R v Murphy and Watson - [2001] VSC 347

Revised
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA		Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1428 of 2001
No. 1429 of 2001

THE QUEEN

JASON MARK MURPHY

and

CLIVE CLAYTON WATSON

---

JUDGE:	Flatman J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF SENTENCE:	14 September 2001
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Murphy and Watson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSC 347

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr S. Cooper with Mr P. Southey	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused Murphy	Mr D.L. Brustman	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Accused Watson	Mr J.D. Montgomery	Slades and Parsons

HIS HONOUR:

Jason Mark Murphy

Jason Mark Murphy, the jury empanelled upon your trial has found you guilty of one count of aggravated burglary, one count of kidnapping, one count of false imprisonment, one count of theft of a motor vehicle and one count of murder.

Although you pleaded not guilty to all counts in the course of your trial you did not contest the first four counts on the presentment and argued through your counsel that you did not intend to kill or cause serious injury to the deceased Christopher Jewell.

Although the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offences have been canvassed in detail at the trial, it is appropriate to address them in brief form at this stage.

The background leading up to these offences is important. You had previously been in a relationship with Malyssa MacKay which had ended by February 2000. She had subsequently formed a relationship with the deceased Christopher Jewell. At the time of these events Christopher Jewell was living with Malyssa MacKay. She was pregnant to him and they planned to marry. You were not prepared to accept that Ms MacKay had entered into this new relationship with her new partner. You became determined to resume your relationship with her and Christopher Jewell stood in the way.

There was overwhelming evidence that you became extraordinarily obsessive about the relationship between Malyssa MacKay and Christopher Jewell. The evidence included lengthy phone calls to Malyssa MacKay, lengthy phone calls to a number of friends, a history of stalking, the writing of what can only be described as egocentric letters and the enlisting of friends to discover the state of the relationship. The conversations with Ms MacKay and others included threats to kill Christopher Jewell. The evidence demonstrated a high level of jealousy and possessiveness and a complete inability to appreciate or respect the rights of Melissa MacKay or Christopher Jewell.

Your threats to kill started to crystallise when you sought to enlist people specifically to kill Christopher Jewell.

By the 18^th July 2000 you had put a great deal of preparation in train. You had a number of weapons at your disposal including a sawn‑off shotgun, balaclavas, and handcuffs. You had assistance in the form of Clive Watson.

Together with Watson you attacked Christopher Jewell while he was at home sleeping after working night shift. The events constituting the aggravated burglary involving as it did…

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 and Watson

Details

AGLC: R v Murphy and Watson [2001] VSC 347
Case: [2001] VSC 347
Decision Date: 14 September 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the case of R v Murphy and Watson involved the defendants Jason Mark Murphy and Clive Clayton Watson. The defendants were charged with multiple counts, including aggravated burglary, kidnapping, false imprisonment, theft of a motor vehicle, and murder in the case of Murphy and manslaughter in the case of Watson. The defendants were found guilty of all charges except for the murder charge against Watson, who was convicted of manslaughter instead.

The legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentences for the defendants, considering the gravity of the crimes, the premeditation involved, and the individual circumstances of each defendant. The court had to balance the need for general deterrence, denunciation, and specific deterrence with the potential for rehabilitation of the defendants.

Flatman J, the presiding judge, considered various factors in arriving at the sentences. For Murphy, the court noted his obsessive behaviour, the premeditation of the crimes, and the terrifying experience inflicted upon the victim, Christopher Jewell. The court also highlighted the significant features of aggravation, including the remote location where the victim was left, the attempts to set up an alibi, and the burning of the car and body to conceal the crime. For Watson, the court recognised his involvement in the crimes but also took into account his efforts to prevent harm to the victim and his lack of intent to cause serious injury or death.

Considering these factors, the court imposed sentences on Murphy and Watson. Murphy was sentenced to 22 years in prison, with a non-parole period of 16 years. Watson was sentenced to 10 years in prison, with a non-parole period of eight years. The sentences were made concurrent to some extent, reflecting the continuous criminal episode but also allowing for some cumulation to account for the seriousness of the crimes. The court also ordered the forfeiture of certain property and firearms, as well as the collection of forensic samples from the defendants.

Orders