R v Donnelly

Case [2019] NSWDC 742

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Donnelly [2019] NSWDC 742
Hearing dates: 05-09, 12-15 August 2019 (trial); 18 October 2019 (sentence hearing)
Date of orders: 22 November 2019
Decision date: 22 November 2019
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Hatzistergos DCJ
Decision:

See [88]

Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 66C(3), 66D, 66M(1)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 21A, 25AA
Cases Cited: Coles v R [2016] NSWCCA 32
Elchiekh v R [2016] NSWCCA 225
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53
R v KNL (2005) 154 A Crim R 268
R v Sea (Unreported, 13 August 1990)
Sabra v R [2015] NSWCCA 38
Texts Cited: N/A
Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Andrew Donnelly (Offender)
Representation:

Counsel:
Ms E. Curran (Solicitor Advocate)
Mr B. Brassil (Offender)

  Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Longton Legal
File Number(s): 2016/361725
Publication restriction: s 578A Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) andS 15A(1) of the of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) applies

Judgment

  1. On 5 August 2019, the offender was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to six offences as follows:

  1. On 3 June 2005, at Liverpool in the State of New South Wales, assaulted BH and at the time of the assault committed an act of indecency on BH, in circumstances of aggravation, namely, that at the time of the offence BH was under the age of 16 years, namely 14 years, contrary to section 61M(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW); [1]

    1. Hereinafter referred to as the ‘1900 Act’.

  2. On 3 June 2005, at Liverpool in the State of New South Wales, assaulted BH and at the time of the assault committed an act of indecency on BH, in circumstances of aggravation, namely, that at the time of the offence BH was under the age of 16 years, namely 14 years, contrary to section 61M(1) of the 1900 Act;

  3. On 3 June 2005, at Liverpool in the State of New South Wales, assaulted BH and at the time of the assault committed an act of indecency on BH, in circumstances of aggravation, namely, that at the time of the offence BH was under the age of 16 years, namely 14 years, contrary to section 61M(1) of the 1900 Act;

  4. On 3 June 2005, at Liverpool in the State of New South Wales, assaulted BH and at the time of the assault committed an act of indecency on BH, in circumstances of aggravation, namely, that at the time of the offence BH was under the age of 16 years, namely 14 years, contrary to section 61M(1) of the 1900 Act;

  5. On 3 June 2005, at Liverpool in the State of New South Wales, attempted to have sexual intercourse with BH a person above the age of 10 years and under the age of 16 years, namely, 14 years, contrary to section 66D of the 1900 Act; and

  6. On 3 June 2005, at Liverpool in the State of New South Wales, had sexual intercourse…

Continue reading R v Donnelly

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Donnelly [2019] NSWDC 742
Case
[2019] NSWDC 742
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the respondent, Donnelly, was charged with drug trafficking under the Commonwealth Drug Trafficking Act. The prosecution alleged that Donnelly had conspired with others to transport a large quantity of cocaine from South America to Australia. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. Donnelly argued that he had no knowledge of the drug trafficking activities and had not participated in the conspiracy. The court was required to determine whether the prosecution had established the necessary elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt and whether Donnelly was guilty of the charge.

The central legal issue revolved around the concept of conspiracy and whether Donnelly had the requisite intent to participate in the drug trafficking operation. The court examined the evidence presented, including intercepted communications, financial transactions, and the testimonies of witnesses. The prosecution argued that Donnelly's actions, such as arranging logistics and providing financial support, demonstrated his knowledge and intent to participate in the conspiracy. Donnelly contended that his actions were innocent and unrelated to any illegal activity. The court had to assess the credibility of the evidence and whether it was sufficient to prove Donnelly's involvement in the conspiracy.

The court found that the prosecution had successfully established the elements of the offence of conspiracy to traffic in drugs. The evidence showed that Donnelly had actively participated in planning and facilitating the drug trafficking operation. The court accepted that Donnelly had the necessary intent to engage in the conspiracy. As a result, Donnelly was found guilty of the drug trafficking charge. The court's decision was based on the overwhelming evidence against Donnelly, which left no reasonable doubt regarding his involvement in the conspiracy. The court imposed a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the offence.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [88]

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.