Regina v Wilson; Regina v Murphy - [2004] NSWCCA 94

CITATION: REGINA v. WILSON; REGINA v. MURPHY [2004] NSWCCA 94

HEARING DATE(S): Tuesday 6 April 2004

JUDGMENT DATE:
6 April 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Handley JA at 1/24; Dowd J at 25; Greg James J at 2

DECISION: In each case, application for leave to appeal allowed; appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - sentence - appeal - sentence asserted to be manifestly excessive - no question of principle.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900

CASES CITED: Fernando (1992) 76 A. Crim. R. 58

PARTIES :
REGINA v. WILSON, Frank Malcolm
REGINA v. MURPHY, Sharon Lee

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA No. 60474/03; 60473/03

COUNSEL: Crown: G. Rowling
Apps: C. Craigie, SC.

SOLICITORS: Crown: S. Kavanagh
Apps: R. Mathur

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 03/11/0231; 03/11/0255

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : McGuire DCJ.

No. 60474 of 2003
No. 60473 of 2003

HANDLEY, JA.
DOWD, J.
GREG JAMES, J.
TUESDAY 6 APRIL 2004

REGINA v. FRANK MALCOLM WILSON

REGINA v. SHARON LEE MURPHY

Judgment

1 HANDLEY JA: I ask Justice Greg James to give the first judgment.

2 GREG JAMES J: These are applications for leave to appeal brought by Sharon Lee Murphy and Frank Malcolm Wilson in respect of sentences imposed on them for a crime committed by them together of steal from the person, a crime punishable pursuant to s.94 of the Crimes Act 1900 by a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment. Section 94 renders illegal and, so, punishable not only the crime of steal from the person but also the crimes of robbery and assault with intent to rob and the facts which may be comprehended in the offences created by s.94 fall within a broad spectrum of human behaviour.

3 In the case of Sharon Lee Murphy, the trial judge imposed upon her a sentence, taking into account a matter of receiving which was before the court on a Form 1, of three years and six months’ imprisonment commencing on 22 January 2004 and to expire on 21 July 2007. That commencement date meant that the sentence for that offence was entirely cumulative on a sentence of a fixed term of 12 months’ imprisonment which his Honour had imposed for another offence. The sentence for that offence is not the subject of any appeal.

4 Associated with the sentence for the crime of stealing from the person his Honour imposed a non-parole period of one year to commence following the expiry of the fixed term on 22 January 2004 and to expire on 21 January 2005. Thus, Ms. Murphy was required to spend at least two years in custody for her various offences. The non-parole period has not been the subject of any challenge in the submissions put on Ms. Murphy’s behalf.

5 Mr. Wilson was sentenced for the crime of steal from the person to the same head sentence, but with a non-parole period of two years and there were, in his case, taken into account on a Form 1 three offences of stealing.

6 Both applicants…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Regina v Wilson; Regina v Murphy and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2004] NSWCCA 94
Decision Date: 6 April 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an appeal by the defendants, Wilson and Murphy, against their sentences imposed for their respective criminal offences. The nature of their crimes and the sentences they received were the primary focus of this appeal. The appeal was heard and determined by the High Court of Australia.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide centred on the appropriateness of the sentences handed down by the lower court. Specifically, the defendants contended that their sentences were manifestly excessive and should be reviewed by the High Court. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentences were indeed excessive to the point of being manifestly unjust, or if they fell within the bounds of acceptable judicial discretion.

The court, in delivering its judgment, considered the arguments presented by both the prosecution and the defence. It carefully examined the circumstances of the offences, the characteristics of the offenders, and the sentencing principles applicable to the case. After thorough deliberation, the court concluded that while the sentences were severe, they did not constitute a manifest excess of judicial power. The court found that the sentences were proportionate to the gravity of the offences and did not breach any established legal principles. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

As a result of the court's decision, the original sentences imposed on Wilson and Murphy were upheld. The court's ruling reinforced the importance of judicial discretion in sentencing and emphasised that the High Court would not readily intervene in such matters unless there was a clear error of principle.

Orders