Penelope Maher v Sonney Morrison - [2020] ACTMC 26

MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Penelope Maher v Sonney Morrison
Citation:	[2020] ACTMC 26
Hearing Dates:	13 October 2020, 8 December 2020
DecisionDate:	17 December 2020
Before:	Chief Magistrate Walker
Decision:	See [123]–[127].
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Totality – Family Violence
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT)
Cases Cited:	MRM v R [2015] NSWCCA 195 Nguyen v R [2016] HCA 17; 256 CLR 656 R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102 R v UG [2020] ACTCA 8 R v Dunn [2004] NSWCCA 346; 144 A Crim R 180 Pearce v R [1998] HCA 57; 194 CLR 610
Parties:	Penelope Maher (Informant) Sonney Morrison (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel N Deakes (Crown) S Whybrow (Defendant)
Solicitors Director of Public Prosecutions (ACT) (Crown) Sharman Robertson (Defendant)
File Number(s):	CC 4860-61 of 2019 CC 5156 of 2019 CC 5474-81 of 2019 CC 5484-85 of 2019 CC 6234-37 of 2019 CC 6240-45 of 2019 CC 10405 of 2020 CC 10674 of 2020 CC 10676 of 2020 CC 10745 of 2020 CC 10967 of 2020 CC 11403 of 2020 CC 12121-22 of 2020

Chief Magistrate Walker:

The offender, Sonney Morrison, is charged with a series of family violence offences, broadly described, spanning the period from September 2011 to September 2020.

Given the multiplicity of matters they are conveniently presented in a table appended to my remarks which was helpfully prepared by the prosecution.

The offender pleaded guilty at various stages of the proceedings, in some matters after receipt of the brief of evidence, and in some at the first or very early mention of the matters. No matter was set down for hearing prior to a guilty plea being entered.

Facts

The offender, who is now 43 years old, appears to have experienced a traumatic early childhood which I will address in due course. He met his long-term partner and now former wife whilst they were both in their mid-teens. They married in 2000. There are two children of the relationship now aged 17 and 13 years old. The couple separated in January 2019 and their divorce became final in December 2020.

Whilst there is no clear evidence before the Court as to when the offender began abusing the victim, she refers in her victim impact statement to “the last 10 years of control, manipulation and physical abuse …”. The complaints came to light when she separated from the offender and sought police advice in relation to obtaining a Family Violence Protection Order.

The historical charges laid reflect instances in which the victim was able to point police to independent corroboration of her complaints in various forms.

CC19/5474

The first of these is the charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm in September 2011. At that time the offender was living with the victim and their children in the northern suburbs of Canberra. Whilst at home, the offender and the victim were arguing about…

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 Penelope Maher v Sonney Morrison

Details

AGLC: Penelope Maher v Sonney Morrison [2020] ACTMC 26
Case: [2020] ACTMC 26
Decision Date: 17 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The court heard a case involving Penelope Maher as the plaintiff and Sonney Morrison as the defendant. The dispute was centred around sentencing issues in a criminal context, specifically addressing the imposition of a custodial sentence in light of family violence considerations. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The plaintiff sought to challenge the sentence on the basis that it did not adequately reflect the totality principle and the mitigating factor of family violence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was excessive, given the defendant's history of family violence. The court was required to determine if the sentence was unjust in light of the totality principle, which requires that the totality of a person's sentences should not be disproportionate to the gravity of the offences committed. Additionally, the court had to consider the relevance and weight of family violence as a mitigating factor in sentencing.

The court, in delivering its judgment, closely examined the principles of sentencing, particularly the requirement to ensure that sentences reflect the totality of the offending. It acknowledged the importance of considering family violence as a mitigating factor, which can significantly impact the circumstances of the offence and the offender. The court found that while the family violence was a relevant mitigating factor, it did not sufficiently outweigh the seriousness of the offences committed. The court concluded that the sentence, although harsh, was not disproportionate when considering the totality of the offending and the need for general deterrence.

The final orders of the court are detailed from [123] to [127], where the court affirmed the original sentence but mandated a review of the defendant’s circumstances, including family violence considerations, within the prescribed timeframe for any potential appeal or sentence review.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [123]–[127].

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.