Legal Research
Cases
R v Purtill

R v Purtill

Case [2012] NSWSC 566 21 May 2012

Criminal Liability

Accessory After the Fact

Plea of Guilty

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Purtill [2012] NSWSC 566
Hearing dates: 10 May 2012
Decision date: 21 May 2012
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Harrison J
Decision:
Sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 4 years commencing on 16 May 2010 and expiring on 15 May 2014, with a non-parole period of 3 years commencing on 16 May 2010 and expiring on 15 May 2013.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - accessory after the fact to murder committed by offender's brother - plea of guilty - significantly involved in cleaning up crime scene and disposing of body - early plea and assistance to authorities
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited: R v Almirol [2007] NSWSC 323
R v Bollen (1998) 99 A Crim R 510
R v Cowen [2008] NSWSC 104
R v Dileski [2002] NSWCCA 345; (2002) 132 A Crim R 408
R v Faulkner [2000] NSWSC 944
R v Fennell [2011] NSWSC 489
R v Ferrett (No 4) [2010] NSWSC 956
R v Galea [2003] NSWSC 465
R v Jin [2011] NSWSC 169
R v Postlewaight [2010] NSWSC 1272
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
R v Urriola [2010] NSWSC 367
Urriola v Regina [2012] NSWCCA 95
Category: Sentence
Parties: Crown
Warren Malcolm Purtill (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
J Baly (Crown)
C Smith (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Offender)

File Number(s): 2010/54212

remarks on sentence

HIS HONOUR: On 2 February 2011 the offender Warren Malcolm Purtill pleaded guilty in the Local Court to one count of being an accessory after the fact to the murder of John Garda, contrary to s 18 and s 349 of the Crimes Act1900. Upon the basis of the agreed facts and other evidence not the subject of contest, including a statement from the offender, the following facts are accepted for sentencing purposes.

Agreed facts

The deceased was a well-known businessman who owned and operated a convenience store and a newsagency in Byron Bay. On 10 February 2010 the police received a report that the deceased was missing. He had been last seen by a real estate agent in Byron Bay whom he visited early on the afternoon of 8 February 2010. His body was subsequently located in a shallow grave on 26 February 2010 near Broadwater on the north coast of New South Wales.

After visiting the real estate agent the deceased went to the home of the offender's brother Kevin Purtill in Blue Seas Parade, Lennox Head. During that afternoon the deceased was killed by Kevin Purtill at his home using a knife to inflict a fatal wound to the deceased's neck and throat. Kevin Purtill has been charged with the murder of the deceased.

Lily Richardson lived in a granny flat beneath Kevin Purtill's home. On that afternoon she came home at about 2.15pm and began to watch DVDs. The offender arrived at her home at about…

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 Purtill

Details

AGLC: R v Purtill [2012] NSWSC 566
Case: [2012] NSWSC 566
Decision Date: 21 May 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Purtill involved the defendant, Purtill, who pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact to a murder committed by his brother. The case was heard in the relevant court, which did not specify the level of the court. The primary dispute centred around the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Purtill, considering his significant involvement in the aftermath of the crime, including the cleaning up of the crime scene and the disposal of the victim's body. The prosecution argued for a severe sentence due to the gravity of the crime and Purtill's active participation, while the defence highlighted Purtill's early plea and cooperation with authorities as mitigating factors.

The court was required to determine the appropriate weight to give to Purtill's early plea and cooperation, as well as the extent of his involvement in the crime's aftermath. It needed to balance these factors against the heinous nature of the crime and the societal need for deterrence. The court also had to consider the principles of sentencing, particularly those relating to accessorial liability and the role of cooperation with authorities in reducing sentences.

In delivering its decision, the court acknowledged Purtill's significant involvement in the crime's aftermath, which undeniably played a crucial role in hindering the investigation and justice for the victim. However, it also recognised Purtill's early plea and cooperation with authorities, which demonstrated remorse and facilitated the resolution of the case. After weighing these factors, the court determined that while Purtill's actions were serious, his early plea and assistance warranted a reduction in sentence. The court imposed a sentence that reflected the gravity of the crime while also considering the mitigating factors presented.

The final orders of the court were that Purtill was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, taking into account his early plea and cooperation, but recognising the severity of his involvement in the aftermath of the murder.

Orders