R v Barton - [2016] ACTSC 162

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Barton
Citation:	[2016] ACTSC 162
Hearing Date:	7 July 2016
DecisionDate:	7 July 2016
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	See [43]–[49]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – culpable driving causing grievous bodily harm – failing to stop when signalled by a police officer – exceeding the speed limit – fail to stop at stop line at a red light – prescribed drug in offender’s blood – driving in a dangerous way – repeat offender – sentence of full-time imprisonment imposed
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 29(4) Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Regulation 2000 (ACT), regs 6, 109(2) Australian Road Rules (ACT), rr 20, 56(1) Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT), s 7(1)(b) Road Transport Alcohol and Drugs Act 1977 (ACT), s 20(1) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 6, 7, 10, 33(1)(za)
Cases Cited:	Kennewell v Rand [2006] ACTCA 10 R v Paton [2013] ACTSC, Penfold J, 2 December 2013 R v Nachouki [2013] ACTSC, Burns J, 17 September 2013 R v Monfries [2013] ACTSC, Nield AJ, 18 June 2013
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Robert William Barton (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr Dean Sahu Khan (Crown) Mr James Lawton (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 256 of 2015 ; SCC 257 of 2015

Elkaim J:

Introduction

On 25 November 2015, the offender pleaded guilty to the following offences:

Count 1 – Culpable driving causing grievous bodily harm in contravention of s 29(4) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum penalty for this offence is 10 years imprisonment.
Count 2 – Failing to stop when signalled by police in contravention of regulation 109(2) of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management)Regulation 2000 (ACT). The maximum penalty for this offence is a fine of $3,000.
Count 3 – Exceeding the speed limit in contravention of r 20 of the Australian Road Rules (by virtue of reg 6 of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Regulation 2000 (ACT)). The maximum penalty for this offence is a fine of $3,000.
Count 4 – Failing to stop at the stop line at a red light in contravention of rule 56(1) of the Australian Road Rules (by virtue of reg 6 of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Regulation 2000 (ACT)). The maximum penalty for this offence is a fine of $3,000.
Count 5 – Driving with methylamphetamine and cannabis in his blood in contravention of s 20 (1) of the Road Transport Alcohol and Drugs Act 1977 (ACT). The maximum penalty for this offence by a repeat offender is a fine of $3,750, 3 months imprisonment or both.
Count 6 – Driving in a dangerous way in contravention of s 7(1)(b) of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Regulation 1999 (ACT)). The maximum penalty for this offence is a fine of $15,000, 1 year imprisonment or…

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 R v Barton

Details

AGLC: R v Barton [2016] ACTSC 162
Case: [2016] ACTSC 162
Decision Date: 7 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Barton, the appellant faced the court following a series of serious driving offences culminating in a crash that resulted in grievous bodily harm to another. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the appellant's sentence was under review.

The legal issues before the court involved determining an appropriate sentence for the appellant who had committed multiple traffic offences, including dangerous driving, speeding, failure to stop at a red light, and driving under the influence of a prescribed drug. The court had to weigh these factors against the appellant's history of repeat offending, the severity of the injuries sustained by the victim, and the appellant's prior record.

The court considered the appellant's driving history, which included multiple previous convictions, and the circumstances of the crash, which occurred due to the appellant's dangerous driving under the influence. The court also noted the appellant's failure to stop for a police officer, highlighting a pattern of disregard for traffic laws. Given these factors, the court imposed a sentence of full-time imprisonment, aiming to reflect the seriousness of the offences and to deter future criminal conduct.

The final orders of the court mandated specific terms of imprisonment for the appellant, as detailed in paragraphs 43 to 49 of the judgment. These orders reflected the court's decision to impose a custodial sentence to address the appellant's repeated and egregious breaches of traffic laws.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [43]–[49]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.