R v Bechalany - [2018] NSWSC 502

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Bechalany [2018] NSWSC 502
Hearing dates: 19 April 2018
Date of orders: 27 April 2018
Decision date: 27 April 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Hidden AJ
Decision:
Offender convicted, s 9 bond That she submit to the supervision and guidance of the Probation and Parole Service

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – accessory after the fact to manslaughter – principal offence committed by offender’s husband – assisting in attempt to flee the jurisdiction – offender the victim of long standing abuse by him – acting under his direction – her low culpability

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 10
Crimes Act 1900, s 350

Cases Cited:
Biddle v R [2017] NSWCCA 128
R v Mauger [2012] NSWCCA 51

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Rhonda Bechalany
Representation:
Counsel:
C Maxwell QC (Crown)
GR James QC with E James (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Oxford Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s): 2015/157544

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Robert Bechalany is charged with the murder of Luke Browning. It is alleged that on 14 April 2015, in a street at St Clair, he stabbed Mr Browning, causing his death. He is yet to be tried for that offence. The offender, Rhonda Bechalany, is his former wife. She admits having been involved in his attempt to evade justice by leaving the country. She has pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact to the manslaughter of Mr Browning, and she stands for sentence for that offence.

Facts

There is an agreed statement of facts (in the Crown bundle, Exhibit A). In addition, the offender set out her account of the facts in a statement (in the defence bundle, Exhibit 1) and she gave oral evidence about the matter. I shall summarise the agreed facts, supplementing them with aspects of her evidence.
On the morning in question, Mr Bechalany and the offender drove to a home in St Clair occupied by Mr Peter Barbara. Mr Bechalany was driving and the offender was in the front passenger seat. The vehicle had been borrowed from a motor dealership at Parramatta. The offender said in evidence that their own car was off the road being repaired.
On arrival, Mr Bechalany got out of the vehicle and the offender remained in the front passenger seat. He went to the front door of the house, where he had a conversation with Mr Barbara. He came back to the car and they drove off, but very shortly thereafter he drove back to the home. The offender gave evidence that he did not say why he was going back, but in the car he had received a phone call. She heard some of that conversation, which appeared to relate to a debt owed by Mr Bechalany to Mr Barbara. Mr Bechalany also said something to the effect of an inquiry as to who Mr Browning was and why he was getting involved.
Mr Bechalany parked the car outside the…

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 R v Bechalany

Details

AGLC: R v Bechalany [2018] NSWSC 502
Case: [2018] NSWSC 502
Decision Date: 27 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the recent case of R v Bechalany, the accused faced charges as an accessory after the fact to manslaughter, arising from the death of her husband, who was the principal offender. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Bechalany, who had assisted her husband in an attempt to flee the jurisdiction following the commission of the offence. The circumstances surrounding the offence included the victim being a long-standing abuse victim of the husband, with Bechalany acting under his direction. The central legal issues for the court involved assessing Bechalany's culpability and the appropriate sentence in light of her background and the nature of her involvement.

The court considered the extent of Bechalany’s culpability, weighing her role in assisting her husband to escape after the crime. It examined the dynamics of the relationship, particularly the abusive nature and the potential impact on her decision-making capacity. The court also assessed the mitigating factors, such as her position as a victim of domestic abuse and her compliance under the husband’s direction. The court's analysis focused on distinguishing her role from that of the principal offender and the degree of her agency in the offence.

Upon consideration of these factors, the court concluded that Bechalany’s culpability was relatively low compared to the principal offender. Acknowledging the abusive relationship and her limited agency, the court imposed a sentence that reflected her lesser role and mitigating circumstances. The court recognised the complexities of her situation and the need for a sentence that addressed both justice and rehabilitative needs. The final orders provided for a sentence that was significantly lower than what might typically be imposed on an accessory after the fact, taking into account her unique circumstances and the principles of proportionality and justice.

Orders