R v Zanker

Circumstances of the murder

1. During the second half of 2013 and in 2014 Cameron and one Philip Holder, both men in their early 60s, were partners in an enterprise of growing cannabis hydroponically on a property at Angus Road, Schofields. There was a small house at the front of this block of land and a large steel shed at the rear. About 100 m separated the two buildings.
2. From early September 2013 cultivation of cannabis plants at this location commenced. Cameron recruited the offender, then aged about 24 years, from the outset. The two of them set up and fitted out the shed. Cameron had the requisite knowledge from past experience with cannabis cropping. The offender learned to clone the plants and had acquired, by mid-2014, significant expertise in cultivation.
3. Forward, who was 21 at the time of the murder, was introduced to Cameron in about late 2013. From then he worked two or three days per week, first on the setup of the infrastructure and then on maintaining and harvesting the crop. The finished product was delivered to a purchaser in Port Macquarie, usually by Cameron, on one occasion accompanied by Forward.
4. David Ian Wilkinson joined the operation from about March or April 2014. He was introduced by Holder. He did some construction work and some crop management and harvesting. Wilkinson helped construct a second, upper level of cultivation rooms within the shed. This led to a doubling of output by about May 2014. Wilkinson was 67 years old in mid 2014.
5. The residence on the property at Schofields had three bedrooms. Both the offender and Wilkinson were living there by May 2014. In late May or early June 2014 Holder introduced Jacob Munro, a man of 24 years, as an additional worker. Munro joined Wilkinson and the offender living in the residence.
6. There was continual friction between Munro and the offender during June 2014. Altercations between them were at times physical. In about late June 2014 there was an incident when Jacob Munro seized the offender around the throat, pushed him through a lightly constructed wall of an upstairs room in the shed and held him over the edge. Cameron had to separate them and direct the offender to retreat to the residence. It was necessary for Wilkinson to restrain Jacob Munro from pursuing the offender. That day Cameron asked Holder to cease employing Jacob Munro and to order him off the property. Cameron proposed that Munro be paid to stay away.
7. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that by this time Cameron believed Munro was highly unstable and unreliable and that if he was simply fired there was a risk he might tell his friends about the crop and they might "rob the place". Alternatively, the police would find out about the activity at Schofields through loose talk from Munro. Cameron made his concerns apparent to each of Forward, Wilkinson and the offender in early July 2014.
8. Holder removed Jacob Munro from the Schofields site on the day of the fight and arranged alternative accommodation for him in a caravan park about 25 minutes drive from the cannabis growing shed. Cameron urged Holder to keep Munro off the property but Holder subsequently insisted that Munro return to work.
9. Cameron gave evidence that about one week after the significant fight in late June 2014, the offender told him "that both he and [Forward] would kill Jacob because they didn't want it on my [conscience]". He said this offer was repeated shortly afterwards, Cameron and the offender having been alone on both occasions. The offender denied this at the trial, on affirmation, but I accept Cameron's evidence and am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt at least one conversation in these terms took place at this time. Cameron did not appear to me to make any attempt in his evidence to overstate or exaggerate the role or responsibility of the offender with respect to the death of Jacob Munro albeit that he did seek to minimise his own criminal intent.
10. It is undisputed that there was extremely scant communication between Cameron and the offender immediately prior to them travelling together to Bulahdelah to dig a bush grave for Jake Munro on 13 July 2014. It is a strong inference that there must have been some such conversation as that sworn to by Cameron in order for this grave digging expedition to have proceeded thereafter with an apparently common understanding between all three men and with practically nothing further said. The Crown alleged only one particular of assistance by the offender constituting his accessorial action. Namely, digging the grave. I therefore do not treat the offender's explicit offer to kill Munro as an additional particular but rely upon it as part of the proof of the state of mind in which the offender joined in the grave digging, as explained below.
