Suburban Axe Killer

Nathan Avent

The Salvation Army–run house in Melton, an outer-western suburb of Melbourne, was meant to be a safe haven for struggling families like 10-year-old ‘Steven’ and his mum.

The pair had moved to the house in early 1993 and life was settled and comfortable. The 28-year-old mum was the ‘lead tenant’ in the house that also took in vulnerable teens. Getting by on a single mother’s pension, Steven’s mum welcomed the extra money that she was paid to take care of the other residents (albeit only $75 per week) and she was grateful to have a stable home for her son.

When Nathan John Avent, 23, arrived at the Smoult Avenue address unannounced on the morning of 11 July 1994, the woman had no reason to worry. Avent had done some gardening and home maintenance chores at the house a few months before for his father, who was in charge of the management of the Salvation Army’s properties in Melbourne’s west, and both of his parents were members of the church.

Avent lived in Hoppers Crossing, a western suburb 30 kilometres from Melbourne’s CBD. Known as ‘Hoppers’ by locals, it became a suburb in the 1970s when land was subdivided and affordable housing drove young families out west. It is in the council region of Wyndham, which is the fastest-growing municipality in Australia. As with any fast-growing area on the fringes of greater Melbourne, Hoppers Crossing has a reputation for ‘hoon’ drivers and the suburb is always in the top 10 for car confiscations under anti-hoon laws introduced to Victoria in 2006.

Avent and his young wife, 19, were expecting a baby and living with his parents – a situation that caused him frustration. Being young and with the responsibility of parenthood looming, Avent had become tense with the constraints of living with his parents and the lack of sexual contact he enjoyed with his wife, who was seven months pregnant.

On that day, 11 July 1994, Avent packed his bag and set off to the Melton address, stopping for fuel and to return some videos on the way. He had watched the violent movies Driller Killer, Cannibal Apocalypse and The Best of Martial Arts a few days before.

When Avent arrived at the Smoult Avenue house, he asked to see the backyard so that he could assess which plants he needed to buy. He was greeted by Steven, a friendly, engaging child who then called his mother, still in her pyjamas, to the door.

When she let the boyish-looking Avent into the house, the woman had no idea that the bag he carried was filled with a killing kit – two knives, rope, gloves, sticky tape and a tomahawk. Avent had parked his car half a kilometre away from the house – out of sight – so that he could pretend someone was picking him up. This would give him more time in the house to fulfil the sick fantasies that had been filling his head for some time. What happened in the house that morning was worse than most people could ever imagine – the stuff of violent horror films played out in the western suburbs of Melbourne.

After he had done his fake survey of the backyard, Avent asked if he could wait at the house to be picked up. Steven was playing games and the pair watched a bit of television. Asking to use the home phone, Avent pretended to dial a number and then told Steven’s mum that he was expecting his lift in 20 minutes. No doubt needing to get on with her morning, the woman said she needed to get ready for work and excused herself to have a shower.

What happened next ranks among the most brutal killings Australia has ever seen. Steven, who was playing a board game, was facing the television, oblivious to the danger that he was in. Standing behind the boy, Avent took the tomahawk from his bag and struck Steven on the back of the neck, which, according to the coroner, killed the child instantly by severing his spinal cord and carotid artery. Avent struck him several more times before taking the axe to the kitchen and rinsing it under the tap. He placed it back in his bag, took out a hunting knife and walked into the bathroom where Steven’s mother was still in the shower. She did not yet know that the houseguest had murdered her son.

Confronted with the knife, Steven’s mother was forced from the shower and to her bed where Avent told her to lie down. He sexually assaulted the woman, running his hands forcibly over her body. Terrified and desperate to know if her son was all right, she complied with Avent’s demands. She was forced onto her stomach and he tied her hands together and began to strangle her. But then he suddenly stopped. He had ‘a change of heart’ as a judge later remarked during his sentencing of Avent.

