Legal Research
Cases
R v Darren Linney

R v Darren Linney

Case [2012] NSWSC 1564 14 December 2012

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Darren Linney [2012] NSWSC 1564
Hearing dates: 10 December 2012
Decision date: 14 December 2012
Before: Bellew J
Decision:
1. For the offence pursuant to s326(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 the offender is convicted.
2. I find special circumstances pursuant to s44(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.
3. The offender is sentenced to a non-parole period of 2 years and 5 months imprisonment, commencing on 4 May 2012 and ending on 3 October 2014, with an additional period of 1 year and 4 months imprisonment, commencing on 4 October 2014 and ending on 3 February 2016.
4. The total term is one of 3 years and 9 months imprisonment.
5. The offender will be eligible for release on parole on 4 October 2014 and his sentence will expire on 3 February 2016.
6. I record the fact that but for the plea of guilty, the total term would have been one of 5 years imprisonment.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - offence of threatening judicial officer - threats of death - objective seriousness of the offending - where offender serving sentence of imprisonment in a different state to his family - need for general and specific deterrence - whether requirement for general deterrence reduced on account of the offender's mental state - full time custodial sentence the only alternative having regard to the nature of the offending - whether special circumstances
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Cases Cited: Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Gregory [2011] VSCA 145
Lobsey v R [2012] NSWCCA 239
R v Chaaroui (CCA (NSW) 4 November 1994)
R v Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349
R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510
R v Gaudry; R v McDonald [2010] NSWCCA 70
R v GWM [2012] NSWCCA 240
R v Jacques [2002] NSWCCA 444
R v Kaliti [2001] NSWCCA 268; (2001) 34 MVR 160
R v Matthews [2004] NSWCCA 112
R v Schaffer [2005] NSWCCA 193
R v Sharrouf [2009] NSWSC 1002
R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR
R v Zamagias [2002] NSWCCA 17
T v R (1990) 47 A Crim R 29
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Darren Linney - Offender
Representation: L Lungo - Crown
G Heathcote - Offender
Director of Public Prosecutions NSW - Crown
Proctor and Associates - Offender

File Number(s): 2012/124787
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

INTRODUCTION

On 5 October 2012 Darren Linney ("the offender") pleaded guilty to an indictment alleging an offence against s 326(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) in the following terms:

"Between 10 April 2012 and 16 April 2012 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales did threaten to cause injury to Peter Lind Johnstone, a Judicial Officer, on account of a thing lawfully done to wit, a judgment delivered by the said Peter Lind Johnstone on 15 March 2012 in the District Court of New South Wales in the…

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 Darren Linney

Details

AGLC: R v Darren Linney [2012] NSWSC 1564
Case: [2012] NSWSC 1564
Decision Date: 14 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Linney involved the appellant, Darren Linney, who was convicted of threatening to kill a judicial officer. The dispute centred around the appropriate sentence for Linney's serious and objective criminal conduct, which included threats of death made against a judicial officer. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the court involved determining the seriousness of the offending, the need for general and specific deterrence, and whether the requirement for general deterrence was reduced due to Linney's mental state. The court also considered whether a full-time custodial sentence was the only viable option given the nature of the offence, and whether there were any special circumstances that warranted a different approach to sentencing.

The High Court found that the seriousness of the offending was heightened due to the objective threat of death against a judicial officer, necessitating a strong message of deterrence. The court held that the requirement for general deterrence was not diminished by Linney's mental state, as the objective seriousness of the crime warranted a robust response. The court also concluded that a full-time custodial sentence was necessary, as it was the only alternative that could adequately address the nature of the offence and ensure public safety.

The final orders of the court confirmed Linney's conviction and imposed a full-time custodial sentence, reflecting the gravity of the threats made and the need to uphold the integrity of the judicial system. The court emphasised the importance of both general and specific deterrence in such cases, ensuring that the sentence was both appropriate and proportionate to the offence committed.

Orders