Citation: R v Slacke [2013] NSWSC 1215
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 30 August 2013
Judge: R A Hulme J
Background
The offender was charged in connection with a violent assault on 10 January 2012 in Gloucester, NSW, in which her then-boyfriend attacked an acquaintance at his home, causing a severe brain injury that ultimately proved fatal. The offender had arrived at the victim's home shortly after the assault occurred, found him unconscious on the kitchen floor, and called triple-0.
When police officers arrived later that evening to investigate, the offender repeatedly denied them entry and denied that any other person was inside the premises, despite the officers having seen and heard a male figure inside. Her actions gave her boyfriend time to flee before police could apprehend him. The offender was originally charged as an accessory after the fact to causing grievous bodily harm with intent, an offence carrying a maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment.
The Crown accepted a plea of guilty to the lesser, alternative charge of hindering the apprehension of a person who had committed a serious indictable offence, an offence under section 315 of the Crimes Act 1900 carrying a maximum penalty of seven years' imprisonment. The offender's co-accused was separately tried and convicted of murder in the same week.
Legal Issues
- What was the appropriate sentence for an offence of hindering police apprehension under section 315 of the Crimes Act 1900, having regard to the objective seriousness of the conduct and the offender's personal circumstances?
- Whether a section 9 good behaviour bond under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 was an appropriate disposition, and whether conditions requiring supervision by the Probation and Parole Service should be attached.
Decision
Hulme J accepted that the objective seriousness of the offence fell at the lower end of the range of conduct capable of constituting an offence under section 315. The offending consisted of a relatively brief delay in allowing police entry to the premises, and the offender had herself called emergency services when she first discovered the victim.
In assessing the offender's personal circumstances, His Honour noted a lengthy history of dishonesty offences with hallmarks of illicit drug use, some prior incarceration, and mental health difficulties including depression and anxiety. The offender's relationship with her co-accused had been described as characterised by his violence and intimidation toward her, though Hulme J could not make formal findings on that basis from submissions alone. He noted that two days already spent in custody would be taken into account.
The offender received some credit for her guilty plea, though it was described as relatively late. Because it arose from negotiations resulting in a less serious charge, Hulme J declined to quantify the discount further. Without evidence from the offender herself, no specific findings as to remorse could be made, and prospects of rehabilitation were assessed as only reasonable.
The Crown did not oppose a section 9 good behaviour bond. Hulme J accepted that disposition as appropriate given the low objective seriousness of the offence and the offender's circumstances. He declined to impose a condition requiring supervision by the Probation and Parole Service, finding it unnecessary in the circumstances.
Orders Made
- The offender was convicted of hindering the apprehension of her co-accused for a serious indictable offence.
- A good behaviour bond was imposed pursuant to section 9 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 for a period of two years.
- A condition of the bond requires the offender to notify the Registrar of the Supreme Court in Sydney of any change of address within seven days of that change.
Key Takeaways
- Under section 315 of the Crimes Act 1900, conduct amounting to hindering police apprehension can vary considerably in seriousness; a relatively brief obstruction at the lower end of the range may warrant a non-custodial disposition even where the underlying offence was serious.
- A section 9 good behaviour bond remains available as a sentencing option in the Supreme Court for offences of this nature where objective seriousness is low and the Crown does not oppose that outcome.
- Where an offender does not give evidence at sentencing, a court cannot make positive findings as to remorse or rehabilitation prospects beyond what the available material reasonably supports.
- The guilty plea attracted some discount despite being entered late, because it resulted from negotiations that produced a charge less serious than the original indictment.
- Two days spent in pre-sentence custody solely referable to the matter under consideration was taken into account in the sentencing assessment, consistent with standard New South Wales sentencing practice.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), section 315 (hindering apprehension of a person who has committed a serious indictable offence)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), section 9 (good behaviour bonds)
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) (summary jurisdiction provisions)
Cases cited: No cases were cited in the judgment.