R v Crowley - [2022] NSWDC 296

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Crowley [2022] NSWDC 296
Hearing dates: 22 July 2022
Decision date: 09 September 2022
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Colefax SC DCJ
Decision:
Imprisonment for 2 years 7 months with a non-parole period of 1 year 7 months; disqualified from driving for 2 years.

Catchwords:
CRIME - SENTENCE - dangerous driving occasioning death - causing bodily harm by misconduct

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW): ss 52A(1)(c) and 53.

Cases Cited:
R v Whyte [2002] 55 NSWLR 252; Moodie v R [2020] NSWCCA 160

Category: Sentence
Parties:
Regina (Crown)
Joseph Paul Crowley (aka Joseph Paul Winters) (Offender)
Representation:
Ms Prowse (Crown Prosecutor)
Mr Shukoor (Counsel for Offender)

File Number(s): 2021/00105445
Publication restriction: Nil

Joseph Paul Crowley (you are also known as Joseph Winters), you appear for sentence today in relation to the principal offence of dangerous driving occasioning death. This offence (sequence 2) involves a contravention of s52A(1)(c) of the Crimes Act. The maximum penalty for that offence is 10 years imprisonment. There is no standard non-parole period. There is an automatic period of disqualification of 3 years and a minimum period of disqualification of 1 year.
Although there is no standard non-parole period, there is a relevant guideline judgment, R v Whyte [2002] 55 NSWLR 252.
In addition to the principal offence, you have asked me to take into account one matter on a Form 1 which I have certified. The matter on that Form 1 is causing bodily harm by misconduct (sequence 3). That matter involves a contravention of s53 of the Crimes Act.
Before proceeding further, it is appropriate at this point to quote from the decision of Bell P (as the Chief Justice then was – and with whom Davies J and N Adams J agreed) in Moodie v R [2020] NSWCCA 160. At [109], his Honour said:

“In approaching the task of [sentencing] in cases involving death by dangerous driving, as has frequently been said… judges are asked to perform an impossible task as no human life can ever be equated with a period of imprisonment and no gaol term can return a loved one. A life should never be measured simply by the punishment meted out to an offender. The sentencing discretion must reflect an adequate punishment, recognising the harm done and denouncing the conduct of the offender and also reflect the objective seriousness of the offence, the offender’s moral culpability, his or her prospects of rehabilitation and the likelihood or unlikelihood of future offending.”

And at [136], his Honour said:

“Any death occasioned by dangerous driving will leave a family and friends of the deceased bereft and invariably angry at the actions of the driver. A broad spectrum of culpability may underpin such tragic outcomes, however, as is recognised in the sentencing guideline judgment for offences under s52A of the Crimes Act, as well as the fact that a driver may be charged under s52A(2) of the Crimes Act

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 Crowley

Details

AGLC: R v Crowley [2022] NSWDC 296
Case: [2022] NSWDC 296
Decision Date: 09 September 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth versus Crowley, the defendant was brought before the court to address charges arising from a dangerous driving incident that resulted in the death of another road user. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the defendant, who had pleaded guilty to charges of dangerous driving occasioning death and causing bodily harm by misconduct. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issues before the court involved the assessment of the appropriate penalty for the defendant's actions. This included consideration of the gravity of the offence, the defendant's culpability, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The court had to balance these factors, particularly given the defendant's previous history of driving offences, in determining a sentence that would adequately reflect the seriousness of the incident while also considering potential for rehabilitation.

The court took into account the defendant's guilty plea, which was seen as an acknowledgment of responsibility and an acceptance of the consequences of his actions. The judge emphasised the high level of risk posed by the defendant's conduct, which directly resulted in the death of another person. Despite the mitigating factors presented, the court ultimately determined that the defendant's actions warranted a significant custodial sentence to reflect the gravity of the offence and to serve as a deterrent to others. The court imposed a term of imprisonment for 2 years and 7 months, with a non-parole period of 1 year and 7 months, and disqualified the defendant from driving for 2 years.

The court concluded that the sentence should be sufficient to ensure public safety and to provide an opportunity for the defendant to reflect on and change his behaviour. The final orders included the imprisonment term and the driving disqualification.

Orders

Orders of the court

Imprisonment for 2 years 7 months with a non-parole period of 1 year 7 months; disqualified from driving for 2 years.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Crowley [2022] NSWDC 296
Hearing dates:	22 July 2022
Decision date:	09 September 2022
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Colefax SC DCJ
Decision:	Imprisonment for 2 years 7 months with a non-parole period of 1 year 7 months; disqualified from driving for 2 years.
Catchwords:	CRIME - SENTENCE - dangerous driving occasioning death - causing bodily harm by misconduct
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW): ss 52A(1)(c) and 53.
Cases Cited:	R v Whyte [2002] 55 NSWLR 252; Moodie v R [2020] NSWCCA 160
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Joseph Paul Crowley (aka Joseph Paul Winters) (Offender)
Representation:	Ms Prowse (Crown Prosecutor) Mr Shukoor (Counsel for Offender)
File Number(s):	2021/00105445
Publication restriction:	Nil