R v Slacke

[2013] NSWSC 1215

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Slacke [2013] NSWSC 1215
Hearing dates:	30 August 2013
Decision date:	30 August 2013
Jurisdiction:	Common Law - Criminal
Before:	R A Hulme J
Decision:	Section 9 bond for 2 years
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - hindering the apprehension of a person who had committed a serious indictable offence - low objective seriousness - s 9 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 bond
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina Natasha Slacke
Representation:	Counsel: Mr L Carr (Crown) Mr C Watson (Offender) Solicitors: Solicitor for Public Prosecutions Raymond Drake Solicitor
File Number(s):	2012/17140

Judgment

1. HIS HONOUR: Natasha Slack ("the offender") was today arraigned upon an indictment alleging first, an offence of being an accessory after the fact to causing grievous bodily harm with intent, and alternatively, hindering the apprehension of a person who had committed the offence of inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent.

1. The offender pleaded not guilty to the first count but guilty to the second count. The Crown accepted that plea in full satisfaction of the indictment.

1. The offence is contrary to s 315 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and there is prescribed for it a maximum penalty of imprisonment for seven years. It is an offence that may be dealt with summarily pursuant to the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) and, if dealt with in the Local Court, the maximum that can be imposed is imprisonment for two years.

Facts

1. There is a statement of agreed facts and I draw the following from that document.

1. The matter concerns events on 10 January 2012 that ultimately led to the tragic death of Mr Alan Henry. Sometime in the first half of 2011, the offender and the deceased met and struck up some sort of relationship. The offender lived in Port Stephens but visited the deceased on occasions and stayed at his home in Gloucester. In about the middle of that year, the offender's then boyfriend, Jason Grogan, began to accompany her on these visits. After an event in early July 2011, there was an argument involving Mr Henry and Mr Grogan that culminated in Mr Henry making it clear that Mr Grogan was not welcome at his home.

1. On 10 January 2012, the offender and Jason Grogan drove to Gloucester. At about 4.30 pm they were at the Caltex Service Station in Gloucester where they were seen by a number of witnesses to be engaging in a very loud argument. Mr Grogan's behaviour was described as violent and aggressive and it was to the extent that bystanders were prompted to intervene to restrain him for the protection of the offender. Ultimately, a police officer was flagged down by a motorist and attended the scene. Mr Grogan disappeared while the officer spoke with the offender.

1. The offender engaged in a telephone conversation with Mr Henry. She passed the phone to the police officer. This was at about 5.10pm. Mr Henry told the officer that the offender was welcome to stay at his home but he was emphatic that Mr Grogan was not welcome.

1. Mr Grogan, in fact, went to the home of the deceased while the offender was speaking with the police officer. He entered the home and used unlawful violence towards the deceased that resulted in him sustaining a significant head injury. Grogan then stole the deceased's laptop computer and fled from the home.

1. The offender attended Mr Henry's home a short time later. She found him lying on the kitchen floor and called triple-0. The call was logged at 5.31 pm. Grogan must have left the premises only minutes before. When the ambulance officers arrived they found Mr Henry prone on the kitchen floor. He was unconscious and had signs consistent with a significant head injury. There was a pool of blood on the floor around his head; he had trauma to his left ear; and a contusion and swelling to his right forehead.

1. Mr Henry was taken to hospital where he was found to be still deeply unconscious. There was a significant laceration behind his left ear and grazes to his right forearm and shoulder. He had suffered a severe brain injury requiring specialist treatment. He was evacuated by air ambulance to Sydney and admitted to Westmead Hospital.

1. Soon after the ambulance had left, a neighbour was drawn to an argument taking place on the back verandah of the deceased's home. It involved the offender and Grogan and included Grogan saying, "It's gone too far you can't back out now". The pair went inside the premises and were there until two police officers arrived at the front door at about 7.18 pm. The officers had been alerted to the incident that had earlier occurred at the home and were making enquiries. As they approached the house they heard a male and female within the premises and saw an outline of a female figure and a male figure. These persons were the offender and Mr Grogan. Mr Grogan moved quickly into the kitchen and out of view; but the officers would still hear whispering inside the house.

1. They knocked on the door and the offender answered. When the officers asked to come in the offender told them that she was not going to let them. She became agitated and said, "You can't come in, get a warrant, he only had a fall". When they persisted the offender responded, "Yeah well I've had a bad day too. I've come all the way up here, had a fight with Jase, and then see someone with their head bashed in".

1. The offender's choice of words was questioned and she replied, "I didn't mean to say that, I meant someone who's fallen and bashed their head". She continued to refuse to allow the police to enter the premises; again telling them to get a warrant. She closed the door.

1. One of the officers went to the rear of the house. He noticed that the back door and screen door were both wide open. The offender rushed to the door and stopped the officer from entering saying, "You can't come in here, you don't have a warrant". When the officer told her that he needed to find out what had happened, she said, "He was fucking bashed, oh fuck I didn't mean to say that, he fell over and just hit his head". The officer asked the offender, "Where the male person who had been in the house a short time before was?" She replied, "There is no one fucking here, I was here by myself. You fucking cops are all the fucking same". Ultimately, the offender agreed to allow the two officers to enter.

