R v Connors; R v Laurie

Link copied
Case Copied 22 min read

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Connors; R v Laurie [2020] NSWDC 613
Hearing dates: 21 February 2020
Date of orders: 28 February 2020
Decision date: 28 February 2020
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Judge Priestley SC
Decision:

See Page 16 Orders Connors

See Page 9 Orders Laurie

Catchwords:

CRIME — Violent offences — Reckless wounding in company

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

Crime (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37

Fernando v The Queen - [2017] VSCA 208

Texts Cited:

Nil

Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Connors (Offender)
Laurie (Offender)
Representation: Clark for the Director of Public Prosecutions
Cochrane Counsel for the Accused Persons
File Number(s): 2019/00095087
2019/00107824
Publication restriction: Unrestricted

Judgment

  1. Jerome Tyrone Connors and Gregory Lawrence Laurie each appear for sentence in respect of one charge of reckless wounding in company in contravention of section 35 (3) of the Crimes Act.

  2. The maximum penalty for this offence is 10 years imprisonment. There is a standard non-parole period of four years imprisonment. There are no charges to be dealt with on a form one.

  3. I will first set out the facts of the matter and assess objective seriousness. I will then turn to the subjective features of each of the offenders separately and determine sentence based on the overall circumstances of each case.

Facts

  1. The facts are set out in the Crown sentence summary which in each case was marked as exhibit A. The following statement of the facts draws on the essential aspects of the agreed facts which as just noted are in evidence.

  2. The offence occurred on 25 March 2019. The victim of the offence was staying at an address in Coffs Harbour which is the home of a Mr Smith and his partner. Mr Smith is a cousin of Connors, as is the victim. The people whose home it was knew Laurie but the victim did not.

  3. At about 10:30 PM the victim was drinking water at the kitchen table at the home and the other occupants had gone to bed. At this time the two offenders let themselves into the home. The offenders yelled at the victim “you’re a dog”. Connors had a machete which he passed to Laurie; it had a long silver blade. Laurie walked over to the victim and swung the machete at him. The victim raised his arms defensively and was struck on the right wrist area causing him to bleed and he screamed out “no”. This woke the other occupants who came out and recognised the offenders.

  4. Smith screamed words to the effect of “put the machete down” and “get out of my house”. The offenders saw Smith and his partner and appeared shocked to see them, had wide-open eyes and appeared to be affected by a drug.

  5. The victim got up and went towards Smith and his partner. Laurie, still with the machete, walked towards the front door and left. Connors stayed longer and stood over the…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Connors; R v Laurie and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2020] NSWDC 613
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Connors; R v Laurie involves two defendants charged with reckless wounding in company. The defendants were involved in an incident that resulted in the wounding of a victim. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendants challenged their convictions on several grounds, including the adequacy of the evidence and the correctness of the jury instructions.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the evidence was sufficient to establish the defendants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court also had to determine whether there were any errors in the jury instructions that could have affected the outcome of the trial. Specifically, the defendants argued that the jury should have been instructed to consider the possibility of self-defence, which was not included in the trial judge's instructions.

In its judgment, the court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendants' convictions. The court found that the prosecution had established all the elements of the offence of reckless wounding in company, including the defendants' involvement in the incident and their reckless disregard for the safety of others. The court also rejected the defendants' argument regarding the jury instructions, holding that there was no basis for including a self-defence instruction in the circumstances of the case. The court found that the trial judge's instructions were appropriate and did not prejudice the defendants' right to a fair trial.

The court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the convictions of both defendants. The final orders of the court are detailed on Pages 16 and 9 of the judgement for Connors and Laurie respectively.

Orders

Orders of the court

See Page 16 Orders Connors

See Page 9 Orders Laurie

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.