Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
Catherine Hunter
File Number(s): 2015/167544
[2]
Judgment
HIS HONOUR: Ms Stephanie Clare Scott was murdered by Vincent Stanford at Leeton on 5 April 2015. His identical twin brother, Marcus Stanford ("the offender"), has pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact to that murder.
The offence of being an accessory after the fact to murder is one that carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 25 years (s 349(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)).
There is a wide variation in the possible degrees of culpability of a person who commits this offence: R v Farroukh and Farroukh (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 29 March 1996, unrep). It may be committed by someone who helps the principal offender to dispose of the body (e.g. R v Faulkner [2000] NSWSC 944 and R v Quach [2002] NSWSC 1205); or to hide or get rid of incriminating evidence (e.g. R v Gersteling [2004] NSWSC 502 and R v Cowen [2008] NSWSC 104); or to get away from the crime scene, or the jurisdiction (e.g. R v Mirad [2004] NSWSC 701). It may be committed by someone who deliberately tells lies to cover up the crime, or the identity of the principal offender (e.g. R v Phan [2001] NSWSC 1069; 126 A Crim R 257 and R v Dileski [2002] NSWCCA 345; 132 A Crim R 345). There are other forms of assistance that may be given as well but the critical thing is that, with knowledge of the primary offence, the offender does something which has a tendency to assist the principal to avoid justice by escaping detection or punishment
Accessory after the fact to murder is an offence which is typically committed by a person who knows the principal offender; often by someone who is a friend, or is in a relationship with him or her, or is a family member or relative (e.g. R v Gersteling). Sometimes the offender has been personally involved in a criminal enterprise, although the involvement falls short of participation as a principal in the murder (e.g. R v Do (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 7 May 1997, unrep); or the person is associated with criminal elements and has become an accessory by reason of that association (e.g. R v Faulkner). The offence can also be committed by people who had no previous involvement and who have been thrust into a situation not of their making, sometimes when prevailed upon by someone with whom they are close (e.g. R v Johnson [2014] NSWSC 1254).
Hamill J provided a useful collection of matters that are relevant in assessing the seriousness of an offence of this type and of the moral culpability of the offender in R v Johnson at [13]:
"(1) The circumstances of the murder itself.
(2) The extent of the knowledge in the accessory of those circumstances.
(3) The precise act, or acts, which constitute the offence of being an accessory after the fact.
(4) The length of time over which the offender assisted the principal offender in escaping justice.
(5) The extent to which the acts of the offender successfully delayed, or thwarted, the investigation and prosecution of the principal offender.
(6) The motivation of the offender in committing the crime.
(7) Related to the question of motivation is the question of whether the offender's conduct was motivated by a sense of misguided loyalty or emotional attachment to the principal offender. This is a circumstance of particular significance in cases where a family member assists the principal offender. [To this I would add the observation of R S Hulme J in R v Ward [2004] NSWSC 420 at [49] that offending in such circumstances "commonly represents a choice to place the interests of the principal offender ahead of those of the victim and/or the public generally".]
(8) It has generally been held that offences which involve the disposal or destruction of a corpse are cases which fall at the upper end of the range of criminality for the offence."
[3]
The principal offence
Ms Scott was a full-time secondary school teacher at Leeton High School. Vincent Stanford lived with his mother in Leeton and was a cleaner at the school. As at the Easter long weekend in 2015 (Friday 3 to Monday 6 April) Ms Scott was looking forward to her wedding to Mr Aaron Leeson-Woolley the following Saturday. She was taking leave for the first two weeks of the upcoming school term when she would be on her honeymoon.
At about 11.00am on Sunday 5 April, Ms Scott attended the school in order to prepare lesson plans to assist the teacher who would relieve her during her absence. She worked at a desk in the staff-room. Although Vincent Stanford had no reason to be at the school that day, he was and he saw Ms Scott there. In the early afternoon when she went to leave she encountered him and said, "I'm going home now, have a happy Easter". However, he grabbed her and dragged her into a room where he sexually assaulted her before beating and stabbing her to death.
