CITATION: Regina v Eric Leonard MURRAY [2000] NSWCCA 159 FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60779/99 HEARING DATE(S): 3rd May 2000 JUDGMENT DATE:
3 May 2000PARTIES :
Regina v Eric Leonard MurrayJUDGMENT OF: Hulme J at 1 & 25; Carruthers AJ at 2
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/11/0751 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER :McGuire DCJ
COUNSEL : P Bryne SC - Applicant
P G Berman - CrownSOLICITORS: Horowitz and Bilinsky - Applicant
S E O'Connor - CrownCATCHWORDS: Criminal law - sentence appeal against severity - relevance of fact that matters could have been dealt with in the Local Court - applicant aged 68 - in poor health. LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 ss 97(1), 188
Firearms Act 1996 s 62(1)(b)
Sentencing Act 1989 s 25ACASES CITED: Thurgar (1990) 51 A Crim R 109 DECISION: Application for leave to appeal granted. Application dismissed.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
60779/99HULME J
CARRUTHERS AJ
Wednesday 3 May 2000
JUDGMENT
REGINA v Eric Leonard MURRAY
1 HULME J: In this matter the court is in a position to give judgment and I will ask Carruthers AJ to give the first judgment. 2 CARRUTHERS AJ: Eric Leonard Murray seeks leave to appeal against sentences imposed upon him by McGuire DCJ in the Sydney District Court on 25 November 1999. 3 On that occasion the applicant pleaded guilty to an indictment containing one count under s 188 of the Crimes Act 1900, - receiving, which carries a maximum penalty of penal servitude for ten years. 4 There was a second count, firstly, of armed robbery under s 97 (1) of the Crimes Act with an alternative second count of receiving. 5 The applicant pleaded guilty to the receiving count and the Crown accepted that plea in full discharge of the second count. He also pleaded guilty to two counts, namely 3 and 4 under s 62 (1) (b) of the Firearms Act 1996, commonly referred to as "possession of shortened firearm", which carries a maximum penalty of ten years penal servitude. 6 In relation to each of counts 3 and 4, his Honour sentenced the applicant to a minimum term of two years imprisonment to commence on 25 November 1999 and to expire on 24 November 2001. In relation to each of counts 1 and 2 his Honour sentenced the applicant to a minimum term of 12 months imprisonment to commence on 25 November 2001 and expire on 24 November 2002, with an additional term of 18 months to commence on 25 November 2002 and expire on 24 May 2004. 7 The applicant was born on 3 April 1931 and was accordingly 68 years of age at the date of sentence. Before I turn to the facts relating to the subject matters I shall deal briefly with his subjective circumstances. 8 His prior criminal record contains eighteen entries culminating with a fine for theft on 13 November 1975. He came from what would now…
Details
- AGLC
- R v Murray [2000] NSWCCA 159
- Case
- [2000] NSWCCA 159
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v Murray, the respondent, Murray, appealed against the severity of the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court, arguing it was excessive given his age and health status. The matter was heard and determined by the Court of Appeal. Murray, who was 68 years old and in poor health, was convicted of certain criminal offences and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The central issue before the court was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, considering Murray's age, health, and the fact that the matters could have been dealt with in the Local Court.
The court considered the principles governing sentence appeals and the factors relevant to determining whether a sentence is excessive. It examined the nature and circumstances of the offences, Murray's age, health, and the fact that the matters could have been dealt with in the Local Court. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the seriousness of the offences and the need for general deterrence. It held that the trial judge had properly exercised his discretion in imposing the sentence and that the appeal should be dismissed.
The Court of Appeal upheld the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court, finding that it was not manifestly excessive. The court acknowledged Murray's age and health but emphasised the need to consider the overall circumstances of the case, including the nature and seriousness of the offences. The court found that the trial judge had properly exercised his discretion in imposing the sentence and that there were no grounds for interference by the appellate court.
No further orders were made by the Court of Appeal. The appeal against the sentence was dismissed.
The court considered the principles governing sentence appeals and the factors relevant to determining whether a sentence is excessive. It examined the nature and circumstances of the offences, Murray's age, health, and the fact that the matters could have been dealt with in the Local Court. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the seriousness of the offences and the need for general deterrence. It held that the trial judge had properly exercised his discretion in imposing the sentence and that the appeal should be dismissed.
The Court of Appeal upheld the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court, finding that it was not manifestly excessive. The court acknowledged Murray's age and health but emphasised the need to consider the overall circumstances of the case, including the nature and seriousness of the offences. The court found that the trial judge had properly exercised his discretion in imposing the sentence and that there were no grounds for interference by the appellate court.
No further orders were made by the Court of Appeal. The appeal against the sentence was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.