Legal Research
Cases
R v Urriola

R v Urriola

Case [2010] NSWSC 367 30 April 2010

Accessory After the Fact

Admissibility of Evidence

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v Urriola [2010] NSWSC 367

HEARING DATE(S): 12; 19 March 2010

JUDGMENT DATE :
30 April 2010

JUDGMENT OF: Fullerton J

DECISION: On the charge of accessory after the fact to murder, I sentence you to a non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months, to date from 20 January 2009 and expiring on 19 July 2013, with a balance of term of 1 year and 6 months expiring on 19 January 2015.
On the charge of supply of a commercial quantity of cocaine I sentence you to a fixed term of 2 years and 6 months commencing on 20 January 2012.
Accordingly you are eligible to be considered for release to parole on 19 July 2014.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - accessory after the fact to murder - assisting to dispose of deceased's body - supply commercial quantity of cocaine - admissibility of victim impact statement - guilty plea - assistance to authorities

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985

CATEGORY: Sentence

CASES CITED: Leslie v R [2009] NSWCCA 203
Re: Attorney General's Application Under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (No 1 of 2002) [2002] NSWCCA 518; 56 NSWLR 146
R v Do, Court of Criminal Appeal, 7 May 1997, unreported
R v Faulkner [2000] NSWSC 944
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
R v Quach [2002] NSWSC 1205
R v Tazanis [2005] NSWCCA 274
R v Youkhana [2004] NSWCCA 412
SZ v R [2007] NSWCCA 19; 168 A Crim R 249

PARTIES: The Crown
Marcelo Alejandro Urriola

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2009/156643

COUNSEL: C Maxwell QC (Crown)
R Pontello (Offender)

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
R Hudson (Offender)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

FULLERTON J

30 APRIL 2010

2009/156643 R v MARCELO URRIOLA

JUDGMENT
Background

1 HER HONOUR:

On 27 October 2009 the offender, Marcelo Alejandro Urriola, pleaded guilty in the Local Court to one count of accessory after the fact to the murder of Paul Elliot, contrary to s 349 of the Crimes Act 1900, and a second count of supply of a commercial quantity of cocaine, contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. He was committed to this Court for sentence.

2 The first count relates to the assistance the offender provided to Michael Christiansen to dispose of the body of the deceased and to destroy his car in circumstances where he knew that Christiansen had murdered the deceased the previous day by shooting him in the chest at close range. The second count involves a joint criminal enterprise in which the offender participated with Christiansen to supply cocaine over a period of weeks before the murder.

3 A maximum sentence of 25 years is provided for the first count and a maximum of 20 years for the second count to which a standard non-parole period of 10 years attaches in accordance with the…

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 Urriola

Details

AGLC: R v Urriola [2010] NSWSC 367
Case: [2010] NSWSC 367
Decision Date: 30 April 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Urriola was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the defendant was charged with being an accessory after the fact to murder, assisting in the disposal of a deceased's body, supplying a commercial quantity of cocaine, and various other related charges. The case centred on the defendant's actions after the murder of an individual, where he assisted in disposing of the body and supplied cocaine in the aftermath. The defendant had entered into a plea agreement, pleading guilty to the charges of accessory after the fact and drug supply.

The primary legal issues that the court needed to address were the admissibility of a victim impact statement, the defendant's plea of guilty, and the extent of the defendant's assistance to the authorities. The court needed to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account the plea agreement and the level of assistance provided to the authorities. The court also needed to consider the impact of the defendant's actions on the victim's family and the community.

The court found that the victim impact statement was admissible and acknowledged the significant impact that the defendant's actions had on the victim's family. The court accepted the defendant's guilty plea and took into account the assistance provided to the authorities in its sentencing decision. The court considered the defendant's level of involvement in the disposal of the body and the supply of cocaine, and ultimately determined that a sentence of imprisonment was appropriate. The court imposed a sentence of imprisonment, taking into account the plea agreement, the level of assistance to the authorities, and the impact of the defendant's actions on the victim's family and the community.

Orders