R v Bracken

Natalie Jane Bracken was sentenced by Venning J in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, for being an accessory after the fact to wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The court had to decide the appropriate sentence for Bracken, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offence, her culpability, the effect on the victim’s family, the desirability of consistency with sentencing for similar offending, and the imposition of the least restrictive sentence appropriate. The maximum sentence for this charge is five years’ imprisonment.

Bracken drove the offender, Mr Epiha, away from the scene after he had shot two police officers, four of which hit and killed Constable Hunt. She did this despite being aware of the seriousness of Mr Epiha's actions and had the opportunity to avoid assisting him. As a result of her actions, Mr Epiha was able to avoid arrest at the time, take the firearms he had used in the attack away from the scene, and had the opportunity to either use them again or dispose of them. The court found that Bracken's actions were more serious than those in similar cases, such as Keepa and Duncan v R, as she directly observed Mr Epiha’s actions before assisting him.

After considering Bracken's personal circumstances and the time she spent on electronically monitored bail, the court determined a starting point of 14 months’ imprisonment. The court uplifted this by one month, resulting in an adjusted starting point of 15 months. After applying a credit of three months for Bracken's positive attributes and the steps she took to turn her life around, the court reduced the sentence to 12 months. However, the court decided that a sentence of imprisonment was required to reflect the seriousness of Bracken's actions and to denounce and deter actions such as assisting a dangerous criminal to leave the scene of a crime and avoid arrest. As a result, the court sentenced Bracken to 12 months’ imprisonment, subject to the standard conditions under the Parole Act 2002, and imposed the special conditions proposed in the pre-sentence report relating to the sentence of imprisonment.