R v Hearne - [1999] NSWSC 605

CITATION: R v Hearne [1999] NSWSC 605

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): 70045/98

HEARING DATE(S): 27/4/99; 6/5/99

JUDGMENT DATE:
4 June 1999

PARTIES :

The Crown
Murray Walter Hearne

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJatCL

COUNSEL : B. Newport QC (Crown)
M. Ramage QC (Prisoner)

SOLICITORS: DPP (State)
C. Jeffreys

CATCHWORDS:

DECISION: Malicious Wounding: Fixed Term of Penal Servitude for 6 years from 3/3/98; Murder: Sentenced to a minimum term of penal servitude of 20 years from 3/3/98, to expire 2/3/2018 and a further additional term of penal servitude for seven years to commence on expiry of the minimum term. Earliest date for which eligible for release on parole 2/3/2018

THE SUPREME COURT OF
NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

WOOD CJ AT CL

FRIDAY 4 JUNE 1999

NO 70045/98 - REGINA V MURRAY WALTER HEARNE
SENTENCE:

1   HIS HONOUR: The prisoner Murray Walter Hearne has been
indicted on two charges:
a) The murder on 28 February 1998 of Constable Peter Forsyth; and
b) The malicious wounding of Constable Jason Semple on 27 February 1998, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm.

2 To those charges, for which the maximum available penalties under ss 18 and 33 of the Crimes Act respectively are penal servitude for life and penal servitude for twenty five years, the prisoner has pleaded guilty. He is now to be sentenced accordingly.
3   The evidence tendered before me discloses that on the evening of Friday 27 February 1998, the prisoner and his half brother Scott Van Meurs met his half sister Tiffany Thorne and another girl, Cassandra Wee, near the Ultimo Community Centre. It had been their intention to attend a dance at the Centre but when they learned that it had been cancelled at the last moment due to rain, they decided to go on into the City. After filling in time at an amusement centre and at a snooker parlour, they returned to the Centre where they expected to be picked up by the father of Tiffany Thorne.
4   While waiting for Mr Thorne on the corner of Bulwarra Road and William Henry Street, the prisoner tried unsuccessfully to sell a tablet, which was said to be Ecstasy, to some young girls. At about 11.20pm the prisoner and his companions observed Constables Forsyth, Semple and Neville, who were off duty police, walking towards them. Each of these police officers had been drinking for about an hour and a half at the Lord Wolsley Hotel in Bulwarra Road. Constable Forsyth was dressed in a T shirt, shorts and joggers. Constable Semple was still wearing his police trousers and boots but he had replaced his shirt with a T shirt. Constable Neville was wearing a light coloured shirt and jeans. Before leaving the hotel Constables Neville and Semple had drunk four schooners each of beer, some of which were light. Constable Forsyth had drunk five schooners the last of which was a light beer. Patrons and bar staff said that none of these men had misbehaved themselves while…

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 Hearne

Details

AGLC: R v Hearne [1999] NSWSC 605
Case: [1999] NSWSC 605
Decision Date: 4 June 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New South Wales heard the case of R v Hearne, where the defendant, Murray Walter Hearne, pleaded guilty to charges of murder and malicious wounding. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentences for these offences, considering both objective and subjective circumstances. The primary legal issues were whether Hearne intended to kill one of the victims or only cause serious harm, and whether he knew the victims were police officers at the time of the stabbings.

The court concluded that Hearne's intention was to cause grievous bodily harm rather than to kill, as it was impossible to determine with certainty that he aimed the knife at the victim's heart. Regarding the knowledge of the victims' identities, the court found insufficient evidence to conclude that Hearne knew they were police officers. However, the court emphasised the seriousness of the crimes, given the use of a knife and the potential threat to police officers.

Considering the subjective circumstances, the court noted Hearne's young age, lack of significant criminal history, and potential for rehabilitation. Although Hearne had shown remorse, the court was not convinced it was always present and that his initial actions indicated a lack of concern for the gravity of his crimes. Ultimately, the court decided to impose concurrent sentences for the offences, with a fixed term of six years for the malicious wounding and a minimum term of twenty years for the murder, followed by an additional seven years. The court justified this decision by ensuring the total criminality was reflected in the aggregate sentence and that the fixed term for the lesser offence would be absorbed by the sentence for the more serious crime.

Orders