R v Parkes

Facts

1. The Crown case at trial comprised a significant body of evidence against Mr Parkes. It included CCTV footage, telephone intercepts, surveillance device recordings, direct evidence from witnesses including of admissions, bank and hotel records, and DNA and other forensic evidence. The CCTV evidence in particular clearly established that Mr Parkes and Mr Sloan were the last two people to see the deceased alive, that the three of them travelled to remote bushland near Menai at 3:30am in the morning of 14 July 2020 in two vehicles, that the two men left without Ms Carroll or her vehicle and that her burned body and vehicle were found in that area two weeks later.
2. The sole issue at trial was whether Mr Parkes was part of a joint criminal enterprise with Mr Sloan to kill Ms Carroll or whether, as he contended, he was taken by surprise by Mr Sloan's actions and was simply an accessory after the fact to her murder. Mr Parkes' defence relied almost solely on his own statements to others, police and the jury. For reasons that will become obvious, I am ultimately unable to accept any assertion made by Mr Parkes unless it is supported by other evidence.
3. Having considered the evidence at trial, I propose to sentence Mr Parkes on the following facts.
4. As at May 2020, Ms Carroll was unemployed and staying with friends. COVID-19 lockdown measures were in place. The Federal Government had recently implemented policies aimed at assisting persons who were struggling financially due to the lockdown, including permitting persons to withdraw up to $10,000 from their superannuation fund twice. Ms Carroll took advantage of this policy.
5. On 1 May 2020, Ms Carroll withdrew $10,000 from her superannuation fund. On 1 June 2020, she rented a white 2018 Hyundai from "No Birds Car Rental" at Artarmon. The vehicle was due to be returned on 8 June 2020 but on that day a man known to her took the vehicle and never returned it. She kept renewing the lease weekly.
6. On 26 June 2020, Ms Carroll used some of her super funds to purchase a blue 2000 Mercedes SUV [7] ("the Mercedes") for $3,700. Later that night, she checked in to the Hunts Hotel at Casula to reside for a while. She was allocated room number 313. She met Mr Parkes for the first time shortly after checking in to the hotel. Mr Parkes had commenced residing in room 261 of the Hunts Hotel on 17 June 2020.
7. On 29 June 2020, three days after she checked into the hotel, Mr Parkes drove Ms Carroll to the St George Bank at Carnes Hill where she withdrew an additional $8,500 in cash from her super fund. As I will later explain, this event is relevant to the motive for her murder and I am satisfied she gave this money to Mr Parkes.
8. The following day, on 30 June 2020, Mr Sloan checked in to the Hunts Hotel. He was allocated room number 263 which was two doors down from Mr Parkes. Almost immediately, the two men became close associates. Mr Parkes was at that time supplying crystal methylamphetamine (otherwise known as "ice") and other illicit drugs. His upline supplier, Witness H, [8] resided at 54A Rosford Street, Smithfield. Mr Sloan began supplying prohibited drugs for Mr Parkes and Mr Parkes paid for Mr Sloan's hotel room. On 1 July 2020, Ms Carroll moved from room 313 downstairs to room 259 so all three of them resided in the same corridor.
9. There were CCTV cameras in the corridor where Ms Carroll, Mr Parkes and Mr Sloan were staying which recorded the doorways to the three rooms and the comings and goings of the three of them. Their three hotel rooms were on the ground floor with balconies extending into the carpark, near to the ground. The carpark was also covered by a number of CCTV cameras such that the comings and goings of the three individuals via their balconies, either from or into the carpark or from or into each other's rooms, was also recorded. Accordingly, the CCTV footage provided the jury with a comprehensive picture of the movements of these three people and their interactions during this time.
10. In the following two weeks until her death on 14 July, Ms Carroll spent time with Mr Parkes and Mr Sloan. There was regular phone contact among the three of them and they were frequently seen in each other's company. Her name was entered into Mr Parkes' mobile telephone as "Naj driver". She drove Mr Sloan around when he was selling drugs for Mr Parkes.
11. The Crown case was that both Mr Sloan and Ms Carroll worked for Mr Parkes. Mr Parkes denied this and instead contended that he sold them drugs and they had their own separate drug business which he had nothing to do with. For reasons I will later explain, I am satisfied that Mr Parkes was the principal in the drug business and that Mr Sloan, and to a lesser extent Ms Carroll, worked for him.
12. On 3 July 2020, Ms Carroll and Mr Sloan drove to Fairfield Police Station. She informed police that her hire car had been stolen soon after she rented it, but she had delayed reporting it to police due to fear of being intimidated by the thief. Whilst at the police station, the rental company tracked the vehicle to the Sydney CBD and subsequently attended the location and took possession of the vehicle. Mr Sloan did not go into the station, but I am satisfied that he knew that Ms Carroll had reported the actions of someone she knew to police.

9 July 2020

1. Witness H gave evidence that Mr Parkes would purchase large amounts of ice from him for on-sale. They had a good relationship and Mr Parkes referred to him as "Vos" as he was Vietnamese and his "boss". On 9 July 2020, Mr Parkes and Witness H left Sydney to drive to Western Australia for the purpose of supplying prohibited drugs to a client of Witness H's.
2. Mr Parkes asked if he could borrow Ms Carroll's vehicle for the trip. His evidence at trial was that it was because his Toyota HiLux was too closely associated with him, and he wished to avoid attention. Whilst he was away, Mr Sloan stayed in Mr Parkes' room (to save money) and he and Ms Carroll continued to sell prohibited drugs and spend time together.
3. At 12:47am on 9 July 2020, Ms Carroll was captured by CCTV exiting her room. I am satisfied that no injuries can be seen on her face at that time. At 3:14am, Mr Sloan was captured by the carpark CCTV cameras climbing over the balcony of his room and entering Ms Carroll's room via her balcony. At 4:04am, Mr Sloan was captured by the hallway CCTV cameras exiting Ms Carroll's room and returning to his own room.
4. The next time Ms Carroll is captured by CCTV cameras leaving her room, at 9:49 am on 9 July, there is a visible bruise on her right eye. Ms Carroll later sent a picture of this injury to Mr Parkes by text message, and it was his evidence at trial that she told him that Mr Sloan had awoken her in the early hours of 9 July and punched her in the face. Despite this, on 9 July 2020, Mr Sloan and Ms Carroll were seen shopping together. I am satisfied based on the CCTV, the photo, the subsequent telephone records of calls on 10 July 2020 from Ms Carroll to Mr Parkes, and Mr Parkes' evidence that Mr Sloan assaulted Ms Carroll that night. The motive for doing so remains unclear.
5. Meanwhile Mr Parkes and Witness H were still on their way to Western Australia. On 10 July 2020, shortly before 2:00am, they arrived at the South Australian border. They were stopped by police and unable to proceed further due to recently implemented COVID-19 travel restrictions. Police searched the Mercedes and located $17,380 in cash but did not locate the drugs said by Mr Parkes and Witness H to be hidden beneath the centre console. Police seized the cash. The police wore body worn cameras. Police observed a baseball bat in the back seat and a yellow 20L plastic jerry can in the boot of the vehicle during the search. When Mr Parkes and Witness H were refused entry to South Australia, they drove back to Sydney. Witness H gave evidence that Mr Parkes was very angry and upset about losing the money. I accept that evidence. I do not accept Mr Parkes' claim that he was not concerned about losing that amount of money.

