McDonough v The Queen

Case [2011] VSCA 310


SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2010 0048

TIMOTHY BARRY McDONOUGH

Appellant

v

THE QUEEN

Respondent

---

JUDGES:

ASHLEY and HANSEN JJA and ROSS AJA

WHERE HELD:

MELBOURNE

DATE OF HEARING:

13 October 2011

DATE OF JUDGMENT:

13 October 2011

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:

[2011] VSCA 310

JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:

DPP v McDonough (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Hampel, 2 March 2010)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Appeal against total effective sentence of six years and six months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of four years and six months’ for offences of arson, reckless conduct endangering life, burglary and theft – Whether sentence on count of arson manifestly excessive – Whether sentences on some of dishonesty offences manifestly excessive – Sentence for arson offence outside permissible range of sentencing discretion – Appellant re-sentenced.

---

APPEARANCES: Counsel Solicitors
For the Appellant Mr R Edney Victoria Legal Aid
For the Crown Mr B L Sonnet Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

ASHLEY JA:

  1. On 2 March 2010 the appellant, Timothy McDonough, was sentenced for 12 offences as follows:

Charge Offence Maximum Sentence Cumulation
1 Theft 10 years’ imp
[S 74 Crimes Act 1958]
6 months’ imp 6 month’s imp
2 Burglary 10 years’ imp
[S 76 Crimes Act 1958]
6 months’ imp –
3 Burglary 10 years’ imp
[S 76 Crimes Act 1958]
6 months’ imp –
4 Theft 10 years’ imp
[S 74 Crimes Act 1958]
6 months’ imp –
5 Burglary 10 years’ imp
[S 76 Crimes Act 1958]
6 months’ imp –
6 Theft 10 years’ imp
[S 74 Crimes Act 1958]
6 months’ imp –
7 Burglary 10 years’ imp
[S 76 Crimes Act 1958]
6 months’ imp –
8 Theft 10 years’ imp
[S 74 Crimes Act 1958]
6 months’ imp –
9 Arson

15 years’ imp

[s 197(1) and (6), Crimes Act 1958]

5 years’ imp Base sentence
10 Reckless conduct endangering life 10 years’ imp
[S 22 Crimes Act 1958]
4 years’ imp 1 year imp
11 Burglary 10 years’ imp
[S 76 Crimes Act 1958]
6 months’ imp –
Separate Presentment
1 Handling stolen goods [S 88(2) Crimes Act 1958] 6 months’ imp –
Total Effective Sentence: 6 years, 6 months’ imprisonment
Non-Parole Period: 4 years, 6 months’ imprisonment
Pre-sentence Detention Declared: 173 days
6AAA Statement: Total effective sentence:  6 years, 9 months’ imp
Non-parole period:  4 years, 9 months’ imp.
  1. The appellant had earlier pleaded guilty to counts 1‑8 and 11 on the first presentment and to the single count on the second presentment.  He had gone to trial on counts 9 and 10 and been found guilty.  His defence to those counts had been that, although he accepted that he must have started the fire, the Crown could not exclude the reasonable possibility that he had done so accidentally.

Leave to appeal

  1. On 18 March this year, Nettle JA granted the appellant leave to appeal against…

Continue reading McDonough v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
McDonough v The Queen [2011] VSCA 310
Case
[2011] VSCA 310
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of McDonough v The Queen, the appellant, McDonough, was convicted of multiple offences including arson, reckless conduct endangering life, burglary, and theft. The primary dispute was the total effective sentence of six years and six months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of four years and six months. McDonough appealed the sentence on the grounds that it was manifestly excessive, particularly the sentence imposed for the arson offence and some of the dishonesty offences.

The central legal issues revolved around whether the sentence for the arson offence was outside the permissible range of sentencing discretion and whether the sentences for some of the dishonesty offences were manifestly excessive. The court had to examine the principles of sentencing, the nature and circumstances of the offences, and whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in all the circumstances.

The court found that the sentence for the arson offence was outside the permissible range of sentencing discretion. It also found that the sentences on some of the dishonesty offences were manifestly excessive. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and re-sentenced the appellant. The court's reasoning was based on the necessity to ensure that the sentence was proportionate to the offending and took into account all relevant factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offences, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The re-sentencing aimed to rectify the excessiveness identified in the original sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appellant re-sentenced.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.