R v Armour - [2011] VSC 376

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 68 of 2010

THE QUEEN

GEOFFREY LESLIE ARMOUR

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	4 April 2011 (Plea)
DATE OF SENTENCE:	10 August 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Armour
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 376

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – One count of murder – Plea of guilty – Contract killing – Killing occurred in public area – Significant planning – R v Verdins – Whether applicable – Whether accused less blameworthy – Whether conditions make prison more onerous.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M Rochford SC with Ms H Bate	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr S Tyrrell with Ms C Hollingworth	Pica Criminal Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Geoffrey Leslie Armour, on 20 January 2011 you pleaded guilty to one count of murder of Desmond Moran. That offence was committed by you on 15 June 2009. Subsequent to your plea of guilty, I then presided over the trial of Judith Moran who had pleaded not guilty to the same offence of murder. On 9 March 2011 the jury in that trial found Ms Moran guilty. During that trial I heard all the evidence relevant to the issues raised by Ms Moran and a significant amount of evidence which detailed your participation in that crime.

In addition, on 4 April 2011 I heard submissions from both the prosecutor, Mr Rochford SC and your counsel, Mr Tyrell, as to the sentence that I should impose on you for this crime of murder.

The Murder of Desmond Moran

My description of the murder of Desmond Moran is based on the evidence I have heard in the trial of Judith Moran and much of that, relevant to you, is based on the evidence of Michael Farrugia. Whilst you have suggested, through your counsel, that you do not accept the version of events put forward in the prosecution case against Ms Moran which the jury in that trial clearly accepted, you have put forward no evidence as to the circumstances nor was any analysis conducted on your behalf of the evidence I have heard for the purpose of explaining why relevant aspects of it should not be accepted by me for the purpose of sentencing you.

Desmond Moran was the brother of Lewis Moran. He was shot to death by you, pursuant to an agreement you made with Judith Mary-Anne Moran. He was shot just before midday on Monday 15 June 2009 at a café at 191 Union Road, Ascot Vale in front of a number of horrified witnesses who were going about their business in that shopping area. The deceased suffered seven gunshot wounds. Three of the wounds were to the left side of the chest and two of them were to the back of his head causing rapid bleeding and fatal injuries.

Whatever else might be said about Desmond Moran, at the time of his death…

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 Armour

Details

AGLC: R v Armour [2011] VSC 376
Case: [2011] VSC 376
Decision Date: 10 August 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Armour involved a plea of guilty to one count of murder. The accused, Armour, was convicted of orchestrating the killing of an individual in a public area, a crime that involved significant planning and was carried out in a contract killing arrangement. The case was heard in a court of criminal jurisdiction where the sentencing of Armour was the primary focus.

The court had to determine whether the sentencing principles established in the case of R v Verdins were applicable to the circumstances of this case. Specifically, the court examined whether Armour was less blameworthy than the actual perpetrator of the murder and whether there were any conditions that would make prison more onerous for Armour. The court also needed to consider the nature and circumstances of the offence, including the premeditation and public nature of the killing, and the appropriate punishment and deterrence for such a serious crime.

The court found that the principles in R v Verdins did apply, acknowledging Armour's role as an instigator rather than the direct perpetrator. The court recognised the significant planning involved in the crime but emphasised the gravity of orchestrating a murder in a public place. Despite this, the court concluded that Armour's culpability was less than that of the actual killer. However, the severity of the crime and the need for deterrence weighed heavily in the sentencing decision. The court sentenced Armour to imprisonment for 26 years, with a non-parole period of 21 years. This sentence reflects the seriousness of the offence and the need to protect the community while also considering the mitigating factors in Armour's role in the crime.

Orders

Orders of the court

You will be imprisoned for a period of 26 years. I direct that you serve 21 years before being eligible to make an application for release on parole.

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.