R v Cunneen (No. 2)

[2022] NSWDC 586

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Cunneen (No. 2) [2022] NSWDC 586

Hearing dates:

13 October 2022

Date of orders:

25 November 2022

Decision date:

25 November 2022

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

Mahony SC DCJ

Decision:

Full-time custodial sentence. For orders see [110].

Catchwords:

CRIME - Accessory after the fact to murder – circumstantial case – ongoing assistance – disposal of body,

Legislation Cited:

Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW)

Crimes Act 1900

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Ah Keni v R [2021] NSWCCA 263

Cheung v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1; [2001] HCA 67

DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 78 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194

McDowell v R [2019] NSWCCA 29

R v Hines (No. 3) [2014] NSWSC 1273

R v Johnson [2014] NSWSC 1254

R v Lulham [2016] NSWCCA 287

R v Morris [2017] NSWSC 637

R v Purtill [2012] NSWSC 566

R v Quach [2002] NSWSC 1205

R v RB [2022] NSWCCA 142

R v Urriola [2010] NSWSC 367

Veen v R [No. 2] (1998) 164 CLR 465; [1998] HCA 14

Wornes v R [2022] NSWCCA 184

Category:

Sentence

Parties:

Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
James Anthony Cunneen (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel:
A. Robertson (Crown)
R. Cavanagh (Offender)

Solicitors:
N. Katholos (Crown)
K. Case (Offender)

File Number(s):

17/00186919

Publication restriction:

Nil

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1. The offender pleaded Not Guilty on arraignment on 9 May 2022 to an offence pursuant to s 349(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 as follows:

“WHEREAS on 30 September 2014 at Muswellbrook in the State of New South Wales, Sayle Kenneth Newson did murder Carly Dawn McBride

Count 1:

James Anthony Cunneen between 29 September 2014 and 22 June 2017, in Scone and elsewhere in the State of New South Wales, knowing the said Sayle Kenneth Newson to have committed the said murder, did receive, harbour, maintain and assist the said Sayle Kenneth Newson.”

2. The Crown also relied on an alternative charge at common law, namely, accessory after the fact to manslaughter.

3. The Offender was arrested on 22 June 2017 whilst in custody in relation to other matters. His non-parole period expired on 22 April 2020 however he was granted bail on the index offence on 2 June 2020. He was therefore in custody in relation to the index offence for a period of 41 days from 22 April 2020 until 2 June 2020.

4. On 7 July 2022, the jury found the offender guilty of Count 1 on the Indictment. The maximum penalty for the offence is 25 years imprisonment. The offender has been in custody since 7 July 2022.

The sentence hearing

5. The sentence hearing took place on 13 October 2022. The facts on which the offender is to be sentenced are to be derived from the evidence at trial, consistent with the jury’s verdict of guilty. The Crown case was a circumstantial case which on the whole of the evidence, the jury concluded that the offender was guilty and there was no reasonable possibility of any conclusion consistent with his innocence.

6. The general principles upon which findings of fact are relevant to sentence following a jury verdict of guilty are referred to in R v RB [2022] NSWCCA 142 at [21] and [22]. In arriving at facts consistent with the jury verdict, findings of fact made against an offender must be arrived at beyond reasonable doubt and there is no general requirement that the offender must be sentenced upon the basis of a view of the facts, consistent with the verdict, which is most favourable to the offender. The Court referred to Cheung v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1; [2001] HCA 67, where the majority recognised that in many cases involving a conviction following a plea of Not Guilty, the task of assessing an offender’s culpability is more difficult than that of determining his or her guilt, an example of which was manslaughter.

7. The Crown sentence summary became Exhibit A. It included a copy of the offender’s criminal history. On 4 August 2014 the offender was sentenced for the following offences at Muswellbrook Local Court:-

1. Possess ammunition without holding a licence/permit authority – s10A conviction with no other penalty

2. Drive, licence suspended under s66 Fines Act – 1^st offence – s10 Bond for 12 months

3. Use unregistrable class A motor vehicle on road – s10A conviction with no other penalty

8. On 16 October 2015 the offender was sentenced for the following offences at the Newcastle District Court:-

1. Supply prohibited drug greater than indictable quantity (not cannabis) – sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years and 3 months with a non-parole period of 15 months commencing 23 April 2015.

In respect of this matter three matters were taken into account on a Form 1:-

1. Possess or use prohibited weapon without permit

2. Deal with property suspected proceeds of crime

3. Custody of knife in public place - 1^st offence

2. Possess shortened firearm (not pistol) without authority – sentenced to 12 months imprisonment commencing 16 October 2015.

Four separate offences of possess prohibit drug were taken into account on a Form 1 together with an offence of possess prohibited weapon.

3. Possess unauthorised firearm – sentenced to 6 months imprisonment commencing 23 February 2016.

4. Supply prohibited drug greater than indictable quantity (not cannabis) – sentenced to 15 months imprisonment commencing 23 June 2016.

5. Supply prohibited drug greater than indictable quantity (not cannabis) – sentenced to 3 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 1 year and three months commencing on 23 April 2017.

6. Possess shortened firearm (not pistol) without authority – sentenced to 9 months imprisonment commencing 23 January 2016.

7. The following matters were taken into account on Forms 1:-

1. Possess prohibited drug

2. Possess prohibited drug

3. Deal with property suspected of proceeds of crime

4. Possess or use a prohibited weapon without a permit

5. Possess prohibited drug

6. Possess prohibited drug

7. Possess or use prohibited weapon without permit

8. Possess prohibited drug

9. The total overall sentence imposed on 16 October 2015 was a sentence of 5 years with a non-parole period of 3 years and 3 months commencing on 23 April 2015.

10. On 22 June 2017 the offender was arrested whilst in custody on the index offence however on the same day he was also charged with further firearm offences for which he was sentenced on 20 April 2018. That sentence for the further firearms offences was 5 years and 3 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years and 3 months commencing on 23 January 2018 and concluding on 22 April 2020. The balance of that term was to terminate on 22 April 2023.

11. Exhibit A included the offender’s custodial records which disclosed no disciplinary matters. Exhibit A included the sentencing remarks of Ierace J of Newson, the remarks on sentence of Judge Ellis of the offender dated 16 October 2015 and the sentencing facts and remarks on sentence of Judge Ellis of the offender on 20 April 2018.

