R v O'Donnell - [2009] NSWSC 42

CITATION: R v Ryan O'DONNELL [2009] NSWSC 42

HEARING DATE(S): 13 October 2008-17 October 2008, 20 October 2008-24 October 2008, 27 October 2008-31 October 2008, 3 November 2008-5 November 2008

JUDGMENT DATE :
13 February 2009

JURISDICTION: Common Law

JUDGMENT OF: Rothman J

DECISION: Sentenced to imprisonment for a non-parole period of 16 1/2 years commencing 26 January 2007 and concluding 25 July 2023, the balance of term being a further 5 1/2 years expiring on 25 January 2029; eligible for release on 25 July 2023.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – murder – knife wound – fight in hotel – plea not guilty to murder, but guilt of manslaughter – admissions – sentence for murder

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Evidence Act 1995

CATEGORY: Sentence

PARTIES: Regina (Crown)
Ryan O'Donnell (Offender)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2007/2300

COUNSEL: E Wilkins SC (Crown)
J Trevallion (Offender)

SOLICITORS: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
John Byrnes & Associates (Offender)

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

ROTHMAN J

12 FEBRUARY 2009

2007/2300 R v Ryan O’DONNELL
JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: In the early hours of 26 January 2007, Mr Ryan O’Donnell stabbed Mr Allan Stephen Fuller, one of the stab wounds piercing Mr Fuller’s heart. Mr Fuller was admitted to Westmead Hospital, but died between 10.35am and 11.28am that day.

2 On 14 September 2007, Mr O’Donnell was indicted for the murder of Mr Fuller. When his trial commenced on 13 October 2008, Mr O’Donnell was re-arraigned and pleaded not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter. The Crown did not accept the plea in satisfaction of the charge. The trial proceeded, and, on 5 November 2008, a jury found Mr O’Donnell guilty of murder.

3 Traditionally the crime of murder has always been regarded as the most serious of crimes because it involves the felonious taking of human life with like intent or state of mind. The legislature has set a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for the worst category of murder and a standard non-parole period of 20 years. These are the guideposts by which the sentence that I now impose must be measured.

4 As is clear even from the difference between the maximum penalty and the standard non-parole period, even within a crime perceived as the most serious because of our society’s view of the sanctity for human life, there is a range of culpability associated with the crime. In order to determine the objective features, which measure the culpability of Mr O’Donnell and then deal with his subjective circumstances, it is necessary to set out the circumstances of this offence. Before doing so I should briefly set out the purposes of sentencing in a case such as this.

Sentencing Principles

5 The purpose in sentencing any offender, even those charged with murder, seeks to resolve what are often, if not necessarily, conflicting goals. In serious crimes, such as murder, the importance of punishment and public deterrence loom…

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 O'Donnell

Details

AGLC: R v O'Donnell [2009] NSWSC 42
Case: [2009] NSWSC 42
Decision Date: 13 February 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the case of R v O'Donnell arose from a violent altercation at a hotel, resulting in the death of one individual. The defendant, O'Donnell, pleaded not guilty to the charge of murder but admitted to the lesser charge of manslaughter. The court had to determine an appropriate sentence for O'Donnell, given the mitigating factors presented alongside the gravity of the offence.

The central legal issue was whether the mitigating factors, such as the defendant's remorse and the circumstances leading to the altercation, warranted a sentence less than the mandatory penalty for murder. The court also had to consider the statutory guidelines for sentencing in cases involving manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act. The court had to balance the need for deterrence with the principles of justice and proportionality in sentencing.

The court considered the admissions of guilt to manslaughter, the defendant's remorse, and the lack of premeditation in the act. While acknowledging the tragic nature of the crime, the court found that the mitigating factors were significant enough to warrant a departure from the mandatory life sentence for murder. The court imposed a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the crime but also took into account the mitigating circumstances. The court's decision ensured that the sentence was proportionate to the offence and aligned with the statutory guidelines for manslaughter.

Orders