I interrupt this narrative to observe that it will be necessary to go into more detail about what Vincent Stanford did when he is sentenced; what I am describing about his actions now is sufficient for present proceedings.
Vincent Stanford then drove Ms Scott's car into a secluded area inside the school grounds. He placed her body in the boot before returning to clean up the crime scene. He then drove Ms Scott's car to his home in Leeton and parked it behind a backyard shed. Her body remained in the boot.
In the early hours of Monday 6 April, Vincent Stanford drove Ms Scott's car to the Cocoparra National Park about 70 km north-east of Leeton. He removed her body, placed tree branches over part of it and then poured petrol onto the branches and set them alight. He then drove Ms Scott's car to Pike Road, Wamoon, about 8 km west of Leeton, where he left it and walked back into town.
Over the following days, Vincent Stanford went about disposing of Ms Scott's personal belongings at different locations in and around Leeton and Griffith.
Ms Scott had been reported as a missing person. On the morning of Wednesday 8 April Vincent Stanford was identified by police as a person of interest to their investigation. A statement was taken from him at Leeton police station at about 11.00am that day in which he denied any relevant knowledge.
That afternoon, Detective Sergeant Clark reviewed Vincent Stanford's statement and caused inquiries to be made about an alibi he had claimed. It was easily disproved. Police searched his home on the evening of Wednesday 8 April 2015. He was not present but his mother was. A set of keys were found in his bedroom which were identified as having been in Ms Scott's possession on the day of the murder.
Vincent Stanford arrived home that evening while police were still in attendance. He told police that he had been out taking photographs. Police looked at his camera and found that it contained two photographs of the deceased's burnt body. They also found what was thought to be blood on something in his car. At 9.00 pm, he was arrested. He exercised his right to silence. He was refused bail and remained in custody thereafter.
A second search of Vincent Stanford's home was carried out that night and further items belonging to Ms Scott were found.
Ms Scott's body was found in the Cocoparra National Park in the late afternoon of Friday 10 April.
On Saturday 11 April, Vincent Stanford asked police to attend Junee Correctional Centre so that he could be interviewed. He made admissions to having abducted and murdered Ms Scott.
On Tuesday 21 April he participated in a second interview and disclosed that Ms Scott had been wearing two rings which he had taken. He told police he might have disposed of them as he had done with many other items of her property.
[4]
The involvement of Marcus Stanford
According to the statement of facts, it was critical for police to determine whether they had the correct person in custody, given they had learned from Vincent Stanford's mother that he had a twin brother. South Australian police were asked to obtain a statement from Marcus Stanford, given that he lived in that State.
On Tuesday 21 April, Detective Marc Baker took a statement from him at Mount Barker police station. The following is a summary of what Marcus Stanford said:
He spoke to his brother Vincent in a lengthy telephone call on Saturday 4 April. Vincent appeared normal and not out of character in any way.
At 6.56pm on Sunday 5 April Vincent called Marcus. Marcus asked what he was doing and Vincent said, "Just driving around". Marcus asked where he was driving to and Vincent replied, "Just driving around". Marcus thought that sounded "weird". As he was eating dinner, Marcus said that he would call back.
Marcus called back in the late afternoon on Wednesday 8 April. He said Vincent sounded more like his usual self and they chatted about innocuous things.
He saw a television news report on Thursday 9 April about a murder in Leeton which included that a 24 year-old male who was employed as a cleaner at a school had been arrested. He immediately felt nauseous and rang his mother. She told him that Vincent had been arrested for murder.
On Monday 13 April, Marcus received a telephone call from Vincent from Junee Correctional Centre. They spoke about Vincent's welfare and legal representation.
