STATE OF TASMANIA v KYLIE JANE HACK WOOD J
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE 7 OCTOBER 2019
Kylie Jane Hack has pleaded guilty to the crimes of manslaughter, perverting justice and stealing. The crime of manslaughter relates to the death of Ms Michelle Louise Meades on 16 September 2016.
Ms Meades knew a male person, ‘GM’, who I will refer to as ‘Mr M’, and had purchased crystal methamphetamine from him. Daniel Graham was friends with Mr M and had been staying at Mr M’s unit. While staying there, he had used ice and consumed alcohol. The defendant was also friends with Mr M and had been staying at his unit from time to time. She would also purchase ice from Mr M.
On 16 September 2016, Ms Meades travelled to Mr M’s unit at Saladin Circle, in Clarendon Vale to purchase ice. Ms Meades arrived at approximately 6 pm. Mr M and/or Mr Graham sold her the drug and she spent some time in the bathroom attempting to inject the drug. She purchased another packet of ice, paying $40 as a part payment and leaving her mobile phone as collateral.
She left the unit at approximately 10:30pm, intending to catch the bus to Hobart. She missed the bus and tried to make her way back to Mr M’s unit. She had trouble and became upset and spoke to people asking for directions. In doing so, she said that she had been clean but had used drugs that day. She also complained about the drugs she had received from Mr M and Mr Graham and the fact they had her mobile phone.
She arrived back at the unit at approximately midnight. At first, only Mr Graham was present. Ms Meades and Mr Graham smoked some cannabis and Mr M returned shortly after midnight. Mr M accused Ms Meades of telling people she had been ripped off in relation to the drug deal. Ms Meades denied she had been complaining. The defendant arrived at the unit.
There was no history between the defendant and Ms Meades; they moved within the same circle of associates. The defendant entered the unit in an agitated state. She said that Ms Meades had been referring to Mr M and Mr Graham as “junkie dogs”.
Ms Meades became frightened and said that she did not know what they were talking about. Mr M again accused her of being down the road complaining that she had been ripped off. Again, Ms Meades denied that. Mr M said that he knew she had been complaining as he had spoken with the people she had been talking with.
Mr M said Ms Meades was lying. He told the defendant to teach Ms Meades a lesson and to “put a bit of fear into her”. The defendant aggressively accused Ms Meades of being a “dog”, meaning a “dobber”. Ms Meades made a comment about one of the defendant’s daughters. Mr M made a comment to the defendant regarding Ms Meades and suggesting an association with the defendant’s former partner. The defendant became very angry. Mr M said to the defendant “go, Kylie, hit her Kylie, hit her Kylie”.
At this point, the defendant, Mr M and Mr Graham formed a common intention that Ms Meades be assaulted.
Ms Meades was sitting on the lounge, and Mr M and Mr Graham were sitting on arm chairs. The defendant punched Ms Meades approximately twice to the head. Ms Meades was scared and crying, saying “no, no, no”. The defendant grabbed Ms Meades and they fell to the floor. The defendant struck Ms Meades and Ms Meades struck the defendant in self-defence, and they pulled each other’s hair. Mr Graham and Mr M watched. The defendant quickly overpowered Ms Meades. She straddled her and struck her head against the floor a number of times.
In the loungeroom was a small pair of nail scissors, sometimes used to cut up cannabis. There was a golf putter leaning against the wall.
Ms Meades was stabbed to the right side of her neck twenty times with those scissors by either Mr M and/or Mr Graham. At least three of the stab wounds penetrated the deceased’s jugular vein. The scissors were used to stab the deceased on a further occasion behind her left ear.
The golf putter was used to strike the deceased with significant force to the back of her head more than once. This caused a 95mm laceration and a second 20mm laceration to the back of her head. The force caused Ms Meades’ dentures to break and come out of her mouth. Mr M or Mr Graham or both inflicted these blows.
In her interview with police, the defendant told police that it was both Mr M and Mr Graham who stabbed Ms Meades with the scissors and struck her with the golf putter. It is immaterial for the purpose of sentencing Ms Hack whether it was one or both of them.
At one stage of the attack, the defendant became disturbed by what was happening and she left the room and locked herself in the bathroom. She could hear Ms Meades calling for help but she did nothing to assist her. The Crown highlights that there was a common intention held by the three present that Ms Meades be assaulted and the defendant held that intention during the attack. This is accepted by the defence.
When the defendant returned from the bathroom, she was told that Ms Meades had been killed.
