R v Ingram - [2007] NSWDC 228

CITATION: R v Ingram [2007] NSWDC 228

HEARING DATE(S): 02/08/07
03/08/07

JUDGMENT DATE:
3 August 2007

JURISDICTION: Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: Conlon SC DCJ

DECISION: CONVICTED. Sentenced to non-parole period of 15 months with an additional term of 15 months. Sentence to be served by way of periodic detention.

CATCHWORDS: Drive manner dangerous - Occasioning death - Guideline Judgment - Moral culpability

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

CASES CITED: R v Errington (2005) 157 A Crim R 553
R v Khatter [2000] NSWCCA 32
R v Whyte (2002) 55 NSWLR 252
Regina v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
R v Bollen (1998) 99 A Crim R 510
R v Koosmen (2004) 42 MVR 123
R v Musumeci (unreported 30 October 1997 NSWCCA)

PARTIES: Crown
Kane Paul Ingram

FILE NUMBER(S): 05/41/0236

COUNSEL: Mr P Cattini (Crown)
Ms A Healey (Accused)

SOLICITORS: Ms J Walsh (Crown)

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: The offender Kane Paul Ingram appears for sentence following his plea of guilty to a charge that on 29 May 2005 at Figtree in the state of New South Wales he did drive a motor vehicle, namely Holden Commodore sedan XCK-227 in a manner dangerous to another person or persons whereby the vehicle was involved in an impact as a result of which the death of Robert Cutler was occasioned. The offence is contrary to s 52A(1)(c) of the Crimes Act and carries a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment.

2 The agreed statements of facts is exhibit A and reads as follows:

“On 29 May 2005 Mr Robert Cutler was riding his bicycle south on the Princes Highway at Figtree with Mr Franco De Santes. Both cyclists were riding in lane 1 of the highway being the lane closest to the kerb at a speed as they approached O’Donnell Drive estimated by Mr De Santes at 40 to 45 kilometres per hour.

At 7.55am the offender Mr Kane Paul Ingram was driving a Holden Commodore sedan number XCQ-227 north on the Princes Highway at Figtree. As he approached the intersection of the Princes Highway and O’Donnell Drive he made a right hand turn into O’Donnell Drive. The turn was made from lane 2 of the northbound lane of the highway being the centre lane into O’Donnell Drive.

It is not known if the offender came to a complete stop or slowed to allow oncoming traffic to pass before he made the turn. There is no suggestion that Mr Ingram attempted to negotiate the right hand turn at an inappropriate speed, and in fact the absence of tyre marks on the roadway and other evidence suggests that he was not required to apply his vehicle’s brakes harshly to stop the vehicle. A witness Mr Franco Disenzi was travelling by car south on the highway. Mr Disenzi from the kerbside lane to pass the cyclists and continued travelling south in lane 2, being the centre lane. After passing O’Donnell Drive he checked in his rear…

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 Ingram

Details

AGLC: R v Ingram [2007] NSWDC 228
Case: [2007] NSWDC 228
Decision Date: 3 August 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Ingram, the defendant, Ingram, was charged with causing the death of another driver through dangerous driving. The case was heard and determined by the relevant court. Ingram's actions behind the wheel led to a fatal collision, raising questions about the extent of his culpability and the appropriate punishment.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Ingram's driving amounted to dangerous driving that occasioning death, and if so, what the appropriate sentence should be. The court needed to examine the facts of the case to determine the level of moral culpability and whether Ingram's actions were sufficiently reckless to warrant a conviction. Additionally, the court had to consider the appropriate sentence, including the length of any custodial term and the form it should take.

The court found that Ingram's driving was indeed dangerous and that it directly caused the death of the other driver. The analysis of moral culpability indicated that Ingram's actions were reckless and negligent, warranting a conviction. In determining the sentence, the court considered the need for deterrence and rehabilitation, as well as the principle of proportionality. Ultimately, the court sentenced Ingram to a non-parole period of 15 months, with an additional term of 15 months, to be served by way of periodic detention.

Orders

Orders of the court

CONVICTED. Sentenced to non-parole period of 15 months with an additional term of 15 months. Sentence to be served by way of periodic detention.

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 Ingram [2007] NSWDC 228
HEARING DATE(S):	02/08/07 03/08/07
JUDGMENT DATE:	3 August 2007
JURISDICTION:	Criminal
JUDGMENT OF:	Conlon SC DCJ
DECISION:	CONVICTED. Sentenced to non-parole period of 15 months with an additional term of 15 months. Sentence to be served by way of periodic detention.
CATCHWORDS:	Drive manner dangerous - Occasioning death - Guideline Judgment - Moral culpability
LEGISLATION CITED:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
CASES CITED:	R v Errington (2005) 157 A Crim R 553 R v Khatter [2000] NSWCCA 32 R v Whyte (2002) 55 NSWLR 252 Regina v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76 R v Bollen (1998) 99 A Crim R 510 R v Koosmen (2004) 42 MVR 123 R v Musumeci (unreported 30 October 1997 NSWCCA)
PARTIES:	Crown Kane Paul Ingram
FILE NUMBER(S):	05/41/0236
COUNSEL:	Mr P Cattini (Crown) Ms A Healey (Accused)
SOLICITORS:	Ms J Walsh (Crown)