Legal Research
Cases
Lawler v R

Lawler v R

Case [2007] NSWCCA 85 30 March 2007

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision: 169 A CRIM R 415

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Lawler v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 85

HEARING DATE(S): 5 March 2007

JUDGMENT DATE:
30 March 2007

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJ at CL at 1; Bell J at 2; Price J at 3

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - sentencing - manslaughter by use of a motor vehicle - no less serious a crime - pre-meditation - general deterrence - heavy vehicles - sentence not manifestly excessive.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 s 18(1)(b) s 52A(3)(c)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act s21A(2)(m)

CASES CITED: Ian Gobbet v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 46
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
Regina v Falzon [2000] NSWCCA 530
Regina v Janceski [2005] NSWCCA 288
R v Cramp [1999] NSWCCA 324
R v Lynn [2004] NSWCCA 222
R v McKenna (1992) 63 A Crim R 452
R v Sutton [2004] NSWCCA 225
R v Tadrosse [2005] NSWCCA 145
R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Waqa (No 2) [2005] NSWCCA 33

PARTIES: David Kent Lawler
Regina

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/2451

COUNSEL: P. D Rosser QC - Applicant
D. Frearson SC and N. Gouda - Crown

SOLICITORS: L Renfrew - Applicant
S. Kavanagh - Crown

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 05/31/0120

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: J X Gibson ADCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 29 September 2005

LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: Regina v David Kent Lawler

2006/2451

McClellan CJ at CL
Bell J
Price J
30 March 2007

David Kent LAWLER v REGINA

Judgment

1 McCLELLAN CJ at CL: I agree with Price J.

2 BELL J: I agree with Price J.

3 PRICE J: David Kent Lawler seeks leave to appeal against the severity of the sentences imposed upon him by J X Gibson ADCJ in the District Court at Gosford on 29 September 2005.

4 On 13 May 2005 the applicant pleaded guilty upon arraignment in the District Court to three offences, namely:

Count one : on 22 October 2004 at Calga did feloniously slay Ann Marie Parker.

Count two : on 22 October 2004 at Calga did drive a vehicle, namely a 1988 Volvo F12 prime mover and attached trailer, in a manner dangerous to other persons, whereby the vehicle was involved in an impact as a result of which grievous bodily harm was occasioned to Joy Noble.

Count three:

5 The first count is one of manslaughter contrary to s 18(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900. The offence is punishable by imprisonment for 25 years.

6 The second and third counts are counts of dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm contrary to s 52A(3)(c) of the Crimes Act 1900. Offences contrary to…

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 Lawler v R

Details

AGLC: Lawler v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 85
Case: [2007] NSWCCA 85
Decision Date: 30 March 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were Lawler, the appellant, and the Crown, represented by the respondent. The dispute centred on the sentence imposed on Lawler following his conviction for manslaughter by the use of a motor vehicle. Lawler appealed against the sentence, contending it was manifestly excessive. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was manifestly excessive, taking into account the principles of general deterrence, the seriousness of the offence, and the need to ensure that the sentence was no less serious than those imposed in similar cases. The court was required to consider whether the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the offence, the level of pre-meditation, and the use of a heavy vehicle.

The court examined the principles of sentencing and concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. It was found that the lower court had properly considered the relevant principles and had exercised its discretion appropriately. The court held that the sentence imposed reflected the seriousness of the offence and the need for general deterrence, particularly given the use of a heavy vehicle. The court also considered the level of pre-meditation and found that it warranted a sentence that was no less serious than those imposed in similar cases.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the sentence imposed by the lower court. The court held that the sentence was appropriate and not manifestly excessive, taking into account all relevant factors. The court's decision emphasised the importance of considering the principles of general deterrence and the seriousness of the offence when determining an appropriate sentence for manslaughter by the use of a motor vehicle.

Orders