1. It is the actions of the offender in delaying the police entry and thereby permitting Mr Grogan time to flee the premises that is the gravamen of the charge to which she has pleaded guilty.

1. The officers left and made various enquiries and returned to the house later in the evening. On this occasion they saw the offender walking out from the front of the house and down the street with Mr Grogan trailing behind her. The officers called out to Mr Grogan to stop because they needed to speak with him but he fled and could not be found.

1. Later in the evening the police returned to the deceased's home and found the offender once again inside. She was told that the house had been declared a crime scene and she was ejected. Later that evening, she was at a hotel in Gloucester where she was observed to have a bruised eye. Sometime after that, ambulance officers were called as the offender was unconscious on the verandah of the hotel. She was found to be in a drunken stupor and she had bruising to her left eye which had not been present when the police had earlier spoken to her. She was taken to hospital.

1. On 17 January 2012, police found the offender and Mr Grogan in Taree. They were both arrested for the assault upon the deceased. The offender agreed to be interviewed. In part she said that when she went to the deceased's home on the afternoon of 10 January she had consumed about two litres of wine. When she entered, she found deceased lying on the floor with "a little bit of blood on him". She told the police that she thought he must have slipped while taking the garbage out.

1. Mr Henry spent a considerable period of time at Westmead Hospital where he was treated for a serious brain injury. His condition remained very poor and he was discharged to a nursing home in Erina on 27 March, but sadly passed away on 19 April 2012.

Procedural history

1. Mr Grogan was charged with murder and I have presided over his trial over the past few weeks. A jury found him guilty of murder after a relatively short period of deliberation on Tuesday of this week. He has been remanded in custody for sentence later this year.

1. The offender was due to be tried jointly with Grogan but his counsel successfully applied for a separate trial. It had been proposed that the offender's trial commence before me today, without a jury, but ultimately a trial became unnecessary.

Matters personal to the offender

1. The offender is aged thirty-five. She has a fairly lengthy criminal history. It comprises a considerable number of convictions for dishonesty offences. It has the hallmarks of a person who has experienced a problem with illicit drugs. She has not been imprisoned, as I understand the records, until 2012 when she was sentenced to two months imprisonment for an offence of being carried in a conveyance taken without the consent of the owner. She has spent two days in custody solely referable to the present matter and that will be taken into account in my assessment of sentence.

1. It has been put to me in submissions by Mr Watson, counsel for the offender, that the relationship of the offender with Mr Grogan was one characterised by violence and intimidation by him towards her. It was submitted that she was subjected to repeated physical abuse. I note from the criminal record that was tendered in the sentence proceedings of Mr Grogan that he has a significant history of offences of violence and so I tend to accept the characterisation of the relationship as put to me by counsel.

1. The offender has a history of difficulties with illicit drugs and alcohol. I was informed that she was addicted to heroin in her later teenage years but overcame that, but then had an enduring problem with alcohol abuse. She returned to the use of illicit drugs from the time she commenced her relationship with Mr Grogan.

1. The offender is now in a new relationship with a man with whom she lives in the Kempsey area. I am told that this man does not have any difficulty with alcohol and is helping the offender to deal with the difficulty that she has had in that respect. The offender has a ten-year-old daughter who, because of intervention by the Department of Community Services as a result of the offender's alcohol problem, lives in Forster with her natural father.

1. The offender is currently receiving a NewStart allowance. She does have some vocational qualification in hospitality.

1. She seems to have some mental health difficulties in terms of depression and anxiety, for which she is taking medication.

Assessment of sentence

1. It has been put, in effect, that the objective seriousness of the offence is at a low level. Reference was made to the immediate response of the offender in calling triple 0 after she came across the deceased lying on the kitchen floor, thereby demonstrating her concern for his wellbeing.

1. The facts that underpin the charge to which she has pleaded indicate that her actions were relatively brief in delaying the police entry to the home so as to permit Grogan to escape apprehension. I do accept, in the range of conduct that can give rise to an offence against s 315, that this offence falls at the lower level.

1. I have not heard any evidence from the offender, and so I am unable to make any findings in her favour as to matters such as remorse. I get the impression from the submissions that were made that her prospects of rehabilitation are reasonable. I cannot put it any higher than that without evidence that would support more favourable findings.

1. She does get credit for her plea of guilty but it was relatively late in the piece, although it was the result of negotiation that brought about a less serious charge. It is of some value to her in the assessment of sentence. I do not intend to quantify it any further than what I have just said.

1. It has been put to me that the appropriate disposition of the matter is by way of s 9 good behaviour bond. The Crown has not sought to be heard in opposition to that proposal. There is a question of whether, if I acceded to that, I should impose conditions as to supervision by the Probation and Parole Service. I do not, of course, have any assessment by that Service as to the need for any involvement by it. It seems to me that it would be unnecessary in the circumstances to impose such a condition but I do accede to the submission that the matter should be resolved in that way.

Sentence

1. For the offence of hindering the apprehension of Jason Grogan for a serious indictable offence, you are convicted. I order that you enter into a good behaviour bond pursuant to s 9 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 for a period of two years. It will be a condition of the bond that you notify the Registrar of the Supreme Court in Sydney of any change of address within seven days of such change.

**********

Decision last updated: 30 August 2013