Legal Research
Cases
R v Pisciuneri

R v Pisciuneri

Case [2007] NSWCCA 265 5 September 2007

Appeal

Breach of Contract

Driving in Manner Dangerous

Negligence

Judicial Review

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v Pisciuneri; Pisciuneri v R [2007] NSWCCA 265

HEARING DATE(S): 3 July 2007

JUDGMENT DATE:
5 September 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Hislop J at 2; Harrison J at 81

DECISION: The appeal against conviction is dismissed. The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - driving in manner dangerous - appeal against conviction - jury verdict not unreasonable - no failure by jury to give proper consideration to the evidence - Crown appeal against sentence - no material error of fact finding by sentencing judge - appellate discretion.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Roads Transport (General) Act

CASES CITED: Cheung v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 215 ALR 213
R v Davies [2000] NSWCCA 84
R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 474
R v Jurisic (1998) 45 NSWLR 209
R v Martin (1981) 2 NSWLR 640
R v Wall [2002] NSWCCA 42
R v Whyte (2002) 55 NSWLR 252

PARTIES: Regina v Natale Domenico Pisciuneri
Natale Domenico Pisciuneri v Regina

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/3321 (formerly 2007/714) ; 2007/3235 (formerly 2007/829)

COUNSEL: D. Woodburne (Crown/Respondent)
A.J. Bellanto QC (Respondent/Applicant)

SOLICITORS: Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown/Respondent)
William S. Whitby Solicitors (Respondent/Applicant)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 05/21/3228

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Goldring DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 5 September 2006; 16 February 2007

2007/3321 (formerly 2007/714)
2007/3235 (formerly 2007/829)

SPIGELMAN CJ
HISLOP J
HARRISON J
Wednesday 5 September 2007

REGINA v Natale Domenico PISCIUNERI

Natale Domenico PISCIUNERI v REGINA

Judgment

1 SPIGELMAN CJ: I agree with Hislop J.

2 HISLOP J: Natale Pisciuneri (“the appellant”) has appealed against conviction. The Crown has appealed against sentence.

The conviction appeal

3 The appellant appeals against his conviction following a guilty verdict by a District Court jury on 5 September 2006 to a charge brought pursuant to the Crimes Act 1900 s 52A(1)(c) that on 28 March 2005 he did drive a motor vehicle in a manner dangerous to another person, whereby the vehicle was involved in an impact as a result of which the death of Timothy Thornton was occasioned.

4 The ground of appeal is that:

“The verdict is unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence and in the alternative, a miscarriage of justice was occasioned by the jury in failing to give proper consideration to the conflicting bodies of expert evidence on a highly technical matter, namely the understanding of the methodology of traffic accident reconstruction.”

5 The “impact” occurred in fine weather in Sheather’s Lane Camden at about 5.45 pm on 28 March 2005. Sheather’s Lane (“the road”) runs generally east-west from a roundabout at its intersection with Cawdor Road to the east and its intersection with Old Oaks Road to the west. The road is straight and flat for 750 metres from Cawdor Road until a moderate right hand bend or curve…

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 Pisciuneri

Details

AGLC: R v Pisciuneri [2007] NSWCCA 265
Case: [2007] NSWCCA 265
Decision Date: 5 September 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Pisciuneri, the defendant was convicted of driving in a manner dangerous, resulting in the death of another road user. The appeal against conviction was dismissed by the court, as the jury's verdict was found not to be unreasonable. The court held that there was no failure by the jury to give proper consideration to the evidence presented during the trial. The Crown's appeal against the sentence was also dismissed, as the sentencing judge did not make any material errors in fact-finding. The appellate court exercised its discretion in this matter and upheld the original sentence imposed on the defendant.

The legal issues before the court included whether the jury had given proper consideration to the evidence presented and if there was any failure on their part to reach a reasonable verdict. The court found that the jury had indeed given proper consideration to the evidence and that there was no failure on their part to reach a reasonable verdict. Furthermore, the court examined the Crown's appeal against the sentence imposed on the defendant, determining whether the sentencing judge had made any material errors in fact-finding. The court held that no such errors had been made and that the sentence was appropriate.

In reaching its decision, the court emphasised the importance of the jury's role in criminal trials and the need for their verdicts to be based on a careful consideration of the evidence presented. The court also noted the limited role of appellate courts in reviewing sentencing decisions, as long as the sentencing judge had properly considered all relevant factors and did not make any material errors in fact-finding. The court exercised its discretion in upholding the original sentence imposed on the defendant, finding that it was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss both the defendant's appeal against conviction and the Crown's appeal against sentence. The court upheld the original verdict and sentence imposed on the defendant, finding that the jury had given proper consideration to the evidence and that the sentencing judge had not made any material errors in fact-finding. The court's decision in this case serves as a reminder of the importance of the jury's role in criminal trials and the limited role of appellate courts in reviewing sentencing decisions.

Orders