R v Hogden

[2012] NSWSC 24

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

1. 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.

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

Facts

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

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. On the night of 18 June and into the early hours of the morning of 19 June 2010 the Offender and Best spent time together at the Ermington Hotel. Whilst at the Hotel they spoke with the Deceased. The Offender and Best returned to Best's apartment at about 4am on 19 June.

1. The Offender said that when she woke later on 19 June 2010 she noticed she had menstruated and bled through her clothing and onto the bed sheets. The Offender returned to her unit and showered. She realised that she didn't have any tampons.

1. She rang the Deceased and asked if she could bring her some tampons. During their conversation the Offender said that the Deceased told her she was going to supply "ice" to Best later that day. Call charge records reveal the Offender, Best and the Deceased had significant contact with each other on 19 June 2010.

1. The Deceased came to the Offender's unit at approximately 2:00pm and gave her a tampon. The Offender said they then walked to Best's unit. When Best heard them approaching he called out for them to enter. The Deceased entered the unit first followed by the Offender.

1. The Offender said Best came from behind the Deceased and choked her with a thin rope by pulling it tightly around her neck. The Offender said she tried to escape from the unit but found the door was deadlocked. She saw the Deceased trying to free herself from Best. The Offender said she kicked Best so he would release his grip on the Deceased. The Offender said:

I actually got scratched, he got bit, she bit him, he's got bite marks on his hand where she bit him, she fought, she fought she fought so well and I couldn't help her. Yelling didn't get me anywhere and I couldn't open the doors. It was all so friggin' quick and he's grabbn' me and kickin' me pulling my hair, hell I panicked...I was kicking him and hitting him trying to stop him...I don't know why I wasn't stronger. I know I was in shock ...I'm so disappointed". "

1. Best said to her "she (the Offender) would be next". The Offender screamed at Best to stop. The Offender said the Deceased was trying to scream. While Best was choking the Deceased he said "that's for the children". Police investigations confirm Best had been prevented by the Family Court from seeing his two young children. The Crown case is that Best blamed the custody dispute on the Deceased because she had been in contact with his ex-wife and had told her about his drug use. Call charge records confirm the Deceased had been in contact with Best's ex-wife.

1. The Offender said that during the attack a person called Robert Murley knocked on the unit door. Best told the Offender to answer the door and 'act normal'. She saw that Best had a walking stick with a knife protruding from the end. The Offender said Best was holding the Deceased behind the door who at that stage she believed to be unconscious. The Offender told Mr Murley the reason for the noise was because they (she and Best) were "just having a bit of fun and playing games and tidying [scil. tying] up".

1. Mr Murley told police he went to Best's premises after hearing some muffled noises. He said the Offender answered the door and the following conversation took place:

Mr Murley said, "I heard some commotion in there, where's BB?

The offender said, "We 're having some fun. I've got him tied up to the bed."

1. Mr Murley did not see the Deceased or Best. Mr Murley asked the Offender for some Valium. The Offender gave him some Valium and closed the door.

1. The Offender said Best then held the Deceased's head by the back of the neck and forced it into a small plastic garbage bin which had been filled with water. The Offender saw blood and bubbles in the water.

1. Best then sexually violated the Deceased which caused the Offender to go into the bathroom to vomit. When she returned to the room the Deceased's body had been removed. Best said to her "it's your turn". The Offender said she was very scared of what Best might do to her.

1. The Offender saw the Deceased had bled onto the carpet as a result of the attack.

1. The Offender said Best then went through the Deceased's handbag before placing it inside a green garbage bag. He removed some money and some ice.

1. The Offender used her mobile phone a number of times and rang the Deceased's mobile phone in order to steer suspicion away from Best and her.

1. The Offender said that Best then drove the Deceased's motor vehicle away from the unit complex and left it in Jackson Street, Ermington. She said she then walked from the unit complex to Ermington and met up with Best at the Ermington Hotel. CCTV footage from the area depicts Best and the Offender walking from the vicinity of Jackson Street (near where the vehicle was found by police) towards the Ermington Hotel at 3:47pm. It is the Crown case that the Offender was in the vehicle with Best when it was abandoned. CCTV images depict the Offender and Best walking towards a garbage bin and Best placing something inside it.

