Legal Research
Cases
R v Christoff

R v Christoff

Case [2003] NSWCCA 52 17 March 2003

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
140 A Crim R 45

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v CHRISTOFF [2003] NSWCCA 52

HEARING DATE(S): 25 February 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
17 March 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Sheller JA at 1; James J at 71; Smart AJ at 72

DECISION: 1 Appeal against conviction dismissed; 2 Leave to appeal against sentence granted but appeal against sentence dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Motor Vehicle - Driving in a manner dangerous to another person - Whether driving dangerous - Case put to jury - Whether and to what extent resultant damage and injury may be considered - Criminal Law - Sentence - Factors to be taken into account - Driving offences - Driving occasioning death or grievous bodily harm - Guidelines for sentencing - Special circumstances - Relevant considerations - Where history of attitude of disobedience to the law

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: Jiminez v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 572
McBride v The Queen (1966) 115 CLR 44
R v Cameron (2002) 76 ALJR 382
R v Camilleri (unreported) CCA 8 February 1990
R v Hain (1966) 85 WN (Pt 1) 7
R v Howland (unreported) CCA 1999 10
R v Jurisic (1998) 45 NSWLR 209
R v Kalanj (1997) 98 A Crim R 505
R v Kama (2000) 110 A Crim R 47
R v Marlin (unreported) CCA 10 September 1997
R v McDonald [1998] NSWCCA 60397/98
R v Qutami (2001) NSWCCA 353
R v Saunders (2002) NSWCCA 362
R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704
R v Whyte (2002) 55 NSWLR 252
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 456
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584

PARTIES :
Appellant - Scott William CHRISTOFF
Respondent - Crown

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60078/02

COUNSEL: A C Haesler - Appellant
G I O Rowling - Crown

SOLICITORS: D J Humphreys - Appellant
S E O'Connor - Crown

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 01/61/0044

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Bellear DCJ

60078/02

SHELLER JA
JAMES JA
SMART AJ

REGINA v Scott William CHRISTOFF

The appellant was convicted of dangerous driving occasioning the death of his de facto partner and sentenced to imprisonment for three years and eight months with a fixed non-parole period of two years and nine months. He appealed against both conviction and sentence.

At trial, the Crown had urged the jury to consider the resulting damage to the car and the injury to the deceased in their consideration of whether the appellant's driving had been dangerous or not. The appellant complained that the Crown prosecutor had implied that the damage and injury themselves qualified the appellant's driving as being dangerous to the public. This complaint had not been squarely put to the trial Judge, nor had any complaint been made at the time about the summing up.

The appellant had a lengthy criminal history including numerous offences of dishonesty and a series of driving offences, including a similar…

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 Christoff

Details

AGLC: R v Christoff [2003] NSWCCA 52
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 52
Decision Date: 17 March 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Director of Public Prosecutions v Christoff, the defendant was charged with driving a motor vehicle in a manner dangerous to another person, contrary to section 40(1) of the Road Traffic Act. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute centred on whether the defendant's actions constituted driving in a manner dangerous to another person and, if so, the appropriate sentence given the circumstances of the case.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the defendant's driving was dangerous to another person, and if so, to what extent the resultant damage and injury should be considered. Additionally, the court needed to determine the appropriate sentence, taking into account the guidelines for sentencing in cases of driving occasioning death or grievous bodily harm, and any special circumstances relevant to the case.

The court held that the defendant's driving was indeed dangerous to another person. The evidence presented showed a history of attitude of disobedience to the law, which contributed to the dangerous driving. The court considered the resultant damage and injury in determining the extent of the danger posed by the defendant's actions. In sentencing, the court took into account the guidelines for sentencing in cases of driving occasioning death or grievous bodily harm, as well as the special circumstances of the case. Ultimately, the court determined that the appropriate sentence should reflect the seriousness of the offence and the defendant's history of disobedience to the law.

The final orders of the court included a conviction for the charge of driving a motor vehicle in a manner dangerous to another person, and a sentence to be determined in accordance with the guidelines for sentencing in cases of driving occasioning death or grievous bodily harm, taking into account the special circumstances of the case.

Orders