Sarah Whitby

(Sir Charles Forbes 1837 to NSW, Louisa 1846 from NSW)

By Helen Ménard

Introduction

Various records suggest Sarah was born between 1784^[1] and 1792.^[2]  She was probably born in Kings County, Ireland before moving to Dublin and having the first of her many children, possibly as young as 12. Sarah travelled under a number of aliases generally connected to the current ‘man in her life’ and, in most cases, they were also her partners in crime. Her will in 1859 suggested her family name might have been Lynch but there are no verifiable records of her birth under that name.

Sarah’s transportation records stated that she had no previous criminal convictions but her own evidence in court in Dublin in 1834 testified otherwise. On transportation, Sarah stated her trade as a midwife but there is little indication that this was her means of earning income. Given she allegedly had 24 children in about thirty years - spending at least two of those years in prison in Dublin - ran a thriving business as a ‘receiver of goods’ and frequently managed houses of ill repute, her opportunity to work as a midwife would seem to have been rather limited.

Inducted into a life of crime at an early age and eventually transported to the other side of the world for her transgressions, Sarah was either unable to or chose not to lead a different life. In the end, she died a few days after being released from prison and her life epitomised the maxim ‘live by the sword and die by the sword’.

Married or not?

There are no records of Sarah ever marrying Robert McCue or Robert McKew or William Dillon. But, it may be that their records were lost as were many Irish records when, two days into the Irish Civil War in 1922, a colossal explosion destroyed the Public Records Office attached to Dublin’s Four Courts and with it hundreds of years of documented history.^[3]

Nonetheless, Sarah’s first documented presence was in 1828 as Sarah McKew^[4] and in 1831 she appeared before the court as the ‘wife of Robert McKew’.^[5]

In December 1835, Mr and Mrs McKew (Robert and Sarah) brought charges of aggravated assault against William Dillon wherein Sarah gave evidence that she had only been married to Robert for fourteen years (c. 1820) contrary to the complaint which stated twenty years.^[6] However, Dillon asserted that Sarah was in fact his wife and presented a purported marriage certificate to the court. It was alleged that Dillon, well known in Dublin as a ‘stag bail man’,^[7] met Sarah when she was intoxicated and, knowing she owned considerable property and being unhappy with her husband at the time, proposed to her that ‘“I’ll show you the way to have a thorough going revenge upon Bob” and induced her to accompany him out to Cullen’s-wood to a minister’.^[8] Later that evening, when sobriety returned, Sarah realised the foolishness of her situation. Having no memory of whether of not the marriage ceremony had been performed, she refused to accompany Dillon to his home in Skinner’s-alley and returned to her ‘husband’ (Robert) the same night.^[9] It was further alleged as follows:

… while Mr. M'Kew, his wife, and a Mrs. Smith, were driving upon their car, for they are people of substance, over Carlisle-bridge on Christmas Day, Dillon came up to them with twenty barbarians at his back. He stopped the car, dragged Mrs. M'Kew off it, knocked down her husband, and kicked their children about the street. He then put Mrs. M'Kew [in] the car, which was driven away by a person who was in his company…

This Dillon is like a second Paris, he dragged away his Helen, not to Troy, but to Skinner’s-alley. He was not, however so violent, and gallant as Paris, for [he] stripped this injured woman, almost naked, he look [sic] every portion of properly [sic] which she then had about her, and he also threatened her life with a hatchet if she dared to return to her husband.^[10]

As a result of this assault Sarah, who was heavily pregnant at the time, suffered a premature birth.

Dillon, in a confused narrative to the court, stated:

Mrs. M'Kew having often slept in his bed, about her asking him to marry her, and when he told her he had no money to pay the minister desiring him to pawn his watch for the purpose. He called her Sarah Frayne, and persisted in declaring that she had been married to him. He did not know that she had been married. All he wanted was a fair trial.^[11]

Dillon was subsequently charged with additional counts of bigamy, assault and conspiracy.

The reference here to ‘Frayne’ potentially links Dillon (and Sarah) to the Michael Frayne who was one of the co-accused in the burglary trial in 1836 that resulted in Patrick and Thomas McCue being sentenced to transportation;^[12] and a later trial in NSW in 1858 where Sarah and Michael and Bridget Frayne (Fraine) were tried for robbery.^[13]

But it didn’t end there!

