OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF VICTIM PURSUANT TO S 202 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CRI-2024-088-0460
[2024] NZHC 2534
THE KING
v
ALEXANDER SHAW MURPHY
Hearing:
5 September 2024
Appearances:
A F Devathasan for Crown ARA Pell for Mr Murphy
Date of sentence:
5 September 2024
SENTENCING NOTES OF JAGOSE J
Counsel/Solicitors:
Adam Pell, Barrister, Whangārei Kayes Fletcher Walker, Manukau
R v MURPHY [2024] NZHC 2534 [5 September 2024]
[1] Mr Murphy, you come before me today for sentencing on your guilty plea to the charge of attempting to murder Catherine Murphy, your mother.1
[2] You pleaded guilty immediately on my 10 July 2024 indication “a court would be likely to sentence you to imprisonment for a period of no more than two years and six months”.2 That 30-month indication comprised a 25 per cent deduction for your guilty plea from a starting point of 40 months’ imprisonment.3
[3] My sentencing indication, a copy of which will be annexed to the written version of what I am saying now in sentencing you, explains the basis for that starting point. I do not repeat that explanation now, except to say I concluded then:4
… your premeditated intervention to end the life of a particularly vulnerable person, already receiving medical treatment to alleviate her discomfort and pain[, was especially aggravating]. Your actions were not borne of any ‘impulsivity’ or “otherwise … greatly diminished responsibility” as may offer further reduction. You deliberately acted to take Catherine’s life in circumstances in which there was no compelling requirement to foreshorten it, and her end-of-life comfort was the hospital’s determined objective. Those are the same circumstances faced by anyone with close family in institutional end-of-life care.
I assessed your actions brought you to the “upper bound” of a sentencing range for comparable offending,5 resulting in starting points of up to three and a half years’ imprisonment.6 Unless there is new information materially affecting the basis for my indication, which there is not, I am bound by it in sentencing you now.7
[4] As I said at the time of sentencing indication, I have read all the Crown and your counsel, Adam Pell, have had to say. I have given what they have written, and said, careful consideration. I am not going to recite it because sentencing continues to be an intense exercise of my own judgement. I am not bound by the lawyers’ views. I have to come to my own decision.
1 Crimes Act 1961, s 173: maximum penalty, 14 years’ imprisonment.
6 At [15], referring to R v Martin CA199/04, 14 February 2005 and R v Martin HC Whanganui CRI-2003-083-0432, 30 April 2004 at [55].
7 Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 116.
[5] Mr Murphy, I will not…
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 R v Murphy
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Murphy [2024] NZHC 2534
Case
[2024] NZHC 2534
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v Murphy, the defendant, Alexander Shaw Murphy, was charged with attempting to murder his mother, Catherine Murphy. The case was heard in the High Court of New Zealand in Auckland. Following a guilty plea, the court provided a sentencing indication that a term of imprisonment of no more than two years and six months would likely be imposed. The legal issues revolved around determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing, considering the nature and circumstances of the attempted murder, and adjusting the sentence based on personal mitigating factors and the defendant's guilty plea.
The court considered the premeditated nature of the defendant's actions and the vulnerability of the victim, leading to an initial starting point of 40 months' imprisonment. However, after reviewing additional information, including the defendant's remorse, good character, and minimal risk of reoffending, the court decided on a sentence of 11 months' home detention with standard conditions, as imprisonment would not serve a net material sentencing purpose. The court emphasised the importance of marking the seriousness of the offence while considering the defendant's personal circumstances and the likelihood of rehabilitation. The final orders included a prohibition on the publication of the defendant's name, address, occupation, or identifying particulars of the victim.