R v Donnelly - [2019] VSC 777

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2018 0282

THE QUEEN
v
BRAYDEN DONNELLY	Accused

---

JUDGE:	Tinney J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	22 October 2019
DATE OF SENTENCE:	28 November 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Donnelly
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 777

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Recklessly causing serious injury – Accused stabbed victim in the abdomen causing life-threatening injuries – Whether attack carried out due to fear or anger – No aspect of self-defence to the offending – Serious instance of offence of intentionally causing serious injury - Intellectually disabled offender – Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269 considerations - Prior convictions for violence – Just punishment – Denunciation - Deterrence – Protection of community – Rehabilitation – Sentence of five years nine months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years six months – But for plea of guilty, sentence of seven years six months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms K Churchill	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J Anderson	Camerons Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Brayden Peter Donnelly, you have pleaded guilty to recklessly causing serious injury (‘RCSI’) to Bradley Hayman on 24 February 2018, and have admitted prior convictions contained in a Criminal Record filed in this matter.

The maximum penalty for RCSI is imprisonment for 15 years.

As the contents of these reasons for sentence will clearly reveal, you have led a tragic life up to this point, blighted by your long-term drug abuse in the context of an impoverished and deprived background in which you have been abandoned and mistreated. In addition, you suffer from an intellectual disability which greatly limits your level of functioning and which in many ways has restricted your capacity to lead a more fulfilling existence.

Having said those things, neither your sad background nor your limited intellectual capacity, albeit that the latter, in particular, will have a mitigating effect on sentence, changes the essential nature of the serious crime to which you have pleaded guilty, or the inevitability of the fact that your offending can only be dealt with by a significant term of imprisonment.

Your background

It will be convenient to say something briefly of your personal background in setting the scene for a description of your offence.[1]
[1]That background is more fully set out in the Outline of Plea Submission filed on your behalf (Exhibit 1), and in the expert reports of Dr Jennifer McDowall and Ms Carla Lechner to which I will later refer in some detail.

You are 25 years of age, having been born on 27 December 1993. Your parents separated when you were 12, and you have no contact with either of them. You have three older siblings and two younger half-siblings, with whom you also have no contact. You were brought up in a violent and neglectful home, and involvement of Child Protection…

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 Donnelly

Details

AGLC: R v Donnelly [2019] VSC 777
Case: [2019] VSC 777
Decision Date: 28 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Donnelly, the accused, Donnelly, was found guilty of recklessly causing serious injury to a victim by stabbing them in the abdomen, resulting in life-threatening injuries. The matter was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for Donnelly, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offence, as well as the offender’s personal characteristics and background.

The legal issues before the court included the degree of culpability attributable to Donnelly, the relevance of the intellectually disabled status of the offender, and the necessity to balance various sentencing objectives, including denunciation, deterrence, protection of the community, and rehabilitation. The court also considered the impact of the plea of guilty on the final sentence.

The court found that the attack was not motivated by fear but rather by anger, with no aspect of self-defence applicable to the offending. The severity of the offence was underscored by the life-threatening injuries inflicted upon the victim. The court acknowledged Donnelly's intellectual disability, which was deemed to be a mitigating factor. However, the court also took into account Donnelly’s prior convictions for violence, which indicated a pattern of aggressive behaviour. After weighing these factors, the court sentenced Donnelly to five years and nine months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years and six months. The court noted that but for the plea of guilty, the sentence would have been seven years and six months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of five years.

Orders