R v DARREN LEE CASSIDY
[2008] ACTSC 13 (25 February 2008)
REMARKS ON SENTENCE
No. SCC 190 of 2006
Judge: Higgins CJ
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 25 February 2008
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )
) No. SCC 190 of 2006
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
THE QUEEN
v
DARREN LEE CASSIDY
ORDER
Judge: Higgins CJ
Date: 25 February 2008
Place: Canberra
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
For the offence in Count 1, the offender is convicted and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment.
On the second Count, the offender is convicted and sentenced to three months’ imprisonment.
Those sentences are to be cumulative one upon the other.
Those sentences will commence on 27 November 2005. A period of 10 years and 2 months from that date be fixed as the period to be served before the accused will be eligible for parole.
THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:
All medical and other reports be sent to the prison to which the offender will go with a recommendation that the offender be treated as a “Prisoner at Risk”.
The offender Darren Lee Cassidy, has pleaded guilty to two counts, they are:
·That on the 28th day of November 2005 at Canberra … [he] unlawfully killed Trinaty Monique Howarth; and
·That on the 25th day of November 2005 at Canberra [he] assaulted Alicia Wilson.
AGREED FACTS
The first count, as the agreed Statement of Facts reveals, relates to events occurring on 26 November 2005. Trinaty’s mother Alicia Wilson, and the offender were in a domestic relationship. The offender became angry with Trinaty, whose date of birth was 12 March 2001, because she wet her pants. He also accused her of telling lies about an incident involving her maternal grandfather.
The offender at this point threatened Trinaty saying “I’m gonna belt you with the walking stick”. They were then in the offender’s vehicle. He accessed the boot from inside it, retrieved a heavy metal saucepan and hit Trinaty repeatedly on the head with it, yelling abuse at her. Ms Wilson tried, though unsuccessfully, to stop him. He then retrieved the walking stick and beat Trinaty about the arms, legs and stomach. She was clearly hurt by the blows, making groaning noises and exclaiming “ouch”.
They then obtained some food. The offender again became angry with Trinaty because she was not eating quickly enough. He grabbed her by the ears and lifted her from the back seat of the car.
They drove then to Holder, to find a place to sleep for the night. When they stopped, it became apparent that Trinaty was in a serious condition. She was, the offender noticed, “burning up”. He gave her water. Ms Wilson noticed the right side of Trinaty’s head was “spongy and soft”.
They went to the offender’s brother’s house and gave Trinaty a cold shower. It seemed to help, lowering her temperature and improving her lucidity. However, when she was taken from the shower and lain down, she began vomiting. Ms Wilson then proposed…
Continue reading R v Cassidy
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Cassidy [2008] ACTSC 13
- Case
- [2008] ACTSC 13
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that the court was required to decide included the appropriate sentencing principles to be applied in this case, the severity of the offences committed, and the circumstances of the defendant. The court also had to consider the impact of the crimes on the victims and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation of the offender. The court had to balance these considerations in determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant.
The court found that the appropriate sentence for the defendant was a combination of imprisonment and parole eligibility. The court sentenced the defendant to 15 years imprisonment for the first count and three months imprisonment for the second count, to be served cumulatively. The court also set a non-parole period of 10 years and 2 months, after which the defendant would be eligible for parole. The court directed that medical and other reports be sent to the prison to ensure the defendant's safety and well-being while in custody.
In conclusion, the court found the defendant guilty of the charges and imposed a sentence of imprisonment with a non-parole period. The court also directed that appropriate measures be taken to ensure the safety and rehabilitation of the defendant during their incarceration.
Orders
Orders of the court
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. For the offence in Count 1, the offender is convicted and sentenced to 15 years? imprisonment.
2. On the second Count, the offender is convicted and sentenced to three months? imprisonment.
3. Those sentences are to be cumulative one upon the other.
4. Those sentences will commence on 27 November 2005. A period of 10 years and 2 months from that date be fixed as the period to be served before the accused will be eligible for parole.
THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:
1. All medical and other reports be sent to the prison to which the offender will go with a recommendation that the offender be treated as a ?Prisoner at Risk?.
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.