Legal Research
Cases
R v Murphy

R v Murphy

Case [2021] ACTSC 94 21 May 2021

Jurisdiction

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Murphy
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 94
Hearing Date(s):	28 April 2021
DecisionDate:	21 May 2021
Before:	Loukas-Karlsson J
Decision:	See [78]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Aggravated robbery – extensive criminal history – Where subjective history of substance abuse issues and homelessness relevant – Where offender on conditional liberty at time of offence
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Child Sex Offenders) Act 2005 (ACT) s 37 Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) s 108 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 22 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 33, 35, 63 Criminal Code Act 2002 (ACT) s 310
Cases Cited:	Ashdown v The Queen [2011] 37 VR 341 Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41; 262 CLR 428 Dyer v R [2011] NSWCCA 185 Hawkins v Hawkins [2009] ACTSC 148 Hili v the Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520 Hillier v DPP [2009] NSWCCA 312; 198 A Crim R 565 Jackson v R [2010] NSWCCA 162 Jinnette v R [2012] NSWCCA 217 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357 Monfries v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 46; 245 A Crim R 80 Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120 R v Bandy [2018] ACTSC 261 R v Hart (Unreported, Supreme Court of the ACT, Refshauge J, 7 December 2012) R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346 R v Hill [2016] ACTSC 310 R v Johnson [2018] ACTSC 137 R v Kilic [2016] HCA 48; 259 CLR 256 R v LM [2021] ACTSC 71 R v Martin [2007] VSCA 291; 20 VR 14 R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242; 66 NSWLR 566 R v Ogilvie [2015] ACTSC 296 R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550 R v Rahman [2020] ACTSC 319 R v Ridgeway [2018] ACTSC 8 R v Rootsey [2018] ACTSC 63 R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103 R v Van Rysewyk [2008] NSWCCA 130 at [25]. R v Vance [2008] VSC 468 R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131; 60 NSWLR 168 R v Williams [2019] ACTSC 298 R v Zocchi (Unreported – Supreme Court of the ACT, Burns J, 24 February 2012) Smith v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 163 Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465 Wronski v Raue [2012] ACTSC 87
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Carl Andrew Murphy (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel V Conliffe (Crown) K Archer (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Tim Sharman Solicitors
File Number(s):	SCC 242 of 2020

LOUKAS-KARLSSON J

Introduction

On 23 October 2020 Carl Murphy (the offender) pleaded guilty to a single charge of aggravated robbery, contrary to s 310 of the Criminal Code Act 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code). The maximum penalty for this offence is 25 years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both.

Agreed Facts

The offending is…

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 Murphy

Details

AGLC: R v Murphy [2021] ACTSC 94
Case: [2021] ACTSC 94
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In R v Murphy, the offender pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery, involving the use of a knife to threaten a store employee and demand money. The offender had an extensive criminal history and significant personal issues, including substance abuse and homelessness. The court considered these factors, as well as the objective seriousness of the offence and the offender's plea of guilty. The court sentenced the offender to a term of three years' imprisonment, reduced from four years due to the plea discount, with a non-parole period of 11 months. The court also took into account the offender's breach of a good behaviour order but chose not to take further action in relation to it, instead considering it an aggravating factor on sentence. The court emphasised the importance of rehabilitation and support for the offender, acknowledging the challenges they would face upon release.

Orders