JUDGE:	CAVANOUGH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27 April 2007, 13 June 2007
DATE OF SENTENCE:	22 June 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Richardson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 221

---

Criminal law – Sentencing – Plea of guilty - Accessory after the fact - Principal offence murder – Assisting in disposal of body and in removing evidence – Prisoner’s mental condition - Imprisonment for 3 years - Non-parole period of 1 year and 8 months - Crimes Act 1958 s 325.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr D J Brown	Solicitor for the Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr D Holding	Slades and Parsons

HIS HONOUR:

Lisa Corinne Richardson, you have pleaded guilty to an offence under s 325 of the Crimes Act 1958, namely that you between 17 September 2005 and 22 September 2005, knowing or believing Benjamin Ross Smith to be guilty of a serious offence, namely murder, without lawful authority or excuse did acts with the purpose of impeding the apprehension, prosecution, conviction or punishment of the principal offender, Benjamin Ross Smith.

Smith is alleged to have murdered Brian Raymond Young on 17 September 2005 in Smith’s flat in South Yarra. In essence, you have admitted assisting Smith to avoid apprehension and prosecution by helping him to dispose of the body and to clean the flat. You and Smith had been in a relationship from about the beginning of 2005 and you had lived with Smith in the flat since August 2005. Smith has pleaded not guilty to murder and is awaiting trial.

The victim, Brian Young, was a 36 year old man who at the time of his death lived at home with his parents in Rosebud. He had previously lived in the South Yarra/Prahran area and from time to time he continued to socialise with friends he had met while living in that area. On Saturday 17 September 2005 he was visiting the area. It seems that neither you nor Smith had ever met Brian Young before, but somehow the three of you met up on that day. You must have given him your mobile telephone number at some stage, because he called you on it at 5.39 pm. Later on, at 6.34 pm, he called his mother to say that he was with you and Smith. That was the last known contact that the victim had with anyone prior to his death.

The precise movements, after that phone call, of the people involved are not known. However, shortly after the phone call Brian Young and Smith went to Smith’s flat in South Yarra. You, however, met another associate, Robert Saunders, at about 7.00 pm. You and Saunders went to the city by tram and from there to Saunders’ flat in Flemington. Along the way the two of you…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading DPP v Richardson

Details

AGLC: DPP v Richardson [2007] VSC 221
Case: [2007] VSC 221
Decision Date: 22 June 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of the Director of Public Prosecutions versus Richardson involved an appeal against the sentence given to the appellant, who had pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact to the murder of another individual. The appellant assisted in disposing of the body and in removing evidence from the crime scene. The matter was heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal.

The key legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentence for the appellant's role in the crime and whether the trial judge had adequately considered the appellant's mental health condition at the time of sentencing. The appellant argued that due to his mental condition, the sentence should be reduced, while the prosecution submitted that the appellant's mental condition should not have a significant impact on the severity of the sentence.

The court considered the principles of sentencing in relation to accessorial liability, emphasising that while the appellant's role was significant, it was not equivalent to that of the principal offender. The court acknowledged the appellant's mental condition but found that it did not warrant a substantial reduction in the sentence. The court held that the trial judge had appropriately balanced the appellant's culpability and mitigating factors, including his mental condition, in determining the sentence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The court's final orders were that the appeal against sentence was dismissed and the original sentence of imprisonment for 3 years, with a non-parole period of 1 year and 8 months, was affirmed.

Orders