HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2007-11-13 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Answers to Questions

SENTENCING AND PAROLE PERIODS

In reply to the Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (3 May 2006).

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Police, Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning): The Attorney-General has provided the following information:

Buster Gene Morrison was sentenced by His Honour Acting Judge Wilson to three years imprisonment with a non-parole period of one year and six months for the offence of causing grievous bodily harm. Morrison had been charged with the then offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do grievous bodily harm. A person found guilty of this offence faced a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Morrison was tried by a jury of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do grievous bodily harm. The jury acquitted him of this charge. In his sentencing remarks, His Honour stated:

You were so extremely intoxicated that you lacked the specific intent to commit grievous bodily harm, but also any other specific intent other than to cause pain or harm less than grievous bodily harm to your victim. The jury also acquitted him of the charge of assaulting a police officer. However, the jury convicted him of the offence of causing grievous bodily harm. The maximum penalty for this offence was five years imprisonment.

In a trial by jury, the facts are entirely and exclusively for the jury. It must be remembered that a jury is made up of ordinary and anonymous citizens selected to represent the public. It is not a perfect system, however, the role of the jury in our criminal justice system is fundamental. Acquittal by a jury is final. In the circumstances, the court was obliged to sentence Morrison for the offence of causing grievous bodily harm simpliciter, that is, without the relevant criminal intent to cause such harm.

His Honour, in his sentencing remarks, placed on the record that the offending in this case was near the top end of the scale of seriousness for crimes of violence of this kind. Further, His Honour formed the view that any sentence other than imprisonment would be inappropriate, having regard to the gravity and circumstances of the offence of which he had been convicted. I received advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions that the sentence imposed in this case had been considered and that an appeal would not be entered.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT