R v William John Murray - [2008] NSWDC 226

CITATION: R v William John Murray [2008] NSWDC 226

HEARING DATE(S): 8-13 October 2008

JUDGMENT DATE:
17 October 2008

JURISDICTION: Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: Hulme SC DCJ

DECISION: Verdicts of guilty on all counts

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Trial - Judge Alone - Resist and assault police, attempt to use weapon to avoid apprehension, escape - Self defence

LEGISLATION CITED: Bail Act, 1978
Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Australian Federal Police Force Act 1979 (Cth)
Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002

CASES CITED: Crawford v R [2008] NSWCCA 166
Director of Public Prosecutions Reference No 1 of 1993; R v K (1993) 118 ALR 596 at 601
Director of Public Prosecutions v Gribble [2004] NSWSC 926

PARTIES: Regina v William John Murray

FILE NUMBER(S): 2008/00005121

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

JUDGMENT AND VERDICTS

1 HIS HONOUR: On 8 October 2008 the Accused, 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 Accused having elected to be tried without a jury. I am satisfied that before making that election he sought and received legal advice from an Australian legal practitioner: see s.132 Criminal Procedure Act 1986.

3 The task for me is to consider whether the Crown has proved the essential elements of the offences. The Crown bears the onus of proof and the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. The Accused gave evidence in the proceedings but it is important to bear in mind that he did not have to and that he has no onus of proving anything.

Overview of the prosecution and defence cases

4 Stated briefly, the prosecution case is that two police officers, Plainclothes Senior Constable Owen and Plainclothes Constable Evans sought to arrest the Accused 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 Accused that he was under arrest. On the prosecution case it involved the Accused resisting and assaulting both officers. At one point the Accused 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 is charged as an “attempt”. In the end, the Accused managed to break free from the officers and run, hence the charge…

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 226
Case: [2008] NSWDC 226
Decision Date: 17 October 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the defendant, William John Murray, who was tried by a judge alone in a court of criminal jurisdiction. Murray was charged with multiple offences including resisting and assaulting police officers, attempting to use a weapon to avoid apprehension, and escaping from lawful custody. The incident in question arose when police attempted to arrest Murray on suspicion of drug-related activities. Murray resisted arrest and attempted to flee, during which he assaulted several officers and brandished a knife in a threatening manner. The defence raised the issue of self-defence, arguing that Murray acted in response to an unlawful use of force by the police.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Murray's actions could be justified under the defence of self-defence and whether the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that Murray intended to use the weapon to resist arrest. The court had to weigh the credibility of the witnesses, the evidence of the alleged use of force by the police, and the proportionality of Murray's response.

The court found that the prosecution had established the necessary elements of the offences beyond reasonable doubt. The judge concluded that the evidence did not support Murray's claim of self-defence, as there was no evidence of an unlawful use of force by the police that would justify Murray's violent response. The court considered the totality of the circumstances, including the number of officers involved, the lack of any significant injury to the police, and the nature of Murray's actions, which were deemed excessive. The judge found Murray guilty on all counts.

The final orders of the court were that Murray be convicted on all charges, with sentencing to be determined in a subsequent hearing.

Orders

Orders of the court

Verdicts of guilty on all counts

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 226
HEARING DATE(S):	8-13 October 2008
JUDGMENT DATE:	17 October 2008
JURISDICTION:	Criminal
JUDGMENT OF:	Hulme SC DCJ
DECISION:	Verdicts of guilty on all counts
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - Trial - Judge Alone - Resist and assault police, attempt to use weapon to avoid apprehension, escape - Self defence
LEGISLATION CITED:	Bail Act, 1978 Crimes Act 1900 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 Australian Federal Police Force Act 1979 (Cth) Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002
CASES CITED:	Crawford v R [2008] NSWCCA 166 Director of Public Prosecutions Reference No 1 of 1993; R v K (1993) 118 ALR 596 at 601 Director of Public Prosecutions v Gribble [2004] NSWSC 926
PARTIES:	Regina v William John Murray
FILE NUMBER(S):	2008/00005121
COUNSEL:	Ms S Dowling (Crown) Mr P Young SC (Accused)