Legal Research
Cases
Morris v The Queen

Morris v The Queen

Case [2016] VSCA 331 19 December 2016

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2016 0052

ROBERT LEONARD MORRIS	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL P and CAVANOUGH AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	8 September 2016
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	19 December 2016
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSCA 331
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2016] VCC 409 (Judge Mullaly)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Indecent assault of person under 16 (6 charges) – Representative charges – Total effective sentence 6 years, non-parole period 4 years – Whether sentences manifestly excessive in whole or in part – Child victims – Appellant was victims’ teacher – Abuse of power – Humiliation of victims – Culpability high – Severe impact on victims – Offending in 1970s – Offender’s subsequent good character – Remorse – Sentences within range – Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr D D Gurvich QC	Stary Norton Halphen
For the Respondent	Ms D I Piekusis	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

MAXWELL P
CAVANOUGH AJA:

The appellant[1] pleaded guilty in the County Court to a series of sex offences, which he committed against six different children, and was sentenced on 3 March 2016[2] as follows:
[1]Born 20 April 1945.
[2]DPP v Morris [2016] VCC 409 (‘Reasons’).

Charge	Offence	Maximum	Sentence	Cumulation
1	Indecent assault of a person under the age of 16[3]	5y	2y 3m	12m
2	“	“	1y	4m
3	“	“	2y 3m	14m
4	“	“	1y 3m	6m
5	“	“	1y 3m	6m
6	“	“	2y 6m	Base
Total Effective Sentence:		6y
Non-Parole Period:		4y
6AAA Statement:		8y with a non-parole period of 6y
Other orders		Sentenced as a serious sexual offender pursuant to s 6F Sentencing Act 1991 on charges 3 to 6. Life reporting pursuant to Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004. Forensic sample order made as per s 464ZF Crimes Act 1958.

[3]Crimes Act 1958 s 68(3A) (now repealed).

He now appeals by leave against sentence on the ground that the individual sentences, orders for cumulation, total effective sentence and non-parole period are each manifestly excessive. For reasons which follow, we would dismiss the appeal.

Factual background

The appellant was a primary school teacher. The offending occurred in the period 1971 to 1977. All of the victims were pupils at schools where he was teaching. The appellant was aged between 25 and 32 in this period. The following descriptions of the offending and of its impacts on the victims are largely based on the agreed prosecution opening and on the unchallenged factual observations of the sentencing judge.

Victim A

Charge 1 related to offending against Victim A.[4] It was a representative charge of five occasions occurring between 1971 and 1973. The appellant was A’s homeroom teacher for two of those years. A was between six and nine years of age. Three occasions were outlined in the Prosecution Opening.
[4]To ensure that there is no possibility of identification, this judgment has been anonymised by the…

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 Queen

Details

AGLC: Morris v The Queen [2016] VSCA 331
Case: [2016] VSCA 331
Decision Date: 19 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Morris v The Queen, the appellant, Morris, appealed against his sentence for multiple charges of indecent assault against persons under 16. The incidents occurred during the 1970s, when Morris, who was the victims’ teacher, abused his position of power. The Supreme Court of Victoria was tasked with determining whether the total effective sentence of six years, with a non-parole period of four years, was manifestly excessive in whole or in part. The appellant argued that the sentences were too harsh, considering his good character and remorse since the offences. The victims, who were children at the time, suffered significant humiliation and severe impacts from the abuse.

The primary legal issue the court needed to address was whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive. The court examined various factors, including the severity of the offences, the abuse of power by Morris, the high culpability involved, and the profound impact on the victims. Additionally, the court considered the appellant's subsequent good character, his expressions of remorse, and the fact that the offences occurred several decades ago. The court also acknowledged the representative charges and the need for sentences to reflect the seriousness of the crimes committed against vulnerable victims.

The court held that, upon reviewing the totality of the circumstances, the sentences imposed were within the appropriate range for the crimes committed. The court found that the sentences adequately reflected the gravity of the offences, the appellant's culpability, and the severe impact on the victims. While noting the appellant's good character and remorse, the court emphasised the importance of maintaining appropriate deterrent and rehabilitative measures for such serious offences. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentences were upheld.

The final orders of the court confirmed that the appellant's appeal against his sentence was dismissed. The total effective sentence of six years, with a non-parole period of four years, was affirmed as appropriate and not manifestly excessive. The court's decision underscored the necessity of imposing sentences that reflect the seriousness of indecent assault offences against children and the need to protect the vulnerable.

Orders