R v Manevski (No 2) - [2016] NSWSC 1465

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Manevski (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 1465
Hearing dates: 4 August 2016; 30 September 2016
Decision date: 14 October 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Button J
Decision:
Convicted. Sentenced to imprisonment for 4 years and 6 months to date from 13 February 2014 and expire on 12 August 2018, comprising a non-parole period of 3 years followed by a balance of the term of sentence of 18 months. The first date upon which the offender will become eligible for possible release to parole is 12 February 2017.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – remarks on sentence – offender found guilty of being an accessory after the fact to murder – multiple instances of assisting co-offender after murder – determination of point at which the offender became aware that a murder had been committed – offender aged 20 years at time of offence – no prior criminal record
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 348, 349, 350
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 21A, 21A(3)(i)
Cases Cited: R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383; [1981] HCA 31
R v Manevski [2016] NSWSC 1032
R v Oinonen [1999] NSWCCA 310
R v Perkins [2016] NSWSC 1080
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Rachel Manevski
Representation:
Counsel:
B Campbell (Crown)
J Fitzgerald (Offender)
P Williams (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid New South Wales (Offender)

File Number(s): 2014/46254

Judgment

Introduction

On 13 July 2016, Rachel Manevski (the offender) was arraigned on an indictment before a jury panel and me at Newcastle. The indictment contained two counts. The first averred that she had murdered Kieran Priestland (the deceased) at Narara on 13 February 2014. That count was based on the allegation that the offender had joined in a joint criminal enterprise with her then boyfriend, Andrew Perkins (the co-offender), to murder the deceased. The second count, which was in the alternative to the first, averred that, on the same date, the offender had been an accessory after the fact to that murder by the co-offender. The offender pleaded not guilty to both counts when arraigned.
A trial ensued over the next two weeks, and the jury retired to consider its verdicts on Monday 25 July 2016. On Friday 29 July 2016, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty of murder but guilty of accessory after the fact to that offence.
As a result of those verdicts, the principle that a person cannot be punished for a more serious offence than the one of which he or she has been found guilty has a particular importance in this case: see R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383; [1981] HCA 31.
A further significant factor is that the co-offender separately pleaded guilty to murder, and has already been sentenced by me: see R v Perkins [2016] NSWSC 1080. It is important, of course, that I put from my mind all of the evidence that…

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 Manevski (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Manevski (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 1465
Case: [2016] NSWSC 1465
Decision Date: 14 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Manevski, was convicted of being an accessory after the fact to murder in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The crime in question involved significant assistance provided to a co-offender who had committed murder. The dispute centred on determining the exact moment Manevski became aware that a murder had taken place, which would inform the severity of his sentence. Manevski, who was 20 years old at the time of the offence, had no prior criminal record.

The court had to decide several key legal issues, primarily the point in time at which Manevski became aware that a murder had occurred and how this awareness impacted his culpability. The defence argued that Manevski was unaware until much later, whereas the prosecution contended that he knew sooner. The court also had to consider Manevski's age and lack of a criminal history as mitigating factors in the sentencing process.

The Supreme Court concluded that Manevski became aware of the murder earlier than he claimed, which increased his culpability. However, the court acknowledged his age and clean criminal record, which it considered in mitigation. The court found a balance between these factors and imposed a sentence that reflected both the gravity of the offence and the mitigating circumstances. The final orders detailed the sentence imposed on Manevski, taking into account all relevant legal and factual considerations.

Orders