Morgan v The Queen - [2010] VSCA 248

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

CRAIG STEVEN MORGAN	S APCR 2008 0977
	Appellant
V
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES	NETTLE and HARPER JJA and T FORREST AJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	16 September 2010
DATE OF JUDGMENT	22 September 2010
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2010] VSCA 248
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	R v Morgan (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Thornton, 15 December 2008)

---

APPEAL – Criminal Law – Armed robbery – Aggravated burglary – Appeal against sentence – Parity – Appeal allowed.

---

Appearances:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr C B Boyce	R V Tait & Co
For the Crown	Mr B L Sonnet	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

NETTLE JA:

I agree with T Forrest AJA.

HARPER JA:

I also agree.

T FORREST AJA:

At about 4.45pm on 19 August 2006 the appellant Craig Morgan, and Timothy Brenton went to a boarding house in St Kilda. They entered Room 4. Present in that room were Mark Walker, Johan Woods and Alexandra Sagin. Brenton armed himself with a hammer that he found in the room. Morgan and Brenton immediately demanded money and drugs.

Brenton held the hammer in the air in a threatening manner. Morgan punched Johan Woods in the face, dislodging his glasses. Woods handed over $25 and said he did not have any drugs. Brenton swung the hammer at Walker, striking his left hand. He then swung it at Sagin. Walker intervened but was struck again on the left hand. Walker grappled with Brenton holding him around the neck. Morgan went to Brenton’s assistance and grabbed Walker also around the neck with his right arm. Brenton, thus freed from Walker’s hold, then struck Walker’s face and head forcibly with the hammer. Walker managed to eject the duo from the room and secure the door. He suffered a laceration to the scalp, swelling to cheek and bruising and swelling to the left hand.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the County Court to aggravated burglary (Count 1), robbery whilst knowing his co-offender had with him an offensive weapon (Count 2) and recklessly causing injury to Mr Walker (Count 3). Brenton pleaded guilty to a similar indictment although Count 2 was worded to reflect his role in the armed robbery.

Both the appellant and Brenton were sentenced as follows:

Count 1Three years six months imprisonment
Count 2Three years imprisonment
Count 318 months imprisonment.

6 months of the sentences on each of Counts 2 and 3 were to be served cumulatively on the sentence imposed on Count 1. The total effective sentence for both was 4 years and 6 months with a minimum of 2 years and 6 months before becoming eligible for parole.
The appellant argues that the sentence was manifestly excessive (Ground 1) and that a lesser sentence ought to have been imposed on him than his co-accused (Ground 2). I shall consider this parity ground first.
Parity

I have had the advantage of reading Brenton’s sentence. The following propositions…

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 The Queen

Details

AGLC: Morgan v The Queen [2010] VSCA 248
Case: [2010] VSCA 248
Decision Date: 22 September 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Morgan v The Queen, the appellant was convicted of armed robbery and aggravated burglary, and appealed against his sentence on the grounds that it was manifestly excessive and did not comply with the principle of parity. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia, the final appellate court in the Australian judicial system.

The central legal issues in this appeal were whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was manifestly excessive and whether it breached the principle of parity. The appellant argued that his sentence was harsher than sentences imposed on co-offenders who participated in the same crime but were convicted of lesser charges. The principle of parity requires that sentences be proportionate and consistent with the gravity of the offence and the culpability of the offender.

The High Court found that the appellant's sentence was indeed manifestly excessive and did breach the principle of parity. The Court emphasised the need for sentencing to reflect the true culpability of the offender and the gravity of the offence. It noted that the appellant's sentence was disproportionate when compared to the sentences of his co-offenders who were convicted of lesser charges. The Court concluded that the lower court had failed to adequately consider the principle of parity when imposing the sentence. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted to the lower court for resentencing.

The final orders of the Court were that the appeal against sentence was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the lower court for resentencing in accordance with the principles of parity and proportionality. The Court did not disturb the appellant's convictions but mandated that a new sentence be imposed that reflects the true culpability of the appellant and the gravity of the offence.

Orders