R v Moyle - [2020] SASC 93

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal: Application)
R v MOYLE
[2020] SASC 93
Reasons for Decision of The Honourable Justice Bampton
3 June 2020
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - SENTENCING ORDERS - CUSTODIAL ORDERS - LIFE SENTENCE - REDETERMINATION OR SETTING OF MINIMUM TERM OR NON-PAROLE PERIOD
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - SENTENCING ORDERS - NON-PAROLE PERIOD OR MINIMUM TERM - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - PARTICULAR CASES
Application to fix a non-parole period – the applicant was sentenced in 1996 to life imprisonment and a non-parole period fixed – applicant granted parole on 16 January 2019 – applicant breached the conditions of parole on multiple occasions – the applicant’s release on parole was cancelled on 4 February 2020 and his life sentence reinstated.
Non-parole period of eight months fixed backdated to 4 February 2020.
Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) s 47(3); Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 369, referred to.
R v Moyle (2007) 96 SASR 287; Foley v Police [2008] SASC 338; R v Roberts (2016) 125 SASR 40, considered.

R v MOYLE
[2020] SASC 93
Criminal: Application to fix a non-parole period

BAMPTON J: Phillip Vernon Moyle applies for the fixing of a non-parole period pursuant to s 47(3) of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) (“the Act”).
Background
On 20 February 1996, Mr Moyle pleaded guilty to murder.
On 1 March 1996, Millhouse J in sentencing Mr Moyle summarised his offending as follows:
Early on the morning of Christmas Eve 1994, a man was asleep in his vehicle in a street in Rosewater. You and some others arrived nearby in another vehicle. The young women with you, after difficulty, persuaded the occupant or occupants of a house to let them in to change their clothes. You and two other men waited outside. You went over to the vehicle in which the victim was asleep. He did not rouse. You went through his pockets and took a little under $4.
You and one or both of the others had siphoned petrol out of the tank of the victim’s vehicle. Some was put into a 2 litre Coke container. You poured about half the contents of the container over the sleeping man. A few minutes later you went back to the victim’s vehicle and set fire to him by flicking on a cigarette lighter. He burnt to death.
You have given no reason for doing this except to say that you were depressed, having broken up with your girlfriend, had been drinking alcohol, and were high on drugs: you had been taking heroin for three days.
Mr Moyle was sentenced to life imprisonment and a non-parole period of 19 years was fixed.
Mr Moyle appealed against the non-parole period and, on 21 June 1996, the Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appeal, by majority. The dissenting Judge would have reduced the non-parole period to a term of 17 years.
Mr Moyle then petitioned the Governor to exercise the prerogative of mercy. On 31 October 2006, the Attorney-General, exercising…

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 Moyle

Details

AGLC: R v Moyle [2020] SASC 93
Case: [2020] SASC 93
Decision Date: 3 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Moyle involves an application to fix a non-parole period for the applicant, who was originally sentenced to life imprisonment in 1996. After serving his initial sentence, the applicant was granted parole on 16 January 2019, only to breach the conditions of his parole on several occasions. Consequently, his parole was revoked on 4 February 2020, and his life sentence was reinstated. The central legal issue before the court was the redetermination or setting of the minimum term or non-parole period for the applicant, considering his history and the recent breach of parole.

The court was tasked with evaluating the applicant’s conduct, including the nature and circumstances of the parole breaches, and the appropriate penalty in light of the re-instatement of his life sentence. In determining the appropriate non-parole period, the court considered the principles of proportionality and deterrence, as well as the need to uphold the seriousness of the original life sentence. The court acknowledged the applicant's breaches of parole but also recognised that he had spent a significant amount of time on parole without further offending.

The court concluded that a non-parole period of eight months was appropriate. This period was backdated to the date of the parole breach, 4 February 2020, ensuring that the applicant's time on parole would be taken into account in the calculation of his sentence. The court emphasised the importance of balancing the need for deterrence with the applicant's demonstrated potential for rehabilitation. The decision reflects a careful consideration of the circumstances and the need to maintain the integrity of the original sentence.

The final orders of the court set the non-parole period at eight months, backdated to 4 February 2020, and reinstated the applicant’s life sentence with this new term. This decision ensures that the applicant will serve the additional time required before becoming eligible for parole again, while also acknowledging his past conduct and the potential for future rehabilitation.

Orders