AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 28 February 2003

R v RAVELL

[2003] NSWSC 94

Public order & justice offences
CRIMINAL LAW SENTENCING

Citation: R v Ravell [2003] NSWSC 94
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales (Common Law Division)
Date: 28 February 2003
Judge(s): Barr J

Background

The offender was a young woman who had formed a relationship with a man later convicted in connection with the robbery and murder of her aunt. In January 2001, the offender's aunt was found dead at her home. An autopsy determined the cause of death was smothering and dehydration resulting from restraint following a home invasion and robbery days earlier.

After police commenced their investigation, the offender's mother discovered what appeared to be a floor plan of the deceased's house in her partner's sketch book. She removed the sketch and showed it to a family member, then mentioned it to the offender. The sketch subsequently disappeared from the mother's car.

A listening device lawfully installed by police recorded a conversation that implicated the offender in removing the sketch. When arrested and interviewed, the offender initially denied taking it but, upon being told of the recording, admitted she had taken the sketch and handed it to her partner, knowing the police were alleging his involvement in the murder. The offender was charged with multiple offences but ultimately pleaded guilty only to hindering the investigation of a serious indictable offence, a plea the Crown accepted in discharge of the full indictment.

  • What is the appropriate sentence for an offender who pleaded guilty to hindering the investigation of a serious indictable offence by removing a potentially incriminating piece of evidence?
  • What weight should be given to the offender's personal circumstances, prior good character, co-operation with authorities, and guilty plea in determining that sentence?
  • Whether a custodial sentence, community service order, or a good behaviour bond was the appropriate disposition in the circumstances.

Decision

Barr J noted at the outset that acceptance of the guilty plea to the third count had an important consequence: the Crown no longer maintained any assertion that the offender was an accessory after the fact to murder or manslaughter. Her criminal conduct was limited solely to the removal of the sketch in circumstances where she believed doing so might weaken the police case against her partner.

The offence carried a maximum penalty of seven years' imprisonment, but the court noted it could also have been dealt with summarily in the Local Court, where a two-year imprisonment cap would have applied. Statistical records revealed only fourteen prior sentences for offences of this kind, with six producing community service orders and the remainder lesser penalties including bonds.

Barr J identified several mitigating considerations: the offence was unplanned, the offender had no prior criminal history, she had provided genuine assistance to the Crown by giving truthful evidence in the subsequent trials of her partner and his companions, and her contrition was accepted as genuine despite the guilty plea having been made in the face of a strong prosecution case. The court also took into account her need to care for her infant daughter, born in October 2002.

Balancing those factors, Barr J concluded that neither full-time nor part-time custody was appropriate, and that a community service order was also unsuitable given the offender's caring responsibilities. A two-year good behaviour bond under section 9 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 was imposed.

Orders Made

  • The offender was convicted of hindering the investigation of a serious indictable offence.
  • Pursuant to section 9 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, the offender was directed to enter into a good behaviour bond for a period of two years from 28 February 2003.
  • The bond was subject to conditions that the offender appear before the court if called upon at any time during the bond period and that she be of good behaviour throughout.

Key Takeaways

  • A guilty plea to hindering the investigation of a serious indictable offence, entered in the face of strong evidence including a recorded admission, nonetheless attracted some mitigating weight as evidence of contrition.
  • Where the Crown accepts a plea to a lesser charge in discharge of a full indictment, the sentencing court proceeds only on the basis of that charge; no sentencing consequences attach to the more serious allegations that the Crown does not press.
  • Unplanned commission of the offence, prior good character, co-operation with authorities (including giving evidence at the trials of co-offenders), and genuine contrition were collectively sufficient to displace any custodial sentence.
  • The availability of summary disposal for an offence is a relevant consideration the Supreme Court may take into account when determining the appropriate sentence, even when the matter comes before it on indictment.
  • Caring responsibilities for a young child formed part of the sentencing calculus in declining to impose a community service order, notwithstanding that a pre-sentence report indicated the offender was suitable for such an order.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 9 (good behaviour bonds)

Cases cited: None referenced in the provided judgment text.