Regina v Szkudelski - [1999] NSWSC 178

CITATION: Regina v Szkudelski [1999] NSWSC 178

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): 70099/98

HEARING DATE(S): 5 March 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
12 March 1999

PARTIES :

Regina
v
Edward William Szkudelski

JUDGMENT OF: Barr J at 1

COUNSEL :
Mr T Hoyle SC
(Crown)
Mr PD Young
(Prisoner)

SOLICITORS:
SE O'Connor
(Crown)
TA Murphy
(Prisoner)

CATCHWORDS: Accessory after the fact of murder - sentence.

DECISION: See paragraphs 36, 37 and 38.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
GRAHAM BARR J
Friday, 12 March 1999
70099/98 - REGINA v Edward William SZKUDELSKI
JUDGMENT
1 HIS HONOUR: Edward William Szkudelski pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact on 20 June 1998 of a murder committed by Pieter Egbert Helmhout and Mark William Helmhout.
2 The facts may be summarised as follows. On Friday night 19 June 1998 in a flat in Queanbeyan a wake was being held for a recently deceased man, John Helmhout. The flat was occupied by the brother of the dead man, Mark William Helmhout. Those present included Mark Helmhout, Pieter Helmhout, Paul Harris and the prisoner. They were drinking heavily or smoking cannabis. Mr Harris, Peter Helmhout and the prisoner were well under the influence of drink.
3 Not long after midnight Pieter Helmhout hit Mr Harris in the face with the back of his hand. Most of the guests left and there were left behind Mr Harris, the two Helmhout, Joanne Delly, the wife of Mark Helmhout, Deborah Davidson and the prisoner. They were all in the kitchen.
4 Pieter Helmhout then resumed his assault on Mr Harris, punching him in the head, and was joined by Mark Helmhout.
5 Pieter Helmhout put a belt around Mr Harris’ neck and pulled him to the floor and whilst they had him face down on the floor Pieter and Mark Helmhout strangled him by means of the belt and an electrical cord. Mr Harris died. Davidson took his wallet.
6 The two Helmhout brothers wrapped Mr Harris’ body and the ligatures in bedding and carried them to Mark Helmhout’s vehicle which was parked underneath the unit. The prisoner and Davidson helped them. Mark Helmhout drove towards Canberra and on the way handed Mr Harris’ wallet to the prisoner, who threw it out of the vehicle. They continued on to Fyshwick where the Helmhout brothers and the prisoner took the body out of the boot and dumped it in a pine grove. Mark Helmhout then drove to another Canberra suburb and stopped while the bedding, the ligatures and some items of clothing Mr Harris had worn were dumped into the Molonglo River. Mark Helmhout then drove Pieter Helmhout and the prisoner back to the flat where Mr Harris had been killed.
7 Mark Helmhout went to bed with his wife and Pieter fell asleep. The prisoner remained in the kitchen, talking and drinking with Davidson. She eventually fell asleep at about 5.20 am.
8 The prisoner left the unit straight away and went to another…

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 Regina v Szkudelski

Details

AGLC: Regina v Szkudelski [1999] NSWSC 178
Case: [1999] NSWSC 178
Decision Date: 12 March 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Regina v Szkudelski involved the defendant, Szkudelski, who was charged as an accessory after the fact to murder. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The nature of the dispute centred on the appropriate sentencing for Szkudelski, who had assisted the principal offender after the commission of a murder. The legal issues before the court were to determine the correct application of sentencing principles in this context and to decide on an appropriate penalty for Szkudelski's role in the offence.

The court considered the gravity of the offence and Szkudelski's level of involvement. It examined his role in assisting the principal offender, his remorse, and any other relevant mitigating factors. The court also had to balance these factors against the need for general deterrence and the protection of society. In its analysis, the court emphasised the importance of the role played by accessories in facilitating the commission of serious crimes and the impact this has on public safety. It also took into account Szkudelski's background and the potential for rehabilitation.

After careful consideration, the court concluded that Szkudelski's involvement, while not as direct as the principal offender, was significant. The court found that an appropriate sentence should reflect the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence. The final sentence imposed by the court balanced the mitigating factors with the need to uphold the rule of law and protect the community. The court ordered that Szkudelski be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, taking into account both the gravity of the offence and the principles of justice.

Orders