ANGER over Marcus Stanford’s imminent release from prison less than three weeks after being sentenced has gone as high as NSW premier Mike Baird.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Mr Baird has directed the Attorney-General to look into Stanford’s backdated sentence amid a feeling among some that Stanford’s sentence is too lenient.
“Where there is a crime such as this we need the appropriate justice, and certainly on what has been presented that doesn’t seem to be the case to me, but again, the Attorney-General is exploring every possible avenue,” Mr Baird told journalists on Wednesday.
The comment came hours after 25-year-old Stanford was handed a 15-month jail sentence after pleading guilty to being an accessory after the fact of the murder of Leeton High school teacher Stephanie Scott.
The sentence was backdated to June 10 last year, when Stanford was taken into custody.
He will be released on September 9.
Only the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has the authority in NSW to lodge an appeal against Stanford’s sentence.
A spokeswoman for the DPP on Thursday said no decision had been made yet to lodge an appeal.
She said the DPP had a month in which to appeal.
Stanford received in the mail at his Adelaide home two of Ms Scott’s rings – stolen from her body by Marcus Stanford’s twin brother Vincent after he raped and stabbed her to death on April 5 last year.
Marcus Stanford did not tell police about getting the rings and Ms Scott’s drivers licence from his brother, making him an accessory to the horrific murder and accused of trying to cover up the crime.
Not telling police about the property did not affect the murder investigation because Vincent Stanford confessed to Ms Scott’s killing even before his brother received the property in the mail and there was a mountain of other telling evidence.
Marcus Stanford sold the rings for $705 and burnt the licence.
The rings – and engagement ring and a university graduation present – are believed to have been “scrapped” after being sold, heaping more pain on Ms Scott’s finance and her family.
Stanford’s defence counsel, Bill Neild, submitted to Acting Justice Robert Hulme on Tuesday that Stanford’s crime fell “towards the lower end of the range” of objective seriousness for the accessory offence.
“The Crown prosecutor accepted this to be the case,” Acting Justice Hulme said in his sentencing remarks on Wednesday.
“I do as well, but I would immediately add that the act of the offender in disposing of the rings is utterly appalling, disgraceful and inexcusable,” Acting Justice Hulme said.
“It was the act of a man who put morality and human decency secondary to the interests of his murderous brother.”
Stanford told police he sold the rings under instruction from his brother and because of “misguided loyalty” to him.
Stanford was given a 25 per cent sentence discount because of his early guilty plea.
“The acts of Marcus Stanford had little, if any, impact upon the investigation and prosecution of his brother,” Acting Justice Hulme said.