Legal Research
Cases
Morrow v The Queen

Morrow v The Queen

Case [2013] NTCCA 7 19 July 2013

Sentencing

Appeal

Charge

Statutory Construction

Criminal Law

Evidence

Type to search within this case.

Morrow v The Queen [2013] NTCCA 07

PARTIES: MORROW, Christopher

v
THE QUEEN

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:CA 5 OF 2013 (21228881)
DELIVERED:  19 July 2013
HEARING DATES:  16 February 2013
JUDGMENT OF:  RILEY CJ, SOUTHWOOD and BLOKLAND JJ
APPEALED FROM:  BARR J
CATCHWORDS:

SENTENCING — Appeal against sentence — Sentencing factors — General and specific deterrence — Community protection — Weight to be given in light of offender’s intellectual disability — No error established.
SENTENCING — Appeal against sentence — Discount for plea of guilty — Discretion to reduce sentence to take into account plea — No tariff for discount — Sentencing Act 1995 (NT) s 5(2)(j).
SENTENCING — Appeal against sentence — Non-parole period — Longer non-parole period than statutory minimum — No error established — Sentencing Act 1995 (NT) s 54.
SENTENCING — Appeal against sentence — Particular offences — Causing serious harm — Manifest excess — No tariff — Not ‘clearly and obviously excessive’.
Kelly v The Queen (2000) 10 NTLR 39
Liddy v The Queen [2005] NTCCA 4
Mununggurr v The Queen [2006] NTCCA 16
Power v The Queen (1973) 131 CLR 623
R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
R v Shrestha (1991) 173 CLR 48
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
Yardley v Betts (1979) 22 SASR 108
Criminal Code Act 1983 (NT) s 181.
Sentencing Act 1995 (NT) s 5(2)(j), s 54.
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:J C A Tippett QC
Respondent:  D Morters
Solicitors:
Appellant:Maleys and Burrows
Respondent:  Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:   B
Judgment ID Number:  Ril1308
Number of pages:  16

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Morrow v The Queen [2013] NTCCA 07

No. CA 5 of 2013
(21228881)
BETWEEN:

CHRISTOPHER MORROW

Applicant

AND:

THE QUEEN

Respondent

CORAM: RILEY CJ, SOUTHWOOD and BLOKLAND JJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 19 July 2013)
Riley CJ:

On 19 December 2012, the applicant was convicted of the offence of causing serious harm and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of four years and nine months with a non-parole period of two years and nine months. He now seeks leave to appeal against the sentence[1] on various grounds, principally on the ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances. Leave to appeal was refused by a single judge of the Court and, on request of the applicant, the matter has now been referred for consideration by the Court of Criminal Appeal.
The offending
On 4 August 2012, the applicant was in Darwin city with a friend. He had consumed approximately 15 alcoholic drinks and was intoxicated. During the course of the evening someone bumped into him in a nightclub and caused him to spill his drink. The person did not apologise and that made the applicant angry. At about 2:30 am on the following morning 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 Morrow v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Morrow v The Queen [2013] NTCCA 07
Case: [2013] NTCCA 7
Decision Date: 19 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Morrow appealed against a sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory for the offence of causing serious harm. The appeal concerned the weight given to various sentencing factors, including general and specific deterrence, community protection, and the offender's intellectual disability.

The Court of Criminal Appeal was required to determine whether the sentencing judge erred in their consideration of these factors, particularly in relation to the discount for the guilty plea, the imposition of a non-parole period exceeding the statutory minimum, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appeal also raised questions about the appropriate weight to be given to an offender's intellectual disability in sentencing.

The Court held that the sentencing judge had not erred in their approach. It was noted that there is no fixed tariff for a guilty plea discount, and the judge had properly exercised their discretion under section 5(2)(j) of the *Sentencing Act 1995* (NT). Similarly, the imposition of a non-parole period longer than the statutory minimum was permissible under section 54 of the *Sentencing Act 1995* (NT) and was not demonstrably excessive. The Court found that the sentencing judge had adequately considered the offender's intellectual disability in conjunction with other sentencing principles, and the sentence was not "clearly and obviously excessive." The appeal was dismissed.

Orders