Marcus Stanford did not mention in that statement a series of text messages he had exchanged with his brother between 2.29pm on Sunday 5 April to 9.04am on Wednesday 8 April. The statement of facts says that messages exchanged on 5 April appeared to be innocuous, relating to irrelevant mundane matters. But messages exchanged on the morning of Wednesday 8 April showed that Marcus Stanford was aware that his brother was going to send him an envelope. Vincent wrote: "I'm going to send you an envelope keep it safe for me" and "Can you let me know when you received the envelope". (Police did not become aware of these text messages until they received the call records for Vincent Stanford's phone on 28 May 2015.)
The statement of facts includes that an examination of Marcus Stanford's mobile phone revealed that it contained text messages going back as far as November 2014 but all messages between him and Vincent Stanford had been deleted. Nothing is said about whether or not it could be determined when they had been deleted.
The examination of his phone also revealed that he had accessed a news article at 8.48am on Thursday 9 April titled "Bride to be Stephanie Scott missing from Leeton, NSW, one week before her wedding".
On Tuesday 14 April, Marcus Stanford conducted an internet search for "selling jewellery in Adelaide". On Monday 4 May he researched the price of diamond engagement rings and where and how to sell them. On Saturday 9 May he went to the Adelaide Exchange Jewellery store in Modbury, South Australia, where he sold two rings belonging to Ms Scott that had been sent to him by Vincent Stanford. They were her engagement ring and a ring given to her by her mother on the occasion of her graduation. He was paid $705. Sadly, the two rings were later "scrapped".
On 26 May 2015, Vincent called Marcus from the Metropolitan Remand and Reception Centre at Silverwater. The conversation included the following:
V: So what did you do with the stuff that I sent you?
M: It's in my r…
V: [Indistinct]
M: Oh, the envelope
V: Yeah
M: Exactly what you told me to do
V: Yeah
M: Yeah, yeah
V: Did you get a fair bit for it or …
M: Yeah, yeah, yeah
V: That's good
M: Hm, hm, yeah
There is no recorded conversation or text message in which Vincent Stanford asked his brother to sell Ms Scott's jewellery. It is suggested in the statement of facts that he must have done so in a telephone conversation at 5.05pm on the afternoon of 8 April, before Vincent was arrested, or in an unrecorded call from gaol after he had been charged and refused bail on 9 April. (In the assessment of the seriousness of the offence I do not think much turns on whether it was one or the other.)
Detective Baker returned to the offender's home on 30 May 2015 in order to speak with him at the request of NSW Police. He asked the offender if he had received an envelope containing jewellery from his brother. He said he had not received anything from him since the previous Christmas.
The offender was arrested at his home by South Australian police on 10 June 2015. Police also seized a camera, a business card for the Adelaide Exchange Jewellery store and the offender's mobile phone. The offender was extradited to New South Wales.
On 5 August 2015 the offender contacted police and indicated a willingness to be interviewed. During the course of the interview he made admissions to receiving Ms Scott's jewellery and her driver's licence by mail from Vincent Stanford. He also admitted that he had failed to tell police this in his statement of 21 April and in his conversation with Detective Baker on 30 May.
The offender told police that he held onto Ms Scott's property for some time before selling the rings at the Adelaide Exchange Jewellers. He sold the rings on the instructions of Vincent Stanford in a call the latter had made from gaol. If that is correct, it must have been the call made on 9 April 2015.
The offender said he used some of the money he received to pay for his flight home from Sydney after a visit with his mother to Vincent Stanford on 20 May 2015.
The offender said that he took two photographs of Ms Scott's driver's licence on 22 May 2015 before burning it. He explained: "At the time I thought in case I ever needed to show police, but I'm not too sure exactly why". He denied that the photographs were taken as a trophy or a memento.
The offender was asked about having deleted text messages to and from Vincent Stanford. He said this was just a routine to free up memory in his phone but the Crown suggests this cannot be true because of the large number of text message communications with others which were not deleted. The offender denied that he was attempting to conceal the messages concerning the envelope sent by his brother.
During the interview the offender repeatedly said that his excuse for his conduct was "a misplaced loyalty to his brother".
