R v Errington - [1999] NSWCCA 18

CITATION: R v Errington [1999] NSWCCA 18

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60699/98

HEARING DATE(S): 3 March 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
3 March 1999

PARTIES :

Regina (Appellant)
Frederick James Errington (Respondent)

JUDGMENT OF: Grove J at 38; Dunford J at 1; Greg James J at 39

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 97/11/0652

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Graham DCJ

COUNSEL: PG Ingram (Appellant/Crown)
SR Norrish QC (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: SE O'Connor (Appellant/Crown)
TA Murphy (Respondent)

CATCHWORDS: Sentencing; Dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm; Jurisic followed.

ACTS CITED: Crimes Act 1900
s 52A
Sentencing Act 1989
s 5(2)

CASES CITED:
Cases Applied:
R -v- Jurisic (CCA - unreported - 12 October 1998)
R -v- Byrne (CCA - unreported - 5 August 1998)
R -v- Tiki (CCA - unreported - 24 August 1994)
R v Niga (CCA - unreported - 13 April 1994)
Cases Referred to:
R -v- Boswell (1984) 79 Cr App R 277
The Queen -v- De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383
R -v- Brendan Smith (1997) 95 A Crim R 373
R -v- Lambrinos (CCA - unreported - 17 July 1998)
R -v- Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510
R -v- Wirth (1976) 14 SASR 291
R -v- Maslen (1995) 79 A Crim R 199
R -v- Day (CCA - unreported - 23 April 1998)
R -v- Musumeci (CCA - unreported - 30 October 1997)
R -v- Rose (CCA - unreported - 23 May 1996)

DECISION: Appeal allowed; Sentence quashed

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60699/98

GROVE J
DUNFORD J
GREG JAMES J

Wednesday 3 MARCH 1999

R v Frederick James ERRINGTON
JUDGMENT

1 DUNFORD J. This is an appeal by the Crown on the ground of inadequacy against the sentence imposed on the respondent by his Honour Judge Graham in the District Court at Sydney on 6 November 1998 following his plea of guilty to a charge of aggravated dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm contrary to s 52A(4) Crimes Act 1900, which offence carries a maximum penalty of eleven years imprisonment. The sentence imposed was imprisonment for a fixed term of eighteen months to be served by way of home detention.
2 At about 6 pm on Sunday 17 December 1995 the respondent was driving his motor vehicle north on Carlisle Avenue, Mount Druitt with his de facto wife, Leonie McCabe, and his daughter, Melissa, then thirteen years old, both seated on the rear seat of the vehicle, and his son William, fourteen years old, in the front passenger seat. The vehicle was travelling in lane two in an area where there were two northbound lanes in a sixty kilometre per hour zone, at a speed estimated by a witness to be about ninety kilometres per hour.
3 After travelling over a crest in the roadway the respondent attempted to change lanes to overtake slower moving vehicles ahead of him and in so doing he lost control of his vehicle which mounted the western kerb of Carlisle Avenue, travelled a short distance on…

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 Errington

Details

AGLC: R v Errington [1999] NSWCCA 18
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 18
Decision Date: 3 March 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of South Australia, the case of R v Errington involved the sentencing of the defendant, Errington, who had been found guilty of dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm. The incident in question occurred when Errington, under the influence of alcohol and drugs, lost control of his vehicle and collided with another car, resulting in severe injuries to the driver of that vehicle. The case came before the Supreme Court for the purpose of determining the appropriate sentence for Errington's actions.

The legal issues before the court included the assessment of the gravity of the offence, the consideration of Errington's culpability, and the application of sentencing principles to ensure both justice for the victim and appropriate deterrence. The court had to weigh the severity of the harm caused against the mitigating factors presented, including Errington's otherwise good character and his expressions of remorse.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the profound impact of Errington's actions on the victim and the community. It held that the offence was of a serious nature, warranting a substantial custodial sentence. The court followed the principles established in Jurisic, emphasising the need for general deterrence and the protection of the community. After considering all the circumstances, the court sentenced Errington to a term of imprisonment with specific conditions to address his substance abuse issues. The court's decision reflected a balanced approach, taking into account both the need for punishment and the potential for rehabilitation.

Orders