JUSTICE David Porters comments at the sentencing of Zhang "Tina" Yu's killers.
 


STATE OF TASMANIA v STAVROS PAPADOPOULOS 30 JUNE 2010

STATE OF TASMANIA v DANIEL JO WILLIAMS

COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE PORTER J



 

The prisoners appear for sentence in relation to the killing on 25 June 2009, of Zhang Yu, a young Chinese female studying accountancy at the University of Tasmania.

Papadopoulos has pleaded guilty to murder; Williams was found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter by a jury after a trial.

I will set out the essential facts asserted by the Crown at the joint sentencing hearing following Williams' trial, about which there is now little relevant dispute.

Initially, Papadopoulos disputed the Crown assertions as to the nature of the killing, but at a hearing shortly after, indicated that these matters were no longer in issue.

I will also include some brief references to Williams' evidence at his trial as it relates to his conduct.

First, I would note that the victim was referred to as Ms Yu and I will continue to use that expression, although I acknowledge that Yu is, of course, her given name.

Ms Yu was known locally as Tina.

She was a gregarious person who would regularly go to local nightclubs.

On the evening of 24 June, a Wednesday, she went to such a venue and in the early hours of the Thursday, having told a friend that she was a little drunk, said she wanted to go home.

The friend drove her towards her house in Sandy Bay.

On the way she said she wanted to be dropped at a pizza café.

CCTV footage shows her at about 2.20am chatting happily to several persons in the café, including one male person named Josh who was an employee.

This person is also known to the prisoner Williams.

The two prisoners pulled up outside the pizza café in Williams' car at the same time Ms Yu was there.

Josh went outside to speak to them and Ms Yu followed a little later.

It appears likely that she was introduced to the prisoners.

Josh went back inside and Ms Yu went in shortly after to ask if he wanted to come out drinking.

He declined.

She told him she was leaving with Danny and Stavros.

She was seen getting into the car at approximately 2.30am.

The three persons went to Papadopoulos' unit in New Town, with some alcohol being purchased on the way.

Once there they sat in the lounge room and Ms Yu had a drink of alcohol.

Probably at around 3am she said that she wanted to go home, but Williams said he would not drive her.

There was then a discussion between her and Williams about calling Josh.

 



It was at about that time that the violence towards Ms Yu which ultimately led to her death commenced.

Papadopoulos had left the lounge room a short time before the discussion about Ms Yu going home.

He returned through a sliding door which led to the balcony, carrying a Besser block, and stood behind Ms Yu.

He brought that block down with considerable force on Ms Yu's forehead, causing a deep cut which bled.

Ms Yu stood and Papadopoulos commenced punching her.

He dragged her through the unit by the hair, throwing her against the walls.

He dragged her into a bedroom.

At one stage he slammed her up against the wall in the lounge room and put his hand between her legs.

The Crown case is that Ms Yu was the subject of sexual advances and assault by Papadopoulos during this time.

As I will later discuss, Papadopoulos remained at the bedroom end of the unit with Ms Yu.

Williams, whilst mostly staying at the other end of the unit in the lounge room, went to where Papadopoulos was on several occasions at his request, and it would seem on two occasions, went to that end of the unit in order to go to the toilet, but where he could see what was occurring.

The Crown asserts that Williams joined in the violence at a point where Papadopoulos had Ms Yu in his bedroom and was trying to strangle her with a sheet around her neck.

There is evidence in the form of a statement by Williams to police that just before this Ms Yu had told Papadopoulos to "just kill her".

A power cord was then obtained, wrapped around her neck, the Crown asserting that Papadopoulos pulled on one end and Williams the other until it broke.

Both men then carried an apparently unconscious Ms Yu to the bathroom where a bath was run and she was undressed and held under, face down, by Papadopoulos until she was dead.

Williams then touched the body on the vulva, whilst Papadopoulos stood by.

The body was tied with clothesline rope, wrapped in a sheet and then in a rug from the kitchen.

Her belongings were put in a wheelie bin which was collected the next morning.

Williams commenced cleaning the unit of the blood spilt.

