R v Gillett - [2005] NSWDC 3

CITATION: R v GILLETT [2005] NSWDC 3

HEARING DATE(S): 2 November 2004 - 25 November 2004
4 March 2005,

JUDGMENT DATE:
18 March 2005

JURISDICTION: Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: Berman SC DCJ

DECISION: Sentenced to imprisonment; Effectivel sentence of 7 years with a non-parole period of 5 years and 3 months.; See paragraphs [52] - [55]

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Sentence - Dangerous Driving Causing Death - Epilepsy - Abandonment of responsibility

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act

CASES CITED: R v Chad unreported CCA, 13 May 1997
R v Whyte & Ors (2002) 55 NSWLR 252
R v Jurisic (1998) 45 NSWLR 209
R v Price [2004] NSWCCA 186
R v Wilkins (1998) 38 A Crim R 445
R v Blair [2205] NSWCCA 78

PARTIES: Crown
Ross Gillett

FILE NUMBER(S): 03/11/1112

COUNSEL: W. G. Roser (Crown)
W.C. Barber (Offender)

SOLICITORS: NSW DPP
Ian Rolfe Solicitor

Sentence

1 On 2nd May 2003 the offender was driving home. He said that he planned to call in to see someone on the way. Many other people were also driving home that Friday evening, looking forward no doubt to relaxing over the weekend. But as a result of the offender’s wrongdoing, 3 lives were lost and many more lives were shattered.

2 The offender should not have been driving that day. He only had a driver’s licence because he told repeated lies to the Roads and Traffic Authority. Many times he told them that he did not have epilepsy, but that was not true.

3 The offender displayed an attitude of remarkable selfishness. Each time he renewed his driver’s licence he had a choice: he could choose to either tell the truth which would have meant a possibility of not being able to drive, which would in turn have caused him inconvenience and perhaps hampered his career, or he could choose to lie, and put countless lives at risk. It is not his fault that he suffers from epilepsy – but he is fully responsible for the tragic consequences of his lies. He deserves severe punishment.

4 On 2nd May 2003 the offender did not believe that it was safe for him to drive and he appreciated that whenever he got behind the wheel of a car there was a real risk that he would suffer a fit. He took that risk, with dreadful consequences.

The Collisions

5 Despite being a danger on the road, and knowing that he was a danger on the road, at about 4.45pm on the 2nd May 2003 the offender was driving along Condamine Street at Manly Vale. The weather was fine, the road was dry and it was daylight. Condamine Street is a major road and there was the usual Friday evening build up so that the traffic was moderate to heavy. As the offender approached the corner of Condamine Street and Campbell Parade he had a seizure and lost control of the vehicle he was driving. At about the same time the traffic lights facing him changed…

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 Gillett

Details

AGLC: R v Gillett [2005] NSWDC 3
Case: [2005] NSWDC 3
Decision Date: 18 March 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Gillett involved the defendant who was charged with dangerous driving causing death. The incident occurred when the defendant, who had a history of epilepsy, lost control of his vehicle and collided with another vehicle, resulting in the death of the other driver. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary issue before the court was to determine an appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account the circumstances surrounding the offence, including the defendant's medical history and his abandonment of responsibility for his actions.

The court was required to consider several legal principles in determining the sentence. These included the nature and circumstances of the offence, the defendant's culpability, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The court also had to consider the principles of sentencing for dangerous driving causing death and the impact of the defendant's medical condition on his actions. Furthermore, the court had to evaluate the defendant's personal circumstances, including his background, character, and the likelihood of rehabilitation.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the defendant's actions were reckless and demonstrated a clear disregard for the safety of others on the road. The court acknowledged the defendant's medical condition but emphasised that he had a responsibility to manage his condition and take appropriate precautions to avoid such incidents. The court noted that the defendant had abandoned this responsibility, leading to the tragic consequences of the offence. The court determined that the appropriate sentence should reflect the seriousness of the offence and the need for general deterrence. After considering all relevant factors, the court sentenced the defendant to a term of imprisonment, with an effective sentence of 7 years and a non-parole period of 5 years and 3 months.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to imprisonment; Effectivel sentence of 7 years with a non-parole period of 5 years and 3 months.; See paragraphs [52] - [55]

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.

CITATION:	R v GILLETT [2005] NSWDC 3
HEARING DATE(S):	2 November 2004 - 25 November 2004 4 March 2005,
JUDGMENT DATE:	18 March 2005
JURISDICTION:	Criminal
JUDGMENT OF:	Berman SC DCJ
DECISION:	Sentenced to imprisonment; Effectivel sentence of 7 years with a non-parole period of 5 years and 3 months.; See paragraphs [52] - [55]
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal Law - Sentence - Dangerous Driving Causing Death - Epilepsy - Abandonment of responsibility
LEGISLATION CITED:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
CASES CITED:	R v Chad unreported CCA, 13 May 1997 R v Whyte & Ors (2002) 55 NSWLR 252 R v Jurisic (1998) 45 NSWLR 209 R v Price [2004] NSWCCA 186 R v Wilkins (1998) 38 A Crim R 445 R v Blair [2205] NSWCCA 78
PARTIES:	Crown Ross Gillett
FILE NUMBER(S):	03/11/1112
COUNSEL:	W. G. Roser (Crown) W.C. Barber (Offender)
SOLICITORS:	NSW DPP Ian Rolfe Solicitor