Legal Research
Cases
Morrison v The Queen

Morrison v The Queen

Case [2012] VSCA 222 14 September 2012

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2011 0164
NEVILLE MORRISON	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	BUCHANAN and REDLICH JJA and T FORREST AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATES OF HEARING:	16 July 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT/ORDER:	14 September 2012
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSCA 222
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2011] VSC 311 (Curtain J)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Intoxication – Offender an alcoholic for more than 30 years – No history of violence – Intoxication relevant to existence and degree of remorse, to rehabilitation and to the need for denunciation of the crime by the Court – Sentence of 19 years’ imprisonment with a minimum term of 15 years’ imprisonment manifestly excessive.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr P J Doyle	Patrick W Dwyer
For the Crown	Mr B F Kissane	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

BUCHANAN JA:

The appellant has been granted leave to appeal against a sentence of 19 years’ imprisonment with a minimum term of 15 years’ imprisonment, which was imposed upon him when he pleaded guilty to one count of murder.

On 14 February 2010, the appellant went to the St Kilda Festival, where he met Robert Chaffey, whom he did not previously know. The appellant and Chaffey drank cask wine throughout the day and into the early hours of 15 February 2010.

Chaffey was staying at the Gatwick Hotel. David Rodakis (‘the deceased’) lived at the Gatwick Hotel. Neither the appellant nor Mr Chaffey knew the deceased. At about 5 o’clock in the morning of 15 February 2010 surveillance film recorded the deceased returning to the hotel and proceeding to his room. The appellant and Chaffey followed him and as the deceased tried to enter his room, the appellant pulled him back and threw him to the floor. There ensued a vicious attack upon the deceased by both the appellant and Chaffey. The attack was captured on surveillance film, which also depicted the appellant drinking, swaying and being unsteady on his feet.

Chaffey stomped Mr Rodakis on the head and upper body and appeared to chop into his neck. The appellant pulled the deceased up from the floor and punched him to the face, causing him to fall back. The appellant stood over the deceased and Chaffey kicked and stomped him while the appellant punched him to the head. Chaffey kicked Rodakis a number of times in the head and then walked off. The appellant kicked the deceased two or three more times to the head. Chaffey returned and kicked the deceased again and the appellant started stomping on the deceased’s head. Throughout the ordeal, the deceased did not appear to move. Chaffey kicked the deceased again and he and the appellant walked off. At 5.22 am the appellant returned to where the deceased lay. He had not moved. The appellant stared at him, then stomped on his head eight times.

The appellant and Chaffey went into the lobby of the hotel and Chaffey…

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 Morrison v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Morrison v The Queen [2012] VSCA 222
Case: [2012] VSCA 222
Decision Date: 14 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Morrison v The Queen was heard in the High Court of Australia, where the appellant, Morrison, challenged his sentence for murder. Morrison, who had a long history of alcoholism but no prior history of violence, committed the offence while in an intoxicated state. He pleaded guilty to the charge of murder and was sentenced to 19 years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 15 years. The central issues in the appeal were whether the severity of the sentence was appropriate in light of Morrison's intoxication and his prospects for rehabilitation. The court was required to weigh the need for denunciation of the crime against the possibility of rehabilitation and the existence of remorse.

The court considered various factors in assessing the sentence. It noted that while intoxication was relevant to the existence and degree of remorse, it did not absolve Morrison of responsibility for his actions. The court also considered Morrison's prospects for rehabilitation, taking into account his long history of alcoholism and lack of prior violent conduct. The court found that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and did not adequately balance the need for denunciation with the possibility of rehabilitation and the demonstration of remorse. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that sentences are proportionate and consider the individual circumstances of the offender.

In light of these considerations, the High Court quashed the original sentence and ordered a resentencing hearing. The court directed that the new sentence should reflect a more balanced approach, taking into account the totality of Morrison's circumstances, including his intoxication, lack of violent history, and potential for rehabilitation. The court underscored the need for a sentence that appropriately denounces the crime while also considering the offender's personal circumstances and the likelihood of rehabilitation. This approach ensures that sentences are just and proportionate, reflecting the unique context of each case.

Orders