R v Ravell

[2003] NSWSC 94

CITATION:	R v RAVELL [2003] NSWSC 94
HEARING DATE(S):	05/11/02, 14/02/03
JUDGMENT DATE:	28 February 2003
JURISDICTION:	Common Law
JUDGMENT OF:	Barr J at 1
DECISION:	Direction made that pursuant to s 9 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 the offender enter into a good behaviour bond for a period of two years to date from today. That bond is to be subject to the conditions that the offender will appear before the Court if called upon to do so at any time during the term of the bond and that she be of good behaviour throughout the term of the bond.
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal law - sentencing - hindering investigation of a serious indictable offence.
PARTIES :	REGINA v Leonie Kaye RAVELL
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 70020/02
COUNSEL:	Crown: JP Kiely SC/J Baly Offender: C Loukas
SOLICITORS:	Crown: SE O'Connor Offender: D Humphreys

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

GRAHAM BARR J

Friday, 28 February 2003

70020/02 - REGINA v Leonie Kaye RAVELL

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: The offender, Leonie Kaye Ravell, has pleaded guilty to the charge that between 19 and 24 January 2001 at Worrigee she hindered the investigation of a serious indictable offence committed by Peter Taber.

2 The offender was born on 26 November 1981 and was the niece of Joy Golbie Alchin. During August or September of 2000 the offender formed a relationship with Peter David Taber and they began living together in a house at 211 Old Southern Road Worrigee, a suburb of Nowra. The offender and Taber were chronically short of money. In the early hours of 7 January 2001 Taber, Ian Craig Styman and Shannon Troy Styman broke into the house of Mrs Alchin, tied her up and robbed her. They left her bound hand and foot and gagged, with a pillowslip placed over her head. They stole $23,300 in cash and split that amount between them. They went to Sydney where Taber purchased a motor vehicle. The offender accompanied them.

3 Mrs Alchin’s body was not discovered until 19 January 2001. An autopsy concluded that the cause of death was smothering and dehydration associated with restraint. A police investigation commenced and Mrs Alchin’s family were informed of her death.

4 At some time between 19 and 24 January Mrs Cheryle Ravell, the sister of Mrs Alchin and the mother of the offender, was at the house occupied by the offender and Taber. While there Mrs Ravell looked at Taber’s sketch book. She thought that a sketch in it looked like a floor plan of Mrs Alchin’s house. She removed it from the book and showed it to her eldest daughter, Melinda Ravell. Later on she mentioned the sketch to the offender. Mrs Ravell left the sketch in her car. A short time later she noticed that it had been removed.

5 On 24 January 2001 police placed a lawfully authorised listening device in the house at 211 Old Southern Road. At about 11.00 pm on the same day a conversation about the sketch was listened to and recorded by the police. The offender was arrested on 26 March 2001 and interviewed. She was asked about the sketch and denied having taken it from her mother’s car. She was then told about the conversation that had been recorded. She changed her story and admitted that she had taken it and handed it to Taber. She did so knowing that her mother was insisting that it was a sketch of the floor plan of Mrs Alchin’s house. She conceded that she gave the sketch to Taber knowing that the police were alleging that he was involved in the murder of Mrs Alchin.

6 During a later interview the offender was asked why she had handed the sketch to Taber and she said that she did not really know, that she was just sick of everything. She confirmed that she had suspicions that Taber had been involved in the murder of Mrs Alchin and that the Stymans were also involved. She confirmed her use of substantial amounts of cash which clearly enough came from the robbery of Mrs Alchin. She said that Taber told her that he had obtained the money from work.

7 The offender was charged by way of an indictment containing three counts, each of the second and third of which was alternative to the preceding count. They were first that knowing that Taber, Ian Styman and Shannon Styman had murdered Mrs Alchin she received, harboured, maintained and assisted them, secondly that, knowing that the same three persons had unlawfully killed Mrs Alchin, she received, harboured, maintained and assisted them and thirdly that she hindered the investigation of a serious indictable offence committed by Peter Taber. She pleaded not guilty to the first and second charges and guilty to the third. The Crown accepted her plea in discharge of the indictment.

8 An important consequence flows from the Crown’s acceptance of the offender’s plea. Whereas it was charging that the offender was guilty as an accessory after the fact of murder or manslaughter the Crown no longer maintains any such assertion. The offender is not liable to be punished for any such offence. Her only criminal conduct consists of the removal of the sketch in the circumstances I have summarised.

9 The offender appears to have had a happy childhood, though her parents separated when she was very young. She left school when she was seventeen and did a receptionist course at TAFE. She has held casual positions as a shop assistant but has been unemployed since January 2001. She gave birth to a daughter on 11 October 2002. She no longer has any contact with the child’s father and there is no intention of resuming their relationship though the two are on friendly terms. She receives a supporting parent benefit and lives in rented accommodation with her mother and eldest sister. Her relationship with her mother and her sisters is close and supportive.

10 She has been interviewed by an officer of the Probation and Parole service who, in a pre-sentence report, says that she is suitable for a community service or a periodic detention order. The officer does not recommend supervision by the parole service. I agree that there is no need for such supervision.

11 The offender has no prior criminal record. Her plea of guilty is some evidence of contrition, though in view of the recorded conversation and the subsequent recorded admission to the police, it was made in the face of a strong Crown case. Even so, the offender has been co-operative. She gave truthful evidence in the Crown case against Taber, Ian Styman and Shannon Styman.

12 The Crown intended to prove, and did ultimately prove, that Taber and his companions made extensive preparations for their attack on Mrs Alchin. Their entry was made in the dark in the early hours of the morning and their knowledge of the layout of her house was a matter of some importance. The sketch was to be used to show that they had such knowledge.

13 It is implicit in the statement of facts agreed between the parties that the offender gave the sketch to Taber believing that if the police got hold of it the case against Taber might be stronger.

14 Offences of this kind do not often come before the higher courts. The maximum applicable penalty is imprisonment for seven years. Offences of this kind may be dealt with summarily and that is a matter which this Court may take into account in imposing sentence. If the matter had been dealt with in the Local Court the magistrate would have been limited to the imposition of a two year period of imprisonment.

15 Such statistical records as exist show only fourteen sentences for offences of this kind. Six of those cases produced the imposition of periods of community service and the remainder lesser penalties, including bonds.

16 Though serious, the offence was committed without planning. This and other considerations, namely the prior good character of the offender, the assistance she has given and what I accept as her genuine contrition, lead me to the conclusion that it is inappropriate to impose any sentence of full or part-time custody. Neither do I think in all the circumstances, especially her need to care for her young daughter, that it is appropriate to make a community service order.

17 Leonie Kaye Ravell, you are convicted of the offence of which you have pleaded guilty. I direct pursuant to s 9 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 that you enter into a good behaviour bond for a period of two years to date from today. That bond is to be subject to the conditions that you will appear before the Court if called upon to do so at any time during the term of the bond and that you be of good behaviour throughout the term of the bond.

************

Last Modified: 03/03/2003