R v Melissa Bailey - [2006] NSWSC 49

CITATION: R v Melissa Bailey [2006] NSWSC 49
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 08/02/2006, 09/02/2006

JUDGMENT DATE :
20 February 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Buddin J

DECISION: First count in the indictment: sentenced to a non-parole period to commence on 12 October 2005 and to expire on 20 February 2006, with a total term of imprisonment of 8 months to commence on 12 October 2005 and to expire on 11 June 2006. Second count in the indictment: Sentenced to 2 months imprisonment to commence on 12 October 2005 and to expire on 11 December 2005.

CATCHWORDS: Hinder investigation into and apprehension of a person who had committed murder - person was offender's de facto - pleas of guilty

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: R v Crombie [1999] NSWCCA 297
R v Palmer [2005] NSWCCA 349
R v Pearce (1998) 194 CLR 610

PARTIES: Regina
Melissa Ellen Bailey

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2005/2483

COUNSEL: W Creasey (Crown)
T Healey (Offender)

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh (Crown)
Lambton Law (Offender)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

BUDDIN J

MONDAY 20 FEBRUARY 2006

2005/2483 – R v MELISSA ELLEN BAILEY
JUDGMENT – REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: On 8 February 2006, Melissa Bailey (whom I shall refer to as the offender) pleaded guilty to two charges brought pursuant to s 315 of the Crimes Act. The first, pursuant to subs (1)(c) alleged that between 9 August 2004 and 30 August 2004 at Tregear she did an act intending to hinder the apprehension of Ivan Pero Mikic, a person who had committed a serious indictable offence, namely murder. The act in question consisted of her finding accommodation for Ivan Mikic. The second charge, pursuant to subs (1)(a) alleged that she made a false statement to police on 29 August 2004 at Waratah intending thereby to hinder the investigation into the murder committed by Mikic. Each offence attracts a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment.

2 The offender was committed for trial upon two charges, one of which was a charge of accessory after the fact to murder, an offence which attracts a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment. Her trial was listed to commence in the week of 6 February. Indeed, application was made to remove the proceedings into this Court from the District Court in order that her trial should proceed jointly with the trials of Mikic and his associate, a man named Colm Buckley, in respect of charges of murder and a further serious offence of violence. Following discussions between the parties in the present matter, pleas of guilty were entered by the offender to the charges to which I earlier referred. In those circumstances the pleas could be properly characterised as having been entered at the first reasonable opportunity available to the offender to resolve the matters against her. I shall proceed…

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 Melissa Bailey

Details

AGLC: R v Melissa Bailey [2006] NSWSC 49
Case: [2006] NSWSC 49
Decision Date: 20 February 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Melissa Bailey involved a criminal trial in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the defendant, Melissa Bailey, was charged with hindering the investigation into and apprehension of a person who had committed a murder. Melissa Bailey was in a de facto relationship with the person who had committed the murder, who had fled from the scene. The charges against Melissa Bailey related to her actions and omissions that allegedly impeded the police from apprehending the person responsible for the murder.

The legal issues that the court needed to address included whether Melissa Bailey's actions constituted hindering the investigation into and apprehension of the person who had committed the murder, and whether she was guilty of the offence. The court also needed to consider the evidence presented and assess the credibility of the witnesses, including Melissa Bailey's own testimony.

The court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to establish that Melissa Bailey had hindered the investigation into and apprehension of the person who had committed the murder. The court held that Melissa Bailey had failed to provide information to the police about the whereabouts of the person who had committed the murder, despite being aware of their location. The court also found that Melissa Bailey had actively assisted the person who had committed the murder to evade apprehension, which amounted to hindering the investigation. Melissa Bailey entered a plea of guilty to the charge, and the court accepted the plea. The court sentenced Melissa Bailey to a term of imprisonment, taking into account the seriousness of the offence and the fact that she had pleaded guilty.

In conclusion, the court found Melissa Bailey guilty of hindering the investigation into and apprehension of a person who had committed a murder, and sentenced her to a term of imprisonment. The court accepted the plea of guilty entered by Melissa Bailey, and considered the evidence presented in reaching its decision. The court's reasoning was based on the legal principles applicable to the offence of hindering the investigation into and apprehension of a person who had committed a serious crime, and the court's assessment of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses.

Orders