The body, wrapped in the sheet and rug, was taken out of the unit by both prisoners to Williams' car which had been brought to the front of the unit by him for that purpose.

Williams drove to the Tyenna river near Westerway looking for a place to dump the body.

They drove down a track to the river's edge where they unwrapped the body and rolled it into the water, and then partially covered it with sticks.

 



In the few days which followed, both prisoners made two statutory declarations to police about their contact with Ms Yu and what had occurred that evening.

On each occasion the stories were essentially the same, and were to the effect that they had dropped Ms Yu off near a hotel at the corner of Bathurst and Harrington Streets.

Papadopoulos did however admit to friends that he had killed the girl who was missing.

He gave one person to understand that he was proud of what he had done when describing how he had hit her over the head with a brick.

He detailed that he had rammed her head into the table a few times, dragged her up the hallway to the bathroom, put her in the bath, then took her out and wrapped her in blankets.

He described how the body had been dumped in a remote area past New Norfolk.





Papadopoulos' unit was searched by police late on 29 June and both men were taken to police headquarters for interview.

Williams admitted the basic events which I have detailed.

These admissions were confirmed in a video recorded interview which was suspended in order that Williams could show police where the body had been dumped.

He accompanied police to the scene and the body was located.

In Williams' interviews with police, he revealed that Papadopoulos had on the night before meeting Ms Yu, said that he wanted to "kill a bitch" or "kill and rape a bitch".

Williams gave evidence to the same effect at his trial.

Papadopoulos does not now dispute saying these things and I am satisfied that they were said.

 

 

In his interview with police, Papadopoulos claimed that he was being sexually harassed by Ms Yu, that she said things to him like "kill me, kill me", after which he claimed to have blanked out, and that the next thing he remembered was coming home in the car with Williams, but he did not know from where.

The claim of being pressured for sex was repeated in a later interview, and he gave inconsistent statements about whether attempts had been made to strangle Ms Yu.

He said she got in the bath of her own free will, but admitted holding her face down in the water for less than a minute.

He concluded this interview by saying he was provoked and harassed by Ms Yu asking to have sex with him.

He expressed contempt for Ms Yu in offensive ways.

 

 

Forensic examination was not able to establish whether sexual assault had occurred.

Swabs and smears were negative, but since the body had been in the water for several days, an absence of sperm could have been due to water exposure.

Both prisoners were re-interviewed specifically in relation to sexual assault.

Papadopoulos repeated his claim that Ms Yu made sexual advances to him and suggested that she had in effect been responsible for her own death.

Those assertions by Papadopoulos are not now maintained by him.

 

 

The Crown says that as to Papadopoulos, this was a planned "thrill" murder, again an assertion not now contradicted.

The case against Williams is that he encouraged Papadopoulos in his violence by watching when required or requested by Papadopoulos, thus providing the audience to his depravity.

Williams actively participated in the killing of Ms Yu when he tied the cord around her neck and pulled it until it broke, and when he assisted to undress her and carry her to the bathroom.

It is specifically asserted that he was present at the time Ms Yu was being held down in the water and was present at the time she ceased making noises, having been summoned to the area several times by Papadopoulos, knowing that his presence was of some encouragement to him.

This encapsulation was not disputed.

 

 

I am not satisfied that Williams was privy to any plan or preconceived notion of causing harm to any person which Papadopoulos may have harboured.

I accept that when Papadopoulos said the things he said earlier in the evening, Williams did not pay too much attention to them.

He told police he thought he was repeating psychopathic rap music as he often did.

Although he told police that he was uncomfortable because Papadopoulos was going on a little more than usual, the material satisfies me that when Papadopoulos struck Ms Yu with the Besser block, it came as a complete surprise to Williams. I include Williams' own evidence in this material. In his evidence at the trial Williams admitted that after Papadopoulos had struck Ms Yu and taken her to the bedroom area of the unit, he did nothing but continue to heavily smoke cannabis.

