THE brother of Stephanie Scott’s killer will be free on September 9 after receiving a fixed jail term of one year and three months for for being an accessory after the fact of murder.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Marcus Stanford, 25, was sentenced this at Leeton – where 26-year-old Miss Scott was raped and murdered by Vincent Stanford last year – by Acting Justice Robert Hulme.
The sentence angered one supporter of Ms Scott’s family, who called Stanford a “piece of shit” as he left the courtroom.
The 15-month sentence was backdated to when Stanford went in custody – June 10 last year.
He will be free in 16 days from the date of sentence, will not serve any parole and is free to live wherever he likes.
Stanford sat with his head bowed and stared at the front of the dock for most of Acting Justice Hulme’s sentencing remarks, but was clearly relieved when he heard the sentence.
He sat in front of Ms Scott’s family and their supporters in the wooden dock and out of their view.
Stanford’s identical twin brother, Vincent, has pleaded guilty to raping and murdering the English and drama teacher at Leeton High School on April 5 last year – Easter Sunday and six days before she was to be married.
He stole property from her body, including her engagement ring, a ring given to her by her parents as a university graduation present and her drivers licence, and mailed them to Marcus Stanford, who was living in Adelaide.
The court heard it is not certain when Vincent Stanford mailed the items to his brother before the killer’s arrest on the night of April 8, but by April 14 Marcus Stanford was using the internet to search for places where he could sell jewellery in Adelaide.
When a South Australian detective interviewed Marcus Stanford on April 21 – the day his brother told police he had taken Ms Scott’s rings – he did not mention the rings.
And on May 30 when asked if he had received an envelope containing jewellery from his brother, he replied he had received nothing since December, 2014.
Marcus Stanford was arrested on June 10, and on August 5 he asked to be interviewed by NSW and admitted to having received Ms Scott’s jewellery and licence, sold the rings for $705 under his brother’s instructions and burnt the licence.
He said he had been acting on the instructions of his brother and out of a misplaced sense of loyalty to him.
“The acts of the offender which constitute the offence were his receipt of the two rings and drivers 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 the destruction of the drivers licence,” Acting Justice Hulme said.
He said that by selling the rings and destroying the licence, Marcus Stanford had denied authorities the ability to recover the items and bring forward evidence Vincent Stanford had stolen them from Ms Scott.
“These acts, the Crown accepts, are fairly limited in comparison with other offences of this type,” Acting Justice Hulme said.
“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 police, including the principal offender’s full admissions, the acts of Marcus Stanford had little, if any, impact on the investigation and prosecution of his brother.”
The judge said he was satisfied that because of media coverage of Ms Scott’s murder, Marcus Stanford must have known the rings he received 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 of great sentimental value to her fiance and family,” he said.
“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.”
Acting Justice Hulme noted the rings had been “scrapped” after being sold by Stanford to a jewellery store.
“… the act of the offender disposing of the rings is utterly appalling, disgraceful and inexcusable,” he said.
“It was the act of a man who put morality and human decency secondary to the interests of his murderous brother.”
Justice Hulme agreed Stanford’s offence was at the lower end of objective seriousness, but condemned Stanford for putting his murderous brother’s interests ahead of morality and human decency by selling two of Miss Scott’s rings mailed to him by his identical twin brother and burning her drivers licence.