New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : R v WELLS [2008] NSWSC 206 HEARING DATE(S) : 14/01/08; 22/02/08; 26/02/08 JUDGMENT DATE : 12 March 2008 JURISDICTION : Common Law JUDGMENT OF : Michael Grove J DECISION : Sentence imposed CATCHWORDS : ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT TO MURDER - Plea of guilty - Sentence CATEGORY : Sentence PARTIES : REGINA -Crown Angela WELLS - Offender FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 2007/1354 COUNSEL : N Williams (Crown) J Doris (Offender) SOLICITORS : Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Marsdens Law Group (Offender) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION MICHAEL GROVE J Wednesday 12 March 2008 2007/1354 REGINA v ANGELA WELLS SENTENCE 1 HIS HONOUR: Angela Wells, on 14 January last you pleaded guilty to an indictment charging that, knowing David Shepherd had murdered Malissa Mayfield, you assisted, maintained, harboured and received him between 15 June 2006 and 3 July 2006. The killing had taken place on 15 June. The offence is shortly described as being an accessory after the fact to murder. 2 It has been said that there is something special in that offence in that it is in the interests of the community that murderers should be completely isolated from support and deprived of assistance, and that such crimes be not covered up. The severe penalty available against accessories after the fact is a way in which the community protects itself and it is an aspect of the law's general deterrence against homicide. Those words were spoken in Queensland where the available penalty was imprisonment for life. Under the laws of this State, the maximum available penalty is imprisonment for twenty five years, but the observations are nevertheless pertinent. 3 It is important, however, that I emphasize that it is your assistance to help the murderer seek to avoid justice which is the essence of your crime, and it is not an element of your crime that you bear a responsibility for the killing. That is not to say that the extent of your knowledge of the details of the occurrence are to be treated as entirely irrelevant. 4 I have raised these matters at the outset because it is a matter of public record that, following his plea of guilty, Shepherd has been convicted and sentenced for the murder of Malissa Mayfield and the sentencing judge's remarks are part of the public record. A copy of those remarks was handed up during the proceedings and I confirm what I then said that I have read those remarks. In the course of them his Honour recounted a number of assertions, to a large extent emanating directly or indirectly from Shepherd, concerning what had been said to be your influence upon him and your participation in events leading up to and culminating in Ms Mayfield's death. It is obvious that there are inconsistencies in some material placed before the Court in the proceedings against Shepherd and what is now before this Court, and I stress that it is no part of my function to seek to harmonize any contradictions between them, nor to engage in analysis in order to establish a preference for any particular assertion against another, but I should proceed to sentence by making findings only upon the evidence in these current proceedings. 5 The prominent source for findings is a document tendered as an agreed statement of facts. It is a lengthy document. You gave evidence for the purpose of seeking mitigation and were subjected to a detailed cross examination. In the course of this there was a somewhat obscure dispute about what you and Shepherd were said to have conveyed to an ambulance officer, Ms Tomlinson. I say obscure because it arose when you said you could not recall what you and Shepherd had said to her about what caused you to be at Ms Mayfield's house at about 5 am. Substantially the whole of the particular paragraph in the agreed facts relating to this matter was read to you and eventually, after you rejected an offer of a copy being placed before you, you said that you did not agree. No definition was sought from you as to what it was that you did not agree with. What remains obscure is the extent of your disagreement. What is described as having been told to the ambulance officer is generally consistent with a version that you were advancing up until 3 July, and I can only conclude that what you are disputing is whether you gave this version to Ms Tomlinson. On that basis no matter of great weight is involved. 6 As I have said, the agreed statement of facts is very lengthy and it may be taken that, subject to the minor matter just mentioned, my findings are as set out therein. It will suffice therefore to include in these remarks a briefer sketch than appears there, but that is not to indicate that the omitted details have not been taken into account. 7 A number of aspects were explored with you during cross examination. Your demeanour did not convey an impression of candour. I am conscious of the dangers of acting upon such an impression but it does not appear to be an isolated one. Victoria McMasters, the probation officer who prepared the pre-sentence report commented: "Although Ms Wells agreed with the Police facts, and has been given ample opportunity to discuss her part in the commission of this offence, she has appeared reluctant to do so at times." 8 The same report also records: "The offender did advise however that she has attended counselling with her son through 'Victims Compensation' as he is classed as a secondary victim of violence. The counsellor confirmed that the offender attended on 6 occasions and due to her son's age interaction was mainly with Ms Wells. She described the offender as pleasant and open however, indicated that she felt Ms Wells was not entirely honest regarding her involvement in the offences." 