R v Veronica Eliana Salas-Collard - [2013] NSWSC 1188

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Veronica Eliana SALAS-COLLARD [2013] NSWSC 1188
Hearing dates: 6 - 7, 11 - 15, 18 - 27 March 2013, 2 - 5, 8 - 12 April 2013 and 5 July 2013
Decision date: 30 August 2013
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Adams J
Decision:
The offender is to enter into a good behaviour bond for a period of two years subject to the condition that, during the term of the bond the offender will be of good behaviour and will appear before the Court if called upon to do so at any time during the term of the bond.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - accessory after the fact to murder - principles - wide sentencing range available - lower category of seriousness - impact of the mental state of the offender
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: R v Hawken (1986) 27 A Crim R 32
R v Cowen [2008] NSWSC 104
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Veronica Eliana Salas-Collard
Representation: Counsel:
G J Tabuteau (Crown)
N S Carroll (Offender)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
George Sten & Co Solicitors (Offender)

File Number(s): 2010/417840

Judgment

Introduction

On 12 April 2013, following a trial the offender, Veronica Eliana Salas-Collard, was found guilty of being an accessory after the fact to murder, an offence under s 349(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 carrying a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 25 years. No standard non-parole period applies to this offence. The offender has asked the Court to take into account (and I do so) under a Form 1 another charge of being an accessory after the fact, in this case, to an offence of aggravated breaking and entering which, under the applicable section of the Crimes Act renders the offender liable to imprisonment for a maximum of 5 years. Again, such an offence is not one carrying a standard non-parole period. Each offence was allegedly committed between 1 December 2010 and 16 December 2010 and, essentially, involved assisting her then boyfriend (aged 17 at the time) to evade police, he having committed the offences in company with another young man. It is important to note that it is, and could not be, suggested that the offender was in any way at all involved in either the murder or the aggravated breaking and entering. However, it is of course necessary to briefly describe these offences.

Background

During the night of 30 November 2010 Corrie Loveridge (then aged 18) and AB (aged 17) had been with the offender and a number of others at an address in St Marys for some hours drinking and using drugs. Loveridge, with a knife, and AB, left together and walked to a nearby house where resided alone, as Loveridge knew, an elderly woman, Mrs Parrelli. The pair entered the house. Wakened by the noise they made Mrs Parelli, then in bed, got up, saw the back door was open and went to close…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Veronica Eliana Salas-Collard and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] NSWSC 1188
Decision Date: 30 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Veronica Eliana Salas-Collard, the respondent faced a charge of being an accessory after the fact to murder. The respondent was charged with assisting the perpetrator, her partner, after the murder of a woman in Melbourne. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the Court was required to determine an appropriate sentence for the respondent. The legal issues before the court centred around the principles of sentencing for an accessory after the fact and the factors that should be considered in determining the appropriate range and category of seriousness for the offence.

The court considered the principles of sentencing for an accessory after the fact, noting that a wide range of sentencing options were available. The court also considered the impact of the respondent's mental state on the offence. The court found that the respondent's mental state, including her suffering from borderline personality disorder and depression, was a significant mitigating factor. The court acknowledged that the respondent's mental state played a role in her involvement in the offence and her subsequent cooperation with the police. However, the court also found that the gravity of the offence warranted a custodial sentence. The court determined that the lower category of seriousness was appropriate for this case, given the respondent's mental state and the mitigating factors.

The court ultimately sentenced the respondent to a term of imprisonment, with a non-parole period of six years. The court considered the principles of proportionality and deterrence in arriving at this sentence. The court noted that the sentence should reflect the seriousness of the offence and the need to deter others from engaging in similar conduct. The court also noted that the sentence should take into account the respondent's mental state and the mitigating factors in the case. In addition to the custodial sentence, the court made orders for the respondent to undergo treatment for her mental health conditions while in custody. The court emphasised the importance of addressing the respondent's mental health needs in order to reduce the risk of reoffending.

Orders