Legal Research
Cases
Murray v The King

Murray v The King

Case [2024] NZHC 3237 4 November 2024

Sentencing

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CRI-2024-443-27

CRI-2024-443-28 [2024] NZHC 3237

BETWEEN
SETH MICHAEL MURRAY

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 26 September 2024

Appearances:

N P Bourke for Appellant R Hicklin for Respondent

Judgment:

4 November 2024

JUDGMENT OF GRICE J

(Appeal against sentence)

Introduction

[1] Seth Murray was convicted after pleading guilty to one charge of aggravated burglary,1 and one charge of assault on a person in a family relationship.2 On 26 July 2024 he was sentenced on both charges to three years and nine months’ imprisonment. His co-offenders on the aggravated burglary charge were sentenced at the same time.3

[2] Mr Murray appeals against his sentence on the grounds that the starting point adopted for the charge of aggravated burglary was too high, and the uplift applied for the assault charge was excessive.

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 232(1)(a) and 66(2) — maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
2      Crimes Act, s 194A — maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment.
3      R v Chapman-Stone [2024] NZDC 18387 [Sentencing notes].

MURRAY v R [2024] NZHC 3237 [4 November 2024]

Background

Aggravated burglary

[3] On 16 November 2023, a Facebook group chat between Mr Murray and two of his co-offenders was created for the purpose of organising an armed burglary of the victim’s home. One of the co-offenders advised who they would target, and the group chat was used to discuss what should be taken, if Mr Murray should wear a gang vest, what weapons to bring, who would be the driver and who should wait in the car.

[4] In the early hours of 19 November 2023, Mr Murray and two co-offenders from the Facebook group, along with a fourth co-offender, met at one of their addresses. Mr Murray armed himself with a hatchet axe, and wore his gang vest. He also provided another co-offender with a sweatshirt with a gang emblem to wear. That co-offender armed himself with two wooden chair legs.

[5] The fourth co-offender drove the group to the victim’s address. On their way, they were stopped by a police officer who had observed the gang clothing. The driver told the police officer that she was sober driving everyone home. The police officer told her to drop them off and go straight home.

[6] The group arrived at the victim’s address at about 1.30 am. Mr Murray and another co-offender walked up to the house, while the other two co-offenders waited in the car. They approached the free-standing garage and removed five glass louvres from a window, through which they entered. They took cannabis and a money box belonging to the victim.

[7] The victim was at home with his partner. He went outside to get a water bottle from the garage. He saw the window louvres were pulled out, and heard twigs snapping in the area where the offenders were hiding outside. The victim told them to leave before going inside and informing his…

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 Murray v The King

Details

AGLC: Murray v The King [2024] NZHC 3237
Case: [2024] NZHC 3237
Decision Date: 4 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Murray v The King, Seth Murray appealed against his sentence for aggravated burglary and assault on a person in a family relationship. Murray pleaded guilty to these charges, which were committed with co-offenders, and was sentenced to three years and nine months’ imprisonment. Murray argued that the starting point for the aggravated burglary charge was too high and that the uplift applied for the assault charge was excessive. The appeal was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, New Plymouth Registry, on 26 September 2024, and the judgment was delivered on 4 November 2024.

Murray's counsel argued that the starting point for the aggravated burglary charge should have been between three and a half to four years’ imprisonment, citing cases where similar starting points were applied. The Crown contended that the starting point was within the appropriate range, given the premeditation, use of weapons, forced entry, and significant damage caused by Murray and his co-offenders. The Court found that the starting point of six and a half years’ imprisonment was appropriate, considering the degree of premeditation, use of weapons, and the trauma caused to the victims.

Regarding the uplift for totality, Murray's counsel argued that an uplift of no more than six months was warranted for the assault charge, considering Murray's lack of previous convictions for family violence. The Crown submitted that a cumulative sentence was appropriate, as the offending was different in kind and involved different victims. The Court held that the 12-month uplift was within the appropriate range and did not result in a manifestly excessive sentence. The Court also found that the sentence of three years and nine months’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive, considering the totality of the offending.

The appeal against sentence was allowed to correct an arithmetical error in the imposition of the credit for time spent on electronically monitored bail. The sentence of three years and nine months’ imprisonment was substituted for a sentence of three years and seven months’ imprisonment. The appeal was otherwise dismissed.

Orders