R v Burns, Renae - [2013] NSWSC 1851

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v BURNS, Renae [2013] NSWSC 1851
Hearing dates: 30 October 2012 & 31 May 2013
Decision date: 06 June 2013
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Hidden J
Decision:
Offender sentenced to imprisonment for 4 years, NPP 2 years and 9 months, from 23.9.10.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - accessory after the fact to murder - plea of guilty - murder committed by offender's lover - lies told to protect her from being brought to justice
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: - R v Scowen [2007] NSWSC 792
- R v Farroukh (CCA, Unreported, 29 March 1996)
- R v Dileski [2002] NSWCCA 345, 132 A Crim R 408
- R v Galea [2003] NSWSC 465
- R v Almirol (No 2) [2007] NSWSC 323
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Renae Burns (offender)
Representation: Counsel:
C Maxwell QC (Crown)
M Ramage QC (offender)
Solicitors:
S Kavanagh - Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Mitchell Cavanagh - Bossher Lawyers (NSW) (offender)

File Number(s): 2010/317167
Publication restriction: Yes

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR: The Crown alleges that Tanya Lane murdered Steven Quire in the evening of 20 February 2010 at Rutherford by shooting him at close range with a flare gun which she had purchased early in that month. His body was found buried in bushland in the Watagan State Forest on 13 March 2010. The offender, Renae Burns, has pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact to that murder. She stands for sentence for that offence.

Senior counsel for the offender, Mr Ramage QC, told me that it is not agreed that the murder occurred on 20 February, although it is accepted that it was on or about that day. Nor is it agreed that the murder occurred at Rutherford. For present purposes, however, nothing turns on those matters. Subject to them, I have been presented with a lengthy statement of agreed facts, containing a comprehensive summary of the evidence against the offender. It is not necessary to recite them in these remarks. A brief summary will suffice.

The offender had been in a relationship with the deceased, Steven Quire, for some years prior to his death. They had a daughter and she had a daughter from a previous relationship, whom Mr Quire treated as his own. Over a period prior to the murder their relationship had soured. The offender formed a relationship with Tanya Lane, which became intimate. They conducted this relationship in such a way as to conceal its full extent from Mr Quire.

By her plea of guilty the offender admits that over a period after the murder, knowing that Ms Lane had committed that crime, she told lies on a number of occasions about material matters in an effort to conceal Ms Lane's crime and prevent her being brought to justice. In conversations with some people in the period immediately after the killing, before Mr Quire's body was found, she advanced various explanations…

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 Burns, Renae

Details

AGLC: R v Burns, Renae [2013] NSWSC 1851
Case: [2013] NSWSC 1851
Decision Date: 06 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Burns, Renae, involved an appeal against sentence imposed for being an accessory after the fact to the murder of a man by her lover. The defendant pleaded guilty to the charge and the sentencing judge had imposed a prison term of three years. The appeal was against the severity of the sentence. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or whether it should be affirmed as appropriate given the defendant's role and culpability in the crime. The court considered the nature and circumstances of the offence, the defendant's role as an accessory, and the need for deterrence and denunciation in sentencing.

The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. It was noted that the defendant had provided substantial assistance to the police, which was taken into account in the sentencing process. The court emphasised that the defendant's role, while significant, was secondary to that of the principal offender. The court also considered the need to deter others from engaging in similar conduct and to uphold the seriousness of the offence of murder. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld as appropriate.

No additional orders were made. The sentence of three years imprisonment, imposed by the sentencing judge, was confirmed as appropriate given the defendant's role and the need for sentencing to reflect the gravity of the offence and the principles of justice.

Orders