R v Gleeson - [2000] NSWCCA 101

CITATION: R v Gleeson [2000] NSWCCA 101

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60145/99

HEARING DATE(S): 20/03/00

JUDGMENT DATE:
20 March 2000

PARTIES :

Regina v Jamie Paul Gleeson

JUDGMENT OF: Abadee J; James J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/21/2136

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Sides DCJ

COUNSEL : In Person - Applicant
MC Marien - Crown

SOLICITORS: -
SE O'Connor - Crown

DECISION: Leave to appeal refused

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

060145/99

ABADEE J
JAMES J

Monday 20 March 2000

REGINA (NSW) v JAMIE PAUL GLEESON

JUDGMENT

1 JAMES J: Jamie Paul Gleeson has applied for leave to appeal against sentences imposed on him in the District Court on 26 March 1999 by his Honour Judge Sides, after he had pleaded guilty to two charges of dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm, an offence under s 52A (3) of the Crimes Act for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for seven years.
2   On each of the two charges Judge Sides sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for two years, consisting of a minimum term of 18 months commencing on 26 March 1999, the date on which the sentences were imposed, and an additional term of six months, the two sentences to be served concurrently. The applicant was disqualified from holding a driving licence for a period of three years from 26 March 1999.
3   On 11 October 1997 the applicant had been the driver of a vehicle in which one of the victims, his stepbrother, was a passenger. The applicant lost control of the vehicle and it span into the path of a vehicle which was being driven in the opposite direction by the other victim.
4   The sentencing judge found that the causes of the accident were that the applicant was driving at an excessive speed, that the tyres of his vehicle had little tread on them, the applicant having been aware that at least one of the tyres had little tread on it, and that the applicant was under the influence of alcohol.
5   An analysis of a sample of the applicant's blood taken after the accident showed a blood alcohol concentration of 0.149 grams per 100 mls of blood. This blood alcohol concentration was just under a concentration of 0.15 grams of alcohol per 100 mls of blood, which, if it had been present, would have constituted circumstances of aggravation, with the consequence that the applicant would have been guilty of the more serious offence under s 52A (4) of dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm in circumstances of aggravation.
6   The applicant's step-brother suffered serious orthopaedic injuries as a result of the accident. According to the evidence which was placed before the sentencing judge, the applicant's stepbrother sustained fractures to bones in both legs, both hips, his pelvis and one arm and he was hospitalised for six weeks. The driver of the other vehicle sustained head injuries, which required hospitalization for ten weeks.
7   The applicant was 25 years old…

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 Gleeson

Details

AGLC: R v Gleeson [2000] NSWCCA 101
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 101
Decision Date: 20 March 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jamie Paul Gleeson has applied for leave to appeal against sentences imposed in the District Court by Judge Sides, following his guilty plea to two counts of dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm, under section 52A(3) of the Crimes Act, with a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment. Judge Sides sentenced Gleeson to two concurrent terms of two years imprisonment each, consisting of a minimum of 18 months and an additional six months, with a three-year disqualification from holding a driving license. The Court of Criminal Appeal was tasked with determining whether Gleeson's appeal should be granted, focusing on whether the sentencing judge correctly applied the guidelines set out in R v Jurisic and whether Gleeson's case qualified as an exceptional case warranting a non-custodial sentence.

The court examined whether the sentencing judge appropriately applied the Jurisic guidelines, particularly concerning the exceptional nature of non-custodial sentences for dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm. Gleeson's case involved multiple aggravating factors: driving under the influence of alcohol, driving with poorly treaded tires, and excessive speed. These factors indicated that Gleeson had abandoned responsibility for his conduct, disqualifying his case from the exceptional class for which a custodial sentence is not mandatory. The court also considered Gleeson's remorse, the impact on his family, and the severity of injuries sustained by the victims. Gleeson's argument that his daughter had been taken away and his defacto wife imprisoned post-sentencing was noted, but the court was limited to considering only the evidence available at the time of sentencing.

The Court of Criminal Appeal concluded that Gleeson's case did not meet the criteria for an exceptional non-custodial sentence as outlined in Jurisic. Gleeson's actions involved significant aggravating factors, and the judge correctly assessed these in determining the appropriate sentence. Gleeson's remorse and personal circumstances, while relevant, did not alter the fact that his conduct was serious and warranted a custodial sentence. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and Gleeson's sentences were upheld.

Orders