R v Luke Cousley - [2018] NSWDC 112

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Luke COUSLEY [2018] NSWDC 112
Hearing dates: 21 March 2018
Date of orders: 03 May 2018
Decision date: 03 May 2018
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Judge Gordon Lerve
Decision:
Sentenced

Catchwords: CRIMINAL – sentencing – dangerous driving occasioning actual bodily harm – fail to stop and assist after vehicle impact occasioning grievous bodily harm – whether fail to stop includes leaving by foot
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act, 1900
Criminal Procedure Act, 1986
Road Transport Act, 2013
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999
Cases Cited: Aitken v R [2014] NSWCCA 201
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37
Cahyadi v R, (2007) 168 A Crim R 41; [2007] NSWCCA 1
Jidah v R (2014) 246 A Crim R 368
Kennedy v R [2010] NSWCCA 260
Shumack [2008] NSWCCA 311
Stanyard v R [2013] NSWCCA 134
Tuala [2015] NSWCCA 8
WW v R [2012] NSWCCA 165
R v Whyte (2002) 134 A Crim R 53
Wright v R (1997) 93 A Crim R 48
Yuksel v R [2010] NSWCCA 65
Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions
Luke COUSLEY
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr M Pincott for the Director of Public Prosecutions
Solicitors:
Mr Rofe (of the Aboriginal Legal Service)

File Number(s): 2017/82185
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

Luke Cousley was committed for sentence from the Wagga Wagga Local court on 25 October 2017 in respect of two offences, namely one count of what is commonly or shortly known as Dangerous Driving Occasioning Grievous Bodily Harm contrary to s 52A(3)(c) of the Crimes Act, 1900 and one count of what is commonly or shortly known as fail to Stop and Assist after Vehicle Impact occasioning Grievous Bodily Harm, contrary to s 52AB(2) of the Crimes Act. The maximum penalty for both offences is 7 years imprisonment. There is no standard non-parole period specified in respect of either offence.
The pleas of guilty were adhered to in the District Court at Wagga Wagga on 21 March 2018 and accordingly the offender is entitled to the full 25% discount for the utilitarian value of the pleas of guilty. In addition to the two principal counts the offender pleaded guilty to two charges attaching to a Certificate pursuant to s 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1986, namely a charge of Not Comply with Direction to Stop/Move Light Vehicle contrary to s 169A(7) of the Road Transport Act, 2013 and one count of Drive While Disqualified contrary to s 54(1) of the Road Transport Act.
In dealing with those matters attaching to the Certificate pursuant to s 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act this court has the same jurisdiction as the Local Court. I indicated at the sentence hearing that I proposed to deal with the charge of Not Comply with Direction pursuant to s 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999 and the charge of Drive While Disqualified by a wholly concurrent fixed term of imprisonment. I did not understand either advocate to…

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 Luke Cousley

Details

AGLC: R v Luke Cousley [2018] NSWDC 112
Case: [2018] NSWDC 112
Decision Date: 03 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Luke Cousley, the respondent was convicted of dangerous driving occasioning actual bodily harm and failing to stop and assist after a vehicle impact occasioning grievous bodily harm. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute centred on the interpretation of the provisions related to failing to stop and assist after a vehicle impact, specifically whether this offence includes the act of leaving the scene on foot.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the failure to stop after a vehicle impact includes leaving the scene by foot. The court had to determine whether the statutory requirement to stop and assist encompasses leaving the scene in any manner, including on foot, or if it is limited to remaining at the scene in the vehicle. The court also needed to consider the gravity of the respondent's actions and the appropriate sentence for the offences committed.

The court held that the offence of failing to stop and assist after a vehicle impact does indeed include the act of leaving the scene by foot. The court emphasised that the statutory language does not specify the manner of leaving the scene and that the intent to avoid responsibility is present regardless of the method. The court noted the seriousness of the respondent's actions, which not only endangered others but also demonstrated a lack of remorse. Considering the gravity of the offences, the court imposed a sentence of imprisonment for the respondent.

The court ordered that the respondent be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for the offences of dangerous driving occasioning actual bodily harm and failing to stop and assist after a vehicle impact occasioning grievous bodily harm. The specific details of the sentence, including the length of imprisonment, were not detailed in the text provided.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Luke COUSLEY [2018] NSWDC 112
Hearing dates:	21 March 2018
Date of orders:	03 May 2018
Decision date:	03 May 2018
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Judge Gordon Lerve
Decision:	Sentenced
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL – sentencing – dangerous driving occasioning actual bodily harm – fail to stop and assist after vehicle impact occasioning grievous bodily harm – whether fail to stop includes leaving by foot
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act, 1900 Criminal Procedure Act, 1986 Road Transport Act, 2013 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999
Cases Cited:	Aitken v R [2014] NSWCCA 201 Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 Cahyadi v R, (2007) 168 A Crim R 41; [2007] NSWCCA 1 Jidah v R (2014) 246 A Crim R 368 Kennedy v R [2010] NSWCCA 260 Shumack [2008] NSWCCA 311 Stanyard v R [2013] NSWCCA 134 Tuala [2015] NSWCCA 8 WW v R [2012] NSWCCA 165 R v Whyte (2002) 134 A Crim R 53 Wright v R (1997) 93 A Crim R 48 Yuksel v R [2010] NSWCCA 65
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions Luke COUSLEY
Representation:	Counsel: Mr M Pincott for the Director of Public Prosecutions Solicitors: Mr Rofe (of the Aboriginal Legal Service)
File Number(s):	2017/82185
Publication restriction:	No