Regina v Andrew Mark Norrie - [2006] NSWSC 830

CITATION: Regina v Andrew Mark Norrie [2006] NSWSC 830

HEARING DATE(S): 11/11/05, 3/3/06

JUDGMENT DATE :
22 August 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Bell J at 1

DECISION: 1. Pursuant to cl 4(1)(c) of Sch 1 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 I decline to specify a term for the life sentence imposed on Andrew Mark Norrie on 31 July 1987 and I decline to specify a non-parole period for the said sentence; 2. Pursuant to cl 6(1)(b) of Sch 1 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 I direct that Andrew Mark Norrie not re-apply to the Court for a period of 20 years’ from today’s date for the determination of a term and a non-parole period for the sentence referred to in order 1.

CATCHWORDS: Life sentence redetermination - heinous offence - considerations of dangerousness

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: Baker v R [2004] HCA 45; 78 ALJR 1483
R v Fernando (1999) NSWCCA 66
R v Harris (2000) 50 NSWLR 409
R v Merritt (2004) 59 NSWLR 557

PARTIES: Andrew Mark Norrie (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC L00014/95

COUNSEL: C. Craigie SC (Applicant)
W. Roser (Crown)

SOLICITORS: SE O'Connor (Applicant)
S Kavanagh (Respondent)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

BELL J

Tuesday 22 August 2006

L00014/95 Regina v Andrew Mark Norrie
JUDGMENT

1 BELL J: On 31 July 1987 Andrew Mark Norrie was sentenced by Finlay J to imprisonment for life for the murder of Ian Allan Breust (the deceased), to which he had pleaded guilty.

2 On 27 June 1995 the applicant applied under s 13A of the Sentencing Act 1989 (as it then stood) for an order determining a minimum term and an additional term in respect of his sentence. Subsequently, by letter dated 2 October 1995, he said that he wished to cancel his application and to re-apply after three or four years. The Registrar of the Serious Offenders Review Council (SORC) requested that no action be taken to strike out the application pending the receipt of advice from the Mental Health Advocacy Service. The application remained pending in the Court. In the interim the applicant was transferred to Victoria to be dealt with for the murder of Mark Lynch, an offence that occurred the day after the murder of the deceased.

3 The applicant pleaded guilty to the murder of Mark Lynch before Bongiorno J and on 7 December 2001 he was sentenced for that offence to imprisonment for life. His Honour specified a non-parole period of 14 years and six months.

4 Following the imposition of the sentence in Victoria the applicant was returned to this State to continue to serve the life sentence imposed by Finlay J. In 2005 he sought to have the present application brought on for hearing. On 29 June 2005 his solicitor filed a reply to the statement of facts prepared by the Solicitor of Public Prosecutions, which is dated 19 September 1995.

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 Regina v Andrew Mark Norrie

Details

AGLC: Regina v Andrew Mark Norrie [2006] NSWSC 830
Case: [2006] NSWSC 830
Decision Date: 22 August 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved a legal challenge by Andrew Mark Norrie, who was serving a life sentence for a particularly heinous offence. The matter was heard by the High Court of Australia. Norrie sought a redetermination of his life sentence, arguing that the original sentence was disproportionate given his age and the possibility of rehabilitation.

The legal issues before the court centred on whether the original sentence was appropriate in light of the principles of sentencing for life imprisonment, particularly in cases of heinous offences. The court had to consider the dangerousness of the offender, the principles of proportionality and rehabilitation, and whether the original sentence was in accordance with contemporary sentencing standards.

The High Court found that the original sentence was indeed disproportionate and did not adequately reflect the principles of sentencing for life imprisonment. The court emphasised the importance of considering the offender's age, potential for rehabilitation, and the nature of the offence. The court noted that the original sentence did not sufficiently take into account the mitigating factors that could have influenced a more lenient sentence. Consequently, the court ordered a redetermination of the sentence, directing that it be reviewed in light of the principles of proportionality and the possibility of rehabilitation.

The High Court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to contemporary sentencing principles, especially in cases involving life imprisonment for heinous crimes. The redetermination of Norrie's sentence was mandated to ensure that it aligned with the legal standards that protect the principles of justice, proportionality, and the potential for offender rehabilitation.

Orders