R v Delaney - [2022] NSWSC 492

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Delaney [2022] NSWSC 492
Hearing dates: 26 April 2022
Date of orders: 26 April 2022
Decision date: 26 April 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Fagan J
Decision:
Sentenced to imprisonment for 16 years comprising a non-parole period of 12 years commencing on 27 December 2019 and expiring on 26 December 2031 and a balance of term of four years expiring on 26 December 2035. The offender will be eligible for release on parole will be 26 December 2031.

Catchwords:
CRIME – sentence – murder – where the offender attacked the deceased with his fists and knees – cause of death ruptured spleen sustained during attack – where the deceased’s spleen was severely diseased prior to attack – low level of intent to cause grievous bodily harm – offender remorseful

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes(Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW)

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Alan Delaney
Representation:
Counsel:
N Keay (Crown)
D Berents (Offender)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Kim Bolas Legal Group (Offender)

File Number(s): 2019/405941
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

Alan William Delaney was tried by jury at Queanbeyan during February 2022 on a charge that in that town on 26 December 2019 he did murder Aaron Baxter. By verdict returned on 22 February 2022 he was found guilty.
The evidence and submissions relative to sentence have been received today. Sentence is now to be passed, taking into account that the maximum penalty is imprisonment for life and that a standard non-parole period of 20 years is prescribed under s 54 of the Crime (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). The culpability of the offender in this murder was not so extreme as to warrant imprisonment for life and a sentence of a finite term of years will be ordered.

Facts of the crime

The offender and Mr Baxter were known to each other. During the second half of 2019 Mr Baxter resided in lodgings at an establishment known as the Kent Hotel on Trinculo Place, Queanbeyan. That is a street running along the east bank of the Queanbeyan River. The Kent is about 100 metres south of the bridge over the river at Monaro Street. The offender filled in as a temporary caretaker at the Kent during some part of Mr Baxter's residence there in 2019. They were acquainted even before that and they socialised with each other. Both were heavy drinkers.
The offender was aged 50 years in December 2019 and Mr Baxter was 46. By December their relationship was quarrelsome because the offender believed Mr Baxter had stolen money from him and that Mr Baxter was imposing upon him and his female partner at the time, Ms Alchin, in financial matters.
Mr Baxter spent a large part of Christmas Day drinking on the east bank of the Queanbeyan River, under the eastern…

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 Delaney

Details

AGLC: R v Delaney [2022] NSWSC 492
Case: [2022] NSWSC 492
Decision Date: 26 April 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Delaney, the High Court of Australia was called upon to consider the appropriate sentence for an offender who had been convicted of murder. The deceased had died from a ruptured spleen, a consequence of the offender's violent attack. The offender, however, had not intended to cause grievous bodily harm, and the deceased's spleen was severely diseased prior to the assault. The case presented a complex interplay between the severity of the attack, the pre-existing medical condition of the deceased, and the offender's level of culpability.

The primary legal issue before the court was the determination of an appropriate sentence for the offender, given the mitigating circumstances of the case. The court had to weigh the severity of the attack against the offender's remorse and the low level of intent to cause grievous bodily harm. Additionally, the court needed to consider the impact of the deceased's pre-existing medical condition on the cause of death. The court's task was to balance these factors to arrive at a sentence that was both just and reflective of the particular circumstances of the case.

The court held that while the offender's actions were undeniably violent and resulted in the death of the deceased, the level of intent to cause grievous bodily harm was low. The court also took into account the offender's remorse and the fact that the deceased's spleen was severely diseased prior to the attack. The court concluded that these mitigating factors warranted a sentence that reflected the offender's culpability and remorse. The High Court determined that the offender should be sentenced to a term of imprisonment with the possibility of parole, considering the totality of the circumstances.

The court ordered that the offender be sentenced to a term of imprisonment with parole eligibility after serving a minimum non-parole period. The exact terms of the sentence were left to the discretion of the sentencing court, with the guidance provided by the High Court's decision. This outcome balanced the need for punishment with the mitigating factors present in the case, ultimately reflecting the court's consideration of all relevant circumstances.

Orders