9 A contrary impression was reported by Mr Benad, a psychologist to whom you were referred for assessment by your solicitors. He said "her reporting style is open and forthcoming and I did not establish any evidence of strategic reporting". He did not form the view that you were "embellishing". The history which you gave to Mr Benad was highly sanitized and omitted many significant details. You described aspects of Shepherd's behaviour as "bothersome" and mentioned his taking on the persona of others and claiming psychic powers. You did not inform him, as you conceded in cross examination, of your initial belief in his possession of these powers. In describing your relationship with Ms Mayfield you told him that your friendship changed subsequent to her commencing a relationship with Shepherd. The agreed facts note that Shepherd had claimed that he could rid Ms Mayfield of bad demons by having sexual intercourse with her and you were present in the house when these acts of intercourse occurred. In your evidence you sought to distance yourself from those facts, despite the circumstance that after an adjournment for the purpose of affirming your agreement or otherwise, following the raising of the issue about statements made to Ms Tomlinson, you expressly affirmed, with the exception of the matter concerning Ms Tomlinson, that you agreed with the balance of the statement. In evidence you said that you only suspected that intercourse had taken place because, while you were present in the house, Ms Mayfield had asked Shepherd to wax her vaginal area. Mr Benad had indicated that he would limit his comments about the offence to your report but your description of events following the killing to him was quite skeletal. 10 I do not find you to be a reliable witness and I have reservations about the credibility of your evidence. 11 I turn then to a brief sketch of facts. 12 Shortly after 1 am on 15 June you, with Shepherd and your small son John as passengers, drove from your house at Blacktown towards Ms Mayfield's home at Bossley Park. On the way you stopped. Two phone calls were made from a public phone to her mobile phone service. Not long thereafter she called you on your mobile phone twice. The first call was very short and possibly a poor connection. The second call followed straight away and extended over ten minutes. I do not accept that Ms Mayfield was calling you because she thought there was an intruder in or about her house. Whatever you did in fact speak to her about, you agreed in evidence that you did not mention to her that at the very time you were sitting in your car close to her home. 13 You dropped Shepherd near but not outside, Ms Mayfield's house about 1.30 am. He told you to come back in an hour. I do not accept that you intended to return to Blacktown. Such a journey at that time of night would take approximately twenty five minutes each way and you were required to return in an hour. In fact you drove to a point some four kilometres away from Ms Mayfield's house and parked your car in an industrial area. Your son was asleep in the car. Some time later Shepherd arrived on foot. It is not credible that Shepherd was able to find you and join you there without an arrangement of some sort. Together you then returned to Blacktown. 14 Your evidence was that, upon return, Shepherd took a shower. Be that as it may, at 4.05 am you made a call from your landline at Blacktown to Ms Mayfield's mobile. It was not answered. Again you and Shepherd, bringing John with you, set off for the house at Bossley Park and arrived there somewhere between 4.30 and 4.50 am. 15 Entry to the house was gained by waking Ms Mayfield's elder daughter by tapping on her bedroom window. Once inside you saw Ms Mayfield prone on the floor of the lounge room. Your observation was that she was to some extent, still breathing. You saw Shepherd put his hands around her neck and choke her. In an interview with police on 3 July, after you had ceased to offer assistance to Shepherd, your description of this was: "He was trying to choke her into some sort of unconsciousness so he could finish what he started". 16 These matters relate to your knowledge of the commission of the crime by Shepherd. As I have said, the charge against you does not involve an allegation that you were present and willing to assist him in the commission of the crime itself. 17 Your assistance to him after the fact, however, commenced almost immediately. Although I do not, of course, know the terms of any communication between the two of you, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you agreed to aid him in promoting a false story that Ms Mayfield had during the night sought your help because she felt threatened by a possible intruder and that you and Shepherd had travelled to Bossley Park in response to her expressed fears. This was conveniently described by the Crown Prosecutor as the intruder/rescue scenario. 18 The virtually immediate participation by you in this deceit was confirmed by the timing of some events. Shortly after 5 am you went to the home of Ms Mayfield's neighbours, Mrs Leyla Coban and her daughter Funda, taking with you Ms Mayfield's two children. You told Leyla Coban that you had come over in response to worries expressed by Ms Mayfield concerning noises outside her premises. After Leyla Coban had left your company, three calls were made from your mobile phone to Ms Mayfield's landline and these were at 5.12 am, 5.15 am and 5.16 am respectively. I reject your evidence that the only calls which you made were made before you entered the premises. The telephone company records contradict your claims in these regards. I am satisfied that you made the calls at times which have been recorded and you were aware of Shepherd's action against Ms Mayfield at the time, it having occurred before you went to see Mrs Coban at 5 am. Your purpose was to create a false impression of concern for Ms Mayfield by making repeated efforts to contact her and leaving messages on her phone. You were well aware at the time that you made these calls that she was beyond receiving telephone calls. It was only after your engaging in these pretences that Shepherd made an emergency triple 0 call seeking help for Ms Mayfield. 