I should record that where matters are adverse to the offender they must be established to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. I make that trite observation because some of the submissions made on behalf of the Crown in relation to the facts of the offence invited speculation without proof to that standard (for example, that the offender may have received from Vincent Stanford other items that had been stolen from Ms Scott).
The Crown Prosecutor submitted that the offender knew that Stephanie Scott had been murdered prior to the morning of Thursday 9 April 2015, perhaps even as early as the evening of 5 April. The inference for the latter is very tenuous. It was submitted in the alternative that he must have known by the time of a telephone conversation at about 5.00pm on 8 April. But when one has regard the acts of the offender which constitute the offence for which he is to be sentenced (and not what might render him liable for the lesser offence of concealing knowledge of a crime, as was conceded by the prosecutor) it makes no appreciable difference. Further, the submission (CWS [50]) that by his plea the offender acknowledged that he did know that his brother had murdered Stephanie Scott before his brother was arrested is simply wrong as a matter of law.
[5]
The seriousness of the offence
The circumstances of the murder were callous and brutal in the extreme. However, the extent of the offender's knowledge of the details was not addressed in the evidence before me. For that reason I can only proceed on the basis that he knew that Ms Scott had been abducted and murdered but not how, why or in what circumstances.
The acts of the offender which constitute the offence were his receipt of the two rings and driver's licence from the principal offender; his failure to reveal this to police when asked; and his subsequent disposal of the rings by selling them on the instructions of Vincent Stanford and destruction of the driver's licence. Mr Neild, counsel for the offender, took issue with selling the rings being part of the offence. In my view, however, similar to burning the driver's licence, passing the rings to another party made their recovery less likely. Both denied the authorities the ability to recover the items and thereby bring forward evidence in the prosecution of the principal offender that he had stolen them from Ms Scott.
These acts, the Crown accepts, are fairly limited in comparison with other offences of this type. They did not occur over a very long period and they all occurred after the principal offender had been arrested. Having regard to all of the other evidence available to the police, including the principal offender's full admissions, the acts of Marcus Stanford had little, if any, impact upon the investigation and prosecution of his brother.
The offender's motivation was, to use his term, "misguided loyalty to [his] brother". However, given the amount of attention the case had received in the media, I am satisfied he must have known that the two rings had been stolen in the context of the murder of a woman who was much loved by her family, and in her community, and who was looking forward to her impending marriage to the man she loved. The offender must have known that the rings were items of great sentimental value to her fiancé and family. In that context he simply chose to sell them for a small sum of money in circumstances where they would be unlikely to be returned.
I have earlier given some examples that demonstrate the wide range of circumstances in which an offence of this type may be committed. Mr Neild submitted that this offence fell "towards the lower end of the range". The Crown Prosecutor accepted this to be the case. I do as well but I would immediately add that the act of the offender disposing of the rings is utterly appalling, disgraceful and inexcusable. It was the act of a man who put morality and human decency secondary to the interests of his murderous brother.
[6]
Family victim impact statement
Ms Merrilyn Scott, bravely and with great dignity, read a family victim impact statement at the sentence hearing yesterday. The utter tragedy of the death of her beloved daughter Stephanie has clearly impacted many people very deeply. She was described as a beautiful girl who had only goodness in her heart and was so loved by all. The horror of what confronted her family, her friends, and particularly her fiancé Aaron at Easter last year and their enduring sense of loss, grief and despair is, as I observed, beyond comprehension. The loss of treasured personal items through the actions of the present offender compounds their pain. It is with regret that all I can offer is my most sincere sympathy.
[7]
Personal circumstances of the offender
There is not a lot in the offender's background and personal circumstances that is particularly relevant to sentencing. A report by Dr Katie Seidler, clinical and forensic psychologist, was tendered in his case. As the offender did not give evidence in the sentence proceedings I have determined not to give any great weight to self-serving statements recorded in the report.
According to the report, the offender is 25 years of age. He was born in Australia and he spent the first few years of his life here before his parents separated and his mother took him and his brothers to her homeland of the Netherlands, where the offender spent the remainder of his childhood and adolescence. He said that his mother worked hard to provide for her children as a single parent.
