R v Quinlan - [2022] NSWDC 761

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Quinlan [2022] NSWDC 761
Hearing dates: 24 May 2022
Date of orders: 24 May 2022
Decision date: 24 May 2022
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Sentence of imprisonment of 2 years to be served by way of intensive correction in the community

Catchwords:
CRIME — Driving offences — Dangerous driving occasioning death — “In a manner dangerous to another person or persons”
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Sentence after trial — facilitation of the administration of justice
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Back up and related offences — Early guilty plea of guilty to lesser charges
SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Good character — No record of previous convictions — Remorse — Rehabilitation — Unlikely to reoffend
SENTENCING — Penalties — Intensive correction orders
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Sentence after trial — Deterrence — General deterrence — Objective seriousness — Purposes of sentencing — Impact of COVID-19 on prisoners — Impact of COVID-19 on capacity to access programmes in custody
SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Instinctive synthesis
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Mental illness — Youth of offender

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Elphick v R [2021] NSWCCA 167
LeggevR [2007] NSWCCA 244
Pearce v R [2022] NSWCCA 68
R v Errington (2005) 157 A Crim R 553
R v Herring (1956) 73 WN (NSW) 203
R v Musumeci (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 30 October 1997 unrep)
R v Nemer [2003] SASC 375
R v Smith [2016] NSWCCA 75
R v Whyte (2002) 55 NSWLR 252
R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222
Regina v Manok [2017] NSWCCA 232
RyanvThe Queen [2001] HCA 21; (2001) 206 CLR 267
Weininger v The Queen [2003] HCA 14; (2003) 212 CLR 629

Category: Sentence
Parties: Dimity Quinlan (the offender)
Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Representation:
Counsel:
E Anderson (for the offender)
C Todd (for the Crown)
Solicitors:
RMB Lawyers (for the offender)
Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)

File Number(s): 2020/82121
Publication restriction: Family consent to publication of child victim’s name

JUDGMENT – ex tempore revised

Introduction

Just before 6pm on 11 February 2020 on Wattle Road, Shellharbour a white Nissan sedan driven by Dimity Quinlan impacted with a BMX bicycle ridden by a young man, Shaye Tallis (‘Shaye’). Shaye died as a result of the impact.
Members of the Wollongong community are gathered today for proceedings that everyone involved desperately want not to be true. My focus must be on exacting appropriate punishment or retribution on Dimity Quinlan for causing the Shaye’s death. She must be punished for what she did; a significant breach of the road rules and the death that resulted.
That punishment cannot bring Shaye back. It cannot, in any significant way, remove the hurt and anguish that his family will feel for the rest of their days. Nor can it remove the responsibility Quinlan bears. From 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 Quinlan

Details

AGLC: R v Quinlan [2022] NSWDC 761
Case: [2022] NSWDC 761
Decision Date: 24 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Quinlan, the appellant was charged with dangerous driving occasioning death. The incident resulted in the death of a pedestrian, and the accused was found to have driven in a manner dangerous to another person or persons. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central legal issues the court needed to address included the appropriate sentence to be imposed, the relevance of the appellant's good character and lack of previous convictions, his display of remorse, and the potential for rehabilitation. Additionally, the court considered the impact of COVID-19 on the appellant's capacity to access programs in custody, and the broader purposes of sentencing, including deterrence and the objective seriousness of the offence.

The court carefully examined the principles of instinctive synthesis in sentencing, weighing the various mitigating and aggravating factors. It acknowledged the appellant's good character, lack of prior criminal history, and expression of remorse. However, it also considered the gravity of the offence, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the availability of rehabilitative programs, and the overarching goals of sentencing. The court concluded that while the appellant's youth and mental health were relevant, they did not sufficiently outweigh the objective seriousness of the crime. The court determined that an intensive correction order was the most appropriate sentence, taking into account the need for general deterrence and the appellant's likelihood of rehabilitation.

Upon considering all the factors, the court sentenced the appellant to a term of imprisonment of two years, to be served by way of an intensive correction order in the community. This sentence reflects a balanced approach that acknowledges the appellant's mitigating circumstances while also addressing the imperatives of general deterrence and the broader purposes of sentencing. The court's decision was grounded in a comprehensive assessment of the appellant's character, the circumstances of the offence, and the practical realities of incarceration during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentence of imprisonment of 2 years to be served by way of intensive correction in the community

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 Quinlan [2022] NSWDC 761
Hearing dates:	24 May 2022
Date of orders:	24 May 2022
Decision date:	24 May 2022
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Sentence of imprisonment of 2 years to be served by way of intensive correction in the community
Catchwords:	CRIME — Driving offences — Dangerous driving occasioning death — “In a manner dangerous to another person or persons” CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Sentence after trial — facilitation of the administration of justice CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Back up and related offences — Early guilty plea of guilty to lesser charges SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Good character — No record of previous convictions — Remorse — Rehabilitation — Unlikely to reoffend SENTENCING — Penalties — Intensive correction orders SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Sentence after trial — Deterrence — General deterrence — Objective seriousness — Purposes of sentencing — Impact of COVID-19 on prisoners — Impact of COVID-19 on capacity to access programmes in custody SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Instinctive synthesis SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Mental illness — Youth of offender
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW) Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Elphick v R [2021] NSWCCA 167 LeggevR [2007] NSWCCA 244 Pearce v R [2022] NSWCCA 68 R v Errington (2005) 157 A Crim R 553 R v Herring (1956) 73 WN (NSW) 203 R v Musumeci (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 30 October 1997 unrep) R v Nemer [2003] SASC 375 R v Smith [2016] NSWCCA 75 R v Whyte (2002) 55 NSWLR 252 R v Windle [2012] NSWCCA 222 Regina v Manok [2017] NSWCCA 232 RyanvThe Queen [2001] HCA 21; (2001) 206 CLR 267 Weininger v The Queen [2003] HCA 14; (2003) 212 CLR 629
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Dimity Quinlan (the offender) Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Representation:	Counsel: E Anderson (for the offender) C Todd (for the Crown) Solicitors: RMB Lawyers (for the offender) Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
File Number(s):	2020/82121
Publication restriction:	Family consent to publication of child victim’s name