Legal Research
Cases
R v Crumpton

R v Crumpton

Case [2016] NSWCCA 261 28 November 2016

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Crumpton [2016] NSWCCA 261
Hearing dates: 2 September 2016
Date of orders: 28 November 2016
Decision date: 28 November 2016
Before: Beazley P at [1]
Davies J at [2]
Garling J at [98]
Decision:
(1) Appeal allowed.

(2) Quash the sentences imposed in the District Court on 28 April 2016.

(3) Refer the Respondent for assessment as to his suitability for intensive correction in the community, pursuant to Div 3 of Pt 5 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.
(4) Adjourn the proceedings for that purpose.
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – appeal - sentencing - crown appeal - operate aircraft in manner reckless as to endanger life and endanger a person – respondent flew plane below minimum level prescribed – plane hit power lines – one passenger killed and other seriously injured – respondent sentenced to imprisonment but immediately released on recognisance – whether sentences manifestly inadequate – failure of sentencing judge to assess objective seriousness – taking into account irrelevant consideration of maximum penalties for all offences – significance of general deterrence – whether adequately dealt with by suspended sentence – whether sentences should have been concurrent – whether residual discretion should be exercised – sentences manifestly inadequate – re-sentence
EVIDENCE – application to adduce further evidence on appeal – whether fresh evidence – evidence available at time of sentence – whether miscarriage of justice
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Betts v The Queen [2016] HCA 25; (2016) 90 ALJR 758
Cahyadi v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41
CMB v Attorney-General for New South Wales [2015] HCA 9
Colomer v R [2014] NSWCCA 51
DPP (Cth) v Gregory (2011) 34 VR 1; [2011] VSCA 145
Gallagher v The Queen (1986) 160 CLR 392
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
R v McIntee (1985) 38 SASR 432
R v McKay [2007] NSWSC 275; (2007) 61 ACSR 470
R v Mulligan [2016] NSWCCA 47
R v Saleh [2015] NSWCCA 299
R v Timothy Shamus James (County Court Victoria, Judge Hicks, Unreported, 21 October 2004)
R v Zamagias [2002] NSWCCA 17
Regina v Janceski [2005] NSWCCA 288; 44 MVR 328
Richards v R [2006] NSWCCA 262; 46 MVR 165
Silvestri v R [2016] NSWCCA 245
TG v R [2010] NSWCCA 28; 55 MVR 180
Zaky v R [2015] NSWCCA 161
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Crown (Applicant)
John Patrick Crumptom (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
S Dowling SC (Appellant)
A J Bellanto QC & G O’Shannessy (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
J Fuggle (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2014/252492
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

28 April 2016

Before:

North DCJ

File Number(s):

2014/252492

Judgment

BEAZLEY P: I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons of Davies J. I…

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 Crumpton

Details

AGLC: R v Crumpton [2016] NSWCCA 261
Case: [2016] NSWCCA 261
Decision Date: 28 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Crumpton, the respondent, a pilot, was convicted of operating an aircraft in a manner that was reckless as to endangering life and causing serious injury. This offence occurred when the respondent flew his plane below the minimum level prescribed, resulting in a collision with power lines. This collision resulted in the death of one passenger and serious injury to another. The respondent was sentenced to imprisonment but was immediately released on recognisance. The Crown appealed the sentences as manifestly inadequate, arguing that the sentencing judge failed to assess the objective seriousness of the offences, took into account irrelevant considerations of the maximum penalties, and did not adequately consider the significance of general deterrence. The Crown further argued that the sentences should have been concurrent and that the residual discretion of the court should be exercised.

The court considered whether the sentences were manifestly inadequate, whether the sentencing judge had failed to assess the objective seriousness of the offences, whether the judge had taken into account irrelevant considerations of the maximum penalties, and whether the sentences adequately dealt with the need for general deterrence. The court also considered whether the sentences should have been concurrent and whether the residual discretion should be exercised. The court found that the sentences were manifestly inadequate, that the sentencing judge had failed to assess the objective seriousness of the offences, and had taken into account irrelevant considerations of the maximum penalties. The court also found that the sentences did not adequately deal with the need for general deterrence. The court further found that the sentences should have been concurrent and that the residual discretion should be exercised.

The court quashed the sentences and re-sentenced the respondent to imprisonment for a term of seven years, with a non-parole period of four years and eight months. The court noted that the sentence should reflect the seriousness of the offences, the need for general deterrence, and the respondent's culpability. The court also noted that the sentence should be concurrent with any other sentence the respondent may be serving. The court further noted that the sentence should take into account the respondent's remorse, his good character, and the impact of the offences on the victims and their families. The court also noted that the sentence should not be excessive or disproportionate to the offences.

The court made orders for the respondent to be re-sentenced to imprisonment for a term of seven years, with a non-parole period of four years and eight months. The court also ordered that the sentences be concurrent with any other sentence the respondent may be serving. The court further ordered that the respondent be released on bail pending the re-sentencing. The court noted that the respondent had already served some time in custody and that the re-sentencing should take into account the time already served. The court also noted that the respondent had shown remorse for his actions and that this should be taken into account in the re-sentencing.

Orders