R v Kane - [2011] VSC 19

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Unrestricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 70 of 2010

THE QUEEN

SUZANNE PATRICIA KANE

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27 January 2011
DATE OF SENTENCE:	4 February 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Kane
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 19

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Plea of guilty – Accessory after the fact – Gravity of the offending – Limited role in committing the offence – Relevance of dependant as deterrence for future offending.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr Rochford SC	Office of Public Prosecutions
Ms H Bate
For the Accused	Mr C Dane QC	Dowsley & Associates
Mr A P Lewis

HIS HONOUR:

Suzanne Patricia Kane, you have pleaded guilty to one count of being an accessory after the fact to murder, and in particular that you did acts with the purpose of impeding the apprehension, prosecution, conviction or punishment of the principal offender Geoffrey Lesley Armour.

The charge to which you have pleaded guilty relates to the killing of Desmond Moran in Union Road, Ascot Vale on 15 June 2009. Mr Moran was fatally shot by Geoffrey Armour who pleaded guilty to murder on the same day that you pleaded guilty to this offence. Therefore, the maximum penalty for the offence to which you have pleaded guilty is twenty years imprisonment.

On 15 June 2009, you were arrested and charged with being an accessory after the fact to murder and on 20 July 2009 you were charged with murder, together with Judith Moran, Michael Farrugia and your partner Geoffrey Armour.

On 22 January 2010, I granted bail to you on various terms and conditions, and sometime after that in February 2010 you were released from custody and you have been on bail since including since the hearing of your plea.

Circumstances of the offending

Shortly before midday on Monday, 15 June 2009, Desmond Moran was shot and killed in the Ascot Pasta and Deli Café at 191 Union Road Ascot Vale. As I have just said, that shooting was carried out by Geoffrey Leslie Armour. The prosecution alleged that this shooting was done pursuant to an agreement between Armour and Judith Moran. Mrs Moran has been arraigned and has pleaded not guilty and her trial is underway as at the date on which I am imposing sentence on you.

As I understand from the manner in which the case against you is put on behalf of the prosecution, at the time that Desmond Moran was shot by Geoffrey Armour, with Michael Farrugia present and Judith Moran waiting nearby in a motor vehicle, you were at Mrs Moran’s premises at 10 Ormond Road Moonee Ponds. After the killing had occurred, it is alleged that Armour, Judith Moran and Michael Farrugia returned to those premises and, according to Farrugia, Armour told him that he did not wish to tell you what had occurred. However, clearly you were told and the conduct which…

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 Kane

Details

AGLC: R v Kane [2011] VSC 19
Case: [2011] VSC 19
Decision Date: 4 February 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Kane involved the defendant who pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact to the crime of murder. The matter was heard in a higher court where sentencing was the primary focus. The defendant had played a limited role in the commission of the offence, acting more as an accessory rather than a principal offender. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence that would reflect the seriousness of the offence, provide deterrence against future offending, and account for the defendant's role and mitigating factors.

The central legal issues before the court included the appropriate sentence for the defendant's role as an accessory after the fact to murder, the gravity of the offence, and the need to ensure that the sentence would adequately deter the defendant and others from committing similar offences. The court also had to consider the defendant's role in the offence, the need for denunciation, and the potential for rehabilitation. The defendant had no prior criminal history and had a dependant, which was relevant to the sentencing considerations.

In delivering the sentence, the court recognised the defendant's limited role in the offence and his status as an accessory after the fact. The court sentenced the defendant to two years imprisonment, of which all but seven months and 17 days were suspended for two years. The court expressed that the suspended period was intended to reflect the period of pre-sentence detention. The court considered that the sentence met the requirements of denunciation, deterrence, and reflected the gravity of the offence. The court was satisfied that the sentence would adequately address the legal considerations and provide appropriate punishment and deterrence.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant was to be imprisoned for two years on the count of being an accessory after the fact to murder, with all but seven months and 17 days of that sentence suspended for a period of two years. This decision ensures that the defendant's punishment is proportionate to their role in the offence while also serving to denounce the crime and deter future offending.

Orders

Orders of the court

On the count of being an accessory after the fact to murder you are sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of two years. I will suspend all but seven months and 17 days of that sentence and I suspend it for a period of two years. I express that it is my intention that that period is intended to represent the period of pre-sentence detention. I consider it desirable that that sentence of imprisonment be partly suspended and, pursuant to s 27(1)(A) of the Sentencing Act, that I have considered the need to ensure that the sentence imposed on you adequately demonstrates the denunciation by the Court of the conduct in which you have engaged. In particular, I have considered the nature of the offence and its consequences. I have also considered whether such a sentence would adequately deter you and others from committing similar offences and whether such sentence reflects the gravity of the offence. I am satisfied these considerations are met.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.