The plan to kill Ms Carroll

1. In the early hours of 11 July 2020, Mr Parkes and Witness H arrived back in Sydney. At around 11:30am, following directions by Mr Parkes, Mr Sloan caught a taxi from outside the Hunts Hotel to Bringelly where he met up with Witness H and Mr Parkes. Witness H's memory of that meeting is that Mr Parkes wanted to teach Mr Sloan a lesson for assaulting Ms Carroll. [9] Mr Parkes' explanation for this meeting is that he and Witness H had decided that the Mercedes would have to be burned as it may implicate him and Witness H in drug dealing. He suggested that it was Witness H's idea. Witness H disputed that evidence. I reject Mr Parkes' account that this meeting was to look for places to burn Ms Carroll's Mercedes. It was denied by Witness H, and, in any event, Mr Parkes' case that he only ever intended to burn Ms Carroll's car (and not kill her) was clearly rejected by the jury given the verdict.
2. At 11:58am, Ms Carroll telephoned Mr Parkes. That would appear to be the last outgoing message or call made by her on her mobile telephone.
3. At 12:50pm, on 11 July, Ms Carroll paid $120 to extend her stay at the hotel. This was captured on CCTV. Clearly, as at that time it was her intention to continue to reside at the hotel.
4. At about 4:00pm Mr Sloan returned to the Hunts Hotel driving Ms Carroll's Mercedes. The CCTV footage depicts him unpacking that vehicle including removing a baseball bat and the yellow jerry can and placing them on the balcony to Mr Parkes' room.
5. About an hour later, Mr Parkes returned to the Hunts Hotel driving his Toyota HiLux. He is depicted walking over to Ms Carroll and having a conversation with her. He then enters her room via the external balcony.
6. Mr Sloan subsequently attended the reception and checked in for a 7-night stay. He was allocated room 254, in the same hallway as the rooms of Mr Parkes and Ms Carroll.
7. At about 6:12pm, Mr Parkes knocked on Ms Carroll's door and spoke with her. She went back into her room. He waited for her in the corridor and three minutes later he knocked on her door again. She opened the door and appeared to leave her room in a hurry with an overnight bag, a small black bag and items of clothing. She was wearing white socks with no shoes which she was carrying under her arm. Mr Parkes placed a "Do not disturb" sign on Ms Carroll's door. They both then entered Mr Parkes' room.
8. Ms Carroll is later depicted exiting Mr Parkes' room at 7:27pm. That was the last time she was at the Hunts Hotel, and it is the last image of her alive. She took an overnight bag and a small plastic bag with her but left her suitcase and the remainder of her belongings behind in her room. The clothes she is wearing in the CCTV footage are the same that she was wearing when her body was discovered. She also left her Mercedes at the hotel.
9. At about 7:30pm, Mr Parkes and Ms Carroll left the Hunts Hotel in his Toyota HiLux. They had dinner with Witness H and his girlfriend in Cabramatta. After dinner, Mr Parkes drove Ms Carroll to Witness H's house. He asked Witness H and Witness K (Witness H's flatmate) if she could stay there in their converted garage for a while and if they could keep an eye on her. They agreed.
10. Mr Parkes remained at Witness H's residence until 3.30am the next morning when he returned to the Hunts Hotel alone. He gave evidence at trial that he left Ms Carroll there because she took heroin and was too drugged for him to take her with him when he left as he had to do two or three drug deals on his way home. This was proved to be a lie during cross-examination as the CCTV shows he went straight home. Nor does it explain why she took an overnight bag with her. Further, neither Witness K nor Witness H suggested that Ms Carroll was too drug affected to leave. Their evidence is that she stayed because Mr Parkes asked whether she could. Mr Parkes also suggested another reason that she stayed there was to avoid Mr Sloan. This is also difficult to accept given that Mr Parkes took Mr Sloan to Witness H's house the following day, presumably to buy more drugs to sell.
11. The Crown case, which I accept, is that Mr Parkes removed Ms Carroll from the Hunts Hotel that night to isolate her because he had already planned to kill her. I am satisfied of this beyond reasonable doubt.
12. Up until 11 July 2020, there had been frequent phone activity among the three of them. After leaving Ms Carroll at Witness H's, there was no telephone contact between Ms Carroll and either of Mr Parkes or Mr Sloan ever again, although there was a missed call from Mr Parkes to her telephone number that day. It seems inconceivable that Ms Carroll would not have used her phone during this two to three day period if she had it with her. Although Witness K gave evidence of seeing her on a phone during that time, this is inconsistent with the phone records. Given that it was Mr Parkes who drove her there, I am satisfied that Mr Parkes must have taken it from her when he left.

Sunday 12 July 2020

1. The following morning, CCTV recorded Mr Sloan walking past Ms Carroll's room and noticing that the cleaners were outside her room. He looks concerned. He walks a few steps before stopping, turning around, and looking in the direction of the door to Ms Carroll's room. I accept that by that stage Mr Sloan knew that Ms Carroll had not returned to the hotel and that fact was to be concealed.
2. At about 12:20pm, Mr Sloan paid cash to renew the three rooms: for himself Ms Parkes and Ms Carroll. I am satisfied that he did this at the direction of Mr Parkes to obscure the fact that Ms Carroll had been removed from the hotel.
3. The CCTV footage depicted a great deal of people coming and going from Mr Parkes room that day. He had an escort friend of his, Parisah Khandchar, in his room that morning at which time his ex-wife paid a surprise visit with their three children. The CCTV depicts Ms Khandchar leaving and Mr Sloan to be assisting her to leave without Mr Parkes' family running into her. Mr Parkes' ex-wife then left the children with Mr Parkes. She later returns. She then leaves with one of the children and returns with take away food. At all times, Mr Sloan is close by and assisting Mr Parkes when required. At times during the course of this day, Mr Sloan is seen to do Mr Parkes' laundry, drive Ms Khandchar's car so as to disguise her presence at the hotel, assist Mr Parkes' ex-wife and son into the hallway with the food and to carry the son's bag. The CCTV footage shows that Mr Sloan was doing odd jobs for Mr Parkes throughout the day.
4. At 6:05pm, Mr Parkes is depicted escorting his ex-wife and three children from the premises down the corridor when he stops outside Ms Carroll's room. He then takes them in there for about 15 minutes until 6.20pm. When they leave, Mr Parkes' ex-wife is seen to be carrying a pink speaker or radio that clearly belonged to Ms Carroll.
5. At trial, Mr Parkes provided an elaborate explanation for the removal of Ms Carroll's speaker. He alleged that his daughter requested that item and so he asked another person to buy it for him for his daughter. He alleged that this person provided him with a bag with second-hand designer items, including the pink speaker, that Ms Carroll had seen the speaker in his room and borrowed it and that he was simply taking his property back. I reject that account.
6. I am satisfied that Mr Parkes' removal of Ms Carroll's pink speaker is further evidence that he knew she would never return to the hotel as he had already planned to kill her.
7. Whilst Mr Parkes was in the room with family, Mr Sloan entered briefly at 6.10pm and then returned after Mr Parkes' family had gone. The two men remained in Ms Carroll's room from 6:26pm until 6:50pm. At that time, Mr Sloan is seen to climb over her balcony and walk in the direction of Mr Parkes' room carrying a bag. He returns to her room 30 seconds later without the bag. This is further evidence of property being removed from the deceased's room.
8. The two men left the Hunts Hotel together at about 9:05pm and drove in Mr Parkes' HiLux to Witness H's residence. They arrived there at 10:56pm and remained there for under two hours before they returned to the Hunts Hotel together in the HiLux just after midnight.

Monday 13 July 2020

1. At about 1:30am, Mr Parkes returned to Witness H's residence in his HiLux. He remained there until about 8:15am in the morning.
2. At about 8:55am, Mr Sloan touched the "Do Not Disturb" sign on the door handle to Ms Carroll's room. At about 9:15am and 9:35am, he paid for his, Mr Parkes' and Mr Carroll's room for another night in cash.
3. Mr Parkes returned to the Hunts Hotel at 2:32pm that afternoon. At about 4:20pm, he left again. He arrived at Witness H's house at about 5:20pm.
4. Mr Sloan left the hotel in Ms Carroll's Mercedes at about 3:00pm. He returned at 8:04pm and reversed the Mercedes so that the boot was closest to Ms Carroll's balcony. He is later seen to enter Ms Carroll's hotel room via the balcony and remove all of her remaining possessions. He drove away in her vehicle at about 8:30pm. I am satisfied that he did so by arrangement with Mr Parkes as part of the joint criminal enterprise to kill Ms Carroll.
5. Shortly after 9:00pm, Mr Parkes and Witness H left Witness H's residence at Smithfield and travelled to Potts Point. They attended the Vegas Hotel. Witness H gave evidence that he was meeting someone to purchase a large quantity of drugs from him and he wanted Mr Parkes there for his protection. [10] Mr Parkes agreed that was why he was there. They arrived at the Vegas Hotel at 10:00pm. Prior to that, at 9:35pm, Mr Sloan telephoned Mr Parkes and they spoke for about 2 minutes and 38 seconds.
6. Meanwhile, at 10:56pm, Mr Sloan and a young male, Witness A, returned to the Hunts Hotel together in the Mercedes. They had just met. They left again at 11:27pm and returned at 12:30am.

Tuesday 14 July 2020

1. At 1:17am, Mr Parkes telephoned Mr Sloan who did not answer. The CCTV footage shows he was in Kings Cross with Witness H. He telephoned Mr Sloan again at 1:18am and twice at 1:33am. All calls were unanswered. Witness H gave evidence, and Mr Parkes agreed, that the person they were meeting to purchase drugs from was late.
2. At 1:42am, Mr Parkes telephoned Mr Sloan. The duration of this call was 2 minutes and 54 seconds. Mr Parkes' phone connected to a cell tower in Macleay Street, Kings Cross. Mr Parkes can be seen on CCTV walking out of the Vegas Hotel at Potts Point talking on his phone. Mr Sloan was in his room at the Hunts Hotel at the time. Witness A was also present. At the conclusion of the call from Mr Parkes, Mr Sloan told Witness A that he had to go. Witness A offered to accompany Mr Sloan. Mr Sloan declined the offer.
3. I am satisfied that this conversation concerned collecting Ms Carroll from the Witness H's garage and driving her to the bushland in Menai where they intended to kill her.
4. At 1:48am, Mr Parkes called Witness K (Witness H's flatmate). The duration of the call was 2 minutes and 45 seconds. Mr Parkes was still in Kings Cross. Witness K gave evidence that he received this call from Mr Parkes at "around 9 o'clock at night, just before midnight" but I accept that this is an error in memory and his evidence pertained to the 1:48am call. Witness K's evidence was that during this phone call Mr Parkes asked him "if the girl was still there", to "just make her stay at the house, don't let her leave", that "Pockets would be coming to pick up the girl" [11] and to move Mr Parkes' car from the driveway onto the street. [12] At about 1:55am, Witness K moved a car from the driveway so that Mr Sloan could reverse up the driveway and collect Ms Carroll.
5. I pause here to note that Witness K gave evidence that Ms Carroll stayed in the converted garage during her time at their home and that she took some heroin during her stay. On one occasion she ate a steak dinner with them. There is no suggestion that Witness K or Witness H forced her to remain there. Although the inference is that she stayed there because Mr Parkes told her to. There is no evidence of this.
6. At 2:00am, Mr Sloan left the Hunts Hotel driving Ms Carroll's Mercedes. He was alone. At 2:29am, he arrived at Witness H's residence. He reversed the vehicle into the driveway. Mr Sloan called Witness K and asked him to open the garage door. Witness K used the remote to open the garage door. Ms Carroll got into the car. Witness K gave evidence that Mr Sloan called him again and told him to close the garage door. Mr Sloan then drove Ms Carroll's car towards Sandy Point. I pause again to note that CCTV footage of Witness H's home depicted Mr Sloan collecting Ms Carroll. Although that footage was not available by the time of the trial, Witness H gave evidence of seeing this.
7. At 2:47am, the Mercedes was captured on the Memorial Avenue, Liverpool (at the intersection of Bathurst Street) heading in a generally easterly direction.
8. At about 2:59am, Mr Sloan and Ms Carroll arrived at the entrance to secluded bushland which could be accessed from Heathcote Road, Sandy Point. It was an area well-known to Mr Parkes. A number of Fairfield City Council garbage trucks travelled down that road. They all had CCTV cameras on their vehicles. Ms Carroll's Mercedes was captured in that parked position between 3:11am and 3:36am.
9. Mr Sloan made a number of telephone calls during that time. I am satisfied that he was waiting for Mr Parkes. At 2:59am, Mr Sloan called Mr Parkes twice. Both calls were not answered. There is no evidence as to what Ms Carroll was doing during this time, what she must have been thinking or whether she felt free to go.
10. At 3:10am, Mr Parkes left Potts Point driving his HiLux. Witness H gave evidence that Mr Parkes left before the transaction was finished which meant that Witness H had to find his own way home. He was annoyed by this.
11. At 3:16am, Mr Sloan called Mr Parkes. The duration of the call was 43 seconds.
12. At about 3.32am, CCTV footage captured Mr Parkes stopping at a service station at Moorebank to purchase 12 litres of high-octane 98 petrol. The HiLux he was driving was diesel-powered. He used the same yellow jerry can he had with him when he went to South Australia. I am satisfied that he purchased this petrol to burn Ms Carroll's Mercedes and possibly her body as well. Mr Parkes then exited the service station onto Heathcote Road and drove across the M5 overpass in the direction of Sandy Point.
