Medium Neutral Citation: R v Micheal Martin [2018] NSWSC 84
Hearing dates: 7 February 2018
Decision date: 09 February 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Hamill J
Decision:
Aggregate sentence of 37 years with a non-parole period of 27 years and 9 months (see paragraphs [75]-[76])

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – murder – attempted murder – infliction of grievous bodily harm – grave offences of violence – son kills father for insurance money – planned and premeditated attack – initial attempt to kill unsuccessful – offences committed in home of victims – two victims left with life threatening injuries – murder committed shortly after father released from hospital – murder committed with samurai sword – katana – offences substantially above mid-range of objective seriousness – cold-blooded determination scarcely imaginable – staggering moral delinquency – whether life sentence appropriate – aggregate sentence
CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – mitigating features – where offender subject to childhood neglect and abuse at the hands of his father – whether non-exculpatory provocation established – where offender suffers depressive illness as a result of abuse – moral culpability diminished – impact on general deterrence – unusual if not unique mitigating feature for such an offence
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900, ss 27, 33,
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, ss 3A, 21A, 28, 54D, 61
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 s 15A.
Cases Cited: Fahs v R [2007] NSWCCA 26
Goebel-McGregor v R [2006] NSWCCA 390
Louizos v R; R v Louizos [2009] NSWCCA 71; 194 A Crim R 223
Luque v R [2017] NSWCCA 226
May v R [2012] NSWCCA 111
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
Mulvihill v R [2016] NSWCCA 259
Postiglione v The Queen [1997] HCA 26; (1997) 189 CLR 295
R v Burnes [2007] NSWCCA 53
R v Candace Martin [2017] NSWSC 1498
R v Farhad Qaumi, Mumtaz Qaumi & Jamil Qaumi (Sentence) [2017] NSWSC 774
R v Ryan & Coulter [2011] NSWSC 1249
R v Suteski (2002) 56 NSWLR 182
R v Willard [2001] NSWCCA 6; 120 A Crim R 450
R v Willard [2005] NSWSC 402
Ryan v R [2017] NSWCCA 209
Williams v R [2013] NSWCCA 168 and Shine v R [2016] NSWCCA 149
Ziha v R [2013] NSWCCA 27
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
M P Martin
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr B G Campbell (Crown)
Mr G D Wendler (M P Martin)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Stuart Percy & Associates (M P Martin)

File Number(s): 2015/00078236; 2015/00120687

Judgment

On Wednesday 25 October 2017 a Lismore jury found Micheal Phillip Martin [1] guilty of three grave offences of violence. He must now be sentenced for those crimes. The guilty verdicts followed a trial that ran from 4 September 2017 when Mr Martin entered pleas of not guilty until shortly before midday on Thursday 19 October 2017 when the jury retired to consider its verdicts. The deliberation lasted for around three days. The issue…

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 Micheal Martin

Details

AGLC: R v Micheal Martin [2018] NSWSC 84
Case: [2018] NSWSC 84
Decision Date: 09 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was an appeal by the respondent against his sentence for murder and related offences. The respondent, Micheal Martin, had murdered his father for insurance money in a premeditated attack. The attack left his father and stepmother with life-threatening injuries. Shortly after his father was released from hospital, the respondent killed him with a samurai sword. The court found that the offences were substantially above the mid-range of objective seriousness. The respondent’s actions were described as a cold-blooded determination scarcely imaginable, and a staggering moral delinquency.

The legal issues before the court included whether a life sentence was appropriate in light of the respondent’s background and mitigating factors. The court considered whether the respondent's childhood neglect and abuse by his father established non-exculpatory provocation, and whether his depressive illness as a result of the abuse diminished his moral culpability. The court also considered the impact on general deterrence of these mitigating factors.

The court found that the mitigating factors, while unusual if not unique, did not excuse the respondent’s actions. The offences were of the highest degree of culpability, and the respondent’s moral culpability was diminished but not to the extent of warranting a non-custodial sentence. The court held that the respondent's background and mental health issues did not negate his responsibility for his actions. The court determined that a life sentence was appropriate, given the severity of the crimes and the respondent’s cold-blooded determination. The court also noted the need for general deterrence in cases of such grave offences of violence.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, and the sentence of life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 25 years be upheld.

Orders