R v Huntington [1999] NSWSC 1314

New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : R v Huntington [1999] NSWSC 1314 CURRENT JURISDICTION : Common Law Division FILE NUMBER(S) : 70201/98 HEARING DATE(S) : 03/12/1999 JUDGMENT DATE : 3 December 1999

PARTIES : Regina James Allen Huntington JUDGMENT OF : Hidden J at 1

COUNSEL : P. Lynch (Crown) P. Byrne SC with R. Nicol (Huntington) SOLICITORS : Collins & Thompson (Huntington) DPP (Crown) CATCHWORDS : CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence DECISION : Recognizance

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

HIDDEN J Friday 3 December 1999

70201/98 Regina v James Allen Huntington Remarks on Sentence

1 HIS HONOUR: The prisoner, James Allen Huntington, has pleaded guilty to a charge of accessory after the fact of the manslaughter of Mr James Kelly. The circumstances of this unusual offence can be stated fairly briefly. 2 The prisoner was only sixteen years of age at the relevant time. He was aquainted with the deceased, Mr Kelly, as he was with one Paul Suters. In May 1992, Suters telephoned the prisoner asking him to go to the deceased's home. When he arrived there he saw the deceased lying on the garage floor, bleeding, apparently dead. It is the Crown case that Suters killed the deceased and indeed he has yet to stand trial upon a charge of murder. 3 The prisoner assisted Suters to bury the deceased's body in a park. Suters threatened to kill him if he told anyone what had happened and on subsequent occasions he gave the prisoner small amounts of money. 4 Police investigations led to the prisoner in 1992 and it is sufficient to say that the prisoner told police a false story which did not disclose Suters' involvement in the death. The result was that the prisoner was charged as a juvenile with unlawful disposal of a body and some related offences for which he was dealt with in a children's court and placed on probation. 5 As I understand it it was not until 1997 that further police investigations led them to Suters and back to the prisoner and it was in February of that year that the prisoner told the police the truth of what had occurred. 6 As Mr Byrne SC, for the prisoner, realistically pointed out, the seriousness of the offence lies not merely in assisting in the disposal of a body but also in maintaining silence about Suters' involvement over a period of years. 7 On the other hand there are some factors tending to mitigate the prisoner's behaviour at the time the body was disposed of. It does appear, and I accept, that Suters held some sway over the prisoner. As I have said, he was only sixteen years old at the time. The material before me discloses a disturbed family background and the offence was committed in that context. Indeed, at the time in question he was virtually fending for himself because of the difficulties which he faced at home arising from the behaviour of his stepfather. 8 Much has happened since that time. There are a number of reports before me. I have a Department of Juvenile Justice report and a psychiatric assessment which were obtained for the purpose of the proceedings in the children's court in 1993. I have an up-to-date psychological assessment of Doctor Wendy Louise Walker. I have impressive testimonials from responsible citizens who know him, together with a statement from his mother attesting to the difficulties he faced in his childhood and the extent to which he has overcome them in his young adulthood. I also have the benefit of a pre-sentence report recently prepared by an officer of the Probation and Parole Service. 9 The effect of all that material is that the prisoner has truly turned his life around since the early 90's, thanks in large part, it would seem, to his close relationship to his mother and to his siblings and thanks also to a stable and beneficial de facto relationship which he now enjoys. The material speaks very highly of him as a worker and as a person. 10 I accept that at the time of the burial of the body he was revolted by what he did. I accept that for many years he has lived with the guilt of it and that has weighed heavily upon him. I accept that the fact that the matter has finally come to light has been a relief to him. 11 He presents now as a young man who is completely rehabilitated. In my view, neither his interests nor those of the community would be served by his being imprisoned or even by his being subject to some other form of punishment such as periodic detention or community service. 12 I do not deny for one moment the seriousness of the offence but in the light of all the evidence in this case I am satisfied that the proper result is a recognizance. 13 Would you stand up please Mr Huntington. I defer passing sentence upon your entering into a recognisance without security in the sum of $1000 to be of good behaviour for a period of two years. 14 Gentlemen, do either of you suggest that there should be conditions of that recognizance? It does not appear to me that there should be. Very well, that is the order I make and the recognizance may be entered before any Justice.