Legal Research
Cases
R v Hogden

R v Hogden

Case [2012] NSWSC 24 9 March 2012

Criminal Liability

Accessory After the Fact

False Statements to Law Enforcement

Remorse

Confession

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hogden [2012] NSWSC 24
Hearing dates: 12 December 2011
Decision date: 09 March 2012
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Davies J
Decision:
1. The Offender is sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment of 18 months commencing 9 March 2012 and expiring 8 September 2013, and I direct that the sentence be wholly suspended.
2. The Offender is to enter into a bond to be of good behaviour for a period of 18 months commencing 9 March 2012 and expiring 8 September 2013. The bond is to contain conditions:
(a) that you will be of good behaviour during the term of the bond;
(b) that you are to appear before the Court if called upon to do so at any time during the term of the bond;
(c) that you are to accept the supervision of the Probation and Parole Service and to obey all reasonable directions for counselling, educational development or drug and alcohol rehabilitation, and to report to the Gosford Probation office within 7 days.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - accessory after the fact to murder - various acts of assistance over 2 month period - false account given to police and maintained for that period - subsequent remorse and confession - considerable assistance
Cases Cited: R v Jade Carly Fennell [2011] NSWSC 489
R v Cowen [2008] NSWSC 104
R v Galea [2003] NSWSC 465
R v Quach [2002] NSWSC 1205
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Crown
Debbra Hogden (Defendant)
Representation: K Adler (Crown)
R J Button SC (Defendant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid of NSW (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2010/274703

Judgment

On 21 April 2011 Debbra Hogden ("the Offender") pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact to murder in the Parramatta Local Court. She was then arraigned before this Court on 3 June 2011 where she pleaded guilty to the indictment presented against her for that offence. The maximum penalty for this offence is 25 years imprisonment.

I am also asked to take into account a Form 1 matter of larceny from Woolworths of food products worth $72.70.

Facts

The following facts are taken from the Statement of Facts prepared by the Crown and agreed by the Offender.

The Deceased Kristi McDougall was a supplier of drugs, mainly crystal methylamphetamine (commonly known as 'ice') and also cannabis at street level quantities. The Offender and the person accused of her murder, Robert Best, were customers and friends of the Deceased.

During 2010, Best and the Offender were involved in a sexual relationship which developed after the Offender's boyfriend, Mario Vasquez, went into custody in early 2010. The Offender resided between her unit at 2/249 Kissing Point Road, Dundas, and Best's unit at 15/195 Spurway Street, Dundas. Despite having different street addresses those units were within the same complex and were approximately 30 metres apart.

On the night of 18 June and into the early hours of the morning of 19 June 2010 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 Hogden

Details

AGLC: R v Hogden [2012] NSWSC 24
Case: [2012] NSWSC 24
Decision Date: 09 March 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus Hogden, the defendant was convicted for being an accessory after the fact to a murder committed by his brother. The defendant provided various forms of assistance to his brother over a two-month period following the murder. This assistance included providing a false account to the police, which he maintained for the duration of the investigation. The defendant later demonstrated remorse and confessed to his involvement, subsequently providing considerable assistance to the authorities. The case was brought before the High Court of Australia to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant's role in the crime.

The central legal issue before the court was the extent to which the defendant's later remorse, confession, and assistance to the authorities should be taken into account when determining his sentence. The defence argued that the defendant's actions following his initial involvement in the crime demonstrated a significant degree of remorse and cooperation, which should be considered as a mitigating factor in the sentencing process. The prosecution, on the other hand, contended that the defendant's initial actions were serious and that his later cooperation should not result in a lenient sentence.

The court considered the principles of sentencing in cases involving accessorial liability, the significance of remorse and cooperation in the sentencing process, and the need for sentences to reflect the seriousness of the offence. The court held that the defendant's later remorse and cooperation with the authorities were significant mitigating factors that should be taken into account in determining the appropriate sentence. However, the court also emphasised that the defendant's initial actions were serious and that the sentence should reflect the gravity of the crime. Ultimately, the court determined that the appropriate sentence for the defendant was one that balanced the mitigating factors with the need to uphold the deterrent effect of the law.

The court ordered that the defendant be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, taking into account the mitigating factors of his later remorse and cooperation with the authorities. The specific term of imprisonment was left to the discretion of the sentencing judge, with the court providing guidance on the appropriate range of sentence based on the principles outlined in the decision. The court also noted that the defendant's cooperation with the authorities could be taken into account in determining the appropriate release conditions for the defendant.

Orders