R v Doolan

[2024] NSWSC 933

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Doolan [2024] NSWSC 933

Hearing dates:

31 July 2024

Date of orders:

2 August 2024

Decision date:

02 August 2024

Jurisdiction:

Common Law

Before:

Button J

Decision:

(1)   Ricky Duke Doolan, you are convicted of the offence of murder.

(2)   My sentence features a starting point head sentence of 25 years.

(3)   Because of the early plea of guilty, that must be reduced by 25% to 18 years 9 months, to commence on 3 September 2022, and expire on 2 June 2041.

(4)   That is accompanied by a non-parole period of 14 years, to expire on 2 September 2036, the first date upon which the offender is eligible for possible release to parole.

(5)   To express the sentence formally: it is a non-parole period of 14 years to date from 3 September 2022, to be followed by a parole period of 4 years 9 months.

Catchwords:

CRIME – sentencing – murder – guilty plea in Local Court – fatal domestic violence – brutal stabbing – discovery of relationship between romantic partner and the deceased –intention to kill – Aboriginal offender – limited criminal record – on Intensive Correction Order for violence at time of murder – background of profound deprivation – PTSD caused by trauma in childhood – self-harm in custody – evidence of remorse – harm to community – consequences of murder far beyond death of a single human being – sentence imposed

Category:

Sentence

Parties:

Rex (Crown)
Ricky Duke Doolan (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel:
L Carr SC (Crown)
M Davies (Offender)

Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Offender)

File Number(s):

2022/262612

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

Introduction

1. On 5 March 2024, Ricky Duke Doolan (the offender) was committed for sentence to the Supreme Court of New South Wales from the Local Court at Moree. He had entered a plea of guilty to a single charge: that on or about 2 September 2022 in Boggabilla he had murdered Richard Michael Mills (very often known as Mikey; the deceased).

2. Proceedings on sentence were conducted before me on 31 July 2024 at Tamworth, and, after a period of reflection, it falls to me to sentence the offender today.

3. In this State, the offence of murder carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment of life without possibility of parole. Parliament has also set a standard non-parole period of imprisonment for 20 years. I have regarded both of those aspects of the offence as important guideposts in my exercise of the sentencing discretion. The learned Crown prosecutor did not submit that the maximum penalty was called for in this case, an approach with which I agree.

4. The law that I must apply to findings of fact is as follows. Matters against the offender relied upon by the Crown, above and beyond the elements of the offence, must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Matters in his favour need only be proven on balance. Inevitably in my experience, some matters will remain unclear to me.

Objective features

5. The background of this tragedy can be shortly stated. Most of the persons involved are associated with towns in the north-west of New South Wales, and with Goondiwindi, just over the border in Queensland, and are members of the Indigenous community.

6. The offender and Ms Merinda McIntosh were in a romantic relationship that extended well over a decade, and into which two children were born. The deceased was also in a long-term relationship, with Ms Ronella McGrady.

7. In about the middle of 2021, Ms McIntosh and the deceased commenced an intimate relationship, of which others knew nothing. The offender found out about it in about mid-February 2022. He was initially angry with his partner, but expressed his forgiveness to her. The deceased and his own romantic partner also reconciled.

8. On the other hand, at the time the offender placed some posts on Facebook, suggesting that he wished to harm the deceased. However, nothing came of that for many months.

9. On Friday 2 September 2022, the deceased, his partner, and his father travelled from Tamworth to Goondiwindi, in order to attend the funeral of a family member. The offender and his partner also attended the funeral service. There was no contact between the two groups at that stage.

10. Later, there was a social gathering in the nature of a wake at the home of the sister of the deceased, back in Boggabilla. At the same time, there was a social event featuring alcohol at the home of the offender and his partner. The offender was in good spirits there, and not showing any sign of stress.

11. Eventually, it was decided that those at the home of the offender might travel to the other social event. Notably, Ms McIntosh took steps to enquire whether the deceased was present at that other home, no doubt with the aim of avoiding trouble. Regrettably, she was mistaken in her belief that he was not there.

12. On arrival at the social event, the offender was in possession of a large knife. That played its central part in what was to occur, but it was possessed for his general protection only. It is agreed between the parties that what occurred shortly thereafter was unplanned and unexpected, from every perspective.

