IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA - SENTENCES

STATE OF TASMANIA v DARRYL SCOTT DONOHUE 13 FEBRUARY 2015

COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE PEARCE J
Darryl Scott Donohue was found guilty by a jury of two counts of inciting murder. These crimes
occurred between May and July 2013 but some background is necessary. In April 2012 the
defendant separated from his wife. Motivated by ill-feeling toward her and his inability to have
access to his child, he stalked her and decided to have her killed. He approached a man he did not
know and offered him $10,000 for her murder. The police were notified. A covert operation was
undertaken in the course of which the defendant also offered an undercover police officer posing as
a hit man $10,000 for the murder. On 22 February 2013 the defendant was sentenced to
imprisonment for four years, with eligibility for parole after two years, following his plea of guilty
to stalking and inciting the murder of his wife by the approach to the undercover police officer.
The crimes for which he is now to be sentenced occurred not long after that sentence was imposed.
With continuing hatred for his wife and facing court proceedings to allow her sole parenting rights
for their son, he approached two fellow inmates in the medium security unit of the Risdon Prison
seeking again to have his wife killed. The approaches were made independently and at about the
same time. Before he was imprisoned he had not met either man. As he had done before, he
proposed to each of them that they kill his wife in return for financial reward. He provided details
about his wife, her address, her car and her routine and made suggestions about how the murder
might be committed. The approaches he made so lacked credence that I think it unlikely that anyone
would ever have acted on them. He told one man that although he did not then have the ability to
raise the $20,000 he had offered he would instead provide a sequence of keno numbers with a
promise of success because he had been researching the formula for six years. He suggested that his
wife might be killed by remote electronic interference with her heart pacemaker and supported it
with an explanation that the man understandably referred to as "gibberish". The defendant offered
the other man $25,000, said he would pay after he was released, and suggested to him that he might
kill her by putting cyanide in her parents' milk, cutting the brake cables of her car, stealing a
tranquiliser gun and tranquilisers from a vet. He also suggested a scheme by which her parents
would be killed and then Mrs Donohue lured to their home when she would be killed as well. One
man immediately approached the authorities. The other dismissed the approaches but reconsidered
after some publicity of the earlier crime caused him to reconsider and make a report. Consistent
with what I have already said, neither man formed any intention to act on the proposal's made to
them. That is not to say that they may not have, but I regard the prospect as improbable. It follows
from the verdicts that the jury rejected the possibility that the defendant's conduct was merely
expression of bravado, self-aggrandisement or fantasy and was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt
that he intended both the men he approached to act on his requests. I am satisfied beyond reasonable
doubt of the substance of the evidence of both men about the nature of the approaches the defendant
made. Such was his determination to achieve his purpose he was not deterred by imprisonment or
the prospect of further discovery. The approaches he made were not spontaneous but were repeated
and persistent and continued over a period of weeks at least.
The defendant is 43. Prior to his imprisonment he had a good industrial record and over the years
has been employed in electrical engineering, automotive repair and as an extended care assistant.
He holds a computer science degree. Apart from the conviction to which I referred he has no other
relevant prior convictions. The defendant is not entitled to the mitigation a plea of guilty would
have attracted. He has demonstrated no remorse. The bizarre nature of some of his conduct caused
me to obtain a psychiatric report. The report excludes any delusional disorder or other mental
illness. His conduct has added to the anguish and the continuing fear his wife already experiences
despite his imprisonment. He claims that his ill-feeling toward his wife is motivated by concern for
his son but that presents no mitigation for such a serious crime as inciting the murder of another
person. The sentence I impose must mark the moral outrage that informed members of the

community would express towards his conduct and seek to deter others who may be tempted to act
in a similar way. He was not deterred by the sentence imposed in 2013 which he was already
serving. His further criminal conduct indicates a continuing attitude of disobedience to the law.
Thus, the sentence I impose must also take account of the need to deter him from acting in this way
again and to protect the victim. The evidence does not suggest that he presents a more general threat
to the public.
As a result of his crimes he will lose the entitlement to parole for the earlier sentence for which he
will now not be eligible for release until at least July 2016. I do not regard that as mitigating. He
brought it on himself. However the loss of his eligibility for parole is relevant in considering the
totality and proportionality of the aggregation of the sentences.
Darryl Donohue, you are convicted on each count. You will pay the victims of crime compensation
levies of $100 forthwith. I make a family violence order to remain in force until revoked with
conditions that you:
1 not stalk Angie Donohue;
2 not directly or indirectly threaten, harass, abuse or assault Angie Donohue;
3 not approach Angie Donohue directly or indirectly including by telephone, email, facsimile or
letter except:
(a) for the purpose of attending meetings by consent between Angie Donohue and you in the
presence of a third party to discuss matters arising from your relationship or relating to Jason
Donohue;
(b) for the purpose of contact with Jason Donohue as agreed or as ordered by a court of competent
jurisdiction;
(c) during an appearance in court proceedings involving the parties or discussions in court precincts
for the purposes of those proceedings and consented to by both parties; and
4 not damage any personal or other property of Angie Donohue.
I impose one sentence. You are sentenced to imprisonment for seven years, cumulative to the
sentence imposed on 22 February 2013. I order that you not be eligible for parole until you have
served four years of the sentence, the minimum term I consider you should serve.