12. Exhibit A also included three reports from Dr Christopher Bench, Forensic Psychiatrist dated 3 February 2015,16 March 2015 and 15 October 2015 which had been prepared for the offender’s 2015 sentencing by Judge Ellis.

13. Dr Bench recorded a history of drug and alcohol abuse which started when the offender was aged 15. His use of cannabis escalated to using ecstasy at 16 and amphetamines on a daily basis from the age of 21. He also had abused benzodiazepines for a period of time. He participated in one detoxification in August 2013, followed by a three-month rehabilitation at Dooralong transformation centre which he completed in November 2013.

14. Dr Bench opined that the offender met, at that time, the diagnostic criteria for polysubstance dependence. He also had symptoms consistent with a Cluster B Personality Disorder and for Social Phobia.

15. Dr Bench provided a second report dated 16 March 2015 supporting the opinions outlined in his first report. In his third report dated 15 October 2015 Dr Bench noted the offender was facing further charges involving drugs, dealing with proceeds of crime and possession of prohibited weapons. He noted this raised an issue with regard to the offender’s candour at the time of his previous evaluation. He opined that if the offender had continued to engage in the supply of prohibited substances whilst on bail for the previous serious charges this would add further weight to his diagnosis of Cluster B Personality Disorder with antisocial and borderline traits.

16. Exhibit A included a Sentencing Assessment Report (“SAR”) under the hand of Ms N Moxon dated 21 September 2022. The author noted the offender’s supportive immediate and extended family. She also noted that the offender had taken on multiple roles within the jail where he currently is housed and described him as “a polite and efficient worker with a positive attitude”.

17. Under the heading “Attitudes” the offender strenuously denied committing the offence and rejected any responsibility or involvement in covering up of the victim’s murder or purposely hindering the police investigation. He denied the lies he told police were intentional, stating that he had “simply not provided enough detail in his initial statement”. He did admit that leading up to offence he was engaged in a criminal lifestyle involving drug dealing, polysubstance abuse and a network of antisocial associates.

18. The offender claimed to have been abstinent from all illegal drugs since April 2015, when he last committed a criminal offence. Since being incarcerated in 2015 he has embraced a fitness regime and is passionate about his health and training.

19. The offender stipulated that he was willing and able to undertake any intervention deemed appropriate and also to undertake community service work. In the past he had been compliant with parole conditions and his overall engagement with supervision has been satisfactory.

20. The offender was assessed as a medium risk of reoffending and as suitable to undertake community service work.

21. Exhibit A also included a victim impact statement by Andrew Easton, written on behalf of his daughter. Pursuant to s8(1)(e) of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) I order that the statement is not to be published or otherwise disclosed, having regard to the wellbeing of the deceased’s daughter. I have taken the contents of the statement into account.

22. Exhibit B was a victim impact statement read at the sentence hearing by the deceased’s mother Lorraine Williams. The victim impact statements are referred to below.

The offender’s evidence

23. Exhibit 1 was a report of Dr T Dornan dated 6 September 2022. Dr Dornan interviewed the offender on 19 August 2022 at the MRRC for approximately 1 and a half hours. He was not qualified with copies of the reports of Dr Bench. Dr Dornan took a history of a supportive family and happy if somewhat unremarkable childhood. The offender remained at school under Year 11 and then completed a four-year apprenticeship as a Fitting and Turning/Machinist at TAFE.

24. The offender had entered custody for the first time at age 24 on drugs and weapons related charges before again entering custody in 2015 on drug related and possession of firearms charges. He made the most of his custodial experience, engaging in programs and receiving further qualifications including a Certificate III in engineering, a Certificate III in fitness, a Certificate II in horticulture and a Certificate in first aid. Upon his release from custody he intends to return to his original trade as a Fitter and Turner. He also demonstrated a strong work ethic in custody securing three different jobs as a pod sweeper, a building maintenance worker and an activity sweeper. He also uses his fitness qualifications to assist other inmates.

25. Dr Dornan noted that the offender had cut ties with his antisocial and drug using peers and was now in a significant relationship in which his partner of 14 months remains supportive.

26. Dr Dornan reported drug and alcohol abuse history similar to that reported by Dr Bench.

27. Upon psychological assessment the offender reported suffering episodic periods of depression since his early twenties which he attributed to his drug abuse. He also suffered the onset of anxiety and hypervigilance following his drug abuse. Following his engagement with a psychologist in custody and whilst in rehabilitation he had addressed his depression and had not experienced any symptoms for a number of years.

28. Dr Dornan opined that the majority of the offender’s criminal conduct appears to be as a result of his chronic drug use and negative peer influences. He had met the co-offender whilst in drug rehabilitation at Dooralong but reported that he has now been abstinent from illicit drugs for the past five and a half years. However, his substance abuse was a contributing factor during the period in which the index offence occurred.

29. Dr Dornan noted that the offender categorically denied the charge and maintains his innocence. He further stated:-

“There are no psychological symptoms for him at present, nor have there been any in the past number of years. As such, it is difficult to offer a formulation in relation to the current offending. It may be that Mr Cunneen has provided a sanitised account of his functioning consistent with his denial of his offending. If this is the case, it is unclear if he has done so due to a lack of insight or a desire to portray himself well in the context of the court proceedings.”

30. Dr Dornan went on to opine that the offender’s denial of his offending made it difficult to offer insight into subclinical psychopathology that may have contributed to his decision making at the time of the offending. He also noted that at that time the offender denied the presence of any mental health symptoms. He further opined that there were no obvious criminogenic risk factors for the offender as his most significant factors, for drug abuse and mental ill-health, have now been resolved. He suggested that his prospects of rehabilitation “are positive”.

31. Dr Dornan also noted the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on the prison population with a lack of visitation rights and inability to engage in many services and programs which have also impacted the prison population with limited mental health services available at present.

32. Exhibit 2 was a testimonial from Ms Alison Riley who stated that she had known the offender “for well over twelve months”. She became aware of the offender’s previous convictions and his upcoming trial on the index offence. She described him as “a young man with integrity and will not compromise on that as a principle. He is committed to his family; his girlfriend and the people close to him. He is well mannered, generous and kind and always treated my daughter and myself with the upmost respect”.

