R v Scott Robert Morrison [2014] NSWDC 155
The recklessly wounding offence was serious and just below the mid-range of objective seriousness because the offender, after opportunities to walk away, pursued the victims and wounded Ms Ioannou with a ceramic shard while she was calling 000. The assault occasioning actual bodily harm offence was below mid-range but still serious. Delay, rehabilitation, absence of further offending, supportive relationships and the offender's lack of prior violent convictions warranted leniency and special circumstances, but general deterrence remained important and full-time imprisonment was the only appropriate option for the s 35(4) offence. No utilitarian discount was allowed for the guilty plea to...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 12 September 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Sentence / Sentence Hearing Following Jury Verdict of Guilty on Count 4 and Prior Plea of Guilty to Count 5
- Outcome
- The offender was convicted of both offences and sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment, with a total sentence of 3 years imprisonment and a non-parole period of 1 year and 6 months for the s 35(4) offence, and a concurrent fixed term of 12 months imprisonment for the s 59(1) offence.
- Legal Topics
- ['reckless Wounding' 'assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm' 'objective Seriousness' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'special Circumstances' 'concurrent Sentences' 'general Deterrence' 'rehabilitation']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Sentence / Sentence Hearing Following Jury Verdict of Guilty on Count 4 and Prior Plea of Guilty to Count 5
Legal Issues
- 1 ['What sentence should be imposed for recklessly wounding Christina Ioannou under s 35(4) of the Crimes Act 1900.' 'What sentence should be imposed for assault occasioning actual bodily harm to Danielle Oliver under s 59(1) of the Crimes Act 1900.' 'Whether the offender should receive a utilitarian discount for the plea of guilty to the s 59(1) offence.' 'Whether delay, rehabilitation, mental health issues, family hardship or extra-curial punishment should moderate the sentence.' 'Whether special circumstances were established under s 44(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.' 'Whether a Community Service Order was appropriate for the s 59(1) offence.']
Ratio Decidendi
The recklessly wounding offence was serious and just below the mid-range of objective seriousness because the offender, after opportunities to walk away, pursued the victims and wounded Ms Ioannou with a ceramic shard while she was calling 000. The assault occasioning actual bodily harm offence was below mid-range but still serious. Delay, rehabilitation, absence of further offending, supportive relationships and the offender's lack of prior violent convictions warranted leniency and special circumstances, but general deterrence remained important and full-time imprisonment was the only appropriate option for the s 35(4) offence. No utilitarian discount was allowed for the guilty plea to...
Court Disposition
The offender was convicted of both offences and sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment, with a total sentence of 3 years imprisonment and a non-parole period of 1 year and 6 months for the s 35(4) offence, and a concurrent fixed term of 12 months imprisonment for the s 59(1) offence.
Orders
- ['You are convicted of both offences pursuant to s 35(4) and s 59(1) of the Crimes Act 1900.' 'In respect of the offence pursuant to s 35(4) of the Crimes Act, I sentence you to a non-parole period of 1 year and 6 months imprisonment to commence on 30 May 2014 and to expire on 29 November 2015.' 'In respect of that...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment