Murphy v The King

Case [2025] ACTCA 10

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Murphy v The King

Citation: 

[2025] ACTCA 10

Hearing Date: 

13 May 2024

Decision Date: 

4 March 2025

Before:

Loukas-Karlsson, McWilliam and Taylor JJ

Decision: 

The sentence imposed is backdated by a further 19 days to allow for unaccounted time spent in custody.  Otherwise, appeal dismissed and orders of the sentencing judge confirmed. 

Catchwords: 

APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against sentence – sentence involving multiple sexual offences, actual and grievous bodily harm, and common assault – multiple victims – whether sentence manifestly excessive – where backdating error

Legislation Cited: 

Court Procedure Rules 2006 (ACT), r 5412(2)

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 23, 24, 25, 26, 28(2)(a), 54, 116(3)

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 33, 34B, 63(2)

Family Violence Act2016 (ACT)

Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), pt 2A, ss 37E(2)(a), 37O

Cases Cited: 

Alarcon v R [2018] NSWCCA 298

Almaoiue v R [2021] NSWCCA 274

Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571

Director of Public Prosecutions v England [1999] VSCA 95; 2 VR 258

Director of Public Prosecutions v Padreny [2024] ACTCA 4

DPP v Murphy (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 227

GG v R [2018] NSWCCA 280

Haoui v Regina [2008] NSWCCA 209; 188 A Crim R 331

Hawker v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 40

Ibbs v The Queen [1987] HCA 46; 163 CLR 447

Kentwell v The Queen [2014] HCA 37; 252 CLR 601

KQE v DPP [2024] ACTCA 7

Lehn v R [2016] NSWCCA 255; 93 NSWLR 205

M C-N (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2023] ACTCA 21

Mulato v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 282

Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120

Porter v The Queen [2024] ACTCA 9; 21 ACTLR 122

R v Campbell [2010] ACTCA 20

R v Duffy [2014] ACTCA 53; 297 FLR 359

R v MAK [2006] NSWCCA 381; 167 A Crim R 159

R v Thawer [2009] NSWCCA 158

R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103

R v UG [2020] ACTCA 8; 281 A Crim R 273

R v Wilkinson (No 5) [2009] NSWSC 432

RH v R [2019] NSWCCA 64

Robertson v DPP [2024] ACTCA 26

Suksa-Ngacharoen v Regina [2018] NSWCCA 142

The Queen v De Simoni [1981] HCA 31; 147 CLR 383

The Queen vKilic [2016] HCA 48; 259 CLR 256

Tracey v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 51

Veen v The Queen [1979] HCA 7; 143 CLR 458

Vojneski v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 57; 262 A Crim R 370

Waterfall v R [2019] NSWCCA 281

Zrieka v R [2012] NSWCCA 44; 2012 A Crim R 460

Texts Cited:

Explanatory Statement, Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 (ACT)

Parties: 

Shay Kahu Murphy ( Appellant)

Director of Public Prosecutions ( Respondent)

Representation: 

Counsel

P Edmonds ( Appellant)

K McCann ( Respondent)

Solicitors

Canberra Criminal Lawyers ( Appellant)

Director of Public Prosecutions ( Respondent)

File Number:

ACTCA 34…

Continue reading Murphy v The King

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Murphy v The King [2025] ACTCA 10
Case
[2025] ACTCA 10
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Murphy (the appellant) appealed against a sentence imposed by a sentencing judge following convictions for multiple sexual offences, actual and grievous bodily harm, and common assault against multiple victims. The appeal primarily concerned whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, with a specific issue raised regarding an error in backdating the commencement of the sentence.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the sentencing judge erred in imposing a sentence that was manifestly excessive in the circumstances of the appellant's offending. A secondary issue related to the correct calculation of the period of pre-sentence custody to be taken into account.

The Court of Appeal considered the gravity of the offences, the number of victims, and the appellant's criminal history. While acknowledging the severity of the sentence, the Court found that it was not demonstrably excessive given the nature and extent of the appellant's criminal conduct. The Court also identified an error in the original sentencing order where the commencement of the sentence had not been backdated to account for the full period of time the appellant had spent in custody.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal ordered that the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge be backdated by an additional 19 days to rectify the unaccounted time spent in custody. The appeal was otherwise dismissed, and the substantive orders of the sentencing judge were confirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The sentence imposed is backdated by a further 19 days to allow for unaccounted time spent in custody. Otherwise, appeal dismissed and orders of the sentencing judge confirmed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.