R v Norrie - [2002] VSCA 232

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 306 of 2001

THE QUEEN
	v.
ANDREW MARK NORRIE

---

JUDGES:	PHILLIPS, C.J. and CHERNOV and EAMES, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	12 December 2002
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	12 December 2002
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSCA 232

---

Criminal law - Sentencing – Murder in Victoria – Minimum period of imprisonment – Manifest excess – Course of criminal conduct in two States – Two murders and other serious shooting offences – Imprisonment for life upon conviction in first State – Plea of guilty to murder in Victoria after 16 years’ imprisonment in first State – Power to increase sentence where sole ground is manifest excess – Totality principle – Application of totality principle as explained in Mill v. R. (1988) 166 C.L.R. 59 – Two sentences including life imprisonment – Crimes Act 1958, s.568(4).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr. T.P. Burke	K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant	Mr. O.P. Holdenson, Q.C.	Victoria Legal Aid

PHILLIPS, C.J.:

I shall ask my brother Chernov to give the first judgment in this matter.

CHERNOV, J.A.

On 19 July 2001 the appellant, Andrew Mark Norrie who is now aged 40, pleaded guilty to a presentment that charged him with the murder of Mark John Lynch (“Lynch”) near Orbost in Victoria on 4 March 1986. This was the second murder he committed after he and his young companion left Brisbane on 28 February 1986 and drove south on a random shooting spree, targeting people, cars and houses. Thus, between 1 and 3 March 1986 the appellant committed a series of offences in New South Wales, including the murder to which I have briefly referred. Lynch was killed, as I have noted, on 4 March. I will describe later in a little more detail the appellant’s murderous rampage during the first four days of March 1986, but for present purposes, it is sufficient to note that, on 7 March 1986 he was apprehended and on 31 July 1987, he was sentenced by Finlay, J. in the Supreme Court of New South Wales to life imprisonment in respect of the New South Wales murder and to other periods of imprisonment in respect of other offences committed by him in that State during his rampage. According to the law of New South Wales as it then stood, the life sentence that was imposed on the appellant was one without a minimum term, although he was at liberty to apply to have it converted to a fixed term of years. It was not until 1995, however, that he applied to have a minimum term fixed, although it seems that he has not yet prosecuted the application.

Thus, the appellant has been in custody in New South Wales from early 1986 until he was transferred to the Victorian prison system in July 2000 as will be explained presently. It is convenient to mention now that his lust for killing did not cease when he…

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 Norrie

Details

AGLC: R v Norrie [2002] VSCA 232
Case: [2002] VSCA 232
Decision Date: 12 December 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Norrie, the respondent was convicted in Victoria for the murder of a person, following a plea of guilty. This occurred after the respondent had already served 16 years of imprisonment in another state for various serious offences, including murder. The dispute in this case focused on the appropriateness of the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Victoria, particularly whether the sentence was a manifest excess of the minimum period of imprisonment that should have been imposed. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal, which included the Chief Justice, and two other justices.

The central legal issue for the Court of Appeal was whether the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court was a manifest excess of the minimum period of imprisonment that should have been imposed, given the totality of the respondent’s criminal conduct in two states. The Court was required to consider whether the sentence was appropriate under the totality principle, as explained in the case of Mill v R. The Court also had to consider whether it had the power to increase the sentence where the sole ground for doing so was that the sentence was a manifest excess of the minimum period of imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal held that the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court was a manifest excess of the minimum period of imprisonment that should have been imposed. The Court emphasised that the totality principle, as explained in Mill v R, required the Court to consider the totality of the respondent’s criminal conduct, including the serious offences for which he had already been imprisoned. The Court also held that it had the power to increase the sentence where the sole ground for doing so was that the sentence was a manifest excess of the minimum period of imprisonment. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal increased the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court.

The Court of Appeal ordered that the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court be increased by a period of five years, bringing the total sentence to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 25 years. The Court of Appeal held that this sentence was appropriate given the totality of the respondent’s criminal conduct and the need to ensure that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offences committed.

Orders