13. Mr Parkes arrived at Sandy Point and met up with Mr Sloan who had been waiting for him with Ms Carroll in her Mercedes for about half an hour.
14. After Mr Parkes arrived at about 3:40am, both cars drove into the bushland which was accessed via a track from Heathcote Road. This is established from the CCTV footage which shows that the vehicles were no longer seen in that position after that time.
15. There will always remain uncertainty as to precisely what happened next. It is clear that Ms Carroll was killed shortly thereafter and that the only other people present at the time were Mr Parkes and Mr Sloan, but neither Mr Sloan nor Mr Parkes admit that they did the physical acts which caused her death.
16. Mr Parkes' evidence at trial was largely consistent with what he said in his ERISP. [13] He had made arrangements with Mr Sloan to burn the Mercedes in the White Rock area and he purchased the petrol in order to do that. His evidence was that when he drove up Heathcote Road, he saw Mr Sloan on the other side of the mound that runs along the road. He drove straight over the top of the mound in his HiLux and flashed his high beams to let Mr Sloan that it was him. They drove through the bush with him keeping a gap of about 25 metres. When Mr Sloan stopped the car at the end of the clearway, he stopped 20 to 25 metres behind him. He did not want to park too close because he knew they would be burning the car.
17. Mr Parkes' evidence was that he had no idea Ms Carroll would be with Mr Sloan.
18. Despite the fact that it was pitch black Mr Parkes' version was that he could tell that something "erratic" was happening in the car. The first time he realised there was someone with Mr Sloan was when Mr Sloan opened the door on his side, and he could see that somebody was in the passenger seat. He described how Mr Sloan got out of the car with a metal baseball bat in his hand and ran towards the back of the car while Ms Carroll did the same on the passenger side. Mr Parkes had by then turned on his high beams and could see them. He described that when Ms Carroll got around the back she appeared "almost like a dear in headlights…like stunned", that she put her both hands up in the air, and that Mr Sloan then hit her in the head three times in quick succession. He described how Ms Carroll collapsed and fell backwards at which time Mr Sloan hit her "erratically" for a further 10 to 15 times in the head whilst standing "directly over the top of her" and "screaming obscenities, calling her a dog".
19. Mr Parkes's version continued that Mr Sloan then threw the baseball bat towards the driver's side, grabbed Ms Carroll by both wrists and dragged her behind the Mercedes out of his direct sight. As Mr Sloan was dragging Ms Carroll around, Mr Parkes opened his driver's side door and stood on the side step looking over his roof top. Mr Parkes' evidence was that Mr Sloan then went to the rear of Mr Parkes' car to get the jerry can with petrol which he then poured on Ms Carroll's body and started the fire. His evidence was that he knew what Mr Sloan was doing, without being able to see it.
20. Mr Parkes' version was that Mr Sloan then put the jerry can in the Mercedes, picked up the bat and started to drive away from the body. He followed him down the track into the bush for another 500 metres when Mr Sloan stopped the car and poured petrol over it with Mr Parkes staying back 20 to 25 metres. When Mr Sloan could not find a lighter Mr Parkes "jumped out" of his car and lit the Mercedes with his cigarette lighter. They then left in Mr Parkes' car.
21. The jury verdict shows that this account was clearly rejected. It is not difficult to see why. There were a number of problems with it.
22. First, on Mr Parkes' version he did not get out of his car prior to Ms Carroll's death, and she was assaulted in the Mercedes as soon as both cars stopped. Three smoked cigarette butts were later found in the bushland only metres from where Ms Carroll's body was found. All three butts were on the ground next to each other. Ms Carroll's DNA was linked to one of those cigarette butts. This evidence establishes that she must have got out of the car at some time before her death and either smoked three cigarettes herself or smoked one or more with Mr Sloan and/or Mr Parkes.
23. Secondly, there is an inherent implausibility in Mr Parkes' account that he was able to see the events he described take place in the middle of the night while remaining in his own vehicle.
24. Thirdly, Mr Parkes gave some answers in cross-examination at trial for the first time that were clearly recent inventions. He gave other answers inconsistent with his ERISP. These matters impacted on his credibility.
25. Fourthly, Mr Parkes told a number of lies to police. In his evidence in court, he admitted to doing so. Some of the lies were relied upon by the Crown at trial as consciousness of guilt. This also impacted on his credibility.
26. Fifthly, it beggars belief that Mr Parkes would abandon Witness H in the middle of a high level drug deal and help Mr Sloan burn a car. The burning of a car could wait but the murder could not, given that the intended victim had already been lured to the scene.
27. Sixthly, I am satisfied that the motive for Ms Carroll's death can be attributed to Mr Parkes and that he was senior to Mr Sloan in the drug business. These are further factors casting doubt on Mr Parkes' account.
28. Finally, as I will explain shortly, Mr Parkes was recorded concocting what he would say to police when interviewed by them.
29. I completely reject Mr Parkes' version of events. I am unable to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt who out of Mr Sloan or Mr Parkes physically killed Ms Carroll. Nor am I able to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Sloan physically killed Ms Carroll. That is because the only evidence to establish this comes from Mr Parkes and I do not consider him to be a witness of truth. What is clear is that Ms Carroll was beaten to death. Her body was set alight in a crevice behind a large rock. Testing of the soil where her body was found revealed that there was petrol in the soil. Her Mercedes was driven a distance away and burned out as well. Although she was probably killed with the baseball bat, there was no direct evidence of that beside Mr Parkes' account.

