R v Scowen

The case of R v Scowen involved the appellant, Scowen, who was convicted as an accessory after the fact to the murder of a deceased person. The matter was heard by the High Court of Australia. The primary dispute centred on the scope of the appellant's responsibility for his actions as an accessory, specifically his provision of assistance to the principal for a period of two days prior to the principal's surrender to the police. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the relatives of the deceased could be considered victims of the accessory crime for the purposes of making victim impact statements.

The key legal issues addressed by the court were whether the appellant's assistance to the principal constituted aiding and abetting, and whether the relatives of the deceased were victims of the accessory crime. The court had to examine the statutory definition of an accessory after the fact and the principles governing culpability and the scope of responsibility for such a crime. The court also needed to determine if the relatives of the deceased could provide victim impact statements as victims of the accessory crime.

The High Court found that the appellant's actions did indeed constitute aiding and abetting, as he provided significant assistance to the principal, which facilitated the principal's evasion of arrest. The court emphasised that the appellant's culpability was substantial, given the duration and nature of his assistance. However, the court also ruled that the relatives of the deceased were not victims of the accessory crime for the purposes of making victim impact statements. The court held that the definition of a victim in the context of an accessory crime does not extend to the relatives of the deceased. Consequently, the court concluded that the appellant's culpability was appropriately assessed, but the scope of victim impact statements was limited to those directly affected by the accessory crime.

The final orders of the court were that the appellant's conviction as an accessory after the fact to the murder was upheld, but the court provided guidance on the scope of victim impact statements in such cases. The relatives of the deceased were not deemed victims of the accessory crime, thereby limiting the scope of victim impact statements to those directly affected by the appellant's actions.