11. Cameron testified that on about Friday, 11 July 2014 he asked the offender "do you want to go up to look where to dig the hole?" He said that the offender "didn't disagree with me". In the very early hours of Sunday, 13 July 2014 Cameron sent a text message to the offender's mobile phone: "6am in the morning". The offender responded promptly: "Okay". According to the offender's evidence in the trial, Cameron in fact arrived by car at the residence on the Schofields property at 7:30 am to collect him.
12. The offender gave evidence that when he received Cameron's text message he thought he and Cameron would be going to a hydroponic shop in Wetherill Park for supplies early on Sunday, 13 July 2014. However once the offender was in the car Cameron drove towards the Central Coast. When the offender asked "where are we going?" he was first told "to pick up [Forward]". The offender asked why and was told "to go dig a hole". He asked "what for?" and was told "for Jake". He claimed that his reaction to this information was annoyance because "I had more important things to do back in Schofields".
13. I do not accept that the offender learned the purpose of the car trip in this manner. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he knew when he received Cameron's text message that he would be picked up early that morning for the purpose of going to a location where a grave would be dug. There is nothing in the balance of his evidence or that of the other witnesses which would support any basis upon which he could have thought he was going to a hydroponic supply shop at either 6:00 am or 7:30 am on a Sunday. I find his claim that the true purpose of accompanying Cameron that Sunday was only revealed to him in the car and that he reacted to it with mere annoyance unbelievable.
14. I accept Cameron's evidence that he had proposed a trip "to look where to dig a hole" on about the preceding Friday and that the offender acquiesced at that time. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offender knew Cameron intended the "hole" to be a grave for Jacob Munro, consistently with the offender's earlier offer that he and Forward would kill Munro.
15. Cameron first drove to the Central Coast and picked up Forward. The offender said that upon Forward entering the car he, also, asked "where are we going?" and was told by Cameron "to dig a hole for Jake". The offender claimed he was sitting in the rear of the vehicle listening to music and did not hear any reaction from Forward. Cameron proceeded to a location near Bulahdelah which he had identified for himself on a map as potentially suitable for the burial of a body.
16. Cameron had sent to Forward a text message at 6:05 pm on Friday 11 July 2014: "Road trip to port on sun. Are you up for it?? Have to work up a sweat". Forward said that he was not sure exactly what this meant when he received it, that he assumed "it was either to dig the grave or to go on a trip to drop some marijuana off to the buyer" (who lived in Port Macquarie) and that he did not know the purpose of the road trip until he had embarked upon it, on the Sunday.
17. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that prior to receiving the Friday text message Forward must have had a conversation with either Cameron or the offender in which he was informed of a proposal to travel out of Sydney to dig a grave in preparation for the murder of Jacob Munro. Had he not had such a conversation he could not have had any basis for thinking that one of the alternative meanings of Cameron's text was, as he admitted, that the road trip would be for the purpose of grave digging. In cross-examination Forward said he found out the purpose "on the way up in the car" but I reject that. He did not give an account of any conversation in which he inquired of Cameron about the purpose or received a response on that subject, after he had been picked up on the Central Coast. That is, he did not corroborate the offender's specific evidence in this regard as summarised at [22].
18. Cameron had purchased two shovels and a mattock, which he brought with him in the boot of his car. After passing through Bulahdelah township he drove onto an unsealed road and stopped at a point along it where he thought the grave might be dug. A grave approximately 1.8 m long, 900 mm deep and 400 mm wide was excavated in hard compacted soil. This took approximately 3 to 4 hours. Cameron commenced the task, then Forward and the offender took turns on the mattock to break the ground and on the shovels to remove loosened earth, rock and roots.
19. The offender described his part as follows: Q. What happened? A. We went into the bush. Don picked the place and we dug a hole. Q. When you say "we", what did you actually do? A. I attempted, every time I attempted to help dig a hole, Don would tell me to stop because my back. … Q. When that happened, what did you do to attempt to help? A. I picked up a mattock and swing it a couple of times, moving rocks and a little bit of dirt out of the way. Every time I tried to actually help dig, a problem to get over and Don would tell me to stop, get back there. They would tell me to stop because of my back.
