R v Doolan - [2023] NSWSC 821

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Doolan [2023] NSWSC 821
Hearing dates: 30 June 2023
Date of orders: 14 July 2023
Decision date: 14 July 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Lonergan J
Decision:
For the offence of murder I impose a sentence of imprisonment of 18 years commencing on 23 January 2021 expiring on 22 January 2039 with a non-parole period of 12 years commencing on 23 January 2021 and expiring on 22 January 2033. You are eligible for release to parole on 22 January 2033.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – murder – offender found guilty of murder after trial – possible vigilante attack – where deceased living at offender’s mother’s home – “lured out” for attack – no intention to kill but prolonged attack – intention to inflict grievous bodily harm – severe beating - very unlikely to reoffend – excellent prospects of rehabilitation – young man – first time in custody

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Cheung v the Queen (2001) CLR 1; [2001] HCA 67
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
R v Cadman [2019] NSWSC 634
R v Kaine (No. 2) [2013] NSWSC 1824

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Brendan Thomas Doolan (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
L Shaw (Crown)
N Broadbent (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Katsoolis & Co. Solicitors & Attorneys (Accused)

File Number(s): 2021/00020665
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

On 20 February 2023, Brendan Thomas Doolan was arraigned before a jury on an indictment before a jury panel and me. The indictment contained alternative charges of murder and manslaughter, or unlawful killing, of Bradley Dixon at Forbes on 23 January 2021. The offender entered pleas of not guilty to both charges.
On 13 March 2023, the jury returned a verdict of murder.
The offence of murder carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of 20 years.
Evidence was taken on sentence and submissions provided on 30 June 2023.

The deceased Bradley Dixon

At the proceedings on Sentence on 30 June 2023 a quiet and respectful group of grieving friends and family of Mr Dixon attended court. Bradley’s sister Loretta bravely read the touching victim impact statement prepared by Bradley’s parents, Wendy and Barry. The loss of their only son was clearly overwhelming and the circumstances so very distressing for them and a terrible loss to the family and everyone who loved him.
Loretta spoke strongly of all the unanswered questions raised by Bradley’s life being taken in this terrible way and her anguish not just for herself but also Bradley’s children, and the grandchildren he has met and those he will never meet. He was her brother and best friend.
Bradley’s daughter Carly spoke of her love for her dad and her agony every day waking up and remembering that her father was gone. She described the loss…

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 Doolan

Details

AGLC: R v Doolan [2023] NSWSC 821
Case: [2023] NSWSC 821
Decision Date: 14 July 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Doolan involved the offender, Doolan, who was found guilty of murder following a trial. The deceased, who was living at Doolan's mother's home, was lured out and subjected to a severe beating, which resulted in their death. Doolan admitted to the assault but claimed it was not his intention to kill. The court needed to determine the appropriate sentence, taking into account the circumstances of the offence, Doolan's age, and the prospects for rehabilitation.

The primary legal issues before the court were the nature and severity of the offence, the intention behind the assault, and the likelihood of Doolan reoffending. The court had to weigh the seriousness of the crime against the mitigating factors, including Doolan's age, his first-time status in custody, and his prospects for rehabilitation. The court also considered the possibility that the attack was a vigilante-style incident, which could impact the sentencing approach.

The court found that although Doolan did not intend to kill, his actions constituted a prolonged and severe attack, leading to the death of the deceased. The court acknowledged the mitigating factors, including Doolan's young age and the likelihood of rehabilitation. The court ultimately decided that the offence was of significant gravity but that Doolan's prospects for rehabilitation and the improbability of reoffending warranted a sentence that allowed for these factors to be taken into account. The court imposed a sentence that reflected both the seriousness of the crime and the mitigating circumstances.

The court ordered Doolan to serve a term of imprisonment with the possibility of parole, considering his prospects for rehabilitation and the low likelihood of reoffending. The precise length of the sentence was not specified in the text provided.

Orders