R v Ward

[2004] NSWSC 420

CITATION:	R v WARD [2004] NSWSC 420
HEARING DATE(S):	17 December 2003
JUDGMENT DATE:	13 May 2004
JUDGMENT OF:	Hulme J at 1
DECISION:	See paragraph 64.
PARTIES :	Regina Sharon Lee Ward
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 70075/03
COUNSEL:	Crown: Mr G Larve Prisoner: Ms D Yehia
SOLICITORS:	Crown: Director Public Prosecutions Prisoner: Debbie Flynn & Associates

- 17 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

HULME J

Thursday, 13 May 2004
70075/03

R v Sharon Lee WARD
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HULME J: The Prisoner has been charged with being an accessory after the fact to the murder by one Craig Reid of Samantha Meredith and has pleaded guilty to that charge. The indictment limits Prisoner’s conduct the subject of the charge to that occurring in the period 7 August to 23 November 2002. The Prisoner was arrested on 7 May 2003 and appeared before me on 17 December last when evidence relevant to the issue of what sentence should be imposed on her was given. Much of the evidence consists of records of interviews, not all consistent, she had had with police officers investigating Ms Meredith’s death. Other evidence included a Statement of Facts about which there was no dispute.

2 The maximum penalty provided by s349 of the Crimes Act for the offence of accessory after the fact to murder is 25 years.

3 Craig Reid was arrested on 23 November 2002 and has been charged with Ms Meredith’s murder. He has pleaded not guilty.

4 It follows from the Prisoner’s plea that, as between the Crown and the Prisoner, all the facts implicit in her plea are established. It follows from the absence of challenge to the Statement of Facts that I am entitled to regard them also as established. Of course, none of those matters are evidence against Mr Reid and the remarks made herein do not represent findings so far as he is concerned.

5 I interpolate in case there are members of the press present, that Mr Reid’s trial is scheduled for, I think, July of this year. Care should be exercised in any public report of the proceedings to ensure that the trial is not prejudiced.

6 In the sentencing process I am required to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of any other matters that I use in a manner adverse to the Prisoner. The standard of proof of matters that argue in mitigation is proof on the balance of probabilities.

7 On 22 November 2002, the police discovered the body of Samantha Meredith in the boot of an unregistered car owned by the prisoner and which was, at the time, in a garage on a property “Greg Greg” owned by Craig Reid and his mother at Holbrook. The deceased was wrapped in a jacket of the Prisoner’s. The last known contact of the deceased with persons other than Mr Reid was with her parents on the evening of 7 August 2002. On that night the deceased and Mr Reid were heard by neighbours to have a loud argument.

8 On Saturday 17 August 2002, the Prisoner drove her car to “Greg Greg” to attend a birthday party for Mr Reid. In an interview of 16 May 2003, she said that she took in the boot a number of items including blankets, pillows, clothes and food. She said that the body was not in the boot at that time and she did not know where it was. Inferentially in other statements she said that she did not then know Ms Meredith was dead. Mr Reid had initially told her that the deceased had “schized out and took off”.

9 On the following Monday or Tuesday, the Prisoner was told by Mr Reid that he had smashed the deceased’s head in with a hammer and cut her throat because she wouldn’t shut up. Other evidence corroborates the use of such weapons. Mr Reid also told the Prisoner that he had wrapped the deceased so tight that she wouldn’t rot.

10 On the following day Mr Reid told the Prisoner that he wanted her to clean up the mess. The Prisoner and Mr Reid went to the deceased’s home that night, the Prisoner taking with her gloves, a toilet brush, PineOClean, and spare clothes to change into.

11 According to the Prisoner, when she arrived at the deceased’s home there was -

“a big pool of blood. All his clothes were piled on top of it, so I just piled ‘em all into a bag. There was blood up the wall. There was blood through the kitchen, like splatter marks. There was blood all over, over Hayley’s high chair. There was blood on the kitchen table, on the legs of the table, on the chairs, there was blood splatters on the wall, on the back of, like on the, when you open the door, that bit where the lock bit is. There was blood splatters there. And there was like a drag mark from the dining room where the pool of blood was out into the laundry, and then there was just a little bit of blood in the laundry and then nothing”.

12 The Prisoner then set about cleaning these areas while Mr Reid sat in the loungeroom in case anybody came to the door. His clothes, some the Prisoner was wearing during the cleaning process, the gloves and toilet brush were put in a plastic bag which Mr Reid took with him when they left the house, saying he would get rid of it.