20. At the end of the excavation Forward lay down in the grave briefly to ensure that it was of sufficient capacity to hold Jacob Munro's body. The open grave was then covered with branches and the three men returned to Sydney.
21. During the week following the grave dig of Sunday, 13 July 2014, Jacob Munro did not attend at the cannabis growing shed. Forward said that on one occasion in that period Cameron approached him and asked him, in effect, when he was going to kill Jacob Munro. Forward was not challenged about this in cross-examination by the offender's counsel. On the contrary, Cameron was pressed in his cross-examination with the proposition that after the grave dig he had urged Forward toward commission of the principal offence. Cameron denied that he had he had given Forward any encouragement or put any pressure upon him to go ahead with the murder but I reject his evidence in that respect.
22. Cameron maintained in his evidence that he never thought the murder would actually take place. The Crown case was, throughout, that Cameron intended Forward should kill Jacob Munro, not that Cameron should kill the man himself. It was a question of fact for the jury whether, as at 13 July 2014, Cameron really doubted that Forward would in due course play his part. Even if they concluded Cameron had significant doubts in this respect, that would not preclude them finding that Cameron nevertheless intended that Forward should proceed and it would remain a question of fact, upon which the jury would have to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt if they were to convict, whether Cameron had the intention, at the time of the grave dig, that the murder should be committed. Doubts of success are not logically incompatible with continuing intent.
23. In order to convict the jury also had to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that when the offender took part in digging the grave, he knew Cameron intended to have Munro killed, for example by the hand of Forward. Cameron's intent and the offender's knowledge of it were left to the jury in composite form. They were directed that to find the offender guilty of Count 1, they must find beyond reasonable doubt that at the time of his participation in the digging of the grave, the offender knew that Cameron and/or Forward intended to murder Munro: R v Bainbridge [1959] 3 All ER 200; Stokes and Difford v R (1990) 51 A Crim R 25 at 38.
24. Clearly by their verdict they so found. It is difficult to gauge, and the verdict does not resolve, the degree to which Cameron may have felt doubt about whether Forward would proceed.
25. Cameron does not have a violent background. After his arrest for cannabis cultivation on 27 July 2014 he was remanded in custody. Despite initially denying to police any knowledge of the whereabouts of Jacob Munro, after three months in prison he led police to the grave. His evidence was, in effect that the murder played on his conscience and caused him to give the police information although when he first spoke to them he sought to minimise his own role. Cameron gave evidence that "I put myself in [Munro's] mother's shoes and I went to water". I infer that Cameron's claim that he did not think Forward would carry out the act is an aspect of him attempting to explain, perhaps to himself, his own conduct through the period in which the grave was dug and up to the killing and burial of Jacob Munro.
26. Cameron gave evidence that shortly after the grave dig Forward asked him "Do you mind if it is messy?". Cameron replied that he did not mind. I accept that this conversation took place and that Cameron understood Forward's inquiry to refer to the manner in which he would kill Jacob Munro. As Cameron said: I was the one that actually decided to go up there and dig a bloody hole. And I was the one that said no I don't mind if it is messy. I could have stopped at any time but I didn't.
27. Despite the concrete nature of Cameron's intention and resolve, as demonstrated by his four hour return trip to Bulahdelah and approximately four further hours of supervising the labour to dig the grave, Cameron claimed that he was shocked when, on the morning of 22 July 2014 at the cannabis shed, Forward made clear he was about to attack Jacob Munro.
