R v Norrie - [2001] VSC 478

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1532 of 2000

THE QUEEN

ANDREW MARK NORRIE

---

JUDGE:	Bongiorno J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	19 July 2001, 17 October 2001
DATE OF SENTENCE:	7 December 2001
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Norrie
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSC 478

---

Criminal Law – Sentencing – Murder - Criminal enterprise extending across state borders – Principal of totality – Life sentence – Minimum term fixed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr. G. Horgan S.C.	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Prisoner	Mr. A. Shwartz	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Prisoner at the bar, you have pleaded guilty to one count of murder; the murder of Mark John Lynch, on the Princes Highway near Orbost in this State on 4 March 1986. That murder was cold blooded, apparently motiveless, and committed without any semblance of provocation.

The grizzly story, of which the event to which you have now pleaded guilty was but the last criminal episode, commenced at the end of February 1986, in Brisbane. You and a then 16 year old boy, one Scott Thompson, with whom you had apparently been living in a homosexual relationship, went together to a sports store. At that store you bought a Sterling semi-automatic .22 rifle and paid a deposit on another. You purchased ammunition and a number of magazines for the rifle.

The following day you returned to the sports store and completed the purchase of the second rifle. On the same day, 28 February, you rented an Avis car from Brisbane Airport and commenced driving with Thompson south from Brisbane towards the New South Wales border. In the car with you there was a vast amount of ammunition, spare magazines, and camouflage army-type uniforms.

You crossed the New South Wales border and at about 2.00 a.m. on Saturday 1 March, for no apparent reason, you and Thompson commenced shooting at a Nissan van driven by a Mr Bishop on the Pacific Highway near Ballina. In the vehicle with Mr Bishop was a Mrs Hendy and her two infant children. Fortunately, none of them was injured despite your having rammed the van before driving on. In due course, you pleaded guilty to two counts of shooting with intent to murder in the New South Wales Supreme Court in respect of this episode.

You and Thompson continued to drive south, shooting at various things as you did so, until, on about 2 March, you all but destroyed an unoccupied parked car which had broken down near Kiama on the New South Wales south coast by firing a number of shots into it. On the following day, before dawn, you fired a further fusilade into a house at Merou, near Nowra. Fortunately, again, no-one was injured.

On Monday 3 March, you and Thompson stopped near Corunna Lake, a little south of Merou, where a Mr Bruest had gone fishing. After a short verbal exchange you…

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 [2001] VSC 478
Case: [2001] VSC 478
Decision Date: 7 December 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Norrie involved the sentencing of a defendant convicted of murder within the context of a criminal enterprise that extended across state borders. The Supreme Court of Victoria was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for Norrie, who had pleaded guilty to his involvement in the murder. The primary issues for the court were the appropriate principles to apply in sentencing, particularly in relation to the total length of the sentence, and the specific minimum term for Norrie's life sentence.

The legal issues before the court included the application of the principle of totality in sentencing and the determination of an appropriate minimum term for a life sentence in such a severe case. The court needed to consider the gravity of the offence, the extent of Norrie's involvement, and the broader context of the criminal enterprise. Furthermore, the court had to balance these considerations with the need for proportionality and deterrence, while ensuring that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the crime.

The court commenced by acknowledging the gravity of the offence and the necessity for a sentence that adequately reflects the severity of murder. It emphasised the principle of totality, which requires that the aggregate length of the sentence, including any parole ineligibility period, should not be excessive. The court also highlighted Norrie's significant role in the criminal enterprise and the planning involved in the murder. After considering these factors, the court fixed a minimum term of 25 years before Norrie could be eligible for parole, recognising the need for a substantial custodial period to ensure public safety and to reflect the gravity of the crime. This decision balanced the severity of the offence with the overarching principle of proportionality in sentencing.

Orders