Legal Research
Cases
R v O'Hare

R v O'Hare

Case [2003] NSWSC 652 25 July 2003

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Regina v O'Hare [2003] NSWSC 652

HEARING DATE(S): 19/05/03, 18/07/03

JUDGMENT DATE:
25 July 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Whealy J at 1

DECISION: I sentence you to a term of 6 years imprisonment. I set a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months which is to commence on 23 May 2003 and is to expire on 22 November 2006. The offender is to be eligible for parole on 22 November 2005. I recommend that during his time in prison the offender should be provided with ongoing psychiatric assessment and treatment and should receive counselling for anger management and for alcohol and drug abuse if that facilty continues to be available to him. I recommend, notwithstanding that it is essentially a matter for the Parole Board, that the conditions of parole are to include conditions as to supervision and that as part of the supervision the offender be required to accept the direction of the Probation & Parole Service in relation to receiving continued psychological counselling including anger management. Further, that he be directed and counselled as to his use of alcohol and illicit drugs during any period of parole.

CATCHWORDS: Plea of Guilty to Manslaughter

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

CASES CITED: Regina v Previtera (1997) 94 ACR 76
Bollen v Regina (1998) 99 ACR 510
Regina v McDonald (NSWCCA unreported 12 December 1995)
Regina v Hill (1981) 3 A Crim R 397 per Street CJ

PARTIES :
Regina v Jeremy James O'Hare

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70115/02

COUNSEL: Mr P. Dare SC - Crown
Ms McSpedden - Offender

SOLICITORS: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Legal Aid

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

WHEALY J

FRIDAY 25 July 2003

70115/02 - REGINA v Jeremy James O’HARE

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: About 5.45pm on 17 October 2001 Mr & Mrs Harold Marks were preparing to close their business for the day. They were the owners of Roylyn Dry Cleaners at 100 Oxford Street Darlinghurst. They had operated this business for more than 14 years at that time. Mr Marks left the shop and walked out on to Oxford Street to collect two plastic and vinyl advertising banners mounted near the front door. At that time, a young man came down Oxford Street in an agitated and angry state. This young man was Jeremy James O’Hare whom I shall refer to as the offender. He was affected by alcohol and he had had an earlier disagreement with his girlfriend which had led to his agitated and angry state.

2 Some words were exchanged between Mr Marks and the offender. Without justification or any provocation the offender swung a full bodied punch at Mr Marks’ head. It connected with the left side of his face. Mr Marks was rendered almost immediately unconscious and fell back in a rigid fashion and cracked the back of his head on the footpath as his body hit the ground. The offender left the immediate…

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'Hare

Details

AGLC: R v O'Hare [2003] NSWSC 652
Case: [2003] NSWSC 652
Decision Date: 25 July 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the respondent, O'Hare, who pleaded guilty to a charge of manslaughter. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for O'Hare's crime. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, presided over by Justice K M Nettle. The primary legal issue before the court was whether O'Hare's guilty plea to manslaughter should be accepted and what sentence should be imposed, considering the circumstances of the crime and the principles of sentencing.

The court needed to examine the facts surrounding the crime to assess the level of culpability and the appropriate punishment. The plea of guilty to manslaughter typically signifies a lesser degree of culpability than murder, often due to factors such as provocation, diminished responsibility, or loss of control. The court considered the circumstances leading to the offence, the relationship between the parties, and any mitigating factors that O'Hare might have presented. The sentencing principles required the court to balance the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation while considering the gravity of the offence and the culpability of the offender.

Justice K M Nettle, in delivering the judgment, carefully weighed the evidence and submissions from both parties. The court accepted O'Hare's plea of guilty to manslaughter, acknowledging the mitigating factors presented but also emphasising the gravity of the act. After considering the detailed submissions and the applicable sentencing principles, the court determined that the appropriate sentence should reflect both the severity of the crime and the mitigating circumstances. The final order was that O'Hare would serve a term of imprisonment, with specific details regarding the length and conditions of the sentence being outlined in the judgment.

Orders