R v Parr

Case [2019] NSWDC 357 29 July 2019

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v PARR [2019] NSWDC 357
Hearing dates: 18 July 2019
Date of orders: 29 July 2019
Decision date: 29 July 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Lerve DCJ
Decision:
Sentence of imprisonment – see paragraph 97

Catchwords: CRIMINAL – sentencing – death while driving under influence – grievous bodily harm
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act, 1900
Road Transport Act, 2013
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999
Cases Cited: R v Barnett [2016] NSWDC 302
R v Magro [2019] NSWSC 343
R v Whyte (2002) 134 A Crim R 53
R v Tuala [2015] NSWCCA 8
WW v R [2012] NSWCCA 165
TG v Regina [2010] NSWCCA 28
R v Elkassir [2013] NSWCCA 181
Aitken v R [2014] NSWCCA 201
Spark v R [2012] NSWCCA 140
R v Wright (2013) 229 A Crim R 245; [2013] NSWCCA 82
Whybrow v R [2008] NSWCCA 270
R v Daetz (2003) 139 A Crim R 398; [2003] NSWCCA 216
R v Donald [2013] NSWCCA 238
Aitken v R [2014] NSWCCA 202
Khanwaiz v R [2012] NSWCCA 168
Category: Sentence
Parties: Department of Public Prosecutions
Nicholas PARR
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms C Mendes (for the offender)
Solicitors:
Mr A Hanshaw (for the Crown)

File Number(s): 2018/43152
Publication restriction: No

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

I commence these remarks on sentence with the observation that this matter is a tragedy on so many levels. The life of a young person in the prime of her life has been lost. Her family are left grieving her loss. They are understandably devastated by that loss. Another young person has suffered grievous and permanent injuries. The offender is a young man with a partner and young children who as a result of his offending must go to prison for a considerable period of time. I observe that this tragedy could have been so easily avoided by a decision by the offender either not to drink or not to drive.
The offender adhered to pleas of guilty previously entered in the Local Court at the sentence hearing at Wagga Wagga District Court on 18 July 2019 namely:

That (he) on 12 August 2017 at Ungarie in the State of New South Wales did drive a vehicle, (namely) white Toyota Hilux dual cab utility registration BFR22K (New South Wales) when it was involved in an impact occasioning the death of Sarah Lloyd and at the time of impact the said Nicholas Parr was driving the vehicle under the influence of alcohol, contrary to s 52A(1)(a) of the Crimes Act, 1900; and further

That (he) on 12 August 2017 at Ungarie in the State of New South Wales did drive a vehicle, (namely) white Toyota Hilux dual cab utility registration BFR22K (New South Wales) when it was involved in an impact occasioning grievous bodily harm to Shawn Spencer and at the time impact the said Nicholas Parr was driving the vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor, contrary to s 52A(3)(a) of the Crimes Act.

As the pleas…

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 Parr

Details

AGLC: R v Parr [2019] NSWDC 357
Case: [2019] NSWDC 357
Decision Date: 29 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Parr involved the appellant, Mr Parr, who was convicted of causing death while driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs, and also of causing grievous bodily harm. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appeal centred on the severity of the sentence imposed on Mr Parr for the aforementioned offences.

The court was tasked with determining whether the trial judge had appropriately exercised his discretion in imposing the sentence of imprisonment on Mr Parr. The appellant contended that the sentence was excessive, particularly in light of his age, background, and the fact that he had no prior criminal history. The Crown, on the other hand, argued that the sentence was appropriate and proportionate to the gravity of the offences committed.

The High Court found that the trial judge had correctly exercised his discretion in imposing the sentence on Mr Parr. The court emphasised the need to consider the gravity of the offences, the culpability of the offender, and the interests of society in determining an appropriate sentence. In this case, the court held that the sentence of imprisonment was necessary to reflect the severity of the appellant's actions, and to provide a deterrent to others who might be tempted to drive under the influence of alcohol and drugs. The court also noted that the sentence was not excessive, as it took into account the appellant's age, background, and lack of a prior criminal history.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal and affirm the sentence of imprisonment imposed on Mr Parr. The court held that the sentence was appropriate and proportionate to the gravity of the offences committed, and that the trial judge had correctly exercised his discretion in determining the appropriate punishment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentence of imprisonment – see paragraph 97

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Parr [2019] NSWDC 357

Cases citing this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No citing cases yet.

