R v Reynolds R v Small - [2010] NSWSC 691

CITATION: R v Reynolds R v Small [2010] NSWSC 691
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 15/2/10 - 6/4/10 inclusive, 4/6/10, 7/6/10,

JUDGMENT DATE :
25 June 2010

JURISDICTION: Common Law

JUDGMENT OF: Michael Grove J

DECISION: Offenders sentenced.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - Collision between vessels on harbour - Six deaths occasioned - Manslaughter - Dangerous navigation causing death - Sentence

CATEGORY: Sentence

PARTIES: REGINA - Crown
Matthew REYNOLDS - Offender
Percy SMALL - Offender

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2009/11028; 2009/11021

COUNSEL: M Hobart SC - Crown
G Turnbull SC with L Fernandez - Reynolds
W Terracini SC with G Newton - Small

SOLICITORS: Solicitor for Public Prosecutions - Crown
Lee Hourigan & Brooks - Reynolds
Greg Walsh & Co - Small

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

MICHAEL GROVE J

Friday 25 June 2010

2009/11028 REGINA v Matthew REYNOLDS
2009/11021 REGINA v Percy SMALL

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: Each of Matthew Reynolds and Percy Small stands for sentence following trial and findings of guilt by a jury.

2 Matthew Reynolds is convicted of six counts of manslaughter.

3 Percy Small is convicted of six counts of dangerous navigation causing death.

4 They were jointly tried but must be considered individually in relation to sentence.

5 Although different factors giving rise to culpability apply to each, the offences stem from the same events which led to the deaths of the same six persons.

6 I turn first to some matters which are applicable in common to them both.

7 On the night of 30 April 2008 various people attended the Commercial Hotel in Balmain which was scheduled to be handed over to new owners on the following day. Staff had been made aware that their employment would not be continued. Although people participated to different extents, I am satisfied that a type of celebratory atmosphere generally prevailed.

8 A manager of the hotel, Gene Robson needed to deliver the keys to people at Watsons Bay in connection with the handover. As he had been drinking alcoholic liquor, he assessed that he should not drive a vehicle to Watsons Bay and he requested Matthew Reynolds to transport him there by water. Matthew Reynolds agreed to do this.

9 He was understood to be able to do this because he had been residing with his uncle in somewhat spartan accommodation on Goat Island provided by Sydney Ship Repairs, for which company or for an executive of which, they were carrying out some work. One of the boats available for transit between the island and the mainland was a work boat which was licensed to carry eight people. Matthew Reynolds had access to the work boat for the purposes of that transit or for other requirements related to the employment. It was not made available to him for his own purposes otherwise than in connection with that employment.

10 At…

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 Reynolds R v Small 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: [2010] NSWSC 691
Decision Date: 25 June 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Reynolds and R v Small involved two defendants charged with manslaughter in relation to a fatal collision between two vessels in Sydney Harbour, which resulted in six fatalities. The collision occurred when the defendants, the skippers of two pleasure boats, negligently navigated their vessels in close proximity to each other, causing a catastrophic crash. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where both defendants faced charges of manslaughter and dangerous navigation causing death.

The court was required to address several legal issues, including whether the defendants' actions constituted dangerous navigation, and whether their negligence amounted to criminal liability for manslaughter. The defence argued that the collision was an accident and that both defendants were experienced mariners who had acted reasonably in the circumstances. The prosecution contended that the defendants had breached their duty of care, leading to a tragic loss of life.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the defendants' navigation was indeed dangerous, as they had failed to maintain a proper lookout and had not taken adequate measures to avoid a collision. The court held that their negligence was a significant contributing factor to the deaths of the six individuals on board the vessels. The court further found that the defendants' actions amounted to manslaughter, as they demonstrated a reckless disregard for the safety of others. Consequently, both defendants were found guilty of the charges against them. The court imposed sentences that reflected the gravity of the offences, considering the tragic consequences of the collision.

The final orders included the conviction of both defendants on charges of manslaughter and dangerous navigation causing death, along with the imposition of appropriate sentences. The court also noted the importance of heightened maritime safety and the need for stringent adherence to navigation regulations to prevent future tragedies.

Orders