Legal Research
Cases
Murray v The Queen

Murray v The Queen

Case [2019] NSWCCA 235 2 October 2019

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Murray v R [2019] NSWCCA 235
Hearing dates: 19 August 2019
Date of orders: 02 October 2019
Decision date: 02 October 2019
Before: Johnson J at [1];
Price J at [2];
Lonergan J at [86]
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal granted.
(2) Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIME – Appeals – appeal against sentence – wounding with intent to commit grievous bodily harm – whether sentencing judge erred in finding the objective seriousness of the offence was in the mid-range – whether lack of motive is to be taken into account in determining objective seriousness – whether absence of specific aggravating factors prevented sentencing judge’s assessment – whether sentencing judge erred by failing to properly address the applicant’s mental state – whether planning is required for the specific intention for an offence contrary to s 33(1)(a) – whether sentencing judge gave insufficient weight to ameliorating factors – whether sentence manifestly excessive – whether undiscounted starting point of sentence was about 10 years
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 21A
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 33, 35
Cases Cited: AM v R [2012] NSWCCA 203; (2012) 225 A Crim R 481
Barbaro v The Queen; Zirili v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58; [2014] HCA 2
Betts v The Queen (2016) 258 CLR 420; [2016] HCA 25
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Clinton v R [2014] NSWCCA 320
Cramp v R [2016] NSWCCA 305
GW v R [2018] NSWCCA 79
Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
Lees v R [2019] NSWCCA 65
Louizos v R, R v Louizos [2009] NSWCCA 71; (2009) 194 A Crim R 223
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155; [2017] NSWCCA 221
Testalamuta v R [2007] NSWCCA 258
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64
Zreika v R [2012] NSWCCA 44; (2012) 223 A Crim R 460
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Martin Murray (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms C Doosey (Applicant)
Mr R Ranken (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Ryan & Payten Criminal Law Specialists (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2016/298745
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

23 February 2018

Before:

Huggett DCJ

File Number(s):

2016/298745

Judgment

JOHNSON J: I agree with Price J.
PRICE J: The applicant, Martin Murray, seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on him by Huggett DCJ (“the judge”) in the District Court on 23 February 2018.
The applicant pleaded guilty in the Local Court to one count of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm contrary to s 33(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). He adhered to his plea in 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 Murray v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Murray v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 235
Case: [2019] NSWCCA 235
Decision Date: 02 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Murray v The Queen, the appellant, Murray, appealed against his sentence for wounding with intent to commit grievous bodily harm. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia. Murray contended that the sentencing judge erred in determining the objective seriousness of the offence and in failing to consider the lack of motive when assessing the severity of the crime. He also argued that the absence of specific aggravating factors should have prevented the sentencing judge from placing the offence in the mid-range of seriousness. Furthermore, Murray claimed that the sentencing judge did not adequately address his mental state at the time of the offence and questioned whether planning is necessary for the specific intention outlined in section 33(1)(a). Additionally, he argued that the judge gave insufficient weight to the ameliorating factors and that the sentence was manifestly excessive, with the undiscounted starting point being approximately 10 years.

The court examined whether the sentencing judge erred in finding the objective seriousness of the offence to be in the mid-range, considering the lack of motive and the absence of specific aggravating factors. The court also assessed whether the sentencing judge failed to properly address Murray’s mental state at the time of the offence and if planning is required for the specific intention under section 33(1)(a). Furthermore, the court scrutinised whether the sentencing judge gave insufficient weight to the ameliorating factors and if the sentence was manifestly excessive, with the undiscounted starting point being around 10 years. The court considered these issues in light of the relevant legal principles and authorities, and in relation to the particular facts and circumstances of the case.

The court found that the sentencing judge did not err in determining the objective seriousness of the offence, as the lack of motive and absence of specific aggravating factors did not prevent the assessment of the crime being in the mid-range of seriousness. The court also concluded that the sentencing judge adequately addressed Murray’s mental state at the time of the offence and that planning is not required for the specific intention under section 33(1)(a). Furthermore, the court determined that the sentencing judge gave sufficient weight to the ameliorating factors and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, with the undiscounted starting point being approximately 10 years. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the original sentence.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed and the original sentence be affirmed.

Orders