O'Reilly v The Queen - [2014] NTCCA 14

O’Reilly v R [2014] NTCCA 14

PARTIES: O’REILLY, Paul Joseph

v
THE QUEEN

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:CA 5 of 2014 (21330299)
DELIVERED:  24 September 2014
HEARING DATES:  24 September 2014
JUDGMENT OF:  RILEY CJ, BLOKLAND and HILEY JJ
APPEALED FROM:  SOUTHWOOD J
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Errors in agreed facts – Not significant enough to alter the objective seriousness of the offence or the appropriate penalty – Appeal dismissed - Criminal Code 1983 (NT), s 411(4)
Damaso v The Queen (2002) 130 A Crim 206; McDonald v The Queen [2013] VSCA 89; R v Beary (2004) 11 VR 151 – referred to.
Criminal Code 1983 (NT), s 411(4)
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:I Read SC
Respondent:  W J Karczewski QC
Solicitors:
Appellant:Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission
Respondent:  Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:   C
Number of pages:  6

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
O’Reilly v R [2014] NTCCA 14

No. CA 5 of 2014 (21330299)
BETWEEN:

PAUL JOSEPH O’REILLY

Applicant

AND:

THE QUEEN

Respondent

CORAM: RILEY CJ, BLOKLAND and HILEY JJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
EX TEMPORE
(Delivered 24 September 2014)
The Court:

On 16 January 2014, in the Supreme Court, the applicant pleaded guilty to having unlawfully caused serious harm to Benjamin Dessent. He was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of two years and three months with a non-parole period of 14 months.
On 4 April 2014 the applicant filed an application for an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal and seeking leave to appeal. The application was some 50 days out of time. The application was refused and the applicant has requested that it be considered and determined by the Court of Criminal Appeal.
The offending
The applicant is an Irish national who was 23 years of age at the time of the offending. He had been working in Australia as a foreign worker for a period of about 12 months. He had no criminal history.
On 14 July 2013 he consumed a significant quantity of alcohol and became intoxicated. Just before midnight he made his way to the Discovery Nightclub on Mitchell Street. He was refused entry because of his intoxicated state. He then walked the short distance to the Lost Arc Nightclub and sat on a car parked at the front entrance.
The victim is a 28-year-old registered security officer who was employed as the head crowd controller at the Lost Arc. The victim directed the applicant to get off the car. The applicant then attempted to gain entry to the Lost Arc but was refused admission. He made lewd gestures to a female door hostess working at the nightclub. He was told that his behaviour was unacceptable and that he should leave. He then approached the victim who pushed him away with an open hand. He was again…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading O'Reilly v The Queen

Details

AGLC: O'Reilly v The Queen [2014] NTCCA 14
Case: [2014] NTCCA 14
Decision Date: 24 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

O'Reilly appealed against his sentence for an offence under the *Criminal Code 1983* (NT). The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, comprising Riley CJ, Blokland and Hiley JJ.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether alleged errors in the agreed facts presented at the sentencing hearing were significant enough to warrant a review of the sentence imposed. Specifically, the appellant contended that these factual inaccuracies rendered the sentence demonstrably unjust.

The Court considered the principles governing appeals against sentence, particularly where errors in agreed facts are raised. Applying the test established in cases such as *Damaso v The Queen* and *McDonald v The Queen*, the Court determined that the alleged errors did not alter the objective seriousness of the offence or the overall assessment of the appropriate penalty. The Court found that the sentencing judge had correctly considered the relevant factors and that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive or unjust. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Orders