R v Morrison - [2011] VSC 311

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. SCR 0157 of 2010

THE QUEEN

NEVILLE JOHN MORRISON

---

JUDGE:	CURTAIN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	26 May 2011
DATE OF SENTENCE:	1 July 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Morrison
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 311

---

MURDER – Plea of guilty – Brutal assault by kicking – Assault without motive – Senseless and spontaneous – Victim not known to offender – Prisoner alcoholic not previously jailed – Modest prior convictions – Profound remorse – TES: 19 years with a non parole period of 15 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr G.M. Horgan SC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr S Johns	Mr P.W. Dwyer - solicitor

HER HONOUR:

Neville John Morrison, you have pleaded guilty to one count of murder and have admitted prior convictions. You, together with Robert William Chaffey, assaulted David Alexander Rodakis in the hall outside his bedroom at the Gatwick Hotel in Fitzroy Street, St Kilda in the early hours of 15 February 2010. Mr Rodakis, upon being discovered, was placed in an induced coma and taken by ambulance to the Alfred Hospital. By reason of the injuries he sustained, he had been reduced to a vegetative state. There was no possibility of recovery and he died 13 days later from pneumonia.

In February 2010, you were living temporarily at your brother’s flat in Alma Road, St Kilda. On 14 February 2010, you went to the St Kilda Festival and there met with your co-offender, Robert Chaffey. You did not know each other previously. It appears you each consumed cask wine throughout the day and into the early hours of 15 February 2010. Robert Chaffey was staying at the Gatwick Hotel. He had been there for three days, and CCTV footage shows you and Chaffey arriving at the hotel and going to his room at about 3.43am. You were both seen to leave within minutes and then return to the hotel at 4.42am, and you are seen to have a bladder of cask wine with you. David Rodakis lived at the Gatwick Hotel. You did not know him, nor did Mr Chaffey. At 5.08am, Mr Rodakis is seen to leave his room and go out into the street. At 5.10am, you are seen drinking from the bladder of wine and then at 5.12am you are joined by Mr Chaffey and, together, you stand in the doorway, drinking. Mr Chaffey then follows a woman into the hotel and appears to ask for a cigarette, and you follow him into the lobby. At this point, Mr Rodakis returns to the hotel and proceeds to his room. You and Chaffey follow him, and as Mr Rodakis tries to enter his room, you pull him back and throw him to the floor. What then follows is a brutal and vicious attack, all of it graphically captured on the CCTV footage.

Mr Chaffey stomps or…

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 Morrison

Details

AGLC: R v Morrison [2011] VSC 311
Case: [2011] VSC 311
Decision Date: 1 July 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the case of R v Morrison saw the defendant, Morrison, plead guilty to the charge of murder. The crime involved a brutal assault by Morrison, who kicked the victim without any apparent motive, in what appeared to be a senseless and spontaneous act. The victim was not known to Morrison. Morrison had a history of alcohol abuse and had not been previously incarcerated, though he did have a modest number of prior convictions. Morrison displayed profound remorse for his actions.

The primary legal issue for the court was to determine an appropriate sentence for Morrison's crime, considering his background, the nature of the offence, and his remorse. The court also had to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the potential for rehabilitation. The court was required to assess whether the sentence should reflect the heinous nature of the crime or give consideration to Morrison's personal circumstances and expressions of remorse.

In delivering the judgment, the court considered the brutality of the crime and the lack of any apparent motive. It noted Morrison's alcohol dependency and lack of prior incarceration, as well as his expressions of remorse. The court acknowledged the need for the sentence to serve as a deterrent while also considering the potential for rehabilitation. Ultimately, the court determined that the appropriate sentence was a term of 19 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 years. This sentence balanced the need for punishment and deterrence with the possibility of Morrison's rehabilitation.

No additional orders were made by the court beyond the sentence of 19 years with a non-parole period of 15 years. The court's decision reflected a careful consideration of all relevant factors, resulting in a sentence that aimed to address both the severity of the crime and Morrison's personal circumstances.

Orders