REGINA v. CARROLL [1999] NSWSC 825

New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : REGINA v. CARROLL [1999] NSWSC 825 CURRENT JURISDICTION : Criminal FILE NUMBER(S) : 70217 of 1997 HEARING DATE(S) : 9.8.99; 10.8.99; 11.8.99; 12.8.99 JUDGMENT DATE : 12 August 1999

PARTIES : REGINA v. CARROLL, Phillip Paul JUDGMENT OF : Greg James J at 1

COUNSEL : Crown: P. Hock Prisoner: W. Warwick SOLICITORS : Crown: Director of Public Prosecutions Prisoner: Ramsland & Associates CATCHWORDS : Conceal serious offence - sentence - plea of guilty - assistance offered - lengthy delay in charging - plea and assistance timely - subjective circumstances - recognisance imposed. ACTS CITED : Crimes Act 1900 - ss.316, 439, 442B, 558 DECISION : Sentence deferred on recognisance

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 70217 of 1997

GREG JAMES, J.

THURSDAY 12 AUGUST 1999

REGINA v. PHILLIP PAUL CARROLL

SENTENCE 1 HIS HONOUR: Phillip Paul Carroll yesterday pleaded guilty before me to one count that on 18 and 19 December 1996 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales, knowing that Lee Dean Carroll had committed the offence of murder, and having information which might be of material assistance in securing the apprehension of Lee Dean Carroll, he failed without reasonable excuse to bring that information to the attention of a member of the Police Service. He had the previous day pleaded guilty to an indictment charging a count to that effect but charging it defectively. He was re-arraigned as a consequence of that. The plea is to an offence under s.316 of the Crimes Act which is punishable by a maximum of two years imprisonment. 2 He was arrested with his uncle, Lee Dean Carroll, on 19 December 1996 following circumstances which were set out in the statement of facts which have been tendered in these proceedings and marked Exhibit A. 3 In summary he had travelled with his uncle to a brothel at Kingswood. It is accepted, in the proceedings against Phillip Paul Carroll, by the Crown that he was unaware that his uncle carried with him to those premises, in a bag, a gun. He saw his uncle walk into the premises and a short time later heard a loud bang and saw a male previously unknown to him stagger out the door apparently wounded and bleeding. Thereafter his uncle ran back down the stairs and passed the prisoner and he, at his uncle's direction, drove his uncle away from the premises. Some time later whilst in the van, his uncle admitted to him that he had shot the victim asserting that he had done so as the victim had attempted to "jump me". He saw that his uncle was in possession of a shortened pump action shotgun carried in the green bag. Later still he became aware that the man shot by his uncle had died. The following day he was arrested. 4 He has set out the circumstances of these events in a statement, Exhibit B in the present proceedings, dated 10 August 1999 in which he has recited his and his uncle's involvement in the killing and subsequent events. That statement is prepared in the familiar form of a statement under the Justices Act embodying the evidence that the prisoner would, if called, give, and rendering the prisoner liable to the sanction that if it contains material wilfully stated to be true which is not so true, he becomes liable to prosecution. He has given evidence before me that the statement is true and correct. 5 In the statement, having recited in detail the events preceding the killing, he has turned to his awareness of what had happened, at paragraphs 10 and onwards. It is clear that from his viewpoint he had become involved in an unexpected event, the nature of which only gradually became clear to him, and that the events that moved from that point moved with some speed such that he felt unable to detach himself from what was occurring. When he was told by his uncle what the uncle had done he says:-