Murray v The King - [2024] NZHC 818

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2024-488-22

[2024] NZHC 818

SHAUN WILLIAM FRANK MURRAY

Appellant

v

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 16 April 2024

Appearances:

D J Blaikie for the Appellant

A J Goodwin for the Respondent

Judgment:

16 April 2024

ORAL JUDGMENT OF WHATA J

MURRAY v THE KING [2024] NZHC 818 [16 April 2024]

[1] Mr Murray finds it difficult to comply with the law and orders of the Court. On 23 November 2023, he was sentenced to 11 months’ imprisonment for multiple failures to answer District Court bail, multiple breaches of release conditions, operating a motor vehicle causing sustained loss of traction, receiving stolen property, unlawfully occupying an enclosed yard and for procuring cannabis. He was granted leave to apply for home detention, and did so successfully. His sentence was commuted to four and a half months’ home detention on 31 January 2024. He was placed with Waitomo Papakainga, a rehabilitation facility. It was due to expire on 13 June 2024.

[2] However, one day into that commuted sentence he tested positive for methamphetamine. He was returned to custody on 2 February 2024, and then on 4 March 2024, was sentenced on this breach to nine months’ imprisonment. Mr Blaikie submits that the net effect of this is that Mr Murray’s effective sentence of imprisonment had been extended from 8 May 2024 to 18 July 2024, a period of two months and 10 days. So, in terms of a literal sentence, he has effectively been sentenced to a further four months and 20 days.

[3] Mr Blaikie says this is manifestly excessive. The home detention sentence should have been cancelled and Mr Murray should have been resentenced on all charges he faced in November, with a result that he returns to the initial effective end date for sentence. This achieved the purposes and principles insofar as Mr Murray already forgoes the rehabilitation opportunity that home detention afforded. Moreover, Mr Blaikie says while it is a breach, it was an understandable breach given the context he went into, a residential facility for persons suffering with addiction. Mr Blaikie is also instructed that Mr Murray wishes to return to the rehabilitation facility and the facility is wanting him back.

[4] Mr Goodwin for the Crown submits that meaningful uplift would be a proportionate response to what is a recidivist rule breaker. It is noted that Mr Murray has 16 convictions for breach of court orders.

[5] It is further submitted that the four and a half months’ home detention would need to, in terms of calculating sentence, take into account time already served. That is a matter which is disputed by Mr Blaikie. In any event, it appears that the Judge effectively intended simply to return Mr Murray to a term of imprisonment.

[6] Mr Goodwin accepts that the proper approach in such cases would have been to resentence Mr Murray on the original charges and then to sentence…

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 818
Case: [2024] NZHC 818
Decision Date: 16 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Murray v The King saw Shaun William Frank Murray, the appellant, challenging the sentence imposed on him by the lower court. Murray had been sentenced to 11 months in prison for multiple charges, including breaches of bail and release conditions, and was later granted home detention instead of imprisonment. However, upon testing positive for methamphetamine shortly after beginning his home detention, Murray was returned to custody and sentenced to an additional nine months for breaching his home detention conditions. The appellant, represented by D J Blaikie, argued that the additional nine months was excessive and disproportionate, considering the context of his addiction and the opportunity for rehabilitation lost. The Crown, represented by A J Goodwin, contended that the sentence was appropriate given Murray's history of breaching court orders. The court had to determine whether the sentence for the breach of home detention was excessive and whether Murray should have been resentenced on his original charges.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed for the breach of home detention was disproportionate and whether Murray should have been resentenced on his original charges and separately for the breach of home detention. The court considered the principle that the sentence should not extend beyond what was necessary to achieve the purposes of sentencing, particularly deterrence and rehabilitation. The court also noted that the proper approach would have been to resentence Murray on the original charges and then impose a separate sentence for the breach of home detention. The court acknowledged that Murray's addiction played a role in the breach and that he had lost the benefit of the rehabilitation programme, which in itself was a form of punishment.

The court allowed the appeal and resentenced Murray, considering the peculiar features of the case. The court decided that a sentence of one month for the breach of home detention was sufficient, taking into account the context of Murray's addiction. The court also resentenced Murray on the original charges, resulting in a total sentence of 12 months. The court concluded that the additional nine months for the breach of home detention was disproportionate and that the sentence should reflect the need for deterrence and the unique circumstances of Murray's addiction.

The final orders of the court were that Murray be resentenced to 11 months on the original charges and an additional one month for the breach of home detention, to be served cumulatively. This decision aimed to balance the need for deterrence and rehabilitation while considering the appellant's unique circumstances and the principle of proportionality in sentencing.

Orders