Legal Research
Cases
Bates v The Queen

Bates v The Queen

Case [2020] NSWCCA 259 7 October 2020

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Bates v R [2020] NSWCCA 259
Hearing dates: 25 September 2020
Decision date: 07 October 2020
Before: Simpson AJA at [1]
Rothman J at [2]
Bellew J at [3]
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal granted.
(2) Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Appeal – Offences of dangerous driving occasioning death and dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm – Where applicant was driving a B-double vehicle along a motorway – Applicant took eyes off the road in order to retrieve a drink and removed both hands from the wheel – Vehicle suddenly left the northbound carriageway, crossed a wide median strip and entered the southbound carriageway where it collided with another vehicle killing the passenger and severely injuring the driver – Two drivers behind forced to take evasive action and collided with the trailer of the applicant’s truck after it had come to rest – Where sentencing judge found that this was not a case of momentary inattention – Whether this was a “typical” case of the kind identified in R v Whyte – Whether aggregate sentence of 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive – Serious offending – Not a typical case attracting the strict application of the guideline – Level of notional accumulation justified having regard to the injuries sustained to the driver – Finding of manifest excess not supported by reference to sentencing outcomes in other cases – Leave to appeal granted – Appeal dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Cahyadi v R (2007) 168 A Crim R 41; [2007] NSWCCA 1
Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
FL v R [2020] NSWCCA 114
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
Moodie v R [2020] NSWCCA 160
Preston v R (2011) 57 MVR 346; [2011] NSWCCA 25
R v Clampitt-Wotton (2002) 37 MVR 340; [2002] NSWCCA 383
R v Whyte (2002) 55 NSWLR 252; [2002] NSWCCA 343
Vaiusu v R [2017] NSWCCA 71

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Jeffrey Bates – Applicant
Regina – Respondent
Representation:
Counsel:
L Brasch – Applicant
M Kumar – Respondent
Solicitors:
Criminal Defence Group – Applicant
C Hyland – Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) – Respondent

File Number(s): 2017/311054
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

08 November 2019

Before:

Her Honour Judge Huggett

Judgment

SIMPSON AJA: I agree with Bellew J.
ROTHMAN J: I agree with Bellew J.
BELLEW J: On 23 July 2019 Jeffrey Wayne Bates (the applicant) pleaded guilty before the District Court of New South Wales to an indictment containing the following counts:

On 14 October 2017, at Berrima in the State of New South Wales, did drive a vehicle,…

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 Bates v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Bates v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 259
Case: [2020] NSWCCA 259
Decision Date: 07 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of Australia, the case of Bates v The Queen involves an appeal against a sentence imposed on the applicant for two serious traffic offences. The applicant was driving a B-double vehicle along a motorway when he took his eyes off the road to retrieve a drink, removing both hands from the wheel. This resulted in the vehicle leaving the northbound carriageway, crossing a wide median strip, and entering the southbound carriageway, where it collided with another vehicle. The collision killed the passenger in the other vehicle and severely injured the driver. Additionally, two other drivers were forced to take evasive action, colliding with the trailer of the applicant’s truck after it came to rest. The sentencing judge found that the applicant's actions did not constitute momentary inattention but rather a prolonged period of dangerous driving. The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether this case could be classified as a “typical” case of dangerous driving as identified in R v Whyte and whether the aggregate sentence of 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years was manifestly excessive.

The High Court examined the gravity of the applicant's offending, noting that it was not a typical case attracting the strict application of sentencing guidelines. The court highlighted the severe consequences of the applicant's actions, including the death of one person and grievous bodily harm to another. The court also considered the level of notional accumulation of the sentence and found it justified in light of the injuries sustained by the driver of the other vehicle. The court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the circumstances of the case, including the prolonged period of dangerous driving and the severe outcomes. The finding of manifest excess was not supported by a reference to sentencing outcomes in other cases. Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal, upholding the original sentence imposed by the sentencing judge.

Orders