R v Doyle - [2006] NSWCCA 118

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: R v DOYLE [2006] NSWCCA 118

FILE NUMBER(S):
2005/1952

HEARING DATE(S): 27 February 2006

DECISION DATE: 13/04/2006

PARTIES:
A: The Crown
R: Anthony David DOYLE

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJ at CL Rothman J Smart AJ

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 05/61/0091

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Phegan DCJ

COUNSEL:
A: P G Ingram
R: Graham Turnbull

SOLICITORS:
A: S Kavanagh
R: Campbell Paton & Taylor

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Law
sentence
Crown appeal
aggravated dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm
aggravation high range PCA
relevance of depression or reason for consumption of alcohol
custodial sentence required

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900

DECISION:
(A) Appeal be allowed
(B) The sentenced imposed by Phegan DCJ on 14 September 2005 be quashed and in lieu thereof the following sentence be imposed: (i) imprisonment for a non-parole period of 18 months commencing 14 September 2005 and expiring on 13 March 2007 with the balance of the term of a further 18 months to expire on 13 September 2008
(ii) The prisoner shall be released to parole on 13 March 2007 on the usual conditions relating thereto
(iii) The prisoner is disqualified from driving a motor vehicle for a period of three years commencing 18 September 2004 and expiring on 17 September 2007.

JUDGMENT:

- 1 -

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

2005/1952
McCLELLAN CJ at CL
ROTHMAN J
SMART AJ
13 April 2006

REGINA v Anthony David DOYLE

Judgment

McCLELLAN CJ at CL: I have had the benefit of reading the reasons for judgment of Rothman J in draft. I agree that error has occurred and the respondent must be sentenced to a period of full time custody. I also agree with the sentence proposed by Rothman J.
As Rothman J identifies the respondent was charged with having a blood alcohol reading of 0.205 grams per hundred millilitres of blood, although it may have been higher at the time of the accident. His Honour found that as a consequence at the time of the accident he was in a “state approaching unconsciousness …” and “had no idea what was happening… ”
Whatever may have been his personal circumstances, and it is apparent that he had experienced a number of significant difficulties the respondent must have been aware that he was, at the time he commenced to drive, affected by alcohol to a considerable degree and his driving was a danger to himself, his passengers and other road users. His psychiatric problems provide no excuse for his driving in what was obviously a highly intoxicated state and provide no reason to ameliorate the need to punish the respondent and deter others from the same conduct.
The respondent’s conduct displayed a high level of moral culpability and in all the circumstances, and notwithstanding the respondent’s psychiatric problems, a custodial sentence was required.
Almost everyday tragedies occur on our roads. Some are truly accidents, but, in many the taking of drugs or alcohol by the driver…

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 Doyle

Details

AGLC: R v Doyle [2006] NSWCCA 118
Case: [2006] NSWCCA 118
Decision Date: 13 April 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal by the Crown was brought against the sentence given to Doyle, who was convicted of aggravated dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate, particularly in light of the aggravating factors present in the case. The primary concern was whether the sentencing judge had correctly assessed the relevance of Doyle's depression and his reason for consuming alcohol when determining the appropriate penalty.

The Court of Appeal held that the original sentencing judge had not adequately considered the high range of the relevant Penal Code Act (PCA) for aggravated dangerous driving. The court found that the judge had failed to appropriately weigh the aggravating factors, particularly the high range PCA and the dangerous nature of Doyle's driving. The court further determined that while Doyle's depression and alcohol consumption were relevant mitigating factors, they did not sufficiently justify a non-custodial sentence. The Court of Appeal emphasised that a custodial sentence was required to adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence and to serve as a deterrent.

The Court of Appeal quashed the original sentence and ordered a re-sentencing by a different judge. The court directed that the re-sentencing should take into account the high range PCA, the dangerous nature of Doyle's driving, and the need for a custodial sentence. The Court of Appeal also noted that the mitigating factors, including Doyle's depression and alcohol consumption, should be considered in the context of the overall circumstances of the case. The final orders were made to ensure that the re-sentencing would appropriately reflect the gravity of Doyle's offence and the need to uphold the principles of justice and deterrence.

Orders