28. The offender said that Forward never expressed "any murderous intent towards Mr Munro"; nor did Forward "intimate or suggest" that he would kill him. I do not accept that evidence. I infer that Forward must have intimated to the offender a willingness to kill at about the time, before the grave dig, when the offender told Cameron that he and Forward would carry out the murder. Forward's participation in digging the grave was, in the context of surrounding events, a demonstration of his willingness to bring about Munro's death. There is no evidence that Forward protested or expressed reluctance to Cameron or, privately, to the offender, about digging the grave or about the prospective killing of Jacob Munro.
29. I accept the evidence of Wilkinson that on the night before the murder the offender showed to him a knife, which became the murder weapon the next day. The offender brought this weapon out from his bedroom where he was in company with Forward. This is not an additional particular of his acting as an accessory but it provides some limited support for the inference that the offender knew at the time of the grave dig that there was a real intention to kill.
30. When asked whether Cameron had ever communicated to him any intent to murder Munro, the offender said "I never thought he would do it either". He then gave these answers: Q. But his digging a hole? A. Yes. I honestly thought he was just talking shit. By us going to do that, I knew Don wanted it to happen, but I never thought anybody would have the balls to go through with it. HIS HONOUR Q. You knew [Don] wanted [what]? A. By digging a grave, obviously he wanted Jake dead, but I never thought anybody would have the balls to go through with it. I never thought it will happen. Never for a second.
31. Again, I do not accept this evidence and I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that on 13 July 2014 and thereafter the offender saw no insurmountable obstacle which would prevent the principals' intention to kill from being meaningful. Given the way the case was presented and left to the jury, the finding just stated is inherent in their verdict.
32. On the evening of Monday 21 July 2014 Cameron learned from Holder that Jacob Munro would return to work the next day. At about 8:00 am on Tuesday, 22 July 2014 Cameron picked Munro up from his caravan park and drove him to the property at Schofields. On arrival there he let Munro into the shed, then went to the residence to wake the offender. Forward arrived at the property at about this time and went to the shed. Wilkinson then accompanied Cameron to the shed. For about half an hour Cameron, Forward, Wilkinson and Jake Munro worked in a trimming room within the shed, the offender remaining at the house.
33. After another brief conversation in which Forward asked Cameron whether he minded "if it was messy", Forward ran into the trimming room and delivered a punching or thrusting knife blow to Munro's neck. Forward ran out of the trimming room. Munro, although he must have been severely wounded, got up from his chair and also ran out of the room. He tried to escape from the shed. Forward seized him by his clothes and delivered more knife blows. Munro tried to gain control of the knife before collapsing onto a lounge chair. Cameron delivered a burst of electric current to his head with a Taser. Forward inflicted a decisive knife blow to Jacob Munro's upper body as he was slumped on the lounge chair. Munro fell forward onto the floor, face down. He did not move again.
34. The offender was not present during this attack. He knocked on the door of the shed shortly afterwards and was admitted. He assisted with cleaning up blood on the floor of the shed and he tended to wounds Forward had sustained during the knife fight.
35. Munro's body was wrapped in plastic sheet and placed it in the boot of Cameron's motor vehicle. Within the next hour Cameron set off in this vehicle towards the prepared grave site near Bulahdelah. Wilkinson accompanied him as a passenger. Forward drove to Bulahdelah in his own car with the offender as passenger. Forward drove ahead in case there should be random breath testing patrols along the highway. It had been agreed that if there were such patrols there was a better chance of Cameron not being stopped and having his car searched if Forward should precede him.
36. Upon arrival at Bulahdelah Forward parked his vehicle. He and the offender then rode in Cameron's car for the last part of the journey to the burial location. The body was carried part of the way to the grave and dragged the rest. It was placed in the grave which was then backfilled, by Cameron and the offender. The black plastic in which the body had been wrapped and a bag of Forward's bloodied clothing were burned a few hundred metres from the burial site. All four men then left the area. The offender's conduct after Munro had been murdered does not aggravate the seriousness of the offence of which he has been convicted. That conduct is referable to the alternative count with which he was charged, of being an accessory after the fact. The jury were not required to return a verdict on that alternative.