33. Exhibit 3 was a testimonial from Ms Natalie Edwards who described herself as a long-term friend of the offender’s mother who had known his family for over thirty years. She described the offender as always being respectful and polite and having “a beautiful caring manner.” She was aware of his charge but described him as having “always been a very honest, reliable and hardworking person”.

34. Exhibit 4 was a testimonial from Mr Gordon Boney who had known the offender for 21 years. He was also aware of the charge. He stated that he always found the offender to be “polite, well behaved and a kind-hearted young man”, who has always been highly regarded by his friends. Mr Boney’s own children were close friends with the offender and still regard him as a trusted and a loyal friend.

The Crown’s submissions

35. The Crown relied on a detailed written outline of submissions setting out the well-established principles for fact-finding by a sentencing judge following trial. The Crown submitted that the offender’s accessorial liability consisted of the following acts which were designed to assist the principal evade justice:-

1. From a point shortly after Newson had murdered the deceased, travelling with him from Muswellbrook to Owens Gap to dump the deceased’s body in bushland on the afternoon of 30 September 2014.

2. Creating a false alibi by lying to the police in three interviews conducted on 3 October 2014, 22 April 2015, and 23 April 2015.

3. Activities designed to make it appear that Newson was not involved in the murder of the deceased, such as supporting Newson’s public efforts to search for the deceased following Newson’s report to the police that she was missing and posting to social media about the disappearance of the deceased.

4. Deleting data which may have tended to show the whereabouts of the phones of Newson and the offender in the relevant period including 30 September 2014. This involved the offender and Newson between them deleting the location history relating to the handsets of both Newson and the offender in a defined period but including 30 September 2014.

5. Deleting relevant communications namely text messages on the offender’s phone sent to the deceased’s phone on 30 September 2014

6. Acts designed to make it appear that another person, Andrew Easton, was an appropriate suspect by supporting statements by Newson to that effect (i.e. that Andrew Easton had, on 30 September 2014, reported to him (Newson) that he (Easton) had had an argument with the deceased immediately before she left 32 Calgaroo Street, and that a break and enter at Easton’s house on 2 October 2014 had revealed a smell of chemical suggestive of Easton having cleaned up the scene.

7. Updating Newson about the progress of the police investigation.

36. The Crown also set out facts it submitted should be found beyond reasonable doubt which are reflected in my summary of the facts to be derived from the Jury verdict below.

37. In assessing the objective seriousness of the offending the Crown submitted that the offence of accessory after the fact to murder covers a wide variety of circumstances and degrees of culpability. In R v Marcus Standford [2016] NSWSC 1174 at [2] R A Hulme J identified a number of matters relevant to assessing the objective seriousness for this type of offence as follows:

1. The circumstances of the murder itself. This was an unplanned, but vicious murder motivated by anger and jealousy.

2. The extent of the knowledge in the accessory of those circumstances.

It is implicit in the jury verdict that the offender was aware of the circumstance that Newson had murdered the deceased. There being no direct evidence on this aspect, determining the extent of the offender’s knowledge is limited to what inferences might be drawn from the available evidence.

The Crown submitted that from the time shortly after the murder it could be inferred that the offender had an intimate knowledge of the circumstances in which the murder had occurred. The Crown submitted that he either saw the deceased body with the multiple skull and other fractures or that Newsome provided him some details of the murder, or both.

The Crown submitted the murder occurred shortly after 2:02pm on 30 September 2014, and that I would find that the deceased was dumped at Owen’s Gap in the hours after her death when the offender and Newson were together. In order to enlist the offender to assist him, Newson must have told the offender some of the circumstances of the murder. This is consistent with that part of the plan which was implemented immediately and involved the suppression of the truth, namely that backroads were taken so as to avoid the point-to-point cameras between Muswellbrook and Scone on the New England Highway. Further, the haste with which the body was dumped allows an inference that the offender was intimately aware of the circumstances of the murder.

3. The precise act or acts which constitute the offence of being an accessory after the fact. The Crown submitted the offender became aware of the murder very shortly after its commission and provided immediate and prolonged assistance.

4. The length of time over which the offender assisted the principal offender in escaping justice. The Crown submitted this was from about 2:30pm on 30 September 2014 and ongoing until his arrest on 22 June 2017.

3. The extent to which the acts of the offender successfully delayed, or thwarted, the investigation and prosecution of the principal offender.

The Crown submitted that the actions of the offender seriously undermined the police investigation which was effectively unable to significantly progress until the deceased’s remains were located and the cause of death had been established.

6. The motivation of the offender in committing the crime. The Crown submitted that there was little evidence pointing to a particular motive other than to assist a friend who had committed an unplanned murder out of loyalty.

7. Related to the question of motivation is the question of whether the offender’s conduct was motivated by a sense of misguided loyalty or emotional attachment to the principal offender.

The Crown submitted that this was not a case where a family member assists the principal offender, but the offender here had made a choice to place the interests of the principal offender ahead of those of the victim and all of the public generally. The Crown referred to the message sent by the offender to Abby Marston in April 2015 as some evidence that the offender was motivated by loyalty to the principal. The Court would take into account the fact that Newson was about 14 years older than the offender. The Crown also relied on the fact that, notwithstanding the offender said in his second and third interview that he had lied about some aspects in his first interview, he did not relent, nor did he relent when the body was discovered.

8. It has been generally held that offences which involve the disposal or destruction of a corpse fall at the upper-end of the range of criminality for the offence.

The Crown submitted that the court would find that the offender travelled in Newsome’s car to Owen’s Gap where they disposed of the deceased’s body. Whether the two of them carried the deceased from the car to her resting place or whether the offender remained in the car made little difference in terms of the seriousness of this aspect of the criminality as the offender was part of the activity which saw the deceased callously discarded in bushland and was liable as part of a joint illegal enterprise.

38. The Crown submitted that the objective seriousness of the offending here was well above mid-range involving as it did not only the disposition of the body but also assisting the principal in other ways designed to assist him to evade justice. Further, the moral culpability of the offender was high. Whilst Newson had visited the region previously, it was the intimate knowledge which the offender had of the area surrounding Muswellbrook and Scone which allowed the body to be disposed in a remote location so that it was not discovered for a considerable period of time. The Crown submitted it was the offender who was the person who knew the backroads, the isolated bushland areas around Scone, and the likely travel times.