At the time when Ms Meades stopped moving, she was wrapped in a bedspread, a gag was placed in her mouth and a rug was wrapped around her head and her body and tied with rope. The pathologist was unable to determine whether Ms Meades was still alive at that stage. The defendant was not involved in the binding and covering and had no part in the gag being placed in her mouth.
The deceased’s death was caused by blunt force head injuries, stab wounds to the right side of her neck (particularly the three wounds penetrating the jugular vein), and gagging, if she was still alive at that point.
The defendant and Mr Graham moved the body to the bathroom. Together with Mr M, they began cleaning the unit and getting rid of the evidence, cleaning up blood on the floor. Mr M had told the defendant that she would be blamed for the death of Ms Meades. They moved the television to cover a hole in the wall which had been caused during the fight between the defendant and the deceased.
The next morning the defendant and Mr Graham moved the body and placed it in a wardrobe in one of the bedrooms. The scissors and golf putter were also placed there and clothing and other items put on top to conceal the body. The defendant, Mr Graham and Mr M continued to clean up the unit in order to remove evidence of the commission of the crime.
In the afternoon Mr Graham contacted someone and asked them to contact the police as he wanted a reason to have to leave the unit. The police attended the unit that day, Mr M and the defendant were present, but not Mr Graham. The police looked for Mr Graham and undertook a cursory search of the unit. The defendant was agitated and aggressive with police.
Later that same evening the defendant took the deceased’s handbag containing two debit cards and tried to use one of the cards at a bottle shop in Howrah. The transaction was declined due to lack of funds. She tried to purchase some food using the other card, but that was declined. The taking of the deceased’s handbag and contents including the debit card constitutes the crime of stealing. On her return trip, she spoke to a person giving her a lift, disclosing there was a body in “the cupboard”, stating that she was innocent, and she did it for “him” or “them”, and she needed to get out and go to the airport before she got caught.
On Monday 19 September, the deceased was reported missing by a friend.
Shortly after 5am on 20 September, the defendant with Mr M set fire to the unit in three locations: the loungeroom, bathroom and the bedroom where the deceased’s body was still in the wardrobe. Their purpose was to cover up the crime. Mr M told the defendant that she would be blamed for Ms Meades death. Once the fire was fully alight, the defendant left the unit; Mr M also left the unit once the fire had taken hold.
Members of the Tasmanian Fire Service arrived and put the fire out. The scene was examined by police and members of the Fire Service but the deceased’s body was not then found. The property owned by Housing Tasmania was extensively damaged and ultimately had to be demolished.
The defendant obtained a lift with Ms Fisher to her mother’s house. She spoke to her mother, showing her the deceased’s drivers licence and said “look I done it” and “I told you I would fuckin do it”. She gave Ms Fisher the deceased’s wallet and other personal items she had obtained from the deceased’s handbag asking her to put the bag into someone’s wheelie bin. Ms Fisher later provided it to police.
The police arrested the defendant on 20 September in relation to the arson. She was interviewed by police later that day. She denied setting fire to the unit and denied having been at the unit at the relevant time. When pressed about details she said that Mr M had lit the fire and that she had left the unit, before he did. She said Mr M was burning chemicals, cooking drugs which was how the fire started. These were lies told by the defendant when in fact she and Mr M had set fire to the unit to destroy evidence concerning the death of the deceased and knowing that the deceased’s body was still in the unit.
On 22 September, police found the deceased’s body in the wardrobe at Mr M’s burnt out unit. A forensic examination of the crime scene followed but was hampered by extensive fire damage.
On 23 September, the defendant was interviewed a second time. She was informed that the deceased’s body had been found in the wardrobe and that she had clearly been murdered. Again, she told lies. She maintained she had no involvement with any murder or the arson. She admitted going to the unit to buy drugs from Mr M on the night of the killing (16 September) but denied being at the unit with Mr Graham and the deceased.
A ring worn by the defendant was tested and DNA matching the deceased’s DNA profile was found.
On 4 October, the defendant was interviewed again by police. Again, she told lies. She told police she had not been a witness to a murder and she did not know that Ms Meades had been murdered until police told her. Mr M had told her he had killed somebody and wanted to burn the unit to get rid of the evidence. Again, she denied seeing Ms Meades on the night of the killing. She told police she had helped clean on Saturday in exchange for drugs. Ultimately, when Mr Graham’s version was put to her again, she made admissions. She made admissions about her violence in fighting with the deceased and hitting her head against the ground after Mr M said “hit her Kylie”. She said that Mr M and/or Daniel Graham had hit the deceased with the golf club and stabbed her with the scissors and that she had been a witness to some of that conduct. Mr M had stabbed the deceased numerous times. She also admitted that at some point, the deceased was looking at her saying “please help me” but the defendant had not helped her. She said she did not know what happened after that as she left the room. She told police she was present when the arson was carried out by Mr M.
