Greyson Michael Murphy v The Queen - [2019] VSCA 189

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2019 0023

GREYSON MICHAEL MURPHY	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL P and PRIEST JA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	18 July 2019
DATE OF ORDERS:	19 August 2019
DATE OF REASONS:	23 August 2019
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSCA 189
SENTENCE APPEALED FROM:	[2018] VCC 2220 (Judge Carmody)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Assault with intent to commit sexual offence – Sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment, non-parole period 2 years – Impaired mental functioning – Paranoid schizophrenia – Expert evidence – Applicant floridly psychotic at time of offending – Reduced moral culpability – Reduced weight to general and specific deterrence – Whether community correction order (‘CCO’) appropriate – Community protection – Importance of addressing causes of offending – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Appeal allowed – Sentenced to 481 days’ imprisonment with CCO of 3 years’ duration – Conditions requiring mental health assessment and treatment, drug dependence assessment and treatment.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr D A Dann QC	Lethbridges Barristers and Solicitors
For the Respondent	Mr J C J McWilliams	Mr John Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

MAXWELL P
PRIEST JA:

An indictment filed in the County Court charged the applicant with assault with intent to commit a sexual offence (one charge – charge 1).[1]
[1]Crimes Act 1958, s 42(1). The maximum penalty is 15 years’ imprisonment.

The applicant pleaded guilty to that charge in the County Court on 1 October 2018; and, following a plea hearing, on 21 December 2018 the judge sentenced the applicant to three years’ imprisonment, upon which the judge fixed a non-parole period of two years.[2]
[2]Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, the judge declared that, but for the plea of guilty, he would have sentenced the applicant to be imprisoned for five years, with a non-parole period of three years and three months.

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against his sentence on five grounds:

1. The Learned Sentencing Judge erred in proceeding to sentence on the basis that the best way that the Applicant’s rehabilitation would be enhanced was by the imposition of a period of parole.
2. The Learned Sentencing Judge erred in his approach to Section 5(4C) of the Sentencing Act 1991.
3. The Learned Sentencing Judge erred in failing to alert the parties to the fact that [he] felt an issue had arisen which stood in the way of the Applicant being afforded the benefit of a substantial reduction in moral culpability.
4. The Learned Sentencing Judge erred in proceeding on the basis that he could not be satisfied that the Applicant’s moral culpability was substantially reduced, on account of his Paranoid Schizophrenic illness.
5. The sentence imposed on the Applicant is manifestly excessive.

For the reasons that follow, we would grant leave to appeal, allow the appeal and resentence the applicant in the manner set out below.[3]
[3]See [50] below.

Offending, arrest…

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 Greyson Michael Murphy v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Greyson Michael Murphy v The Queen [2019] VSCA 189
Case: [2019] VSCA 189
Decision Date: 23 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Greyson Michael Murphy, appealed against his conviction and sentence for assault with intent to commit a sexual offence. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. Murphy had been sentenced to three years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, considering Murphy's impaired mental functioning at the time of the offence. Murphy had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and was floridly psychotic during the offence. The court was required to assess the weight of the expert evidence regarding Murphy’s mental state and determine the appropriate balance between punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, and community protection.

The High Court found that Murphy's floridly psychotic state significantly impaired his moral culpability. This reduced the weight that could be given to general and specific deterrence. The court considered the importance of addressing the causes of Murphy’s offending behaviour, including his mental health and drug dependence. The court concluded that the original sentence was manifestly excessive and ordered a new sentence. Murphy was sentenced to 481 days' imprisonment with a community correction order of three years. The CCO included conditions that required Murphy to undergo a mental health assessment and treatment, as well as assessment and treatment for drug dependence. The court emphasised the importance of addressing the underlying causes of Murphy’s offending behaviour and ensuring community protection through structured rehabilitation.

Orders