Regina v Daley - [2002] NSWSC 148

CITATION: Regina V Daley [2002] NSWSC 148

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70001/01

HEARING DATE(S): 02/04/02
10/04/02
12/04/02

JUDGMENT DATE: 26 April 2002

PARTIES :

Regina
Anthony James Daley

JUDGMENT OF: Simpson J

COUNSEL : J Kiely SC (Crown)
E Wasilenia (Defendant)

SOLICITORS: S Grodzicki (Crown)
M Churchill (Defendant)

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Regulation 2000

CASES CITED: R v M A [2001] NSWCCA 30; unreported, 21 February 2001
Cameron v R [2002] HCA 6; unreported, 14 February 2002
R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346
R v AEM Senior; R v KEM; R v MM ; [2002] NSW CCA 58; unreported, 13 March 2002 at [113]-[118]
R v Bloomfield, unreported, NSWCCA, 15 July 1998
R v Graham James Kay, unreported, 26 July 2000
R v Lemene [2001] NSWCCA 5, 118 A Crim R 131
R v Harris [2001] NSW CCA 332, unreported, 5 September 2001
R v Perese [2001] NSWCCA 478; unreported, 13 December 2001
Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Morgan (1993) 70 A Crim R 368
R v Bavadra [2000] NSWCCA 292; 115 A Crim R 152
R v Barton [2001] NSWCCA 63

DECISION: Refer paras 88 and 89

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

SIMPSON J

Friday 26 April 2002

70001/01 REGINA v Anthony James DALEY
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HER HONOUR: Anthony James Daley appears for sentence following his pleas of guilty, on 24 May 2001, to each of six counts on an indictment. The counts to which he pleaded guilty were:

Crimes Act, s61J);

Crimes Act, s97(1)

Crimes Act, s90A).

2 In addition he has admitted his guilt of a further thirteen offences and has asked that those thirteen offences be taken into account pursuant to Part 3, Division 3 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (“the Sentencing Procedure Act”). Those offences are listed on the form (“the Form 1”) prescribed by Clause 5 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Regulation 2000 (“the Sentencing Procedure Regulation”). On the Form 1 are:

Crimes Act

3 Offences against s61J and s97(1) carry a maximum penalty of imprisonment for twenty years. Offences against s90A likewise carry a maximum penalty of imprisonment for twenty years unless the court is satisfied that the victim was liberated without sustaining any substantial injury, in which case the maximum penalty is imprisonment for fourteen years. Offences of indecent assault (s61L) carry a…

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 Regina v Daley

Details

AGLC: Regina v Daley [2002] NSWSC 148
Case: [2002] NSWSC 148
Decision Date: 26 April 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case Regina v Daley involves Anthony James Daley who has pleaded guilty to multiple serious offences including sexual assaults without consent, armed robbery, and detaining a person with intent to hold that person for advantage. The Supreme Court of New South Wales, Criminal Division, presided over by Simpson J, heard the case and delivered judgment on 26 April 2002. The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentences for the offences committed by Daley and the consideration of thirteen additional offences that were to be taken into account under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

Simpson J meticulously outlined the facts of each offence, highlighting the brutality and repetitive nature of Daley's attacks on seven different women over a period of twenty-two months. The court considered the significant impact of the offences on the victims, who suffered from severe psychological effects including fear, anxiety, and depression. The court balanced these considerations with the offender's background, noting his troubled upbringing, criminal history, and limited educational attainment. Despite evidence of some potential for rehabilitation, the court found little to mitigate the severity of the crimes.

The court rejected the argument that Daley's late pleas of guilty warranted any reduction in sentence, noting that he had not shown any remorse or willingness to facilitate the course of justice. The court reviewed sentencing principles and previous cases, particularly R v AEM Senior; R v KEM; R v MM and R v Kay, to determine an appropriate sentence. After considering the totality of Daley's criminal conduct, the court imposed sentences that reflected the gravity of the offences, the need for general deterrence, and the principle of totality.

Ultimately, Daley was sentenced to imprisonment terms ranging from eight to eighteen years, with non-parole periods varying from six to thirteen and a half years, depending on the offence. The sentences were structured to ensure that the offender would not be eligible for parole until 30 January 2017. The court concluded that the sentences appropriately addressed the seriousness of the crimes, the need for public protection, and the principles of criminal justice.

Orders