R v Lawrence; R v Murray - [2022] NSWDC 727

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Lawrence; R v Murray [2022] NSWDC 727
Hearing dates: 23 November 2022
Date of orders: 23 November 2022
Decision date: 23 November 2022
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Lawrence - four years and three months with a
non-parole period of two years and seven months.
Murray - four years and six months with a non-parole period of two years and eight months

Catchwords:
CRIME – Detain for advantage
SENTENCING - Relevant factors on sentence - detain for advantage two offenders - guilty pleas - in company - joint criminal enterprise – victim impact - deprived background (Murray) - background of disadvantage (Lawrence) – parity - some differences in criminal records and backgrounds – reliance on reports – no evidence of remorse - special circumstances – attempts must be made to break the cycle of crime gaol and crime

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act1999
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:
Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2013] NSWCCA 115; (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Hoskins v R [2021] NSWCCA 169
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
Paterson v R [2021] NSWCCA 273
R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14

Texts Cited:
Parole Supervision and Re-offending: Wai-Yin Wan, S Poynton, G van Doorn and D Weatherburn (2016) Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology v149. No.4. p 497

Category: Sentence
Parties: Carl Lawrence (the offender)
Luke Ronald Murray (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation: Solicitors:
Mr Ashby (for Murray)
Ms Skinner (for Lawrence)
Ms Walshe (for Director of Public Prosecutions)

File Number(s): 2021/00365618 - Luke Ronald Murray
2021/00365617 - Carl Lawrence

SENTENCE – EX TEMPORE REVISED

Introduction

Carl Lawrence and Luke Murray appear for sentence today in Wollongong District Court having pleaded guilty to committing a particularly serious criminal offence: That they, between 20 December 2021 and 21 December 2021, while in the company of the other, detained their victim without his consent and with intent to obtain an advantage ‑ namely, a financial advantage: s 86 (2)(a) Crimes Act 1900.
One measure of the seriousness of the offence is its maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment. That maximum is one important guide to the exercise of my sentencing discretion.
Both Lawrence and Murray accepted their guilt in the Local Court and. Today, both adhered to the pleas entered earlier. The fact that they accepted responsibility will be taken into account. The utilitarian value of their guilty pleas requires I reduce the otherwise‑appropriate sentence by 25%: s 25D Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

Form 1 matters

Mr Lawrence asked that when I sentence him, I also take into account, on a Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, Form 1,…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Lawrence; R v Murray and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] NSWDC 727
Decision Date: 23 November 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Lawrence; R v Murray, the defendants were found guilty of detaining a person for advantage. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The case involved two defendants who were part of a joint criminal enterprise, which included the unlawful detention of a victim. Both defendants pleaded guilty to the charges against them, and the court had to determine the appropriate sentences for each individual.

The primary legal issues that the court needed to address were the factors relevant to the sentencing of the defendants, particularly in light of their joint criminal enterprise and the circumstances surrounding the victim's detention. The court also had to consider the individual backgrounds and circumstances of each defendant, including their disadvantaged backgrounds, criminal records, and the impact of their actions on the victim. Furthermore, the court needed to balance the need to break the cycle of crime with the potential for rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

The court acknowledged that while both defendants were part of the same joint criminal enterprise, there were some differences in their backgrounds and criminal records that needed to be considered. The court placed significant reliance on the various reports prepared for the sentencing hearing, which provided insight into the defendants' backgrounds and the impact of their actions on the victim. However, the court noted that there was no evidence of remorse from either defendant. Despite this, the court recognised that both defendants were caught up in a cycle of crime and that attempts must be made to break this cycle through appropriate sentencing.

The court ultimately determined that the appropriate sentences for both defendants were four years and three months for Lawrence, with a non-parole period of two years and seven months, and four years and six months for Murray, with a non-parole period of two years and eight months. The court considered the relevant factors and the need to balance the needs of the community with the potential for rehabilitation and reintegration into society. The court also recognised the need to break the cycle of crime and provide an opportunity for both defendants to turn their lives around.

Orders

Orders of the court

Lawrence - four years and three months with a

non-parole period of two years and seven months.

Murray - four years and six months with a non-parole period of two years and eight 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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Lawrence; R v Murray [2022] NSWDC 727
Hearing dates:	23 November 2022
Date of orders:	23 November 2022
Decision date:	23 November 2022
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Lawrence - four years and three months with a non-parole period of two years and seven months. Murray - four years and six months with a non-parole period of two years and eight months
Catchwords:	CRIME – Detain for advantage SENTENCING - Relevant factors on sentence - detain for advantage two offenders - guilty pleas - in company - joint criminal enterprise – victim impact - deprived background (Murray) - background of disadvantage (Lawrence) – parity - some differences in criminal records and backgrounds – reliance on reports – no evidence of remorse - special circumstances – attempts must be made to break the cycle of crime gaol and crime
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act1999 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2013] NSWCCA 115; (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37 Hoskins v R [2021] NSWCCA 169 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25 Paterson v R [2021] NSWCCA 273 R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2 Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14
Texts Cited:	Parole Supervision and Re-offending: Wai-Yin Wan, S Poynton, G van Doorn and D Weatherburn (2016) Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology v149. No.4. p 497
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Carl Lawrence (the offender) Luke Ronald Murray (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:	Solicitors: Mr Ashby (for Murray) Ms Skinner (for Lawrence) Ms Walshe (for Director of Public Prosecutions)
File Number(s):	2021/00365618 - Luke Ronald Murray 2021/00365617 - Carl Lawrence