Events after the murder

1. After killing Ms Carroll, both men travelled back to the Hunts Hotel in Mr Parkes' HiLux. They arrived back at 4:59am.
2. As soon as he arrived at the Hunts Hotel, Mr Parkes contacted an escort/girlfriend, Witness D, and arranged for her to attend the Hunts Hotel. When she arrived at the hotel Mr Parkes arranged for her to assist him by cleaning the clothes and shoes they were wearing at the time of the murder.
3. Witness A had remained in Mr Sloan's room that night. He gave evidence that Mr Parkes entered Mr Sloan's room and gave directions as to the disposal of evidence. At some stage, Mr Parkes told Witness A that he was the "boss of Pockets". [14] He picked up the clothes and shoes from the floor in Mr Sloan's room and placed them in the bag. He went with Mr Parkes to wash his car which was covered in mud at a nearby service station that day.
4. Later in the day on 14 July 2020, Mr Parkes, Mr Sloan and Witness A attended Witness H's home. Witness A stayed in the car. Witness H gave evidence that during this interaction, and after Mr Sloan had left, Mr Parkes told him that Mr Sloan had killed Ms Carroll with a baseball bat. [15] Witness H gave evidence that the following exchange took place: "Parkes said 'He was shaking and he is a wuss.' I said, 'Do you mean you guys killed her?' Parkes said, 'Yeah.' When he said this he smiled.'"
5. Witness H gave evidence that Mr Parkes told him that Ms Carroll "knew too much" about his drug supply business. Witness H gave evidence that Mr Parkes said that the murder was to protect Witness H. I accept this evidence.
6. Later, on 15 July 2020, Mr Parkes and Witness A met three men from Wollongong who had travelled up to purchase drugs at a service station. At one point on their way to the Hunts Hotel, Mr Parkes stopped near a charity clothing bin and took the bag containing the clothing removed by Witness A from Mr Sloan's room and placed it in the charity bin. Witness A gave evidence that as they were turning out of the service station Mr Parkes grabbed "a pencil case or a make-up case and launched it out the window" saying to Witness A, "That's how you get shit done". [16] One of the men from Wollongong, Mr McLaughlin, also gave evidence that as they followed Mr Parkes' vehicle, he saw Mr Parkes chuck something out the window.
7. On 18 July 2020, Mr Sloan checked out of the Hunts Hotel. On 20 July 2020, Mr Parkes checked out of the Hunts Hotel.
8. After the murder, both men continued to supply prohibited drugs together, but their relationship started to break down. Mr Parkes stayed with Witness H for some time and then at his ex-partner's property at Rossmore.
9. Ms Carroll's body was found by a bushwalker on 29 July 2020. Her burned out Mercedes was located nearby. Her head, jaw bone and first cervical vertebrae were found skeletonised in 62 fragments. Her injuries were consistent with blunt force trauma. There were three possible impact sites identified at the left side of the frontal bone, the right temporal bone and the left parietal bone. The lack of soot deposition in the airways and a lack of elevated carbon monoxide levels indicated that she was already deceased when her body was burnt by fire. A tattoo on her back had been cut off from her skin.
10. On 3 August 2020, police organised an "emu line" to search the area where Ms Carroll's body was found for further evidence. This was a very large and visible operation. On that day, Mr Parkes drove to the general area of the crime scene with a girlfriend and took a "selfie" in his Toyota HiLux driving on dirt tracks in the area. This photo was later found time stamped on his phone. Although, Mr Parkes gave evidence at his trial that his presence in the area was a coincidence, I do not accept that to be the case.
11. In early August 2020, police obtained telecommunications intercept warrants to monitor the communication of Mr Parkes and Mr Sloan.
12. Around 7 August 2020, the relationship between Mr Parkes and Mr Sloan deteriorated further. A number of text messages and intercepts were tendered and played at the trial. Mr Parkes contended that the relationship broke down because Mr Sloan knew that Mr Parkes was a witness to the murder he committed. Having listened to the relevant recordings, I am satisfied that the relationship broke down over the drug supply business and Mr Parkes believing that Mr Sloan was disrespecting him.
13. A number of intercepted calls were also played at trial between Mr Parkes and other purchasers or runners of his. For example, on 14 August 2020 Mr Parkes described himself as "a witness" to Witness J and told him that Mr Sloan was "a fuckin' loose cannon" and "a psychopath" and that he watched him "kill a twenty-something year old girl…with a baseball bat." Similarly, he told Adam Hellman that Mr Sloan was "a dead set paranoid cunt …almost a schizo" and that he had "seen [Mr Sloan] do something that could put … him away for twenty years. I watched him do it, bro. I'm the only witness to it."
14. These recordings were relied upon by Mr Parkes to support the finding that Mr Sloan was the person who physically killed Ms Carroll. As I have already explained, I am ultimately unable to accept anything Mr Parkes said unless it was supported by other evidence.
15. Mr Parkes spoke about the murder to a number of people during this time. Mr McLaughlin gave evidence that sometime in August he attended Mr Parkes' Rossmore property and that Mr Parkes told him that a girl had "fucked up" and that Mr Parkes and Mr Sloan had to "get rid of her." Mr Parkes told Mr McLaughlin that the girl had been "hit in the back of the head with a baseball bat" by Mr Sloan. [17]
16. On 14 August 2020, Mr Parkes was arrested in relation to an unrelated matter. He was refused bail and has remained in custody since that time.

Admissions by Mr Parkes in custody

1. Sometime after entering custody Mr Parkes arranged for a person he had met, Witness I, with whom he had mutual friends, to share a cell with him. Unfortunately for Mr Parkes, Witness I contacted police offering to assist them in relation to any admissions made by Mr Parkes about the murder. Police spoke to Witness I on 29 September 2020 but they did not take him up on his offer because they did not consider him to be a reliable witness. Despite this, police obtained a surveillance device warrant which was placed in the cell. Unbeknown to both men, their conversations from 1 October 2020 to 10 December 2020 were recorded.
2. The recorded conversations reveal that the two men decided to concoct a false story for police, namely that they had known each other for a while and that Witness I was staying at the Hunts Hotel at the time of the murder. [18] They concocted a false story for Mr Parkes to tell police that after he and Mr Sloan returned to the Hunts Hotel on the morning of 4 July 2020, Witness I heard Mr Sloan threaten Mr Parkes in relation to him being a witness to the murder committed solely by Mr Sloan. This false account could be easily disproved by the CCTV footage and hotel records.
3. During this time, Mr Parkes spoke with his mother by telephone. As with all gaol calls, it was recorded. His mother (who was the registered owner of the HiLux Mr Parkes was driving on the night of the murder) told Mr Parkes that police had CCTV footage of him purchasing petrol in the early hours of 14 July. After that, Mr Parkes and Witness I are heard discussing what to say to police about that. Shortly after that, Mr Parkes came up with the story that he only went there to burn the car. He also came up with the explanation that it was connected with the stop at the South Australian border. That conversation went like this: "BP: … So, I have to somehow explain to them, yeah, why I knew to get from Kings Cross to Heathcote. So I been racking my brain, thinking what do I explain to them. The best I can come up with is; I was stopped in her car on the border, where they searched it."
4. There were numerous other such conversations including one in which Mr Parkes poses the question to Witness I: "Yeah, how did I know she was going to be there?"

Mr Parkes' ERISP

1. Mr Parkes was interviewed by police on 7 December 2020. He told police that he was an eyewitness to the murder of Ms Carroll, and that he had been wanting to talk to police for a while to share the information that he had. He told police that he witnessed the murder through the windscreen of his blue HiLux, with his high beams on. He gave an account similar to the one he gave at trial. He gave it in considerable detail. He also provided the false account about Witness I.
2. Mr Parkes told police that Mr Sloan was a business associate, and that Ms Carroll was a friend, or an associate. He told them that Ms Carroll was "technically" the driver for Mr Sloan. He also told police that Mr Sloan was aware that Ms Carroll made a statement to police about a car she had rented that had been stolen. He said that following this report Mr Sloan was "not a fan of hers anymore" and "used to call her all sorts of names" including "dog". Notwithstanding that change in attitude, Mr Parkes told police that Mr Sloan still required Ms Carroll to drive him around and complete errands.
3. Mr Parkes had told police that he was worried about the details of Ms Carroll's Mercedes being put into the computer and concluded that the car needed to be disposed of with some urgency. He told police that the disposal of the car was Witness H's idea. Mr Parkes said that sometime in between him getting back from South Australia and at the time of the murder, Mr Parkes and Mr Sloan had agreed to burn the car at White Rock, because it was a place that they both knew.
4. Police were not able to complete this interview with Mr Parkes as he discontinued it. He subsequently declined to take part in a second ERISP on 10 December 2020. He was charged with the murder on 10 April 2021.

Motive

1. Two motives for the murder were identified by the Crown.
2. The first motive relied upon the evidence of Witness H that Mr Parkes told him that Ms Carroll was killed because she knew too much about Witness H's drug business. Tied in with this motive was a concern that if she had already reported the theft of her hire car to police, she would have no compunction in reporting their drug dealing to police.
3. The second motive turns on who Ms Carroll gave the $8,500 she withdrew from her super account to. The Crown case was that Ms Carroll gave that money to Mr Parkes and he did not want to give it back, especially after losing over $17,000 at the South Australian border. As I have already noted, Mr Parkes accepted that the money was used to buy drugs from Witness H but stated that that was an arrangement between Mr Sloan and Ms Carroll and had nothing to do with him.
4. I am satisfied that Ms Carroll agreed to invest in Mr Parkes' drug business to make some money. Witness H gave evidence that Mr Parkes complained to him that Ms Carroll wanted her money back, knew too much about the drug dealing and had gone to the police about a stolen car. His evidence was that Mr Parkes wanted to keep the money, especially after losing money at the border.
5. Motive is not an element of the offence of murder. There was no requirement for the Crown to establish one. Despite this, I am satisfied that the motive would appear to be a combination of the two motives identified by the Crown. I am also satisfied that at the time of the murder, Mr Sloan worked for Mr Parkes and looked up to him and that both men were users of high amounts of ice. The CCTV footage shows that both of them rarely slept during this time. In that criminal milieu, Mr Parkes decided that Ms Carroll had to be killed and recruited Mr Sloan to assist him.

Proceedings on sentence

1. At the proceedings on sentence on 16 July 2024, the Crown tendered the Crown bundle which included Mr Parkes' criminal history and his custodial record, and a victim impact statement from Ms Carroll's mother, Anne Carroll.
2. Mr Parkes relied on the report of Alison Cullen, psychologist, dated 12 July 2024, the affidavit of his sister, Amber Louise Hunter affirmed on 12 July 2024, and the affidavit of Alen Sahinovic, the offender's solicitor, annexing a copy of the offender's Corrective Services New South Wales file.
3. The offender did not give evidence on sentence nor call any witnesses.
4. Both counsel for the Crown and Mr Parkes provided helpful written submissions on sentence which were supplemented orally in court on 16 July 2024.

Finding of objective seriousness

1. The Crown submitted that the offending falls well above the middle of the range of objective seriousness but that it does not fall within the terms of s 61(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ("Sentencing Act") that mandates imposition of a life sentence. In particular, the Crown relied upon the following factors: that the intention was to kill Ms Carroll, that there was a degree of planning, the motive, and the circumstances of Ms Carroll's death. There is some evidence that a baseball bat was used, given that there was a baseball bat in the car.
2. Although Mr Parkes conceded that the offending falls in the middle of the range of objective seriousness, he disputed that it could be assessed as being more serious than that. It was submitted that the factors usually associated with such a finding were not present. Those factors included "gratuitous cruelty, contract killings, causing death in a way likely to cause excruciating pain or agony or particularly doing so in order that the process of dying occurs over an extended period or where the victim might have had undue time to contemplate the terror of what was coming." [19]
3. Although it is not mandatory to position the objective seriousness relevance of an offence along any notional range, it seems to me that there is benefit in doing so in murder cases given the maximum penalty of life, the SNPP of 20 years, and the lengthy sentence to be imposed.
4. I would assess this murder as being above the mid-range of objective seriousness but not substantially so. The murder was planned, occurred in company as part of a joint criminal enterprise and in the context of criminal activity, namely drug dealing. It also included a financial motive. I am satisfied that Mr Parkes agreed to isolate the deceased for days before her death. She was then taken to remote bushland where she had no chance of escape and bashed to death. It is not known which of the two offenders removed her identifying tattoo with a knife. I have not found that to be an aggravating factor. Rather, it shows the steps taken to cover the murder.
5. The fact that I am to sentence Mr Parkes on the basis of being part of a joint criminal enterprise to murder Ms Carroll, rather than as a principal offender, does not reduce its seriousness. I am satisfied that on the facts in this case the murder is not less serious because I cannot be satisfied who physically killed Ms Carroll. Even had I been satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Sloan had killed her, that does not reduce Mr Parkes' criminality given that I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was Mr Parkes' idea to kill Ms Carroll in the first place for the reasons I have already stated.

Victim impact statement

1. The Crown tendered a victim impact statement from Ms Carroll's mother, Anne Carroll, which she read to the court. Section 30E(1) of the Sentencing Act provides that when a victim impact statement is tendered in relation to an offence, the court must consider this statement and may make any comment on the statement that the court considers appropriate. The Crown did not rely on s 30E(3) of the Sentencing Act.
2. Ms Carroll's mother described her shock at first hearing of her daughter's tragic death. Her life has changed dramatically since the day police contacted her to inform her that the badly burned body of a young woman found in remote bushland was her daughter.
3. Ms Carroll's mother described how unimaginable and difficult it was for her burying her daughter and how this abnormal and unforeseen event has turned her life "upside down" and it would never again "right itself". She told the court how the "horrific murder of a son or daughter is not something that one 'gets over' but that "one gradually learns to integrate the emotional pain into one's much-changed life and cope as best one can." She described how since her daughter's death she is no longer able to work and support herself independently and is in receipt of a disability support pension. She suffers from complex grief disorder the symptoms of which include sleep and appetite disturbances, nightmares, difficulty with concentration, fatigue, forgetfulness, and anxiety.
4. Ms Carroll's mother described how since her daughter's murder she lives a life of solitude and prefers to stay at home as she is constantly on guard and fearful of sudden movements of people, loud noises, or erratic behaviour around her.
5. She described how her daughter was a high achiever until the grip of drug addiction and how her daughter's attempts to overcome that addiction resulted in periods where she was able to have a steady employment and "enjoy [a] loving relationship", but her addiction made her vulnerable and she placed her trust in the wrong men.
6. As is often observed in sentencing matters involving the death of a person, no sentence that I might impose could adequately reflect the loss of a dear family member. Nor can any sentence possibly assuage the grief of those who were close to the deceased. On behalf of the Court, I extend my sincere condolences to the family and friends of Najma Carroll.

Mr Parkes' subjective case

1. Mr Parkes' subjective case was largely put before the court through Ms Cullen's report. Mr Parkes provided her with a detailed account of his childhood and private life up until his arrest in 2020.
2. Mr Parkes was born in 1978 and is currently 46 years old. He is one of two children. His sister Amber Hunter provided an affidavit in support of her brother. Although he had a bad relationship with her as a child and teenager, they have reconciled as adults. His parents separated when he was 11 years old. He described his father as "absent" and "a pretty heavy alcoholic".
3. After his parents separated, Mr Parkes lived with his mother and his sister lived with his father. He told Ms Cullen that he witnessed verbal domestic violence between his parents and between his father and stepmother. Both of his parents re-partnered. He argued with his mother's new partner, who moved in when he turned 14 and during his HSC year he had to live with his father.
4. Many years later, Mr Parkes' father moved in with him so that Mr Parkes could care for him, and he died soon after in August 2015 from "cardiac issues and emphysema" at the age of 62 or 63. They had reconciled by the time of his death.
5. Mr Parkes completed the HSC and worked in a variety of jobs including as an apprentice mechanic and auto electrician, in roadworks and traffic control, and factory work. He then transitioned into the trucking industry. He described being terminated or quitting jobs "more than 10 times". He described having personality clashes with co-workers. He has relied on Centrelink on occasions. He did not return to the workforce after he was released from custody in 2018. Rather, he took drugs and lived a transient lifestyle.
6. Mr Parkes has five children. His oldest child is a son from his first significant relationship when he was 22 years old. Mr Parkes cared for him until the child turned 13 and chose to live with his mother. When he was 27 years old, Mr Parkes met his wife and they had three children together who are now aged 15, 13 and 11 years old.
7. Shortly after the birth of his first daughter Mr Parkes joined the Rebels OMCG Bringelly chapter. He and his "best mate" opened a chapter in Ingleburn. He was "right hand" to the president. He claims to have only been a member for four years. His father had hung out with a different OMCG but never joined and Mr Parkes stated he joined the Rebels to "stick it up my dad". He explained that he also joined because of his discontent with his wife and the dysfunction of his marriage.
8. Mr Parkes' relationship with his wife ended in 2015 because she wanted him to change and "be someone he wasn't". He described it as becoming "very toxic". They separated after his father died.
9. Shortly before his arrest in 2020, Mr Parkes was in a brief relationship with a woman who had a child to him in January 2021. Mr Parkes did not discover he was the father until 18 months later. He has not had contact with the child for the past 12 months and intends to cease contact with her as he believes that would be less detrimental to her.
10. Mr Parkes has not had any contact with any of his five children since being incarcerated in 2020. He stated it is too painful to have his children in his mind, so he does not have photos of them in his cell.