He admitted the following:

• hearing a commotion from the other end of the unit;

• later going to the toilet where he saw Ms Yu at the bathroom door with blood all over her and Papadopoulos telling her to get in the shower to wash up, and then seeing Papadopoulos take her to the bedroom and punch her;

• later going to the bedroom at Papadopoulos' request, at which point the incident with the power cord took place, and removing her underpants and helping Papadopoulos put her on a sheet and drag her to the bathroom; and

• later going back again, once when called by Papadopoulos, and once when going to the toilet, Papadopoulos on each occasion having Ms Yu in the bath.

• This was first face up with no water in the bath, and then being held face down in the water.





I am satisfied that as asserted, and in accordance with the jury's verdict, Williams aided Papadopoulos to commit acts relating to the death, and that he was present when death by drowning occurred.

In short, Williams claims that he carried out his actions at Papadopoulos' request because he was fearful of him and of the consequences if he did not comply.

There was evidence at the trial of Williams' observations and of statements made by and of Papadopoulos said to ground such fear.

The jury must have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Williams aided or abetted the relevant acts of Papadopoulos, but were not satisfied that he had one of the states of mind required for murder.

The Crown disputes that Williams feared for his life, but accepts that given this was his explanation advanced at the trial, a reasonable interpretation of the jury's verdict is that the presence of fear displaced the states of mind required to establish murder. That is to say, it raised a reasonable doubt as to the existence of any of those states of mind.

In my view this is an appropriate basis on which to proceed.

As to his state of mind and culpable homicide, I would think that in the circumstances, the jury may well have taken the approach that the relevant acts were commonly known to be likely to cause death or bodily harm.

 



I will deal with the issues relevant to the prisoners Papadopoulos and Williams in turn, but before I do so, I will mention the loss of Zhang Yu.

A victim impact statement was read to the Court.

Her senseless and brutal murder caused immense shock and extreme pain and suffering for her family.

They will have to endure this pain and sadness for the rest of their lives, and the loss is acutely exacerbated by the dreadful circumstances of the death.

Her parents had worked hard towards her overseas education which she was about to complete.

Her death had a wider impact.





It caused much anxiety in the population of overseas students studying in Tasmania.

That is of course understandable, but what I can say is that there is no evidence, nor any suggestion at all, of any racially motivated aspect to this attack and murder.

Gender was the attribute which attracted her killers' attention; not race.

It should also be said that shock and outrage were no doubt felt by the whole community when learning of the death of Zhang Yu and its circumstances.





Papadopoulos is now 22 years old, 21½ at the time the crime was committed.

Although his parents separated at an early age, and he spent some time up until he was 11 with a domineering stepfather, his family ties are described as close.

His mother and her current partner and extended family have been close to the accused, and although shocked and appalled by what he has done, remain supportive of him.

The abuse of illicit drugs has been the predominant difficulty in this young man's life.

Shortly after this was recognised as a significant problem, his family sent him to the home town of his grandparents in Greece in order to remove him from the influence of associates.

After four months he returned, but soon became again entrenched into a culture of substance abuse, leading to irregular attendance at high school, culminated in leaving school in grade 8, and an absence of any formal education beyond that stage.

A further sojourn in Greece for a year, apparently with his father, again proved to be of no avail.

Although successfully completing some TAFE courses, his drug use was dominant in his life.

When about 17 he sought medial assistance.

He was diagnosed with depression and post-traumatic stress disorder which apparently stemmed from his observations of poverty and violence during his periods in Greece.

However, prescription medication was abused by him, in addition to illicit drugs.

He had some periods of employment in retail and hospitality, but at the time of this crime was in receipt of a disability support pension, due to the state of his mental health.

I am told that on the day of the murder he had consumed, in addition to some alcohol and a small amount of cannabis, 12 Valium tablets and a small quantity both of Largactil or chlorpromazine tablets, and olanzopine tablets.

I was asked to accept that this "cocktail had a significant impact upon his behaviour and affected his perceptions of what was happening".

However, that was at a time before there was an express acceptance of the allegation that the murder was committed for its own sake, and in the absence of evidence as to the effect of the ingestion of quantities of the drugs involved, I can do little with the information, other than to take it into account as a factor which may have adversely influenced his behaviour to an extent.