39. The Crown submitted that it was an aggravating factor pursuant to s 21A(2)(j) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (“CSPA”) and that the offence was committed whilst the offender was on conditional liberty as at the time he was subject to first, a s10 twelve-month bond imposed on 4 August 2014 for an offence of drive whilst licence suspended and secondly conditional bail relating to the drug supply charge dating from 26 May 2013.

40. The Crown submitted that the offender’s criminal history disentitled him to leniency and also indicated that more emphasis should be placed on denunciation, retribution, and personal deterrence.

41. The Crown submitted that the commencement date of any sentence should be backdated by the period of 41 days that the offender had been in custody solely on this matter before he was granted bail on 2 June 2020 and the time in custody since the jury verdict so that the commencement date would be 27 May 2022.

42. The Crown noted that the offender was arrested whilst serving a sentence of unrelated charges and that a further sentence was imposed on 23 January 2018 which does not expire until 22 April 2023. The Crown submitted that any further backdating would be modest taking into account principles of totality and revocation of parole relating to the sentence handed down on 23 January 2018.

43. The Crown also provided a number of comparable cases where sentences were imposed for accessorial liability.

44. Having regard to the reports of Dr Bench from 2015 the Crown submitted that the court would find the offender’s dependency on illicit drugs decreases his prospects of rehabilitation. The Crown also relied on Dr Bench’s opinion set out above that “if it was shown that he continued to engage in the supply of prohibited substances whilst on bail for previous serious charges this would add weight to the diagnosis of Cluster B Personality Disorder with antisocial and borderline traits.” Although Dr Bench did not provide an opinion about the index offending, the Crown submitted that the facts derived from the jury verdict are consistent with Dr Bench’s diagnosis. The further opinion of Dr Bench that the offender suffered from symptoms consistent with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Social Phobia should be balanced out by the opinion relating to his diagnosis of Cluster B Personality Disorder.

Submissions on behalf of the offender

45. The offender by his Counsel also relied on a detailed written outline of submissions which included reference to the well-established principles concerning the findings of fact outlined in Cheung v The Queen [2001] HCA 69. The offender also referred to the need when assessing the objective seriousness of the offending to identify fully the facts, matters and circumstances which bear on the sentence, referring to McDowell v R [2019] NSWCCA 29 at [36].

46. The written outline then identified the matters the Crown set out in its submissions relating to the knowledge and involvement of the offender and the factors the Crown relied on to prove the murder by Newson of Carly McBride.

47. The offender submitted that it was not essential to determine exactly what the jury relied upon to prove the murder, and that the court need only find that Newson murdered Carly McBride between 2pm and 2:30pm on Tuesday 30 September 2014 in Muswellbrook. What was essential was finding the facts, matters and circumstances concerning the involvement of the offender, and the following 11 matters could be derived from the jury verdict:-

1. That James Cunneen was not present when Carly McBride was killed.

2. That James Cunneen had no prewarning that Newson was going to harm Carly McBride.

3. There is no evidence that James Cunneen even saw the extent of the injuries suffered by Carly McBride.

4. The Crown submission that ‘Sayle Newson must have told him some of the circumstances of the murder’, because of the use of backroads, is an inference, but equally the inference is open that the use of backroads had nothing to do with any knowledge of a murder. A view most favourable to Mr Cunneen is that he learnt of the death after arriving in the Scone area.

5. Newson it can be inferred placed Carly McBride’s body in the boot of the motor vehicle. The time when James Cunneen knew that Newson killed McBride cannot be exactly determined, but that at the latest it was just before they drove to Owen’s Gap.

6. That Newson and James Cunneen had the opportunity to dispose of Carly McBride’s body at Owens Gap sometime between 2.45pm and 4.36pm. Assuming that James Cunneen and Newson went first to the Cunneen farm and then a storage shed the likely time for a trip to Owens Gap is in the latter part of the known times.

7. That there is no evidence of how Carly McBride’s body was removed from the car at Owen’s Gap. Therefore, applying a view favourable to the offender, he played no part in the removal of the body from the car or placing her body in the bushland. This is relevant, especially taking into account Mr Cunneen’s age at the time and misplaced loyalty, and it does reduce the objective seriousness of the offending.

8. That James Cunneen helped Newson by going with him to Owen’s Gap because they were friends. They met at the Dooralong Transformation Centre when Cunneen was 24 years of age and Newson 37. The Crown submissions about ‘loyalty to the principal’ are available. Furthermore, a youthful offender placed with older drug users can reasonably be regarded as a recipe for the creation of further problems for the younger person.

9. That James Cunneen lied to police by not fully explaining their movements points to his guilt. However, this does not extend to silence, as found by the Court in Ah Keni v R [2021] NSWCCA 263 at [83] and [128], where it was found that failure to report an indictable offence is not sufficient for accessorial liability.

10. That James Cunneen assisted by having some missing persons material printed.

11. Mr Cunneen’s assistance to Newson could not have been ongoing until his arrest on 22 June 2017, as claimed in Crown submissions. Mr Cunneen was in custody from 23 April 2015, and any assistance from this point is silence which does not involve accessorial liability.

48. Counsel submitted that s22A of the CSPA should be applied so as to reduce the penalty imposed on the offender for facilitating the administration of justice. It was submitted that the defence case was conducted in an efficient manner which included avoiding calling witnesses unnecessarily and not objecting to the Crown leading evidence that was not contentious. Relying on R v Morris [2017] NSWSC 637 at [60] it was submitted a discount between 5 and 10% should be allowed.

49. In relation to the offender’s criminal history it was submitted that it related to a period of time where he was 23 and 24 years of age and at the time of this offending he was 24 years of age. An explanation for his offending was found in his use of prohibited drugs and in relation to the index offence, loyalty to someone he got to know at Dooralong.

50. It was submitted that the aggravating factor relied upon by the Crown, that the offence occurred whilst the offender was on conditional liberty should be given no weight in the sentencing process.

51. The offender submitted that the following mitigating factors should be taken into account pursuant to s21A(3) of the CSPA:-

(b) The offences were not part of a planned or organised criminal activity,

(g) The offender is unlikely to re-offend, and

(h) the offender has good prospects of rehabilitation.

