blog
Out of context: Reply #70128
- Started
- Last post
- 76,740 Responses
- autoflavour0
Just dug this up.. she was one of my best friends in high school..
Murder duo sentenced to 24 years Gaol in the Launceston Supreme Court of Tasmania today. Nathan Thomas Smith pleaded Guilty while Belinda Leone Colbran was found Guilty by a jury trial. Smith will be eligible to apply for Parole after serving 14 years and Colbran 13 years. The Murder victim Aaron Matthew Monaco was stabbed six times at a Parua Road, Newnham address in November of 2016. Sentencing comments below:
STATE OF TASMANIA v NATHAN THOMAS SMITH AND BELINDA LEONE COLBRAN
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE 13 DECEMBER 2018
Nathan Thomas Smith and Belinda Leone Colbran, you are before the Court for sentence for the murder of Mr Aaron Matthew Robertson Monaco for which each of you is convicted: Mr Smith on your plea of guilty and, Ms Colbran having been found guilty by jury.
You both arrived in this State from New South Wales, living first in Burnie before moving to Launceston. You appear to have spent most of your time together residing with one another either at Parua Road or at Lambert Street.
The facts as I find them are these. On 4 November 2016 you travelled together to 38 Parua Road in Newnham. Smith, it was your evidence on Colbran’s trial that you went there because you had been away for a few days, residing with her, and you wanted a change of clothes. It was very late in the day to be going there just for that reason. I am satisfied that each of you, after a long drinking session, went there at least in part, to confront Mr Monaco with whom you were both angry for out-staying his welcome and failing to look after your flat. Before you left, Colbran retrieved a knife belonging to Smith which was kept in a case in her address at Lambert Street. You purchased alcohol on the way, which I infer was intended to be consumed at Parua Road.
Smith your evidence at the trial was that upon your arrival at that address the deceased emerged from the bedroom area of the flat whereupon the assault that led to his death began. You said that the deceased emerged from the bedroom with a knife. I do not accept that version of events and I note that you do not maintain it in the sentencing submissions. I find that Mr Monaco showed no aggression towards you or Colbran. After a verbal exchange between you and the deceased, you attacked him inflicting a series of wounds which caused his death. To the extent that there is uncertainty as to who wielded the knife, based upon the dying declaration of the deceased, I am satisfied that it was you. I find that you used the knife which had been brought to Parua Road by Colbran, that she assisted you by giving you that knife and effectively restricting Mr Monaco's movement whereupon you were able to stab him. I observe that the only person to sustain injury during the course of this episode was the deceased and that is consistent with my findings as to the way events unfolded. I do not accept that Colbran remained on the couch as Smith claimed in his evidence at the trial. Colbran then removed the weapon from the scene. Colbran's admissions at interview with police were intended to protect Smith and were willingly made by her because of her own involvement in the violence which occurred. Mr Monaco stood no chance in the face of the wanton aggression which was exhibited by Smith, enabled and supported by Colbran.
I find in accordance with the evidence of the State pathologist that Mr Monaco died as a result of a series of knife wounds.
I conclude that I should sentence you on the basis that you are both guilty of murder under s 157(1)(b) of the Criminal Code as I note all counsel have submitted to me in sentencing submissions. In my view, there is not basis on the facts as I find them, for differentiating the degree of culpability attaching to the conduct of either of you. Your actions are inextricably related, one of you performing the act of stabbing the deceased, the other enabling it. I recognise that an intention to kill is a material consideration in the sentencing exercise for murder, and that murder under s 157(1)(b) of the Criminal Code does not require such an intention, only that there is an intention to cause bodily harm which you knew to be likely to cause death. But, murder committed on that basis is not necessarily less grave than an intentional murder. I apply the law as summarised in Dobson v Tasmania [2017] TASCCA 19. I consider this to be a very serious example of the crime of murder. It was callous and brutal, with nothing to mitigate it. No submission advanced to the Court has suggested otherwise.
