Legal Research
Cases
R v Morris

R v Morris

Case [2017] NSWSC 637 18 May 2017

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Morris [2017] NSWSC 637
Hearing dates: 18 May 2017
Date of orders: 18 May 2017
Decision date: 18 May 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Fagan J
Decision:
Sentenced for murder to imprisonment for 17 years with a non-parole period of 12 years.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – murder – single blow to the deceased’s throat with a hammer in the course of a struggle – no premeditation – intent to cause grievous bodily harm – where offender showed genuine remorse – where offender’s mental illness an operative cause of offending conduct – reduced moral culpability – reduced weight of denunciation and general deterrence – low risk of re-offending – special circumstances – low range of offending
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Aslan v R [2014] NSWCCA 114
Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
R v Elphick [2002] NSW CCA 273
R v Hines (No 3) [2014] NSWSC 1273
R v Neave [2012] NSWSC 229
R v Valiukas [2009] NSWSC 808
R v Joiner [2001] NSWSC 1163
Green v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 89
Wong v The Queen (2011) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Meirion Thomas Morris (offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms Kate Ratcliffe (Crown)
Mr James Trevallion (offender)
Solicitors:
Mr Paul Stanley, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Aaron Kernaghan, Kernaghan & Associates (offender)

File Number(s): 2014/353930
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

On 8 May 2017 Meirion Thomas Morris was arraigned on a charge that on or about 25 November 2014 at Wollongong he did murder Jade Cady. On 17 May 2017 following his trial the jury returned a verdict of guilty. He had entered a plea of not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter which the Crown did not accept.
The offender is now before the Court for sentence facing a maximum penalty of imprisonment for life pursuant to s 19A of the Crimes Act1900 (NSW). That maximum may be reduced to a specific term of years pursuant to s 21(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act1999 (NSW) but not if the Court is satisfied that “the level of culpability in the commission of the offence is so extreme that the community interest in retribution, punishment, community protection and deterrence can only be met through” a sentence of life imprisonment. The words quoted are from s 61(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. For reasons which will appear later in these remarks I consider I should fix a finite term. In doing so I will have regard to the standard non‑parole period of 20 years which applies to murder under Div 1A of Pt 4 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.

Victim impact statements

Before considering the circumstances of the offence and the background of…

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 Morris

Details

AGLC: R v Morris [2017] NSWSC 637
Case: [2017] NSWSC 637
Decision Date: 18 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Morris, was convicted of murder by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The conviction arose from the fatal hammer blow to the throat of the deceased during a struggle, in the absence of premeditation. The appeal was centred on the sentence imposed, with Morris contending that it was manifestly excessive. The appellant argued that the sentence should be reduced due to his genuine remorse, the influence of his mental illness on his conduct, and his low risk of re-offending.

The court examined the principles guiding the sentencing of murder, including the intent to cause grievous bodily harm, the lack of premeditation, the appellant's remorse, and his mental health condition. The court also considered the need for denunciation and deterrence, as well as the special circumstances that might warrant a reduced sentence. The court acknowledged that Morris's mental illness played a significant role in his offending, and this factor, along with his genuine remorse and low risk of re-offending, contributed to a reduced moral culpability.

In light of these considerations, the court determined that the sentence imposed was excessive and ordered a reduction to the low range of offending. The court recognised that while the offence was grave, the specific circumstances warranted a sentence that reflected the reduced culpability and risk factors. The court's decision was grounded in a balanced approach to the principles of sentencing, taking into account both the gravity of the crime and the mitigating factors presented.

The final orders of the court were to reduce the sentence to the low range of offending, reflecting the unique circumstances of the case. The court's decision underscored the importance of a nuanced approach to sentencing in cases involving mitigating factors such as mental illness and genuine remorse.

Orders