R v Kellie Anne Walford [2001] NSWCCA 200

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION : R v Kellie Anne Walford [2001] NSWCCA 200 FILE NUMBER(S) : CCA 60794/00 HEARING DATE(S) : 23/04/01 JUDGMENT DATE : 23 April 2001

Regina PARTIES : v Kellie Anne Walford JUDGMENT OF : Meagher JA at 1; Sully J at 6; Howie J at 7

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/21/1138 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL O'Reilly OFFICER :

COUNSEL : A: J S Andrews Crown: E Wilkins SOLICITORS : A: D J Humphreys Crown: S E O'Connor CATCHWORDS : Criminal Law - application to appeal against sentence - escape from lawful custody - application dismissed. LEGISLATION CITED : Crimes Act (NSW) 1900, s 310D DECISION : Application dismissed.

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CCA 60794/00

MEAGHER JA SULLY J HOWIE J

Monday, 23 April 2001 REGINA v KELLIE ANNE WALFORD JUDGMENT

1 MEAGHER JA: This matter, which seems to me an extremely sad matter, is an application by Miss Kellie Anne Walford for a reduction in sentence given by Judge O'Reilly at Penrith on 1 December 2000. She was indicted on one count of escape from lawful custody under s 310D of the Crimes Act 1900. His Honour sentenced her to a fixed term of four months to date from 20 March 2001, the date upon which her then existing minimum term will expire. She had previously been sentenced in the Dubbo District Court on 31 January 2000 to a minimum term of 22 months with an additional term of 18 months for robbery in company. 2 Her background is hardly inspiring. She was born on 9 June 1979 of Aboriginal descent. She lived her early life with her father in Queensland and apparently, for no reason I can understand, at the age of 15 she came down to Walgett, New South Wales, in order to live with her mother. She did live with her mother, but that was hardly a factor which would lead to any stability in her life because her mother was an alcoholic. The evidence is that after she moved to Walgett, her life spun out of control. She was raped once. She drifted into drug abuse and she also drifted into a life of crime, most of her entries in her previous record being drug related. In Dubbo District Court on 31 January 2000, she was given a minimum term of 22 months which was backdated to 20 May 1999 with an additional term of 18 months. At the time of this escape she was looking forward to release on parole on 19 March 2001. 3 On 4 July 2000 there were some renovations proceeding at the Emu Plains Correctional Centre where she was serving her sentence and someone, by mistake, had left a gate open, apparently for use of a tractor. There was no question of any prior deliberation about escaping, however, when she saw the open gate, she understood that as an invitation, which she took, and she walked towards the railway station, presumably with the intention of catching the train back to Queensland. She was noticed by a member of the public and retaken into custody. She went quietly back into prison and she pleaded guilty when she tried to escape. When asked why it was she left the prison, she said it was because of her asthma and significant ongoing stress from other inmates. The way to cure that problem is not to escape gaol. 4 Counsel for Miss Walford has stressed the short amount of time involved. She was only out on leave for something like seven minutes and she came back readily. Indeed, in his written submissions, counsel for Miss Walford has said that the escape was a mere technicality. It is, unfortunately, a little bit worse than a mere technicality. Parliament has said again and again that escape from lawful custody is a most serious matter and should be treated by the courts accordingly. If one were to scrutinise the reasons of Judge O'Reilly for imposing the four months sentence, which he did, it is difficult to the point of impossibility to see where his Honour made any error of either fact or law, nor do I think her sentence of such comparative leniency (four months) cannot be said that the result is so totally offensive to one's expectations that some error, although not easy to point to, must have existed. 5 For those reasons I am of the view that the application to appeal should be refused. 6 SULLY J: I agree. 7 HOWIE J: I also agree. 8 MEAGHER JA: The order of the Court therefore is that the application is dismissed. ******