Legal Research
Cases
Lawson v R

Lawson v R

Case [2018] NSWCCA 215 5 October 2018

Aggravated Dangerous Driving

Mens Rea & Intention

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Lawson v R [2018] NSWCCA 215
Hearing dates: 6 August 2018
Date of orders: 05 October 2018
Decision date: 05 October 2018
Before: Gleeson JA
Walton J
Fagan J
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal is granted.
(2) The appeal is dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against sentence – aggravated dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm contrary to Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 52A(4) – failure to stop and assist after vehicle impact causing grievous bodily harm contrary to Crimes Act, s 52AB(2) – high-speed front-to-rear collision causing victim’s vehicle to leave the road – multiple fractures to left arm of victim – major lacerations to face, head, neck and scalp – vertebral fractures – traumatic brain injury – guilty pleas – 25% discount for utilitarian value of pleas – aggregate sentence of imprisonment for 4 years with non-parole period of 2 years 6 months at first instance – where offender affected by psychosis at time of offence – where accepted by sentencing judge that mental health condition contributed materially to commission of offences – whether sentencing judge failed to take into account reduced moral culpability due to causative link between mental condition and offending in determining objective seriousness of offence – whether sentence manifestly excessive – appeal dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW)
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Biddle v R [2017] NSWCCA 128
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Hughes v R [2018] NSWCCA 2
R v Pearson [2004] NSWCCA 129
R v Whyte (2002) 55 NSWLR 252; [2002] NSWCCA 343
Yun v R [2017] NSWCCA 317

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Kayden James Lawson (applicant)
Regina (respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr Bill Neild (applicant)
Ms Michelle England (respondent)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales (applicant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (respondent)

File Number(s): 2014/331800
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

Not published

Date of Decision:

13 February 2017

Before:

Buscombe DCJ

File Number(s):

2014/331800

Judgment

THE COURT: This is an application for leave to appeal against severity of sentence. On 13 February 2017 the applicant was sentenced by his Honour Judge Buscombe in the District Court at Gosford for two offences which arose from his dangerous driving of a station wagon on the Pacific Motorway between Wyong and Morisset on 10 November 2014. The applicant pleaded guilty to both charges. He was 20 years old at the date of commission of the offences and 22 years old when he appeared for sentence. Following the events giving rise to the charges the applicant was diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, with onset from shortly before those events. He entered his plea of guilty in the District Court…

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 Lawson v R

Details

AGLC: Lawson v R [2018] NSWCCA 215
Case: [2018] NSWCCA 215
Decision Date: 05 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the appellant, Lawson, against his sentence for aggravated dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm and failure to stop and assist after a vehicle impact causing grievous bodily harm. The case was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal. The appellant had pleaded guilty to the charges, which stemmed from a high-speed front-to-rear collision that resulted in the victim's vehicle leaving the road, causing multiple fractures to the victim's left arm, major lacerations to the face, head, neck and scalp, vertebral fractures, and a traumatic brain injury. The appellant had a history of mental health issues, including psychosis, at the time of the offence, which the sentencing judge accepted had materially contributed to the commission of the offences.

The central legal issues were whether the sentencing judge failed to account for the reduced moral culpability of the appellant due to the causative link between his mental health condition and the offending, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appellant argued that the sentence should have reflected the diminished culpability resulting from his mental health condition. The respondent, represented by the Crown Prosecutor, contended that the sentence was appropriate given the seriousness of the offences and the need for general and specific deterrence.

The Court of Criminal Appeal held that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the appellant's mental health condition in assessing the objective seriousness of the offending. The court found that the judge had given due weight to the appellant's diminished culpability in the sentencing process, and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the sentence imposed at first instance. The sentence was an aggregate of imprisonment for 4 years with a non-parole period of 2 years 6 months.

Orders