R v Rafael RODRIGUEZ [2012] NSWSC 663

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Rafael RODRIGUEZ [2012] NSWSC 663 Hearing dates: 16.04.12 - 19.04.12, 26.04.12 - 27.04.12, 08.06.12 Decision date: 15 June 2012 Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal Before: Hidden J Decision: 2 year suspended sentence Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - accessory after the fact to manslaughter - disposal of the knife used in the killing - accessory the father of the principal offender Cases Cited: R v HT [2012] NSWSC 656 Category: Sentence Parties: Regina (Crown) Rafael Rodriguez (offender) Representation: Counsel: M Cunneen SC (Crown) P Hamill SC & B Longville Solicitors: S Kavanagh - Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown) Photios Vouroudis & Co Solicitors (offender) File Number(s): 2009/190145

REMARKS ON SENTENCE 1The offender, Rafael Rodriguez, was tried before me upon an indictment charging him as an accessory after the fact to an offence of murder said to have been committed by his son, Abraham Rodriguez. The jury found him not guilty of that offence but guilty as an accessory after the fact to manslaughter. He stands for sentence for that offence.

Facts

2On 24 August 1995, Abraham Rodriguez and a juvenile, HT, robbed a 16 year old schoolboy at Lidcombe. Abraham Rodriguez had a knife and, in the course of the robbery, he stabbed the unfortunate victim, causing a wounding which proved to be fatal. 3In the following month Abraham Rodriguez left Australia, and has never returned. The juvenile was also tried before me, in his case for murder and robbery in company with wounding. He was found guilty of manslaughter and robbery in company simpliciter. I sentenced him for those offences on 11 April 2012, and a brief description of the circumstances of the robbery and the killing is to be found in my remarks: R v HT [2012] NSWSC 656. 4After the incident Abraham Rodriguez and HT went to a shop in Lidcombe where a friend of theirs, John Le, was working in a family business. There Abraham Rodriguez gave Mr Le the bloodstained knife and asked him to hide it. Mr Le did so. He also washed the blood off the knife and wiped it to remove his fingerprints from it. 5On the evening of the following day Mr Le received a telephone call from the offender. It was apparent from the terms of the call that the offender was aware that Mr Le had the knife which his son had used in the incident. He said that it was "very important" that arrangements be made for him to pick the knife up. In the event, it was agreed that Mr Le would deliver the knife to the offender at his home in Regents Park the following day. On that day Mr Le delivered the knife to the offender, as arranged. The offender thanked him, saying "you're saving my son's life," and "you're doing yourself a huge favour." 6The effect of the jury's verdict is that they were satisfied that the offender then disposed of the knife, knowing that it had been used in the killing, and intending to prevent his son from being brought to justice for that offence. It had also been the Crown case that the offender assisted his son to leave the country, but I ruled that that inference was not available on the evidence and directed the jury accordingly. The verdict of guilty as accessory after the fact to manslaughter means that the jury were not satisfied that Abraham Rodriguez killed the victim in circumstances amounting to murder, an issue which had been left to them for consideration. The offence of accessory after the fact to manslaughter carries a maximum sentence of imprisonment for 5 years.