On 15 November 2017, Mr Daniel Graham entered pleas of guilty to one charge of being an accessory after the fact to murder, and a second charge of failing to report the killing of a person. It can be seen that he was sentenced to different crimes and on a different factual basis. On 19 December 2017, he was sentenced by his Honour Acting Justice Porter to 5 years and nine months’ imprisonment. His sentence was discounted on the basis that he would give evidence for the Crown of what occurred on 16 September 2016. However, ultimately when he was called to give evidence in preliminary proceedings in November 2018, he said he could not remember key events.
Ms Meades died after Ms Hack formed a common intention with Mr M and/or Daniel Graham to carry out an unlawful purpose, namely that Ms Meades be assaulted. The defendant is criminally responsible for the crime of manslaughter, although she did not cause death or intend her death. She accepts, by her plea of guilty, that it was a probable consequence of the carrying out of their joint purpose to assault Ms Meades that one of the co-offenders would do an act which would cause her unlawful death with at least the requisite intent for manslaughter (an intention to cause serious injury to her health, or commonly known to be likely to cause death or serious injury to her health).
In assessing the defendant’s culpability with respect to the crime of manslaughter, I bear in mind that the defendant did not inflict any of the fatal injuries and in fact did not contemplate the use of weapons. Also, she did not contemplate the violence would escalate to lethal force, but, on an objective basis, death was a probable consequence of the assault that the co-offenders intended.
I also take into account that the attack was unplanned and not the defendant’s initiative. However, there were serious aspects of her criminal culpability that attended her acts of violence and ultimately, she was a participant in a serious example of the crime of manslaughter. The defendant had a key role in the events that led to Ms Meades’ death by commencing the attack and carrying out the initial acts of violence. She readily followed the direction of Mr M that she attack Ms Meades in circumstances when the situation was volatile; the conduct of the three co-offenders was hostile and accusatory towards Ms Meades and they were, as a group, indifferent to Ms Meades’ vulnerability, fear and distress. Once Ms Meades was attacked and overwhelmed, the defendant escalated the violence by striking her head against the floor a number of times before desisting, when one or both of the co-offenders took over and inflicted lethal harm. The defendant watched some of what occurred and continued to adhere to the purpose that Ms Meades be assaulted.
Ms Meades was aged 51 when she died. I have read victim impact statements from her sons and her sister. They are devastated by her death; their lives and those of their families will never be the same. They describe the agonising wait in the days that followed her disappearance and then their horror and shock of finding out the brutal circumstances of her death. They are profoundly affected.
In determining sentence, I must also have regard to the defendant’s personal circumstances and her background. The defendant is aged 36. She grew up as one of 8 children in a dysfunctional family environment involving drug and alcohol fuelled conflict, subjecting her and her siblings to significant trauma. She was the victim of long-term childhood sexual abuse and regularly exposed to violence, as a victim of violence perpetrated by her mother’s partners and also as a witness to violence inflicted on her mother. Violence was normalised as a problem-solving strategy. She was introduced to alcohol and drugs as a child and has a long history of heavy poly-substance abuse. In the 18 month period before 16 September, her use of alcohol, cannabis, and crystal methamphetamine had increased to very high levels and she was also taking a mix of prescription medication. She attributes this escalation to a number of factors including her grief at the death of brother in January 2015 and the disclosure by one of her daughters that she had been sexually assaulted. This disclosure had a devastating effect upon the defendant. Her lifestyle was chaotic; she did not have a stable residence and was living on a transient basis at various residences including, as I have mentioned, Mr M’s unit.
The defendant had spent most of the 16 September consuming large quantities of methamphetamine, cannabis, prescription medication, and alcohol. She was so affected on that day and the days that followed until her arrest that her memory of events is impaired. For example, she does not recall moving the body to the bathroom and to the wardrobe.
The fact that the defendant was affected by drugs and alcohol at the material time provides her with no excuse. It does not mitigate the seriousness of her actions. It provides the Court with yet another example, of the corrupting and destructive influence of illicit drugs, and the association between drugs, such as amphetamine, crystal methamphetamine or poly-drug use, and serious crimes of violence.
Mr Damien Minehan, clinical psychologist, completed a preliminary psychological assessment of the defendant and provided a report dated 11 January 2017. He noted his initial impression was of an individual with a significant issue with illicit substances, primarily crystal methamphetamine. In addition, he noted there would appear to be significant borderline and antisocial personality traits including failure to conform to social norms, aggressive behaviour, irresponsibility, identity disturbance, impulsivity and affective instability due to reactivity of mood. Mr Minehan noted that the defendant has been exposed to violence throughout her life and has learnt to use violence as a problem-solving strategy.