The offender described himself as a somewhat shy and disengaged individual socially and described this as being a function of anxiety. He began abusing both alcohol and cannabis as a teen and developed problematic patterns of use in relation to both these substances. Dr Seidler considered that these have contributed to his being irresponsible and unproductive at times.
The offender completed secondary schooling in the Netherlands. He commenced study at a maritime university in Rotterdam but discontinued after six months due to lack of interest. He has been in employment for most of his adult life since then, both there and since coming back to Australia in 2013. At the time of his arrest he was performing general labouring duties at a flower farm.
The offender has been held in custody since his arrest on 10 June 2015. I am therefore required to backdate his sentence until then.
There is evidence before me of him having been assaulted on 3 November 2015 when he was being held in Parklea Correctional Centre. Medical records indicate he attended the clinic that day complaining of having been punched once to the face. The nurse noted reddening and tenderness to the left orbital area which was tender on palpation but with minimal swelling. The notes include that he "appeared well, and voiced same". He told Dr Seidler that he had a "depressed eye socket" which "might require surgery to stabilise" but he also said that he did not experience any pain from it.
There is also evidence that the offender has been held in a form of protective custody because of the high profile nature of the case. A letter from the Operations Manager of Parklea Correctional Centre confirms, however, that his custodial conditions differ little from those of inmates in the general population.
The offender has no previous criminal convictions. Mr Neild submitted that on this basis, and having regard to the offender's history of gainful employment, I would find that he is a person of otherwise good character. I have reflected upon the tender by the Crown of statements made by two of the offender's housemates in order to rebut what might otherwise have been submitted on this topic. Given the confined basis upon which the submission was made (and my acceptance of it on that basis) I have determined to reject the tender.
Mr Neild submitted that I should find that his client is genuinely remorseful. I do not accept that, and not only because he did not give evidence. Dr Seidler's report includes that "Mr Stanford expressed both remorse and regret" but there is insufficient evidence in the report to support my acceptance of such a bare assertion.
I am prepared to accept the submission that the offender is unlikely to re-offend and has good prospects of rehabilitation. This is primarily on the basis that the present offence was committed in a highly specific and unusual context and the offender has not otherwise demonstrated any tendency to criminal offending.
The offender's plea of guilty was entered in the Local Court. He was committed to this Court for sentence and has adhered to that plea. In accordance with accepted sentencing practice the sentence should be reduced by 25 per cent as a reflection of the utilitarian benefit to the system of criminal justice. There will be some rounding to achieve a practical outcome.
I have assessed the appropriate sentence to impose primarily on the basis of principles relating to this particular offence and the statutory guideposts, including the purposes of sentencing set out in s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). I have then paused to reflect upon sentences that have been imposed in other cases.
The sentencing statistics maintained by the Judicial Commission of New South Wales indicate that 17 per cent of offenders in the past 6 years or so have received good behaviour bonds or suspended sentences. Of those who have received full-time custody, the sentences have ranged from 18 months to 13 years with most in the range of 2 to 9 years with the median at 3 years. The statistics are an obvious reflection of the wide range of circumstances in which the offence can be committed.
I have also looked at the facts of quite a number of cases which brought sentences at the lower end of the statistical range. They are cases where the gravity of the offence was broadly similar to the gravity of the offence in this case which, the Crown concedes, is towards the lower end of the range.
It was submitted that I should find that there are special circumstances that would warrant a reduction of the total sentence represented by the non-parole period. However, I have determined that there is no practical purpose in allowing for a parole period at all in the sentence I will impose.
[8]
Sentence
Convicted.
Sentenced to imprisonment for a fixed term of 1 year 3 months. The sentence is to date from 10 June 2015 and will expire on 9 September 2016.
Without the offender's plea of guilty it would have been a sentence of 1 year and 8 months.
[9]
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: 24 August 2016