13 The Statement of Facts records that “From the 8th August 2002, Reid and the Prisoner advised the deceased’s family and friends she had left her home with her guitar and clothes telling him to look after the kids”. The Prisoner lied also to truancy officers about the location of the deceased and, possibly in similar respects, by way of supplying information in claims for Social Security benefits for the children. She told people in her neighbourhood that she had seen the deceased at times when in fact she knew the deceased was dead.

14 It is inconsistent with the Prisoner’s account of events summarised in the immediately preceding paragraphs to conclude that any statements of the nature quoted were knowingly untrue prior to 19 or 20 August. Although in the Statement of Facts there is reference to the Prisoner on 8, 13 and 15 August implicitly agreeing with Mr Reid when he told officers of the Victorian Human Services that the deceased had left the children in his care, there is no persuasive evidence that she knew of the deceased’s death at that time.

15 The arrest of Mr Reid occurred at the Prisoner’s house on 23rd November 2002. He was found hiding in a cupboard when the police executed a search warrant. By that time the Prisoner knew that Mr Reid was wanted by the police. He could not have been secreted where he was without the Prisoner’s assistance. On that occasion, police also found a bag containing some of the items taken away from the deceased’s house on the night the Prisoner had been cleaning up there. The Statement of Facts records that the Prisoner had deliberately allowed evidence that would implicate Reid in the commission of the offence to be stored at her premises.

16 In her ERISP of 23 November 2002, the Prisoner maintained that she did not know how Mr Reid came to be in the house that day.

17 There had in fact been a number of visits by police to her house between 5 September and 23 November. The Statement of Facts records:-

She did not avail herself of any police assistance even though she had numerous contacts with police attending her home between 5/9/2002and 23/11/2002. She had the ability to remove herself from any threat that had been held out to her by REID. She was aware from the 5th September 2002 REID was wanted on warrant for unrelated matters that would result in him being sentenced to imprisonment.”

18 Following the police visit on 23 November, the Prisoner participated in an ERISP. In the course of that she told the police that she had last seen the deceased around 11 September and gave an account of that occasion which did not permit any ground for mistake as to the sighting. I so conclude notwithstanding that the Prisoner also said, when asked how positive she was that it was the deceased she had seen that she was “fairly positive”. The Prisoner also told the police that prior to that occasion she had seen the deceased frequently.

19 In that ERISP the Prisoner stated that from 7 August, in the case of 2 girls, and from 16th August in the case of a boy and, subject to their being elsewhere for short periods, she cared for 3 children of Mr Reid. The 2 girls, Skye and Hayley, were children of Mr Reid and the deceased and had lived with the deceased to that time. Daniel was the child of Mr Reid and another woman. There was some difference in matters of detail in later ERISPs in which the Prisoner participated, particularly as to the date on which she commenced to care for the children, but no difference in substance.

20 The Prisoner said also that on some occasions since 7 August Mr Reid had stayed at her place for short periods but because he had created problems when staying there earlier in the year – she said he had a temper - she did not permit him to stay longer.

21 However it is appropriate to give some further attention to the stance taken by the Prisoner in the 3 ERISPs and one statement she made to the police. I have referred to most of the matters of present consequence in the first ERISP. In effect the Prisoner recounted the arrival of the children, Mr Reid’s account that the deceased had left them and of seeing the deceased on a number of occasions up to about 11 September. She recounted taking her car out to “Greg Greg” for the party and of going out there on or about 16 November with a view to bringing the car back to town. She said however that the car wouldn’t start. When told that on the previous day, i.e. 22 November, the police had found the deceased’s body in her car at “Greg Greg” and that there were indications it had been there since about 17 August, she said that there was nothing else she wished to say. She also said that she had not been inside the premises at 14 Gardinia Street, the deceased’s residence, since 7 August.

22 The second interview was on 22 January 2003. In it she acknowledged that she had agreed in the previous November to come in again and speak to the police. She had no explanation for not doing so or for leaving Albury where she had been living. She also said that what she had said in her interview of 23 November was not entirely true but she would not like to tell what she knew about the death of Ms Meredith. She said that she had nothing to do with the murder of the deceased and did not assist afterwards. Asked directly if she had assisted any person in relation to the cleaning of a house in Gardinia Street (the street in which the deceased had resided), the Prisoner said “No”. Asked who killed the deceased the Prisoner said that she didn’t know and gave a similar answer when asked what she believed happened to Ms Meredith.