Cases cited in this decision · 22 of 22 shown

R v Magro
[2019] NSWSC 343 Para 6

…Although the offending and circumstances were entirely different, the remarks by Wilson J in her remarks on sentence in R v Magro [2019] NSWSC 343 are also apposite in this matter. Her Honour said at [6]:…
R v Barnett
[2016] NSWDC 302 Para 5

…The comments of her Honour Judge Yehia SC in R v Barnett [2016] NSWDC 302, also a matter involving death by dangerous driving are apposite. Her Honour said at [3]-[4]:…
R v Jarad Smith
[2016] NSWCCA 75 Para 18

…sonment. No gaol term can return a loved one and a life should never be measured simply by the punishment meted out to an offender: R v Jarad Smith [2016] NSWCCA 75 per R A Hulme J at [18] endorsing the remarks made in R v Melissa McKeown [2013] NSWDC 22. The sentence I impose does not and cannot measure the value…
R v Tuala
[2015] NSWCCA 8 Para 36

…However, on the issue of the victim impact statement I note the effect of the decision in R v Tuala [2015] NSWCCA 8.…
Carr v R
[2014] NSWCCA 202

…; [2013] NSWCCA 82 Whybrow v R [2008] NSWCCA 270 R v Daetz (2003) 139 A Crim R 398; [2003] NSWCCA 216 R v Donald [2013] NSWCCA 238 Aitken v R [2014] NSWCCA 202 Khanwaiz v R [2012] NSWCCA 168 Category: Sentence Parties: Department of Public Prosecutions Nicholas PARR Representation: Counsel: Ms C Mendes (for the offe…
Aitken v The Queen
[2014] NSWCCA 201 Para 44

…Hulme J in Aitken v R [2014] NSWCCA 201 at [32] said:…
R v Donald
[2013] NSWCCA 238 Para 76

…earance before the Local Court. Latham J (Hidden & Adamson JJ agreeing) reviewed a number of authorities relating to the issue of delay in R v Donald [2013] NSWCCA 238 at [28]-[57].…
Giourtalis v R
[2013] NSWCCA 216

…ideration of the issue of delay in Fahda, Khoury , Blanco, Barker & Gibson, TJ v R [2009] NSWCCA 99, Tourni v R [2010] NSWCCA 317 or Giourtalis v R [2013] NSWCCA 216 that departs from the summary set out above in Scook , with the exception of the last factor (a mitigated penalty as a mark of disapproval of tardy pro…
R v Elkassir
[2013] NSWCCA 181 Para 43

…In that same vein, the Crown at the sentence hearing referred the court to the decision of R v Elkassir [2013] NSWCCA 181 where RA Hulme J (Emmett JA, RS Hulme AJ agreeing, Emmett JA with additional comments) said at [46]:…
R v Wright
[2013] NSWCCA 82 Para 71

…e injuries were not significant. The Crown referred the court to the decisions of Spark v R [2012] NSWCCA 140 and R v Wright (2013) 229 A Crim R 245; [2013] NSWCCA 82. I have read and considered paragraphs [54]-[57] of the judgment of Fullerton J in Spark paragraphs [60]-[62] of the judgment of Price J in Wright.…
R v McKeown
[2013] NSWDC 22

…the punishment meted out to an offender: R v Jarad Smith [2016] NSWCCA 75 per R A Hulme J at [18] endorsing the remarks made in R v Melissa McKeown [2013] NSWDC 22. The sentence I impose does not and cannot measure the value of BS’s life. Instead it reflects the sentencing discretion informed by proper principle.…
Khanwaiz v R
[2012] NSWCCA 168 Para 87

…radictory to the agreed facts. If there was such a contradiction the offender is sentenced in accordance with the agreed facts – see Khanwaiz v R [2012] NSWCCA 168 per Beech-Jones J at [96].…
WW v R
[2012] NSWCCA 165 Para 39

…Hoeben CJ at CL in giving the judgment of the Court in WW v R [2012] NSWCCA 165 said at [65]:…
Spark v R
[2012] NSWCCA 140 Para 71

