AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
1
Supreme Court 22 August 2006

Regina v Andrew Mark Norrie

[2006] NSWSC 830

Homicide
LIFE SENTENCE REDETERMINATION HEINOUS OFFENCE CONSIDERATIONS OF DANGEROUSNESS

Citation: Regina v Andrew Mark Norrie [2006] NSWSC 830
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 22 August 2006
Judge(s): Bell J

Background

The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment on 31 July 1987 after pleading guilty to murder. The offence formed part of a broader spree of serious violence committed with a teenage companion, involving armed robbery with wounding, two counts of shooting with intent to murder, and malicious damage. The applicant was 24 years old at the time.

The circumstances were particularly grave. The two men had armed themselves with semi-automatic rifles in Brisbane and driven south, shooting at random vehicles on the Pacific Highway before the fatal offence. One day after the NSW murder, the applicant committed a further murder in Victoria, for which he was later sentenced to life imprisonment in that state with a non-parole period of 14 years and six months.

In 1995 the applicant applied to have a minimum term and additional term determined for his NSW life sentence, but effectively delayed the application for a decade. The matter was finally heard in 2005 and 2006, with the court considering extensive psychiatric evidence, correctional reports, and a victim impact statement.

  • Whether the court should specify a term and non-parole period for the existing life sentence, under Schedule 1 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
  • Whether the protection of the community, as the predominant consideration, permitted any prospect of conditional release on parole
  • What period, if any, should be specified before the applicant could reapply to the court

Decision

Bell J declined to specify a term or non-parole period for the life sentence. The court found that protection of the community was the predominant consideration in determining the application, and that this factor did not allow significant weight to be given to the possibility that fixing a non-parole period might promote rehabilitation.

The court was not persuaded that the applicant's progress in custody was sufficient to warrant specifying a non-parole period. Bell J noted that the applicant's accounts of the offence given to psychiatrists in recent years differed from those he gave to police and psychiatrists at the time of sentencing, particularly in relation to claims of alcohol use and intrusive thoughts. This inconsistency counted against him.

The murder was characterised as a most serious case, and the court found the applicant remained dangerous. Bell J concluded that, given the heinousness of the offending and the continuing danger the applicant posed, conditional release on parole was not appropriate for a very long time, if at all. However, the court declined to foreclose any future application entirely, acknowledging that circumstances might change.

The applicant was directed not to reapply to the court for 20 years from the date of judgment.

Orders Made

  • The court declined to specify a term for the life sentence imposed on 31 July 1987, and declined to specify a non-parole period for that sentence (pursuant to cl 4(1)(c) of Sch 1 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999).
  • The court directed that the applicant not reapply for the determination of a term and non-parole period for a period of 20 years from 22 August 2006 (pursuant to cl 6(1)(b) of Sch 1 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999).

Key Takeaways

  • Under Schedule 1 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, the protection of the community is the predominant consideration in a life sentence redetermination, capable of outweighing rehabilitation prospects.
  • Bell J found that the applicant's dangerousness, combined with the extreme heinousness of the original murder and a subsequent murder committed the following day, justified refusing to specify any non-parole period.
  • Inconsistencies between an applicant's current account of offending and accounts given at the time of the original sentencing can weigh against the grant of a redetermination.
  • A court conducting a redetermination retains power to direct that no reapplication be made for an extended period; here, a 20-year bar was imposed rather than a permanent exclusion, recognising that future circumstances might change.
  • Reliance on a statutory parole authority's duty to protect the community does not, of itself, satisfy the court's obligation to treat community protection as the paramount consideration in this type of application.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 44(5) and Schedule 1 (cl 2, cl 3, cl 4(1)(c), cl 6(1)(b))
- Sentencing Act 1989 (NSW), s 13A (as it then stood)

Cases:
- Baker v R [2004] HCA 45; 78 ALJR 1483
- R v Fernando (1999) NSWCCA 66
- R v Harris (2000) 50 NSWLR 409
- R v Merritt (2004) 59 NSWLR 557