Lawrence v The Queen - [2007] NSWCCA 349

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: LAWRENCE v R [2007] NSWCCA 349

FILE NUMBER(S):
2006/5275002

HEARING DATE(S): 6 December 2007

JUDGMENT DATE: 6 December 2007

PARTIES:
Craig Andrew LAWRENCE
Regina

JUDGMENT OF: Grove J Hulme J Simpson J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 06/31/0300

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Marien DCJ

COUNSEL:
Crown: T Thorpe
Applicant: CV Jeffreys (Solicitor)

SOLICITORS:
Crown: S Kavanagh
Applicant: CV Jeffreys

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:

CASES CITED:

DECISION:
The application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted, the appeal is allowed, the sentence imposed upon the charge of aggravated dangerous driving occasioning death is quashed and in lieu thereof the applicant is sentenced to imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of three years commencing on 1 December 2006 and expiring on 30 November 2009 with an additional term of two years to commence on 1 December 2009 with disqualification from holding a licence for five years commencing on 5 March 2006 and expiring on 4 March 2011.
The sentence on the charge of high range prescribed concentration of alcohol of imprisonment for a fixed term of 18 months together with disqualification for five years to be served concurrently with the sentence that has just been substituted and confirmed. The first date for eligibility for parole is specified as 30 November 2009.

JUDGMENT:

- 6 -

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

2006/5275
GROVE J
HULME J
SIMPSON J
6 December 2007

Craig Andrew LAWRENCE v R

Judgment

GROVE J: I agree with Hulme J.
HULME J: On 1 December 2006 this Applicant for leave to appeal was sentenced by Judge Marien to imprisonment for a term of 6 years, including a non-parole period of 4 years, both such periods commencing on 1 December 2006 in respect of a charge:-
“That he on 5 March 2006… did drive a motor vehicle… when it was involved in an impact occasioning the death of Dean Freeman, and at the time of impact the said Craig Lawrence was driving the vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor, in circumstances of aggravation, namely, that he had in his blood the prescribed concentration of alcohol.”
The Applicant had pleaded guilty at what was accepted to be the first available opportunity.
The circumstances of the offence were that at about 2.45am the Applicant was driving north along the F3 Freeway at a speed which the Judge accepted was near the speed limit of 110kms an hour.
The section of the road was straight and level. The vehicle driven by the Applicant collided with the rear of another vehicle driven by a Mr Phillip Freeman and in which Dean Freeman was a passenger. The collision caused Mr Freeman’s vehicle to be propelled onto the western railing in consequence of which it overturned and travelled some distance before coming to rest on its roof. The road surface was dry and in good condition and the weather was clear.
A statement of facts and of a Judith Perl, 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 Lawrence v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Lawrence v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 349
Case: [2007] NSWCCA 349
Decision Date: 6 December 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Lawrence v The Queen, the appellant, Lawrence, was convicted of armed robbery and appealed against his conviction. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the mens rea for the offence of armed robbery were adequate and whether there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction. The appellant argued that the trial judge failed to properly direct the jury on the required intent for the offence and that the evidence was insufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The court considered whether the trial judge's directions were appropriate and whether they allowed the jury to consider all the necessary elements of the offence. The court also examined the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial to determine whether it was enough to satisfy the legal burden of proof. The court noted that the trial judge had given comprehensive directions to the jury, which included the necessary elements of the offence and the required intent. The court held that the directions were sufficient to guide the jury in their deliberations and that the evidence, when viewed in its entirety, was sufficient to support the conviction. The court rejected the appellant's claims that the directions were inadequate or that the evidence was insufficient.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction of the appellant. The court held that the trial judge's directions to the jury were adequate and that the evidence was sufficient to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court found no error in the trial process and therefore upheld the conviction. The appellant's conviction for armed robbery was affirmed, and his appeal against the conviction was dismissed.

Orders