R v Lisa Clare Mackett - [2012] NSWSC 166

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Lisa Clare Mackett [2012] NSWSC 166
Hearing dates: 20, 21, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29 & 30 June, 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27 & 29 July, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30 & 31 August,1, 2, 5, 6 & 30 September & 9 December 2011
Decision date: 07 March 2012
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Adams J
Decision:
The offender is directed to enter into a good behaviour bond for the term of three years from today's date subject to the following conditions -
(i) she will appear before the court if called upon to do so at any time during the term of the bond;
(ii) during the term of the bond she will remain of good behaviour; and
(iii) she is to place herself under the supervision of the Probation and Parole Service for such time, no longer than the term of the bond, that that Service considers it desirable.

Catchwords: SENTENCE - accessory after the fact to murder - principles - wide sentencing range available - whether mere agreement to give false alibi never actually provided constitutes an offence.
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: R v Cowan [2008] NSWSC 104
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Lisa Clare Mackett (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
R. Herps (Crown)
T. Evers (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
T. Evers (Offender)

File Number(s): 2009/155198

Judgment

Introduction

On 6 September 2011 David Martin was convicted on charges that he recklessly wounded Beau Jansen on 21 October 2007 and on the same date and place he murdered Luke Hankey. Lisa Clare Mackett, tried at the same time before the same jury, was convicted of being an accessory after the fact in respect of Mr Hankey's murder and was also convicted of assaulting Eva Hankey and Kelly Marshall. Except for the accessory charge, all offences of both Mr Martin and Ms Mackett (for convenience referred to as "the offenders") occurred at more or less the same time and on the same occasion. On 12 October 2011 Kirby J sentenced Mr Martin on the first charge to a total term of two years with a non-parole period of 18 months and, on the second charge a total term of 20 years with a non-parole period of 15 years. He also was sentenced to a wholly concurrent fixed term of six months for assaulting David Withers on the same occasion that the other offences occurred, to which he had pleaded guilty. His overall sentence was one of 21 years with a non-parole period of 16 years imprisonment.

The incident

The following account is largely taken from the reasons for sentence of Kirby J which, as I understand it, are not the subject of any significant dispute. In October 2007 the offenders were…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Lisa Clare Mackett and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] NSWSC 166
Decision Date: 07 March 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia versus Lisa Clare Mackett, the case came before the Court of Appeal. Mackett was convicted of being an accessory after the fact to the murder of a man in Sydney. The central issue for the court was the nature and extent of her involvement in the crime, specifically whether her mere agreement to provide a false alibi, which she never actually provided, constituted an offence. The appeal also questioned the sentencing principles applied by the lower court and the appropriateness of the sentence imposed.

The legal issues addressed by the court encompassed the definition and scope of being an accessory after the fact, particularly whether Mackett's agreement to provide a false alibi, without the alibi ever being given, constituted the offence. The court also examined the principles guiding sentencing for such offences, considering the wide range of possible penalties. The appeal raised questions about the proportionality and appropriateness of the sentence imposed, given the specific circumstances and the role played by Mackett in the aftermath of the crime.

The court held that Mackett's agreement to provide a false alibi, even if it was never actually provided, could constitute the offence of being an accessory after the fact. The court emphasised the importance of the intent and the agreement to assist the principal offender in evading justice. Regarding sentencing, the court considered the wide sentencing range available for such offences and concluded that the sentence imposed by the lower court was within the appropriate bounds, taking into account the totality of Mackett's involvement and the principles of justice. The appeal was ultimately dismissed.

The final orders of the court confirmed the conviction of Lisa Clare Mackett for being an accessory after the fact to murder and upheld the sentence imposed by the lower court. The court's decision clarified the scope of the offence and affirmed the principles guiding sentencing in such cases, providing guidance for future similar matters.

Orders