Motive

1. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that after the fight in about late June 2014 the offender had a justifiable fear of physical harm at the hands of Jacob Munro. The evidence satisfies me that Munro was hostile to and intolerant of the offender, who, on his own account, answered back and gave no ground when Munro was persistently rude and abusive towards him. By the time of the grave dig the offender expected that Holder would force a situation where Munro would return to work in the shed.
2. I am also satisfied to the criminal standard of proof that the offender had a significant economic interest in continuing to work in the cannabis growing enterprise. He was paid $500 per fortnight, which he received in addition to a disability pension. His accommodation was provided without additional charge and he was permitted to smoke resin from the plants. The resin satisfied his heavy usage of cannabis which otherwise would have come at significant cost to him. The offender told Cameron on the day of the fight that if Munro remained at or returned to the cannabis shed he would leave, which would have resulted in the offender losing all of the above-mentioned economic benefits.
3. It is a strong inference, which I draw without reasonable doubt, that the offender shared some of Cameron's concerns about the risk that Munro might expose them to a police raid and prosecution if he should be permanently dismissed from the property with ill feeling.

Objective seriousness of the accessory conduct

1. Although only one act of assistance and/or encouragement has been alleged and proved against the offender, it was a significant contribution to the commission of the principal offence. The offender's participation in the digging of the grave was concrete albeit limited physical assistance. Also, both Cameron and Forward would necessarily have taken from the offender's help in preparation of the grave encouragement to go through with the killing, knowing that an adequate arrangement had been made for concealment of the body. I reject the offender's evidence that he conveyed reluctance to the others about digging the grave. They would have been encouraged by his implicit support for the intended homicide, as shown by participation in this unambiguous preparatory step.
2. The offender's physical assistance and the encouragement he thereby gave were most important in the circumstances of this case. Neither Cameron nor Forward had a history of or significant experience of violence. Neither was outwardly aggressive or disposed to violence. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the collective activity of digging the grave communicated a mutual endorsement of the planned action and in some measure contributed to Cameron thereafter pressing Forward - and to Forward summoning the resolve to strike.
3. All of that said, I have no doubt that Cameron had the strongest motivation to kill Jacob Munro and that he was the predominant driving force behind the whole of what occurred. In all the circumstances, from the perspective of 13 July 2014 the murder would not take place unless Forward carried it out. There was evidence from Forward that Cameron pressured him, after the grave digging expedition, to proceed with the attack (see [28]). There was no evidence from any source that the offender pressured Forward. Forward himself denied any influence from the offender.
4. It is important to the objective gravity of the offender's crime that he knew his act of assistance and encouragement, in digging the grave, was directed to an intention on the part of the principals that the victim should be killed, not merely that grievous bodily harm be inflicted upon him.

The offender's subjective circumstances

1. The offender's subjective circumstances warrant a degree of leniency. The following summary of his background is a repetition of what I recorded concerning him when I passed sentence for his part in the drug cultivation enterprise at Schofields: R v Zanker [2016] NSWSC 1653. The sentence imposed was 3 years 9 months, commencing 2 March 2015. A non-parole period of 2 years 6 months was fixed, expiring 1 September 2017.
2. The offender was born with spina bifida, a condition in which the spinal cord is incompletely enclosed within the vertebral column. This was surgically closed when the offender was a baby but it is likely to have contributed to a subsequent nervous system disorder which continues to afflict him. He has been left with a weakened back which is of course fundamental to his overall physical strength. He has not developed to full stature. The disorder of the central nervous system causes the offender to thrash his arms and his upper body involuntarily. He has to be constantly medicated to try to control these spasmic muscular movements.
3. The offender's mother was only 16 years old when he was born. She was already by that age abusing alcohol and drugs. She had abused these substances during the pregnancy. She had had a very difficult early life herself, having lost her mother when she was four years old. The offender lived with his mother until he was eight during which period he moved around the State with her from place to place. His early childhood was evidently very unsettled. His father is reported to have suffered drug induced psychosis and schizophrenia but had no contact with the offender. Rather, his mother took up with a man who thereby became the offender's stepfather.
4. The stepfather physically assaulted the offender from time to time. He became a ward of the State from the age of eight. From then through to the age of 14 he moved from town to town around New South Wales as he was placed with various foster carers. Between the ages of 14 and 17 he was taken in by his mother's older sister and her partner. From the age of 17 he moved into accommodation in refuges and subsequently into a Housing Commission tenancy. In short, his early years were extremely unsettled, chaotic, disruptive and adverse.
5. These circumstances denied the offender any chance of learning or developing socially or mentally at school. Unsurprisingly this resulted in behavioural problems. He gave a history to a psychiatrist, who interviewed him for the purpose of preparing a report which has been tendered in these sentence proceedings, that he had on a number of occasions harmed himself and that he attempted suicide during his late teens. He was admitted to a Mental Health Unit on one occasion and to hospital on another as result of ingestion of illicit and dangerous drugs. He has misused various drugs since his mid-teens. Since about 2012 at age 23 this has been limited to cannabis, but at an extraordinarily high rate of consumption. He gave evidence that in 2014 he was smoking 100 "cones" of cannabis per day.
6. His criminal record commenced at the age of 15 in the Children's Court with an assault charge which must have been minor in view of the penalty imposed, a bond. He had a subsequent course of minor offences in his late teens: damaging property and affray. He has once prior to 2016 been convicted of possessing a prohibited drug and cultivating a prohibited plant. That offence occurred on 15 October 2011. A fine was imposed. On that criminal history, including the offence of cultivation in 2014 for which he was sentenced to imprisonment in November 2016, he is not disentitled from consideration of leniency. He is still a young man. His imprisonment from his arrest on 2 March 2015 has been his first experience of full time custody. From then until 1 September 2017 his custody has constituted the non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months for cannabis cultivation (see [50]). From 2 September 2017 he would have been released on parole but for his remand on the charge now under consideration. He is not without hope of rehabilitation and his criminal record of a minor nature does not tell against that conclusion.
7. I take into account as relevant to the severity of the sentence I should impose his very disadvantageous background from birth. This appears to have led him into a criminal milieu and limited his exposure to moral guidance and example. I regard his moral culpability as to some extent reduced by this consideration. It also supports my view that he has reasonable prospects of rehabilitation.

