R v Wells - [2008] NSWSC 206

CITATION: R v WELLS [2008] NSWSC 206

HEARING DATE(S): 14/01/08; 22/02/08; 26/02/08

JUDGMENT DATE :
12 March 2008

JURISDICTION: Common Law

JUDGMENT OF: Michael Grove J

DECISION: Sentence imposed

CATCHWORDS: ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT TO MURDER - Plea of guilty - Sentence

CATEGORY: Sentence

PARTIES: REGINA -Crown
Angela WELLS - Offender

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2007/1354

COUNSEL: N Williams (Crown)
J Doris (Offender)

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Marsdens Law Group (Offender)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

MICHAEL GROVE J

Wednesday 12 March 2008

2007/1354 REGINA v ANGELA WELLS

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: Angela Wells, on 14 January last you pleaded guilty to an indictment charging that, knowing David Shepherd had murdered Malissa Mayfield, you assisted, maintained, harboured and received him between 15 June 2006 and 3 July 2006. The killing had taken place on 15 June. The offence is shortly described as being an accessory after the fact to murder.

2 It has been said that there is something special in that offence in that it is in the interests of the community that murderers should be completely isolated from support and deprived of assistance, and that such crimes be not covered up. The severe penalty available against accessories after the fact is a way in which the community protects itself and it is an aspect of the law’s general deterrence against homicide. Those words were spoken in Queensland where the available penalty was imprisonment for life. Under the laws of this State, the maximum available penalty is imprisonment for twenty five years, but the observations are nevertheless pertinent.

3 It is important, however, that I emphasize that it is your assistance to help the murderer seek to avoid justice which is the essence of your crime, and it is not an element of your crime that you bear a responsibility for the killing. That is not to say that the extent of your knowledge of the details of the occurrence are to be treated as entirely irrelevant.

4 I have raised these matters at the outset because it is a matter of public record that, following his plea of guilty, Shepherd has been convicted and sentenced for the murder of Malissa Mayfield and the sentencing judge’s remarks are part of the public record. A copy of those remarks was handed up during the proceedings and I confirm what I then said that I have read those remarks. In the course of them his Honour recounted a number of assertions, to a large extent emanating directly or indirectly from Shepherd, concerning what had been said to be your influence upon him and your participation in events leading up to and culminating in Ms Mayfield’s death. It is obvious that there are inconsistencies in some material placed before the Court in the proceedings against Shepherd and what is now before this Court, and I stress that it is no part of my function to seek to harmonize any contradictions between them, nor to…

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 Wells

Details

AGLC: R v Wells [2008] NSWSC 206
Case: [2008] NSWSC 206
Decision Date: 12 March 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Wells, the defendant stood accused of being an accessory after the fact to the murder of a person known to him. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the defendant, Wells, had pleaded guilty to the charge. The central issue for the court to determine was the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Wells, considering his involvement as an accessory and the circumstances surrounding the murder.

The legal issues involved the assessment of Wells' culpability as an accessory after the fact, the principles guiding sentencing in such cases, and the specific aggravating and mitigating factors that should be considered. The court had to weigh the gravity of the crime, the extent of Wells' involvement, and any relevant personal circumstances that might influence the sentence.

The court examined the circumstances of the offence, including the nature of Wells' assistance to the principal offender, the extent to which he facilitated the escape or evasion of justice, and the potential harm caused by his actions. The court also considered mitigating factors such as Wells' age, background, and any expressions of remorse. In sentencing Wells, the court balanced these factors, ultimately determining that a custodial sentence was necessary to reflect the seriousness of his role in the crime, while also considering his cooperation and remorse. The final sentence imposed by the court was a term of imprisonment with specific conditions and duration.

Orders