R v Chancellor - [2019] ACTSC 191

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Chancellor
Citation:	[2019] ACTSC 191
Hearing Date:	16 July 2019
DecisionDate:	18 July 2019
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [60]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentence – negligent driving occasioning death – where the offender was an on-duty police officer – offender of exceptionally good character – where general deterrence is a significant consideration – suspended sentence imposed
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 17, 89 Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT), s 6(1)
Cases Cited:	Cantwell v Nozhat [2017] ACTSC 14; 79 MVR 376 Laundon v Menegazzo [2014] ACTSC 232 Lutz v JK [2016] ACTSC 200; 310 FLR 392 R v Hawkins [2019] ACTSC 103 R v Mazza (unreported, District Court of Queensland, Devereux DCJ, 24 November 2016) R v Mazza [2017] QCA 136; 80 MVR 419 Walters v Cooper [2014] ACTSC 331 Wells v R [2017] NSWCCA 242
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Lachlan Chancellor (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel R Christensen (Crown) S Whybrow (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Sharman Robertson Solicitors (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 207 of 2018

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

The offender, Lachlan Chancellor, pleaded guilty to the offence of negligent driving occasioning death (CC2018/8194), contrary to s 6(1) of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT). The maximum penalty for this offence is 200 penalty units, imprisonment for two years or both.

In summary, the offender’s conduct involved driving his police vehicle through an intersection contrary to a red light and colliding with a vehicle within that intersection. This led to the death of the driver of the other vehicle who was travelling home after having visited the shops on the way home from work.

Facts

An Agreed Statement of Facts was tendered. The offender gave some additional oral evidence. The relevant facts are as follows.

On Friday 4 May 2018, the offender was on shift performing duties as a Detective Acting Sergeant of police in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). The offender commenced duty at 4.00pm at the Belconnen Police Station and performed the role of shift supervisor for Belconnen Station General Duty Patrols.

The offender was utilising the call sign Belconnen Patrol 30 (BP30) and was driving a marked police Holden Commodore station wagon. The vehicle was fitted with police emergency lights and a siren and was classified by Australian Federal Police (AFP) as a vehicle suitable for pursuit driving and urgent duty driving (UDD).

The offender had received training that including training on AFP National Guidelines on pursuits and UDD.

At about 7.59pm, the offender was alone in the police vehicle conducting mobile patrols in the area of Kaleen. The offender was dispatched by ACT Policing Operations to attend an ‘Offenders on Premises’ incident at Thynne Street, Bruce, relating to a suspicious person observed within a construction site. The job incident was dispatched by ACT Policing Operations as a ‘Priority…

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 Chancellor

Details

AGLC: R v Chancellor [2019] ACTSC 191
Case: [2019] ACTSC 191
Decision Date: 18 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant in this case, Chancellor, was an on-duty police officer who was charged with negligent driving occasioning death. The case was heard in the relevant court, and the matter of sentencing was brought before the court. The prosecution sought a sentence that would appropriately reflect the gravity of the offence and the need for deterrence, while the defence argued for a sentence that took into account Chancellor's otherwise exemplary character.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence should reflect the need for general deterrence and whether Chancellor's otherwise good character should be a mitigating factor in sentencing. The court had to balance the need for punishment and deterrence against the mitigating factors presented by the defence.

In determining the appropriate sentence, the court noted that the offence was one of significant gravity, particularly given that Chancellor was an on-duty police officer at the time of the incident. The court recognised the importance of general deterrence in such cases, especially when the offender holds a position of trust and responsibility. However, the court also acknowledged Chancellor's otherwise good character, which had been consistently demonstrated throughout his career. Ultimately, the court decided that a suspended sentence was appropriate, taking into account both the need for deterrence and the mitigating factors presented by the defence.

The court's final orders, as outlined in [60], included the imposition of a suspended sentence, reflecting the court's consideration of both the gravity of the offence and the mitigating factors presented. This decision underscores the importance of balancing the need for deterrence with the individual circumstances of the offender.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [60]

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.