Legal Research
Cases
R v Murphy

R v Murphy

Case [2015] NZHC 2905 20 November 2015

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-004-007732 [2015] NZHC 2905

THE QUEEN

v

WILLIAM MURPHY

Hearing: 20 November 2015

Appearances:

C P Paterson and G Woods-Child for the Crown
DRF Gardiner for the Defendant

Sentencing:

20 November 2015

SENTENCING REMARKS OF WOOLFORD J

Solicitors: Meredith Connell (Crown Solicitor), Auckland
Daniel RF Gardiner, Auckland

R v MURPHY [2015] NZHC 2905 [20 November 2015]

[1] Mr Murphy, you appear for sentence today having been found guilty in the

District Court of the following crimes:

(a) One charge of aggravated robbery;1

(b) Two charges of robbery;2 (c) Four charges of burglary;3 (d) Three charges of theft;4
(e) Two charges of theft of property under $500;5 and

(f) Three charges of misusing a document.6

[2] You appear in this Court for sentencing because Judge Field declined jurisdiction to sentence you, as the Crown seeks preventive detention.

Factual Background

[3] Between 25 May 2013 and 24 June 2013, you went on a crime spree and committed a series of property and violence offences around the Auckland region.

[4] The initial offending occurred in Auckland Hospital on 25 May 2013. A

54 year old woman was visiting her father, who was a patient in the hospital. She sat down in a chair and placed her handbag on the floor. You entered the room, and managed to take the victim’s handbag. You removed the victim’s wallet and car keys from the bag, and then went to the hospital carpark. On the way you discarded the bag. You found her motor vehicle, and you stole it. The vehicle was only found
some six weeks later. This gave rise to two charges of theft.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 235(c): maximum penalty 14 years imprisonment.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 234(1): maximum penalty 10 years imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 231(a): maximum penalty 10 years imprisonment.
4      Crimes Act 1961, s 219(1)(a) and 223(b): maximum penalty 7 years imprisonment.
5      Crimes Act 1961, ss 219(1)(a) and 223(d): maximum penalty for each is 3 months imprisonment.
6      Crimes Act 1961, s 228(b): maximum penalty 7 years imprisonment

[5] On 8 June 2013, you knocked on the door of a unit in a retirement village. The unit was occupied by an 81 year old woman. When she answered the door, you asked for somebody by the name of “Margaret”. The victim told you there was somebody by that name in a nearby unit. You left, but returned shortly thereafter. You introduced yourself and told the victim that you were working for the New Zealand Police investigating robberies that had been happening in the area. You showed the victim a business card. Believing that you were a police officer, the victim invited you inside. About five minutes later, you asked the victim if you could use her toilet. She agreed. You went into the toilet, flushed it, and then went into the victim’s bedroom. You emptied the contents of her handbag onto her bed and looked through her…

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

Details

AGLC: R v Murphy [2015] NZHC 2905
Case: [2015] NZHC 2905
Decision Date: 20 November 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Murphy involved the sentencing of William Murphy, who was found guilty of multiple charges including aggravated robbery, robbery, burglary, theft, and misusing a document. The series of crimes Murphy committed involved targeting elderly women, often in their homes, and included significant violence and intimidation. The sentencing hearing took place in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, with Woolford J presiding. Both the Crown and the defence made submissions regarding the appropriate sentence, with the Crown advocating for a sentence of preventive detention due to the severity and nature of the crimes, while the defence argued for a finite sentence and highlighted some progress Murphy had made in prison.

Woolford J began by assessing the appropriate starting point for the sentence, considering the guideline case of R v Mako which provided a reference point for aggravated robbery. The court identified several aggravating factors, including the vulnerability of the victims, the use of a knife, the degree of planning, and the violent nature of the crimes. The court found the offending to be similar to, but less severe than, the case of R v Lal. An uplift was applied to account for the totality of the offending, resulting in a revised sentence of 11 years imprisonment for the lead offence.

Further adjustments were made to account for Murphy's criminal history and the fact that the offending occurred while he was under supervision. An additional uplift of 12 months was applied, bringing the finite sentence to 12 years imprisonment. Woolford J then turned to the question of whether to impose a sentence of preventive detention. The court found that all criteria for preventive detention were met, particularly due to the high risk of reoffending indicated by Murphy's criminal history and psychological assessments. The judge concluded that preventive detention was necessary to protect the community from Murphy's potential future offending.

A minimum non-parole period of six years was set, considering both the gravity of the crimes and Murphy's potential for rehabilitation. Concurrent sentences were imposed for the other charges. Ultimately, Murphy was sentenced to preventive detention for the charges of robbery and aggravated robbery, with a minimum non-parole period of six years, and concurrent sentences for the other charges.

Orders