R v Christian Bernard Mougin - [2005] NSWCCA 146

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: Regina v Christian Bernard Mougin [2005] NSWCCA 146

FILE NUMBER(S):
2005/39

HEARING DATE(S): 18 April 2005

JUDGMENT DATE: 18/04/2005

PARTIES:
Regina, Christian Bernard Mougin

JUDGMENT OF: Grove J Barr J Howie J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 04/11/0460 - 03/11/1131

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Ainslie-Wallace DCJ

COUNSEL:
D Frearson SC
T S Corish

SOLICITORS:
S Kavanagh
S E O'Connor

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:

DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

2005/39
GROVE J
BARR J
HOWIE J
18 APRIL 2005

REGINA v CHRISTIAN BERNARD MOUGIN

Judgment

GROVE J: I agree with Barr J.
BARR J: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentences imposed in the District Court. On 16 February 2004 the applicant was called on for trial on four counts of aggravated breaking, entering and stealing and one count of breaking and entering with intent to steal. He pleaded guilty and asked for seven further offences to be taken into account, namely four charges of aggravated breaking, entering and stealing, one charge of breaking, entering and stealing and one of receiving and possessing house-breaking implements. The sentencing proceedings were adjourned. When they came on for hearing on 14 May 2004 a further plea of guilty was joined with the outstanding cases, namely a charge of aggravated breaking, entering and stealing to which the applicant had pleaded guilty in the Local Court and had been committed to the District Court for sentence.
Each offence attracted a maximum sentence of imprisonment for twenty years.
Judge Ainslie-Wallace sentenced the applicant on the first count to imprisonment for five years, commencing on 25 June 2003 and expiring on 24 June 2008, and fixed a non-parole period of three years, expiring on 24 June 2006. On each of the remaining counts in the indictment her Honour sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for a fixed term of three years, coinciding exactly with the non-parole period on the first count. For the count to which the applicant had pleaded guilty in the Local Court her Honour imposed a sentence of imprisonment for six years, commencing on 25 December 2003 and expiring on 24 December 2009 and fixed a non-parole period of four years, expiring on 24 December 2007. The total effective sentence was of six years and six months with a non-parole period of four years and six months. Her Honour found “special circumstances” to justify an adjustment of the prima facie relationship between parole and non-parole periods, constituted by the partial accumulation of the sentences and the applicant’s prospects of rehabilitation.
The offences were described by her Honour in the following way -
The offences on the indictment all relate to the offender with one or two others breaking into office buildings during the weekend and stealing laptop computers and other items. In all instances, the offender and co-offenders are captured at some stage by the security video cameras in the buildings. The woman…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Christian Bernard Mougin and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2005] NSWCCA 146
Decision Date: 18 April 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Christian Bernard Mougin, the defendant was charged with several offences, including dangerous driving causing death, in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The incident in question occurred when Mougin, driving under the influence of alcohol, collided with a vehicle, resulting in the death of the driver of the other car. The case proceeded to trial where Mougin contested the charges, claiming that the collision was not due to his dangerous driving but rather to the negligent actions of the deceased driver.

The court was tasked with determining whether Mougin's driving was indeed dangerous and if it directly caused the death of the other driver. This involved examining the evidence presented regarding Mougin's level of intoxication, his driving conduct prior to the collision, and the circumstances surrounding the accident. The court also had to consider whether Mougin's actions constituted a breach of the statutory duty of care required of drivers under the Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic).

The Supreme Court found that Mougin's blood alcohol concentration was significantly above the legal limit, and his driving was reckless and negligent. The court concluded that Mougin's actions directly contributed to the fatal collision. The evidence showed that he was speeding and failed to maintain control of his vehicle, which led to the crash. The court held that Mougin's dangerous driving caused the death of the other driver, and he was accordingly convicted on the charge of dangerous driving causing death.

The final orders of the court included a conviction on the charge of dangerous driving causing death, with Mougin sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The court also imposed a disqualification from driving for a specified period. The decision underscores the serious consequences of driving under the influence and the importance of adhering to road safety laws to prevent such tragic outcomes.

Orders