Citation: [2026] NSWDC 127
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 8 May 2026
Judge(s): Colefax SC DCJ
Background
The offender was tried by jury on multiple charges arising from two separate incidents in March 2022. The first incident involved the shooting of an acquaintance, Douglas Connolly, at a residential property in Hebersham on 20 March 2022. The second incident, one week later, involved the offender possessing a loaded and shortened shotgun during a confrontation with neighbours at Smithfield on 27 March 2022. The offender also pleaded guilty to possessing an unauthorised pistol (a starter gun) at Smithfield on the same date.
A first jury was discharged on the sixth day of trial. At the conclusion of a second trial, the jury acquitted the offender by majority on the charges of shooting with intent to murder (Count 1) and threatening injury with intent to intimidate (Count 3). The court had earlier directed a not guilty verdict on the charge of possessing a loaded firearm so as to endanger life (Count 4). The jury unanimously found the offender guilty of discharging a firearm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm (Count 2, under s 33A(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900) and possessing a shortened firearm without authorisation (Count 5, under ss 7 and 62(1)(b) of the Firearms Act 1996).
The sentencing proceedings required the court to make findings of fact on the offences of which the offender was convicted and to assess the offender's subjective circumstances.
Legal Issues
- What factual findings should the court make in relation to the offences for which the offender was convicted, applying the established sentencing principles for fact-finding after a jury verdict?
- What was the objective seriousness of the offending, particularly the discharge of a firearm causing grievous bodily harm?
- What weight should be given to the offender's subjective circumstances, including any background of deprivation relevant to the principles established in Bugmy v R?
- What was the appropriate sentence for each offence, including the interaction between multiple counts?
Decision
The court found that on 20 March 2022, the offender drove the victim to a residential address in Hebersham. Shortly after the victim exited the vehicle, the offender shot him in the back of the right shoulder with a sawn-off shotgun. As the victim tried to flee, the offender fired a second shot, wounding him in the upper thigh and causing him to collapse. The offender then reloaded, exited the vehicle, stood over the victim, and fired a third shot in the direction of his head. The third shot caused only a graze to the victim's forehead, a fact the court noted was "not without significance" in light of the jury's acquittal on the intent to murder charge.
The victim suffered grave, life-threatening injuries. He required emergency surgery including wound debridement, fracture fixation, arterial embolectomy, and later a skin graft for the thigh wound. He spent nine days in the Intensive Care Unit and was hospitalised for over a month. He was subsequently referred for ongoing nerve injury management and was left with permanent scars.
One week later, on 27 March 2022, the offender confronted his neighbours while carrying the same loaded, shortened shotgun (with nine additional rounds and a torch taped to the barrel). On the same date, the offender was also found to possess an unauthorised pistol (a starter gun), to which he had pleaded guilty.
The court noted that no rational explanation for the shooting was disclosed in the evidence, apart from a question the offender directed at the victim about something allegedly said about the offender's mother. The court indicated it would return to the offender's subjective case, including matters relevant to the Bugmy principle concerning backgrounds of deprivation. The truncated judgment does not disclose the final sentences imposed.
Orders Made
- The offender was convicted of discharging a firearm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm (Count 2).
- The offender was convicted of possessing a shortened firearm without a permit (Count 5).
- The offender was convicted on his guilty plea of possessing a pistol without authorisation (Count 6).
- Verdicts of not guilty were entered on Counts 1, 3, and 4.
- The specific sentences imposed are not available in the truncated text of the judgment.
Key Takeaways
- The District Court confirmed that fact-finding at sentencing following a jury verdict must remain consistent with the jury's acquittals. The acquittal on intent to murder, despite a close-range third shot directed at the victim's head, was treated as significant to the factual matrix.
- Objectively serious offending was established, involving three shots from a sawn-off shotgun at close range that caused grave, life-threatening injuries requiring prolonged hospitalisation and multiple surgeries.
- Continued possession and use of the same shortened shotgun one week after the shooting, during a separate confrontation with neighbours while carrying additional ammunition, formed part of the overall pattern of offending considered by the Court.
- Under the principles in Bugmy v R, the offender's background of deprivation was raised as a relevant subjective consideration at sentencing, though the weight ultimately given to it is not disclosed in the available text.
- In adopting the offender's written submissions on the applicable sentencing framework, the Court described the principles governing fact-finding after a jury verdict as "well established."
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 33A(1)(a) (discharge firearm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm)
- Firearms Act 1996 (NSW), ss 7 and 62(1)(b) (possession of shortened firearm and pistol without authorisation)
Cases:
- DPP (C'th) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1
- Bugmy v R [2013] 249 CLR 571