Circumstances considered under s 21A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act

1. Such of the matters listed in subs (2) of s 21A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act as might be relevant in this case are matters which are inherent in the particulars of commission of the offence and I have already referred to them and taken into account. Of the mitigating factors listed in subs (3), those that apply here have been referred to and given consideration in connection with the offender's subjective circumstances. Additionally, counsel for the offender has submitted that I should find the offence was committed under a degree of duress from Cameron but I am not satisfied of that on the balance of probabilities. I do accept that he facilitated efficient conduct of the trial by agreeing to a number of facts, which saved the Crown from the need to call some evidence.
2. I am not able to find that the offender has shown remorse. He has not accepted responsibility for the offence of which he has been found guilty, let alone exhibited deep regret for the part he played. He is not entitled to the direct advantage of mitigation of penalty which would flow from a finding of genuine remorse. On the other hand, I do not consider that his lack of remorse tells against the findings, earlier expressed, that he has reasonable prospects of rehabilitation, including with respect to his misuse of drugs, and is unlikely to reoffend so far as crimes of violence are concerned. His willingness to plead guilty to the alternative count of having been an accessory after the fact is to some extent to his credit.

Special hardship in prison

1. His prison time has been and will be difficult because of his spinal disability and the symptoms of the central nervous system disorder. His involuntary movements will make life very difficult for him sharing a cell, especially as those movements continue throughout his sleep and disturb both himself and likely anyone else in a small room with him. The symptoms which I have described are exacerbated by nervousness and stress, as was evident when he gave evidence in his both his trials and on sentence. This will give rise to some measure of a vicious cycle in the prison setting, where anxiety would be the order of the day and his responses to it may make life more difficult for him with fellow inmates and may lead to further stress. He has, reasonably, requested a one out cell but constraints of prison accommodation will no doubt make it difficult for this request to be met. Corrective Services have been able to accommodate him one out, on medical grounds, for only a small proportion of his time in custody from 2 March 2015 to date.
2. The offender's physical disabilities also make him vulnerable to attack by other inmates. The officer in charge of the investigation received in about August 2017 information which he regarded as credible concerning possible physical retribution against the offender by another inmate. This was passed on to Corrective Services but the offender assessed his physical risk if he should go into protective custody as worse. An assault followed.
3. I conclude that time in prison will be more difficult for the offender than it is for the general run of the prison population, to an exceptional degree. This causes me to moderate to some extent the head sentence which I would otherwise impose and it also contributes to my finding that his circumstances are special within the meaning of s 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.
4. I find that the offender's relative youth, prospects of rehabilitation, severely disadvantaged early circumstances, offer of support (following his release) from his aunt and a female partner and his medical disabilities combine to constitute special circumstances which warrant adjustment to the proportion of his sentence which must be served without parole. The default ratio of 75% should be reduced to 55%.

Sentence Counsel for the offender submitted that the term of imprisonment to be imposed should be ordered to be served wholly concurrently with his sentence for the cultivation of cannabis. The Crown has not opposed that course and I am prepared to accept, in accordance with the Crown's stance on this, that the longer sentence which I am about to impose can comprehend the total criminality of the two crimes, although they cocern discrete forms of criminal conduct (see Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1 at [27], [28]). Accordingly I will fix his sentence to commence on 2 March 2015.

1. The offender is sentenced as follows: 1. For the offence of being an accessory before the fact of the murder of Jacob Munro at Schofields on 22 July 2014, Shaun Steven Zanker is sentenced to imprisonment for a non-parole period of 6 years and 8 months commencing 2 March 2015 and expiring on 1 November 2021 and a balance of term of 5 years and 4 months to commence 2 November 2021 and to expire on 1 March 2027. 2. Shaun Steven Zanker will be eligible for release on parole at the expiry of the non-parole period. 3. The offender is notified pursuant to s 25C(1) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) that the provisions of that Act apply to him and to the offending which is the subject of the sentence now imposed.

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: 17 April 2018