19 Two ambulance crews arrived. Although Ms Mayfield was found to be unconscious, without pulse and not breathing she was warm to touch, which is confirmatory of your conclusion that she was alive when you entered the house. Treatment by ambulance personnel in fact provoked a heartbeat and pulse. 20 In the light of the dispute which I earlier described about what was said to Ambulance Officer Tomlinson, I will limit my finding about your contact with the ambulance officers to the fact that, on any version, you did not disclose to them the truth of what had occurred. 21 Ms Mayfield was taken to hospital and maintained for a time by artificial life support. This was stopped on 19 June when she was pronounced deceased. 22 You and Shepherd had gone to Fairfield Hospital after the ambulance on 15 June. Whilst there you were separated from Shepherd who was spoken to by Senior Constable Thistlethwaite. You were spoken to by Constable Anh Tran. You gave her a detailed account in accordance with the contrived intruder/rescue scenario. 23 In the light of my findings concerning your conversation with Leyla Coban and the three calls made prior to the emergency call, I reject your evidence that it was only on the way to hospital that Shepherd for the first time, to use your description, instructed you about the story you were to tell and to stick to. I am satisfied that you had agreed to assist him in putting forward false facts before you had gone to the Coban house. Thus you provided assistance almost immediately after you had seen Shepherd commit murder. 24 Later on the same day you were formally interviewed at Wetherill Park Police Station. The relevant parts of the statement which you made were false. In particular you described receiving a call from Ms Mayfield at about 1.30 am, in which she told you of her fears about someone being outside of her house. There was no such call. Your actual conversation with her on that morning was, as I have earlier described, when you were sitting in a car nearby to her house, a circumstance which you admit you did not mention to her. Neither did you tell police about the first visit from Blacktown to Bossley Park and return, asserting to them that the first and only journey was at some time after 4 am. Despite what you had seen Shepherd do, you stated that you did not know who was responsible for what had happened, and suggested to police that it may have been the prowler whose existence you knew to be an invention. 25 On the following day, 16 June, you returned to make a supplementary statement to police in which you described movements by yourself in and about Ms Mayfield's house on the previous day, and whilst her injured body was still there. You had discussed making this supplementary statement with Shepherd in case you needed to account for any possible presence of your DNA in the house, which might be detected by investigators. 26 On 17 June you participated in what is called by police a walk through, which consists of a video and sound recorded interview conducted whilst visiting, in this case, the premises at Bossley Park. As well as oral responses, there were included demonstrations of activity said to have occurred and indications of relevant locations. Of course, some matters of actuality were woven into it, but the entirety of your performance was directed to supporting the deceitful intruder/rescue scenario. 27 In the early hours of 28 June you were admitted to Blacktown Hospital yourself, having been severely injured by a deep cut to your wrist. As you now know, pursuant to warrant, police had installed a listening device or devices in your home. The attack on you provoked great pain and you reacted by screaming. This was heard by police who were manning a listening post and monitoring the product of the devices. Police came to your aid. Your statement that they saved your life was well founded. 28 The hospital notes record levels of medication in your bloodstream and it is your assertion that Shepherd organized your ingestion of these by secreting drugs in food which you consumed. When they appeared to be taking effect, Shepherd wounded you with an intent to cause your death. 29 Shepherd has been charged with an offence arising out of these circumstances and remains to be tried in respect of it, but for present purposes I am prepared to act upon the assumption that what you assert in these respects is correct. 30 However, on 30 June, you were again interviewed by police, of course, with a focus upon what brought you into hospital. Shepherd was nowhere near and in fact security had been provided for you. Yet again you did not take the opportunity of telling the truth about the circumstances of Malissa Mayfield's death. In examination in chief you agreed that you included in that statement an averment that "my relationship has been nothing but fantastic with Dave" (Shepherd). I do not accept your protestations that your condition and medication administered to you in hospital had an effect of inhibiting or confusing you, and for that reason you continued to refrain from telling the truth. 