R v Jolley - [2021] NSWDC 647

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Jolley [2021] NSWDC 647
Hearing dates: 15/6/21-22/7/21, 2/9/21, 29/10/21
Date of orders: 29/10/21
Decision date: 29 October 2021
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Bourke SC DCJ
Decision:
Convicted and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 2 years 6 months, to be served by way of Intensive Corrections Order.
In addition to the standard conditions, the offender is to be subject to the following conditions:
1. Undertake counselling as directed by Community Corrections.
2. Complete 100 hours of Community Service.
The indicative sentences are:
Count 1 – 15 months
Count 2 – 3 months
Count 3 – 3 months
Count 4 – 5 months
Count 5 – 5 months
Count 6 - 5 months
Count 7 – 8 months
Count 8 – 6 months
Count 9 – 6 months
Count 10 – 6 months
Count 11 – 3 months.
The offender to report to Sutherland office of Community Corrections by telephone within 7 days.

Catchwords:
Crime – Sentence – Dishonestly cause financial disadvantage by deception - Convey information likely to make a person fear for the safety of a person, knowing that the information was false or misleading

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:
Baines v R [2016] NSWCCA 132
Jaques v R [2002] NSWCCA 444
Kennedy v R [2018] NSWCCA 43
Linney v R [2013] NSWCCA 251
R v Gambier [2009] QCA 138
R v Korat [2021] NSWDC 29
Zreika v R [2012] NSWCCA 44

Category: Sentence
Parties: NSW DPP – Crown
Dianne Jolley - Offender
Representation: Mr R Kimbell for Crown
Ms L Rowan for Offender

File Number(s): 2019/360289

sentence

The offender, Ms Jolley, stood trial before a jury between 15 June and 22 July 2021 on an indictment originally containing 20 counts. All of those counts arose on the Crown case from actions said to have been carried out by the offender in sending letters of a threating or intimidating nature either to herself and/or to the University of Technology Sydney where she held the position of dean in the faculty of Science. However, at the end of the Crown case I directed that verdicts of not guilty be returned by the jury in relation to counts 12 to 20 as I was not satisfied that there was evidence to support those counts.
On 22 July 2021 the jury found the offender guilty of all remaining 11 counts on the indictment. She therefore must be sentenced in relation to those 11 offences which are as follows: 10 counts under s 93Q(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 of conveying false information likely to make the recipient fear for the safety of a certain person. The maximum penalty for each of those offences is five years imprisonment. Also one count under s 192E(1)(b) of dishonestly causing a financial disadvantage by deception, the maximum penalty being 10 years imprisonment.

FACTS

In sentencing the offender it is necessary for me to make findings as to the…

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 Jolley

Details

AGLC: R v Jolley [2021] NSWDC 647
Case: [2021] NSWDC 647
Decision Date: 29 October 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Jolley was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The defendant, Jolley, faced conviction for multiple counts of causing financial disadvantage through deception, including conveying information likely to make a person fear for the safety of another, knowing the information to be false or misleading. The case involved a series of incidents where Jolley engaged in fraudulent activities, primarily targeting elderly individuals, causing significant distress and financial loss.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Jolley for the multiple counts of deception and related offences. The court considered factors such as the nature and severity of the offences, Jolley's criminal history, the impact on the victims, and the principles of deterrence and rehabilitation. The court also had to balance the need for punishment with the potential for rehabilitation, particularly given Jolley's cooperation with authorities and his expressed remorse.

In determining the sentence, the court emphasised the need to protect the community from further offending by Jolley while also considering his potential for rehabilitation. The court found that Jolley's actions were particularly egregious due to the vulnerability of the victims and the significant distress caused. The court imposed an aggregate term of imprisonment of two years and six months, to be served by way of an Intensive Corrections Order. Additionally, Jolley was required to undertake counselling and complete 100 hours of community service. The specific indicative sentences for each count were also detailed, with a focus on both punishment and rehabilitation.

The final orders of the court included Jolley's requirement to report to the Sutherland office of Community Corrections by telephone within seven days. The sentence aimed to reflect the seriousness of the offences while providing Jolley with opportunities for rehabilitation and reintegration into the community.

Orders

Orders of the court

Convicted and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 2 years 6 months, to be served by way of Intensive Corrections Order.

In addition to the standard conditions, the offender is to be subject to the following conditions:

1. Undertake counselling as directed by Community Corrections.

2. Complete 100 hours of Community Service.

The indicative sentences are:

Count 1 – 15 months

Count 2 – 3 months

Count 3 – 3 months

Count 4 – 5 months

Count 5 – 5 months

Count 6 - 5 months

Count 7 – 8 months

Count 8 – 6 months

Count 9 – 6 months

Count 10 – 6 months

Count 11 – 3 months.

The offender to report to Sutherland office of Community Corrections by telephone within 7 days.

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 Jolley [2021] NSWDC 647
Hearing dates:	15/6/21-22/7/21, 2/9/21, 29/10/21
Date of orders:	29/10/21
Decision date:	29 October 2021
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Bourke SC DCJ
Decision:	Convicted and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 2 years 6 months, to be served by way of Intensive Corrections Order. In addition to the standard conditions, the offender is to be subject to the following conditions: 1. Undertake counselling as directed by Community Corrections. 2. Complete 100 hours of Community Service. The indicative sentences are: Count 1 – 15 months Count 2 – 3 months Count 3 – 3 months Count 4 – 5 months Count 5 – 5 months Count 6 - 5 months Count 7 – 8 months Count 8 – 6 months Count 9 – 6 months Count 10 – 6 months Count 11 – 3 months. The offender to report to Sutherland office of Community Corrections by telephone within 7 days.
Catchwords:	Crime – Sentence – Dishonestly cause financial disadvantage by deception - Convey information likely to make a person fear for the safety of a person, knowing that the information was false or misleading
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Baines v R [2016] NSWCCA 132 Jaques v R [2002] NSWCCA 444 Kennedy v R [2018] NSWCCA 43 Linney v R [2013] NSWCCA 251 R v Gambier [2009] QCA 138 R v Korat [2021] NSWDC 29 Zreika v R [2012] NSWCCA 44
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	NSW DPP – Crown Dianne Jolley - Offender
Representation:	Mr R Kimbell for Crown Ms L Rowan for Offender
File Number(s):	2019/360289