R v William John Murray - [2008] NSWDC 285

CITATION: R v William John Murray [2008] NSWDC 285

HEARING DATE(S): 5 December 2008

JUDGMENT DATE:
8 December 2008

JURISDICTION: Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: Hulme SC DCJ

DECISION: Total sentence of 3 years 3 months with a non-parole component of 1 year 9 months

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Resist officer in execution of duty - Assault officer in execution of duty - Attempt to use offensive weapon with intent to prevent lawful apprehension - Escape from lawful custody

LEGISLATION CITED: Bail Act, 1978
Crimes Act 1900

CASES CITED: R v William John Murray [2008] NSWDC 226
R v Murray [2003] NSWCCA 116
Sharpe v R [2006] NSWCCA 255
R v Bloomfield (1998) 44 NSWLR 734

PARTIES: R v William John Murray

FILE NUMBER(S): 08/11/0281

COUNSEL: Ms S Dowling (Crown)
Mr P Young SC (Offender)

JUDGMENT
1 His Honour: On 8 October 2008 the offender, William John MURRAY, was arraigned before me on an indictment alleging that he committed 2 offences of resisting a police officer in the execution of the officer’s duty, 2 offences of assaulting a police officer in the execution of the officer’s duty, 1 offence of attempting to use an offensive weapon with intent to prevent the lawful apprehension of himself and 1 offence of escaping from lawful custody.

2 He entered pleas of not guilty to each count. A trial then proceeded before me with the offender having elected to be tried without a jury. On 17 October 2008 I returned verdicts of guilty on each count: R v William John Murray [2008] NSWDC 226.

3 The first four offences are against s.58 Crimes Act 1900 for which there is prescribed a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 5 years. The offence of attempting to use an offensive weapon to prevent lawful apprehension is against s.33B(1)(a) of the same Act and the maximum penalty prescribed is one of imprisonment for 12 years. The offence of escaping from lawful custody is an offence under the Common Law.

FACTS
4 The facts of the matter, very briefly, are that two police officers, Plainclothes Senior Constable Owen and Plainclothes Constable Evans sought to arrest the offender in Chippen Street, Chippendale at about 8pm on 26 January 2007 because they genuinely, although mistakenly, believed that he was in breach of bail conditions. They were purporting to exercise the power of arrest provided in s.50 Bail Act 1978.

5 A violent struggle ensued almost immediately the officers informed the offender that he was under arrest. This involved the offender resisting and assaulting both officers. At one point the offender endeavoured to take the pistol of one of the officers in order to use it to prevent his apprehension. He did not manage to obtain complete control of the pistol, however, and that is why count 5 was charged as an “attempt”. In the end, the offender managed to break free from the officers and run, hence the charge of escaping from lawful custody.

6 The violence involved in 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 William John Murray

Details

AGLC: R v William John Murray [2008] NSWDC 285
Case: [2008] NSWDC 285
Decision Date: 8 December 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved William John Murray, who faced multiple charges including resisting and assaulting a police officer during their execution of duty, attempting to use an offensive weapon to prevent lawful apprehension, and escaping from lawful custody. The case was heard in a higher court, where the focus was on determining the appropriate sentence for Murray's criminal activities.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were the severity and nature of Murray's criminal conduct, as well as the principles that should guide the sentencing process in this context. The court had to balance the need for punishment and deterrence against the possibility of rehabilitation, taking into account the specific circumstances of the offences and Murray's criminal history. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the offences warranted a cumulative sentence or if they should be treated as part of a single course of conduct.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the gravity of the offences, which included violent resistance against law enforcement, the use of a weapon to prevent lawful apprehension, and the act of escaping from custody. The court noted the seriousness of these offences and the potential danger they posed to public safety. In determining the sentence, the court applied the principles of proportionality and deterrence, ensuring that the sentence reflected the severity of the crimes while also considering the possibility of rehabilitation. Ultimately, the court determined that a total sentence of three years and three months, with a non-parole period of one year and nine months, was appropriate given the circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

Total sentence of 3 years 3 months with a non-parole component of 1 year 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.

CITATION:	R v William John Murray [2008] NSWDC 285
HEARING DATE(S):	5 December 2008
JUDGMENT DATE:	8 December 2008
JURISDICTION:	Criminal
JUDGMENT OF:	Hulme SC DCJ
DECISION:	Total sentence of 3 years 3 months with a non-parole component of 1 year 9 months
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Resist officer in execution of duty - Assault officer in execution of duty - Attempt to use offensive weapon with intent to prevent lawful apprehension - Escape from lawful custody
LEGISLATION CITED:	Bail Act, 1978 Crimes Act 1900
CASES CITED:	R v William John Murray [2008] NSWDC 226 R v Murray [2003] NSWCCA 116 Sharpe v R [2006] NSWCCA 255 R v Bloomfield (1998) 44 NSWLR 734
PARTIES:	R v William John Murray
FILE NUMBER(S):	08/11/0281
COUNSEL:	Ms S Dowling (Crown) Mr P Young SC (Offender)