52. The offender relied on the opinion of Dr Dornan that there were now no criminogenic risk factors for the offender and that his most significant risk for drug use and mental ill-health have now been resolved, to submit that the offender has good prospects of rehabilitation. His risks of re-offending were also diminished by his family support, the positive view of others about his personality as set out in Exhibits 2,3 and 4, his trade qualifications which would enable him to find work upon his return to the community and his conduct in custody where he had trusted roles and a fitness training regime.

53. The offender further stated that a finding of special circumstances should be made pursuant to s44(2) referring to R v Lulham [2016] NSWCCA 287 at [7] where Bathurst CJ stated the likelihood of successful rehabilitation would warrant a longer parole period.

54. Counsel for the offender set out to distinguish the comparable cases referred to by the Crown noting the limited role they play in sentencing. He also referred to a number of additional cases noting that each case must be decided according to its own facts.

55. In summary, the offender submitted that the following factors weigh in his favour in the sentencing process:-

1. Youth at the time of the offending.

2. Limited role as an accessory.

3. Misguided loyalty.

4. Not present when the murder was committed.

5. Very good rehabilitation prospects.

6. The length of time from the offending to trial, during which he had changed and dealt with his drug use.

7. Very low risk of re-offending.

The offender’s oral submissions

56. Counsel for the offender submitted that given the nature of the accessorial liability there was no need to the court to go into great depth in respect of the findings relating to the murder of Carly McBride. Counsel took issue with a number of matters raised in the Crown’s submissions.

57. First, the Crown submitted that at 5:17pm on the day of her murder “they” edited two images of the deceased. Counsel submitted that there was no evidence upon which the court could find beyond reasonable doubt that it was the offender who edited those images, rather the court would find that it was Newson.

58. Secondly, counsel submitted the Crown’s submission that the haste with which the deceased body was dumped allowed an inference that the offender was intimately aware of the circumstances of the murder was not available as a finding on the evidence.

59. Thirdly, counsel submitted that in assessing all relevant factors the Court would find that the objective seriousness of the offending here was not above mid-range as submitted by the Crown.

60. Counsel then rehearsed his written submissions as to the factual basis for the sentence and he submitted that the various findings concerning Newson were not necessary for the purposes of sentencing the offender. What was significant were the findings the court should make in respect of the offender’s involvement which are outlined above. Counsel submitted that the inference that Newson must have told the offender some of the circumstances of the murder because of the use of backroads could not be established beyond reasonable doubt. Equally, there was an inference open that the use of the back roads had nothing to do with any knowledge of the murder, and a view most favourable to the offender is that he learnt of the death after arriving in the Scone area. Further, whilst the time when the offender knew that Newson killed Carly McBride cannot be exactly determined, at the latest it was just before they drove to Owens Gap.

61. Counsel emphasised that Newsome was an older man than the offender being aged 37 when they met at Dooralong. At that time the offender was 24 years of age and came under the influence of Newson. It was clear that Newson had not rehabilitated at that time. Counsel then rehearsed the following submissions.

62. It was submitted that the fact that the offender lied to police by not fully explaining his movements points to his guilt however this does not extend to silence, relying on Ah Keni v R [2021] NSWCCA 263 at [83] and [128] where it was found that failure to report an indictable offence is not sufficient for accessorial liability.

63. It was conceded that the offender assisted by having some missing persons material printed but that his assistance could not have been ongoing until his arrest on 22 June 2017 as he was in custody from 23 April 2015, and any assistance from that point is “silence” which does not involve accessorial liability.

64. Counsel submitted that s22A of the CSPA applied so as to entitle the offender to a lesser penalty in that the administration of justice had been facilitated by the offender in the manner in which his case was conducted, namely, in an efficient manner which included avoiding calling witnesses and not objecting to the Crown leading evidence that was not contentious. A range of between 5 and 10% was advocated relying on R v Morris [2017] NSWSC 637 at [60].

65. Counsel rehearsed his submission in relation to the offender’s criminal history in that it did not entitle the offender to leniency however his previous offending had involved offences to which he had entered pleas of guilty.

66. It was submitted that there was no risk of the offender re-offending. The references tendered on his behalf demonstrated his personality and character and demonstrated that he had been a model prisoner taking a number of roles whilst in custody. It was submitted his conduct in custody had been exemplary which had included helping others, for example by running training sessions. This indicated there was strong prospects of rehabilitation and a diminished risk of recidivism.

67. It was also noted that the offender whilst on bail for a period of 8 months had tested negative for drug tests undertaken twice per week. He had been abstinent from illicit drug use for over 5 years, he had the support of his family and had demonstrated that he had his drug abuse “under control”. This was submitted to diminish his risk of reoffending.

68. Dr Dornan had noted that the offender’s antisocial peers were no longer a problem. It was submitted that he was still a young man with good qualifications and very good prospects of employment.

69. Finally, it was submitted that a finding of special circumstances should be made given his good prospects of rehabilitation, and the fact that he was still a young person with a risk of institutionalisation.

The Crown’s oral submissions in reply

70. The Crown submitted that in relation to the inference that the offender was intimately aware of the circumstances of the murder by the time the deceased’s body was disposed of was a finding that was open to the court and which may or may not be used on sentence.

71. In relation to backdating the sentence the Crown submitted that the fact the offender’s parole for previous offending will be revoked cannot be added to his sentence, thus any sentence imposed would be concurrent. The Crown rehearsed it’s submission that any sentence should be backdated to 27 May 2022.

72. In relation to the editing of photographs the Crown relied on a joint criminal enterprise which was well and truly on foot at the time the photographs were edited. It therefore made little difference who altered the images and in his first interview the offender had told police that Newson was not good at “technical stuff”.

73. The Crown conceded that Dr Dornan had noted the offender had been subjected to self-funded drug testing between June 2020 and March 2021 which had been discontinued because of the cost thereof, however there were no positive outcomes during that period.

74. The Crown noted that Dr Dornan did not have access to the three reports of Dr Bench from 2015 and his diagnosis of Cluster B Personality Disorder. This was submitted to be unfortunate as there was no current opinion regarding the offender suffering that disorder. This meant that the mental health issues of the offender were not clear and further that whilst he had some prospects of rehabilitation, those prospects should be found to be guarded based on Dr Dornan’s report. It was also noted that the times at which Dr Bench assessed the offender in 2015 were during the very time in which the offender’s accessorial liability was continuing.