A year later, in December 1836, Mrs McCue (alias Dillon) appeared in court with William Dillon who she announced was her husband. She was providing bail ‘to answer a charge brought against them the previous day by the individual who was [the] hitherto supposed husband and who called himself Robert M’Cue.’^[14] Several weeks later Dillon, purporting to be the husband of Mrs McCue, again applied for bail in relation to the aggravated assault charge against Robert McCue who claimed he was ‘the real husband of the lady in dispute’.^[15] It was alleged that:

In order to get M’Cue out of the way his alleged wife marked a writ against him for 110L. as wages due to her for her services as house-keeper; and had him regularly transmitted to the Sheriff’s Prison, for this alleged debt, Dillon being, at the time, confined in Newgate [Prison] for assault. There was little doubt but the debt affair was got up by way of a “Roland for an Oliver” [measure for measure], and M’Cue being left safe in quod [prison], the present application was to take Dillon out of limbo, the coast being clear here.^[16]

So, was Sarah ever married or not – and if so, to whom?

Sarah and Robert – Bonnie & Clyde

Notwithstanding the matrimonial ambiguity, it seems that Robert was probably the father of all Sarah’s identifiable children which takes their relationship back to at least 1802 when Thomas was born – possibly earlier.

Although it seems likely their felonious activities started well beforehand, records of which were most likely destroyed, Sarah’s first documented appearance was in 1828 when as Sarah M’Kew she was charged with receiving a stolen medal, ring and minerals.^[17] In September 1831, when Robert was in custody for burglary, he was pronounced ‘a fellow of bad character’ and was ‘one of a gang’ who allegedly burgled a house in York-street.^[18] In the same year ‘Robert M’Kew and Sarah M’Kew his wife’ were charged with receiving a Bank of Ireland note valued 100L [£100] knowing it to be stolen.^[19] Robert was found guilty with the jury ‘expressing their opinions that the wife was at least equally guilty, that they only convicted the husband in accordance with the law.’^[20] The Recorder^[21] stated that

the Court was well aware, though the fact was not previously made known the jury, that the prisoners were old offenders. The wife had twice suffered twelve months’ imprisonment for similar offences, and now warned her, repetition of it would subject her to the sentence about to be pronounced on her husband.^[22]

Clearly, from this statement, Sarah had already spent at least two years in prison.

Despite the fact that Robert’s counsel argued ‘M'Kew was a very old and helpless man, he was nearly blind, and would be utterly unable to perform the duties imposed upon those who were transported’, the Recorder, in seeking to make an example of him, sentenced him to transportation for 7 years stating that

[he] was old offender, and had already been punished for a similar offence [with] imprisonment, but had persisted in his iniquitous course of life notwithstanding, and had, by the encouragement and facility he afforded thieves, been the means of subjecting many persons to the sentence he was now about to receive. It would [be] a compromise of justice in the court [to] allow him to escape; it was due as an example to many persons who engaged in like practices, and were perhaps listening at that instant with anxiety hear they of the prisoner.^[23]

It appears that this sentence was later mitigated to 2 years’ imprisonment.^[24]

In May 1834 Sarah (McCue) was charged with and found guilty of receiving a 100L [£100] note knowing it to have been stolen from a publican Mr Philips in Capel-street. She was at this time a lodging house keeper and, when conversing with one of the witnesses, said ‘she had been tried twice and if again committed she would be sent over the water’.^[25] This sentence was deferred pending legal argument.^[26]

In August 1834, described as ‘a notorious receiver of stolen goods’, Robert was charged with stealing boots from a Mr Maguire in Parliament-street which were later found ‘in a house of ill-repute Mabbott-street of which he [Robert] was the ostensible proprietor’.^[27]

In December 1835 Sarah was again charged with robbing a young man of a gold watch and two half notes for 10L [£10] when he went to her house in Mabbott-street.^[28] In September 1836 Sarah’s application for bail was refused on the grounds that there were several outstanding charges of theft and receiving stolen goods against her.^[29] A month later, Sarah, described as ‘fashionably attired and … quite confident and at her ease’,^[30] was acquitted of a charge of feloniously receiving a sugar bowl.^[31] When similarly acquitted on another charge of stealing a silver spoon, the Recorder observed that ‘however strong the prejudice against the prisoner might be, there was not sufficient evidence against her’.^[32] In November 1836, ‘the well-known Sarah M’Cue’ was again acquitted having been charged with receiving a velvet collar.^[33]

However, the tide was about to turn on Sarah.

In January 1837 John Casey was indicted for theft of plate and other articles belonging to Anthony Blake and Sarah McCue for receiving same knowing them to be stolen.^[34] The items included several dozen of spoons, forks, a silver tray and a tea pot, two plated circular trays, some silk handkerchiefs and other articles.^[35] The main evidence against the prisoners was given by William Kirwan, an approver (co accused turned prosecution witness), who admitted to being a robber by trade and that ‘it runs in the family’ but ‘he wouldn’t rob a church’!^[36] Kirwan described the robbery and the events afterwards wherein a covered car, driven by Patrick McCue with Thomas and Sarah McCue as passengers, collected Casey and the stolen goods and returned to the McCue’s house in Mabbott-street to arrange their disposal. On 10 January 1837 both Casey and Sarah were found guilty as charged.^[37]

Casey was sentenced to transportation for life. Sarah, ‘a well-known receiver of stolen goods who has numberless times escaped justice’, and, in the words of Judge Johnson, ‘belonging to the worst and most dangerous criminal class of society, cannot be permitted to remain in this country’ was sentenced to 7 years’ transportation.^[38] Thereupon Sarah said

in a firm and seemingly unconcerned tone: “My lord, I have two children, a boy of seven years of age and a girl of five years of age; when I am gone they will have no resource but to turn on the streets, unless you permit them to come with me.”^[39]

The Judge replied that he didn’t have the power to transport persons not convicted of an offence and she should apply to the government.^[40]

Many women got life for far, far less.

The notorious den of infamy

‘It was purchased by fruits of robbery; it existed in crime and infamy and was dissolved by perjury and strife.’^[41]

The history of the McCue ‘den of infamy’ was put before the court in January 1837 in relation to a series of complaints of assault and robbery lodged against bailiffs by Dillon and other women living in the residence at Mabbott-street when the premises was raided by the bailiffs.^[42] All complaints were dismissed by the magistrate.

In essence, it was alleged that Robert and Sarah (‘the notorious Mrs McCue’ and ‘a vile woman’), after coming into several hundred pounds from dubious sources, had purchased the house in Mabbott-street which ‘had been the depot of all the stolen plate in the kingdom.’^[43] In order to avoid mounting debts, Robert assigned his interest in the property to his son (presumably William) who was shortly thereafter transported to NSW; so Sarah reassigned the interest to William Dillon – her then de facto – she having allegedly left Robert at this time. Then ensued the previously discussed cases of spousal disputes, Dillon’s assault on the McCues and Sarah’s writ against Robert for unpaid wages. In a final twist Robert, in asserting his right as a landlord, issued a rent warrant over the Mabbott-street premises which allowed several bailiffs to enter the property and seize all the valuable furniture in lieu of rent. It was alleged that, in carrying out the seizure, the bailiffs also robbed and assaulted several women on the premises.^[44]

And so, ‘This notorious den of infamy is at length broken up and the elegantly dressed and fashionable inmates of it are scattered about town.’^[45]

How many children?

In evidence before the court in the Dillon assault case in 1835, Sarah maintained that she had 24 children only eleven of whom had survived.^[46] Was this a delusional claim? Given the context of the rather theatrical case in which the evidence arose, one could be forgiven for thinking that Sarah might have been prone to hyperbole!

We have no idea when Sarah’s first child was born but, if it was Thomas, she could have been anywhere between 10 and 18 years old. The implication from Sarah’s testimony is that she actually gave birth to 24 children (which might exclude miscarriages and still births though not necessarily multiple births). Evidence in the same court case in 1835 proposed that the alleged assault perpetrated by William Dillon had resulted in a ‘premature delivery’ (birth) indicating that, at this time, Sarah was again pregnant – aged, at the very least, 43.^[47] Supposing she was 18 when her first child was born and she spent at least two years in prison and her age on transportation was correct (45), she would have had to have had 24 pregnancies in 25 years. This seems a most unlikely scenario and, given the prevailing social conditions at the time, it is more likely than not that her first pregnancy was at a much younger age.

Even so, research has only unearthed seven children (all named McCue) born between 1802 and 1828 – Thomas (1802-1850); William (1809-1882); Patrick (1818-); Michael (1819-); Robert (1827-1882); Sarah Jane (1828-1870) and possibly Mary. Given that Sarah’s daughter Sarah Jane had up to eighteen children in 28 years, maybe Sarah’s claim was not that fanciful!

