Count 1: (being the count in respect of which the Form 1 matters are taken into account) - sentenced to imprisonment for four years and four months, commencing on 25 August 1999. Specified non-parole period of two years eight months, similarly to commence from 25 August 1999.; Count2: Sentenced to a concurrent fixed term of two years and eight months. The earliest date on which eligible for release on parole will be 24 April 2002.
THE SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL DIVISION
WOOD CJ at CL
THURSDAY 5 OCTOBER 2000
70024/00 - REGINA v ALAN FAULKNER
SENTENCE
1 HIS HONOUR: The prisoner has pleaded guilty to two counts of being an accessory after the fact to murder. He now appears for sentence in relation to those two counts. I have been asked, pursuant to s 32 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 to take into account four further offences included in a Form 1, comprising one offence of actual supply of a prohibited drug (four ounces of cannabis per week over a period of eight to nine months), one offence of deemed supply of that drug, one offence of goods in custody ($795, the proceeds of drug sales) and one count of receiving (a stolen television set and a VCR).
The Facts
2 It is the Crown case that the two murders in respect of which the prisoner was an accessory after the fact were committed at Charlestown on 16 August 1999 by Kevin Paul Naismith. The victims were associates of Naismith in the drug trade, namely Danny John Wasley and Mark Andrew Banks. Naismith is due to stand trial for those murders on 9 October 2000 and it is necessary to sentence the prisoner in advance of that trial, as he has undertaken to give evidence in the Crown case, conformably with induced statements made on 8 and 14 September 1999. 3 Save for one paragraph of those induced statements, the use of which has by agreement been limited, the facts upon the basis of which the prisoner is to be sentenced have been taken largely from those statements. They differ in some material respects, particularly in the extent of disclosure offered, from earlier admissions made by the prisoner to police. To the history of that disclosure I will return, but it is fair to describe it as having been somewhat qualified at the start and having progressed to a disclosure that the Crown now accepts as complete and truthful, particularly so far as it has been almost wholly corroborated by other witnesses and by discovery of physical evidence that may not otherwise have been found. 4 It is the Crown case that Banks and Wasley were murdered by Naismith…
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 Faulkner
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Faulkner [2000] NSWSC 944
Case
[2000] NSWSC 944
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v Faulkner, Alan Faulkner was sentenced by the Supreme Court of New South Wales Criminal Division for his involvement as an accessory after the fact to two counts of murder. Faulkner had assisted in disposing of the bodies of the victims, Danny John Wasley and Mark Andrew Banks, and in covering up the crime. Faulkner had pleaded guilty to the charges, and the court also took into account additional offences outlined in a Form 1. The legal issues the court had to decide included the appropriate weight to give Faulkner's guilty plea and the assistance he provided to the police, as well as the objective and subjective circumstances of the case. The court reasoned that Faulkner's involvement in the crime was substantial, and he had the opportunity to withdraw and inform the police but chose not to. However, his early guilty plea and assistance in the investigation were considered in his favour. The court also took into account the serious nature of the offences, Faulkner's lack of prior criminal history, and his prospects for rehabilitation. Faulkner was sentenced to imprisonment for four years and four months on the first count, with a non-parole period of two years and eight months. He was also sentenced to a concurrent fixed term of two years and eight months on the second count, with eligibility for parole release starting from 24 April 2002.