Legal Research
Cases
R v Terry Mark DONAI

R v Terry Mark DONAI

Case [2008] NSWSC 502 23 May 2008

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v Terry Mark DONAI [2008] NSWSC 502

HEARING DATE(S): 16 May 2008

JUDGMENT DATE :
23 May 2008

JUDGMENT OF: Fullerton J

DECISION: On the two charges of murder I sentence Terry Mark Donai to concurrent sentences of imprisonment for life, each to date from 16 June 2006.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - murder - relevant principles concerning the application of s 61(1) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 - whether life sentence should be imposed - whether offence within worst category - future dangerousness

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: Attorney General for NSW v Nationwide News Pty Limited Anor [2007] NSWCCA 307
Burrell v R [2007] NSWCCA 65
GAS v The Queen [2004] HCA 22; 217 CLR 198
Knight v R [2006] NSWCCA 292; 164 A Crim R 126
R v Benitez [2006] NSWCCA 21; 160 A Crim R 166
R v Chetcuti (Court of Criminal Appeal, 24 December 1993, unreported)
R v Donai (New South Wales Supreme Court, 2 October 2007, unreported)
R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWR 374
R v Merritt [2004] NSWCCA 19; 59 NSWLR 557
R v Mrish (Hidden J, Supreme Court of New South Wales, 13 December 1996, unreported)
R v SLD [2003] NSWCCA 310; 58 NSWLR 589
R v Willard [2005] NSWSC 402
R v Yeo [2003] NSWSC 315
The Queen v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; 199 CLR 270

PARTIES: Terry Mark Donai (Offender)
The Crown

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2007/1450

COUNSEL: C Jeffreys - Solicitor (Offender)
M Cunneen SC (Crown)

SOLICITORS: C Jeffreys (Offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

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

FULLERTON J

23 MAY 2008

2007/1450 R v TERRY MARK DONAI

REMARKS ON SENTENCE
HER HONOUR:

1 On 8 January 2000, Pamela and William Weightman were murdered in their matrimonial home at 98 Abbington Crescent, Glen Alpine. At the time of their death their adopted son, David Weightman, resided with them. He was aged 20. He was the sole beneficiary under their will. The estate was substantial as the deceased had been owner/operators of a childcare centre at the time of their death and owned other unencumbered property including their home. David Weightman is currently serving a sentence of 28 years for the murder of his parents.

2 On 15 October 2007, Terry Mark Donai was convicted of their murder after trial.

3 It was not in dispute at the trial that after the Weightmans were killed their bodies were transported from their home in the family car – a Mitsubishi Magna - to Heathcote National Park where the car was pushed over an embankment running off Heathcote Road onto a fire service road in an attempt to simulate their death in a car accident.

4 What the offender put in issue at trial was his involvement in the murder of the Weightmans and his involvement in…

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 Terry Mark DONAI

Details

AGLC: R v Terry Mark Donai [2008] NSWSC 502
Case: [2008] NSWSC 502
Decision Date: 23 May 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Terry Mark DONAI, the appellant was convicted of murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was appropriate and whether the offence warranted a life sentence, given the principles outlined in section 61(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The appellant argued that the sentence should not be a life term and that the offence did not fall within the worst category, considering factors such as future dangerousness.

The court was required to determine if the murder warranted a life sentence under section 61(1) of the Act, which mandates that a court must impose a life sentence unless it is of the opinion that exceptional circumstances exist which render it unjust to do so. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the offence was within the worst category, which would typically warrant a life sentence, and assess the appellant's future dangerousness.

The court considered the principles outlined in the Act and determined that the offence indeed fell within the worst category of murder. The court found that the crime was premeditated and involved significant planning and cruelty, which justified a life sentence. The court also assessed the appellant's future dangerousness and concluded that the risk he posed to the community warranted the imposition of a life sentence to protect public safety. The court ultimately found that the sentence imposed was appropriate and aligned with the statutory guidelines and principles.

The court dismissed the appeal, confirming the life sentence imposed on the appellant for the murder. The decision was based on the severity of the crime, its classification within the worst category, and the appellant's potential future dangerousness. The court found that the sentence was consistent with the requirements of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 and did not constitute an error of law.

Orders