Legal Research
Cases
R v Clampitt-Wotton

R v Clampitt-Wotton

Case [2002] NSWCCA 383 30 October 2002

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Regina v Clampitt-Wotton [2002] NSWCCA 383

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60383/02

HEARING DATE(S): 13/09/02

JUDGMENT DATE:
30 October 2002

PARTIES :

Regina
Anthony James Clampitt-Wotton

JUDGMENT OF: Levine J at 1; Hidden J at 2; Howie J at 30

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/21/3229

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Urquhart DCJ

COUNSEL : P Ingram - Crown
H Dhanji - Respondent

SOLICITORS: SE O'Connor - Crown
DJ Humphreys - Respondent

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW: Sentence - Crown appeal - dangerous driving causing death/grievous bodily harm - two children killed, two seriously injured - inattention by Respondent driving heavy vehicle - effective sentence 2 years, non-parole period 1 year.

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Crimes Act 1900

CASES CITED:
R v Whyte [2002] NSWCCA 343
R v Jurisic (1998) 45 NSWLR 209
R v Mansour [1999] NSWCCA 180
R v Foster [2001] NSWCCA 215
R v Oddie [2001] NSWCCA 524
R v Allpass (1994) 72 A Crim R 561
R v Dhanhoa [2000] NSWCCA 257
R v Musumeci (CCA unreported 30.10.97)

DECISION: Appeal allowed - effective sentence 4 years, non-parole period 2 years.

60383/02

LEVINE J
HIDDEN J
HOWIE J
30 October, 2002

REGINA v Anthony James CLAMPITT-WOTTON

JUDGMENT

1 LEVINE J: I agree with Hidden J.

2 HIDDEN J: This is an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions, pursuant to s 5D of the Criminal Appeal Act, against sentences imposed upon the respondent in the District Court after he was found guilty at trial of two charges of dangerous driving occasioning death and two further charges of dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm. The charges of dangerous driving occasioning death, brought under s 52A(1)(c) of the Crimes Act, carry a maximum sentence of imprisonment for 10 years. The charges of dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm, brought under s 52A(3)(c), carry a maximum sentence of seven years. On the major charges the sentencing judge passed concurrent sentences of imprisonment for two years with a non-parole period of twelve months. On the lesser charges his Honour passed concurrent fixed terms of imprisonment for six months, those terms also being concurrent with the twelve month non-parole period. Effectively, then, the respondent was sentenced to imprisonment for two years with a non-parole period of twelve months.

Facts

3 The charges arose from a tragic accident which occurred in Cowpastures Road, West Hoxton on the morning of 14 September 1999. Ms Patricia Lerch was driving her Holden Gemini sedan in Cowpastures Road, approaching the intersection with Nineteenth Avenue. Her three daughters, aged from two to eleven years, and her five year old son were passengers in the vehicle. There was a line of five cars stopped at the intersection, waiting to turn right into Nineteenth Avenue. Ms Lerch stopped behind them. Also approaching the intersection was a heavy truck, driven by the respondent. He failed to stop and collided with the rear of Ms Lerch’s car.

4 Two of Ms Lerch’s daughters, aged two and four,…

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 Clampitt-Wotton

Details

AGLC: R v Clampitt-Wotton [2002] NSWCCA 383
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 383
Decision Date: 30 October 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Clampitt-Wotton involved the respondent, who was convicted for causing the deaths of two children and seriously injuring two others through dangerous driving. The incident occurred when the respondent, operating a heavy vehicle, failed to pay attention, resulting in the collision. The appeal was brought by the Crown, seeking to challenge the sentence imposed by the lower court, which was perceived as lenient. The matter was heard in the higher court where the Crown argued that the effective sentence of two years, with a non-parole period of one year, did not adequately reflect the gravity of the respondent's actions.

The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in light of the respondent's inattention while driving and the tragic consequences that ensued. The Crown contended that the sentence was inadequate and did not serve the purposes of denunciation, deterrence, and specific and general deterrence. The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the sentence was within the appropriate range and took into account the mitigating factors present in the case.

In assessing the Crown's appeal, the court considered the severity of the respondent's actions and the resulting harm caused to the victims and their families. The court recognised the need for sentences to reflect the community's standards of justice and to provide appropriate punishment and deterrence. Upon review, the court found that the original sentence did not adequately address the gravity of the offence or serve the purposes of sentencing as intended by the legislature. Consequently, the court allowed the Crown's appeal and imposed a harsher sentence on the respondent, which was deemed more appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

The court ordered that the respondent be re-sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period that better reflected the seriousness of the offence and the need for adequate punishment, deterrence, and community protection. The new sentence was designed to ensure that the respondent faced appropriate consequences for their actions, while also upholding the principles of justice and serving the interests of the community.

Orders