R v Murray - [2021] ACTSC 124

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Murray

Citation:

[2021] ACTSC 124

Hearing Date:

24 June 2021

Decision Date:

24 June 2021

Before:

Elkaim J

Decision:

(i)	For the offence of aggravated robbery the offender is

sentenced to 2 years and six months’ imprisonment to
commence on 1 January 2021 and end on 30 June 2023.
(ii) For the offence of common assault the offender is sentenced
to 3 months’ imprisonment to commence on 29 May 2023
and end on 28 August 2023.
(iii) I set a nonparole period of 14 months to commence on 1 January 2021 and end on 28 February 2022.

Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – aggravated robbery – common assault – impact of offending – offender remorse – deprived background of offender – prospects
of rehabilitation
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 26 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 310 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 6, 7, 10, 33
Cases Cited:	R v GE [2014] ACTSC 181
Parties:	The Queen (Crown)
Trudy Pearl Murray (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel
E Wren (Crown) L Vozella (Offender)
Solicitors
ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Vozella Lawyers (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 275 of 2020; SCC 145 of 2021
ELKAIM J:

1.       On 30 November 2020 the offender pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated robbery,
contrary to s 310 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 25 years’
imprisonment, a fine of $400,000 or both.
2.       The offender also pleaded guilty, on 15 June 2021, to a charge of common assault,
contrary to s 26 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 2 years’
imprisonment.
3.       The offender has spent 88 days in custody in relation to the above offences.
4.       The details of the offences are set out in the Statement of Facts. In summary, on 24 October 2020, a gold-coloured Toyota Corolla, with two occupants, was on Hindmarsh Drive in Stirling. The Corolla was owned by the passenger and being driven by her friend. It was directly behind a blue Corolla.
5.       As they were driving along the two occupants of the gold Corolla noticed the occupants of a Holden Astra throwing assorted items out of the Astra. Using hand gestures the occupants of the gold Corolla questioned the actions of the occupants of the Astra. The latter took offence at the gestures, which were not offensive in nature, and took up position behind the gold Corolla. The Astra collided with the rear of the gold Corolla. The passenger in the gold Corolla used her mobile phone to film the Astra.
6.       The Astra overtook the Corolla and again deliberately collided with it, causing it to stop on Pearson Street. Two persons got out of the Astra, one was Mr Akeem Alberts. The other was the offender. Mr Alberts opened the door of the Corolla and brandished a knife. The offender entered the rear of the vehicle. The…

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 [2021] ACTSC 124
Case: [2021] ACTSC 124
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, the court heard the case of R v Murray, where Trudy Pearl Murray was charged with aggravated robbery and common assault. The court sentenced Murray to a total of 2 years and 9 months in prison for the two offences. The court took into consideration the impact of the offending on the victims, Murray's deprived background, and her prospects of rehabilitation.

The court had to decide on the appropriate sentence for the offender, taking into account the objective and subjective factors of the case. The court considered the impact of the offending on the victims, Murray's background, and her prospects of rehabilitation. The court also had to decide on the nonparole period for the sentence.

The court sentenced Murray to 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment for the offence of aggravated robbery and 3 months’ imprisonment for the offence of common assault. The court set a nonparole period of 14 months. The court took into consideration the offender's guilty plea, her deprived background, and her prospects of rehabilitation. The court also considered the need for parity with the co-offender's sentence.

The court ordered that the sentences for the two offences commence on different dates to take into account separate sentences the offender had received in the Magistrates Court. The court also certified that the numbered paragraphs in the reasons for sentence were a true copy.

Orders