Sarah’s children

Given the amount of time Sarah and Robert McCue spent in and out of prison and pursuing their nefarious lifestyles, it is little wonder that all of their known children (except Sarah Jane) followed their path into criminality.

Thomas (McKew/McCue) was born around 1802 in Dublin.^[48] A soldier and labourer and single, he was convicted of burglary and robbery on 20 August 1836 at Dublin (with his brother Patrick and co-accuseds Michael Frayne and John Heaslip) and sentenced to death, later commuted to transportation for life.^[49] He was held in Kilmainham Gaol, Dublin until 13 September 1836 when he was transported to New South Wales (NSW) aboard the St Vincent (together with Michael Frayne) arriving in Botany Bay on 5 January 1837.^[50] Thomas McKew died on 27 June 1850 aged 49 at the Parramatta Factory Invalid Establishment and was buried at All Saints Cemetery, North Parramatta, NSW.^[51]

William, born about 1809 in Dublin,^[52] was convicted at Dublin on 2 March 1833 of stealing a watch and sentenced to 7 years’ transportation.^[53] A farrier, single and purportedly aged 24, he was the first in the family to arrive in NSW aboard the Royal Admiral on 26 October 1833.^[54] Assigned to a William Lithgow in 1834,^[55] he found himself in Parramatta Gaol on 10 April 1837.^[56] He was granted a ticket of leave on 19 February 1838 for the district of Yass^[57] and a conditional pardon in 1838.^[58] William married Catherine (unknown) sometime before 1840^[59] and from 1840-1856 they had at least ten children and many more grandchildren.^[60] A William McCue was imprisoned for a month in 1854 after being found guilty of giving inconsistent witness evidence to the coroner and to the court in the manslaughter of Margaret Cunningwell.^[61] William McCue died at Seven Hills, Parramatta on 6 January 1882 aged 83 from dysentery.^[62]

Patrick, born about 1818 in Dublin,^[63] and aged 18, was convicted of burglary and robbery on 20 August 1836 at Dublin (with his older brother Thomas) and sentenced to death, later commuted to transportation for life. He was admitted to Kilmainham Gaol, Dublin awaiting transportation but was pardoned by the Lord Lieutenant and discharged from prison on 10 February 1837.^[64] Patrick had been before the court previously on at least one occasion in 1833 together with his father Robert and, presumably, his sister Mary for receiving stolen goods. They were all acquitted due to lack of corroborative evidence and were cautioned to ’abstain from their malpractices’.^[65]

Michael was also born in Dublin around 1819 and, aged 17, was tried before the Sessions Court in Dublin on 21 May 1836 for stealing wearing apparel. Along with his two other co-accuseds he was found not guilty^[66] but he was again before the courts on 7 June 1839 when he was convicted of the ‘felony of sack & tripe(s)’^[67] and sentenced to 7 years’ transportation.^[68] He left Ireland on 6 July 1839 aboard the Middlesex arriving in NSW on 24 January 1840.^[69] In July 1858 Michael, then a sawyer living in King St, Sydney, acted as bail surety for his mother Sarah when she was committed to trial for keeping a bawdy house.^[70] There are no matching death records for Michael in NSW up to 1920.^[71] Maybe he returned to Ireland?

Robert was also born in Dublin around 1827^[72] and, as a 9 year old, appeared before a magistrate on 27 January 1837 charged with attempting to steal a silk umbrella from Dr David Henry of Sackville-street.^[73] Robert pleaded guilty and, in expressing a wish to be transported, stated

he did not wish to go with his mother as she has my sister with her and I would rather go by myself … but I would wish to go out to my brothers who were transported some time ago; they would wish to have me out with them; this is a bad country.^[74]

He was sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment and hard labour in Smithfield Penitentiary.^[75] Undeterred, Robert embarked on the convict ship William Jardine as a free settler in November 1837 arriving in NSW in April 1838.^[76] Who paid his fare? Did he travel alone? As a ten year old where did he go when he arrived?

