Citation: R v Murphy [2025] NSWDC 289
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 28 May 2025
Judge(s): Bourke SC DCJ
Background
The offender, a young man named Zac Murphy, was sentenced for two substantive offences arising from events in Gunnedah and Narrabri in the early hours of 1 August 2023. He acted alongside a co-offender, Tyler Briggs, who carried a rifle throughout both incidents, and a third, unidentified person who drove the getaway vehicle.
The first offence was armed robbery in company at a service station in Narrabri. Murphy and Briggs entered the premises while a console operator and a truck driver were present. Briggs pointed the firearm at both men, made threats to shoot, and directed Murphy to collect cash from the till. Murphy also took a car key from the counter. About $150 in cash was stolen. An attempt to steal a second vehicle failed because it was fitted with an immobiliser.
The second offence, which occurred approximately two hours later at a residential property in Gunnedah, was specially aggravated break and enter and commit a serious indictable offence. Murphy and Briggs, both disguised, forced entry to a family home where two adults and three children were present. Briggs struck the male occupant with the firearm. Murphy followed a female occupant into a bedroom, took her phone, and punched her to the head. Briggs also struck the woman's forearms with the firearm barrel. A nine-year-old child witnessed part of the attack and screamed for it to stop.
Legal Issues
- The appropriate sentence for armed robbery in company while armed with a firearm, with a related Form 1 matter involving threats with an offensive weapon
- The appropriate sentence for specially aggravated break and enter and commit a serious indictable offence, with Form 1 matters including assault occasioning actual bodily harm in company and other related conduct
- The correct discount for a guilty plea entered other than at the earliest opportunity
- Whether special circumstances existed to justify adjusting the ratio between the head sentence and the non-parole period
- How the sentence should be backdated to account for time already spent in custody, including a period served for separate prior offences
Decision
Bourke SC DCJ imposed an aggregate sentence, treating the armed robbery at the service station as the primary offence. The judge noted the maximum penalty for each substantive offence was 25 years' imprisonment, with a standard non-parole period of seven years applying to the specially aggravated break and enter offence. Both the maximum penalties and the standard non-parole period were treated as important guideposts in the sentencing exercise.
A discount of 10% was applied to reflect the utilitarian value of Murphy's guilty plea, which was entered other than at the earliest opportunity. The sentencing remarks addressed the offender's personal circumstances, his background, and the principles from cases including Bugmy v The Queen concerning the relevance of disadvantaged upbringing to moral culpability.
The judge found special circumstances justifying an adjustment to the ratio between the head sentence and the non-parole period. The reasons were that this was Murphy's first period of lengthy full-time custody, that custody had been onerous in the relevant sense, and that a significant period of supervision on parole would be required following release.
Regarding the commencement date, the judge accepted that some backdating was appropriate. Murphy had been in custody since 6 September 2023, but part of that time was served under a separate sentence imposed by the Local Court in September 2024 for earlier offences committed in April 2023. The judge backdated the current sentence by six months from the expiry of that prior non-parole period, applying totality principles to reflect the sentence that would likely have been imposed had all matters been dealt with together.
Orders Made
- Aggregate head sentence of six years and seven months, commencing 6 April 2024 and expiring 5 November 2030
- Non-parole period of three years and 11 months, expiring 5 March 2028
- Special circumstances found, adjusting the non-parole period ratio below the statutory default
- 10% discount applied to reflect the utilitarian value of the guilty plea
Key Takeaways
- The District Court applied totality principles when backdating the sentence, reducing the commencement date by six months to account for an overlapping prior custodial period, even where that prior sentence related to separate, earlier offences.
- Where an offender has not entered a guilty plea at the earliest opportunity, a utilitarian discount of 10% may be appropriate, rather than the higher discounts available for earlier pleas.
- A finding of special circumstances can be supported by the combination of a first period of lengthy custody, onerous prison conditions, and the need for extended post-release supervision, even without any single exceptional factor.
- The standard non-parole period for specially aggravated break and enter (seven years) functions as a guidepost in the sentencing exercise rather than a mandatory minimum, and is adjusted having regard to all relevant factors.
- Under the principles in Bugmy v The Queen, evidence of an offender's deprived background and disadvantaged upbringing remains relevant to the assessment of moral culpability, even in cases involving serious and planned offending.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases
- Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571
- Chung v R [2017] NSWCCA 48
- Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
- R v Harris [2011] NSWCCA 105
- R v Henry & Ors (1999) 46 NSWLR 346