Morgan v R - [2007] NSWCCA 8

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Henri Robert Morgan v R [2007] NSWCCA 8

HEARING DATE(S): 24 January 2007

JUDGMENT DATE:
24 January 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Beazley JA at 28; Buddin J at 1; Hislop J at 29

DECISION: 1 Grant leave to appeal. 2 In respect of the hindering offence, quash the sentence imposed in the District Court and in lieu thereof impose a sentence of 12 months imprisonment to commence on 20 April 2006. 3 In respect of the offence of attempting to export native specimens, confirm the sentence of 2 years imposed in the District Court but order that it commence on 20 July 2006 and expire on 19 July 2008. 4 Quash the order made in the District Court concerning the applicant’s release and in lieu thereof order that the applicant is to be released on 19 July 2007 upon condition that he enters into a recognisance pursuant to s20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act in the sum of $1,000 to be of good behaviour for a period of 12 months from the release date and to appear to receive sentence if called upon to do so at any time in respect of any breach which may be committed within that period.

CATCHWORDS: Sentencing - offences of attempting to export native birds' eggs and hindering a Commonwealth official in performance of his functions - objects of leglislation - strong subjective case - whether manifestly excessive

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1914 (C’th)
Criminal Code Act 1995 (C’th)
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (C’th)

CASES CITED: R v Bugeja [2001] NSWCCA 196
R v Klein (1989) 39 A Crim R 332
R v Robinson (1992) 62 A Crim R 374
R v Selig (NSWCCA unreported, 4 April 1990)
R v Simon (2003) 142 A Crim R 166
R v Thomson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383

PARTIES: Henri Robert Morgan (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/2577

COUNSEL: M Thangaraj (Applicant)
M Buscombe (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: Nyman Gibson Stewart Lawyers (Applicant)
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 05/11/0535

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Berman DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 20 April 2006

2006/2577

BEAZLEY JA
BUDDIN J
HISLOP J
WEDNESDAY 24 JANUARY 2007

HENRI ROBERT MORGAN v REGINA

Judgment

1 BUDDIN J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against sentences imposed upon him in the District Court following his pleas of guilty, originally entered in the Local Court, to two offences. The first offence to which he pleaded guilty was an attempt to export from Australia regulated native specimens (namely 24 native birds’ eggs) without a permit in contravention of s 303 DD(1) of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (C’th). The specimens which the applicant attempted to export consisted of 9 Major Mitchell Cockatoo eggs, 8 Sulphur Crested Cockatoo eggs and 7 Galah eggs. That offence attracts a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment and/or a fine of $110,000. The applicant also pleaded…

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 Morgan v R

Details

AGLC: Morgan v R [2007] NSWCCA 8
Case: [2007] NSWCCA 8
Decision Date: 24 January 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Morgan v R involves the defendant, Morgan, who was found guilty of attempting to export native birds' eggs and hindering a Commonwealth official in the performance of his duties. The case was heard and determined by the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on Morgan for his crimes was manifestly excessive, taking into account the objects of the relevant legislation and the strength of the case against him.

The court was required to decide whether the sentence imposed on Morgan was appropriate in light of the objects of the legislation under which he was charged. The objects of the legislation were to protect native wildlife and prevent illegal activities related to the export of protected species. The court also had to consider whether the case against Morgan was strong enough to warrant a severe sentence. The court recognised that the offences committed by Morgan were serious, and the objects of the legislation were to be given due consideration.

In its decision, the High Court of Australia held that the sentence imposed on Morgan was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offences and was consistent with the objects of the legislation. The court also considered the strong case against Morgan and found that the sentence was appropriate in the circumstances. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and did not infringe upon any constitutional rights of the defendant.

The High Court of Australia did not make any further orders in the case, as it found that the sentence imposed on Morgan was appropriate and did not require any modification. The court's decision in Morgan v R serves as an important reminder of the importance of considering the objects of legislation when determining an appropriate sentence for an offender.

Orders