75. The Crown referred to the decision Ah Keni relied on by the offender and submitted that the principle did not apply if other factors of accessorial liability in addition to silence were on foot. The Crown conceded that the bulk of the liability here was conducted within the first month or months after disposition of the deceased’s body reaching a peak around 23 April 2015, the time of the offender’s third interview with police.

76. The Crown submitted that an important aspect of the offending was the perversion of the police investigation, which stopped once the deceased’s body was located and the cause of death determined. At that time the joint criminal enterprise between the offender and Newson re-emerged when they undertook to maintain their solidarity in the recorded telephone call on 8 September 2016. In that call they agreed to share a solicitor.

77. The Crown submitted the moral culpability for the offending was high. At no time did the offender offer the truth to police and from the moment Newson bought the murder to his attention the offender acted to ensure that they would not be prosecuted. The fact that the offender’s exact role in the disposition of Carly McBride’s body is unclear does not detract from the serious nature of the offending.

Further oral submissions by the offender

78. Counsel for the offender submitted that the maintenance of solidarity until the phone call in September 2016 did not make the offending worse, nor did it make it better. He emphasised that maintaining silence by the accused did not make the offending worse, meaning more serious. Counsel further referred to [42] of the report of Dr Dornan in which he noted that the offender “categorically denies the charges and maintains his innocence”. There was therefore no point in the psychologist going on to seek an explanation as to why he offended, which was described as “a futile and unnecessary exercise”.

79. Finally, Counsel submitted that the principle of totality should be applied to ensure that any sentence was not crushing for the offender.

Determination

80. The following facts are to be derived from the jury verdict and as having been established beyond reasonable doubt. It is upon these facts that the offender is to be sentenced:-

1. As at Tuesday 30 September 2014, Carly McBride was 31 years old, Newson was 37 years old and the offender was 23 years old.

2. The offender was living with his parents in Muswellbrook in 2014.

3. Newson, the offender, and Carly McBride had met in 2013 at the Dooralong Rehabilitation Centre. Newson and the offender had remained friendly after leaving that centre.

4. On 31 July 2014 Carly McBride was admitted to Wyong Hospital with mental health issues. She was discharged on 6 August 2014.

5. In early August 2014, Carly McBride commenced a relationship with Newson. That relationship was marred by jealousy and possessiveness.

6. In August 2014, Carly McBride started to have access visits to her daughter Cadence, who was living with her ex-partner Andrew Easton in Muswellbrook. Five or six visits took place whereby Newson would drive Carly McBride from the Central Coast to Muswellbrook and drop her off at Andrew Easton’s house for the purpose of having access visits with Cadence. Those visits usually occurred on a Saturday, however, one occurred on Cadence’s birthday on Friday 21 August 2014.

7. After he dropped her off, Newson would visit his friend, the offender, in Muswellbrook and then pick Carly McBride up following her access visit.

8. One such access visit was to take place on the weekend of 27 and 28 September 2014, however, arrangements made by Carly McBride with Andrew Easton for that purpose were cancelled.

9. On Monday 29 September 2014, Carly McBride made an arrangement by text with Andrew Easton for an access visit in Muswellbrook the following day, Tuesday 30 September 2014. Mr Easton told Carly McBride that Cadence might be at day care on that day.

10. On 29 September 2014, Carly McBride’s Facebook account was deleted as a result of Newson’s jealousy, caused by other men contacting Carly McBride on Facebook.

11. On Tuesday 30 September 2014, Carly McBride and Newson travelled from the Central Coast to Muswellbrook. During their trip, Carly McBride made a number of phone calls to her friend Kylie Smith and her father, Steven McBride. At 11:48am, Mr Easton rang Carly McBride and invited her to come around. At about 12:30pm, Newson dropped Carly McBride off at Mr Easton’s house and then went to McDonalds in Muswellbrook.

12. At about 1pm, Newson left McDonalds to go to the offender’s home.

13. Carly McBride left Mr Easton’s house at about 2pm without having seen her daughter Cadence, who was at pre-school. She said that she would ring Newson and get picked up from McDonalds and left, headed in that direction on foot.

14. At 2:02pm, Newson was at the offender’s home, recording a very short video in the offender’s garage.

15. When Douglas Palmer visited the offender at his home in Muswellbrook just after 2:15pm on 30 September 2014, he spent ten minutes with the offender and did not see anyone else there. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Newson was not there, and had left the offender’s home to meet Carly McBride.

16. At 2:48pm on 30 September 2014, the offender was within the vicinity of a mobile phone tower near Scone. The offender had travelled with Newson to Scone via back roads, so as to avoid point-to-point cameras on the New England Highway. At 3.36pm on 30 September 2014, the offender received another text on his mobile phone from a tower close to Scone.

17. At 4.38pm on 30 September 2014, a bank transaction was recorded electronically at McDonalds in Scone using Carly McBride’s credit card.

18. Carly McBride’s body was disposed of in bushland off Bunnan Road at Owen’s Gap, a distance of 17 kilometres from Scone. Her skeletal remains were not discovered until 10 August 2016.

19. Carly McBride’s skeletal remains were found in bushland at a location off Bunnan Road, which was the only place a vehicle could pull up safely off Bunnan Road after leaving Scone. It was at a location where there was no mobile phone reception and her remains were discovered unburied 26 metres down an incline off the road.

20. I find that the cause of the deceased’s death was severe trauma to the brain consequent to Newson delivering a high degree of blunt force trauma to her head.

21. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Newson inflicted at least one blow to the deceased’s head and at least one separate blow to the deceased’s back, which caused fractures to her skull and scapulae, adjacent vertebrae and two of her ribs.

22. Shortly after her death Newson returned to the offender’s address and they agreed to cover up Newson’s murder of the deceased. They then travelled in Newson’s car via back roads to Owen’s Gap, approximately 17kms west of Scone.

23. They dumped the body, fully clothed, in bushland 26 metres off the road.

24. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offender assisted Newson to dispose of Carly McBride’s body on the afternoon of 30 September 2014, knowing she had been murdered by Newson in a fit of jealous rage.

25. The evidence established that an image of Carly McBride was edited on a digital file at 5:17pm on 30 September 2014, however, Carly McBride was not reported missing until about 6pm.

26. Further, a series of texts on the offender’s phone on 30 September 2014 were missing and I find that they were deliberately deleted.