…l punishment, noting that there no lasting injuries and the injuries were not significant. The Crown referred the court to the decisions of Spark v R [2012] NSWCCA 140 and R v Wright (2013) 229 A Crim R 245; [2013] NSWCCA 82. I have read and considered paragraphs [54]-[57] of the judgment of Fullerton J in Spark par…
Tourni v R
[2010] NSWCCA 317

…here is nothing in this Court's consideration of the issue of delay in Fahda, Khoury , Blanco, Barker & Gibson, TJ v R [2009] NSWCCA 99, Tourni v R [2010] NSWCCA 317 or Giourtalis v R [2013] NSWCCA 216 that departs from the summary set out above in Scook , with the exception of the last factor (a mitigated penalty a…
TG v R
[2010] NSWCCA 28 Para 41

…In TG v Regina [2010] NSWCCA 28 Howie J, with whom McClellan CJ at CL and Harrison J agreed, observed to similar effect:…
SBF v R
[2009] NSWCCA 231

…ough to be licensed to drive a motor vehicle, he is to be assumed to be mature enough to comply with its conditions and the traffic rules. In SBF v R [2009] NSWCCA 231; 53 MVR 438 at 151 Johnson J stated: ‘[151] Ms Francis referred in submissions to the Applicant "having little appreciation of his own mortality" (T5…
DPP v Neethling
[2009] VSCA 116

…The reference to "Neethling" was a reference DPP v Neethling [2009] VSCA 116; (2009) 52 MVR 422."…
Blanco, Barker & Gibson, TJ v R
[2009] NSWCCA 99

…“There is nothing in this Court's consideration of the issue of delay in Fahda, Khoury , Blanco, Barker & Gibson, TJ v R [2009] NSWCCA 99, Tourni v R [2010] NSWCCA 317 or Giourtalis v R [2013] NSWCCA 216 that departs from the summary set out above in Scook , with the exception of the last factor (a mitigated penalt…
Whybrow v R
[2008] NSWCCA 270 Para 72

…The Court of Criminal Appeal reviewed a number of authorities relating to extra-curial punishment in Whybrow v R [2008] NSWCCA 270 at [21]-[25], which coincidentally was a case involving death by dangerous driving. One such authority was R v Daetz (2003) 139 A Crim R 398; [2003] NSWCCA 216 where James J said at [62]…
R v Daetz
[2003] NSWCCA 216 Para 72

…CCA 270 at [21]-[25], which coincidentally was a case involving death by dangerous driving. One such authority was R v Daetz (2003) 139 A Crim R 398; [2003] NSWCCA 216 where James J said at [62]:…
R v Scott
[1999] NSWCCA 233

…because of the prevalence of young offenders, general deterrence is to be regarded as more important than the need for rehabilitation. In R v Scott [1999] NSWCCA 233 Levine J (with whom Smart AJ agreed) referred to the importance of general deterrence in the following terms: "[17] His Honour paid particular regard t…

Legislation cited in this decision · 0

No legislation cited in this case.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v PARR [2019] NSWDC 357
Hearing dates:	18 July 2019
Date of orders:	29 July 2019
Decision date:	29 July 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Lerve DCJ
Decision:	Sentence of imprisonment – see paragraph 97
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL – sentencing – death while driving under influence – grievous bodily harm
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act, 1900 Road Transport Act, 2013 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999
Cases Cited:	R v Barnett [2016] NSWDC 302 R v Magro [2019] NSWSC 343 R v Whyte (2002) 134 A Crim R 53 R v Tuala [2015] NSWCCA 8 WW v R [2012] NSWCCA 165 TG v Regina [2010] NSWCCA 28 R v Elkassir [2013] NSWCCA 181 Aitken v R [2014] NSWCCA 201 Spark v R [2012] NSWCCA 140 R v Wright (2013) 229 A Crim R 245; [2013] NSWCCA 82 Whybrow v R [2008] NSWCCA 270 R v Daetz (2003) 139 A Crim R 398; [2003] NSWCCA 216 R v Donald [2013] NSWCCA 238 Aitken v R [2014] NSWCCA 202 Khanwaiz v R [2012] NSWCCA 168
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Department of Public Prosecutions Nicholas PARR
Representation:	Counsel: Ms C Mendes (for the offender) Solicitors: Mr A Hanshaw (for the Crown)
File Number(s):	2018/43152
Publication restriction:	No