R v Doolan - [2010] NSWSC 615

CITATION: R v DOOLAN [2010] NSWSC 615

HEARING DATE(S): 7 June 2010

JUDGMENT DATE :
7 June 2010

JURISDICTION: Common Law

JUDGMENT OF: Michael Grove J

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 7 June 2010

DECISION: Offender sentenced.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - Sentence - Manslaughter - Plea of guilty accepted in satisfaction of indictment for murder - Unlawful and dangerous act - Particular facts - No special point of principle

CATEGORY: Sentence

PARTIES: REGINA - Crown
Jacqueline Barbara DOOLAN - Offender

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2009/160858

COUNSEL: H Wilson - Crown
D Yehia SC - Offender

SOLICITORS: Solicitor for Public Prosecutions - Crown
Mandy Hull & Associates - Offender

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

MICHAEL GROVE J

NEWCASTLE: Monday 7 June 2010

2009/160858 R v Jacqueline Barbara DOOLAN
SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR

: Jacqueline Doolan you pleaded guilty to manslaughter which the Crown has accepted in discharge of the indictment against you and I formally convict you of that offence. I note that the Parliament has set a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment for such an offence.

2 The facts are set out in an agreed statement which of course I accept and I do not propose to recite what can be read therein in full. I summarise however some aspects which appear therein.

3 The offence occurred at about 5pm on 6 March 2009. You were then aged nearly 43 and the victim, Glenn Green, was aged 49. You are both of Aboriginal descent. As you told Dr Seidler, your parents were devout Christians and did not abuse alcohol or drugs. Your family was not exposed to undue racism or social alienation as a result of Aboriginality. No submission was made that you were disadvantaged for those reasons.

4 In later life alcohol however became a problem for you, as it was for Mr Green. The evidence also shows that you were both users of cannabis. Paragraph 5 of the agreed statement of facts reads:

“Both the deceased and the offender were alcoholics and their relationship was characterised by regular drinking to the point of intoxication. Apart from the periods when the deceased sought treatment for alcoholism, both typically spent each day in an alcohol induced haze.”

5 You and Mr Green had commenced a relationship in round about 2005 and you lived in Department of Housing premises in Toronto. From time to time there were separations and also, for some periods, your daughters lived with you in the premises. A brief description of your relationship as observed by others has been incorporated in the statement of facts and again I quote:

“Neighbours and others who knew the couple described their relationship as volatile and their time together was punctuated by frequent arguments, many of them verbal but some of which descended into violence from the deceased towards the offender or from the offender towards the deceased.”

6 I do not pause to recapitulate the detail of all the observations, save…

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 [2010] NSWSC 615
Case: [2010] NSWSC 615
Decision Date: 7 June 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the case of R v Doolan involved the defendant pleading guilty to manslaughter in a case where he was originally indicted for murder. The facts of the case indicated that Doolan had engaged in an unlawful and dangerous act, which resulted in the death of the victim. The court was required to decide on the appropriate sentence for Doolan, taking into account the plea of guilty and the particular circumstances surrounding the incident. The legal issues at hand included whether the plea of guilty should result in a lesser sentence and the extent to which the particular facts of the case warranted any deviation from standard sentencing practices.

The court considered the nature of Doolan's plea and the fact that he had admitted to the unlawful and dangerous act that led to the victim's death. The judge emphasised that while the plea of guilty was a mitigating factor, it was not the only consideration in determining the appropriate sentence. The court also had to weigh the severity of the act and the circumstances under which it occurred. Given that no special point of principle was raised, the court focused on the proportionality of the sentence to the offence and the need to balance the interests of justice, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The judge concluded that a sentence reflective of the seriousness of the offence, while acknowledging the plea of guilty, was necessary.

Doolan was sentenced to a term of imprisonment with specific consideration given to the mitigating effect of his guilty plea. The court determined that the sentence should be severe enough to reflect the gravity of the offence but also take into account the defendant's acceptance of responsibility. The final sentence imposed balanced these considerations, ensuring that it served as a deterrent while also providing an opportunity for Doolan's rehabilitation. The court's decision underscored the importance of individualised sentencing that considers the unique circumstances of each case.

Orders