R v Serone - [2012] NSWSC 1232

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Serone [2012] NSWSC 1232
Hearing dates: 12 March - 30 April; 8 October 2012
Decision date: 10 October 2012
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: R A Hulme J
Decision:
Sentenced to imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of 3 years 6 months and a balance of the term of the sentence of 1 year 6 months. The sentence is to date from 9 June 2011. The offender will be eligible for release on parole on the expiration of the non-parole period on 8 December 2014. The total term of the sentence will expire on 8 June 2016.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - accessory after the fact to murder - convicted following not guilty plea - assistance in disposal of body - claim of duress rejected
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: R v Cowen [2008] NSWSC 104
R v Dileski [2002] NSWCCA 345; (2002) 132 A Crim R 408
R v Farroukh and Farroukh (Court of Criminal Appeal, 29 March 1996, unreported)
R v Hogden [2012] NSWSC 24
R v Humphries [2012] NSWSC 419
R v Quach [2002] NSWSC 1205
R v Ward [2004] NSWSC 420
Tiknius v R [2011] NSWCCA 215
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Todd Andrew Serone
Representation: Counsel:
Mr J McLennan (Crown)
Mr B Walmsley SC (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
Matouk Joyner Lawyers

File Number(s): 2010/60565

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Rodney Boyd White killed a drug dealer so that he could steal his drugs. Todd Andrew Serone (the offender) helped him to conceal evidence of the killing and today stands for sentence for being an accessory after the fact to murder.

The offender was tried jointly with White and Jessica Birkensleigh. White was charged with murder and was found guilty. His sentence proceedings have been delayed. Birkensleigh was found guilty of being an accessory before the fact to robbery. She was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment.

Another man, Ricky Humphries, pleaded guilty to manslaughter. He was sentenced to imprisonment for 6 years. Yet another who was involved, Peter Elefsen, received from the Attorney General an indemnity from prosecution for being an accessory after the fact and gave evidence for the prosecution.

Facts

The trial was relatively lengthy and the evidence somewhat complex. However, the facts can be stated quite succinctly.

Relationship between Messrs Serone, White and Zaiter

The offender lived at West Tweed Heads. He had skills as a mechanic and auto-electrician. He had worked on cars owned by Rodney White and the deceased, Saaid (Sid) Zaiter. He described them as "good payers". He regarded himself as being a friend of White whereas the deceased was more of a business associate (T1032; 1086).

The offender believed that both men were involved in the drug trade and that in some way their respective drug businesses overlapped. He said that the relationship between the two centred on the buying and selling of drugs (T1086). Drugs were transported to the Far…

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 Serone

Details

AGLC: R v Serone [2012] NSWSC 1232
Case: [2012] NSWSC 1232
Decision Date: 10 October 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the respondent, Serone, who was convicted of being an accessory after the fact to a murder. Serone had assisted in disposing of the victim's body and was charged with this offence. Despite entering a plea of not guilty, the jury found Serone guilty. Serone's defence included a claim of duress, which was rejected by the court.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Serone's assistance in disposing of the victim's body constituted being an accessory after the fact to murder, and whether his claim of duress was valid. The court had to determine the applicability of the criminal law provisions relating to accessories and the defence of duress. Additionally, the court needed to assess the credibility of the evidence presented, including the testimonies of witnesses and the respondent.

In its judgment, the court found that Serone's actions constituted assisting in the disposal of the victim's body, which was a material contribution to the crime. The court held that the offence of being an accessory after the fact was made out, as the assistance provided by Serone was a deliberate act that facilitated the concealment of the crime. Regarding the defence of duress, the court found that Serone had not demonstrated that he acted under compulsion due to a threat of immediate harm. The court considered the evidence and concluded that there was no valid defence of duress available to Serone.

The court subsequently sentenced Serone for his role as an accessory after the fact to murder. The precise details of the sentence were not specified in the text. However, it is clear that the court rejected Serone's claim of duress and held him accountable for his involvement in the disposal of the victim's body.

Orders