Drug and alcohol history

1. Mr Parkes does not drink and reported a strong aversion to alcohol intoxication because of his parents. He commenced smoking cannabis at age 16 and continued until he was 32 years old. He built a tolerance where he would not get "stoned" from his $100 a day habit. He used cocaine daily when he was a member of the Rebels OMCG. When he ceased work, he moved to "ice" as it was cheaper.
2. Following his father's death in 2015, Mr Parkes' ice use escalated. From then on, he used 3.5g a day. He described that when he uses ice, "I could do anything. I didn't feel like a different person, I was more sharp and to the point." He maintained he was able to eat and sleep whilst using methylamphetamine but recognised he could drop 25kg (in weight) a month.

Criminal history

1. The applicant's criminal offending commenced in 2012 with offences of driving and not giving particulars in relation to property damage. He was fined. In 2014, he was fined for speeding, not producing his licence and resisting or hindering police. In 2016, he received a s 9 bond in relation to stalking/intimidation and contravening an apprehended violence order ("AVO"). This was in relation to his ex-wife. He was placed under supervision for a period of two years.
2. In 2017, Mr Parkes received his first term of imprisonment of 14 months with a non-parole period of 4 months in relation to a further contravention of his AVO against his ex-wife and using a carriage service to threaten serious harm. In relation to the later offences, he was released on a recognisance [20] for a period of 10 months. He was also called up in relation to the s 9 bond he received in 2016 and placed on a further s 9 bond with a further period of supervision of 15 months.
3. In 2018, he was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of imprisonment for 2 years commencing on 1 June 2018 and concluding on 31 May 2020 with a non-parole period of 12 months concluding on 31 May 2019 in relation to threatening a person with intent to influence a witness, and stalk or intimidate with intent to cause fear or physical harm. These offences pertained to a neighbour. He was also called up in relation to the breaches of his earlier s 9 bonds and sentenced to a current custodial term in relation to them.
4. In 2020, Mr Parkes was fined in relation to being in custody of a knife in a public place and traffic offences. He was also disqualified from driving.
5. Relevantly to the commencement date of the sentence I am required to impose, in 2021, whilst on remand for the murder charge, Mr Parkes was sentenced in relation to a robbery in company to imprisonment of 3 years and 6 months commencing on 14 August 2020 and concluding on 13 February 2024 with a non-parole period of 2 years and 4 months concluding on 13 December 2022. In 2022, he was sentenced in relation to supply prohibited drug charges. He received a fixed term of 5 months imprisonment to commence on 14 August 2020 and expire on 13 January 2021. He was sentenced for other less serious charges at that time for which he received a community correction order.
6. The Crown submitted that his record shows he has a history of violence towards women. I do not propose to aggravate the sentence on that account, but it was common ground that his record means that he is disentitled to any leniency.

Mental health

1. Mr Parkes was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) as a child for which he was medicated. He ceased medication when he was 18 as the understanding at that time was that it was a childhood disorder. He has not been medicated or otherwise treated for it since then. Ms Cullen performed tests on Mr Parkes and confirmed that he meets the diagnostic criteria for a combined presentation of ADHD (both inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity), a persistent depressive disorder and a severe amphetamine type stimulant use disorder. She also noted that his criminal history suggests an antisocial personality disorder.
2. Ms Cullen further noted that Mr Parkes experienced a chronology of accumulative losses from 2014. While she found that none of these traumas would satisfy the criteria for Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, she indicated that the accumulation of these stressors qualified him for "Other Specified Trauma-and-Stressor Disorder".
3. Ms Cullen observed that, notwithstanding that Mr Parkes maintains that he is not responsible for the murder, his co-morbid underlying mental health issues undoubtedly influenced his decision making with respect to his plan to burn the victim's car. The difficulty with this finding by Ms Cullen is that the jury rejected Mr Parkes version that he only ever intended to burn Ms Carroll's car.
4. It was not contended on Mr Parkes' behalf that there is any causal connection between any disorders suffered by Mr Parkes and his offending behaviour. [21] It was, however, submitted that, based on Ms Cullen's report, I would find that Mr Parkes will have significant hardships in the custodial setting due to his conditions. I accept that submission.
5. As for his physical health, Mr Parkes acknowledges being overweight and that there is a history of cardiac issues in his family. Despite this, he told Ms Cullen that he is "healthier in gaol".

Hardships in custody

1. In addition to Mr Parkes suffering more onerous conditions in custody due to his ADHD and the other matters identified by Ms Cullen, there are two further bases upon which I find that his sentence should be ameliorated due to additional hardships in custody.
2. First, Mr Parkes has been threatened and assaulted in custody due to his former membership of the Rebels OMCG. Material tendered on his behalf shows that he has been moved around and threatened everywhere he has been placed. The Governor has stated that he is "out of placement options". Documents produced by Corrective Services NSW confirm that he is a very high risk of threat and that he will be assaulted if put in the main prison.
3. Secondly, he was arrested on 14 August 2020 and remained in custody throughout most of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is well known that inmates suffered more onerous conditions of custody than usual during that period, and this is a further basis upon which to ameliorate his sentence.

Moral culpability

1. Although the detailed report of Ms Cullen identified certain aspects of Mr Parkes childhood as being unhappy, it was understandably not suggested that the Bugmy [22] principles apply. Similarly, as stated above, it was not suggested that his moral culpability should be reduced for any of the matters stated by Ms Cullen in her report nor was it suggested that Mr Parkes' moral culpability should be reduced for any other reason.
2. It seems to me that one of the main explanations for Mr Parkes' conduct was the very high amounts of ice he was using at the time of the offence in the context of serious drug dealing in which anti-social behaviour appears to have been normalised. It is well-established that drug addiction is not a mitigating factor [23] capable of reducing an offender's moral culpability.

Remorse

1. The Crown submitted that no finding of remorse could be made given Mr Parkes' sustained denial of guilt and absence of any evidence of the acceptance of responsibility. It was further submitted that his expression of remorse to the psychologist is based on a "false premise" that he played no role in Ms Carroll's murder and was only an accessory after the fact to the murder.
2. I am willing to accept that Mr Parkes feels sorry for Ms Carroll's family, as most people unconnected with her death would, but I am not satisfied that he is remorseful for his conduct because he continues to deny any involvement in the killing beyond being an accessory after the fact.