‘I can’t do this,’ Avent said midway through strangling the woman. Avent allowed his victim off the bed and she wrapped herself in a doona. Having escaped death for the moment, Steven’s mother asked where her son was. According to court documents, Avent bluntly told her that her child was dead.

‘You don’t understand. It’s too late, your son is dead.’

Confused and distraught, she asked Avent why there was no blood on the knife and he coldly told her he had used an axe. Avent had used an axe to kill a child.

‘Call the police,’ Avent told her. She ran for her life out the door and to a neighbour’s house.

In an inexplicable move that was at complete odds with the vio­lent, evil acts that had just occurred, Avent, sobbing and hysterical, called his mother. ‘Mum, I’ve hit someone … with an axe.’

The case sickened the state of Victoria. In police interviews, Avent, often described as ‘baby-faced’ in news reports, said that on the morning of the murder he ‘started thinking that today I would try to kill somebody’. While Steven’s mother had gone to have a shower, Avent told detectives, ‘I thought maybe I’d change my mind but I didn’t … I sat for a few minutes thinking if I should really do it, then before I knew it I was doing it.’

Up until that bloody day, Avent had only had a brief encounter with criminality, when he lost his job at a Target store in Sunshine, another western suburb of Melbourne, in 1993 for stealing $300. His older brother also worked at the store but had been promoted, a fact that was frustrating to Avent. After his dismissal, he could only find casual work, through his father and this is what led him to meet Steven and his mum.

He pleaded guilty to murder and false imprisonment on 11 May 1995 in front of Justice Bernard Teague at the Supreme Court of Victoria.

Avent’s actions indicated that he was a disturbed young man but the psychiatrist who assessed him, Dr Leslie Walton, said the killer displayed no personality disorder. His family told the courts that Avent was passive, and school reports said that he was a pleasant and cooperative student. Avent was immature though, and this was reinforced by observations from the medical profession and his own mother. At the plea hearing Dr Walton said that Avent told him that he was motivated to rape, rather than kill. Avent had told police that sex was sinful and Dr Walton said the killer was embarrassed by his crime of sexual violence. Dr Walton also said that Avent had a simplistic approach to life and was depressed at the time of the murder.

Avent’s defence tried to pin his murderous actions on the violent horror films he had watched in the days before he butchered Steven. His lawyer Aaron Schwartz said ‘fantasy and reality’ had merged for his client who would use the videos to escape from the problems of his life. Prosecutor Paul Coghlan said in court that Avent had told police that he had violent urges because he watched too many videos. Justice Teague said he found no basis for any finding that Avent’s viewing of violent videos played any part in his actions.

It seemed like it was a moment of cold-blooded madness. Justice Teague noted Avent’s remorse for the crime. Another psychiatrist Dr Karl Golumbeck told the court that Avent ‘anticipates a life of good works under the auspices of the Salvation Army upon his release from prison’. It was almost unbelievable that Avent expected that he would ever be released from prison for his crimes.

The crime was so severe that Justice Teague made the landmark Australian legal decision to allow Avent’s sentence to be televised. The videotaped footage was to be made available for television news, and networks had to show at least two minutes of the delivery of his sentence. On Thursday, 18 May 1995, a single camera from Channel Seven was in the courtroom to record the sentence with the videotape made available to other commercial networks. The camera was only to be focused on Justice Teague during the sentencing. If people were expecting an O J Simpson–style televised treatment they were to be disappointed. The decision was debated in the media with the then president of the Victorian Council for Civil Liberties Robert Richter, QC, saying he hoped it would demystify sentencing for the public. Both the then premier of Victoria Jeff Kennett and the federal attorney-general Michael Lavarch were critical of Justice Teague’s decision. Mr Kennett said, ‘Justice is not entertainment. This totally ignores the crime that has been committed.’ Mr Lavarch said the decision made him ‘uneasy’.

Steven’s mother’s evidence and victim impact statement was described by Justice Teague as ‘compelling’ and he said that he had ‘deeply reflected’ on its contents.