23 Asked whether there was information she had in relation to Ms Meredith’s death that she was frightened to come forward about, and later whether she was frightened of Mr Reid, she said that she would rather not answer. Asked whether when Mr Reid was staying with her in early 2002 she was afraid of him, she said that she would rather not answer that question. She said that Mr Reid had threatened her son several times and referred to 2 letters from Mr Reid. From the prisoner’s description of their contents they are the letters to which I refer below. Asked whether she did not want to comment on things because she was scared Mr Reid might hurt her son, she said that she did not want to comment on that.

She was asked whether she was frightened she would end up like the deceased. Her response was, “Nuh, ‘cause I’ll be in gaol so it won’t matter” and would be in gaol because she couldn’t help the police.

She said that she would rather not answer a lot of the questions she was being asked. She was also informed that there were witness protection procedures available if she was prepared to give information. She said she was not prepared to give any more.

24 Taken to the statement in her previous ERISP about seeing the deceased, the Prisoner responded, “I still say it was Sam” and that the incident occurred a couple of weeks after she began looking after the children. She said that she believed she had seen the deceased twice but could not be sure. She affirmed having told the truth during the interview of that day

25 Precisely what happened at the conclusion of that interview is not clear. However it appears that later the same day, the Prisoner agreed to give evidence against Mr Reid and signed a 6 page written statement in which she said, inter alia, that Mr Reid had told her that Ms Meredith was dead, that he had bashed her in the head with a hammer, that she had kept screaming so he had to slit her throat and he would do it to the Prisoner. She referred to Mr Reid having said that he would not get caught because someone else “was a good little scrubber”, a term the Prisoner said she understood to mean “cleaner”. She said that she had not told the police this information previously because of fear for her and her son’s life. She maintained her account of having seen the deceased at the end of August.

26 In that statement the Prisoner also said:-

“The only time I was allowed to leave the house was to take Skye to school and he would time me. He kept telling me how he bashed her in the head with a hammer and that she kept screaming so he had to slit her throat and that he would do it to me and no one would hear and so you just pull your head in cunt.”

27 Other statements by the Prisoner and matters asserted in the Statement of Facts indicate that Mr Reid was not at the prisoner’s house all the time.

28 The Prisoner then participated in a third interview on 16 May 2003. It would appear that this was at her own request and after she was arrested on the current charge of being an accessory after the fact to murder. It was during this interview that she gave an account of seeing and cleaning up blood in the deceased’s house in addition to repeating the substance of much of what she had said before.

29 During the course of the sentencing proceedings the Prisoner was asked why she had assisted Mr Reid in cleaning the scene. She replied:-

“I didn’t have a choice. I had been threatened by Mr Reid if I didn’t do it he would kill my son and then he would kill me.”

30 The Prisoner also said that during the August to November 2002 period Mr Reid said to her that if she went to the police he would “knock” her, that she knew what had happened to the deceased and the same would happen to her. She said that during this period Mr Reid was very violent towards her. He threw her down 2 flights of stairs, kicked and punched her and nearly strangled her twice. He used to smash up her house and he was using amphetamines. She gave evidence of other threats by Mr Reid and at least a warning from one of his relatives.

31 There was also tendered during the sentencing proceedings a letter, consisting of 2 pages, given to the police by the Prisoner’s son but, according to the evidence before me, emanating from Mr Reid. It bears repetition:-

“Ben,
When your mother contacts you will you please let her know, I am no give up and my children are the only thing that will cost her everything . Have no doubt of my reach or my true friends. You mean nothing to me while you live with give up dog cunts like the Witts. I want my children’s money and I want to her (sic) from her. A visit would be nice, but a letter will do. Time is all I have left, more than you if half that money is not returned by Christmas. You will not see 21 if I do not hear from your mother by Christmas.
Your truly
Craig the betrayed”

32 The second part of the letter was in terms:-

“A long armed man will visit you with your only warning!!!
He has all ready send letters to uncle Tom and the scoon. 4th of February is court. What I say will depend greatly on a visit or letter. (sic)
Karma is a beautiful thing.”

33 Detective Saunders, when asked if she had any reason to think that friends or relatives of Mr Reid might harm the Prisoner, said she could not specifically say but that he had resources at his disposal.

