R v Murray - [2015] NZHC 2179

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2014-029-000756 [2015] NZHC 2179

THE QUEEN

v

MICHAEL THRIFT MURRAY

Hearing: 11 September 2015

Counsel:

D G Johnstone and S McMullan for the Crown
M Dyhrberg QC and K Maxwell for the Defendant

Judgment:

11 September 2015

SENTENCING NOTES OF WYLIE J

R v MURRAY [2015] NZHC 2179 [11 September 2015]

[1] Mr Murray you may remain seated until I ask you to stand. You appear for sentence today, having been found guilty, following a trial by jury, of murder pursuant to s 167 of the Crimes Act 1961.

[2] Section 172 of the Crimes Act provides that everyone who commits murder is liable to imprisonment for life. This provision however is subject to s 102 of the Sentencing Act 2002. That section provides that an offender who is convicted of murder must be sentenced to imprisonment for life, unless, given the circumstances of the offence and the offender, a sentence of imprisonment for life would be manifestly unjust.

[3] If I sentence you to imprisonment for life, I am also required to impose a minimum period of imprisonment. Any minimum period of imprisonment may not be less than 10 years, and must be the minimum term of imprisonment that I consider necessary to satisfy a number of specified purposes set out in the Sentencing Act. If I am satisfied that no minimum term of imprisonment will be sufficient to satisfy the statutory purposes, then I may order that you serve your sentence without parole.

Relevant facts

[4] On the evening of 2 August 2014, you were at home on Don Buck Road in Massey, Waitakere City. You met up with a group of associates, some of whom you were related to, who had been at a 21st party at a nearby house. Most, if not all of them, were grossly intoxicated. You had a few drinks and smoked some cannabis with them.

[5] There was a house warming party at another house a short distance away, also on Don Buck Road. Shortly after midnight three males left that house and walked along Don Buck Road. They were going to a service station to buy some pineapple juice because they had run out of mixers at the house warming party.

[6] You and your associates were standing outside your house. The three males were walking past. Greetings were exchanged. One of your associates went out, ostensibly to shake the hand of one of the males. In a moment of drunken madness,

he kicked out at the man. The kick hit the man in the face. It was a completely unprovoked attack.

[7] The male who had been attacked and his colleagues backed a short distance down Don Buck Road. One of them then ran back to the house that the three of them had just left to get assistance. Apologies were offered in an attempt to diffuse the situation, but you were told in no uncertain terms that you and…

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 Murray

Details

AGLC: R v Murray [2015] NZHC 2179
Case: [2015] NZHC 2179
Decision Date: 11 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, Michael Thrift Murray was sentenced for the murder of Connor Morris. Murray was found guilty following a jury trial. The central legal issue was whether a sentence of imprisonment for life would be manifestly unjust, given the circumstances of the offence and Murray's personal background. Murray had assaulted Morris with a sickle, leading to Morris' death. The court needed to determine the appropriate minimum term of imprisonment if a life sentence was imposed.

The court considered the statutory requirements under the Crimes Act 1961 and the Sentencing Act 2002. The court noted that while excessive self-defence might, in some cases, render a life sentence manifestly unjust, Murray's case did not meet this threshold. The court found that Murray's actions were not an excessive response to the situation but rather involved significant premeditation and excessive force. The court also highlighted Murray's prior involvement in violent conduct and his decision to arm himself with a sickle during the altercation. These factors led the court to conclude that a sentence of life imprisonment was not manifestly unjust. For the minimum term of imprisonment, the court considered the purposes of accountability, denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the community. Given these factors, the court determined that a minimum term of 10 years was appropriate.

The final orders of the court were that Murray be sentenced to imprisonment for life for the murder of Connor Morris, with a minimum term of imprisonment of 10 years. The court encouraged Murray to take advantage of rehabilitative programs available in custody to improve himself and ultimately make amends to the community.

Orders