1. Best and the Offender are depicted on CCTV arriving at the hotel at 3:50pm. While they were at the Hotel a further text message was sent from Best's mobile phone to the Deceased's phone. They remained at the Ermington Hotel drinking and playing poker machines. Best gave the Offender money he obtained from the Deceased's handbag to play the poker machines. They left the Hotel at 6:57pm.

1. The Offender told police that on the way home Best went into nearby Woolworths and purchased bleach and other items whilst she waited outside. She said that after Best purchased the items they walked back to his unit. CCTV footage depicts Best and the Offender both entering the Woolworths store at 7:04pm. They are seen inside the store purchasing a 2.5 litre bottle of bleach, tissues, tinned food and a barbeque chicken. Both are depicted at the cash register. However it is unclear who actually paid for the items. They are each depicted carrying items and leaving the store at 7:11pm.

1. The Offender told police that when she returned to the unit, in fear, she attempted to clean the Deceased's blood stain from the carpet. She believed she had to clean the carpet otherwise she could be hurt. The offender used a bottle of 'Spray and Wipe' she obtained from Best's unit. She dabbed at the stain with a tea towel. The Offender said she couldn't get rid of the stain so Best poured the bleach onto it and then covered the area with a coffee table.

1. They then used 'ice' sourced from the Deceased's handbag. Best injected 'ice' into the Offender's arm before injecting himself. They then smoked the remaining 'ice'.

1. CCTV depicts them returning to the Ermington Hotel at 11.41 pm on 19 June 2010. They remained at the Hotel drinking and playing poker machines with money removed from the Deceased's handbag until leaving together at 2:00am the next day. She said Best never let her out of his sight. They went to the Hotel because there were cameras present which would record their attendance and give rise to an alibi.

1. Call charge records for the 20 June 2010 reveal Best's mobile phone was used to send further text messages to the Deceased's mobile phone in which he was expressing concern for her welfare.

1. The Offender said Best later told her he had dumped the Deceased's body in the "empty flat next to the faggot." The Offender said she never went inside this unit and was unsure how he gained access. The Crown case is that this unit is 11/195 Spurway Street. This unit was vacant at the relevant time. During the investigation police conducted examinations of this unit and also seized screwdrivers from Best's unit. Expert examination evidence reveals marks on the door jamb of Unit 11 were made with the screwdrivers seized from Best's unit. The markings are suggestive of forced entry to Unit 11.

1. The Offender said Best later told her he dismembered the Deceased's body with a hacksaw which had been given to him by Kevin Hanson.

1. Kevin Hanson said that on an occasion when he was at Best's unit, Best asked if he had a hacksaw so he could "cut up some equipment". Mr Hanson told Best "he did have a hacksaw but not with him". Mr Hanson returned to his house and obtained a hacksaw. He returned and gave it to Best. Mr Hanson then drove Best and the offender to the Ermington Hotel. The Offender knew Best wanted to borrow the hacksaw from Kevin Hanson to dismember the Deceased's body.

1. Best then disposed of the body parts in different garbage bins. Best warned the Offender to "be ready" as the body parts may "show up at the tip". The Offender said Best also told her that he disposed of the Deceased's remains in 'Aboriginal parkland near Blacktown'.

1. On 24 June, 2010 the Offender and Best were contacted by police who were then investigating the Deceased's disappearance. Police had reviewed the Deceased's telephone call charge records and found there had been frequent contact between the Deceased, the Offender and Best at about the time of her disappearance. The Offender and Best were asked to provide a statement to police. The following is a summary of the Offender's statement.

1. The Offender said that on the afternoon of 19 June 2010 the Deceased drove her to Homebush to meet Best at a car yard. When they arrived the Deceased told her she was meeting Best later that day. Before leaving Homebush the Deceased told the Offender she was "going to Auburn to re-load" (source further drugs from her supplier). The Deceased then drove off. The Offender said she met with Best a short time later. They eventually went home by bus and train arriving at about 3pm. The Offender said that when the Deceased didn't arrive at Best's unit as previously arranged they made a number of calls and sent text messages to her. Because they received no response they went to the Ermington Hotel.

1. Best said he rang the Deceased's telephone at approximately 3pm but found that it was turned off. Best told police in his statement that he knew the Deceased had been arguing a few weeks ago with a "deaf and dumb guy" who lived in the Telopea area.

1. The Offender later said in her interview of the 18 August 2010 that she made the statement in fear of Best and that he had not let her out of his sight. The Offender said that the contents of that statement were formulated by Best when they were walking to the police station to make their statement.

1. The Offender said Best bought a vehicle from the "man across the road". Rodney Small told police that on the 4 July 2010 Best asked about buying his van and being able to take it for a mechanical inspection. He took possession of the van on that day.

1. On 5 July 2010 Best contacted Centrelink and requested an advance payment. The request was granted and money was deposited into the Offender's bank account on 7 July 2010 together with his fortnightly payment. The Crown case is that Best paid Mr Small for the van from these funds and that the van was purchased by Best in order to facilitate moving the Deceased's remains from the unit complex.

1. The Offender said Best had told her he had been to the Reserve to check on the Deceased's body. He told her "it didn't smell". David Best, the son of the accused Best, told police that on 10 July 2010 he accompanied his father to Charlie Bali Reserve, Doonside. It is the Crown case that Best went to the Reserve to check on the body.

1. At 5:30pm on Wednesday 11 August 2010 the torso of the Deceased was found by Suzanne Boole at the Charlie Bali Reserve. Police were subsequently contacted and a crime scene was established. Subsequent scientific examinations confirmed the remains as being those of the Deceased.

1. Forensic examination of the torso (no head, arms or legs) revealed that a large wound was caused to the Deceased's abdomen and her entire small bowel and part of her large bowel had been removed. The torso weighed 24 kilograms. To date no other body parts of the Deceased have been found.

1. Between the 11th of August 2010 and the 18th August 2010 there was significant publicity about the finding of the torso.

1. On Wednesday 18 August 2010 the offender rang Police. She told them Best was responsible for the killing of the Deceased and that she had witnessed the incident. The Offender agreed to meet with police at an arranged location where she was ultimately arrested and taken to Parramatta Police Station. The Offender agreed to be interviewed. The interview went for 2.5 hours in which she answered approximately 1,100 questions.

1. At the outset of the interview the Offender told police she was scared of Best but knew she was "doing the right thing" by telling police what occurred. She said "the poor girl doesn't even rest and the family, her son I just can't live with it ... I'm not coping". At the conclusion of the interview the Offender said "I'm just so sorry that I didn't come (forward to police), I'm just you know, I wish, it's too late for wishes and ifs but I really wish I had of done this (Interview) straight off.

1. The Offender was later charged with the present offence.

The acts of the offender

1. I find that the acts of the Offender which were done with the intention of assisting Best to evade justice are these:

(i) She used her mobile phone to contact the Deceased's mobile phone in order to steer suspicion away from Best;

(ii) She accompanied Best when he drove the Deceased's car and dumped it;

(iii) She attempted to clean the Deceased's blood stain from the carpet with bleach purchased by Best for her that afternoon;

(iv) When contacted by the police on 24 June 2010 she gave false information to the police concerning Best's and her involvement with the offence, and her knowledge of what Best had done. At the time she provided that information to the police she knew not only that Best had killed the Deceased but that Best had told her he had dumped the Deceased's body in an empty flat in the complex, that he had obtained a hacksaw from Kevin Hanson, that he had dismembered the body, that he had purchased the van to facilitate moving the Deceased's remains from the unit complex, that he had disposed of body parts in different garbage bins and had buried the Deceased's remains in Aboriginal parkland near Blacktown.

1. The Offender did not contact the police to tell them the truth about what happened until 18 August 2010, some 2 months after the Deceased was killed. The Offender claims that she did not contact the police until at that time because of her fear of Best. She agreed in evidence she gave before me, however, that her last contact with Best before she rang the police was sometime in early July. She explained that delay by reason of the fact that when Mr Vasquez had been released from custody in June or July, the Offender had told him what Best had done, and Mr Vasquez told her to keep quiet and not to say anything. That conversation with Mr Vasquez took place about 2 weeks before she rang the police.

1. It appears in a report from a psychologist, Dr Katie Seidler (to which I will come presently) that the Offender's relationship with Mr Vasquez has been an abusive one with her as the victim. The Offender does not say, however, that she did not contact the police out of any fear of Mr Vasquez but only that he had told her not to say anything, a direction which she followed for a 2 week period.

1. I accept that the Offender acted during the days immediately following the killing principally out of fear for what Best might do to her if she did not take the course which she in fact took. The Offender said that for some days Best did not let her out of his sight and she continued to be fearful of him because of what he said to her immediately after the Deceased was killed that she was next.

1. Nevertheless, when she does not appear to have had any contact with Best from early July, and she does not say that she remained silent for any fear of Mr Vasquez, I do not consider that there is an adequate explanation for why it took her until 18 August 2010 to contact the police to tell them the true position. She agreed with the Crown in cross-examination that she had the opportunity to go to the police at some stage in that 2 month period.

1. Whilst an inference is available that she only contacted the police because of the discovery of some of the Deceased's remains, I do not find that that was the reason for the contact. It seems likely that she did so out of a sense of guilt and remorse that had been eating away at her.

Legal principles

1. In R v Cowen [2008] NSWSC 104 Buddin J said:

[15] In R v Hawken (1986) 27 A Crim R 32, Thomas J observed that:

...it is in the interests of the community that murderers should be completely isolated from support and deprived of assistance and that such crimes be not covered up. The severe penalty available against accessories after the fact is a way in which the community protects itself and it is an aspect of the law's general deterrence against homicide. (at 38)

[16] Clearly the community has an interest in ensuring that offenders who have committed serious crimes be brought to account. Accordingly, endeavours made by those who seek to assist such offenders from avoiding detection must be strongly resisted and visited with appropriate penalties. In those circumstances, the nature of the assistance which is provided, the extent to which it assists the principal offender in avoiding detection and the reasons why the assistance was extended, are all factors which are relevant to the exercise of the sentencing discretion.

[17] In R v Farroukh (CCA, unreported, 29 March 1996) Gleeson CJ, with whom Levine and Dowd JJ agreed, said:

The maximum penalty is penal servitude for twenty-five years. There is, however, a wide variation in the possible degrees of moral culpability of persons convicted of this offence. The present was not a case, as sometimes occurs, where an accessory after the fact has been personally involved in a criminal enterprise, although the involvement falls short of participation as a principal, or where an accessory is associated with criminal elements and has become an accessory by reason of that association...(at 7)

[18] In R v Scowen [2007] NSWSC 792 Grove J observed that:

...there is a wide variation in possible degrees of culpability. This is reflected in some statistics collected by the Judicial Commission. The sample of offences of being an accessory after the fact to murder are small, but of sixteen cases three were sentenced to wholly non custodial terms, one served a term of imprisonment by periodic detention and the balance received sentences of full time imprisonment. The minimum term element of those who received full time imprisonment ranged in a sample of eleven cases between six months and thirty six months (at par 19).

[19] An examination of a number of decisions bear out those observations. At one end of the spectrum are cases such as R v Galea [2003] NSWSC 465 in which an effective overall sentence of 7 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years 6 months was imposed upon an offender who assisted the principal offender in cleaning the flat in which the murder took place and who also assisted in mutilating and dismembering the deceased and in disposing of the body parts: see also R v Elsworth [2000] NSWSC 582 and R v Faulkner [2000] NSWSC 944.

[20] At the other end of the spectrum are cases in which sentences falling short of full-time custody have been imposed. Fully suspended sentences were imposed in R v Leung [2000] NSWSC 824, in which the offender harboured the principal offender for a period of 48 hours by providing accommodation to him, and in R v Phan (2001) 126 A Crim R 257 in which the offender both withheld from, and also gave false information to, the police. It is to be observed however that that offender also provided significant co-operation to prosecuting authorities. For other instances in which offenders received suspended sentences after co-operating with authorities, see R v Culleton [1999] VSC 478 and R v Brown [2005] VSC 63.