13. The deceased was in the backyard, smoking a cigarette. The offender approached him. He confronted the deceased about the relationship with Ms McIntosh. The offender said, “I only want one go at ya”. A short time later, he pushed the deceased with both hands to the chest. Far from reacting physically or verbally, the deceased took a couple of steps back, and said nothing. Within seconds, the offender had commenced to stab the deceased.

14. The murderous attack extended for only a short time. Even so, it featured the infliction of fourteen wounds; some of them were deep and very forceful; and there was a phase of the assault when the offender was standing over the deceased, who was defenceless on the ground trying to move, no doubt in a fruitless effort to survive.

15. Other guests at the wake intervened, and the offender promptly departed (I shall refer to some of the things he said at that stage later in these remarks). When paramedics arrived, the deceased had no pulse, and his heart was inactive.

16. Tragically, despite ongoing attempts to save his life, he was formally declared deceased at 12:55 AM on Saturday, 3 September 2022.

Objective seriousness

17. Murder is the crime of taking the life of another human being in the most serious circumstances known to law. Self-evidently, every example of murder is an offence of the utmost gravity, and an infliction of great harm upon Australian society. Even so, I am required by law to make some assessment of the objective gravity of this particular example of the offence, not least so that I can sensibly think about, and apply, the maximum penalty and standard non-parole period.

18. Here, the offence was spontaneous, unplanned, simplistic in its brutality, and readily detected. I also infer without difficulty that it occurred during a loss of control on the part of the offender.

19. On the other hand, there was undoubtedly an intention to kill on his part. Contrary to the submission of learned defence counsel, the murder was effected by way of atrocious violence. The fatal ordeal of the deceased was terrifying and terribly painful. He was defenceless in the face of an armed onslaught. When first confronted by the offender, the deceased backed away.

20. Finally, although the offender and the deceased were certainly not in a domestic relationship, this must be seen as yet another example of fatal domestic violence, a notorious scourge within Australian society. That is because the offender could not or would not accept that all adults in this country are entirely free to engage in romantic and intimate relationships with other adults as they see fit, without suffering threats of violence, or actual violence, and let alone being stabbed to death as a consequence of their choices.

21. As I said in the proceedings on sentence, this must be seen as a grave example of an exceptionally grave offence.

Subjective matters

22. I turn from a discussion of the offence to a discussion of the person who committed it.

Plea

23. As I have said, the offender entered a plea of guilty in the Local Court. The parties were agreed that the law mandates that he be afforded a 25% discount on the sentence that I would otherwise have imposed. I have done so.

Remorse

24. A related question is whether the offender is truly remorseful now for what he has done, as opposed to regretting merely the fact that he is in prison, and the effect that his actions have had on those whom he loves, and who love him, not least his children.

25. On the one hand, I did not hear from the offender on oath, and he did not expose himself to public cross-examination.

26. Furthermore, immediately after the murder, whilst fleeing, he made some very heartless and vulgar statements about what he had done; there is no need for them to be repeated here.

27. Finally, throughout the many months between the murder and the proceedings on sentence, the offender has given somewhat different versions of precisely what happened, some of which may be said to have a flavour of self-justification.

28. To be weighed against those negative factors are the following.

29. As I have said, the offender pleaded guilty at an early stage, no doubt aware that the result must be many years in custody.

30. Secondly, very shortly after the murder, the offender was in tears, and speaking to others in ways suggestive of remorse.

31. Thirdly, his position with the various experts and others has been consistent, in terms of his deep regret about his fatal actions.

32. Fourthly, his statement of written apology received in evidence, even if approached cautiously, should be given, in my assessment, significant weight.

33. Fifthly, speaking generally, I am more ready to accept that a person is remorseful for an offence committed spontaneously when to some degree out of control, as opposed to a cold-blooded, well-planned murder.

34. Finally, I noticed myself that, during the two very moving victim impact statements that were read in open court two days ago, the offender was in the dock literally hiding his face in his hands. I infer that that was an act of shame, distress, and recognition of the enormity of the harm that he has done to so many.

35. On balance then, I do accept that the offender has come to see the magnitude of his actions that evening, and to regret them bitterly, quite apart from the consequences that he himself must suffer.

