CITATION: R v Raymond Donley [2008] NSWDC 82 HEARING DATE(S): 27 March 2008 - 28 March 2008, 31 March 2008 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 31 March 2008 JURISDICTION: Criminal JUDGMENT OF: Neilson DCJ at 1 DECISION: Imprisonment for two years, suspended and subject to supervison CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Sentencing - Attempted Robbery Whilst Armed - Offender 18 years old, of previous good character, exceptional personal circumstances - 1. Parity: co-offender sentenced to 3 years imprisonment, NPP 12 months. Held: current offender's criminality objectively less than co-offender's, and indicated the imposition of a lesser sentence - 2. Intoxication: offence committed when offender intoxicated after binge drinking. Practice of binge drinking triggered off by exceptional personal circumstances. Intoxication lowered offender's resistence to suggestions of co-offender. Held: Intoxication should be seen as a mitigating factor - Sewell v R (1981) 5 A Crim R 204 - R v Coleman (1990) 47 A Crim R 306 - 3. Custodial Sentence: as the maximum penalty for attempted armed robbery was the same as for armed robbery, the guideline judgment of R v Henry ought be considered. A question arose as to whether exceptional circumstances arose to depart from the imposition of a full-time custodial sentence. Held: exceptional circumstances existed such that a full-time custodial sentence ought not be imposed - R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 - R v Thomson (2000) 49 NSWLR 383 - R v Govinden (1999) 106 A Crim R 314 - R v Metcalf [2000] NSWCCA 277 - 4. Alternative Sentencing Options: Held: it would be erroneous not to consider alternative sentencing options - R v Griggs (2000) 111 A Crim R 233. Held: a suspended sentence is a real punishment for an offence - R v JCE (2000) 120 A Crim R 18 - R v Foster (2001) 33 MVR 565 - R v Zamgias [2002] NSWCCA 17 - R v Laws (No. 2) (2000) 116 A Crim R 70 - 5. Sentence: imprisonment for two years, suspended and subject to supervision LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999CASES CITED: Sewell v R (1981) 5 A Crim R 204
R v Coleman (1990) 47 A Crim R 306
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Thomson (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Govinden (1999) 106 A Crim R 314
R v Metcalf [2000] NSWCCA 277
R v Griggs (2000) 111 A Crim R 233
R v JCE (2000) 120 A Crim R 18
R v Foster (2001) 33 MVR 565
R v Zamgias [2002] NSWCCA 17
R v Laws [No. 2] (2000) 116 A Crim R 70PARTIES: Regina
Raymond Donley (Offender)FILE NUMBER(S): 2007/12366 COUNSEL: Mahamah for the Crown
Croke for the Offender
JUDGMENT
1 HIS HONOUR: Raymond John Adam Donley appears before me for sentence as a consequence of adhering to a plea of guilty entered to a charge in the Local Court at Liverpool. The charge was that he on 7 March 2007 at Lurnea did attempt to…
Continue reading R v Raymond Donley
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- R v Raymond Donley [2008] NSWDC 82
- Case
- [2008] NSWDC 82
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Raymond Donley, was convicted of attempted robbery whilst armed and appealed against his sentence. The sentencing was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appellant was 18 years old at the time of the offence, had no previous criminal history, and had exceptional personal circumstances which led to a practice of binge drinking. These circumstances contributed to the appellant's intoxication at the time of the offence, which in turn made him more susceptible to the suggestions of his co-offender.
The court had to decide whether the appellant's sentence should be less than that of his co-offender, whether intoxication should be considered a mitigating factor, and whether a full-time custodial sentence should be imposed. The court found that the appellant's criminality was objectively less than that of his co-offender, and that his intoxication should be considered a mitigating factor. The court also found that exceptional circumstances existed which warranted a departure from the imposition of a full-time custodial sentence.
In light of the above findings, the court held that it would be erroneous not to consider alternative sentencing options. The court found that a suspended sentence was a real punishment for the offence. The court ultimately sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for two years, suspended and subject to supervision.
The final orders of the court were that the appellant be imprisoned for two years, suspended and subject to supervision.
The court had to decide whether the appellant's sentence should be less than that of his co-offender, whether intoxication should be considered a mitigating factor, and whether a full-time custodial sentence should be imposed. The court found that the appellant's criminality was objectively less than that of his co-offender, and that his intoxication should be considered a mitigating factor. The court also found that exceptional circumstances existed which warranted a departure from the imposition of a full-time custodial sentence.
In light of the above findings, the court held that it would be erroneous not to consider alternative sentencing options. The court found that a suspended sentence was a real punishment for the offence. The court ultimately sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for two years, suspended and subject to supervision.
The final orders of the court were that the appellant be imprisoned for two years, suspended and subject to supervision.
Orders
Orders of the court
Imprisonment for two years, suspended and subject to supervison
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.