R v Priestley No. Sccrm-02-278 - [2002] SASC 438

R v PRIESTLEY
[2002] SASC 438
Court of Criminal Appeal: Duggan, Debelle and Williams JJ

DUGGAN J I agree that this appeal should be allowed for the reasons given by Debelle J. I also agree with the orders proposed by Debelle J.
DEBELLE J This is a prosecution appeal against sentence.
The respondent pleaded guilty to the crime of causing death by dangerous driving. The maximum penalty for a first offence for that crime is imprisonment for a period not exceeding ten years and disqualification from holding or obtaining a driving licence for a minimum period of five years.
The sentencing judge ordered that the respondent be imprisoned for a period of four years and fixed a non-parole period of two years, both to commence on 25 June 2001, the day when the respondent was taken into custody. The prosecution appeals against both the sentence and the non-parole period on the ground that they are manifestly inadequate.
On the evening of Friday, 22 June 2001 the respondent was driving his small Toyota truck along Stebonheath Road, Munno Para Downs. The tray of the truck was fitted with a drop-down tray on both sides and at the rear. Shortly after 9.00pm, the respondent’s vehicle struck a Mr Watkins who was riding his bicycle home from work. The respondent did not stop. The force of the impact caused the drop-down tray on the left hand side of the utility to become dislodged so that it was dragged along the ground as the respondent continued to drive. As a result of the collision, Watkins became attached to the tray on the left hand side of the utility and was dragged alongside the tray for almost six kilometres, suffering shocking injuries, before the respondent stopped his vehicle in front of the house in which he then boarded. When the respondent’s vehicle stopped, Mr Watkins’ body was either dislodged or the respondent detached it from his truck. The respondent said that he had no recollection of what had occurred when he stopped. The respondent then replaced the side tray. He did not spend the night at the house in which he boarded. Instead, he drove to his parents’ house at Gawler and spent the night there. It is clear that the respondent was seeking to distance himself from his offending. The respondent did not give any assistance to Watkins.
The medical evidence is that Mr Watkins died from a closed head injury and haemorrhage due to multiple severe abrasions. As might be imagined, the abrasions after the long period of dragging were quite horrible. Mr Watkins died as a result of the injuries initially sustained as well as the buffeting and blood loss sustained while being dragged. Thus, the dragging was a significant cause of death. Mr Watkins was found a short time after the respondent had left him. He died en route to the hospital.
The following morning the respondent went to work as usual. In the course of the day he took some…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Priestley No. Sccrm-02-278 and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] SASC 438
Decision Date: 20 December 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the Court of Criminal Appeal reviewed the sentence handed down to the respondent, who had pleaded guilty to causing death by dangerous driving. The respondent was sentenced to four years imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years by the sentencing judge. The prosecution appealed on the basis that the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was increased to six years and three months imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years. The primary reasons for the increased sentence were the severity of the offence, the respondent's prior convictions, and the fact that he had been disqualified from driving at the time of the offence. The court also took into account the need for general and specific deterrence, as well as the risk of harm to the respondent due to his imprisonment in protective custody.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate and, if so, what the appropriate sentence should be. The court held that the sentence was inadequate and that it should be increased to reflect the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence. The court also considered the impact of the offence on the victim's family and the respondent's prior history of driving under the influence. The court further held that the fact that the respondent would be kept in protective custody should be taken into account when fixing the sentence, as it was a factor that could result in a reduction of the sentence.

Orders