The life of the offender, and resultant issues

36. The following matters were not the subject of sworn evidence, and I approach them with caution as a result. Having said that, the documentary picture is a consistent one, the prosecutor did not call for cross-examination, and, sadly, I readily accept the following matters on balance.

37. The offender was 31 years of age when the offence was committed, and is now 33 years old. He is a Wiradjuri and Gamilaraay man, connected with the areas of Piliga and Wellington in this State, although his childhood featured quite a bit of moving around between country towns.

38. Regrettably, he was exposed to a milieu of deprivation in the form of alcohol abuse and violence in his community generally, and grave domestic violence associated with alcohol abuse within his own home, when he was growing up. His father, whom the offender greatly feared, was incarcerated when the latter was a teenager. I also accept on balance that the offender suffered crimes committed against him when he was a child that do not require public exploration now, but were extremely psychologically damaging.

39. The offender finished year 12, a significant achievement in his family, and has always been a worker. He and his romantic partner met when they were young, and their first daughter was born in 2011. He has never been burdened with a problem with alcohol or prohibited drugs.

40. I accept on balance that the deprived and unsatisfactory upbringing of the offender has psychologically damaged him, in a number of ways. He has been diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, with psychotic symptoms (although it seems that his hearing of voices is more to do with stress than any frank disassociation from reality). He has also, I accept, harmed himself on many occasions, including whilst incarcerated, as a result of depression and anxiety. The offender is separately, I believe, a person of very limited intellectual capacity.

41. Certainly, the deprived and unsatisfactory upbringing of the offender has led to significant psychological conditions on his part. And I accept that those psychological difficulties played some role in what occurred on the evening of the murder. For that reason, I accept that his moral culpability is reduced, to some degree, for what occurred. And I also accept that that state of affairs makes him a less appropriate person than others for the expression of general deterrence. The challenge for me is to craft a sentence that reflects, on one hand, the deprivation (and its consequences) that the offender has suffered throughout his life; and, on the other hand, the completely unjustified loss of a precious human life as a result of his actions, and the devastation that that loss has caused to so many, a topic to which I shall return shortly.

Criminal history

42. As for the criminal history of the offender, on the one hand he deserves credit for reaching his 30s with only a short criminal record. It does feature a few property offences in Queensland, committed eight years ago, that led to a suspended sentence; in the scheme of things, I largely put that to one side.

43. On the other hand, at the time when this murder was committed, the applicant was subject to an Intensive Correction Order (ICO) for an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, an earlier example of domestic violence on his part. That offence, according to police facts placed before me without objection or restriction, was founded upon the offender punching his romantic partner to the face, and then kicking her to the same part of her person twice. She was bloodied, suffered a broken nose, and was indeed unconscious for a time.

44. That conviction means that the offender cannot submit that he was a person of good character before the murder. But to be clear: he was punished for that previous offence in the past, and I have no intention of punishing him for it again.

45. Having said that, he was subject to that ICO when he committed the murder. That is undoubtedly a serious aggravating feature: whilst subject to conditional liberty for significant violence, he committed fatal violence. And whilst the point is well made by his counsel that he was only four days away from the conclusion of his conditional liberty before he breached it, that breach was catastrophic.

The present and the future

46. The offender has been incarcerated for many months. My impression is that he is trying to use his time as quietly and constructively as he can. It is noteworthy that as long ago as March 2022, after the relationship came to light, he sought help with regard to his psychological problems, as I understand it for the first time in his life. I believe on balance that he will continue to try to get help, as best he can in custody, in the years ahead.

47. As I have said, this murder was not proceeded by years of criminality on his part. He remains committed to his children, and I infer that there are many members of the community who are committed to him. And I have already explained why I believe that the offender has come to appreciate the enormity of what he has done.

48. It is impossible to make firm findings about how a person will be, many years into the future. Having said that, my assessment is that one can have a guarded optimism that the offender will be able to rejoin the community as one of its law-abiding members, many years from now.

Various matters

49. I turn to discuss a number of discrete aspects of my task.

50. First, it was agreed that the sentence must commence on the date of arrest and continuous incarceration, that being 3 September 2022.

51. Secondly, I have reflected on all statutory aggravating and mitigating features, and have mentioned all that I have found established.