[21] A sentence of periodic detention was imposed in R v Tan Do (CCA, unreported, 7 May 1997) in which the offender agreed to provide the principal offender with an alibi and agreed to receive and retain on behalf of the principal offender the sum of $500 from the proceeds of the botched robbery which gave rise to the offence until such time as the principal offender wanted it back. A Crown appeal against sentence was dismissed.

[22] A sentence of periodic detention was also imposed in R v Waters [1999] NSWSC 893 in which the offender agreed to drive the principal offender away from the scene, assisted in carrying the blood soaked bag containing the weapons to the principal offender's premises and then maintaining his silence about the events for a period of nearly 3 years.

[23] In R v Dileski [2002] NSWCCA 345 Hidden J, with whom Adams J agreed, said:

In many cases of this kind the offender's conduct is the product of emotional attachment or dependence, or a misguided sense of loyalty. No doubt, that accounts for most, if not all, of the cases in the Judicial Commission statistics which were disposed of otherwise than by fulltime custodial sentences. The present case cannot be explained in that way and, accordingly, it must be viewed as a more serious example of this type of offence. (at par [17])

[24] Although those remarks are apposite to the present case, none of this is to suggest of course that an offence which is committed out of a misguided sense of loyalty will inevitably lead to the imposition of a lenient penalty: see for example R v Ward [2004] NSWSC 420 at paras 49-51.

[25] Nevertheless I accept that the offender's loyalty to her partner which prompted her to commit these offences, is borne of an emotional dependency which has its origins in her highly unusual and unstable early childhood.

[26] It is true that the facts giving rise to the first count are rather more serious than those which relate to the second count. That is amply demonstrated by the difference in the maximum penalties which are available. Notwithstanding the fact that the offender lied to police on two separate occasions almost a week apart, it is my view that the objective gravity revealed by each of the offences falls towards the bottom of the range of offences of this kind. Her criminality would have been higher had she, for example, disposed of the deceased's handbag or witnessed the killings. In that respect I agree with the observations of Simpson J who said in R v Quach [2002] NSWSC 1205 that:

assistance in the disposal of a body after a murder takes a crime of this kind into the upper echelons of [an offence of this kind) ... [and being] of considerably more seriousness than, for example, assisting an offender to clean himself or herself after the murder (at para 11).

Subjective features

1. The Offender was examined by Dr Katie Seidler, a clinical and forensic psychologist, on 13 September 2011. Dr Seidler has provided a lengthy and very helpful report from which most of the evidence about the Offender has been derived. The Offender is now aged 44 years. She is the eldest of four daughters born to her parents. Her parents' marriage broke down when she was about 13 and she alternated between residing with her mother and her father after that time.

1. Both of her parents drank heavily. Her father usually drank to the point of intoxication on a daily basis and, in addition to alcohol, her mother abused prescription medications.

1. The Offender commenced consuming alcohol at or around the age of 15 years. She commenced using cannabis at about the age of 20 and smoked it heavily on a daily basis for some period of time. At least from the time she has been with Mr Vasquez she has used amphetamines, ice and cocaine on an intravenous basis. She has also experimented with heroin. However, she says that alcohol is her most serious problem.

1. All of her sisters have struggled with drug and alcohol problems over the years.

1. The Offender met her husband at the age of 20 and they married when she was 30. The marriage lasted for a further ten years. Her husband was a heavy alcohol abuser and gambler who assisted little with the family. They had 3 children, 2 daughters who are now aged 11 and 15 years and a son who is aged 4 years. When the marriage broke up the 2 daughters chose to live with their father. This devastated the Offender who turned heavily to alcohol abuse to cope. Subsequently her son was removed from her care by what was then the Department of Community Services because of her heavy alcohol abuse.

1. After her marriage ended the Offender entered into a relationship with a man who was a heavy drinker and gambler who was violent and abusive towards the Offender. She fell pregnant to him but had the pregnancy terminated. That relationship lasted 6 months.

1. She has been involved in a relationship with Mr Vasquez for about 18 months. He is a heavy drug user and is abusive and aggressive towards her as well as being involved in criminal activity. As noted, she met Best when Mr Vasquez was incarcerated, and commenced a sexual relationship (she claims it was nothing more) with him.