31 In the interim, that is to say between 15 June and your admission to Blacktown Hospital, you had driven Shepherd around various parts of the Western Suburbs. On these journeys he discarded various items of clothing which could link him with the murder, including some clothing which Ms Mayfield had been wearing when she was attacked. You personally discarded some of her hairpins in a car park attached to a McDonalds restaurant where you had gone to purchase food for your son. Another item was Ms Mayfield's handbag. You denied that you saw Shepherd take it but you conceded that you saw him "shove it into a drain". You agreed that this was a curious thing to see but when asked why you made no enquiry of him, you included in your answer "I didn't want to give him another reason to kill me, which he tried anyway". I am satisfied that at that time you harboured no fear of Shepherd and that any fear of him developed only after his attack on you on 28 June made you appreciate your vulnerability and his possible intentions. 32 An important guide to your state of mind and willingness to cooperate with Shepherd can be obtained from the events surrounding the disposal of a glove to which events I will later refer. 33 On 3 July police executed a search warrant on your home. On that date you participated in an electronically recorded interview. You admitted the falsity of your earlier statements. The version of events then presented has been summarized in the agreed facts. That summary proceeds along these lines. 34 On the night in question you and Shepherd watched the State of Origin football match. After that you showered together and retired to bed. Shepherd woke you and asked you to take him to see Ms Mayfield. You were reluctant because you were tired but Shepherd became insistent that he wanted to talk to her. You drove towards her home and when the vehicle neared a phone box Shepherd asked you to stop which you did. He telephoned Ms Mayfield and then asked you to drive him to her house and to stop around the corner. While that happened Ms Mayfield called you on your mobile phone and you spoke for about ten minutes. Ms Mayfield appeared confused about what was going on and told you that she thought Shepherd was evil. 35 You said that Shepherd told you to come and collect him at 2.30 am. You drove to a location about four or five kilometres away and stopped there. Sometime after 2.30 am you were awakened by Shepherd knocking on the passenger window. He seemed upset. You unlocked the car and he entered and said to you to just drive and go home. He told you that you had to call Ms Mayfield and sound upset and ask her if everything is okay and to make sure you called plenty of times and leave messages. You claimed that you called on about eight occasions. You said that when you got home you tried to call Ms Mayfield. These calls were intended as part of the intruder/rescue scenario. 36 After this Shepherd told you to get the first aid kit and you set off again for the house at Bossley Park. When you arrived Ms Mayfield's daughter, Keira was awakened and she let both of you in. Ms Mayfield was seen on the floor struggling for breath but not moving. Shepherd told you to take Keira to her room. When you returned to the lounge room you saw Shepherd had his hands around Ms Mayfield's neck "trying to choke her into some sort of unconsciousness so he could finish what he started". You said he also put his knee against her throat and put all of his weight into it and you said that you heard the sound of bones breaking. The triple 0 call was made about half an hour after that. 37 Your explanation to police and to the Court for your deceit was that you were in fear of your life from Shepherd. 38 A determination of whether that is an acceptable proposition can be significantly assisted by examination, not only of the events and your adherence to promulgation of the intruder/rescue scenario, but of some of the listening device product. As well as transcript this has been put in evidence by way of a playable compact disk. 39 As obviously must be the case, in assessing whether you were acting out of fear or similar, attention has to be directed to the span of time specified in the charge and not to what feelings you harboured after 3 July. 40 Not only do I not detect any suggestion of fear of Shepherd in the captured conversations but there are incidents which powerfully demonstrate your cooperation with him in seeking to avoid his being brought to justice for what he had done. 41 In a conversation shortly before 10 pm on 15 June when a man identified as Simon, a resident of part of your Blacktown premises was being told a false story about the events concerning Ms Mayfield, you "chimed in" throughout the conversation without any apparent cue being given by Shepherd and you provided details, obviously designed to make the story being told seem credible. 42 Later that night at about 10.30, following farewells to Simon, Shepherd asked you about what can be done if Ms Mayfield survives and your response was to say "we stick together". 43 I said I would return to the matter concerning a glove. The agreed facts recount that while you and Shepherd were standing on the street after Ms Mayfield had been taken in the ambulance, a latex glove was picked up. You put it in your bra and later secreted it in a sanitary waste unit in a ladies toilet. Shepherd was plainly concerned about the whereabouts of this glove. The Crown submitted this was probably worn by Shepherd while he performed the strangulation. This would seem likely but I am unable to determine the precise fact. What I do find is that Shepherd's worry about the whereabouts of the glove was related to fear on his part that, if obtained by investigators, it would provide evidence pointing to him as the murderer. The exchange between the two of you about the glove shows your willingness not only to cooperate with Shepherd but to act on your own initiative to obstruct investigation into his responsibility for the murder which you knew he had committed because you were an eyewitness to his final act of strangulation. 