Prospects for rehabilitation/Risk of re-offending

1. The Crown submitted that no positive finding could be made about Mr Parkes' prospects of rehabilitation given his denial of guilt. Although as a matter of general principle an offender with no contrition often lacks insufficient insight to achieve positive rehabilitation, other factors must also be considered in assessing this factor.
2. Ms Cullen performed the LSI-R actuarial assessment tool and Mr Parkes was placed just within the "Low-Moderate Risk" needs with approximately 31% chance of recidivism. His score was heavily loaded on past static factors.
3. Mr Parkes is now 48 years old. He will be receiving a lengthy prison sentence and will be significantly older by the time he is released. That is a matter that will reduce his prospect of reoffending. Further, Ms Cullen described him as having insight into his criminogenic needs. She opined that should his ADHD and co-morbid trauma and depression be treated there are no identifiable factors that would otherwise destabilise his prospects for rehabilitation.
4. Although any prediction as to Mr Parkes' prospects of rehabilitation must be guarded, it seems to me that, considering his age upon release, if he was able to remain drug-free, he does have reasonable prospects of rehabilitation.
5. I note that Ms Cullen observed that "weight can confidently be given to his self-disclosures, as he does not typically manage his impression to others". I had the opportunity to observe Mr Parkes give evidence. I also observed him in his ERISP and listened to numerous recordings of him speaking with others. Whether or not Mr Parkes typically manages his impression to others, he certainly did not give a good impression as a witness. Overall, I am prepared to accept his account he gave to Ms Cullen and the Crown does not contend otherwise.

Totality

1. Mr Parkes has been in custody since 14 August 2020 (3 years 11 months and 12 days), on remand for murder since 7 April 2021 (3 years, 3 months and 19 days), and in custody solely in relation to this offence since 13 February 2024 (5 months and 13 days).
2. As I have already indicated, he served other sentences from 14 August 2020 until 12 February 2024. Although these offences were all unrelated, they were all committed at around the same time when Mr Parkes was residing at the Hunt's Hotel and consuming large quantities of ice.
3. It was submitted on his behalf that given that the robbery in company offence occurred within a month of the offence of murder, the murder sentence should be backdated so that it is partially concurrent with the sentence for the robbery in circumstances where police could have arrested him earlier given that he was a prime suspect.
4. The Crown did not submit other than that the proper application of the totality principle requires me to commence Mr Parkes' sentence on a date after 7 April 2021 and before 13 December 2022. I propose to adopt that course.

Discount for assistance/offer to plead to less serious offence

1. It was submitted on behalf of Mr Parkes that there should be some reduction in sentence pursuant to s 22A of the Sentencing Act. That section provides that a court may impose a lesser penalty having regard to the degree to which the administration of justice has been facilitated by the manner in which the trial was conducted. Section 22A is a discretionary provision.
2. The jury trial commenced on 19 February 2024 and proceeded until 3 April 2024. It is to be accepted that the trial was run efficiently. Objections were taken to various parts of the evidence, and I had to rule accordingly. Some witnesses had to be recalled for further questions to be put to them which caused further delay. The difficulty for Mr Parkes was that the evidence that he and Mr Sloan were the only two people at the murder scene was overwhelming. His only defence was to seek to raise a reasonable doubt as to why he was present at the scene of the murder with Mr Sloan.
3. Given what Mr Parkes told police in his ERISP, it was not open to him to challenge matters to which he had already admitted. It seems to me that the fact that his defence was somewhat confined flowed from the overwhelming objective evidence as to Mr Parkes' movements provided by the CCTV footage, telephone records and other objective evidence and his own admissions to police that he was present; albeit made in an attempt to portray himself as a witness rather than as a perpetrator.
4. Overall, I am not satisfied that the administration of justice was facilitated by Mr Parkes approach to this trial such as to warrant any amelioration in this matter on that basis.
5. Similarly, I am not satisfied that the sentence should be ameliorated on account of Mr Parkes' offer to plead guilty to the less serious charge of an extended joint criminal enterprise to murder to intimidate Ms Carroll in which he contemplated damage to her motor vehicle by fire, and which he also foresaw that Mr Sloan might intentionally cause really serious bodily injury to Ms Carroll. He was found guilty of more serious criminality.

Special circumstances

1. It was submitted on behalf of Mr Parkes that the court should find special circumstances [24] and vary the statutory ratio in order to ameliorate the additional hardship the offender may face when serving his sentence in custody in future. That submission was made on the basis that much of his sentence may be served in protection making it more onerous for him.
2. It is important to note that a finding of special circumstances need not be based exclusively, or primarily, on the fact that it is desirable for an offender to be subjected to an extended period of supervision on parole. The scope of the considerations relevant to the determination of "special circumstances" must encompass the full range of issues which are relevant to the determination of the minimum period of actual incarceration without hope of release on parole. [25]
3. I have already found that there are three bases upon which Mr Parkes has and/or will suffer harsher custodial conditions than the average inmate. I propose to reduce the non-parole period relative to the head sentence on that basis such that the ratio of the sentence I will impose for the murder is 69% (rather than 75%) and the effect of ratio, having regard to his time in custody since 14 August 2020 is about 70%.

Conclusion

1. Finally, I have considered the objective seriousness of the offence, Mr Parkes' subjective case generally and the other findings I have already referred to, to arrive at what I consider to be an appropriate sentence for this serious offence.

Orders

1. For the offence of murder, Benjamin Parkes, I convict you and sentence you as follows: 1. Imprisonment for a term of 31 years to commence on 14 February 2022 and expire on 13 February 2053. 2. The non-parole period is 21 years and 6 months to commence on 14 February 2022 and expire on 13 August 2043. The offender will be eligible for parole on 13 August 2043. 3. I note that the effective total head sentence (having regard to the sentence already served) from 14 August 2020 is 32 years and 6 months and the effective non-parole period is 23 years. 4. Pursuant to s 25C of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), the offender is advised of the existence of that Act and of its application to the offence of which he has been convicted. His legal representatives are requested to advise him of the implications of that Act to him.

Endnotes

1. R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374 at 377-378.
2. The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54 at [27] (per Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Hayne and Callinan JJ).
3. Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47; [2015] HCA 29 at [64] (per French CJ, Bell, Keane and Nettle JJ).
4. Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25 at [51] per McHugh J; confirmed by the Court in Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39 at [26].
5. Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 18(1)(a).
6. Table behind s 54B Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).
7. NSW registration CV98SR.
8. A number of witnesses at the trial were given pseudonyms. Although they were referred to by their names before the jury, non-publication orders prevent publication of their names.
9. Tcpt, 13 March 2024, p 678(13).
10. Tcpt, 27 February 2024, p 348(34-39).
11. Tcpt, 27 February 2024, pp 375-377.
12. Tcpt 27 February 2024, p 380(26-27).
13. Electronically Recorded Interview with a Suspected Person, on 7 December 2020.
14. Tcpt, 27 February 2024, pp 396(33), 398(4).
15. Tcpt, 26 February 2024, p 306.
16. Tcpt, 27 February 2024, p 401(43).
17. Tcpt, 28 February 2024, p 423(44-49).
18. By sheer coincidence Witness I did in fact stay at the Hunts Hotel a few days prior to the murder.
19. Park v R [2019] NSWCCA 105 at [36] per Harrison J (as his Honour then was).
20. Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 20(1)(b).
21. Tcpt, 16 July 2024, p 26(34).
22. Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37.
23. R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; [1999] NSWCCA 111 at [273] (Wood CJ at CL).
24. Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 44(2).
25. R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704; [2001] NSWCCA 534 at [57]. 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. Decision last updated: 30 July 2024