R v Connolly - [2001] TASSC 92

[2001] TASSC 92

CITATION: R v Connolly [2001] TASSC 92

PARTIES:  R
  v
  CONNOLLY, Paul Anthony

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  ORIGINAL
FILE NO/S:  213/2001
DELIVERED ON:  10 August 2001
DELIVERED AT:  Launceston
HEARING DATE/S:  6 August 2001
JUDGMENT OF:  Slicer J

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal law - Particular offences - Other offences against the person - Sexual offences - Sentencing - Indecent assault by priest 30 years previous - Time between offence and sentence - No penetration - Effect of sanction on victim and the community.

Dinsdale v R [2000] HCA 54, applied.
R v F 74/1998; Abel v R A94/1994, followed.
Aus Dig Criminal Law [175]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Crown:  J P Ransom
             Accused:  G R Stephenson
Solicitors:
             Crown:  Director of Public Prosecutions
             Accused:  G R Stephenson

Judgment ID Number: [2001] TASSC 92
Number of paragraphs: 32

Serial No 92/20001
File No 213/2001

THE QUEEN v PAUL ANTHONY CONNOLLY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT SLICER J
10 August 2001

Paul Anthony Connolly has pleaded guilty to seven counts of indecent assault contrary to the Criminal Code, s127. The assaults occurred between June 1971 and June 1973. The complainant was born in November 1956.

The acts of indecency were not, by comparison with other conduct frequently before the courts, as physically intrusive as they could have been. No physical violence was used, there was no penetration in the sense that the term is ordinarily used. It is relevant that the complainant continued association with her abuser for some time after the impermissible conduct. The above is stated not as a means of lessening the impact of the conduct but as an attempt to define the correct basis of punishment and as a means of focusing the minds of both those directly involved and the community at large on the central issues which ought determine sanction and which result in the imprisonment of one who has already suffered and has for many years given much to our community.

Father Connolly was born in 1935. Following study at university he entered a seminary at the age of 23 and after eight years' study was ordained a priest of the Catholic Church and allocated the parish of New Norfolk in Tasmania in 1965 where he served for six years. It was during this period that he met D, then aged 9. That contact was through her family, devout members of his congregation. The contact continued and in the course of time D joined a Catholic youth group which on occasions made visits to Strathgordon. During one of those visits in the latter half of 1971 a friendship developed which in turn resulted in his "caressing her body and breasts with his hand" (count 1) and "putting his head up into the front of her t-shirt and moving his hand around her upper body" (count 2). At that time D was aged 14.

In November 1971 Father Connolly was transferred to the parish of Strathgordon. Between January and December 1972 on separate occasions…

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 R v Connolly

Details

AGLC: R v Connolly [2001] TASSC 92
Case: [2001] TASSC 92
Decision Date: 10 August 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Connolly involved Paul Anthony Connolly, who pleaded guilty to seven counts of indecent assault against a complainant born in November 1956. The offences occurred between June 1971 and June 1973, when the complainant was aged between 14 and 16. The nature of the assaults was not highly physically intrusive, there was no penetration, and the complainant continued to associate with Connolly for some time after the incidents. The court had to decide on the appropriate penalty considering factors such as the effect of the offences on the victim, the time between the occurrence and sentencing, the complexity of the relationship, the offender's subsequent conduct, and the response of the victim.

The court found that the continued contact between Connolly and the complainant was partly due to her commitment to her faith and trust in him. Connolly's conduct was seen as opportunistic rather than predatory, but the age difference of 22 years was significant. The court recognised the deep and ongoing harm caused to the victim, who described the assaults as having a devastating effect on her self-perception and sense of loss. Connolly's early guilty plea and demonstration of remorse were considered mitigating factors.

In sentencing, the court considered the need for retribution and vindication for the victim, the community's interest in punishing such conduct, and the offender's age and prior contributions to society. The court also took into account the nearly 30-year lapse between the crimes and the sentencing date. The court imposed a sentence of eight months' imprisonment, four months of which were suspended, considering the case to warrant a slightly less severe penalty than a previous case with similar characteristics.

The final orders of the court were that Paul Anthony Connolly be convicted of the crimes of indecent assault, sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a period of eight months, with the last four months of the sentence suspended on condition that he be of good behaviour for a period of three years. Additionally, the victims of crime compensation levy of $350 was to be paid within six months of the date of release from prison.

Orders