Citation: Regina v Skinner [2000] NSWSC 303
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales, Criminal Division
Date: 27 March 2000
Judge(s): Greg James J
Background
The offender, Karen Denise Skinner, was sentenced following a guilty plea to one count of hindering a police investigation contrary to s 315 of the Crimes Act 1900. The underlying investigation concerned the murder of Peter Marneros, which occurred in June 1991 and was carried out during a robbery involving Graeme Anderson Brown and others, including the offender's lover and her brother.
Some five years after the murder, police reopened the investigation. When officers interviewed the offender in early 1996, she responded by making a series of phone calls in which she sought to conceal the identities and involvement of her lover, Fabrizio Calderoni, and her brother, Brett Skinner, and to discourage cooperation with police. Those calls were intercepted, and conversations with a protected witness (who was wired with a recording device) were also captured.
The offender had originally been charged as an accessory after the fact to the murder. That charge was not pressed after Calderoni was acquitted at trial, and the Crown accepted the guilty plea on the hindering charge in full discharge of the original indictment. The court was therefore dealing with sentencing on the lesser, but still serious, offence.
Legal Issues
- What sentence was appropriate for an offence of hindering a murder investigation under s 315 of the Crimes Act 1900, which carries a maximum of seven years imprisonment?
- How should the court weigh the seriousness of the offence against mitigating factors, including the staleness of the underlying events, the offender's subjective circumstances, and the practical outcome of her conduct?
- Whether the guilty plea, entered only after the offender had tested the previous (more serious) charge at committal, should be treated as an early or late plea.
Decision
Greg James J acknowledged the objective seriousness of the offence. Seeking to obstruct a murder investigation is grave conduct, and the court emphasised that the charge arose from deliberate, active deception of police, including enlisting others not to cooperate. The maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment reflected the legislature's view of such conduct.
However, the court identified significant matters in the offender's favour. Her attempts at concealment had, paradoxically, assisted rather than corrupted the investigation, since they produced recorded admissions that formed the Crown's evidence against Calderoni and Brett Skinner. The court also found it could not be satisfied that her motive was anything more than protecting people she believed were not guilty of murder, and she received no material benefit from the underlying robbery or killing.
On the question of the plea, the court declined to treat it as a late plea, noting it was entered promptly once the hindering charge was formulated. At the same time, the court declined to regard it as evidence of genuine early cooperation with authorities, which would have been inconsistent with her conduct. The court also noted the long period the matter had hung over her since 1996, which was attributable in part to legitimate prosecutorial complexity rather than undue delay by the offender.
Taking all circumstances together, including her inconsequential criminal record, her Queensland residency (which made non-custodial supervision difficult to implement), and the overall character of the offending, the court concluded that a custodial sentence was not warranted. A recognizance under s 558 of the Crimes Act 1900, conditioned on good behaviour for a substantial period, was appropriate.
Orders Made
- Passing of sentence deferred upon the offender entering a recognizance in the sum of $3,000 to be of good behaviour for a period of three years, with an obligation to come up for sentence if called upon.
- The recognizance may be entered before a justice or magistrate.
Key Takeaways
- Hindering a police investigation into a murder is treated as serious offending under s 315 of the Crimes Act 1900, carrying a maximum of seven years imprisonment, even where the offender was not directly involved in the underlying crime.
- Where an offender's obstructive conduct inadvertently assisted the investigation rather than undermining it, that outcome is a relevant mitigating consideration at sentencing, though it does not diminish the intentional nature of the offence.
- A guilty plea entered promptly after a reformulated charge was accepted as not a late plea, even though the offender had contested the earlier, more serious charge at committal; the court distinguished between testing a heavier charge and delaying a plea to the ultimate charge.
- Staleness of the underlying events, combined with a clean record and the absence of any personal benefit from the broader criminal activity, can collectively weigh against the imposition of a custodial sentence even for objectively serious conduct.
- Practical difficulties in supervising a Queensland resident under a non-custodial order were noted by the Supreme Court, but did not preclude the imposition of a recognizance where a custodial sentence was otherwise unwarranted.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 315 (hindering investigation of a serious offence), s 558 (recognizance), s 128 (Evidence Act certificate reference incorporated by context)
- Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 128
Cases cited: None cited in the judgment text.