R v Adrian Murray - [2009] NSWDC 407

CITATION: R v Adrian MURRAY [2009] NSWDC 407

JUDGMENT DATE:
24 April 2009

JURISDICTION: District Court of New South Wales

JUDGMENT OF: Cogswell SC DCJ

DECISION: Mr Murray is sentenced to 21 months imprisonment, wholly suspended pursuant to s 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, on the condition that he enter into a good behaviour bond for 21 months.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - aggravated break, enter and steal in company - prospects of rehabilitation - offence unsophisticated and unplanned - offence committed in company - significant relevant prior record - offence committed while serving suspended sentence - specific deterrence - weight to be given to guilty plea

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 s 113(2)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s 9, s 12

CASES CITED: R v Falls [2004] NSWCCA 335

PARTIES: Regina
Adrian Murray

FILE NUMBER(S): 2008/2991

COUNSEL: Ms C Mendes (for the offender)

SOLICITORS: Mr Kiru (NSW Office of Director of Public Prosecutions)

JUDGMENT

1. I am sentencing a young man who has a troubled past. That troubled past has brought him into contact with the criminal law. He has a criminal record both here in New South Wales and in Queensland. He has committed yet another crime which is significantly serious and that is the crime I need to sentence him for. He has the enormous benefit of a strong and supportive family environment, particularly over the last 18 months or so. Therefore his prospects of rehabilitation feature significantly in this case and will have an impact on the sentence which I will impose.

2. First, I must start with what he is charged with and what happened. His name is Adrian Murray. He is charged with breaking and entering a school house with intent to steal. The offence is said to have been committed on 23 September 2007 and the offence is a crime under s 113(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 and carries a maximum of 14 years imprisonment. The offence is an aggravated version of breaking and entering and stealing because it was committed by Mr Murray when he was in company with other offenders.

3. Briefly, this is what happened. It was after midnight on 23 September 2007. Mr Murray had at the time, a drug and alcohol problem. He had been consuming drugs and alcohol that night. He was with two other young men, one of them 18. They were heading to one of the young men’s home when they stopped by the grounds of Charles Sturt University which has a campus in Dubbo.

4. The agreed facts, which are exhibit A, point out that the university is not on either the most convenient or direct route towards where they were going. They got into the university grounds when Mr Murray jumped over a gate. The gate was more than 2 metres high and it was opened by Mr Murray after he got in. His co-offenders all entered the grounds of the university and went through another gate. They…

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 R v Adrian Murray

Details

AGLC: R v Adrian Murray [2009] NSWDC 407
Case: [2009] NSWDC 407
Decision Date: 24 April 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Adrian Murray, the appellant was convicted of aggravated break, enter and steal in company. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The key issues before the court were the appropriate sentence for the offence and the consideration of the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation.

The court needed to determine the appropriate sentence taking into account the nature of the offence, the appellant's criminal history, the circumstances in which the offence was committed, and the effect of the guilty plea. The offence was described as unsophisticated and unplanned, committed in the company of others, and while the appellant was serving a suspended sentence. The appellant had a significant prior criminal record and had committed the offence in company. The court also had to consider the weight to be given to the appellant's guilty plea.

The court found that the offence was serious and required a sentence that reflected its gravity. However, the court also found that the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation were good, and that the offence was unsophisticated and unplanned. The court took into account the appellant's guilty plea and his significant prior criminal record, but ultimately determined that a wholly suspended sentence was appropriate. The court ordered that the appellant be sentenced to 21 months imprisonment, wholly suspended, on the condition that he enter into a good behaviour bond for 21 months.

Orders

Orders of the court

Mr Murray is sentenced to 21 months imprisonment, wholly suspended pursuant to s 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, on the condition that he enter into a good behaviour bond for 21 months.

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.

CITATION:	R v Adrian MURRAY [2009] NSWDC 407
JUDGMENT DATE:	24 April 2009
JURISDICTION:	District Court of New South Wales
JUDGMENT OF:	Cogswell SC DCJ
DECISION:	Mr Murray is sentenced to 21 months imprisonment, wholly suspended pursuant to s 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, on the condition that he enter into a good behaviour bond for 21 months.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - aggravated break, enter and steal in company - prospects of rehabilitation - offence unsophisticated and unplanned - offence committed in company - significant relevant prior record - offence committed while serving suspended sentence - specific deterrence - weight to be given to guilty plea
LEGISLATION CITED:	Crimes Act 1900 s 113(2) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s 9, s 12
CASES CITED:	R v Falls [2004] NSWCCA 335
PARTIES:	Regina Adrian Murray
FILE NUMBER(S):	2008/2991
COUNSEL:	Ms C Mendes (for the offender)
SOLICITORS:	Mr Kiru (NSW Office of Director of Public Prosecutions)