R v Moran - [2011] VSC 375

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 71 of 2010

THE QUEEN

JUDITH MARY-ANNE MORAN

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	10 June 2011 and 20 June 2011 (Plea)
DATE OF SENTENCE:	10 August 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Judith Moran
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 375

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – One count of murder – Victim being the prisoner’s brother-in-law – Sentencing consistent with jury verdict – Planned murder – Public murder – Prisoner continues to deny guilt – Absence of remorse – Effect of age and ill-health.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M Rochford SC with Ms H Bate	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr W Stuart with Ms K Paull	Fong & Co. Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Judith Mary-Anne Moran, on 9 March 2011, after a trial lasting some 6 weeks, you were found guilty by the jury of one count of murder of Desmond Moran on 15 June 2009. On 10 June 2011, I heard submissions from both of the prosecutors, Mr Rochford SC and Ms Bate and from your counsel, Mr Stuart, as to the sentence that I should impose on you for this crime of murder.

The Murder of Desmond Moran

Desmond Moran was the brother of Lewis Moran. He was shot to death by Geoffrey Armour, pursuant to an agreement with you, just before midday on Monday, 15 June 2009. The killing occurred at a café at 191 Union Road, Ascot Vale. Desmond Moran suffered seven gunshot wounds. Three of those 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, he was utterly defenceless. This killing also occurred in circumstances where neither you nor Armour cared anything for the fate of Desmond Moran or the risk that other people who were complete strangers to the machinations of your family would at least be thoroughly traumatised by what they saw, if not at risk of being severely injured by it themselves.

As I have said, Desmond Moran was shot just before midday on Monday, 15 June 2009 in front of a number of horrified witnesses who were going about their business in that shopping area.

The evidence suggested that the relationship between you and Desmond Moran had been hostile for some time. In addition, I am of the view that you expected the killing of Desmond Moran to result in some financial benefit to you, although the exact nature of that benefit is not clear. As part of the Crown case, Mr Brian Murphy gave evidence of conversations he had with you about 18 months after the death of Lewis Moran on 31 March 2004. Essentially, he claimed that you were seeking to locate a large amount of money which had been part of the dealings of Lewis Moran.…

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 Moran

Details

AGLC: R v Moran [2011] VSC 375
Case: [2011] VSC 375
Decision Date: 10 August 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Moran came before the court where the defendant, Moran, was convicted of one count of murder. The victim, the prisoner's brother-in-law, was killed in a planned and public manner. Despite the conviction, Moran continues to deny his guilt and has shown no remorse. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence that reflects the gravity of the crime, the circumstances of its commission, and the defendant's lack of remorse, while also considering his age and ill-health.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was the sentencing of Moran for the murder of his brother-in-law. The court had to balance the need for justice and deterrence with the circumstances of the offence and the defendant's personal factors. The court needed to ensure that the sentence was consistent with the jury's verdict and took into account the planned and public nature of the murder. Additionally, the court had to consider the defendant's denial of guilt and absence of remorse, which could impact the severity of the sentence. The age and ill-health of Moran were also relevant factors in determining the appropriate penalty.

The court considered the evidence and submissions from both parties before rendering its decision. It concluded that the sentence should reflect the heinous nature of the crime, the absence of remorse, and the planned and public manner in which it was committed. The court emphasised the importance of general deterrence and ensuring that the sentence aligns with the community's expectations of justice. Despite the defendant's age and ill-health, these factors alone were not sufficient to mitigate the severity of the sentence. The court imposed a sentence that was deemed appropriate under the circumstances, taking into account the need for punishment and deterrence while also considering the defendant's personal factors.

The final orders of the court included the imposition of a sentence on Moran for the murder of his brother-in-law. The court ensured that the sentence was consistent with the jury's verdict and reflected the gravity of the crime. The court considered the planned and public nature of the murder, Moran's denial of guilt, and absence of remorse. Additionally, the court took into account the defendant's age and ill-health, but found that these factors did not warrant a significant reduction in the sentence. The court's decision aimed to balance the need for justice, deterrence, and the specific circumstances of the case.

Orders