9 Ms Jeffrey confirmed her agreement with the statement of facts by formally adopting it in accordance with s 191 of the Evidence Act 1995. In so doing she adopted the deceased's account of how she and Ms Mealey gained entry to the unit which was, in summary, that Ms Mealey knocked at Mr Kelly's door, that he resisted her efforts at forcing entry and that it was only then that Ms Jeffrey lent her weight to push at the open door in the course of which Mr Kelly fell and fatally injured his hip. Ms Jeffrey accepted that she took the money from Mr Kelly's wallet.
10 The statement of facts tendered by the Crown in Ms Mealey's sentence proceedings was amended to reflect the fact that she took issue with the account given by the deceased implicating her in the mechanism by which entry was forced into the deceased's unit. She gave evidence that although she opened the outer screen door and knocked on the wooden door (and that she was standing at the door when Mr Kelly opened it), it was Ms Jeffrey, who was crouched down to her left and out of sight, who barged at and through the door in the course of which Mr Kelly fell. Ms Mealey gave evidence that she did not push on the wooden door at all. She also gave evidence that the robbery was solely Ms Jeffrey's idea, as was the plan to execute it. She said that Ms Jeffrey woke her on the morning of the robbery and asked her to knock on the door of a unit upstairs with a view to getting some money for drugs from the man who lived there. (Although she didn't say so expressly her plea reflects the fact that she knew that the money would be taken from the man against his will, as distinct from it being given by way of a gift or a loan, and knew of the reasonable possibility that entry would be forced.) She said that although she initially refused to assist she agreed when Ms Jeffrey persisted. Ms Jeffrey did not give evidence.
11 Neither Mr Young of senior counsel who appeared for Ms Jeffrey, nor the Crown Prosecutor challenged Ms Mealey's account of the circumstances in which she became involved in the robbery. I am satisfied that for this reason, together with the interplay of relevant subjective features of Ms Mealey's case to which I will later refer, she was vulnerable to Ms Jeffrey's influence, and this operates in mitigation of sentence to be imposed on the robbery count. In addition, since I am satisfied that Ms Mealey would not have been involved in the incident which resulted in Mr Kelly's death at all but for Ms Jeffrey's insistence, her sentence on the manslaughter count will also reflect that fact.
12 Both the Crown and Mr Young did however seek to persuade me to reject Ms Mealey's account of what happened at the door of Mr Kelly's unit as untrue. Mr Ierace submitted that I should accept Ms Mealey's account as both accurate and truthful and that her sentence on the manslaughter count should be further reduced as a result. He did not submit that this aspect of her evidence had any impact on the sentence to be imposed on the robbery count since the robbery was committed as part of a joint criminal enterprise and, that as a matter of law, both offenders were responsible for the acts of each other in carrying out that enterprise. As I understand it, the point of distinction so far as concerns the manslaughter count is that since the Crown could not establish to the criminal standard that the serious injury Mr Kelly suffered in the robbery was seen by Ms Mealey as a possible incident of the joint enterprise to rob him (see R v Taufahema [2007] HCA 11; 228 CLR 232) as distinct from a reasonable person in her position realising that their conduct exposed the deceased to an appreciable risk of serious injury (as to which see Wilson v R (1992) 174 CLR 313), it is not open to view his death as an extension of any common purpose. For this reason, so it is submitted, the nature and quality of the offenders' separate and unlawful and dangerous acts from which death resulted is material to the imposition of sentence on the manslaughter count for each of them.