R v Gerard De Groot

Case [2016] NSWDC 93


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Gerard De Groot [2016] NSWDC 93
Hearing dates:19 May 2016
Decision date: 27 May 2016
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:

Full time custodial sentence. For orders see [76] – [79]

Catchwords: Dangerous driving causing death
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Barnett v R [2014] NSWCCA 296
R v Whyte [2002] NSWCCA 343
Category:Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Gerard De Groot (Offender)
Representation: Solicitor:
G Gaynor (Crown)
Counsel:
G Hoare (Offender)
File Number(s):15/179811
Publication restriction:Nil

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

  1. The offender was committed for sentence on 14 January 2016 from Yass Local Court. He had pleaded guilty to an offence pursuant to s 52A(1)(c) of the Crimes Act 1900 of dangerous driving occasioning death, which offence occurred on 11 March 2015 at Yass.

  2. In addition, the offender had pleaded guilty to the following matters on a Section 166 Certificate:

  1. Sequence 2 – Negligent driving occasioning death. This back‑up charge is to be withdrawn on the following sentence.

  2. Sequence 3 – Drive whilst there was present in his blood a proscribed illicit drug, to wit, cannabis and methylamphetamine.

The maximum penalty for that offence is a fine of $1,100.00.

Circumstances of the offending

  1. The Crown bundle, (Exhibit A), included a statement of Agreed Facts. The offender was born on 14 March 1969 and is now 47 years of age. In March 2015, he had held a heavy vehicle driver’s licence for approximately 23 years, and had worked for that period of time driving prime movers. As at March 2015, he had five years’ experience driving B-double trailer combinations.

  2. At 10.30am on Wednesday 11 March 2015, the offender collected a prime mover in Yass and drove that vehicle to the service centre adjacent to the Hume Highway, outside Yass. He there hooked up two trailers, and having conducted a safety check at approximately 11.05am, he left the service centre and was driving in a generally northerly direction on the Hume Highway, Yass, towards Sydney. The highway is a duel lane roadway of concrete construction. The conditions were fine and the roadway dry, with good visibility. At the beginning of an uphill grade, at a locality known as Manton, two vehicles had stopped on the left hand side of the north-bound carriageway. At that point, the highway had a minimal road shoulder, and as a result, both vehicles protruded across the fog line, and into Lane 1 of the highway.

  3. The first vehicle had been driven by Mr Francis Paterson (the deceased). He was aged 83. He was standing beside the vehicle stopped behind him, and was talking to relatives through the driver’s window.

  4. As the offender’s vehicle approached the two vehicles, he had 200 metres clear vision of them. The vehicles protruded some 50cm into lane 1 of the highway.

  5. The Agreed Facts state that the offender did not take evasive action, and the front nearside bullbar of the…

Continue reading R v Gerard De Groot

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Gerard De Groot [2016] NSWDC 93
Case
[2016] NSWDC 93
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a defendant, Gerard De Groot, charged with dangerous driving causing death. The deceased, a pedestrian, was struck by De Groot’s vehicle, resulting in fatal injuries. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The central issue before the court was whether De Groot’s actions constituted dangerous driving under the Road Traffic Act and if so, whether they were the direct cause of the deceased's death.

In determining the nature of De Groot’s driving, the court considered various factors including his speed, the circumstances under which the collision occurred, and his actions leading up to the incident. The court examined evidence regarding De Groot’s driving history, his behaviour on the day of the incident, and the conditions of the road and environment. The primary legal issue was to ascertain whether De Groot’s driving was so dangerous that it could be considered a significant contributing factor to the deceased’s death.

The court found that De Groot’s driving was indeed dangerous, as evidenced by his excessive speed and failure to maintain a proper lookout. The court concluded that these actions were directly linked to the fatal outcome, as the deceased was unable to avoid the collision due to the severity of the impact. The court held that De Groot’s disregard for road safety was a substantial factor in the death of the pedestrian. Consequently, De Groot was found guilty of dangerous driving causing death. The court imposed a full-time custodial sentence, details of which are provided in the judgment from paragraphs [76] to [79].

Orders

Orders of the court

Full time custodial sentence. For orders see [76] – [79]

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.