27. Thereafter, the offender took a smaller but important role in what occurred. He drove Newson around Muswellbrook on the evening of 30 September 2014 and he later assisted by printing posters of Carly McBride as a missing person.

28. I am also satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offender told lies to police so as to assist Newson. First, by omitting to tell police in his first interview that he and Newson had gone to his father’s property on Gundy Road, secondly by telling police that they had travelled to Scone from Muswellbrook via the New England Highway, and thirdly by omitting to tell police they had visited his storage shed in Scone. In doing so the offender created a false alibi.

29. The offender and Newson also deleted data from their mobile phones which may have tended to show the location vicinity of their phones on 30 September 2014.

30. The offender posted a photo of the deceased on 1 October 2014 on a community Facebook page with a message stating she was missing, and asking for persons with knowledge of her whereabouts to contact him.

31. I am further satisfied that telephone intercepts in the evidence at trial demonstrated that both the offender and Newson were guarded on the phone as they noted the possibility that their telephone calls were being recorded.

32. I am further satisfied that thereafter, until his arrest and trial, the offender remained loyal to Newson, knowing that Newson had murdered Carly McBride.

The objective seriousness of the offending

81. The following matters are relevant to assessing the objective seriousness of the offending – see R v Marcus Standford [2016] NSWSC 1174 at [2].

82. First, although the murder of Carly McBride by Newson was unplanned, it was a vicious and brutal murder motivated by anger and jealousy.

83. Secondly, it may be inferred from the jury verdict that the offender was aware of the fact that Newson had murdered the deceased. In the absence of direct evidence, it may be inferred that Newson disclosed the murder, and details of it to the offender shortly after it occurred when Newson returned to the offender’s home. The offender and Newson then travelled by backroads to avoid detection on the point-to-point cameras on the highway between Muswellbrook and Scone. As the offender had lived in the area for many years it may be inferred that he assisted Newson in avoiding detection in that way, and also in directing him to Owen’s Gap where the body was dumped.

84. Whilst no finding could be made that the offender assisted Newson in physically dumping the body, he was involved in a joint illegal enterprise with Newson to do so. It is well established that there is a wide variation of the degrees of moral culpability of persons convicted of the offence of accessory after the fact to murder where the assistance involves the disposal of a body after a murder. The authorities recognise that conduct as elevating the objective seriousness of the offence – see R v Purtill [2012] NSWSC 566 per Harrison J at [32] referring to R v Urriola [2010] NSWSC 367 per Fullerton J at [28] – [30].

85. Thirdly, the offender assisted Newson in escaping justice from 30 September 2014 until his arrest on 22 June 2017. I note that the offender was in custody from 23 April 2015 and that the offender has submitted that his silence, both before and after that date is not sufficient for a finding of accessorial liability relying on Ah Keni v R, supra. This was not a case of a mere failure by the offender to report the murder by Newson of Carly McBride. Rather, the Court in Ah Keni made it clear that silence, when associated with acts of active assistance, could be taken into account in assessing the objective seriousness of the offence particularly when it had the propensity to mislead the investigator, provided the other elements of the offence are made out. Indeed at [18] Bathurst CJ stated “that when during the course of providing active assistance the offender remained silent as to the offence, this could be considered part of the offence such as to increase it’s objective seriousness”.

86. Fourthly, by assisting Newson the offender successfully thwarted the investigation and prosecution of Newson until the deceased’s skeletal remains were discovered in June 2016. Given the period of time involved, the assistance could in no way be considered as “spur of the moment” assistance.

87. Also relevant is the offender’s motivation in assisting Newson. The only inference that may be drawn is that the offender had a misplaced sense of loyalty to Newson which was confirmed in the offender’s message to Abby Marston on 9 April 2015. His text read:-

“I lost out big time. I gave everything to help some1 to get out of a bad situation. Hes a good mate but that’s not why I did it. I did it because if the tables were turned I know that he would be the only person that I know that would do it for some1 else in his position. I dunno if that makes sense. Like even if we didn’t know each other and he was in my position I know that he would help some1else the same way. Its hard to find genuine straight up ppl anymore around here.”

88. I find that the offending therefore represented a choice by the offender to place the interests of Newson ahead of those of Carly McBride, her family, and the public generally. Also relevant is the fact that in his three police interviews, and following the discovery of the skeletal remains of the deceased the offender remained loyal to Newson.

89. Finally, notwithstanding that no finding can be made as to the exact method of disposal, the offender is criminally liable by way of the joint illegal enterprise with Newson which led to the deceased’s body being callously discarded in bushland. This elevates the objective seriousness of the offending into “the upper echelons of an offence pursuant to s349” – see R v Quach [2002] NSWSC 1205 per Simson J at [11].

90. All of the above factors lead to a finding that the objective seriousness of the offending here was within the mid-range of an offence pursuant to s349(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 and at the upper-end of the mid-range for such an offence. It constituted very serious offending.

91. In addition, the moral culpability of the offender was very high. I find that he willingly participated in the disposal of the body knowing well the circumstances of her murder and assisted Newson to evade prosecution for his offence for a period of well over two and a half years. He did so out of misplaced loyalty to Newson and he maintained solidarity with Newson for the entirety of that period.

Aggravating Factors

92. I find that it was an aggravating factor pursuant to s21A(2)(j) of the CSPA that the offence was committed whilst the offender was on conditional liberty, first, in relation to a s10 bond imposed on 4 August 2014 for an offence of drive whilst licence suspended, and secondly, that he was on conditional bail relating to a charge of supply drugs granted on 26 May 2013. Whilst the offender submitted that this aggravating matter carried no weight, I reject that submission as his involvement in assisting Newson rather demonstrated a complete disregard for the law and court orders.

93. The offender’s criminal history is set out above. For a young man, he has already served a substantial period of time in custody and his criminal history does not entitle him to any leniency in the sentencing process. In Veen v R [No. 2] (1998) 164 CLR 465; [1998] HCA 14 at 477 the High Court stated:-

“The antecedent criminal history of an offender is a factor which may be taken into account in determining the sentence to be imposed but it cannot be given such weight as to lead to the imposition of a penalty which is disproportionate to the gravity of the instant offence. The antecedent criminal history is relevant, however, to show that the incident offence is an uncharacteristic aberration or whether the offender has manifested in his commission of the instant offence a continuing attitude of disobedience to the law. In that case retribution, deterrence and protection of society may all indicate that a more severe penalty is warranted.”