The defendant has a significant number of prior convictions for dishonesty offences including burglary and stealing, also driving offences, notably driving whilst an illicit drug is present. She has a prior conviction for ill-treating a child, involving neglect, a conviction for common assault in 2002, and two convictions for assault contrary to the Criminal Code which attracted a sentence of six months imprisonment, imposed in 2005. These convictions for assault have particular relevance. The defendant and a male who was the primary instigator and main offender, inflicted violence on a woman, with the purpose of terrifying her.
It can be seen from her history of prior convictions that in September 2016, the defendant was subject to court orders requiring her not to reoffend: three wholly suspended terms of imprisonment, one of two months’ imprisonment, one of one month and one of six months imprisonment and a probation order and Supreme Court bail. It is well recognised that offending while subject to court orders is an aggravating factor.
The defendant has pleaded guilty to the charges and spared the deceased’s family the stress associated with a trial and the community the cost associated with what would have been a lengthy trial. The fact that she has relinquished all prospect of acquittal in the circumstances of this case is not in itself deserving of mitigation of penalty. It is to be balanced against the certainty of avoiding the risk of a conviction for murder if the matter had proceeded to trial. Given this advantage to the defendant her plea of guilty is not an unambiguous indication of remorse.
The defendant has been in custody on remand for this matter since her arrest on 20 September 2016. This has provided time for detoxification and time for her to reflect on the consequences of her actions. Initially, her behaviour on remand was poor, she was experiencing the symptoms of her serious and entrenched drug addiction. However, by March 2018, her behaviour within the prison had begun to steadily improve. A pre-sentence report dated 20 September 2019 provides that the defendant presents as motivated to rehabilitate herself. This is evidenced by her engagement in prison programs and with interventions that have been offered to her in prison.
She has been attending the prison psychologist to assist with family and other stressors. She has attended counselling sessions with the prison Alcohol and Drug Counsellor, Ms Karen Price who notes that Ms Hack has matured in her behaviour and general attitude. Also, she is described as “always a willing participant and engages well.” She has graduated from the Circle of Security Parenting Program having positively engaged with that program. She has also been accessing literacy support. She has engaged with the prison art program and again, the change in her attitude has been noted and she is described as a positive role model. She is on the waiting list to participate in the Equips Foundation Course which focusses on addressing general offending behaviours. I note the recommendation in the report for an order to support her further rehabilitation in the community and eventual transition into the community. However, I consider that this is best achieved through parole, if ultimately she continues with her reform and is eligible for parole. I note the defendant is now working full time in the prison, she is regarded as a hard worker and is housed in minimum security.
Her education is limited but she has good literacy and numeracy skills. She has a close relationship with her three daughters. I note her mother is very ill and has a limited life expectancy of a few months. Two of her daughters are assisting with the care of her mother.
The defendant’s remorse is a factor to be taken into account in mitigation. Initially, she demonstrated a lack of remorse in the lies she told, and by her actions in hiding the killing, her stealing of the deceased’s handbag and use of her debit cards and setting fire to the unit. She was motivated by self-interest. Over time though, the defendant has developed insight into her criminal wrongdoing. She is remorseful and ashamed, not only of her actions but also that she did nothing to help the deceased or to prevent the actions of her co-offenders. She has expressed her remorse and shame in a letter to the Court in terms that accept full responsibility for her actions and which show an understanding of the irreversible and terrible consequences of her actions. She has expressed a determination to reform.
The conduct relied upon as perverting justice is the defendant’s actions in moving the body, cleaning the scene of the crime and setting fire to the unit. These acts resulted in delay and hampered the forensic investigation. These acts also undoubtedly increased the emotional and psychological impact of the deceased’s death upon her family. The facts of the stealing and perverting justice overlap with the criminality of the manslaughter charge as they are aggravating circumstances of the manslaughter. I must ensure that the sentence I impose today is a just and appropriate reflection of her total criminality, avoiding duplication of punishment.
I record convictions. Having regard to all the matters I have referred to, balancing the considerations in this case, both aggravating and mitigating considerations, and having regard to the sentencing goals of condemnation and punishment, and deterrence, I impose a global sentence of eight and a half years’ imprisonment commencing on 20 September 2016. The defendant has prospects of reform but notwithstanding that, the minimum term of imprisonment that is required for the circumstances of this case is still significantly more than the minimum. The defendant is not to be eligible to apply for parole until she has served five and a half years’ imprisonment.