52. Thirdly, the parties helpfully provided me with some comparative sentencing examples. But because each case turns on its own facts, and with their agreement, I shall not pause to discuss them now.

53. Fourthly, counsel for the offender did not contend for a finding of special circumstances. Even so, I have reflected on the question myself, but regard the parole period as sufficient, and the non-parole period as the minimum period of incarceration that can properly reflect the gravity of what has occurred here.

54. Fifthly, in my calculation of the sentence, there has been a very small degree of rounding down, because the law does not concern itself with trifles.

55. Finally, the offender needs to be aware that, in light of the offence of which he will be convicted, he may be ordered to remain in gaol even after the complete expiry of his entire head sentence, if it is established that he presents a danger to the community.

A beloved person lost

56. So far, I have discussed the offence and the offender at length. I am sure that everyone understands that that is a requirement of the criminal law, and it is essential that I do that so that the reasons underpinning my sentence are available to everybody.

57. But I have not forgotten the man who is the real subject of these proceedings: the deceased, known to those who loved him as “Mikey”. And I appreciate that, as father, son, brother, partner, uncle, nephew, cousin and friend, he lived within a very widespread web of loving relationships.

58. I received three victim impact statements: from the mother of his children, his aunt, and his brother. The latter two were read out in person in open court. That occurred with many, many other suffering people sitting in the gallery of the courtroom. Certainly, I have used those statements to reflect upon the harm done to members of the community by this offence, and regard that harm as very substantial indeed.

59. No person of human feelings can read and hear those cries of grief and pain without being deeply moved. I have come to know, over many years in the criminal justice system, that a homicide affects not only the person who is its direct victim. On the contrary, circles of suffering spread out like ever-growing ripples on a lake. So many other lives are damaged, if not destroyed. And that pain extends for years, decades, a lifetime, after a much-loved person has been taken away. So it is here. As just one example, I record that the father of the deceased has lost his will to live.

60. I am also particularly aware that, because of the history of this country, members of our Indigenous community very often endure such a loss in a pre-existing background of dispossession, disadvantage, deprivation. Indeed, I have not forgotten that this tragic loss occurred at a social event designed to mark the earlier passing of another Aboriginal person from the same extended family.

61. No sentence that I impose can take away that pain. All the criminal justice system can do, I think, is provide recognition of the gravity of the violent death of a fellow human being, denounce it in its profound wrongfulness, do its best to dissuade others from doing the same, and appropriately punish the person who has offended in that way.

62. I hope the conclusion of these proceedings today will provide some relief to those who have been suffering for almost two years, since the evening of 2 September 2022. Even so, I accept that for many, that pain will be unrelenting.

Aspects of instinctive synthesis

63. In short, this is a very difficult sentencing exercise.

64. On the one hand, the offence was unplanned, spontaneous, and featured a loss of control. It was committed by an Aboriginal man who had suffered his own deep deprivation, with resultant psychological damage, which in turn played its part in the commission of the offence, and which reduces his moral culpability for what he has done. He is a person, before and since, who has generally [not read out; a slip] been able to keep out of trouble. He is also a person about whom one can be guardedly optimistic in the years ahead, and for his eventual release.

63. To be weighed against that is the ultimate deprivation, whereby the life of a fellow human being has been snuffed out; the complete unacceptability of fatal domestic violence; the significant role that general deterrence must play in sentencing for such offences; and the obvious need for the Supreme Court to denounce the violent taking of a human life.

64. I hope it will be understood by everyone that the sentence that I shall impose in a moment is a very primitive effort, measured simply in years of lost liberty, to reflect that multitude of countervailing factors.

Orders

1. Ricky Duke Doolan, you are convicted of the offence of murder.

2. My sentence features a starting point head sentence of imprisonment of 25 years.

3. Because of the early plea of guilty, that must be reduced by 25% to 18 years 9 months, to commence on 3 September 2022, and expire on 2 June 2041.

4. That is accompanied by a non-parole period of 14 years, to expire on 2 September 2036, the first date upon which the offender is eligible for possible release to parole.

5. To express the sentence formally: it is a non-parole period of 14 years to date from 3 September 2022, to be followed by a parole period of 4 years 9 months.

**********

Decision last updated: 02 August 2024