. The attack may have involved the two men moving about the unit or the deceased may have been attacked and remained where he was, such as prone on a lounge. There was a great deal of Mr Ingham’s blood on the floor of the lounge and hall and the main bedroom of the unit. This may have been due to the violence that led to his death or violence to the deceased’s body after death or both.
After the death of the deceased, in the days that followed, the defendant embarked on a series of acts which sprang from a selfish motive involving a powerful sense of self-preservation at all costs.
He decapitated the deceased. He buried the deceased’s body in a shallow grave that he dug on forestry land at Dulverton. He disposed of the head elsewhere. It has never been found. He killed the deceased’s two small dogs. He used the deceased’s motor vehicle to transport the deceased’s body to the clandestine grave and the bodies of the dogs to another location at Quicksand Road at Dulverton. He drove the vehicle off the road and set fire to it. He telephoned the deceased’s number and left voice messages. He sent text messages to the deceased’s phone and used the deceased’s phone to send messages to his own phone to create a false impression that Mr Ingham was alive. He disposed of the carpet and underlay from the unit that was drenched in blood and cleaned blood from the walls of the unit. Items from the unit such as a lounge, dining table and chairs, and pieces of carpet underlay were dumped at two locations in the vicinity of Dawson’s Siding Road at Dulverton. These locations were off dirt tracks on forestry land where the items would likely go unnoticed. He destroyed items and furniture from the unit that were bloodied or evidenced the violence by setting fire to them.
He took other steps to conceal the death of the deceased and to create a false trail. He told people including his neighbours that the deceased was in Hobart for medical tests or treatment. He wrote a note to the housing department pretending to be the deceased. He even raised with police on more than one occasion a feigned concern about the whereabouts of the deceased. He mentioned information about Mr Ingham’s previous tenant to divert police attention to him. Meanwhile, he continued to live in the deceased’s unit.
His lies and deception were maintained for months. He adhered steadfastly to these lies and his deception.
He also opportunistically took advantage of the deceased’s death, giving away items of the deceased’s property to his brother and neighbour, as well as selling and attempting to sell his property. After a transaction selling the deceased’s dinghy for $1000, he offered to sell other items belonging to the deceased to the same purchaser.
The defendant’s acts of decapitating the deceased’s body, disposing of the head and burying of the body was evidence that the jury was permitted to use in a particular way as demonstrating that the defendant had deliberately killed or killed with an intention to cause serious harm to Mr Ingham. In accordance with that permissible line of reasoning, I find that these acts of concealment were so extreme and callous that that they reveal an intention to hide gravely serious criminal conduct. The grotesque violence of the decapitation and the determination involved, speaks loudly of this purpose.
These acts speak of a desire to conceal lethal violence to the head which had been accompanied by an intention to inflict death or serious bodily harm. However, I am not able to make findings which would allow me to distinguish between s 157(1)(a) or (b) of the Criminal Code. In other words, I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to kill the deceased at the time of the act or acts which caused his death. I am satisfied to the requisite degree that the defendant intended to cause serious bodily harm, and he knew his acts of violence were likely to cause Mr Ingham’s death.
I reject the submission, absent evidence of a continuum of conduct, that post-offence hostility evident in the conduct of concealment can be attributed to the time of the murder. It was submitted by the Crown that this was not prohibited tendency reasoning as the inference can be drawn that the post-offence conduct, and the hostility implicit in that conduct, was a continuation of hostility existing at the time of the killing. However, the evidence does not demonstrate a continuum of conduct, and further, the death of the deceased posed new imperatives to the defendant, including that of self-preservation, accounting for the post-offence conduct.
A thorough police investigation led to the finding of the clandestine grave. It was exhumed on 22 November 2016 and the body identified as that of Mr Ingham. An autopsy was performed on the body by State Forensic Pathologist, Dr Christopher Lawrence. He concluded that the decapitation occurred post-mortem. Stab-wounds to the shoulder area and upper back were also inflicted post-mortem, and likely associated with the decapitation. The only peri-mortem injury was the hand injury. There were several rib fractures but in his opinion they were likely caused after death. The injuries he observed did not account for death. Natural causes were not apparent. He could not identify a cause of death because he did not have the head to examine. As noted, I infer that the head was disposed of because it revealed that the cause was deliberately inflicted lethal force.
Ultimately when the defendant was interviewed by police on 30 November and 1 December 2016 he exercised his right to silence, and commented that he had no knowledge of the death of Mr Ingham. He showed no emotion or contrition about Mr Ingham’s death. This is not a case where at a subsequent stage the defendant volunteers information which would have provided the family of the deceased with some closure.
The defendant gave evidence on his trial. His evidence of the incident that led to the death of Mr Ingham involved new lies; constructed to accommodate the scientific and forensic evidence and told in light of the compelling evidence on the trial implicating him as responsible for the burial of the deceased and the disposal of the deceased’s property.
The defendant has shown no remorse at any stage.
I have been provided with two victim impact statements from Mr Ingham’s daughters. Their father’s death has left them devastated and they are profoundly affected. For months after their father was reported missing, they were left in a state of uncertainty, with receding hope that he would be found alive. The terrible details that emerged about the treatment of his body after his death has compounded their trauma associated with his violent death.
Ultimately, the Court’s role is to impose a sentence which reflects the sanctity of human life, every human life.
The post-offence conduct involving the callous treatment of Mr Ingham’s body, is a significant aggravating factor; the desecration contributing to the brutal circumstances of the murder. Other reasons for regarding this circumstance as an aggravating factor is that the cause of death was disguised and the conduct is revealing about the defendant’s lack of remorse.
The defendant is 54 years of age. His family circumstances growing up were very difficult because of severe conflict and tensions between himself and his step mother. He left home at a very young age and lived on the streets. As an adult he lived in various eastern states of Australia, and spent a period of time as a fisherman in Queensland, returning to live in Tasmania in 2014.
He has prior convictions for dishonesty and some history of violent offending. He has served terms of imprisonment in Tasmania, New South Wales and Queensland. Many of these prior convictions are now very dated. His record of violent offending from 1993 shows that he was dealt with by a court in that year for common assault and assault police, and then in 2013 he committed a common assault, for which he received a suspended term of one month imprisonment.
The defendant murdered a physically vulnerable man in his own home, who had taken the defendant in as a tenant and trusted him. While the attack was not premeditated, it was a vicious and senseless killing. The defendant intended to inflict physical harm which he knew was likely to cause death. The trigger for the violence is unknown. It is plain though that the defendant had an attitude of animosity towards the deceased, and that there were tensions between the men arising from the defendant’s greed and misplaced sense of entitlement. For the reasons mentioned, the post offence conduct is a significant aggravating circumstance of the murder requiring condemnation. The justice of the case demands that the non-parole period be significantly more than the minimum.
Darren Ward Gale is convicted and sentenced to 23 years’ imprisonment from 30 November 2016. It is ordered that he not be eligible to apply for parole until he has served a minimum of 14 years of that sentence.