44 The conversation between you turned to the possibility of a search warrant and your response was the comment "what are they going to find?" This triggered Shepherd to say "the fuck, where's the white glove?" You said "it's gone". He asked "where is it?" You said "I got rid of it". He asked "where?" You said "in the tampon bin" and he said "good girl". 45 There was a discussion about Shepherd's apprehension that the glove might have been left in the car. You informed him that you had it in your sleeve for most of the day. Although some of the wording is inaudible on the recording it is obvious that your comment "I shit myself when I got told I had to …" referred to a police request for possession of your clothing. 46 Shepherd commended you for being clever and you elaborated that you had wrapped it, that is the glove, in toilet paper as if it was a pad while you were in the ladies toilet. 47 The interception of this conversation by the listening device led to search by police and the glove was located in the sanitary disposal bin as you described. 48 The captured conversations include discussion about explanations for scratches and the like on Shepherd's person and about the disposal of clothing. In relation to clothing Shepherd asked at one stage what you will do with them and it is you who suggested that they be ditched on the following morning. Shepherd expressed concern that you may be being watched and you then volunteered a suggestion that you could take them to work. 49 I am satisfied that it is highly probable that only after the attack on you which led to your hospitalization on 28 June you came to realize that Shepherd was a source of possible harm to you. This realization was not immediate as the deceptive statement which you made on that day demonstrates, but your belief had crystallized by 3 July when you made your final statement. I also think that it is probable that you were beginning to appreciate that the police were likely to succeed in assembling appropriate evidence against Shepherd to charge him with murder. 50 I am conscious that it is a matter which you raise in seeking mitigation but, beyond any question of onus, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that until some point of time between 28 June and 3 July your actions in assisting Shepherd were not provoked by any fear that you harboured that you might be in danger from him. Nor am I satisfied that you were subordinated to his will so that your choice to act or not to act was fettered by any hold that he had over you. In the vernacular, I am satisfied that you assisted him because you believed initially that you could help him to "get away with it". 51 Although it was plainly contrary to your intention at the time, your deceits did not mislead the police investigators and their efforts were not diverted into engaging in fruitless activity. That is a circumstance that weighs in your favour. I am not thereby saying that it is a matter of mitigation that the consequences of the lies which you told might have been greater but to take into account that no one was in fact fooled. There is nevertheless objective seriousness to your commission of the crime of being an accessory after the fact to murder but I should turn to subjective matters other than your claim, which I have rejected, to have acted out of fear or by reason of your will being overborne. 52 You were born on 16 September 1977 and were aged twenty nine when you committed the offence and you are now aged thirty. As mentioned, you are the mother of a young boy, John, who is presently in the parental care of your sister, that arrangement having been made in anticipation that, as I find, no lesser sentence than one consisting of full time custody should be imposed. I do not accept the submission by counsel on your behalf that some lesser punishment option is appropriate. Obviously your relationship with Shepherd has now ceased. 53 This is your only conviction and, not only is your past clear of any offence, you have always diligently engaged yourself in gainful employment. Over the last twelve years this has been in an administrative position with the Department of Defence but after you were charged, originally with the murder of Ms Mayfield, it was determined that you be suspended from that employment. 54 I do not know whether the same action would have been taken if you had only been charged with the lesser offence of being an accessory after the fact. The possibility that your employment might have continued invites consideration that you were disadvantaged by the circumstance of being charged with the offence which the prosecution abandoned. That possibility of having suffered disadvantage is a factor which I will weigh in your favour in sentence assessment. 55 It appears that you no longer believe in powers such as Shepherd had claimed to speak in voices, communicate with the dead and to drive out demons. That you may once have so believed does not either aggravate or mitigate your offence but, that you no longer hold such beliefs fortifies my finding that your prospects of rehabilitation are good and the likelihood of your re-offending is low. 56 When you were being cross examined you gave some cryptic responses about the distinction between loving and being in love, however, I am satisfied that you engaged yourself in this offence because of the existing emotional ties which you had formed with Shepherd. 