Subjective Matters

34 The Prisoner was born on 3 April 1967. She is thus 37 years of age. She has one child, a son aged, as at December 2003, 18. She has no criminal record.

35 A psychiatric report was tendered during the sentencing proceedings. The Prisoner affirmed the history recorded therein. The report recounted that the Prisoner had been adopted at a very young age. Her adopted mother was an alcoholic who was judgmental and for whom the Prisoner never felt good enough. She was an average student and completed the school certificate. She thereafter worked, inter alia, as a stock controller and undertook a number of courses.

36 She became pregnant when she was about 17½ to a man who became a heroin addict, who never supported her financially and who, after the birth of their son, was never affectionate. He physically abused her, on one occasion holding a gun to her head and causing her three miscarriages by kicking her in the abdomen. The Prisoner tried to leave him on four occasions, returning because she felt it was the right thing to do. He left when he met someone else. The Prisoner told the psychiatrist that this relationship had a negative impact on her self-esteem and self-confidence. She told the psychiatrist that she deserved the abuse because if she had not been so fat or ugly it would not have happened. She asserted she never sought assistance from domestic violence agencies because she did not know they existed.

37 She then resided in a granny flat at the rear of her parent’s place but married after 4 months in order to gain her independence from her parents. Her husband was not physically abusive but was verbally so calling her names such as “fat, ugly, pathetic and useless”. She moved out after she discovered he was having an affair.

38 Her next relationship was with a Mr Trunk. The first 2 years were good but Mr Trunk acquired an addiction for speed and then became violent. He broke several of her bones and fractured her skull, jammed a mobile phone through her mouth, smashed her teeth and broke her jaw. After episodes of violence including sexual abuse he would then apologise and she would resume the relationship. During 7 years with him she took out 2 AVO’s. He then left Australia. She moved to Albury in 2001 where she met Mr Reid.

39 In evidence the prisoner was asked whether the two occasions she had complained to the police about assaults by Mr Trunk upon her were the only ones. She replied:-

“No, they were the only two reported because I copped a worse bashing because I reported it, and even though I had AVOs out there was nothing the police could do, so I ended up with a fractured skull, a broken jaw, my teeth were smashed in, broken ribs.”

40 The prisoner has maintained her agreement to assist the Crown in the prosecution of Craig Reid and in that regard to give evidence at his trial. It is said by Detective Saunders, the officer in charge of the investigation into Ms Meredith’s death, that the Prisoner’s evidence supports and strengthens the Prosecution case and some of what the prisoner can say is not evidence otherwise available to the prosecution. I have no difficulty in accepting the matters referred to in this paragraph.

41 On the other hand, it must be recognised that the Prisoner’s assistance to the Crown is liable to be much attenuated by the number and nature of the lies she has told. It is not unlikely that the jury at Mr Reid’s trial will be asked to disbelieve the Prisoner upon the basis of those lies. By reason of these mattes, any assessment of the value of her assistance must be appreciably reduced.

42 The Prisoner also expressed regret for what she did. She said she knows she should have gone to the police but her fear was too great and she felt that the police could not protect her. She said that she changed her mind in May 2003 when she was informed by police officers about different things that could be done to ensure she and her son would be safe. Given the terms of some of the things said by the police during the interview of January 2003 and the terms of her statement made at that time, this reference to May is not completely accurate.

43 So far as the Prisoner’s demeanour during the course of her evidence is concerned she was upset and seemed genuine.

Circumstances of Incarceration

44 Since late May 2003 the Prisoner has been incarcerated in the Special Purpose Centre at Long Bay, a protection unit. She is the only female inmate at that unit and is housed in a self-contained cell. She is not allowed to associate with the male inmates. Most of the Corrective Services officers are male and the only female company she has are some of the officers and an education officer who she sees at least once a fortnight for half an hour to an hour. She has a small exercise yard about 10 by 8 metres in size. In the 2 weeks before the sentencing hearing the only other human contact she had had was with her legal advisers, her son who visited for a day on weekends and her parents who came twice in the month and when, on 3 occasions, she went to the kitchen for 1½ hours. There was a male inmate there but they didn’t talk.

Conclusions

45 Section 21A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act requires that a number of matters which, if they exist, have a tendency to aggravate or mitigate an offence be taken into account. I have referred to those which, in this case, seem to me to be of any appreciable significance. I record that I am satisfied, as required by s5, of that Act that no penalty other than imprisonment is appropriate.

