R v Hall - [1999] NSWSC 738

Reported Decision: 108 A Crim R 209

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: Regina v Hall [1999] NSWSC 738 revised - 03/09/99

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): 70088/97

HEARING DATE(S): 16/7/99

JUDGMENT DATE:
23 July 1999

PARTIES :

Regina v Susan Maria Hall

JUDGMENT OF: Bell J at 1

COUNSEL : Crown: D Carmody
Prisoner: T O'Donnell

SOLICITORS: Crown: A Farage
Prisoner: M Rumore

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW; manslaughter; sentencing

CASES CITED: Regina v Taktak (1988) 34 A Crim R 334
Regina v MacDonald (unreported, NSWCCA, 12 December 1995)
Regina v Scognamiglio (1991) 56 A Crim R 81
Regina v Anderson [1981] VR 155
Regina v Letteri (unreported, NSWCCA, 18 March 1992)
Regina v Wright (unreported, NSWCCA, 28 February 1997)

DECISION: See para 30

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION
BELL J
Friday, 23 July 1999
70088/97 - REGINA v Susan Maria HALL
70214/97 - REGINA v Colin George HANSLOW
SENTENCE
1    HER HONOUR: On 29 March 1999 Susan Maria Hall and Colin George Hanslow appeared before me together with a co-accused, Colin David Simpson. On that occasion, Susan Maria Hall pleaded guilty to one count on indictment charging her with the manslaughter of Gary Henderson on a date between 19 August and 26 August 1996. Colin David Simpson pleaded guilty to maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm upon Gary Henderson on or about 19 August 1996. Colin George Hanslow was not represented on that occasion and I stood his matter over, without taking a plea, to enable him to obtain a grant of legal aid.
2    The proceedings against Hall and Simpson were stood over for submissions on sentence. On 4 June 1999 I sentenced Colin David Simpson to a term of twelve months penal servitude comprising a minimum term of eight months and an additional term of four months. It should be noted that this sentence was expressed to take into account the circumstance that Mr Simpson had already served, prior to his release on bail, a period of two years and twenty-six days custody solely referable to the commission of the subject offence.
3    On 27 May 1999 when the matters of Hall and Simpson were listed before me for submissions on sentence Colin George Hanslow was arraigned on an indictment which charged him with the manslaughter of Gary Henderson and with being an accessory after the fact to the infliction of grievous bodily harm upon Gary Henderson by Colin Simpson. He pleaded not guilty to the manslaughter count and guilty to the accessory count. Both matters were stood over to 16 July. It was anticipated that the Director of Public Prosecutions would give consideration in the interim as to whether it was proposed to proceed on the manslaughter count. In the event, I was informed on 16 July, that the Crown did not propose to proceed with respect to that matter.
4    The body of the deceased, Gary Henderson, was found on the afternoon of 28 August 1996 lying on a mud bank adjacent…

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 Hall

Details

AGLC: R v Hall [1999] NSWSC 738
Case: [1999] NSWSC 738
Decision Date: 23 July 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Hall, appealed against his conviction and sentence for manslaughter. The case was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales. The dispute centred around the circumstances of the death of the victim, which occurred when Hall drove his car into a group of people on a footpath. Hall claimed that the incident was an accident and that he was not negligent. The prosecution argued that Hall was driving recklessly and was therefore guilty of manslaughter.

The primary legal issue was whether Hall's actions amounted to recklessness, which would satisfy the requirement for manslaughter. The court needed to determine if Hall's driving was so dangerous that it constituted recklessness. Another issue was the appropriate sentence for manslaughter, considering the nature of the crime and the circumstances surrounding it.

The court held that Hall's actions did indeed amount to recklessness. His driving was so dangerous that it constituted a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances. The court found that Hall's actions were not merely negligent but were reckless, as he was aware of the risk of harm to others but proceeded regardless. Regarding sentencing, the court imposed a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the crime and the need to deter others from engaging in similar behaviour. The sentence was determined to be appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

Orders