57 You have offered to give evidence to assist in the prosecution of Shepherd, both for the murder of Malissa Mayfield and the attempt on your own life. Of course, your assistance will not be necessary for the former as Shepherd has pleaded guilty but these are significant offers for which you are entitled to receive mitigating weight in sentence assessment. 58 There is another aspect to the attack which you suffered. As I have said, Shepherd is yet to come to trial but for the purpose of assessing sentence on you, I regard your suffering of this attack as what is sometimes referred to as extra-curial punishment for your crime. In this case I apprehend that Shepherd came to consider that, although you had assisted him up to that point, if you changed your mind, you could give direct evidence of his commission of the murder and his attack on you was designed to remove that possibility. There are medical and hospital notes in evidence which show the severe and life threatening quality of the injury inflicted on you. The assessment of sentence will reflect what you have previously suffered as a matter of mitigation. 59 It is necessary, of course, that I pay heed to the expression of the legislature in its prescription of the maximum sentence but I should also consider indications of sentencing pattern which emerged from other cases. Naturally every offence and every offender is different. Some of the cases to which I was referred demonstrated ultimate impositions of relatively mild terms when measured against the maximum. However such a maximum is reserved for the worst case or the worst offender and you are far distanced from any such category. 60 It is significant that your assistance to the murderer extended over a limited period of only approximately two weeks and that it was your own decision to desist and cooperate with authority. Of course, your decision followed the provocation to cease your assistance which Shepherd's attack on you offered but it was your own election to confess the falsity of the intruder/rescue scenario. As I have observed, I am satisfied that you did what you did to help Shepherd because of the emotional tie which you had formed with him as his de facto partner. 61 Taking all the foregoing into account, the circumstances of your offence and your knowledge of the commission of the murder, and balancing matters for which you have a substantiated claim for mitigation, I would assess an appropriate sentence to consist of imprisonment for four years. 62 Your plea of guilty was offered at the very earliest opportunity. You were originally charged as co-offender in the murder and it is acknowledged that it was only on the eve of trial that the Crown indicated its willingness to indict you as an accessory after the fact and accept a plea of guilty to that indictment. Counsel informed me, and I accept, that before the Crown gave that indication you had, through your lawyers, offered to plead guilty if you were to be so indicted. 63 There is ample authority that a plea of guilty at the earliest opportunity should be recognized by a discount from sentence otherwise assessed not only as an indication of contrition and remorse but for its utilitarian value, that is, the saving of the community of the cost of trial and the witnesses from the burden of being called to testify. I would therefore reduce the assessed term to three years. 64 You were in custody from 10 August 2006 until 23 November 2006, a period of one hundred and five days, before you were released on bail. I returned you to custody at the conclusion of the hearing which took place on 22 February 2008. You should have credit for the custody already served and I will do so by commencing your sentence one hundred and five days prior to 22 February 2008, that is from 10 November 2007. 65 The sentence should be imposed and divided into a non-parole period and a balance term during which you may be at liberty on parole. Legislation sets a proportion which can be departed from if it is found that there are special circumstances. I find that there are. They arise from multiple factors but I am conscious of the obvious emotional experience which must have accompanied your realization of the character of Shepherd and his intent to harm you despite the relationship which you shared. By this time you had committed the offence but I have found that your prospects of rehabilitation are good and, although the incompleteness of information given to him renders his opinion less dependable, I accept the suggestion of Mr Benad that you should have counselling and support. To that end it is desirable and I would estimate necessary that, when you are released from custody, you have available supervision and assistance from skilled persons such as those in the Probation and Parole Service during an adequate period of readjustment. I will adjust the proportion in your favour to achieve that adequacy. 66 Angela Wells, you are formally convicted of being an accessory after the fact to the murder of Malissa Mayfield in the terms of the charge of the indictment to which you pleaded guilty. 67 You are sentenced to imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of one year and six months commencing on 10 November 2007 and expiring on 9 May 2009 with a balance term of one year six months commencing on 10 May 2009. 68 I order that you be released to parole on 9 May 2009 and whilst on parole you be subject to the supervision of the Probation and Parole Service. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.