Surprisingly, Robert appeared to stay out of trouble and, in December 1850, married Margaret Dobson.^[77] Over the next 27 years they had eleven daughters, three of whom died in infancy and seven of whom married.^[78] There were at least fifteen grandchildren.^[79] In 1860, as master of the Black Swan a Parramatta steamer, Robert gave evidence in relation to a fatality arising from a collision on the Parramatta River between the steamer Commissary-General and a private vessel;^[80] and in 1862, as a seaman on the steamer Corio, he was fined 40 shillings for assaulting the master of the vessel (Allen Robertson).^[81] On 25 September 1882, then a sea captain and aged 55, Robert died at his home in Cooks Hill, Newcastle, NSW leaving his wife Margaret, seven daughters and one son.^[82]

Sarah Jane was born about 1828 in Dublin^[83] and it would seem accompanied her mother to NSW in 1837 when she was transported.^[84] Sarah Jane (at most about 13 years old and ‘with consent of Parent’, presumably her mother)^[85] married John Peters a farmer at Parramatta in 1841 (with James Whitby as a witness).^[86] Over the next 28 years they had eighteen children – twelve sons and six daughters. Three died in infancy, eight married and there were at least 47 grandchildren!^[87] Fortunately, Sarah Jane did not follow her mother’s example of lawbreaking but was the victim of theft of money and clothing in 1864^[88] and threatening language in 1866.^[89]  Sarah died in 1870 aged only 42 at Braidwood, NSW^[90] less than a year after the birth and death of her last child Albert Henry in 1869.^[91] As she left a family of young children, did John remarry?^[92]

There is no information about Mary other than a reference to her in 1833 in the context of the receiving case involving Robert (Snr) and Patrick McCue.^[93] Maybe this was a reporting error (and could have been Mrs McCue) or she died subsequently as, on transportation, Sarah only referred to having one daughter.^[94]

From Ireland to New South Wales

It appears that Sarah sat in Grangegorman Prison from January 1837 until she left Dublin aboard the convict ship Sir Charles Forbes on 11 August 1837 arriving in NSW on 25 December 1837.^[95] Sarah’s early years in NSW appeared to have been relatively uneventful. In October 1839 she was sentenced to 3 weeks in 3^rd class for making a false statement and in May 1840, 14 days in the cells for being in a disorderly house.^[96] In July 1842 Sarah was granted a ticket of leave for the district of Sydney on the proviso she remained with her daughter Sarah Peters^[97] and obtained her certificate of freedom in February 1844.^[98]

Sarah and James

On 10 October 1838 Sarah McCue (Cue) was refused permission to marry James Whitby (58) on the basis that ‘The affidavit accompanying your application not being sufficient to [find] Whitby & McCue eligible for marriage.’^[99] Presumably, this related to comments on the application that James Whitby was ‘supposed married’ and Sarah McCue was ‘married with nine children’.^[100]

Although there is no record of a marriage, Sarah travelled under the name Whitby until she was transported to Van Diemen’s Land (VDL) ten years later and during her entire time in VDL.

James Whitby, born in Hertfordshire and a house servant,^[101] was tried aged 45 at the Central Criminal Court, London in April 1824 for theft from the dwelling house of Ann Davis, a widow in St John, Hackney. He was convicted of stealing a watch valued at £5, a watch chain and two seals and sentenced to death. After stating to the court that ‘I am a poor man, have a wife and seven children, and beg for mercy’, Mr Justice Best recommended him to mercy^[102] and he was ordered to be transported for life.^[103] In June 1824 he was transferred from Newgate Prison to the Retribution hulk at Sheerness^[104] and then transported aboard the convict ship Minerva departing in July 1824 and arriving in NSW in November 1824.^[105] In May 1825 he was initially assigned to William Powditch in Sydney^[106] and then reassigned to John Brown in Bathurst where he worked as a dairyman from 1825 until 1828.^[107] He was granted a ticket of leave in May 1834 to remain in the district of Bathurst and a conditional pardon in April 1841.^[108]

From New South Wales to Van Diemen’s Land

Soon after gaining her freedom it was a return to ‘business as usual’ for Sarah!

In February 1845 Sarah (Whitby) and Rosanna Rampry were found not guilty of stealing ribbon and other articles from Madame Protois’ shop in Hunter-street.^[109] Yet, old habits die hard and, on 12 March 1846, Sarah was back before the Sydney Court of Quarter Sessions facing charges of burglary and receiving stolen property in Surry Hills, Sydney – namely two hearth rugs, a table cloth and two boxes of property.^[110] This time she appeared with James Whitby and two other co-accuseds (John Smith and Paul Kelly). While James and Paul were found not guilty, John and Sarah were convicted. Sarah was sentenced to a further 7 years’ transportation with 12 months’ probation to be served in VDL.^[111]

Exit James – enter William! A month later Sarah arrived in Hobart aboard the Louisa and on the voyage obviously struck up a liaison with one of the crew members, William Hasbury.

