R v Richardson - [2016] ACTSC 133

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Richardson
Citation:	[2016] ACTSC 133
Hearing Date:	27 April 2016
DecisionDate:	27 April 2016
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Sentenced to three years and eight months’ imprisonment. Disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for six years.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – culpable driving causing death and grievous bodily harm – where driver intoxicated by alcohol – sentence of full-time imprisonment imposed
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 33, 35A
Cases Cited:	R v Wolter(No 3) [2015] ACTSC 321 R v Kekalainen [2014] ACTSC 132 R v Creighton (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Refshauge J, 28 October 2010)
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Jamie Richardson (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel Mr T Hickey (Crown) Mr J Pappas (Defendant)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Ben Aulich and Associates
File Number(s):	SCC 49 of 2015; SCC 50 of 2015

MURRELL CJ:

In the early hours of Saturday, 1 February 2014, a vehicle that was being driven by the offender veered off the road and collided with a tree, killing Mr Glenn Dunster, a passenger, and injuring two other passengers, Ms Dannielle Benning and Mr Gardner.

Following a trial, the jury returned verdicts of guilty to charges that on 1 February 2014, at Canberra, the offender caused the death of Mr Dunster and caused grievous bodily harm to Ms Benning by the culpable driving of a vehicle, i.e. while driving under the influence of alcohol to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle.

For the offence of culpable driving causing death, the maximum available penalty is 14 years' imprisonment. For the offence of culpable driving causing grievous bodily harm, the maximum available penalty is 10 years' imprisonment. The Court may impose a driving disqualification period. The maximum available penalties were significantly increased in 2011.

The Court acknowledges the profound losses suffered by Mr Dunster's parents, siblings, family and friends and by Ms Benning, both in her personal capacity and in her capacity as a close friend of Mr Dunster.

In this regard it is worth repeating the words of his Honour Refshauge J in R v Creighton (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Refshauge J, 28 October 2010) 10 (Creighton):

I appreciate that no sentence I can impose will resolve the tragedy that the [family] of [the deceased victim is] experiencing and the trauma suffered by [the surviving victim and her family]. The sentences I impose should not, in any way, be seen as reflecting on the value of the [life] of [the deceased victim]. It would be wrong to attempt any such equation for our law simply does not allow that to be made even were it possible. I have to judge [the offender] not merely according to the awfulness of the tragic results of his actions but in accordance with the law and…

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 Richardson

Details

AGLC: R v Richardson [2016] ACTSC 133
Case: [2016] ACTSC 133
Decision Date: 27 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Richardson came before the court, involving the appellant who was charged with causing death and grievous bodily harm by culpable driving while under the influence of alcohol. The appellant was found guilty by a jury and was sentenced to imprisonment by the trial judge. The appellant challenged the sentence on appeal, arguing it was excessive. The Crown, on the other hand, submitted that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether it was appropriate to substitute a different sentence. The key issues involved the assessment of the appellant's culpability, the impact of his actions on the victims, and the deterrent effect of the sentence. The court needed to balance the severity of the offence against the appellant’s background and mitigating factors.

In examining the sentence, the court considered the gravity of the appellant's offence, his level of intoxication, and his lack of remorse. The court noted that the appellant had caused significant harm and had previous convictions for similar offences. Despite the appellant's arguments regarding his personal circumstances, the court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The sentence reflected the seriousness of the crime and served to deter the appellant and others from engaging in such behaviour. The appeal was subsequently dismissed, and the original sentence of three years and eight months’ imprisonment was upheld, along with a six-year disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver's licence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to three years and eight months’ imprisonment. Disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for six years.

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.