R v Rossi-Murray - [2019] NSWSC 482

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Rossi-Murray [2019] NSWSC 482
Hearing dates: 15 – 18, 22 – 26, 29 – 31 October 2018, 1, 5 – 9, 12 – 16 November 2018, 12 April 2019
Date of orders: 02 May 2019
Decision date: 02 May 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Rothman J
Decision:
Sentenced to imprisonment for a non-parole period of 7 years and 4 months, commencing 2 July 2017 and concluding 1 November 2024, with the remainder of term of 3 years and 8 months, concluding 1 July 2028.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Manslaughter – trial for murder – offer to please – Aboriginal offender suffering violent and drug early environment and latter social exclusion – sentence imposed
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 3A(d), 21A, 22, 22A
Cases Cited: Kentwell v R (No 2) [2015] NSWCCA 96
R v Lewis [2014] NSWSC 1127
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Barmah Rossi-Murray (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
P Barrett (Crown)
A Webb (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Blair Criminal Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s): 2016/00205098

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR: The offender, Barmah Rossi-Murray, was charged with murder in that on 2 July 2016 at Schofield in the State of New South Wales, he did murder Matthew Shepherd. At trial, the offender pleaded not guilty and a jury convicted him of manslaughter. Previously, the offender had offered to plead to manslaughter, but that offer had not been accepted by the Crown.
The Court is required to sentence Mr Rossi-Murray. For that purpose, the Court is required to find the facts upon which the conviction was based, consistent with the jury verdict.

Facts

It is necessary to set out some background. The offender and the deceased were not known to each other, other than cursorily. They, apparently, were involved in a drug transaction in which the offender supplied the deceased with drugs.
The supply of drugs was done at the behest of Shannon Lock, a witness in the proceedings. It involved others, whom it is unnecessary to name in these remarks.
The finer details of the drug transaction are not particularly relevant. That which is relevant is that the offender supplied the drug “ice” to the deceased, seemingly on the basis that the deceased would provide the offender some wheels that the offender could use upon his car, a Holden Commodore.
Apparently, when the accused inspected the wheels, Ms Lock being in attendance at the time, they were found to be unsuitable. However, the offender still supplied the drug to the deceased to the value of between $400 and $500.
A lack of precision as to the appropriate amount was based on a number of factors, the most salient of which was that it was an amount that remained from drugs that had been used by the offender himself. As a…

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 Rossi-Murray

Details

AGLC: R v Rossi-Murray [2019] NSWSC 482
Case: [2019] NSWSC 482
Decision Date: 02 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Rossi-Murray, the appellant was convicted of manslaughter after a trial for murder. Rossi-Murray, an Aboriginal offender, had a history of exposure to violence and drugs during his early life, followed by social exclusion in later years. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The legal issues before the court involved the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Rossi-Murray, considering his background and the nature of the crime. The court needed to balance the severity of the crime with the mitigating factors of Rossi-Murray's troubled upbringing and subsequent social challenges.

The court examined the mitigating circumstances, including Rossi-Murray's early exposure to violence and drugs, as well as his later experiences of social exclusion. These factors were considered in light of the principles of sentencing for manslaughter. The court also took into account the offer to please, which Rossi-Murray had made during the trial, as well as his otherwise good character and the absence of any prior criminal record. The sentencing judge had to weigh these mitigating factors against the gravity of the crime, which involved the unlawful taking of a life.

In its reasoning, the court recognised the significant impact of Rossi-Murray's background on his actions, while also acknowledging the seriousness of the offence. The judge concluded that the sentence should reflect both the need for punishment and the potential for rehabilitation. The court imposed a sentence of imprisonment, with consideration given to Rossi-Murray's background and the possibility of rehabilitation. The court found that this sentence was proportionate to the crime, while also taking into account the need for justice and deterrence.

The final orders of the court included the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment on Rossi-Murray, with specific consideration given to his background and the potential for rehabilitation. The court also directed that Rossi-Murray be provided with access to rehabilitation programs during his incarceration, in an effort to address the underlying issues that had contributed to his criminal behaviour.

Orders