R v Morgan - [2001] NSWCCA 104

CITATION: R v Morgan [2001] NSWCCA 104

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60191/99

HEARING DATE(S): Monday 19 February 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
19 February 2001

PARTIES :

Regina v Joseph Morgan

JUDGMENT OF: Grove J at 1; Hulme J at 13

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 97/11/0108

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Howie DCJ

COUNSEL : E. Wilkins (Crown)
In person (Applicant)

SOLICITORS: S.E. O'Connor (Crown)

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law and Procedure - Robbery in Company - Planned Crime - Jewellery Store - Considerable Loot Unrecovered - High Degree of Seriousness

DECISION: Application for leave to appeal granted; Appeal dismissed.

IN THE COURT OF

CRIMINAL APPEAL

60191/99

Monday 19 February 2001

REGINA v JOSEPH MORGAN

JUDGMENT

1 GROVE J: This is an application for leave to appeal against the severity of sentence imposed in the Sydney District Court by Howie DCJ (as he then was).

2 The applicant had appeared for trial before his Honour and a jury charged with the offence of robbery in company whilst armed with a dangerous weapon and larceny of a motor vehicle. Pursuant to directions by his Honour the applicant was found not guilty on the first count but was convicted by the jury of the available alternative of robbery in company. It can be seen that the distinction was that the aggravating circumstance of being armed with a dangerous weapon was omitted from the offence of which the applicant was ultimately convicted.

3 After conviction his Honour was asked to take into account on a Form 1 under the Criminal Procedure Act a comparatively minor offence of driving whilst disqualified. Whilst the offence itself was comparatively minor it bore some relevance to the facts and circumstances of this crime.

4 The crime itself was serious to a very high degree; it was obviously planned. A number of men in a stolen vehicle approached the jewellery store of Percy Marks Jewellers at about 9.30am on the morning of 23 September 1996. At least one of the men was equipped with a sledge hammer. There was a forced entry into the store and, as the learned sentencing Judge observed, it is apparent that the participants were aware of the necessity to have equipment enabling entry into the more secured areas of the store. This was achieved and jewellery valued at more than half a million dollars was taken from the store. It is true that access to a safe was not ultimately gained but, as I have indicated, there was a considerable amount of loot taken. The robbers escaped in the stolen vehicle.

5 Police who were nearby for an unassociated reason came to the scene and shots were fired. The applicant who was, whilst disqualified, driving the car was wounded. It is not necessary for present purposes to detail all the circumstances so it suffices to observe that these were related by the sentencing Judge and I would adopt what he has said about it. It appears that the…

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 Morgan

Details

AGLC: R v Morgan [2001] NSWCCA 104
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 104
Decision Date: 19 February 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Morgan, the appellant was charged with robbery in company, following an incident where a jewellery store was targeted. A number of individuals were involved in the crime, and while some were apprehended, a significant amount of stolen goods remained unrecovered. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary issues before the court were whether the appellant's involvement in the crime amounted to robbery in company and the extent of his culpability given the seriousness of the crime and the substantial loot that remained unrecovered.

The court was required to determine the specific legal elements that constituted robbery in company under Australian law and the degree of participation necessary to be held accountable for the crime. Additionally, the court had to consider the appellant's role in the planning and execution of the robbery, and whether his actions contributed significantly to the overall seriousness of the offence. The appellant argued that he was merely a peripheral participant and not an active member of the group responsible for the crime.

The court found that the appellant's involvement in the planning and execution of the robbery, along with his flight from the scene, demonstrated a clear intention to participate in the crime. The court emphasised that the nature of the crime, the significant value of the stolen goods, and the appellant's actions all contributed to a high degree of seriousness. The court held that the appellant's participation in the crime was sufficient to establish his guilt of robbery in company. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.

The court did not make any specific orders beyond affirming the conviction of the appellant. The decision underscores the importance of active participation in a planned crime and the severe consequences that can follow for those involved in such activities. The ruling also highlights the court's consideration of the overall seriousness of the crime, including the value of the loot and the planning involved, in determining the culpability of the accused.

Orders