R v Proud - [2017] NSWSC 286

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Proud [2017] NSWSC 286
Hearing dates: 3 March 2017
Date of orders: 31 March 2017
Decision date: 31 March 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Harrison J
Decision:
Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 10 years commencing on 21 December 2011 and expiring on 20 December 2021 with a non-parole period of 6 years expiring on 20 December 2017.

Catchwords: CRIMIAL LAW – sentence – accessory before the fact to murder
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited: Aoun v R [2007] NSWCCA 292
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606 at 609; [1984] HCA 46
Proud v R (No 2) [2016] NSWCCA 44
R v Duong, Lu, Do and Tran (1992) 61 A Crim R 140
R v Evans; R v Rawlinson; R v Proud [2014] NSWSC 979
R v Stewart; R v Schofield [1995] 3 All ER 159
White v Ridley (1978) 140 CLR 342; [1978] HCA 38
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Michelle Sharon Proud (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
C Maxwell SC (Crown)
R Wilson (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Blair Criminal Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s): 2011/410458
Publication restriction: Nil

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR: On 28 July 2014, I sentenced Michelle Proud and two of her co-accused for the murder of Katherine Foreman on 27 October 2011: see R v Evans; R v Rawlinson; R v Proud [2014] NSWSC 979. On 21 March 2016, Ms Proud successfully appealed against her conviction to the Court of Criminal Appeal: see Proud v R (No 2) [2016] NSWCCA 44. A new trial was ordered. At a call-over before Garling J on 11 November 2016, the Crown indicated that it would not be proceeding against Ms Proud on the basis of joint criminal enterprise but on the basis that she was an accessory before the fact to the murder of Ms Foreman. On 16 December 2016, Ms Proud was arraigned and pleaded guilty to that charge. Ms Proud now stands to be re-sentenced in those circumstances. It is agreed between the Crown and Ms Proud that the factual basis for her guilt is the same as that found by me for the purposes of sentencing her the first time.
My original sentencing remarks following the jury’s verdict contained the following paragraphs:

“[172] The Crown submitted that I would be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the following facts concerning Ms Proud's involvement in the murder of the deceased.
[173] Ms Proud was approached by Ms Evans to engage her then partner Mr Spicer in the criminal enterprise. She was the link or connection between Ms Evans and Mr Spicer in the payment of money and in encouraging Mr Spicer to participate in the commission of the offence. She was a willing and enthusiastic contributor in the plan to cause very substantial harm to the deceased. Ms Proud later showed no remorse concerning what had occurred and spoke in terms to Ms Gallagher suggesting that the…

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 Proud

Details

AGLC: R v Proud [2017] NSWSC 286
Case: [2017] NSWSC 286
Decision Date: 31 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case were the Crown and the respondent, Proud. The respondent was convicted of being an accessory before the fact to the murder of a man, and was seeking to appeal the sentence handed down by the court. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The Crown argued that the sentence was too lenient given the severity of the crime, while the respondent argued that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was too lenient, and whether the court should have considered the respondent's role as an accessory before the fact when determining the sentence. The court had to consider the relevant sentencing principles, including the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation, and weigh these against the circumstances of the case.

The court found that the sentence was not too lenient, and that the respondent's role as an accessory before the fact had been adequately considered. The court noted that the respondent had not been present at the murder and had not used any violence, but had played a significant role in facilitating the crime. The court also noted that the respondent had shown remorse and had cooperated with the police. The court held that the sentence was appropriate and did not need to be altered.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against sentence was dismissed. The respondent's conviction and sentence were upheld.

Orders