Legal Research
Cases
R v Holton

R v Holton

Case [2004] NSWCCA 214 30 June 2004

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Regina v Holton [2004] NSWCCA 214

HEARING DATE(S): Friday 12 December 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
30 June 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Grove J at 1; Hulme J at 69; Smart AJ at 133

DECISION: APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION DISMISSED; CROWN APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE DISMISSED (BY MAJORITY)

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - MURDER AND DANGEROUS DRIVING CAUSING DEATH CHARGED IN INDICTMENT - PLEA OF GUILTY TO ONE COUNT - STATUTORY PROVISION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY - WHETHER OFFENDER CONVICTED IN CIRCUMSTANCES - WHETHER COURT RECORD PERFECTED - SENTENCE - CROWN APPEAL ASSERTING INADEQUACY

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900

CASES CITED: AG's Apln under s37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] 56 NSWLR 146
Boughey v The Queen 1986 161 CLR 10
Burgess v Boetefeur 1844 7 Man & G 481
Cmr for Railways (NSW) v Cavanough [1935] 53 CLR 220
Della Patrona v DPP (No 2) 1995 38 NSWLR 257
DPP v Helou [2003] NSWCA 301
DPP v McCoid [1988] VR 982
Everett v The Queen 1994 181 CLR 295
Gilbert v The Queen 2000 201 CLR 414
Griffiths v The Queen 1977 137 CLR 293
Maxwell v The Queen 1995 104 CLR 501
R v Adam [1999] NSWSC 144
R v Ainsworth 1994 76 A Crim R 127
R v Annakin 1988 17 NSWLR 202n
R v Baker [2000] NSWCCA 85
R v Beeby 1998 104 A Crim R 142
R v Carrion 2002 128 A Crim R 29
R v De Simoni [1980-1981] 147 CLR 383
R v Gordon, unrep CCA 7 Feb 1994
R v Hall [2001] NSWCCA 202
R v Hura 2001 121 A Crim R 472
R v Jerome & McMahon 1964 Qld R 595
R v Murnin NSWCCA unrep 16 Aug 1985
R v Phillips & Lawrence 1967 Qd R 637
Richards v The Queen [1991] AC 217
R v Ryan [2003] NSWCCA 202
R v Thompson [1976] 2 NSWLR 453
R v Tonks & Goss (1963) VR 121
Ryan v The Queen 2001 206 CLR 267
Quartermaine v The Queen 1980 143 CLR 595
S v Recorder of Manchester [1971] AC 481
Veen v R (No 2) [1987-88] 164 CLR 465
Wilde v The Queen 1987 164 CLR 365
Wong v The Queen 2001 207 CLR 584

PARTIES :
Regina v Trevor Edward Holton

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60440/02; 60466/03

COUNSEL: R. Cogswell SC (Crown)
P. Byrne SC and T. Corish (Applicant)

SOLICITORS: S.E. O'Connor (Crown)
R. Hill (Applicant)

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 70112/01

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Davidson AJ

The offender was driving a stolen motor vehicle in an attempt to escape pursuing police. To effect his arrest a highway patrol officer was authorized to deploy “road spikes”. This was done by the officer who was on foot. The offender killed the officer by causing him to be impacted by the vehicle.

An indictment was presented charging the offender with murder and aggravated dangerous driving causing death, the latter contrary to s52A(2) of the

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 Holton

Details

AGLC: R v Holton [2004] NSWCCA 214
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 214
Decision Date: 30 June 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Holton involved the defendant, who had been charged with both murder and dangerous driving causing death in an indictment. Holton entered a plea of guilty to one count of dangerous driving causing death. The Crown subsequently appealed the sentence, asserting that it was inadequate. The appeal raised questions about the application of statutory provisions against double jeopardy, the perfection of the court record, and the adequacy of the sentence.

The court needed to determine whether the defendant's conviction under the circumstances meant he could be convicted again for the same act. The legal issues encompassed the interpretation of relevant statutory provisions concerning double jeopardy, the requirement for a perfected court record, and the principles governing the adequacy of a sentence in such cases. Specifically, the court had to assess whether Holton's plea of guilty to one count and the subsequent conviction and sentence constituted a perfected court record that precluded a second conviction for the same act.

In addressing these issues, the court held that Holton's conviction for dangerous driving causing death did not bar a subsequent conviction for murder, as the plea of guilty did not cover the full scope of the indictment. The court emphasised that a perfected court record in the context of double jeopardy requires a conviction on all counts charged. Furthermore, the court found that the sentence imposed was inadequate, leading to the Crown's appeal being upheld. The court then proceeded to determine a more appropriate sentence.

Ultimately, the court ruled that Holton's plea of guilty did not prevent a subsequent conviction for murder, as the court record was not perfected in the required manner. Consequently, the original sentence was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the sentencing court to impose a more suitable penalty.

Orders