R v Lynch - [2019] NSWDC 856

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Lynch [2019] NSWDC 856
Hearing dates: 19 December 2019
Date of orders: 19 December 2019
Decision date: 19 December 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision:
Sentence – 3 years 9 months NPP 2 years 3 months

Catchwords:
CRIME – SENTENCE
Dangerous driving causing death - Driving under the influence of methylamphetamine and Xanax - 26 year old male - Criminal history including driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol and drug offences. Offender himself sustained significant injuries - True remorse - Good prospects of rehabilitation - 25% discount for early plea of guilty - Special circumstances.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited: R v Whyte [2002] NSWCCA 343;(2002) 55 NSWLR 252
Spark v R [2012] NSWCCA 140
Wright v R [2013] NSWCCA 82
Category: Sentence
Parties: Justin Andrew Lynch – Offender
Regina – Crown
Representation: C. Young – Crown (ODPP)
D. Provera – Offender

File Number(s): 2019/00011720
Publication restriction: Nil.

Judgement

HIS HONOUR: Justin Andrew Lynch stands for sentence as a consequence of pleading guilty to a charge that on 5 January 2019 at Lucas Heights he did drive a vehicle, namely a silver Toyota Hilux Utility, when it was involved in an impact occasioning the death of Paul Brock, and the time of the impact the said Justin Lynch was driving the vehicle in a manner dangerous to other persons. That is an offence contrary to s 52A(1)(c) of the Crimes Act 1900 and carries a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment. There is no standard non-parole period.

Facts

5 January 2019 was a Saturday. The impact occurred at approximately 2.23pm. At that time the offender was driving in a generally northerly direction along New Illawarra Road, Lucas Heights. His passenger, Matthew McDonald, was in the passenger seat of that vehicle. At the time the offender had been driving for approximately half an hour.
At the scene of the crime the New Illawarra Road is a single lane road running essentially northeast to southwest which, for ease, I refer to as north/south. It has a provision for one lane of traffic in each direction and the opposing lanes are separated by double white unbroken lines. Each lane is bordered by a solid white fog line. All the lines are clearly painted on the roadway. The roadway was sealed bitumen and was in good condition. The speed limit was 80 kilometres per hour. At the time of the impact the roadway was dry, the weather was overcast but it was clear daylight. The facts agreed between the parties indicate that the traffic in the area was between light and moderate.
In the minutes leading up to the impact the offender’s driving was observed by other drivers. The offender was seen to be driving erratically. His actions included failing to maintain a constant pace. He was slowing down at times and then speeding up. That was a recurrent manoeuvre. He was observed to have crossed 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 Lynch

Details

AGLC: R v Lynch [2019] NSWDC 856
Case: [2019] NSWDC 856
Decision Date: 19 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lynch involved a 26-year-old male defendant who was convicted of dangerous driving causing death while under the influence of methylamphetamine and Xanax. The defendant had a criminal history that included previous offences related to driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol, as well as drug offences. The incident in question resulted in significant injuries to the defendant, who also displayed evidence of true remorse and good prospects of rehabilitation. The court had to consider various factors, including the discount for the defendant's early plea of guilty and the special circumstances surrounding the case.

The legal issues before the court involved determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant's offence, taking into account the nature of the crime, the defendant's background, the level of culpability, and the potential for rehabilitation. The court had to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the possibility of the defendant reforming and reintegrating into society.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the severity of the crime, the defendant's prior criminal history, and the mitigating factors such as the defendant's significant injuries and genuine remorse. The court also applied a 25% discount for the defendant's early plea of guilty. After weighing all these factors, the court determined that a non-parole period of 2 years and 3 months, followed by a sentence of 3 years and 9 months, was appropriate. This sentence reflected the need for punishment, deterrence, and the potential for the defendant's rehabilitation.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant was to serve a sentence of 3 years and 9 months, with a non-parole period of 2 years and 3 months. This decision recognised the seriousness of the offence, the defendant's criminal history, and the mitigating factors presented. The sentence aimed to provide justice for the victim while also considering the defendant's prospects for rehabilitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentence – 3 years 9 months NPP 2 years 3 months

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 Lynch [2019] NSWDC 856
Hearing dates:	19 December 2019
Date of orders:	19 December 2019
Decision date:	19 December 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Neilson DCJ
Decision:	Sentence – 3 years 9 months NPP 2 years 3 months
Catchwords:	CRIME – SENTENCE Dangerous driving causing death - Driving under the influence of methylamphetamine and Xanax - 26 year old male - Criminal history including driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol and drug offences. Offender himself sustained significant injuries - True remorse - Good prospects of rehabilitation - 25% discount for early plea of guilty - Special circumstances.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited:	R v Whyte [2002] NSWCCA 343;(2002) 55 NSWLR 252 Spark v R [2012] NSWCCA 140 Wright v R [2013] NSWCCA 82
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Justin Andrew Lynch – Offender Regina – Crown
Representation:	C. Young – Crown (ODPP) D. Provera – Offender
File Number(s):	2019/00011720
Publication restriction:	Nil.