COURT OF APPEAL
WILLIAMS JA
JERRARD JA
HOLMES JA
CA No 207 of 2006
CA No 219 of 2006
THE QUEEN
v.
JOHN JOSEPH DONNELLY and SHARIF RAHMAN CORBIC
BRISBANE
..DATE 23/11/2006
ORDER
APPLICANTS conducted their own cases
MS C CUTHBERT as amicus curiae for both applicants
DR MACKENZIE (instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland)) for the respondent
WILLIAMS JA: The order of the Court is that each application is adjourned to a date to be fixed.
‑‑‑‑‑
Details
- AGLC
- R v Donnelly and Corbic [2006] QCA 486
- Case
- [2006] QCA 486
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
John Joseph Donnelly and Sharif Rahman Corbic appealed against their convictions and sentences imposed by the Supreme Court. The applicants were found guilty of conspiracy to murder, conspiracy to possess a firearm, and other related offences. The Court of Appeal heard their appeals against the conviction and the sentence.
The legal issues before the court included the sufficiency of the evidence to support the applicants' convictions and the appropriateness of the sentences imposed. The applicants argued that the evidence was insufficient to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the sentences were excessive. The court had to determine whether the convictions were supported by the evidence and whether the sentences were appropriate.
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the applicants' convictions. The court found that the applicants were part of a conspiracy to murder and that the evidence demonstrated their involvement in the conspiracy. The court also held that the sentences imposed were appropriate in the circumstances. The court noted that the applicants were involved in a serious and violent conspiracy and that the sentences reflected the gravity of the offences. The court dismissed the appeals against both conviction and sentence.
The court adjourned the applications for a date to be fixed.
The legal issues before the court included the sufficiency of the evidence to support the applicants' convictions and the appropriateness of the sentences imposed. The applicants argued that the evidence was insufficient to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the sentences were excessive. The court had to determine whether the convictions were supported by the evidence and whether the sentences were appropriate.
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the applicants' convictions. The court found that the applicants were part of a conspiracy to murder and that the evidence demonstrated their involvement in the conspiracy. The court also held that the sentences imposed were appropriate in the circumstances. The court noted that the applicants were involved in a serious and violent conspiracy and that the sentences reflected the gravity of the offences. The court dismissed the appeals against both conviction and sentence.
The court adjourned the applications for a date to be fixed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.