It was not asserted that but for the consumption of alcohol and drugs, the crime would not have been committed.

There is also the question of his underlying medical condition.

No medical, psychological or psychiatric material was submitted.

Two of the medications which were prescribed for him, and which were consumed in excess by him on the night, are generally used for the treatment of schizophrenia and other psychoses.

As a result, I sought confirmation as to whether there was anything in his underlying mental state which was relevant to his actions.

I was told that nothing was to be made of this issue.





For Papadopoulos, reference was made to his plea of guilty by which it was said he has accepted responsibility for his actions and that it affords some evidence of remorse, and his absence of relevant prior convictions of any real significance.

In particular, reliance was placed on a handwritten letter which was tendered before the full acknowledgement of wrongdoing, and reliance on that letter as genuine was maintained after that step was taken.

It was accepted that it is not in Papadopoulos' handwriting but I was told that the sentiments are his, counsel having taken him through the detail of it.

The relevant points he makes are as follows:

• he is truly sorry for his behaviour and his involvement in the senseless crime, realising that a life has been taken by a cowardly act and knowing he has brought immense suffering to the family;

• he accepts that the community at large is rightly appalled by what has happened;

• he fully accepts his part in bringing about the death of the innocent woman and struggles to believe how he could have acted in such a barbaric and wicked way;

• without offering any excuse — as he accepts there is none — he was "off his head" having consumed a large quantity of vodka and various drugs;

• he wants to say publicly that his actions disgust him and he will never be able to put out of his mind all the sadness he has brought to so many people, and the obvious effect on the community; and

• he will do everything in his power whilst in prison and upon his ultimate release to turn his life about, and hopefully with the forgiveness of society be able in the future to become a useful member of the community.

 



Williams is also now 22, being very close in age to his fellow prisoner.

He seems to have been brought up in a close and loving family and to have led a fairly uneventful early life.

However, in his case also, illicit drug use became a problem in his early to mid-teens and he left school halfway through year 11.

He had various jobs after that in retail and hospitality, and worked for his father as a labourer for about a year.

He then obtained a position at the pizza café which featured in the events of this night, where he was employed on a full-time basis, for almost two years.

He attained a managerial level.

Regrettably, his cannabis abuse became such that it dominated his life and he ultimately left that employment after a dispute with management. This was put down to the effects on his mood of his significant substance abuse.

I have been supplied with a number of references from people who have known him from childhood and early school age.

These references speak of a person who is honest, trustworthy and reliable, and about whom, prior to this episode, the referees had no misgivings at all.

More than one reference specifically refers to this type of behaviour as out of character.

As with his co-prisoner, Williams has no significant criminal history, although a minor drug conviction in January 2008 highlights his drug abuse problem.

I accept that there are reasonable prospects of rehabilitation, subject perhaps to his motivation to end his drug abuse which seems to have contributed significantly to his loss of function as a contributing member of the community.
 




Mr Papadopoulos and Mr Williams, could you stand up now please.

I turn to the question of the appropriate sentences.

Each man is convicted of the crime they face, and each will have to pay the prescribed victims of crime compensation levy of $50 forthwith.

As to the prisoner Papadopoulos, I have already noted that there is now no issue that this was a murder carried out with forethought and for the sake, or "thrill" as it was put, of doing it.

There is no underlying explanation for this chillingly bare statement.

The thought of doing this was expressed to Williams during the evening and before meeting Ms Yu.

Little, if anything, has been put forward to illuminate what motivated this sort of conduct.

The Director of Public Prosecutions has submitted that having regard to the circumstances, this case is in the worst case category, and that in light of the absence of any psychiatric material directed towards an explanation, and the lack of remorse, the prisoner presents an ongoing danger to the public.

It was submitted that life imprisonment is the appropriate course, but it was accepted that the fixing of a non-parole period would be appropriate, having regard to his age and some residual possibility of redemption.

For Papadopoulos I was asked to take into account his age, his lack of prior convictions for violence and, as I have noted, his plea of guilty, and the remorse as expressed through the letter.

