R v Hawkins - [2000] NSWCCA 380

Reported Decision: [2000] 32 MVR 176

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v Hawkins [2000] NSWCCA 380

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60626/99

HEARING DATE(S): 11/08/00

JUDGMENT DATE:
11 August 2000

PARTIES :

Regina- Crown
Dean Alexander Hawkins- Applicant

JUDGMENT OF: James J at 1; Dowd J at 2

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/21/3101

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Ford DCJ

COUNSEL : Mr RD Ellis- Crown
Mr R Hoenig- Applicant

SOLICITORS: SE O'Connor- Crown
DJ Humphreys- Applicant

CATCHWORDS: Severity appeal - Aggravated dangerous driving occasioning death - Alcohol problem

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

CASES CITED:
GDR (1994) 35 NSWLR 376.
R v Jurisic (1998) 45 NSWLR 29.

DECISION: 1. Application dismissed; 2. Leave to appeal refused.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

BRUCE JAMES J
DOWD J

Friday 11th August 2000
N60626/99

REGINA v DEAN ALEXANDER HAWKINS

JUDGMENT

1    BRUCE JAMES J: The Court is in a position to give judgment, and I will call on Dowd J to give the first judgment.
2 DOWD J: The applicant, Dean Alexander Hawkins, entered a plea of guilty to a charge of aggravated dangerous driving occasioning death, contrary to s52A(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (the “Act”). The offence carries a maximum penalty of fourteen years imprisonment. His Honour Ford DCJ, imposed a minimum term of four years imprisonment, to commence on 15 June 1999 and to expire on 14 June 2003. His Honour imposed an additional term of one year to commence on 15 June 2003. The applicant was disqualified from holding a drivers licence for not less than four years.
3    The offence occurred on 28 February 1996, the applicant being arrested on 28 March 1996. He was conditionally bailed with conditions as to the non-consumption of alcohol. He failed to appear at the District Court for a trial in November 1996. A warrant was subsequently issued. He surrendered himself to Cronulla police on 16 September 1998, and was again granted bail conditionally. He then failed to appear and a further bench warrant was issued on that date, being 3 November 1998. He was arrested on 15 June 1999, and bail was refused. He has been in continuous custody since then.
4    The facts are that about 9 o'clock on 28 February, the applicant was driving his motor vehicle, a one tonne utility along The Kingsway, Woolooware. He had, at the time, a blood concentration which, in his favour, was not less than 0.216. The speed limit was seventy kilometres per hour, and the applicant was driving at least one hundred kilometres per hour. He collided with a Datsun 120Y sedan, which in turn collided with an unattended vehicle.
5    The applicant’s driving at the time was certainly inappropriate in terms of the manner in which he drove, as well as being thirty kilometres over the speed limit. As a result of the collision, the driver of the other vehicle, an eighty-five…

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 Hawkins

Details

AGLC: R v Hawkins [2000] NSWCCA 380
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 380
Decision Date: 11 August 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was an appeal against the severity of a sentence imposed on the appellant, Hawkins, who was convicted of aggravated dangerous driving occasioning death. The incident occurred when Hawkins, who had a history of alcohol dependency, drove his vehicle while intoxicated, resulting in a fatal collision that killed a pedestrian. The court of appeal was tasked with determining whether the sentence was unduly severe and whether the trial judge had appropriately considered the mitigating factors of Hawkins' alcohol dependency and the lack of intent to cause harm.

The legal issues central to this appeal revolved around the principles of sentencing for aggravated dangerous driving occasioning death, and whether the trial judge had erred in not adequately considering the mitigating factors. The appellant's counsel argued that the sentence imposed was excessively harsh and did not sufficiently account for the appellant's alcohol dependency and the absence of any intent to cause harm. The prosecution contended that the trial judge had properly balanced the aggravating and mitigating factors and that the sentence was appropriate given the severity of the crime.

In considering these issues, the court of appeal noted that while the offence was indeed serious, the trial judge had made findings regarding the appellant's alcohol dependency and the absence of any intent to cause harm. The court found that the trial judge had adequately considered these mitigating factors but had nevertheless concluded that the sentence was appropriate given the gravity of the offence. The court of appeal upheld the trial judge's sentencing decision, finding that the sentence was not unduly severe and that the trial judge had properly balanced all relevant considerations.

No further orders were made by the court of appeal. The sentence imposed by the trial judge remained in place, and the appeal against the severity of the sentence was dismissed.

Orders