R v Castles - [2018] ACTSC 358

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Castles
Citation:	[2018] ACTSC 358
Hearing Date:	12 December 2018
DecisionDate:	12 December 2018
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment from 12 December 2018, suspended from 11 June 2019, subject to a good behaviour order. For the associated conditions, see [53]. Disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s license for three years.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – culpable driving causing grievous bodily harm – when offender under the influence of alcohol – sentencing purposes - adequate punishment – general deterrence – accountability – denunciation – recognition of harm – whether full-time imprisonment would cause the offender hardship
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 29(4) Crimes (Sentencing) Act2005 (ACT) ss 33, 36
Cases Cited:	Cranfield v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 3 R v Barton [2016] ACTSC 162 R v Guy [2018] ACTSC 270 R v Ogle (No 2) [2018] ACTSC 126 R v Richardson [2016] ACTSC 133 R v Whyte [2002] NSWCCA 343; 65 NSWLR 252 R v Woods [2017] ACTSC 17
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) David Caine Castles (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr J Hiscox (Crown) Mr S Howell (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Boxall Legal (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 136 of 2018

Murrell CJ

Charges and Pleas

On 12 September 2018, the offender pleaded guilty to the offence that, on 16 August 2016, he caused grievous bodily harm to Dermot Walsh by the culpable driving of a motor vehicle (driving while under the influence of alcohol to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle).

This is an offence against s 29(4) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). It carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment and an automatic driver disqualification period of six months.

Two associated matters were transferred to the Supreme Court: driving with the prescribed concentration of alcohol in the driver’s blood (level 3, repeat offender, which carries an automatic driver disqualification period of five years); and failing to keep to the left. These matters are to be discontinued.

On 3 May 2017, the offender was charged with the transferred offences. On 20 October 2017, which was his next appearance in the Magistrates Court, he was charged with culpable driving and entered a plea of not guilty to all charges. He was committed to the Supreme Court for trial. After several mentions and after service of the substantive brief of evidence, but before the matter was allocated criminal case conferencing and trial dates, the offender entered a plea of guilty. The plea was not entered early but nevertheless had significant utilitarian value. The appropriate discount for the plea is at least 15 per cent: Cranfield v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 3 at [37].

Facts

At about 10:00 AM on Tuesday, 16 August 2016, the offender began to consume alcohol. He was stressed because his former wife had declined the…

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 Castles

Details

AGLC: R v Castles [2018] ACTSC 358
Case: [2018] ACTSC 358
Decision Date: 12 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Castles involved the defendant, Castles, who was charged with culpable driving causing grievous bodily harm while under the influence of alcohol. The matter was heard in the relevant Australian court. The primary dispute centred around the appropriate sentence for the defendant, particularly the consideration of a suspended sentence and the potential hardship it might cause him.

The court needed to decide on the appropriate punishment for Castles, considering several legal issues. These included the adequacy of the punishment to serve as a deterrent, the need for accountability and denunciation, the recognition of the harm caused, and the potential hardship a full-time imprisonment might impose on Castles. The balance between these considerations was crucial in determining the final sentence.

In reaching its decision, the court weighed the various factors involved in sentencing. It noted the seriousness of the offence, the defendant’s culpability, and the impact of alcohol on his actions. The court also considered the potential benefits of a suspended sentence in terms of allowing Castles to maintain employment and support his family. Ultimately, the court decided that a sentence of 21 months' imprisonment, suspended from a specific date, would adequately address the aims of punishment while mitigating the potential hardship to Castles.

The court ordered that Castles be sentenced to 21 months' imprisonment, with the sentence suspended from a particular date, subject to a good behaviour order. Additionally, Castles was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s license for three years. These orders aimed to provide a balanced approach to punishment, accountability, and deterrence, while also considering the specific circumstances of the offender.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment from 12 December 2018, suspended from 11 June 2019, subject to a good behaviour order. For the associated conditions, see [53].

Disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s license for three years.

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.