Legal Research
Cases
R v Plumb

R v Plumb

Case [2003] NSWCCA 359 1 December 2003

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v Plumb [2003] NSWCCA 359

HEARING DATE(S): 1/12/03

JUDGMENT DATE:
1 December 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJ at CL at 1, 26; Smart AJ at 25

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - application for leave to appeal against severity of sentence - aggravated dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm.

CASES CITED: Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
Regina v Bishop [2002] NSWCCA 263
Regina v Comber NSWCCA 11 November 1998
Regina v Dunlop [2001] NSWCCA 435
Regina v Hammoud (2000) 118 A Crim R 66
Regina v Holder and Johnston [1983] 3 NSWLR 245
Regina v Gleeson [2000] NSWCCA 108
Regina v Jurisic (1998) 45 NSWLR 209
Regina v McDonald NSWCCA 12 October 1998
Regina v Melville (1956) 73 WN (NSW) 579
Regina v Sen [1999] NSWCCA 109
Regina v Skrill [2000] NSWCCA 484
Regina v Whyte (2002) 55 NSWLR 252
Regina v Wilkins (1988) 8 MVR 404

PARTIES :
Regina
Craig John Plumb

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60426/03

COUNSEL: F E Guy (Crown)
H Halighan

SOLICITORS: C K Smith (Crown)
S E O'Connor

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/41/0248

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Taylor DCJ

- 6 -

60426/03

WOOD CJ at CL
SMART AJ

Regina v Craig John Plumb

Judgment

1 WOOD CJ at CL: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentences imposed upon him by his Honour Judge Taylor, in the District Court, on 4 April 2003, following his committal for sentence in relation to two counts of aggravated dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm. He was sentenced on each count to imprisonment for two years with a non-parole period of twelve months. An accumulation of six months was effectively directed so that the effective overall sentence was one of imprisonment for two and a half years with a non-parole period of eighteen months. Additionally he was disqualified from driving for two years.

2 The offences were committed on 13 April 2002, when the Holden Commodore driven by the applicant came into a head-on collision with a Toyota Hilux utility on the Gundaroo Road, near Sutton. At the time of the collision, which occurred when the Holden crossed onto the incorrect side of the road, over double unbroken separated lines, on the crest of a hill, the applicant had a blood alcohol concentration between 0.205 grams per 100 millilitres and 0.260 grams per 100 millilitres of blood. At those levels, as the evidence showed, his driving ability would have been “very significantly impaired”.

3 On the applicant’s own admission he was travelling at about 100 kilometres per hour at the time of the collision. Although that was within the speed limit for the relevant stretch of road, it does tend to explain why it was that the impact was so severe, and why it left the occupants of the Toyota, who were trapped for a time in their vehicle, with very…

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 Plumb

Details

AGLC: R v Plumb [2003] NSWCCA 359
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 359
Decision Date: 1 December 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Plumb, the defendant was appealing against the severity of his sentence following a conviction for aggravated dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm. The case was heard in the appellate court, which was tasked with reviewing the sentence imposed by the lower court. The defendant had been involved in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in serious injuries to another person. The court had to determine whether the sentence handed down was excessive or appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was manifestly excessive or whether it was within the range of reasonable sentences that could be imposed for the offence of aggravated dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm. The court needed to consider the principles of sentencing for such offences, including the gravity of the offence, the culpability of the offender, and any relevant aggravating or mitigating factors. The court also had to examine whether the sentence was proportionate to the harm caused and whether there were any errors in the sentencing process that could have affected the outcome.

After considering the arguments presented by both parties, the court found that the sentence imposed by the lower court was not manifestly excessive. The court emphasised that the defendant's actions had caused serious harm to another person and that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offence. The court also noted that the defendant had shown remorse and had taken steps to address his behaviour, which were considered as mitigating factors. The court concluded that the sentence was proportionate to the harm caused and was within the range of reasonable sentences that could be imposed for such an offence. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court, and the sentence imposed by the lower court remained in place. The defendant would continue to serve the sentence as determined by the lower court, with no changes to the terms or conditions of the sentence.

Orders