Bush pilot who destroyed Netflix star Chris “Willow” Wilson’s phone after fatal helicopter crash could be re-sentenced
In summary:
Michael Burbidge was convicted and fined $15,000 for destroying Chris “Willow” Wilson’s phone following a fatal helicopter crash in February 2022.
The Northern Territory Crown Prosecution Service is attempting to appeal the sentence, arguing it is too lenient. The Crown Prosecution Service is pushing for a prison sentence, even if it is only for one day.
What’s next?
The judge will review the arguments of both parties and make a decision in the next few weeks.
The helicopter pilot who destroyed evidence following the fatal crash of Outback Wrangler star Chris “Willow” Wilson could be sentenced to prison again following an appeal by the NT Department of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
Michael Burbidge pleaded guilty to destroying Mr Wilson’s phone following the fatal crash in West Arnhem Land in early 2022.
In March, Burbidge was convicted by District Court Judge Tanya Fong Lim and fined $15,000.
The public prosecutor now wants to appeal against the verdict, arguing that it is “manifestly inadequate” under the circumstances.
Burbidge was the first of three men charged and convicted over the incident.
Matt Wright, Mr Wilson’s co-star from Outback Wrangler, was also present at the scene of the fatal accident alongside Burbidge and was accompanied by former senior NT police officer Neil Mellon.
Mr Wright and Mr Mellon also face charges related to the incident, including perverting the course of justice and destroying evidence, respectively.
Sentence against Mr Mellon is due to be handed down in the Darwin Local Court next week, while Mr Wright’s case is expected to go to the Supreme Court later this year.
DPP pushes for prison sentence
In an appeal hearing in the Northern Territory Supreme Court in Darwin on Friday, Crown prosecutor Steven Ledek said “nothing less than a prison sentence” would be appropriate for Burbidge to send a clear message of “denunciation” to the community.
“We are dealing with a special type of crime that strikes the justice system or the justice system at its core,” he said in court.
Burbidge spent one day in custody after his arrest last year.
In giving her verdict, Judge Fong Lim took into account the single day Burbidge spent in custody, but stated that his crimes did not warrant a prison sentence.
The parties argued Friday over whether Burbidge should have been sentenced to a single day in prison but was deemed to have served that sentence because he had already spent a day in custody.
Mr Ledek said that while the outcome would be the same, a prison sentence, no matter how minor, would mean a “significant change in the final decision” and send a clear message to the public about the seriousness of the offence.
Only four people were found guilty of destroying evidence in the Northern Territory – all of whom received prison sentences.
The prosecution argued that while $15,000 was not a small fine, its effectiveness as a punishment required an understanding of the defendant’s financial situation.
Mr Ledek said that for the fine to send a message to the public, it must represent a “burden” or significant “burden” for the defendant.
Under the law, Burbidge could have received a maximum fine of $52,000.
“How can the community prevent a repetition of such crimes if one pays a fine to avoid a more severe punishment?” asked Ledek.
Defense argues fine is “substantial” and “significant”
Burbidge’s lawyers argued that the judge had taken great pains to ensure that the denunciation was at the heart of her ruling.
Burbidge’s lawyer Matthew Johnson referred to Judge Fong Lim’s reasoning for the verdict: “In my view, the main purpose of this type of charge is to send a clear message that such offences go to the heart of the administration of justice and cannot be tolerated by this court.”
Mr Johnson described the dispute over the single day of detention as “hair-splitting” and said that since it made no noticeable difference to the outcome, it was not a significant miscarriage of justice.
Mr Johnson said the prosecution’s argument that crimes of destruction of evidence – for which there are no minimum sentencing guidelines – should be punishable by prison terms would “unduly restrict a judge in making a sentence in the local court in a way that was never intended by Parliament”.
Mr Johnson also disputed the prosecution’s argument regarding the severity of the fine, arguing that the $15,000 penalty was “a significant, significant fine for the local court.”
Posted , Updated
Judge allows Christian school club to meet in Hawaii
Chris Pratt and Katherine Schwarzenegger are expecting baby number 3!
Club for Growth PAC invests $3.6 million to oust Niceley and Richey
About The Author
