REGINA v MURCHIE [1999] NSWCCA 424

REGINA v MURCHIE [1999] NSWCCA 424

Error was demonstrated because the sentencing judge did not give sufficient weight to the applicant's well-established diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder when assessing general deterrence, specific deterrence, rehabilitation and culpability. Together with the sentence being at the very upper end of the appropriate range even without that condition, this made the sentence for robbery in company manifestly excessive.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 October 1999
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; sentence for robbery in company quashed and replaced with a reduced sentence; sentences on the other charges not disturbed.
Legal Topics
['robbery in Company' 'assault' 'malicious Damage' 'form 1 Offence' 'attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder' 'general Deterrence' 'rehabilitation' 'parity With Co Offenders' 'remand Custody' 'guideline Judgments']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['robbery in Company' 'assault' 'malicious Damage' 'form 1 Offence' 'attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder' 'general Deterrence' 'rehabilitation' 'parity With Co Offenders' 'remand Custody' 'guideline Judgments']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentence for robbery in company was outside the range properly available to the sentencing judge, particularly in light of the applicant's subjective circumstances and the guideline judgment in Henry." "Whether the sentencing judge failed to give proper weight to the diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and its significance to the applicant's offending behaviour, culpability, deterrence and rehabilitation." "Whether parity with a juvenile co-offender's sentence warranted intervention." "Whether the sentencing judge failed to make proper allowance for the applicant's ten and a half months in custody pending sentence."]

Ratio Decidendi

Error was demonstrated because the sentencing judge did not give sufficient weight to the applicant's well-established diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder when assessing general deterrence, specific deterrence, rehabilitation and culpability. Together with the sentence being at the very upper end of the appropriate range even without that condition, this made the sentence for robbery in company manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; sentence for robbery in company quashed and replaced with a reduced sentence; sentences on the other charges not disturbed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal be granted.' 'The sentence imposed in relation to the charge of robbery in company be quashed.' 'In lieu thereof the applicant be sentenced to a total term of penal servitude for five years, divided into a minimum term of two years and three months commencing on 11 July 1997 and expiring on 10...