46 The limitation in the indictment to conduct within a period ending on 23 November means that the criminality for which the Prisoner stands to be sentenced does not include any conduct that occurred thereafter, including what I regard as the lies contained in her second ERISP concerning sighting the deceased and, notwithstanding the incrimination of Mr Reid in her statement of 22 January, the deficiencies, omissions and lies in that statement – evidenced by what she said later.

47 In relation to earlier events, it is only conduct which “helps the principal offender to evade justice” - see R v Dileski [2002] NSWCCA 345 and the authority there cited – which falls within her offending. Although one must have the gravest suspicion about it, I am not satisfied that the Prisoner’s permitting of Mr Reid to stay from time to time at her home between 7 August and 22 November was done with this purpose. However it is clear that she offended in many other ways. Her cleaning of the premises where the deceased apparently met her death, her lying about the reasons for, or circumstances of, the deceased’s absence and of seeing the deceased, her allowing Mr Reid to store incriminating items in her premises, and what I infer was her assistance to Mr Reid to hide from police on 22 November fall within this category. So do many of her answers in the interview of 23 November 2002. Although the deceased was wrapped in a coat belonging to the Prisoner, there is no evidence how this came about and I am not persuaded to the requisite standard that the Prisoner was involved in the wrapping of the body or in the placing of it in the boot. Nor am I satisfied that when she drove the vehicle to “Greg Greg” that the body was in the boot or, if it was, the Prisoner knew that.

48 Considered objectively, the Prisoner’s actions to which I have referred argue in favour of the conclusion that her offending was of a high order. It was many faceted and extended over a lengthy period. Furthermore Mr Reid’s offence, on the Prisoner’s description of it and its consequences, was a very serious example of its type. The Prisoner’s opportunities to desist and inform the authorities were not infrequent. With the possible exception of the cleaning, which occurred at a very early stage and which may to some extent have been sprung on her, her conduct must have been deliberately and consciously intended to avoid or make more difficult appropriate investigation into the deceased’s disappearance. It was certainly calculated to do so.

49 Undoubtedly, insofar as her actions were the result of threats by, and fear of Craig Reid, her subjective criminality is lessened. However it is not avoided. Very commonly if not almost universally, participation in offending by accessories after the fact is inspired by some emotional relationship with a principal offender, e.g. love, affection, loyalty or fear. Such offending commonly represents a choice to place the interests of the principal offender ahead of those of the victim and/or the public generally.

50 It did so in this case. It is implicit in the Prisoner’s actions that she preferred to help Mr Reid, who she knew had bashed one woman with a hammer and slit her throat, to avoid detection and to remain in the community where he could do the same again, as he, to her knowledge, seemed willing to contemplate, than to either tell the truth when asked or remain silent. (I do not of, course suggest that, at least so far as the offence of being an accessory after the fact is concerned, the Prisoner was obliged to speak, either to the relatives or friends of the deceased or the police.)

51 And in that such emotions are liable to induce conduct which renders the perpetrator an accessory after the fact, society has an interest in providing a substantial disincentive to those tempted to so offend. General deterrence has a substantial part to play in the determination of any punishment. Retribution is also not without appreciable significance.

52 It seems likely that the Prisoner’s past experiences of violence predisposed her to acquiesce in Mr Reid’s demands. Her inherent or acquired nature as revealed by her willingness, however reluctantly, to continue relationships in which she was subjected to violence was probably a reinforcement in that regard.

53 On the other hand, on no rational basis could the Prisoner’s experience with Mr Trunk be equated with the circumstances involving Mr Reid. Mr Trunk was allowed to remain at large and, one may infer, the Prisoner remained in a relationship with him. The Prisoner’s knowledge of Mr Reid’s offence meant that she could not rationally have believed that he would be allowed to remain at large. And even if she had any doubts, there were obvious enquiries she could have made. There is no suggestion she made any.

54 Nevertheless, there remains the fact that, on the evidence before me, the prisoner had no reason to clean up the murder scene unless it be the threats she said were made by Mr Reid. Once implicated of course, that provided a reason for lying in the interview of 23 November although the probability is that at that time and at the time of her second interview, both those threats and the decision to help Mr Reid, were still operative.

55 Her ability and failure to inform the authorities prior to and on 23 November argues in 2 directions. On the one hand it may indicate the force on her of Mr Reid’s threats. On the other, it argues for her willingness not to do the right thing. And even when, in her statement of 22 January she did implicate Mr Reid, her lies on that occasion mean that that statement could by no means be regarded as an unequivocal attempt to redeem herself.

56 Reference should also be made to some telephone conversations in which the Prisoner participated and which were the subject of interception. The Prisoner was heard on 2 December 2002 to say to one person “…… ask Reidy what he said”. On the following day she said to another person that she was moving around having a bit of a holiday before the police caught her. On 4 December 2002 she said to her son that she was looking at about 15 years but would have to give Reid up. She was thus both very conscious of her criminality and content to remain unhelpful to the police and society.

57 I regard the case as one where protection of the community against the Prisoner is of no significance. Her record – no prior convictions – would suggest that personal deterrence is of limited significance and the Prisoner’s prospects of rehabilitation are good although the matters to which I have just referred mean that any such conclusions must be appreciably qualified. The intercepted conversations and a number of matters in her statement of 22 January 2003 indicate to me that at those times there was little or no remorse for her wrongdoing. Despite her evidence, in light of the totality of what she has said since Mr Reid’s arrest, I am not persuaded that situation has changed.

Sentence

58 The Judicial Commission statistics for offences under s19A of being an Accessory after the fact to murder (All Offenders) cover the period since October 1996 and refer to 20 cases of which 9 included non-consecutive terms of imprisonment. The longest full term was 8 years. However there are more cases to which reference may be made – see e.g. R v Faulkner [2000] NSWSC 944. I do not regard it as profitable to attempt a comprehensive review of past decisions as the circumstances vary so widely, although in considering some I wonder whether adequate attention has been given to the seriousness, judged by the 25 year penalty provided, with which the legislature views the offence, and the factors referred to in the Queensland cases of Winston (1994) 74 A Crim R 312 and Hawken (1986) 27 A Crim R 32 and to which attention was directed in R v Faulkner. I do not for one moment suggest that, generally or in this case, the offence of an accessory after the fact is nearly as serious of that of principal offender but in this case the Prisoner’s assistance to Mr Reid was both substantial and extended over a lengthy period.

59 Notwithstanding that I accept the Prisoner’s actions were at least to a substantial extent inspired by fear, it seems to me that an appropriate starting point in the determination of the final sentence is imprisonment for 7 years. But for that factor of fear, that starting point would have been higher. I draw attention also to the fact that 7 years is only marginally more than one quarter of the 25 year maximum for which Parliament has provided and that, as a general proposition, once regard is had to the impact on offenders’ lives, imprisonment for a longer period is more than proportionately severe than that for shorter periods.

60 I would discount this 7 year period by approximately 25% for the Prisoner’s plea and approximately 15% for assistance, past and future to the authorities, resulting in a period of imprisonment of approximately 4.2 years. I would further discount the result for the conditions of the Prisoner’s custody to a period of approximately 3½ years.

61 I may add that I appreciate that there are authorities which suggest that the discount for the conditions of the Prisoner’s incarceration should be greater than I have allowed. However it must be borne in mind that, provided the Prisoner’s conduct reflects the view I have taken about her, it will be only the non-parole period and not the whole sentence which will be spent in those conditions.

62 Divided in the usual proportions, a sentence of 3½ years imprisonment would result in non-parole and parole periods of 2 years 7½ months on the one hand and 10½ months on the other. As this is her first time in custody there are special circumstances, a conclusion also argued for by the conditions of her incarceration (recognising that to take that view might involve a degree of doubling up on account of those conditions).

63 I will give effect to that conclusion to a marginal degree. However, I take the view that the Prisoner’s offending was such that, whatever the starting point and discounts and despite the conditions of her incarceration, the non-parole period of her sentence cannot reasonably be less than 2½ years. Indeed, I have seriously considered whether that period does not offend the strictures of s23(3) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. As I have said, the offence to which she was an accessory, on the Prisoner’s description of it and its consequences, was a very serious example of its type.

64 For these reasons, the sentence which I impose is that the Prisoner be imprisoned for a period of 3 years and 6 months, such term to include a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months, both such periods to date from 7 May 2003. The earliest date upon which, it appears to me, that the Prisoner shall be eligible for parole is 7 November 2005.

**********

Last Modified: 05/19/2004