R v Howlett - [2021] NSWSC 959

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Howlett [2021] NSWSC 959
Hearing dates: 30 July 2021
Decision date: 30 July 2021
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: R A Hulme J
Decision:
Imprisonment for 2 years 1 month with a non-parole period of 1 year 3 months

Catchwords:
SENTENCING – accessory after the fact to murder – principal stabbed victim to death – assistance provided to principal over 12 days following murder – offender and principal in intimate relationship – objective severity below middle of the range – guilty plea – discount for future assistance – disadvantageous upbringing – guarded prospects of rehabilitation – special circumstances – summary of similar cases – custodial sentence

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act1900 (NSW), s 349(1)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 12, 44

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
R v Ah Keni [2020] NSWSC 1848
R v Gavel (2014) 239 A Crim R 469; [2014] NSWCCA 56
R v Johnson [2014] NSWSC 1254
R v Stanford, Marcus [2016] NSWSC 1174

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Yolanda Donna Howlett
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr B Costello (Crown)
Mr T D Anderson (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
Coast Law

File Number(s): 2020/849

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Ms Yolanda Howlett is to be sentenced for an offence of being an accessory after the fact to the murder of Mr Larry White at North Gosford, the murder having occurred on 20 December 2019.
Section 349(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) applies and the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 25 years.
Ms Howlett pleaded guilty in the Local Court on 19 March 2021 and was committed to this Court for sentence. She has maintained her plea of guilty today when it was necessary to have her arraigned upon an indictment because of some defect in the relevant Court Attendance Notice.
There is a statement of agreed facts signed by Ms Howlett. Regrettably, it is more a summary of the evidence available to the Crown in relation to both her and the principal offender than a statement of facts. It is also very long. I have derived the following from it.
The deceased, Mr Larry White, was a 67-year old man who lived in a two-bedroom home unit in Gosford. He sold heroin.
Ms Howlett, aged 34, was in a relationship with Scott Weaver, aged 38. They both were drug users. She had been living in the spare bedroom of Mr White's home for about a year. Mr Weaver lived elsewhere but joined her there in early November 2019. There were indications of domestic violence perpetrated by Mr Weaver in the ensuing weeks. Mr Weaver was accusing Ms Howlett of infidelity during his absence prior to early November.
On 20 December 2019 at about 9.00am Mr Weaver took up a knife and said he should "get rid of her" because she had been cheating on him. He listed a number of people she had…

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 Howlett

Details

AGLC: R v Howlett [2021] NSWSC 959
Case: [2021] NSWSC 959
Decision Date: 30 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Howlett involved the defendant, Howlett, who was charged as an accessory after the fact to a murder committed by his partner. The victim was stabbed to death, and Howlett assisted the principal over a 12-day period following the murder. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The key legal issues before the court were determining the appropriate sentence for Howlett, considering factors such as the severity of the crime, the nature of his involvement, the benefits of his guilty plea, his background, and his prospects of rehabilitation.

The court considered the objective severity of the offence, which was below the middle of the range for such crimes. It took into account Howlett's assistance to the principal over an extended period, his intimate relationship with the principal, and the fact that he entered a guilty plea. Additionally, the court examined Howlett's disadvantaged upbringing and his guarded prospects of rehabilitation. The court also reviewed similar cases to contextualise the appropriate sentencing range and to ensure consistency in judicial outcomes.

In reaching its decision, the court balanced the severity of Howlett's involvement as an accessory with the mitigating factors presented. It acknowledged the discount for his guilty plea and future assistance, but also weighed these against the gravity of his actions and his limited potential for rehabilitation. The court determined that a custodial sentence was necessary to adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence and to uphold public confidence in the justice system. The final orders of the court reflected a sentence that was proportionate to the crime while also considering the mitigating factors presented.

Orders