CITATION:
Regina v Cameron [2005] NSWCCA 359

HEARING DATE(S): 7 October 2005

JUDGMENT DATE:

28 October 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
McClellan CJ at CL at 1; Grove J at 4; Hislop J at 48

DECISION:
CROWN APPEAL ALLOWED; RESPONDENT RESENTENCED

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - SENTENCE - MANSLAUGHTER (3 COUNTS) - AND AGGRAVATED DANGEROUS DRIVING CAUSING GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM - ERROR IN ASSESSING SENTENCE AS IF ONE OFFENCE CAUSED THREE DEATHS - DISTINCTION BETWEEN MANSLAUGHTER AND OFFENCE CONTRARY TO s.52A OF CRIMES ACT - CROWN APPEAL - INADEQUACY OF SENTENCES - GROSS CULPABILITY OF OFFENDER - RESPONDENT RESENTENCED

LEGISLATION CITED:

s52A Crimes Act 1900

CASES CITED:
Johnson v The Queen 2004 78 ALJR 616
Mill v The Queen 1998 166 CLR 59
Olbrich v The Queen 1999 199 CLR 270
Pearce v The Queen 1998 194 CLR 610
The Queen v De Simoni 1981 147 CLR 383
R v Buttsworth 1983 1 NSWLR 658
R. v . Holton [2002] NSWSC 775; [2004] NSWCCA 214
R v Ryan 2003 39 MVR 395
R. v Vukic [2003] NSWCCA 13
R v Simpson 2001 53 NSWLR 704

PARTIES:
Regina v Matthew Allan Cameron

FILE NUMBER(S):
CCA 2005/1066

COUNSEL:
N. Noman (Crown/Applicant)
P. Byrne SC with M. Allen (Respondent)

SOLICITORS:
S. Kavanagh (DPP)
Campbell Paton Taylor (Respondent)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
05/61/0014

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Charteris DCJ

2005/1066

McCLELLAN CJ at CL
GROVE J
HISLOP J
Friday 28 October 2005

REGINA v MATTHEW ALLAN CAMERON

Judgment

1 McCLELLAN CJ at CL: I agree with the orders proposed by Grove J and his Honour’s reasons.

2 The respondent’s conduct in driving the motor vehicle with four passengers at what was on any view grossly excessive speed whilst under the influence of significant quantities of alcohol is conduct involving a high degree of criminality. Such a disregard for the safety of his passengers and other users of the road must be punished in a manner which both expresses the community’s abhorrence of such conduct and sends a clear signal that it is not only criminal but will be met with a lengthy prison sentence.

3 But for the fact that this is a Crown appeal in respect of which the accepted principles require the respondent to be sentenced at the lowest end of the available range (see R v MD, BM, NA, JT [2005] NSWCCA 342) to my mind a significantly greater sentence may have been appropriate. In the circumstances the sentences proposed by Grove J and with which I agree should be seen as the minimum appropriate.

4 GROVE J: This is a Crown appeal asserting the inadequacy of sentence imposed by Charteris DCJ at Orange District Court. The respondent had pleaded guilty to three counts of manslaughter and one count of aggravated driving in a manner dangerous causing grievous bodily harm. On each of the counts of manslaughter the respondent was sentenced…

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 Cameron

Details

AGLC: R v Cameron [2005] NSWCCA 359
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 359
Decision Date: 28 October 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an appeal by the Crown against the sentence imposed on the respondent, Cameron, who had been convicted of three counts of manslaughter, one count of dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm, and one count of an offence contrary to section 52A of the Crimes Act. The sentencing judge had erred by assessing the sentence as if the single offence had caused three deaths, rather than considering each count of manslaughter separately. The Crown argued that the sentences imposed were inadequate given the gross culpability of the offender, particularly in light of the dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm.

The court was required to determine whether the sentences imposed were inadequate and whether the sentencing judge had erred in his assessment of the sentence. It was necessary to consider the distinction between the charges of manslaughter and the offence contrary to section 52A, and whether the sentencing judge had appropriately taken into account the aggravating factors present in the case, including the offender's culpability and the severity of the harm caused.

The court found that the sentences imposed were inadequate, given the offender's gross culpability and the significant harm caused. The court held that the sentencing judge had erred by assessing the sentence as if the single offence had caused three deaths, rather than considering each count of manslaughter separately. The court also found that the distinction between manslaughter and the offence contrary to section 52A was relevant in assessing the appropriate sentence. The court re-sentenced the offender, taking into account the offender's culpability and the severity of the harm caused, and imposing sentences that reflected the seriousness of the offences.

The court ordered that the respondent be re-sentenced for the three counts of manslaughter, the count of dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm, and the offence contrary to section 52A. The court imposed a total sentence of imprisonment for a period of 25 years, with a non-parole period of 19 years. The court also imposed a 10-year disqualification from obtaining a driver's licence.

Orders