Reported Decision : 179 A Crim R 16 New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : Regina v Michelle Rowena Rocco [2007] NSWSC 1361 HEARING DATE(S) : 22 October 2007, 23 October 2007, 24 October 2007, 23 November 2007 JUDGMENT DATE : 29 November 2007 JUDGMENT OF : Barr J at 1 DECISION : The offender is ordered to enter into a good behaviour bond for a period of five years from today. The conditions of the bond will be these - (a) The offender is to appear before this Court if called on to do so at any time during the term of the bond; (b) The offender is to be of good behaviour during the term of the bond; and (c) Within seven days of entering into the bond the offender is to present herself to the officer in charge of the Maitland district office of the Probation and Parole Service. The offender is to submit herself to the direction of the officer in charge of that service for the period of the bond or for such lesser period as the officer shall direct. The offender is to participate in the intervention program to be offered by that service and to comply with any intervention plan arising out of the program. PARTIES : Regina Michelle Rowena Rocco FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 2007/1249 COUNSEL : Crown: P Barnett SC Offender: J Fitzgerald SOLICITORS : Crown: S Kavanagh Offender: Nicolas Moir & Associates IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION GRAHAM BARR J 29 NOVEMBER 2007 2007/1249 REGINA v MICHELLE ROWENA ROCCO REMARKS ON SENTENCE 1 HIS HONOUR: The offender, Michelle Rowena Rocco, was committed to this Court on a charge that on 20 March 2006 at Rutherford she murdered Shandele Macey. Shortly before the commencement of her trial the Crown presented a fresh indictment, charging the offender first with the manslaughter of the deceased and secondly that Jeremy Michael Hunt had fired a firearm at the dwelling house of the deceased with reckless disregard for the safety of persons therein and that knowing of that offence the offender had assisted Hunt. The offender pleaded guilty to the second charge and the Crown accepted her plea in full discharge of the indictment. 2 The offender knew Brian Andrew Kaiser, Jeremy Michael Hunt and Ronald Rex Edward Garland. Garland and Kaiser were lessees of a house in Mayfield, Newcastle, where Garland and Hunt resided. Kaiser lived at Shortland. The offender lived with her parents at Limeburners Creek but often visited Garland at his home. She was seriously addicted to the use of illegal drugs and obtained her supplies through her association with Garland and Kaiser. She used to earn money to buy drugs by driving them here and there when requested. The implication is that she was assisting them to deliver drugs to customers. 3 Kaiser was a truck driver and worked with a man called Stuckings. Mr Stuckings was in a relationship with the deceased, Shandele Macey. They lived at Rutherford. Stuckings introduced Kaiser to the deceased in 2004. A sexual relationship began between Kaiser and the deceased. Kaiser began supplying the deceased with amphetamines. Their relationship did not go well, however, and the deceased put an end to it. It is unnecessary to recount all the events that took place, but things ended up with the deceased taking out apprehended domestic violence orders and Kaiser breaching them. Relations between them became very bad indeed and Kaiser became very resentful. Not only that, the deceased did not pay Kaiser for drugs he had supplied to her over a period of two years or so. Kaiser decided to teach the deceased a lesson. On 9 March 2006 in company with Hunt, he went to the deceased's and Mr Stucking's house at Rutherford. He tried to break in and did some damage to doors. However, the attack was aborted and Kaiser was discovered. Proceedings followed and he spent some time in gaol before he was bailed on a charge of malicious injury. Undeterred, Kaiser decided to carry on the attempt to teach the deceased a lesson. He arranged for Hunt to go to Rutherford to deal with the deceased and specified that that should happen at a time when he, Kaiser, could prove that he was at work in a place remote from Rutherford. Kaiser arranged to drop Hunt at a service station on Sandgate Road. In anticipation of this Hunt telephoned the offender and asked her to meet him there. They met as arranged and at Hunt's request the offender drove him to Hunt's premises in Mayfield and then, on Hunt's offering her fifty dollars for petrol, to Rutherford. As Hunt entered the offender's car he put on the back seat a bag containing a loaded rifle. There is no suggestion that she knew what was in the bag and I think that she must have supposed that this was just another drug delivery. The offender drove Hunt to Rutherford as directed and stopped opposite the house where the deceased and Mr Stuckings lived. Hunt got out of the car and fired shots at the house. One of them killed the deceased. The offender drove Hunt away from the district straight away. They stopped at a house at Hexham where Hunt had a conversation with the occupant. The offender then drove Hunt to the Mayfield house. She remained there with him until she left at some time on the following morning. 4 A Pre-Sentence Report was furnished at the Court's request dealing with the alcohol and drug problems of the offender and with the questions of her suitability for sentencing orders less than of full-time custody. 5 The offender is now thirty-four years old. She has a twelve-year-old daughter, who resides with her father, though the offender has weekly access. She is described as socially isolated, with family members her only contact and support. She was educated to year ten and has had a number of casual employment positions, but her last was several years ago. She is seriously addicted to the use of drugs. Her use was minimal until she was about thirty-one years old but she then began residing with others who were intensive users. Her use intensified as well. 6 The offender has made some attempt to come to grips with her serious problem. Some two days after the events giving rise to the charge she voluntarily entered the residential rehabilitation program WHOS in Cessnock. She says that she has not taken drugs since then. 7 According to the probation and parole officer who furnished the report, the offender suffers pervasive depressive symptoms and the reporter suspects that a full mental health assessment is warranted. There are symptoms of paranoia, anxiety and panic attacks. 8 The offender is seen as suitable for supervision by the service in her effort to rid herself of her addiction to drugs. She has been assessed as suitable for a community service order and is eligible and has been assessed as suitable for a periodic detention order. 9 In my opinion the criminality of the offender was minimal. It was not until Hunt fired the shots that she realised that she was unwittingly involved in a criminal offence arising out of the use of the rifle. The only assistance the offender gave Hunt was to drive him first to one house, then to another and stay with him for a few hours. The Court is aware that Hunt was in communication with others as a result of which he was able to anticipate police movements and escape an early arrest, but the offender had nothing to do with those matters. 10 I doubt whether the offender will offend again. The principal problem in her life is her dependence upon drugs and if she is to get anywhere at all she has to overcome it. 11 The offender has no criminal record. After her arrest on 2 April 2006 she remained in custody until admitted to bail on 18 September 2006, a period of more than five months. 12 I think that the offender should not be required to serve further time in custody. Her principal need, and the consequent need of the community, is for her to overcome her dependence on drugs. She has made some steps towards that already and the prospects seem good. The Probation and Parole Service will structure an intervention program for her to enable her to stay off drugs for good. 13 Michelle Rowena Rocco I order that you enter into a good behaviour bond for a period of five years from today. The conditions of the bond will be these - (a) You are to appear before this Court if called on to do so at any time during the term of the bond; (b) You are to be of good behaviour during the term of the bond; and (c) Within seven days of entering into the bond you are to present yourself to the officer in charge of the Maitland district office of the Probation and Parole Service. You are to submit yourself to the direction of the officer in charge of that service for the period of the bond or for such lesser period as the officer shall direct. You are to participate in the intervention program to be offered by that service and to comply with any intervention plan arising out of the program. ************* 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.