Legal Research
Cases
Armour v The Queen

Armour v The Queen

Case [2012] VSCA 188 10 August 2012

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2011 0208

GEOFFREY LESLIE ARMOUR
	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL P and MANDIE JA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	10 August 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	10 August 2012
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSCA 188
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	R v Armour [2011] VSC 376

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Murder - Guilty plea – 26 years’ imprisonment, non-parole period 21 years – Co-offender pleaded not guilty – Convicted and sentenced by same judge to same sentence – Parity – Moral culpability – Application of principles in Verdins v The Queen – Manifest excess – Limited role of appeal court – Whether findings reasonably open – Sentence within range – Grounds not reasonably arguable – Leave to appeal refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr J McLoughlin	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Respondent	Mrs C Quin	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

MAXWELL P
MANDIE JA:

On 20 January 2011 the applicant pleaded guilty before a judge in the Trial Division to one count of murder. He was sentenced on 10 August 2011 to 26 years' imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 21 years. Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act1991, the sentencing judge declared that, had it not been for the applicant’s plea of guilty, he would have sentenced the applicant to a term of imprisonment of 30 years with a non‑parole period of 25 years. There was, accordingly, a discount of four years' imprisonment on account of the plea of guilty. The applicant's co‑offender, Judith Moran, pleaded not guilty to a count of murder but, after a jury trial, was found guilty of that offence on 9 March 2011. The judge sentenced her on the same day as the applicant and imposed the same sentence and non‑parole period.

On 25 June 2012, Harper JA refused the applicant leave to appeal on all three grounds. As he was entitled to do, the applicant subsequently elected under s 315(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 to renew his application for leave to appeal.

The offence took place just before midday on 15 June 2009 at a café at 191 Union Road, Ascot Vale, in a busy shopping district. The applicant, in front of several innocent bystanders, shot the victim, Desmond Moran, seven times. Two shots struck him in the head, three in the chest and two in the neck. The trial judge found that the murder was committed pursuant to an agreement made between the applicant and Judith Moran. The judge found that the applicant ‘had planned to shoot [the victim] for some time and prepared accordingly, in return for a financial benefit’ received from Judith Moran.[1]
[1]R v Armour [2011] VSC 376 (10 August 2011), [30] (‘Reasons’). The judge found that Judith Moran had purchased a new Land Rover Discovery valued at $75,000 for the applicant, in exchange for carrying out the murder: at [7].

His Honour, in…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Armour v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Armour v The Queen [2012] VSCA 188
Case: [2012] VSCA 188
Decision Date: 10 August 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Armour v The Queen, the appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to 26 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 21 years. The appellant had pleaded guilty to the charge, whereas his co-offender pleaded not guilty and was convicted by the same judge. The appellant sought leave to appeal against his sentence on the basis that it was manifestly excessive and did not accord with the principle of parity. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine whether the appellant's sentence was manifestly excessive and whether it accorded with the principle of parity. The appellant argued that his sentence was manifestly excessive because he had pleaded guilty, whereas his co-offender had not. The appellant also argued that his sentence did not accord with the principle of parity because he had played a limited role in the offence. The Crown argued that the sentence was within the appropriate range and that the appellant's limited role did not warrant a lesser sentence.

The court noted that the principles in Verdins v The Queen applied to this case. The court held that the appellant's sentence was not manifestly excessive because it was within the appropriate range. The court also held that the principle of parity did not require the appellant to receive a lesser sentence because his limited role did not warrant a reduction in his sentence. The court held that the findings of the primary judge were reasonably open and that the grounds of appeal were not reasonably arguable. Leave to appeal was refused.

The High Court of Australia refused the appellant leave to appeal against his sentence. The court held that the appellant's sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the principle of parity did not require a lesser sentence. The court held that the findings of the primary judge were reasonably open and that the grounds of appeal were not reasonably arguable.

Orders