R v Murdoch - [2025] QCA 30

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Murdoch [2025] QCA 30

PARTIES:

R
v
MURDOCH, Liza
(applicant)

FILE NO:

CA No 186 of 2024
DC No 1650 of 2024

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 22 August 2024 (Moynihan KC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

18 March 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 March 2025

JUDGES:

Mullins P, Brown JA and Crow J

ORDERS:

1.   Grant leave to appeal.

2.   Allow the appeal.

3.   Set aside the sentences imposed by the sentencing judge on 22 August 2024, including the presentence custody declaration.

4. Order that the applicant be released under the supervision of an authorised Corrective Services officer for a period of six months and that she must comply with the requirements set out in s 93(1) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) and report within two business days on her release from custody to an authorised Corrective Services officer at Brisbane.

5.   No convictions recorded for counts 1 and 2.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to unlawful use of a motor vehicle to facilitate the commission of an indictable offence, in the night, in company (count 1) and armed robbery, in company (count 2) – where the applicant had turned 18 years old one month prior to the offence, had no previous criminal history, and came from a disadvantaged and dysfunctional background – where the applicant served 334 days in presentence custody – where the applicant was sentenced to nine months imprisonment for count 1 and 15 months imprisonment for count 2 – where the length of time spent in presentence custody made it open to the sentencing judge to impose a sentence of probation which would not require a conviction to be recorded – where it can be inferred from the age of the applicant that the recording of convictions would impact on employment opportunities – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive due to the sentencing judge’s choice of sentencing structure

R v Cay, Gersch and Schell; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2005) 158 A Crim R 488; [2005] QCA 467, cited

COUNSEL:

A M Hoare KC for the applicant (pro bono)
S J Muir for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Kilroy & Callaghan Lawyers for the applicant (pro bono)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

THE COURT: On 22 August 2024 the applicant pleaded guilty to unlawfully using a motor vehicle to facilitate the commission of an indictable offence, in the night, in company (count 1) and armed robbery, in company (count 2). The offences were committed on 19 September 2023 when the applicant was 18 years old, her birthday having occurred less than one month prior to the offending. The applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for nine months for count 1 and for 15 months for count 2. A presentence custody…

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 Murdoch

Details

AGLC: R v Murdoch [2025] QCA 30
Case: [2025] QCA 30
Decision Date: 18 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Murdoch, the applicant appealed against her sentences for unlawful use of a motor vehicle to facilitate the commission of an indictable offence, in the night, in company (count 1), and armed robbery, in company (count 2). The applicant, who had turned 18 years old one month before committing the offences, had no previous criminal history and came from a disadvantaged and dysfunctional background. She had already served 334 days in presentence custody. The sentencing judge imposed a nine-month imprisonment term for count 1 and a 15-month imprisonment term for count 2. The applicant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive, particularly in light of her age and background, and that it would have been open to the sentencing judge to impose a sentence of probation without requiring a conviction to be recorded, given the time spent in presentence custody. The applicant also contended that the recording of convictions would negatively impact her employment opportunities.

The court had to decide whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive due to the sentencing judge’s choice of sentencing structure. The court considered the applicant's age, background, and the time already served in presentence custody. The court also noted the potential long-term impact of recording convictions on the applicant’s future employment prospects. The court found that the sentencing judge had not adequately considered the alternative of a sentence of probation and that the recording of convictions would significantly impact the applicant's future employment opportunities. The court concluded that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the applicant was entitled to relief.

The court granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, set aside the sentences imposed by the sentencing judge, and ordered that the applicant be released under the supervision of an authorised Corrective Services officer for a period of six months. The applicant was also required to comply with the conditions set out in s 93(1) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) and report to an authorised Corrective Services officer within two business days of her release from custody. No convictions were recorded for counts 1 and 2.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Grant leave to appeal.

2. Allow the appeal.

3. Set aside the sentences imposed by the sentencing judge on 22 August 2024, including the presentence custody declaration.

4. Order that the applicant be released under the supervision of an authorised Corrective Services officer for a period of six months and that she must comply with the requirements set out in s 93(1) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) and report within two business days on her release from custody to an authorised Corrective Services officer at Brisbane.

5. No convictions recorded for counts 1 and 2.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Murdoch [2025] QCA 30
PARTIES:	R v MURDOCH, Liza (applicant)
FILE NO:	CA No 186 of 2024 DC No 1650 of 2024
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 22 August 2024 (Moynihan KC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	18 March 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	3 March 2025
JUDGES:	Mullins P, Brown JA and Crow J
ORDERS:	1. Grant leave to appeal. 2. Allow the appeal. 3. Set aside the sentences imposed by the sentencing judge on 22 August 2024, including the presentence custody declaration. 4. Order that the applicant be released under the supervision of an authorised Corrective Services officer for a period of six months and that she must comply with the requirements set out in s 93(1) of the *Penalties and Sentences Act 1992* (Qld) and report within two business days on her release from custody to an authorised Corrective Services officer at Brisbane. 5. No convictions recorded for counts 1 and 2.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to unlawful use of a motor vehicle to facilitate the commission of an indictable offence, in the night, in company (count 1) and armed robbery, in company (count 2) – where the applicant had turned 18 years old one month prior to the offence, had no previous criminal history, and came from a disadvantaged and dysfunctional background – where the applicant served 334 days in presentence custody – where the applicant was sentenced to nine months imprisonment for count 1 and 15 months imprisonment for count 2 – where the length of time spent in presentence custody made it open to the sentencing judge to impose a sentence of probation which would not require a conviction to be recorded – where it can be inferred from the age of the applicant that the recording of convictions would impact on employment opportunities – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive due to the sentencing judge’s choice of sentencing structure R v Cay, Gersch and Schell; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2005) 158 A Crim R 488; [2005] QCA 467, cited
COUNSEL:	A M Hoare KC for the applicant (pro bono) S J Muir for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Kilroy & Callaghan Lawyers for the applicant (pro bono) Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent