Matthew Murphy v The Queen - [2005] ACTCA 43

MATTHEW MURPHY v THE QUEEN [2005] ACTCA 43 (2 NOVEMBER 2005)

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. ACTCA 31-2005
No. SCC 64 of 2005

Judges: Gray, Connolly and Madgwick
Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory
Date: 2 November 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE  )   No. ACTCA 31-2005
  )  No. SCC 64 of 2005
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY  )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN: MATTHEW MURPHY
Appellant

AND: THE QUEEN
Respondent

ORDER

Judges:  Gray, Connolly and Madgwick JJ
Date:  2 November 2005
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal be dismissed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE  )   No. ACTCA 31-2005
  )  No. SCC 64 of 2005
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY  )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN: MATTHEW MURPHY
Appellant

AND: THE QUEEN
Respondent

Judges:  Gray, Connolly and Madgwick JJ
Date:  2 November 2005
Place:  Canberra

CORRIGENDUM

Judges:  Gray, Connolly and Madgwick JJ
Date:  22 December 2005
Place:  Canberra

The Reasons for Judgment delivered 2 November 2005, are amended as follows:
In [9] of Justice Connolly’s judgment and [13] of Justice Madgwick’s judgment – change the word ‘appealable’ to ‘appellable’.

Associate to his Honour Justice Gray

Date: 22 December 2005

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

GRAY J:

On 30 June 2005, Crispin J sentenced the appellant in respect of an offence of aggravated robbery to a period of four years imprisonment and, in respect of a separate offence of inflicting actual bodily harm, on an occasion that occurred some 11 days before the aggravated robbery, he sentenced the appellant to 18 months imprisonment to be served concurrently with the aggravated robbery. He imposed, in relation to those sentences, a non-parole period of 12 months.

It could not be said, and Mr Bradfield, who appears as counsel for the appellant, concedes as much, that the sentences are other than within the proper range. However, on this appeal Mr Bradfield urges that there is a matter which should have affected the fixing of the non-parole period which was not adequately taken into account by his Honour on sentencing. That matter being as follows: the appellant is 19 years of age, a young offender and a person, said by his father (who gave evidence in the sentencing proceedings) to have the immaturity of a 16-year-old. As such a young person, Mr Bradfield submitted that the appellant could expect to have a special degree of care and consideration as far as this court was concerned in imposing what, in his case, would be a first sentence of imprisonment. Further, Mr Bradfield submitted that in this case, the appellant’s previous antecedents would not indicate that he should be treated as other than a young person facing such a sentence.

It was stressed by Mr Bradfield that, at virtually the last…

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 Matthew Murphy v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Matthew Murphy v The Queen [2005] ACTCA 43
Case: [2005] ACTCA 43
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Matthew Murphy appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory against sentences imposed by Crispin J of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The appellant had been sentenced to four years imprisonment for aggravated robbery and 18 months imprisonment for inflicting actual bodily harm, to be served concurrently, with a non-parole period of 12 months. While the head sentences were not challenged as being outside the proper range, the appeal focused on the non-parole period.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the sentencing judge had adequately taken into account the appellant's youth, immaturity, and recent change in attitude when fixing the non-parole period. Counsel for the appellant argued that as a 19-year-old offender with the immaturity of a 16-year-old, and with no prior history indicating he should be treated otherwise, the appellant deserved special consideration. He further submitted that the appellant's late change in attitude, demonstrating insight and a willingness to manage his behaviour, had not been sufficiently reflected in the sentencing, particularly in the length of the non-parole period.

The Court of Appeal, comprising Gray, Connolly, and Madgwick JJ, dismissed the appeal. The judges reasoned that while the appellant's youth and efforts at rehabilitation were noted and indeed commended, no appellable error had been demonstrated in the sentencing process. They found that the sentencing judge had imposed a non-parole period that was within a proper and even generous range, and that the material presented did not establish a miscarriage of justice. The court acknowledged that the sentencing judge could have taken a different approach, potentially reflecting the appellant's youth and character more explicitly in the non-parole period, but concluded that the chosen approach was not erroneous. The court also noted that it had received additional evidence regarding the appellant's progress in custody, which was encouraging, but this did not alter the conclusion that no error had been demonstrated in the original sentencing.

Orders