Legal Research
Cases
R v Chandler (No. 2)

R v Chandler (No. 2)

Case [2017] NSWSC 1758 14 December 2017

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Chandler (No. 2) [2017] NSWSC 1758
Hearing dates: 23 November 2017
Date of orders: 14 December 2017
Decision date: 14 December 2017
Before: Johnson J
Decision:
For the offence of manslaughter, and taking into account the offences on the Form 1, the Offender is sentenced to imprisonment for 19 years commencing on 12 August 2017 and expiring on 11 August 2036 with a non-parole period of 13 years commencing on 12 August 2017 and expiring on 11 August 2030.
The earliest date when the Offender will be eligible for release on parole is 11 August 2030.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence - plea of guilty to manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act - offender drove stolen vehicle through fence enclosing backyard of residential property to escape police - offender’s vehicle struck and killed 18-month old child in backyard - offender then drove dangerously in a park and on public streets in course of police pursuit - Form 1 offences of take and drive vehicle without consent, driving dangerously during a police pursuit and driving never having been licensed to be taken into account on sentence - offender 22 years old at time of offences - bad criminal history including dangerous driving during police pursuit - offender on bail at time of present offences - manslaughter offence of very high level of objective gravity - offender’s dysfunctional background - institutionalisation - application of principles in Bugmy v the Queen - issues of accumulation and totality given offender’s current sentences for unrelated matters - substantial sentence required with partial accumulation on existing sentences
Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Crimes Act 1900
Road Transport Act 2013
Cases Cited: Abbas v R (2013) 231 A Crim R 413; [2013] NSWCCA 115
Attorney General’s Application Under Section 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (No. 1 of 2002) (2002) 56 NSWLR 146; [2002] NSWCCA 518
Beldon v R [2012] NSWCCA 194
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Cameron v R (2005) 157 A Crim R 70; [2005] NSWCCA 359
Jinnette v R [2012] NSWCCA 217
Ohanian v R [2017] NSWCCA 268
R v Borkowski (2009) 195 A Crim R 1; [2009] NSWCCA 102
R v Chandler (No. 1) [2017] NSWSC 1565
R v Falzon [2000] NSWCCA 530
R v Forbes (2005) 160 A Crim R 1; [2005] NSWCCA 377
R v Lulham [2016] NSWCCA 287
R v McNaughton (2006) NSWLR 566; [2006] NSWCCA 242
Spark v R [2012] NSWCCA 140
The Queen v Crabbe (1985) 156 CLR 464; [1985] HCA 22
The Queen v Lavender (2005) 222 CLR 67; [2005] HCA 37
Wilson v The Queen (1991-1992) 174 CLR 313; [1992] HCA 31
ZA v R [2017] NSWCCA 132
Texts Cited: ----
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Christopher Chandler (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr M Tedeschi AM QC;…

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 Chandler (No. 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Chandler (No. 2) [2017] NSWSC 1758
Case: [2017] NSWSC 1758
Decision Date: 14 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Chandler, was convicted of manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act, in circumstances where he drove a stolen vehicle through a fence to escape police and inadvertently struck and killed an 18-month old child in the backyard of a residential property. Chandler continued to drive dangerously during the ensuing police pursuit, leading to additional charges of taking and driving the vehicle without consent, and driving dangerously during a police pursuit. Chandler, who was 22 years old at the time of the offences, had a significant criminal history, including previous incidents of dangerous driving during police pursuits. He was on bail at the time of the current offences. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence, considering the high objective gravity of the manslaughter offence, Chandler's dysfunctional background, and his extensive criminal history. Additionally, the court had to address the principles set out in Bugmy v The Queen, particularly regarding the application of cumulative sentencing principles and the totality of Chandler's current sentences for unrelated matters.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in light of the objective seriousness of the manslaughter offence, the need for deterrence and denunciation, and the requirements of cumulative sentencing. The court had to consider the principles of proportionality, individualisation, and the totality of sentencing. It was necessary to evaluate whether the sentence reflected the high level of objective seriousness of the manslaughter offence, balanced against the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court also had to consider the relevance of Bugmy v The Queen, which emphasised the importance of individualising sentences and avoiding excessive cumulative sentences. Furthermore, the court needed to determine the extent to which Chandler's existing sentences for unrelated matters should be taken into account, ensuring that the total sentence was just and proportionate.

The court concluded that the sentence imposed was appropriate, acknowledging the high objective seriousness of the manslaughter offence and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court emphasised the importance of individualising the sentence to reflect Chandler's particular circumstances, including his dysfunctional background and criminal history. It was held that while the manslaughter offence warranted a substantial sentence, the court needed to consider the totality of Chandler's current sentences to avoid excessive cumulative punishment. The court found that partial accumulation of sentences was warranted, given Chandler's extensive criminal history and the objective gravity of the present offences. Ultimately, the court determined that the sentence reflected the appropriate balance between punishment, deterrence, and the need to avoid excessive cumulative sentencing.

The court confirmed the sentence imposed by the lower court, with the understanding that the sentence would be served concurrently with Chandler's existing sentences for unrelated matters, subject to the principles of proportionality, individualisation, and totality. The court stressed the importance of ensuring that the total sentence was just and proportionate, taking into account all relevant factors, including the high objective seriousness of the manslaughter offence, Chandler's criminal history, and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

Orders