DPP say Marco Yandle’s suspended sentence was ‘grossly inadequate’ for his conduct after the death of Steven Murphy

A young man is deeply remorseful for helping his father cover up a killing, but now prosecutors want to see him spend more time behind bars.

A young man who helped his father cover up a killing in their family shed should be resentenced because a judge failed to watch the CCTV footage of the moment the horror killing unfolded, a court has heard.

In the state’s highest court on Monday morning, Director of Public Prosecutions Martin Hinton KC urged the full Court of Appeal to allow prosecutors permission to appeal Marco Yandle’s “grossly inadequate” suspended sentence.

Marco, 20, was given a suspended jail sentence after spending 15 months behind bars for his conduct after the death of Steven Murphy.

He pleaded guilty to having assisted in the aftermath of Mr Murphy’s alleged murder in April 2023, in Kudla, by hiding his personal items and lying to police.

Marco Yandle, who held a torch while his father shot and killed Steven Murphy in a shed at their Kuala Home, leaving court. The DPP has asked for a review of his sentence. Picture: NewsWire / Dean Martin

Marco Yandle pleaded guilty to assisting an offender. Picture: Facebook

His father Keith, 46, has pleaded guilty to manslaughter and to burying Mr Murphy’s remains in a 15m pit, but not guilty to murder, and will stand trial next year.

Previously, the court heard CCTV captured Marco shining a torch on Mr Murphy while his father killed him with multiple shots, including two as he lay on the floor of their shed.

He was sentenced to one year and eight months in custody, which was suspended as Marco had served his one year, one month non-parole period.

At the start of August, prosecutors sought to appeal Marco Yandle’s suspended jail term after he pleaded guilty to assisting his father in the aftermath of the killing of an innocent man.

Mr Hinton on Monday said Justice Judy Hughes had “erred in not viewing the CCTV footage”, and not properly taking into account the wording of the legislation, before sentencing Mr Yandle.

He said the charge Mr Yandle pleaded guilty to, and was sentenced for, was “a person who, knowing or believing another had committed an offence” assisted in the offending.

“There is a distinction between those two words, and in our submission, knowledge of the offence committed by the principle offender is more grave than simply believing,” Mr Hinton said.

“That’s important because it’s relevant to the gravity of assisting the offender. It’s not simply the act of assistance, but it’s knowing what the principle has done, you then assist.”

In his sentencing last month, Justice Judy Hughes said Marco could not be sentenced for Mr Murphy’s death, but only for his actions after.

“You are only being sentenced in respect of the charge to which you’ve pleaded guilty and on the facts agreed (by prosecution and defence),” she said.

“I’m not sentencing you in respect of the actions you took on the night – or holding the torch while your father fired the shots – nor for failing to intervene.

“I’m sentencing you for hiding several items and for lying to police.”

Steven Murphy has been remembered as a "beautiful dad" who would do anything for his two sons. Picture: Supplied

The scene in Kudla where police recovered Mr Murphy’s remains. Picture: 7 NEWS

Mr Hinton said Justice Hughes ought to have viewed the CCTV, which was the highest form of evidence against Mr Yandle.

“This is the evidence that proves what (Mr Yandle) knew at the time that he decided to assist the principle offender, his father.

“The CCTV is real evidence of what actually occurred. There’s no better evidence from which the court can infer the state of knowledge of the respondent. It is the best evidence, and it is critical in assessing the gravity.”

Scott Henchcliffe KC, for Mr Yandle, however said the judge “made no error” by declining to view the footage.

“That is a choice that she made, and that didn’t result in her not taking into account the offence of the (killing) itself. In this case, the judge knew more than enough to understand the relevance of what had happened, and in my submission the sentencing remarks clearly show she took it into account in a proper way.”

He said his client had spent over a year in custody since the date of his arrest, was a “very genuine young man” while in prison, and has “enormous potential to learn from mistakes and failures in the past”.

“This was an unexpected, horrific episode for Mr Yandle, which he regrets very much. It was so out of character for him, he was involuntarily dragged into it by his father.”

The Court of Appeal will make a decision on whether the appeal will go ahead at a later date.