Murphy v The Queen - [2000] TASSC 169

[2000] TASSC 169

CITATION: Murphy v R [2000] TASSC 169

PARTIES:  MURPHY, Daniel Francis
  v
  R

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL (TAS)
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  CA 75/1996
DELIVERED ON:  7 December 2000
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  30 October 2000
JUDGMENT OF:  Cox CJ, Slicer and Blow JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law - Appeal and new trial and inquiry after conviction - Appeal and new trial - Appeal against sentence - Grounds for interference - General principles - Whether sentence was manifestly excessive - Weight to be given to appellant's plea of guilty, remorse, emotional stress and co-operation with police.

R v Dowie [1989] Tas R 167; Pavlic v R (1995) 5 Tas R 186, referred to.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [1003]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  G W Tremayne
             Respondent:  T J Ellis
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Griffits & Jackson
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2000] TASSC 169
Number of paragraphs: 26

Serial No 169/2000
File No CA 75/1996

DANIEL FRANCIS MURPHY v THE QUEEN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

COX CJ
SLICER J
BLOW J
7 December 2000

Orders of the Court:

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 169/2000
File No CA 75/1996

DANIEL FRANCIS MURPHY v THE QUEEN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

COX CJ
7 December 2000

The appellant pleaded guilty to one count of murder and was sentenced to imprisonment for 24 years from the day on which he was taken into custody. The learned sentencing judge declined to set a non-parole period and in consequence the appellant will be eligible to apply for parole at the expiration of one-half of his sentence (Parole Act 1975, s12A). He appeals the sentence on the basis that it is manifestly excessive in all the circumstances.

The nature and circumstances of the crime and of the appellant are encapsulated in the learned sentencing judge's comments on passing sentence. They were, so far as is material to the issues raised in this appeal, as follows:

"The prisoner has pleaded guilty to one count of murder. On 16 December 1995 he murdered his wife by means of a single discharge of a shotgun. It is accepted that the crime falls within the Criminal Code, s157(1)(a), ie, that it was committed with an intention to cause the death of the deceased. Not only was there an intention to kill, but there was a significant degree of planning.
At the time of the commission of the crime the prisoner and the deceased had been married for about two years, but they had earlier lived together in a de facto relationship for some years. He is aged 30 years. The deceased was somewhat younger than the prisoner. They had four children, the eldest of whom is now aged eight years.
The relationship was volatile and had been punctuated by a number of periods of separation. Those separations occurred at the instance of the deceased. In December 1995 the deceased entered into a relationship with another man. About a day or…

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 Murphy v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Murphy v The Queen [2000] TASSC 169
Case: [2000] TASSC 169
Decision Date: 7 December 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Criminal Appeal of Tasmania was called upon to review the sentence imposed on Daniel Francis Murphy for the murder of his wife. The appellant had pleaded guilty to the charge of murder, which involved meticulous planning and execution in the presence of mutual friends and their children. Despite the appellant's claims of remorse, emotional stress, and co-operation with the police, the sentencing judge had imposed a sentence of 24 years imprisonment, without setting a non-parole period. The appellant appealed, arguing that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court examined the arguments presented by the appellant's counsel, which centred on the plea of guilty, the appellant's remorse, his emotional stress, and his co-operation with the police. The judges considered whether the sentencing judge had erred in not giving sufficient weight to these factors. They noted that while a plea of guilty could sometimes warrant a reduced sentence, this was not always the case, particularly if the plea did not reflect true remorse. The appellant's plea, made on the morning of the trial, was seen as a strategic move rather than an expression of genuine remorse. The court also found that the appellant's actions following the murder, including stabbing his wife after the initial shooting and sending a threatening letter to his wife's lover, did not indicate genuine remorse.

The court further considered the appellant's emotional stress and found that, while relevant, it did not justify a significant reduction in the sentence for such a deliberate and premeditated act of murder. The appellant's co-operation with the police, which involved admitting his actions but without providing new information, was also deemed not to warrant a lesser sentence. The judges concluded that the sentence imposed was appropriate and not manifestly excessive, taking into account the severity of the crime and the absence of genuine remorse.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence of 24 years imprisonment was upheld. The judges agreed that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offence and the appellant's lack of true remorse. The appellant's emotional stress and co-operation with the police, while considered, did not significantly alter the court's view on the appropriate punishment for the crime committed.

Orders