To Avent, Justice Teague said:

You told police you deeply regretted what you had done and that you hoped for forgiveness … I allow for the circumstances that in prison you will need protection. As in the community, so in jail, a special loathing is extended to those whose victim is a young child … You indicated to expert witnesses that when you packed your bag, your plan was to rape [Steven’s mother] and that Steven was an unexpected obstacle to your plans who had to be got out of the way. On the one hand I find the clearest signs of careful planning for violence in the days and hours before the murder, then there was the careful surveying of the scene, then there was the extreme brutality to take the life of a 10-year-old boy. There followed a cold-blooded cleaning of one weapon and the selection of another, and then there was a chilling armed attack on a defenceless woman in her bedroom. On the other hand I am faced with your having come from an impeccable home situation with devoted parents and a caring wife … and no history whatsoever of previous violence. Added to that there was, when you were poised to kill again, a change of heart and mind comparable to that of St Paul. [In the Bible, St Paul, one of Jesus Christ’s most loyal disciples, was once a persecutor of Christians before he had a revelation on the road to Damascus. St Paul was then known as Saul and after the resurrected Jesus appeared to him, he went blind for three days before his sight was restored and he converted to Christianity.]

Avent was sentenced to life for the murder of Steven and six years for the false imprisonment of Steven’s mother. The non-parole period was set at 21 years.

Because the cameras in court were fixed on the image of Justice Teague, the millions of viewers around Australia did not see Steven’s shattered mother crying out, ‘You’ll never be in there long enough Nathan. Never long enough! Die in there!’

Avent was quickly ushered out of the courtroom. Veteran Herald Sun reporter John Hamilton described a poignant moment later on, when a female police sergeant told the packed courtroom, many of whom were family and friends of the victims, ‘You can all leave now.’ ‘She was crying too,’ wrote Hamilton.

Avent appealed his sentence, saying that the media glare on his case meant that he was given a harsher jail term. The Victorian Court of Appeal rejected that it was influenced by the presence of a video camera in court but the judges agreed that his sentence was ‘manifestly excessive’ given that there was no pre-mediated murderous intent. His sentence was reduced to 25 years with a minimum of 18 years.

Meanwhile, the murdered boy’s mother, his sister and extended family were left with the trauma of Avent’s actions. The mother’s victim impact statement is heartbreaking to read. It was published in the Herald Sun on 19 May 1995, the day after Avent was sentenced for the first time:

Everything in my life has been totally shattered; emptiness continually hounds me day after day; and what followed on from that unforgettable day, I can only describe as a living nightmare … When unpacking some of my clothing [after she and her daughter had moved from the Smoult Avenue address] I came across his black jumper, which he always used to wear. It smelt like him and I cuddled it and cried and cried. This was all I had left … I feel so alone in my grief … sometimes I think the offender should have finished the job he came to do, and killed me. Instead he left me here to suffer the heartache … I cannot erase from my mind what the offender did to Steven while I was innocently showering that day, I never saw what happened, but I sometimes have vivid pictures of what my thought processes decided what happened … I have a lock and chain installed on my bathroom door, and while showering I check this constantly, making sure no-one is coming in … I have lost all trust. When someone comes to my door I don’t open it, but hide and stay quiet until the person is gone. I often have a knife by my side ready to defend myself … I feel my soul is slowly shrivelling up, and one day there will be nothing left inside of me, just an empty human shell, and then I’ll die … What of Steven’s loss? Who will talk on behalf of his losses? His right to live on this earth, his right to live a rich, full and joyous life, shared by his family and friends? There was a human being behind that name, a 10-year-old boy, a little boy who lived, breathed, laughed and cried. The offender did not have the right to end Steven’s life.

Avent was quietly released from jail on 4 June 2012 after serving his minimum sentence. The general manager of the Adult Parole Board, David Provan, said Avent is subject to a strict supervision regime and is being closely monitored by Corrections Victoria.