Accessories to a crime, as Zac Grieve was, are found in the context of gangs and crowd violence, but also in the context of crimes that are planned in small groups. The
laws around accessory liability or complicity are therefore highly relevant to youth crime in Alice Springs. Recently, there have been several decisions in the common-law jurisdiction which deal with the liability of accessories in the context of the conduct element and the fault element. They ask the question of whether there was an intention by the accessory to participate in the main offence; and of whether the accessory could have foreseen that the main offender would commit the crime.
Let us look again at the Zac Grieve case. This was the case of “the mother who paid for an ex-lover’s murder; the son who organised the hit; the accomplice who turned against his mates; and the man who wasn’t there.”
Four people were charged. Three accused went to trial: Buttery (the mum), Malyschko (the son), Grieve (the man who wasn’t there), one co-offender turned Crown witness (Halfpenny). The mother was sentenced to eight years, with four years’ no-parole; the son was sentenced to life, with eighteen years’ no-parole; the co-offender turned Crown witness was sentenced to life with twenty years’ noparole; Zak Grieve was sentenced to life with twenty years’ no-parole.
Grieve was deemed to have had the intention to participate in the main offence and to have been able to foresee that the main offender would commit the crime. He was therefore seen as an accessory to the murder.
The common-law prerogative of mercy had to be exercised for Zak Grieve to remove the “pains, penalties and punishments” associated with the conviction, although it did not remove the conviction itself. The prerogative of mercy is a lengthy, painful, and expensive process. Where to start to change the laws around complicity is a question easily asked, but complex to answer. As no domestic law seems free of perils, it seems that answers must be sought at an international level. Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights seems a good place to start if we want young offenders like Grieve to receive sentences that further their rehabilitation and allow them to leave prison as productive members of the community.
Image: Criminal Defence Lawyers Australia
Comments