R v Murphy

Case [2024] NSWDC 635

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Murphy [2024] NSWDC 635
Hearing dates: 18 December 2024
Decision date: 18 December 2024
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Anderson SC DCJ
Decision:

Sentence of five years imprisonment with a non parole period of three years.

see at [92]

Catchwords:

CRIME – Sentence after trial – historical sexual assault – brazen attack on stranger – DNA evidence – in a public place – intoxicated victim – childhood depravation – special circumstances

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571

DH v R [2022] NSWCCA 200

Ragg v R [2022] NSWCCA 150

R v RE [2023] NSWCCA 184

Category:Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Shannon Adrian Murphy (Offender)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr I Todd (Crown)
Ms E Scoufis (Offender)

Solicitors:
Ms C Berrigan (Crown)
Mr J Janke (Offender)
File Number(s): 2022/00302845
Publication restriction: Statutory Non-Publication Order re name of the victim

JUDGMENT

  1. Mr Shannon Murphy comes before the Court having been found guilty by me on 6 September 2024 of one offence of sexual intercourse without consent, an offence again s 61I of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years in custody and a standard non-parole period of seven years.

  2. These maximum sentences demonstrate the seriousness with which the Parliament takes this type of offending.

  3. As the offender pleaded not guilty he is not entitled to a discount for the entry of a guilty plea. He has continued to show no remorse for his conduct and continues to maintain he is not guilty.

FACTS ON SENTENCING

  1. For the purposes of proceeding to sentence and consistent with my verdict of guilty, I find the following facts beyond a reasonable doubt.

  2. Sometime between 3.41am and 3.57am on 3 May 2012 the victim was sexually assaulted in Civic Park Newcastle by the offender. The victim was 20 years of age at the time and a university student. She had been out with friends arriving at Fanny’s Nightclub at 12.07am where the offender had been working that night.

  3. She spoke to her then boyfriend, now husband MS at about 2.30am while she was at Fanny’s and quite intoxicated. There was no evidence before the Court of the precise blood alcohol reading that the victim had at or about the time she left Fanny’s or at the time of the assault.

  4. CCTV footage demonstrated that she left Fanny’s at 3.05am and the offender left at 3.06am. The victim has no memory between leaving Fanny’s and waking up in Civic Park. Although the victim does not remember leaving Fanny’s I accept the evidence of MS that at 3.41am the victim called him and told him that she was in the park.

  5. Although MS recalls being told that the victim was with friends, I do not accept that aspect of his evidence and I find instead that she was alone. That conclusion is based on the uncontested evidence of…

Continue reading R v Murphy

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Murphy [2024] NSWDC 635
Case
[2024] NSWDC 635
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a defendant, Murphy, who was charged with the historical sexual assault of a stranger in a public place. The court was required to consider the severity of the crime, the nature of the attack, and the role of intoxication in the victim's vulnerability. The evidence presented included DNA and testimony from witnesses. The defence argued for a lesser sentence, citing the defendant's childhood depravation and the passage of time since the incident. The court was tasked with balancing these mitigating factors against the brazen nature of the crime and its impact on the victim.

The primary legal issues the court needed to resolve were the appropriate sentence for the crime committed and whether there were any special circumstances that should be taken into account. The court needed to consider the gravity of the offence, the defendant's background, and the impact on the victim. The sentencing principles involved the deterrence of such crimes, the protection of the community, and the rehabilitation of the offender. The court also had to determine the non-parole period, which would reflect the severity of the crime and the risk of reoffending.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the attack was particularly brazen and occurred in a public place, which heightened the level of harm and fear inflicted on the victim. The defendant's history of childhood depravation was noted, but the court emphasised the need for deterrence and community protection. The court concluded that a sentence of five years imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years was appropriate. This sentence balanced the need to punish the defendant for the serious nature of the crime and to provide an opportunity for rehabilitation while ensuring the safety of the community.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant, Murphy, was to serve a sentence of five years imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years. This decision was based on the severity of the crime, the defendant's background, and the need to provide deterrence and protect the community. The court's reasoning highlighted the importance of considering both the aggravating and mitigating factors in determining the appropriate sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentence of five years imprisonment with a non parole period of three years.

see at [92]

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.