R v Brandt - [2004] NSWCCA 3

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: Regina v Daniel Clifford Brandt [2004] NSWCCA 3

FILE NUMBER(S):
60363/03

HEARING DATE(S): 03/02/2004

JUDGMENT DATE: 03/02/2004

PARTIES:
Regina
Daniel Clifford Brandt

JUDGMENT OF: James J Buddin J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/51/0146

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Gibson DCJ

COUNSEL:
B Knox SC (Crown)
D Thiering (Applicant)

SOLICITORS:
S Kavanagh (Crown)
S O'Connor (Applicant)

CATCHWORDS:
Dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm - application of guideline judgments - procedure relating to Form 1 offences.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60363/03
JAMES J
BUDDIN J
TUESDAY 3 FEBRUARY 2004

REGINA v DANIEL CLIFFORD BRANDT

Judgment

BUDDIN J: The applicant pleaded guilty in the Local Court to a charge of dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm. He adhered to that plea in the District Court and was sentenced to a term of 3½ years’ imprisonment with an associated non-parole period of 2 years. The maximum penalty for the offence is 7 years’ imprisonment.
The facts giving rise to the offence may be shortly stated. Late in the evening of the day in question, the applicant drove his vehicle along the Pacific Highway at a point where it passes through the CBD of Coffs Harbour. He was apparently travelling on the inside lane. He drove through a red light which had stopped the south bound traffic at an intersection. He proceeded through the red light and, in doing so, passed at least one vehicle which was stationary at the traffic lights. He continued through the intersection and on the southern pedestrian crossing his vehicle struck the victim, who was at the time about a metre from the eastern kerb. It was raining heavily at the time, and visibility was poor. The victim was thrown onto the bonnet of the applicant’s vehicle. The impact caused the left hand section of the windscreen to shatter together with one of the headlights. The victim was thrown many metres into the air and ultimately ended up on the roadway some distance south of the pedestrian crossing. There were apparently two other pedestrians upon the crossing at the time of the accident
Notwithstanding the accident, the applicant did not stop or even slow down. He drove to a motel where he abandoned his vehicle. He then caught a taxi home. The following morning he rang the police and falsely claimed that his car had been stolen. He subsequently attended the police station and provided a statement to that effect.
The applicant was arrested several days later. He then fully admitted his involvement in the offence and acknowledged that he was the driver and sole occupant of the vehicle. The applicant told police that he thought that a brick or a similar object had struck the windscreen. As a result, he said that he had panicked and kept driving because he had believed that it may have been thrown by someone…

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 Brandt

Details

AGLC: R v Brandt [2004] NSWCCA 3
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 3
Decision Date: 3 February 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Brandt, the respondent was charged with dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm, following a motor vehicle accident that resulted in serious injuries to the victim. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The respondent contested the charges, arguing that the prosecution failed to establish the requisite elements of the offence. Specifically, the respondent challenged the sufficiency of the evidence regarding the dangerous nature of the driving and the resulting grievous bodily harm.

The court was tasked with determining whether the prosecution had discharged its burden of proving the elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of the respondent's argument that the evidence did not sufficiently establish the dangerous nature of the driving. Additionally, the court needed to consider the application of relevant guideline judgments in determining whether the respondent's actions constituted dangerous driving. Furthermore, the court examined the procedural aspects of the case, specifically the use of Form 1 offences and the requirements for such proceedings.

The Supreme Court found that the prosecution had adequately established the elements of the offence. The court held that the evidence demonstrated that the respondent's driving was indeed dangerous, given the circumstances of the accident and the severity of the injuries sustained by the victim. In applying the guideline judgments, the court determined that the respondent's actions met the threshold for dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm. The court also confirmed that the procedural requirements for Form 1 offences were properly followed. Consequently, the court found the respondent guilty as charged.

The court ordered that the respondent be sentenced at a later date. The respondent was remanded in custody until the sentencing hearing. The court emphasised the importance of considering the gravity of the offence and the need for appropriate deterrence and rehabilitation.

Orders