Smith, your plea of guilty is referred to by your counsel. I afford it little weight. It was a qualified admission. Within it a significant lie was buried, through which you sought to portray your victim as an aggressor by asserting that he was carrying a knife when he came into the room that night. He was not. Your decision to abandon that version now raises a question as to why you put that version at Colbran’s trial, on your oath in front of the jury. I must assume that you believed it assisted Colbran if you lied in that way. That undermines your claim that your plea of guilty can be received by the Court as demonstrating contrition. In fact, you were willing to present a false impression of the deceased and of his conduct in the lead up to his death, in order to obfuscate the truth. I am left then with the barest of utilitarian benefit flowing from your very late plea, and it is therefore a matter attracting only the barest concession from the Court which I have applied in determining the appropriate non-parole period.
Smith, you present with a poor record of prior convictions including offences involving violence. Your prior convictions are relevant to sentence though the gravity of this offending overwhelms those matters in its own right to a significant extent. I note your personal history. It suggests a loveless upbringing and the effects of that are not ignored. I have listened carefully to your counsel's submissions about your past and your alcohol and drug use and I have regard to those matters. I accept that you have exhibited a pattern of offending followed by improvement in your overall behaviour before you fall back into your ways. Rehabilitation is a relevant sentencing consideration and I accept that since this crime you have taken some steps towards your rehabilitation but they are not significant in my view, though in part, that is because you do not have access to programs. I will regard those as tentative steps in the right direction. I also note your past efforts to address your drug and alcohol use as outlined to me in submissions made by your counsel in Court today.
It is well established that the non-parole period is the minimum time that a judge determines justice requires, having regard to all the circumstances of the offence. I remain of the view that the minimum non-parole period which is required in your case is greater than the minimum which is prescribed. That conclusion emerges from my taking into account all of the circumstances of the offence and the sentencing goals of condemnation, prevention, punishment and deterrence.
Colbran, you present without relevant prior convictions. Your personal history is characterised by significant emotional hardship and family violence and your repeated and excessive resort to alcohol and drugs to escape those things. I do not ignore the effect of those upon you, but the solution has become the problem. I am told that you now suffer cirrhosis of the liver and that your health is poor. No mental health issues are cited to explain your conduct on this evening.
Your rehabilitation should not be considered a forlorn hope, but at this time there is nothing to see which evidences to my mind that you have taken significant steps in that direction. In your case too, the gravity of your offending militates against my fixing the minimum non-parole period, and I will not. In your case too, I repeat, that the circumstances of the offence and the goals of condemnation, prevention, punishment and deterrence are decisive factors in my reasoning as to that.
I have heard a victim impact statement. The impact of this crime cannot be under-estimated. It will endure as Ms Mason-White told me. I commend her bravery in speaking publically about her grief. All of the victim impact statements have been read by me and they are moving. I have regard to what I have been told as evidence of the consequences of this crime.
As I have said, I regard this as a particularly serious example of the crime of murder. It was utterly senseless, an act of selfishness, of total disregard for another human being. It is quite inexplicable. In my view, the differences between you both are so marginal as to be insignificant. Sentencing is not a mathematical exercise, it is one of instinctive synthesis of relevant considerations. Approaching the matter in that way, I can find no basis for any differentiation in the head sentence which is appropriate.
Smith, having regard to your conduct, the nature of this crime, that it was cruel and violent in its implementation, and having regard to personal and general deterrence, I sentence you to 24 years' imprisonment, backdated to the date you were taken into custody. You will not be eligible for parole until you have served 14 years of that sentence.
Colbran, I sentence you on the factual basis I have outlined. You do not have a record for violence. I have decided for your involvement in this crime the head sentence should however be the same, but I will impose a marginally shorter non-parole period. I sentence you to 24 years' imprisonment. You will not be eligible for parole until you have served 13 years of that sentence. That sentence is to commence on the date you were taken into custody.