Legal Research
Cases
R v Morgan

R v Morgan

Case [2010] VSCA 15 19 February 2010

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

THE QUEEN	No 721 of 2009
	Respondent
v
STEELIE MORGAN	Appellant

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL P and BUCHANAN JA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	28 January 2010
DATE OF ORDERS:	28 January 2010
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	19 February 2010
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2010] VSCA 15
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	R v Morgan (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Lawson, 3 July 2009)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Assault (2), cause injury intentionally (8), threat to kill, false imprisonment – Koori Court – Whether offender’s participation in ‘sentencing conversation’ a mitigating factor – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Crown concessions – Resentenced – Consideration of functions of Koori Court procedures – County Court Act (Vic) ss 4A–4G.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr B Sonnet	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant	Mr P J Doyle	Victorian Legal Aid

MAXWELL P
BUCHANAN JA

This is an appeal against sentence imposed in the Koori Court at Morwell on 3 July 2009. As will appear, the Crown conceded error in the sentencing decision. (The grounds of appeal raised some important issues, however, which we discuss below.) At the initiative of the Office of Public Prosecutions, the hearing of the appeal was brought on as a matter of urgency to enable this Court to resentence the appellant. In the light of the decision we reached,[1] this initiative is very much to be commended.
[1]See [42] below.

The appellant (‘Morgan’) pleaded guilty to a total of 12 counts – eight counts of causing injury intentionally; two counts of common law assault; one count of making a threat to kill; and one count of false imprisonment. The sentences imposed are set out in the table below.

COUNT	OFFENCE	MAXIMUM	SENTENCE	CUMULATION
1	Causing injury intentionally	10y	12m	3m
2	Common law assault	5y	6m	− (Concurrently with sentences for counts 3, 5 and 8)
3	Common law assault	5y	3m	− (Concurrently with sentences for counts 2, 5 and 8)
4	Causing injury intentionally	10y	6m	3m
5	Threat to kill	10y	6m	− (Concurrently with sentences for counts 2, 3 and 8)
6	Causing injury intentionally	10y	12m	3m
7	Causing injury intentionally	10y	12m	3m
8	Causing injury intentionally	10y	18m	BASE
9	Causing injury intentionally	10y	12m	3m
10	Causing injury intentionally	10y	12m	3m
11	False imprisonment	10y	12m	3m
12	Causing injury intentionally	10y	12m	3m
Total Effective Sentence: 3y 6m Non-parole period: 1y 6m
6AAA Sentence: TES: 4y 6m NPP: 2y 9m

Factual background

The Crown opening summarised the facts of the case, as follows. In late December 2007, Morgan, who was then 24, commenced a relationship with TU, a 15 year old girl. The offending took place between 31 December 2007 and 16 March 2008.

The relationship was a sexual one. Shortly after its commencement, Morgan committed a series of violent offences against TU, as follows:

·In the first week of 2008, Morgan threw a…

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 [2010] VSCA 15
Case: [2010] VSCA 15
Decision Date: 19 February 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Morgan, the appellant was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, intentionally causing injury, threatening to kill, and false imprisonment. The case was heard and determined in the County Court of Victoria, with an appeal subsequently lodged in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appeal focused on the severity of the sentence imposed, arguing that it was manifestly excessive and did not adequately consider mitigating factors, including the offender's participation in a 'sentencing conversation' facilitated by the Koori Court procedures.

The legal issues at the heart of the appeal centred on whether the original sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the offender's engagement in the 'sentencing conversation' should have been considered as a mitigating factor. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the Koori Court procedures were properly applied and if the Crown's concessions during the appeal were adequately addressed.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, found that the original sentence was indeed manifestly excessive. The court acknowledged the importance of the Koori Court procedures and the offender's participation in the'sentencing conversation' as significant mitigating factors. Furthermore, the Crown's concessions during the appeal process were considered, leading to a reconsideration of the sentence. The court, in resentencing the offender, ensured that the functions of the Koori Court procedures were appropriately factored into the new sentence, reflecting the principles enshrined in sections 4A to 4G of the County Court Act (Vic).

As a result of the appeal, the offender was resentenced by the Supreme Court, taking into account the mitigating factors and the Crown's concessions. The court's decision underscored the importance of the Koori Court procedures and the need for sentences to be proportionate and reflective of all relevant circumstances.

Orders