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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

The offender engaged in a telephone conversation with Mr Henry. She passed the phone to the police officer.…

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 Slacke

Details

AGLC: R v Slacke [2013] NSWSC 1215
Case: [2013] NSWSC 1215
Decision Date: 30 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Slacke concerned the sentencing of an individual who had been found guilty of hindering the apprehension of a person who had committed a serious indictable offence. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appellant, Slacke, had been convicted of hindering the apprehension of a person who had committed a serious indictable offence by providing a false alibi and other assistance. The offence carried a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentence for the offence of hindering the apprehension of a person who had committed a serious indictable offence. The court had to consider the objective seriousness of the offence, which was relatively low, and the need to deter and punish the offender. The court also had to consider the sentencing principles outlined in the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, including the principle of proportionality and the need to ensure that the sentence is commensurate with the gravity of the offence.

The court found that the objective seriousness of the offence was relatively low, as it did not involve violence or the use of a weapon. However, the court also found that the appellant's conduct had facilitated the commission of a serious indictable offence and had hindered the apprehension of the offender. The court considered the need to deter and punish the appellant and to ensure that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offence. The court ultimately determined that a sentence of imprisonment was appropriate, but that the sentence should be relatively short due to the relatively low objective seriousness of the offence. The court imposed a sentence of 12 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 6 months. The court also imposed a bond on the appellant under s 9 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, requiring the appellant to comply with certain conditions for a period of 2 years following his release from prison.

Orders