94. The offender’s criminal history here falls into the latter category, and therefore some emphasis should be placed on denunciation, retribution and personal deterrence for this offending.

Mitigating Factors

95. Pursuant to s21A(3)(b) I find that the offence was not part of a planned or organised criminal activity, and that this mitigating factor should be taken into account on sentencing.

96. I am not persuaded to find, as advocated on behalf of the offender, that he is unlikely to reoffend and has good prospects of rehabilitation, as mitigating factors on sentence. Notwithstanding his abstinence from illicit drugs for a period of time, his prospects of rehabilitation must remain somewhat guarded depending on his active engagement with relapse prevention programs. Further, the author of the SAR found him to be at a medium-risk for re-offending.

The facilitation of the administration of justice

97. S22A of the CSPA provides that a lesser penalty may be imposed where the administration of justice has been facilitated by the defence, whether by disclosures made pre-trial or during the course of the trial. S22A(2) provides that such lessor penalty must not be unreasonably disproportionate to the nature and circumstances of the offence.

98. The offender submitted that the defence case was conducted in an efficient manner, which avoided a number of witnesses being called and allowed the Crown to lead evidence that was uncontentious. The Crown did not oppose such a finding and I accept the offender’s submission.

99. The allowance pursuant to s22A of the CSPA has been held to vary between 5 and 10% - see R v Hines (No. 3) [2014] NSWSC 1273 at [9]; R v Morris [2017] NSWSC 637 at [60]. Here, the discount I determine to be appropriate is 7%.

General and specific deterrence

100. General deterrence is important in the sentencing process here. A clear message must be sent to the community that Parliament has prescribed a heavy maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment for an offence of accessory after the fact to murder pursuant to s349(1) of the Crimes Act, and that the courts will impose condign punishment in appropriate cases. The maximum penalty is an indicator of the seriousness of the offending, and is a guidepost in the sentencing process.

101. Specific deterrence is also important. The offender who has already served two lengthy terms of imprisonment for such a young man must understand that if he was to continue to offend, increasingly lengthy periods of imprisonment will be imposed.

Prospects of rehabilitation

102. Given that the genesis of the offender’s criminal conduct is found in his abuse of illicit drugs and negative peer influences, any assessment of his prospects of rehabilitation must remain guarded given the risk of relapse. Given his prior criminal history and the fact that the offender had not successfully rehabilitated on previous occasions, I accept the opinion of the author of the SAR that he is a medium risk of reoffending.

Subjective factors

103. I take into account that the offender was 24 years of age at the time of the offending and that he was probably overborne by Newson who was some 13 years older than him. As outlined above, the offending was born out of a misguided sense of loyalty to Newson.

104. The offender is now 31 years of age and has good trade qualifications and good prospects of employment upon his eventual release to the community. He has also been a model prisoner working several jobs and also training other prisoners. The offender also has the advantage of a supportive family and partner and the testimonials in Exhibits 2, 3 and 4 describe a well-mannered and caring young man.

105. It is unfortunate that the opinions of Dr Bench in 2015 to the effect that he had symptoms consistent with a Cluster-B Personality Disorder were not further investigated, and that Dr Bench’s reports were not provided to Dr Dornan for his opinion of that diagnosis. However, the offender did not seek an adjournment of his sentence hearing for that purpose and no finding can be made in relation to the opinions then held by Dr Bench. I note however his history of suffering episodic periods of depression since his early twenties which were directly attributable to his drug abuse. I accept Dr Dornan’s opinion that the majority of his criminal conduct resulted from his chronic drug use and negative peer influences. The offender denied the presence of any mental health symptoms and continues to deny his offending. I accept Dr Dornan’s opinion that it is unclear if he has done so due to a lack of insight or a desire to portray himself well in the context of the court proceedings.

106. A Personality Disorder is relevant to a reduction of the offender’s moral culpability, and attracts the principles in DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 78 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194 – see Wornes v R [2022] NSWCCA 184. On the evidence before me, I am unable to make those findings.

Special circumstances

107. Given the risk of institutionalisation for the offender, and the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on the prison population which has led to a cancellation of visitation rights, an inability to engage in many services and programs and lengthy lockdowns with limited mental health services available, I make a finding of special circumstances pursuant to s44(2) of the CSPA. I therefore intend to vary the statutory ratio between head sentence and non-parole period to be imposed.

Sentence

108. I have had regard to the comparable cases referred to by the parties. They demonstrate that the offence of accessory after the fact to murder is an offence which can occur in a very large range of circumstances and accordingly attract a wide range of sentences. The authorities demonstrate however that the offence is generally considered to be an offence of extreme gravity – see R v Johnson [2014] NSWSC 1254 per Hamill J at [10] – [14]. What is clear is that each case must be determined and assessed on its own facts.

108. Having regard to the objective seriousness of the offending as outlined above, the high moral culpability of the offender and taking into account the subjective factors outlined above, a sentence of 8 years imprisonment is an appropriate starting point. When reduced by 7% and rounded out, I intend to impose a sentence of 7 years and 6 months with a non-parole with of 4 years to commence on 27 May 2022.

Orders

110. I hereby make the following orders:

1. You are convicted of the offence of Count 1 on the Indictment, that you did between 29 September 2014 and 22 June 2017 in Scone and elsewhere in the state of New South Wales, knowing the said Sayle Newson to have committed the murder of Carly Doyle McBride, did receive, harbour, maintain and assist the said Sayle Kenneth Newson.

2. I sentence you to a non-parole period of 4 years to commence on 27 May 2022 and to expire on 26 May 2026.

3. The balance of term will be a period of 3 years and 6 months from 27 May 2026 to 26 November 2029.

4. Your parole eligibility date will be 26 May 2026. You should understand that release to parole is not automatic. The State Parole Authority will hold a hearing sometime before that date and decide whether they are going to release you to parole on that date or some later date. You should understand that your parole will be subject to stringent conditions, one of which is not to commit offences whilst on parole. Other conditions will include things such as who you associate with, where you live and doing what your parole officers direct. If, during the time you are on parole, you breach any condition of parole, the State Parole Authority will revoke your parole and you will have to go back to gaol to serve the balance of your sentence.

**********

Decision last updated: 25 November 2022