Morris v The King - [2023] NSWCCA 228

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Morris v R [2023] NSWCCA 228
Hearing dates: 01 September 2023
Date of orders: 15 September 2023
Decision date: 15 September 2023
Before: Ward P at [1];
Harrison J at [2];
Dhanji J at [45]
Decision:
(1) Grant leave to appeal.
(2) Allow the appeal.
(3) Quash the sentence imposed by Coleman SC DCJ on 2 December 2022 and in lieu thereof the following sentence is imposed:
   (a)    An aggregate sentence of 1 year and 2 weeks imprisonment to commence on 15 September 2023.
(b) Pursuant to s 7(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, the sentence imposed on Mr Morris is to be served by way of an intensive correction order commencing on 15 September 2023 and expiring on 29 September 2024.
   (c)    The standard conditions of the order will apply, namely,
(i)    Mr Morris must not commit any offence; and
(ii)    Mr Morris must submit to supervision by a community corrections officer for the term of the order.
(4) In addition to the standard conditions, the following additional condition is imposed in accordance with s 73A(2) of the Act:
(f) An abstention condition requiring abstention from alcohol and drugs.
(5) If Mr Morris fails to comply with the conditions of the order, sanctions may be imposed by the Commissioner of Corrective Services. Those sanctions may include a formal warning, the imposition of more stringent conditions or may include revocation of this order. If the order is revoked, Mr Morris may be required to serve all or some of the period of the sentence in full-time custody.
(6) Mr Morris is to report to Community Corrections office as soon as practicable but no later than within seven days.
(7) A copy of this order will be forwarded to Mr Morris.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – appeal against sentence – indigenous offender – deprived background - Bugmy v The Queen principles – whether sentencing judge gave effect to these principles having regard to the applicant’s circumstances – re-sentence – intensive corrections order

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 59(2), 111(2)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 73A
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) s 6(3)

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Chan v R [2023] NSWCCA 206
Dungay v R [2020] NSWCCA 209
Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37
Mandranis v R [2021] NSWCCA 97
RO v R [2019] NSWCCA 183

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Kane Adam Morris (Applicant)
Rex (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Evers (Applicant)
V Garrity (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2020/62539
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court at Tamworth

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

02 December 2022

Before:

Judge Coleman SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2020/00062539

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

Mr Morris was…

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 Morris v The King

Details

AGLC: Morris v The King [2023] NSWCCA 228
Case: [2023] NSWCCA 228
Decision Date: 15 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Morris v The King involved the appellant, Morris, who was appealing against his sentence in the High Court of Australia. Morris had been convicted of serious criminal offences and was sentenced to imprisonment. The nature of the dispute was centred on the appropriateness of the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge, particularly in light of the appellant's indigenous background and deprived circumstances. The appeal raised questions about whether the sentencing judge had appropriately taken into account the principles enunciated in Bugmy v The Queen, which emphasise the importance of recognising the unique circumstances of indigenous offenders.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge had adequately considered and applied the principles from Bugmy v The Queen in imposing the sentence. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the judge had sufficiently recognised and given effect to Morris's deprived background and indigenous status in the sentencing process. The appeal hinged on whether the sentence was appropriate in light of these factors, and whether an alternative sentence, such as an intensive corrections order, might have been more suitable.

In delivering its judgment, the court held that the sentencing judge had failed to adequately consider the principles from Bugmy v The Queen. The court found that the judge had not sufficiently recognised the impact of Morris's indigenous background and deprived circumstances on his offending behaviour and potential for rehabilitation. As a result, the court determined that the sentence imposed was inappropriate and ordered a re-sentencing. The court concluded that an intensive corrections order would be a more suitable sentence for Morris, taking into account his background and the need for rehabilitation rather than mere punishment.

Consequently, the High Court quashed the original sentence and ordered that Morris be re-sentenced with an intensive corrections order. This decision underscores the importance of properly considering the unique circumstances of indigenous offenders when determining an appropriate sentence, in line with the principles established in Bugmy v The Queen.

Orders