In relation to the remorse, I accept that he is entitled to some credit for the utility of the plea, but that is of little consequence in the overall context, and I have reservations about accepting a level of insight and remorse as apparently demonstrated by the letter.

The sentiments expressed in that letter have to be put alongside his conduct in the days following Ms Yu's death which include his statements to others, his explanation as to the sexual provocation offered to him by Ms Yu, and the disparaging way in which he spoke of her.

Whilst I do not seek to deny that the time spent in custody since then may have caused him to reflect and to fully appreciate the nature of his conduct, the evidence of remorse is not compelling, and I will give some, but limited, weight to that factor.





This was a brutal and terrible killing of a defenceless woman.

Ms Yu was a stranger who accepted an invitation for a drink.

There is no suggestion of any provocative or offensive act on her part, or of any event at all involving her, which triggered the events leading to her death.

That death was violent and prolonged and, as submitted by the Director, and as appalling as it is to contemplate, she seems to have realised death was imminent and asked that it be hastened.

It is accepted by Papadopoulos that he murdered Ms Yu for no other reason than the sheer sake of doing it.

He had the opportunity of desisting but continued with his cruel and violent conduct, ultimately drowning her by holding her under the water.

He seems to have bragged to a friend about it afterwards.

I must have regard to the gravely callous circumstances of the crime and the need to impose a penalty directed to the preservation of human life and to upholding its sanctity.

The absence of any explanation for this type of killing, based on psychiatric or personality disorder is also cause for great concern as far as public protection is concerned and is a factor in the setting of the head sentence: see Re Kemp 143/1997 at page 3.

I have regard to the prisoner's plea and personal circumstances, but consider them of greater weight in relation to the question of a non--parole period.

As to Williams, I must accept that none of this was at his initial instigation and to a large extent he was fearful of Papadopoulos during the events as they unfolded.

However, he had ample opportunity when at the other end of the unit to escape and raise the alarm.

He did absolutely nothing to stop Papadopoulos or dissuade him in any way at any time during the course of the events.

Williams showed a complete and incomprehensible lack of empathy for the victim.

He was content to simply ignore the violence and other incidents which were occurring, whilst indulging himself in heavy cannabis use.

That use provides no real explanation and certainly no excuse for his actions.

There can be little doubt that at least by the time of the strangulation attempts, he must have known that Papadopoulos was intent on killing the victim.

He assisted Papadopoulos as and when called upon to do so in relation to events immediately leading to the victim's death in the bath, including her attempted strangulation, and was present when that death occurred, although the jury was not able to find that he had one of the states of mind required for murder.

Even accepting a fair degree of reluctance to participate in the physical acts relating to the death, he did so nonetheless, those acts being ones which would be commonly known to cause death, or in any event, were done with a state of mind which, in the jury's view, made him guilty of manslaughter.

The actions for which he is criminally responsible must be looked at in the overall context of his knowledge of events in the unit, and the time frame over which they occurred.

His fear can be taken into account in assessing his level of culpability but that level, in all of the circumstances, must still be regarded as very high.

In my view the cleaning up and hiding of the body can properly be regarded as part of his participation in the crime, although that is tempered to a degree by the fact that when apprehended by police, he fully co-operated with the location and recovery.

I take into account his age, lack of relevant record, and the other matters which I have mentioned, but the factors of denunciation and deterrence must be given considerable weight in this case.





Mr Papadopoulos, I accept the Crown's submissions and for the reasons which I have given, you are sentenced to imprisonment for the term of your natural life.

Having regard to your young age, and your previous relatively good record with no offences of violence, I also accept that it is appropriate to set a non-parole period, but it will be very lengthy.

I order that you not be eligible for parole until you have served 25 years, to commence from 30 June 2009.

It will be for the Parole Board to then assess whether it is appropriate to release you into the community.





Mr Williams, for your part in this dreadful killing, you are sentenced to ten years' imprisonment to commence on 30 June 2009.

The opportunity for parole should be given to you and I order that you not be eligible for parole until you have served six years of that sentence.