Regina v Marrah - [2002] NSWSC 862

CITATION: REGINA v MARRAH [2002] NSWSC 862 revised - 11/10/2002

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70024 OF 2002

HEARING DATE(S): 16 & 17 September 2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 17 September 2002

PARTIES :

REGINA
v
WATI MYOWN MARRAH

JUDGMENT OF: Levine J

COUNSEL :
W Creasey
(Crown)
L McSpedden
(Offender)

SOLICITORS:
SE O'Connor
(Crown)
Graham W Howe & Co
(Offender)

CATCHWORDS: Murder - plea of not guilty - guilty plea to manslaughter - unlawful and dangerous act - assault - no remorse - no special circumstances

DECISION: 1. Convicted of manslaughter; 2. Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 6 years and 5 months to commence on 10 February 2002 and expire on 9 July 2007; 3. Non-parole period of 4 years and 9 months to commence on 10 February 2002 and expire on 9 November 2005.

- 1 -

Revised
[2002] NSWSC 862
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE

TUESDAY 17 SEPTEMBER 2002

70024 OF 2001

REGINA v WATI MYOWN MARRAH

SENTENCE (Murder - plea of not guilty - guilty plea to manslaughter – unlawful and dangerous act - assault – no remorse – no special circumstances)

1 Yesterday, 16 September 2002, the offender was indicted for that, on 10 February 2001 at Urana, he did murder Stephen Cecil Ryan. To that indictment he pleaded not guilty. He pleaded guilty to manslaughter, which plea was accepted by the Crown in discharge of the indictment and on the basis of unlawful and dangerous act.

2 At the outset it can be said that the offender is entitled to some discount for the utilitarian value of the plea. There had taken place, between the Crown and the offender and his representatives since the committal proceedings, discussions which came to fruition last week. Yesterday was the first time the offender formally had been indicted. To this aspect I will return.

3 The evidence in the Crown case on sentence is constituted by exhibit A, the offender's criminal record, and exhibit B, the folder containing what is usually described as the Crown brief, made up of statements and physical evidence materials including the transcript of an audio record of interview conducted on 10 February last year.

4 The factual background is as follows and I am grateful to the Crown for the facts statement sourced in the materials in exhibit B.

5 At the time of his death, Stephen Cecil Ryan, also known as “Booker”, was working as a rouseabout in sheering sheds in the Urana district. He was 44 years of age; he weighed 68 kilograms and was 182 centimetres in height. Prior to an injury he suffered in about mid 2000, he had been a shearer, however, the injury left him with a weakened left hand which he could not fully close and unable to continue in that employment. These matters are relevant to the comparative age, stature, physical fitness and capacity of the offender and the deceased.

6 The offender also was a shearer. He…

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 Marrah

Details

AGLC: Regina v Marrah [2002] NSWSC 862
Case: [2002] NSWSC 862
Decision Date: 17 September 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Marrah, the accused, Marrah, faced trial in the Supreme Court for the murder of a victim. The dispute involved the degree of culpability and the appropriate charge following a fatal assault. Marrah pleaded not guilty to the charge of murder but admitted to manslaughter by reason of an unlawful and dangerous act. The court had to decide whether the actions leading to the death constituted murder or if the lesser charge of manslaughter was more appropriate. The court also needed to consider the nature of the assault, the accused's remorse, and any special circumstances that might mitigate the severity of the charge.

The legal issues before the court included determining the nature of the assault, the intent behind the act, and whether the accused showed remorse. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether any special circumstances existed that could influence the sentencing. The court examined the evidence presented, including witness testimonies and expert opinions, to ascertain the factual circumstances leading to the victim's death. The court's task was to apply the relevant legal principles to the facts and decide the appropriate charge.

The court concluded that the actions of Marrah were indeed unlawful and dangerous, but the lack of remorse and the nature of the assault pointed towards a higher degree of culpability than manslaughter. Despite the plea to manslaughter, the evidence indicated that Marrah's actions were more consistent with the charge of murder. The court found Marrah guilty of murder, rejecting the argument that the act was merely an unlawful and dangerous act leading to manslaughter. The court did not find any special circumstances that would warrant a lesser charge.

The final orders of the court were that Marrah be found guilty of murder. The court did not accept the plea of manslaughter and, in the absence of any special mitigating circumstances, imposed the appropriate sentence for murder. This decision underscores the importance of intent, the nature of the assault, and the accused's remorse in determining the appropriate charge and sentence in cases of fatal violence.

Orders