R v King - [2019] NSWSC 1742

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v King [2019] NSWSC 1742
Hearing dates: 02 December 2019
Date of orders: 06 December 2019
Decision date: 06 December 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Wright J
Decision:
Convicted of being an accessory after the fact to murder.

Sentenced to a non-parole period of one year and three months to date from 25 November 2018 and expire on 24 February 2020.
That will be followed by a parole period of one year, which will expire on 24 February 2021.
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW — Sentencing — Accessory after the fact to murder — Plea of guilty — No relevant criminal antecedents — Objective seriousness at the low end of the range — Bugmy considerations applicable — Mental illness — Parity with other offender — Special circumstances found — Victim impact statements not allowed to be read as offence not one which “results in the death of, or actual physical bodily harm to, any person”

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Arab v R [2019] NSWCCA 39
Aslan v R [2014] NSWCCA 114
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 229 A Crim R 337
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
R v Burns [2013] NSWSC 1851
R v Hagan [2019] NSWSC 128
R v Johnson [2014] NSWSC 1254
R v Scowen [2007] NSWSC 792
R v Stanford [2016] NSWSC 1174
R v Ward [2004] NSWSC 420
Tiknius v R [2011] NSWCCA 215; 221 A Crim R 365

Texts Cited:
American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed, 2013, American Psychiatric Association).

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Tracy Lee King
Representation:
Counsel:
G Newton (Crown)
S Bouveng (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Offender)

File Number(s): 2018/362512

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

The offender, Ms King, has pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact to the murder of Ms Allecha Boyd on 10 August 2017 near Coolamon in New South Wales. The specific conduct of the offender was:

lying to investigating officials on 24 October 2017 in order to assist the murderer to avoid detection;

lying to investigating officials on 30 October 2017 and 9 April 2018 in order to assist the murderer to avoid prosecution; and

driving a person to a State Forest, on 15 August 2018, believing she was assisting the person to assist the murderer to avoid prosecution by checking the burial site.

The offence of being an accessory after the fact to murder is one that carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 25 years under s 349(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). This maximum penalty can be seen as reflecting the fact that being an accessory after the fact to murder can itself be a most serious offence. Nonetheless, there is a very wide range of culpability that may be involved in committing this…

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 King

Details

AGLC: R v King [2019] NSWSC 1742
Case: [2019] NSWSC 1742
Decision Date: 06 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, King, pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact to a murder. The case was heard in the relevant court, which determined the appropriate sentence for King. The primary legal issues the court had to decide were the seriousness of the offence, the appropriate sentencing principles to apply, and whether any special circumstances warranted a departure from the usual sentencing guidelines.

The court found the offence to be at the lower end of the seriousness spectrum for an accessory after the fact to murder. It considered the Bugmy principles, which involve assessing the gravity of the offence in light of the offender's role and culpability. The court noted that King had no prior criminal history and that the offence did not result in physical harm to any person. Special circumstances, including King's mental illness and the parity with another offender involved in the crime, were also considered. The court found these circumstances warranted a reduced sentence, and victim impact statements were not permitted as the offence did not involve harm to any person.

In conclusion, the court sentenced King to a term that reflected the reduced culpability and special circumstances. The sentence was appropriate given the low end of the seriousness scale for the offence, the Bugmy considerations, and the special circumstances identified. The court's decision ensured that the sentence was proportionate and just, taking into account all relevant factors.

Orders