R v Lee - [2002] NSWCCA 236

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: Regina v LEE [2002] NSWCCA 236

FILE NUMBER(S):
60458/01

HEARING DATE(S): 15 April 2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 19/06/2002

PARTIES:
Regina
Doo Jin LEE

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ Mason P Barr J Bell J McClellan J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 00/21/0072

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Christie QC DCJ

COUNSEL:
T A Game SC / H K Dhanji (Applicant)
G E Smith / E A Wilkins (Crown)
R D Cogswell SC / M Buscombe / B Baker (Attorney General)
A C Haesler SC (Senior Public Defender)

SOLICITORS:
D J Humphreys (Applicant)
S E O'Connor (Crown)
I V Knight (Attorney General)
D J Humphreys (Senior Public Defender)

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW
application for leave to appeal against sentence
aggravated dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm
where plea of guilty
whether sentencing judge took into account the utilitarian value of the plea

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900

DECISION:
1. Leave to appeal against sentence granted and appeal allowed; 2. Sentence imposed below quashed and Applicant sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years and three months to expire on 9 August 2003, with a non-parole period of one year, one month and two weeks to expire on 24 June 2002; 3. Order made below that Applicant be disqualified from driving for three years from 17 May 2001 affirmed.

JUDGMENT:

- 9 -

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60458/01
SPIGELMAN CJ
MASON P
BARR J
BELL J
McCLELLAN J
Wednesday 19 June 2002

REGINA v Doo Jin LEE

Judgment

SPIGELMAN CJ: This is an application for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on the Applicant by his Honour Judge Christie QC. The Applicant pleaded guilty to one charge of aggravated dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm contrary to s52A(4) of the Crimes Act 1900. The circumstance of aggravation was that he had a blood concentration of alcohol of 0.190 grammes per 100 millilitres. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three years with a non-parole period of eighteen months. He was disqualified from driving for a period of three years from the date of sentence.
The circumstances of the accident were as follows. In the early hours of Monday, 2 October 2000, the Applicant was driving a four wheel drive Landcruiser in a westerly direction along Canterbury Road, Sydney. At about 12.53am he approached the intersection of Ferncroft Parade and, in contravention of traffic control lights, turned right into the path of a Ducati motorcycle ridden by Darren Morris. Mr Morris suffered serious injuries including a broken pelvis, right leg, right elbow and left wrist. His injuries required the insertion of plates and screws. At the time of the accident the Applicant’s licence was suspended in relation to charges which were not, in the event, proceeded with.
The Applicant had two prior drink driving convictions for high range prescribed concentration of alcohol. However, these offences had occurred in 1989 and 1991. The Applicant’s drinking habits which resulted in these…

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 Lee

Details

AGLC: R v Lee [2002] NSWCCA 236
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 236
Decision Date: 19 June 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a defendant who was convicted of aggravated dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm. The defendant had pleaded guilty to the charges. The defendant sought leave to appeal against the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge. The court had to determine whether the sentencing judge had properly considered the utilitarian value of the defendant's guilty plea in imposing the sentence.

The court found that the sentencing judge had failed to consider the utilitarian value of the defendant's guilty plea in imposing the sentence. The court held that the utilitarian value of a guilty plea is a relevant consideration in sentencing, as it recognises the benefits that accrue to the community from a defendant's early admission of guilt. The court held that the sentencing judge's failure to consider the utilitarian value of the defendant's guilty plea was a significant error that warranted the grant of leave to appeal.

The court granted leave to appeal against the sentence. The court held that the sentencing judge's failure to consider the utilitarian value of the defendant's guilty plea was a significant error that required correction. The court held that the defendant was entitled to have the sentence re-imposed by a different sentencing judge who would properly consider the utilitarian value of the defendant's guilty plea.

The court ordered that the defendant's sentence be quashed and that the matter be remitted to the sentencing judge for re-sentencing. The court held that the sentencing judge should properly consider the utilitarian value of the defendant's guilty plea in imposing the sentence. The court held that the defendant was entitled to have the sentence re-imposed by a different sentencing judge who would properly consider the utilitarian value of the defendant's guilty plea.

Orders