Sarah and William

Permission for Sarah Whitby (56, widow) and William Hasbury (48, sailor, free) to marry was approved on 31 March 1847^[112] and they were married at South Hobart on 19 April 1847.^[113] Apart from various records of William travelling back and forth from Hobart to Sydney on the Louisa as both crew and passenger,^[114] there is no other record of William and Sarah’s life together. Did they have one?

Four months into their marriage, in August 1847, Sarah (Whitby) was sentenced to 3 months’ hard labour in the Cascades female factory for drunkenness.^[115] After being refused a ticket of leave on two occasions (for no stated reason and in the absence of any conduct offences), Sarah was finally granted one in April 1850. Her conditional pardon was approved in September 1850.^[116]

Back to New South Wales

When Sarah’s second certificate of freedom was issued in August 1856,^[117] she wasted no time – Sarah Whitby (not Hasbury) left Hobart aboard the Tasmania bound for Sydney and in the company of Robert McCue (presumably her son).^[118] After ten years of the quiet life in VDL maybe Sarah hankered for life in Sydney and her children but, regrettably, she was either unable to or had no desire to turn her life around. Exit William!

Two years later, on 31 July 1858, Sarah (now McCue) pleaded guilty to a charge of ‘keeping a bawdy house’ and was fined £20.^[119] On this occasion, her son Michael McCue, sawyer, and Peter Carroll, a horse dealer from Ultimo Hill, acted as bail sureties for her.^[120] Just two months on Sarah was again committed for trial along with Bridget (aged 20) and Michael Fraine (Frain or Frayne) (aged 35) for allegedly robbing Donald Cameron Dingwall of £300. This time, Sarah’s daughter Sarah Peters acted as bail surety for her pending trial.^[121] At trial, on 21 September 1858, all three were found not guilty^[122] but, sadly, the end was in sight for Sarah. She was either a committed risk taker or had a death wish. On 25 January 1859 Sarah (McCue) pleaded guilty to keeping a bawdy house in Kent-street, Sydney and was sentenced to 6 month’s imprisonment and hard labour in Parramatta Gaol.^[123] M. Frain, described as a dealer in York-street, and W.E. Cator, a tailor in Clarence-street, acted as her bail sureties.^[124] Honour amongst thieves!

In the end

Sarah McCue died on 23 June 1859, aged 75, several days after being released from Parramatta Gaol.^[125] On 13 June 1859, her daughter, Sarah Peters, had lodged a petition for remission of sentence based on the Gaol Surgeon’s assessment that Sarah was ‘… very dangerously ill, and that I do not anticipate her recovery.’^[126] The petition also requested that Sarah ‘be allowed to die amongst her friends; so that she may have the care and attention paid her, necessary on such occasions.’^[127] The petition was granted on 16 June and Sarah was discharged from Parramatta Gaol sometime in the week ending 25 June 1859.^[128] However, despite the size of her estate, there are no records of her burial or funeral. Was the family too ashamed to publicly acknowledge her death?

Sarah had executed a will in the name of ‘Sarah Lynch otherwise Sarah McCue’ on 11 June 1859 - less than two weeks before her death - appointing her daughter Sarah Peters as sole executrix.^[129] Did she know she was going to die? Sarah gifted her gold watch and gold chain to her son Robert and all money in the bank and the residue of the estate to her daughter Sarah. Her estate was valued at £580 – equivalent to around £78,300 in today’s terms and hardly an insignificant amount.^[130] So, who was Sarah Lynch? The will indicated that there were bank accounts in the name of Sarah Lynch as well as Sarah McCue;^[131] had she reverted to her family name or was there yet another ‘man in her life’?

Obviously, Sarah was part of her son Robert and daughter Sarah Jane’s lives. Robert accompanied his mother back to NSW after her sentence in VDL expired;^[132] Sarah Jane paid her mother’s bail surety on at least one occasion and orchestrated her early release from prison to allow her die with her family.^[133] But was theirs a fractious relationship? Both Sarah Jane and Robert appeared to lead respectable lives working and raising their many children. How did this sit with Sarah who, clearly, persisted in her iniquitous activities until the end? Christened into crime at a very young age Sarah never reformed her lifestyle. Did she even want to? Ultimately, aside from the last few days, her life ended in prison.

NOTE: Margaret Jones has generously provided an enormous amount of detailed research in relation to Sarah and her family and without whom this story would not have been possible. Thank you so much Margaret.