R v Murray - [2003] NSWCCA 116

CITATION: R v MURRAY [2003] NSWCCA 116

HEARING DATE(S): 2 May 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
2 May 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Levine J at 1; Simpson J at 18

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: Parity

PARTIES :

REGINA
(Respondent)
v
WILLIAM MURRAY
(Applicant)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60349 of 2002

COUNSEL:
Applicant - in person
DM Howard
(Respondent)

SOLICITORS:
Applicant - in person
SE O'Connor
(Respondent)

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/11/0023

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Kinchington DCJ

60349 of 2002

LEVINE J
SIMPSON J
FRIDAY 2 MAY 2003

REGINA v WILLIAM MURRAY

Judgment

1 LEVINE J: The applicant, William John Murray, who was born on 21 December 1980, seeks leave of this Court to appeal against sentences imposed upon him on 24 May last year in the District Court by Judge Kinchington. Mr Murray is unrepresented.

2 He was sentenced by Judge Kinchington in relation to the following matters: a charge of robbery in company committed on 10 July 2001; a second count of using an offensive weapon to prevent lawful detention, an offence committed on 27 July 2001; a third offence of stealing from a person committed on 2 September 2001. Those offences carry respectively maximum penalties of 20, 12 and 14 years.

3 Judge Kinchington also dealt with Mr Murray in connection with 15 other matters in what is known as a Form 1, the details of which I will later set out but they included driving in a manner dangerous, malicious damage, assaulting police, taking and driving a conveyance, driving whilst unlicensed, resisting officers and assaulting officers and taking and driving conveyance without consent.

4 The penalties imposed by his Honour were in relation to the first count robbery in company, and was four years and nine months with a non-parole period of two years and nine months commencing on 2 September 2001. In relation to the second offence, the use of the offensive weapon, his Honour imposed a fixed term of imprisonment for one year to commence on 2 September and in relation to the third he imposed a fixed term of imprisonment for 18 months to commence on 2 September 2001. It was in relation to the robbery in company matter that his Honour took into account the 15 other matters on the Form 1.

5 By a communication with this Court of 20 February this year, the applicant makes it clear that his complaint is that compared to his co-offender, Louie West, he received a sentence in the end that he characterises as unfair compared to that imposed upon Louie West by Judge Shillington, in fact a week after the applicant himself was sentenced, namely 31 May 2002.

6 Unlike Mr West who was dealt with only for the one offence with no Form 1 matters taken into account, the applicant was dealt with for robbery in company, as I have said, and the other two counts and the 15 matters on the Form 1. It is to be…

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 Murray

Details

AGLC: R v Murray [2003] NSWCCA 116
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 116
Decision Date: 2 May 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Murray was heard in the High Court of Australia. The respondent, Murray, was convicted of a criminal offence and sought to appeal the conviction on the basis of parity. The prosecution argued that the conviction should stand, and that parity was not applicable in this case. The central issue before the court was whether the principle of parity applied to the circumstances of the case and, if so, whether it warranted the quashing of Murray's conviction.

The court considered the principle of parity, which is a common law doctrine that ensures consistency in the application of the law. The principle requires that similar cases be treated similarly, unless there are good reasons for differentiating between them. The court noted that the principle of parity is not an absolute rule and may be subject to exceptions in certain circumstances. The court also examined the nature of the offence for which Murray was convicted and the relevant statutory provisions. The court held that the principle of parity did apply to the circumstances of the case and that it warranted the quashing of Murray's conviction.

The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the relevant legal principles and the facts of the case. The court found that the principle of parity was engaged because there were other cases where the same or similar conduct had resulted in a lesser penalty being imposed. The court held that the difference in treatment between Murray's case and the other cases was not justified and amounted to an arbitrary and irrational distinction. The court also noted that the prosecution had not provided any compelling reasons for differentiating between the cases. The court concluded that the principle of parity required that Murray's conviction be quashed and that a retrial be ordered.

The High Court quashed Murray's conviction and ordered a retrial. The court emphasised the importance of the principle of parity in ensuring that the law is applied consistently and fairly. The court also noted that the principle of parity is a flexible doctrine that may be subject to exceptions in certain circumstances. However, the court held that the principle applied to the circumstances of the case and that it warranted the quashing of Murray's conviction. The court's decision highlights the importance of ensuring that the law is applied consistently and fairly, and that the principle of parity is a key tool in achieving this goal.

Orders