1. Having heard the Offender's evidence I accept that she is very remorseful for her actions.

Plea and assistance

1. The Offender entered her guilty plea at the earliest opportunity. She should be entitled to the full discount of 25% for that early plea.

1. The Offender's ultimate disclosure to the police on 18 August 2010 was instrumental in securing the arrest of Best. The officer-in-charge of the investigation said that the information she provided to the police was significant and the evidence that she gave against Best was the majority of the evidence against him. He described her evidence as the foundation of the Crown's case.

1. The Offender has already given evidence at Best's committal hearing and she has signed an undertaking to give evidence at his trial in accordance with what she told the police in her interview of 18 August 2010 and the subsequent interview of 6 September 2011.

1. Because the information volunteered by the Offender on 18 August 2010 led to the virtually immediate arrest of Best, and because of the significance of the information provided and the evidence already given by the Offender there should be a discount for that assistance of 15% on the sentence that would otherwise be imposed. Further, because of the significance of the evidence that the Offender has undertaken to give at the trial of Best there should be an additional discount of 10% for that undertaking to assist.

Other matters

1. The Offender has a minimal criminal record which, apart from 2 motor vehicle matters, consists only of 2 related matters in 2009 for which she was given s 9 bonds. That record entitles her to some leniency.

1. I consider that the Offender's prospects for rehabilitation are moderately good. She is unlikely ever to offend in the manner the subject of the offence charged. The concern for rehabilitation is her abuse of drugs and alcohol that appears to have been the background to the commission of all offences for which she has been convicted as well as the Form 1 offence.

1. She says that she can now see a pattern to her faults including dependency on unsuitable men. She says that she wants to go to live with her mother and her children on the Central Coast and not have contact with abusive men including Mr Vasquez. This is a change from what she told Dr Seidler in September 2011, and it may take time and some concerted therapy for her to get Mr Vasquez and the others out of her system. Dr Seidler felt that a longer period of supervision on parole was likely to be more beneficial for her rehabilitation.

Sentence

1. Rothman J said in R v Jade Carly Fennell [2011] NSWSC 489 at [53] that murder is the most serious of crimes and assisting in its non-detection must be treated seriously by the courts. I agree and I have considered whether any sentence other than a sentence of imprisonment is appropriate. I do not consider any other sentence is appropriate.

1. I have had regard to the subjective matters I have mentioned. I have had regard to the acts done by the offender and viewed them in the light of what was said in the cases earlier referred to. The maintenance of the false position that she had related to the police on 24 June until 18 August means that this case cannot be regarded as one involving minimal culpability ( Cowen at [20]). However, it is not to be regarded as amongst the most serious (see Galea and Quach ). It falls somewhere between these two extremes.

1. I have had regard to the Form 1 matter but I am of the opinion that the sentence to be imposed for the primary offence should not be increased by reason of it. Were it not for the early guilty plea and the assistance, I would have imposed an overall sentence of 3 years. But for the suspended sentence I intend to impose, the sentence should be backdated to 25 August 2011 to reflect the time the Offender has spent in custody (197 days).

1. Debbra Hogden you are convicted of being an accessory after the fact between 19 June 2010 and 18 August 2010 to the murder by Robert Best of Kristi McDougall on 19 June 2010 in that you did assist Robert Best.

1. You are 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. My reasons for suspending the sentence are that you have not previously been sentenced to a period of imprisonment, you are unlikely to re-offend, your need for rehabilitation, and for the assistance you have given and will give.

1. You are 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.

1. My intention when sentencing the offender was to impose a period of imprisonment of 18 months. Were that term of imprisonment to be served in custody the sentence would date from 25 August 2011 and expire on 24 February 2013. As I have indicated, however, the sentence has been suspended. The result is that the sentence commences on 9 March 2012 and expires on 8 September 2013 and the bond will have a corresponding period. My intention in regard to this sentence is that if the offender is breached for the bond that she enters into her period spent in custody already of 197 days should be fully taken into account if she is required to serve out the balance of the term in custody.

**********