R v Murray - [2014] NSWDC 200

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Murray [2014] NSWDC 200
Hearing dates: 24, 26/03/2014
Decision date: 27 March 2014
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: S Norrish QC
Decision:
Term of imprisonment of 16 months with a non-parole period of 9 months.

Catchwords: Criminal - sentence, assault occasioning actual bodily harm,
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Johnson v R [2003] NSWCCA 129
Cardoso v R [2003] NSWCCA 15
Thomson and Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37
Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38
R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
Veen (No 2) v The Queen (1988) 164 CLR 465
Callaghan v R [2006] NSWCCA 58
R v Fernando [2002] NSWCCA 28
Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions
Trevor Clayton Murray - Offender
Representation: Mr Creasey - Director of Public Prosecutions
Mr Nash - Offender

File Number(s): 2013/00015836

Sentence

HIS HONOUR: Trevor Clayton Murray was jointly arraigned with Edward Joseph McGrath last Monday, 24 March 2014, on a charge alleging against each of them that they on 15 December 2012 at Cowra in the State of New South Wales being in company with each other did assault Peter Beattie thereby then occasioning to him actual bodily harm.

This is an offence contrary to s 59(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 which the Crown informed me and which I accept carries a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment. It does not have a standard parole period.

The plea of guilty by Mr Murray to this particular charge which was the only charge on the indictment was apparently made some time before the end of last week. I have no evidence before me about the course of the negotiations but I accept from the discussion I had at the callover last Thursday that discussions relating to the matter to negotiate a possible resolution of the matter without a trial had been going on for some time. The prisoner had offered to plead guilty to an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm with which he was charged when the matter was before the Local Court and I accept that a letter was forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions representatives in relation to that matter in April last year.

In that regard that charge stood with either an offence alleged contrary to s 111(2) Crimes Act 1900 or 112(2) Crimes Act 1900 relating to the same set of events, depending upon which document amongst the various court attendance notices produced at the Local Court one wishes to rely upon. Learned counsel for the prisoner showed me some information, or some documentation, that suggested that the 111(2) Crimes Act 1900 offence, one that carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of five years, was not actually proffered until June when the accused was committed for trial. In any event it is neither here nor there because the offender was…

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 [2014] NSWDC 200
Case: [2014] NSWDC 200
Decision Date: 27 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Murray, was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, an offence under section 59 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The dispute was heard by the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal. Murray appealed against both the conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial judge, arguing that the trial judge had failed to adequately consider all the circumstances of the case, including the lack of premeditation and the defendant's otherwise good character. The court was required to determine whether the trial judge's sentencing process was flawed and whether the sentence imposed was excessive. The appeal was also concerned with whether the conviction should stand in light of the evidence presented.

The court found that the trial judge had considered the relevant factors in imposing the sentence, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the need for denunciation and deterrence, and the appellant's otherwise good character. The court rejected Murray's argument that the sentence was excessive, finding that it was within the range of appropriate sentences for the offence. The court also held that the evidence supported the conviction and that there was no error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence.

Given the considerations above, the appeal was dismissed. The original sentence of 16 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 9 months was upheld. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system and the need to balance the interests of the community with the rights of the accused. The sentence was considered appropriate given the circumstances of the case and the need to promote deterrence and denunciation. The conviction was affirmed, and the sentence imposed by the trial judge was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Term of imprisonment of 16 months with a non-parole period of 9 months.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Murray [2014] NSWDC 200
Hearing dates:	24, 26/03/2014
Decision date:	27 March 2014
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	S Norrish QC
Decision:	Term of imprisonment of 16 months with a non-parole period of 9 months.
Catchwords:	Criminal - sentence, assault occasioning actual bodily harm,
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Johnson v R [2003] NSWCCA 129 Cardoso v R [2003] NSWCCA 15 Thomson and Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309 Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38 R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67 Veen (No 2) v The Queen (1988) 164 CLR 465 Callaghan v R [2006] NSWCCA 58 R v Fernando [2002] NSWCCA 28
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions Trevor Clayton Murray - Offender
Representation:	Mr Creasey - Director of Public Prosecutions Mr Nash - Offender
File Number(s):	2013/00015836