R v Doolan, Justin - [2016] NSWDC 391

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v DOOLAN, Justin; COSTELLO, Matthew Joseph [2016] NSWDC 391
Hearing dates: 16 February 2016
Date of orders: 16 February 2016
Decision date: 16 February 2016
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:
For orders see [78]

Catchwords: CRIMINAL – accessory after the fact to armed robbery – ongoing supply of prohibited substance – additional s. 166 offences – armed robbery –supply prohibited drug – SENTENCE – benefit for an early plea of guilty – separate responsibility of offenders where one party was unaware of the criminal activity embarked upon by the co-offender – opportunistic crime – vulnerability of the victim – culpability where offender had no intention or capacity to supply a prohibited substance promised – parity – special circumstances.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act (1900) (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act (1999) (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act (1986) (NSW)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
Cases Cited: R v Thomson; R v Houlton [2000] 49 NSWCCA 309
Kalpaxis [2001] NSWCCA 119
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Jurisic (1998) 45 NSWLR 209
Makarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25
Lattouf v R [1999] NSWSC 1382
R v Gu [2006] NSWCCA 104
R v Clark (NSWCCA, unreported, 5.3.1990)
Smiroldo (2000) 112 A Crim R 47
Giang [2001] NSWCCA 276
R v Mirza [2007] NSWCCA 248
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Justin Doolan (Offender)
Matthew Joseph Costello (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
Mr M. Pincott – Crown
Mr Barron – Mr. Doolan
Mr King – Mr. Costello

File Number(s): 2014/00125097
Publication restriction: Nil

sentence

HIS HONOUR: In the case of Mr Doolan, if you would just mind standing up, Mr Doolan, you are convicted in relation to each of the three offences. You are sentenced to a total term of imprisonment four years, nine months, and I propose to fix a non-parole period of in effect two years, six months. That effective sentence will date from the date you came into custody, which is as I understand it 8 June 2015.
For the supply matter on 22 May, you are convicted and sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment. For the ongoing supply matters, you are convicted and sentenced to a total of two years, three months’ imprisonment. I fix a non-parole period of one year for that offence. For the armed robbery matter, you are convicted and sentenced to three years, nine months’ imprisonment. That sentence is accumulative upon the non-parole period for the ongoing supply and for that matter, I fix a non-parole period of one year, six months to date from 8 June 2016. You will be eligible for release to parole on 7 December 2017 but that will be a matter for the Parole Authority. Just take a seat. I will make those formal orders shortly subject to any matters of correction and matters of detail.
Matthew Joseph Costello appears today for sentence in relation to an offence of being an accessory after the fact to armed robbery committed a…

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, Justin

Details

AGLC: R v Doolan, Justin [2016] NSWDC 391
Case: [2016] NSWDC 391
Decision Date: 16 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Justin Doolan, was convicted of being an accessory after the fact to an armed robbery, and of supplying a prohibited substance. The conviction arose from a situation where Doolan provided a location and a vehicle for the getaway, and had possession of a prohibited substance. The court had to determine the sentence for Doolan's involvement in these criminal activities. The appeal focused on the sentencing, arguing for a reduction based on the lack of intention to supply the prohibited substance and the minor role played by Doolan compared to the principal offender.

The court examined the principles of sentencing in relation to accessorial liability and the specific circumstances of the offence. It considered the benefit for an early plea of guilty, the separate responsibility of offenders, and the nature of the crime as an opportunistic act. The court also evaluated the vulnerability of the victim and the disparity in culpability between Doolan and the principal offender. The sentencing judge had taken into account the special circumstances of the case, including Doolan's lack of knowledge about the armed robbery and his limited role in the supply of the prohibited substance.

The court upheld the sentence imposed, finding that the sentencing judge had appropriately balanced the various considerations. The court concluded that the sentence was fair and just, reflecting the principles of parity and the specific circumstances of the offence. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was confirmed.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal and confirm the sentence previously imposed on Doolan. This decision upheld the sentence and reflected the court's consideration of the various mitigating and aggravating factors presented in the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

For orders see [78]

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v DOOLAN, Justin; COSTELLO, Matthew Joseph [2016] NSWDC 391
Hearing dates:	16 February 2016
Date of orders:	16 February 2016
Decision date:	16 February 2016
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:	For orders see [78]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL – accessory after the fact to armed robbery – ongoing supply of prohibited substance – additional s. 166 offences – armed robbery –supply prohibited drug – SENTENCE – benefit for an early plea of guilty – separate responsibility of offenders where one party was unaware of the criminal activity embarked upon by the co-offender – opportunistic crime – vulnerability of the victim – culpability where offender had no intention or capacity to supply a prohibited substance promised – parity – special circumstances.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act (1900) (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act (1999) (NSW) Criminal Procedure Act (1986) (NSW) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	R v Thomson; R v Houlton [2000] 49 NSWCCA 309 Kalpaxis [2001] NSWCCA 119 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 R v Jurisic (1998) 45 NSWLR 209 Makarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25 Lattouf v R [1999] NSWSC 1382 R v Gu [2006] NSWCCA 104 R v Clark (NSWCCA, unreported, 5.3.1990) Smiroldo (2000) 112 A Crim R 47 Giang [2001] NSWCCA 276 R v Mirza [2007] NSWCCA 248
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Justin Doolan (Offender) Matthew Joseph Costello (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr M. Pincott – Crown Mr Barron – Mr. Doolan Mr King – Mr. Costello
File Number(s):	2014/00125097
Publication restriction:	Nil