R v Moore; R v Price - [2015] NSWSC 1101

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Moore; R v Price [2015] NSWSC 1101
Hearing dates: 4 May 2015 – 20 May 2015, 24 July 2015
Date of orders: 07 August 2015
Decision date: 07 August 2015
Before: Garling J
Decision:
Ms Michele Kathleen Moore: Sentenced to the following term of imprisonment:
(1)A non-parole period of 15 years commencing on 22 November 2012, and concluding on 21 November 2027;
(2)A balance of term of 7 years commencing on 22 November 2027 and concluding on 21 November 2034;
(3)Not eligible for release before the expiry of the non-parole period.
Mr Brendan James Price: Sentenced to the following term of imprisonment:
(1)A non-parole period of 12 years commencing on 22 November 2012, and concluding on 21 November 2024;
(2)A balance of term of 6 years commencing on 22 November 2024 and concluding on 21 November 2030;
(3)Not eligible for release before the expiry of the non-parole period.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – murder – aiding and abetting – serious offence – aggravating and mitigating factors – use of weapons – offence committed in company – remorse demonstrated – good prospects of rehabilitation – special circumstances
Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited: Cheung v The Queen [2001] HCA 67; (2001) 209 CLR 1
Lowe v The Queen [1984] HCA 46; (1984) 1 54 CLR 606
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357
Muldrock v The Queen [2001] HCA 39; (2001) 244 CLR 120
R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374 at 377-378
Veen v The Queen (No.2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465
Texts Cited: Not Applicable
Category: Sentence
Parties: Crown
Michele Kathleen Moore (Offender)
Brendan James Price (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
J McLennan SC (Crown)
R Cavanagh (Moore)
B Hughes SC (Price)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
O’Brien Winter Partners (Moore)
Todd Ritchie (Price)

File Number(s): 2012/338749,2012/338739
Publication restriction: Not Applicable

___________________________________________________________________

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

On 22 November 2012, Michele Kathleen Moore (Ms Moore) and Brendan James Price (Mr Price), who are husband and wife, were arrested and charged with the murder of Dennis Burns (Mr Burns).
Three weeks earlier, on 1 November 2012, Mr James Moore, the 24 year old son of Ms Moore, was charged with the murder of Mr Burns.
After being committed for trial by the Local Court at Coffs Harbour on 14 November 2013, Ms Moore and Mr Price upon arraignment in this Court on 7 March 2014, each entered a plea of not guilty.
Ultimately they were arraigned before a jury on 4 May 2015. Again, they each pleaded not guilty to the charge of murder, and the trial proceeded.
On Wednesday 20 May 2015, the jury returned a verdict against each of Ms Moore and Mr Price of guilty of murder. A conviction for the offence was entered against each of them by the Court on that…

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 Moore; R v Price 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: [2015] NSWSC 1101
Decision Date: 07 August 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellants, Moore and Price, were convicted of murder and sentenced to imprisonment. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia, where the primary issues revolved around the appropriate sentencing for their crimes. The court needed to determine whether the sentences imposed were just and whether the trial judge had correctly applied the relevant legal principles. The appellants argued that their sentences were excessive, while the Crown contended that the sentences were appropriate given the severity of the crimes committed.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had erred in failing to adequately consider certain mitigating factors, and whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive. The court examined the principles of sentencing for murder, particularly the role of aggravating and mitigating factors in determining an appropriate sentence. The appellants' legal team argued that the trial judge had not given sufficient weight to their clients' remorse and prospects for rehabilitation, while the Crown maintained that the sentences reflected the gravity of the crimes and the use of weapons during their commission.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that the trial judge had indeed failed to adequately consider some mitigating factors, particularly the remorse shown by the appellants and their good prospects for rehabilitation. The court found that the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive and ordered that the matter be remitted to the Court of Criminal Appeal for re-sentencing. The High Court emphasised the importance of a balanced approach to sentencing, where both aggravating and mitigating factors are properly weighed and considered. The court also highlighted the need for sentences to be proportionate to the offence and the offender, taking into account the specific circumstances of each case.

The final orders of the court were to remit the case to the Court of Criminal Appeal for re-sentencing, with directions that the trial judge's consideration of mitigating factors be revisited. The court did not alter the convictions but directed that the sentences be reviewed in light of its findings. This decision underscores the significance of a comprehensive and balanced approach to sentencing in cases of serious crimes such as murder.

Orders