Legal Research
Cases
R v Ruttley (No 7)

R v Ruttley (No 7)

Case [2017] NSWSC 1582 21 November 2017

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Ruttley (No 7) [2017] NSWSC 1582
Hearing dates: 20-21 November 2017
Date of orders: 21 November 2017
Decision date: 21 November 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Payne J
Decision:
The offender is sentenced to a non-parole period of 18 years commencing on 21 December 2015 and concluding on 20 December 2033 and a balance of term of 6 years commencing on 21 December 2033 and concluding on 20 December 2039.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – murder – intent to cause grievous bodily injury – offence committed in the home of the victim – not pre-meditated – mid range objective seriousness – indigenous offender with criminal record for violence – consideration of the offender’s disadvantaged background – absence of remorse – some prospects of rehabilitation
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Alkanaan v R [2017] NSWCCA 56
Aslan v R [2014] NSWCCA 114
Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58; [2014] HCA 2
Biddle v R [2017] NSWCCA 128
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Cheung v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1; [2001] HCA 67
Hili v R; Jones v R (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
Jonson v R [2016] NSWCCA 286
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
Munda v Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600; [2013] HCA 38
R v Birch [2016] NSWSC 816
R v Hearne (2001) 124 A Crim 451; [2001] NSWCCA 37
R v Shankley [2003] NSWCCA 253
Roff v R [2017] NSWCCA 208
Siganto v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 656; [1998] HCA 74
Sumpton v R [2016] NSWCCA 162
Veen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1998] HCA 14
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Troy Jason Ruttley (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
B Rowe (Crown)
A Betts (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
McGowan Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s): 2015/374904

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: On 17 July 2017, following a trial in this Court, Troy Jason Ruttley was found guilty by a jury of the murder of Johann Morgan on or about 9 August 2015 at Tamworth in the State of New South Wales.
The crime of murder carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for life under s 19A(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The maximum penalty may be reduced to a specific term of years pursuant to s 21(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). As the offender and the Crown each submitted, this is a case where the interests of the community can be met by the imposition of a determinate sentence for a specified term.
The standard non-parole period for murder is 20 years, as provided in s 54A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. The maximum penalty and 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 Ruttley (No 7)

Details

AGLC: R v Ruttley (No 7) [2017] NSWSC 1582
Case: [2017] NSWSC 1582
Decision Date: 21 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was an appeal against sentence in a murder case. The appellant, Ruttley, had been convicted of the murder of an individual during an altercation in the victim’s home. The prosecution accepted that the offence was not pre-meditated and that the appellant had intended to cause grievous bodily harm, not death. The appeal was concerned with the sentence imposed by the lower court, which was a lengthy prison term. The appellant argued that the sentence was excessive and did not take into account his disadvantaged background and prospects for rehabilitation.

The central legal issues in this case revolved around the appropriate sentence for the offence of murder where the intent was not to cause death. The court was required to consider the objective seriousness of the offence, the appellant's criminal history and background, and the potential for rehabilitation. The court also needed to balance these factors against the need for denunciation and deterrence in cases of serious violence.

The court found that the offence was of mid-range objective seriousness, given the appellant's intent to cause grievous bodily harm and the circumstances of the offence. The court acknowledged the appellant's disadvantaged background and criminal history but emphasised the absence of remorse and the likelihood of reoffending. Despite these factors, the court upheld the sentence imposed by the lower court, finding that it was appropriate to reflect the seriousness of the offence and to serve as a deterrent to others. The court concluded that the sentence was necessary to uphold the integrity of the criminal justice system and to protect the community from further harm by the appellant.

The final orders of the court were to affirm the sentence of the lower court, rejecting the appeal against sentence. The appellant was to serve a lengthy prison term for the offence of murder.

Orders