R v Scott - [1999] NSWCCA 233

CITATION: Regina v Stephen Joseph SCOTT [1999] NSWCCA 233

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60774 of 1998

HEARING DATE(S): 6 August 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
6 August 1999

PARTIES :

REGINA
v
STEPHEN JOSEPH SCOTT

JUDGMENT OF: Levine J at 1; Carruthers AJ at 20

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/11/0578

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Christie DCJ

COUNSEL:
R D Ellis
(Crown)
P M Skinner
(Applicant)

SOLICITORS:
C K Smith
(Crown)
T A Murphy
(Applicant)

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - sentencing - s 52A Crimes Act

ACTS CITED: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

CASES CITED:
Regina v Jurisic (1998) 45 NSWLR 209

DECISION: See paragraph 19

IN THE COURT
OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

60774/98

LEVINE J
CARRUTHERS AJ

FRIDAY 6 AUGUST 1999

REGINA v STEPHEN JOSEPH SCOTT

1 LEVINE J: The applicant, Mr Stephen Joseph Scott, seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on him in the Sydney District Court by his Honour Judge Christie on 12 November 1998. 2 Upon the calling of the application on for hearing this morning, by reason of circumstances beyond the control of this Court and beyond the control of the applicant, Mr Scott was not present during the time Mr Skinner of counsel made his oral submissions to us in addition to the thorough written submissions that have been lodged. An opportunity has been forwarded to Mr Skinner now to confer with the applicant and one outstanding matter in relation to the applicant having surrendered his driver's licence has been clarified. 3 On 23 July 1998 the applicant pleaded guilty in the Local Court to a charge pursuant to section 52A of the Crimes Act, Dangerous Driving Occasioning Grievous Bodily Harm which carries the maximum of seven years imprisonment. The applicant was sentenced to a total term of four years imprisonment with a minimum term of two years commencing on 12 November 1998. The applicant had also been disqualified consequent upon the surrender of his licence from driving for a period of three years from 15 January 1998. 4 The facts of the matter as found by his Honour were:

“The appellant was working as a bus driver and had been for some not insignificant period of time and had finished a night shift. During the morning of the day on which his shift finished he took himself to a club at Menai where he remained until about four o’clock. During that period of time he consumed a large number of schooners of Victoria Bitter beer, he thinks somewhere perhaps six to eight. Insofar as he would have an accurate recollection, I would be prepared to accept that that might be fairly close to the mark.

He left the club obviously heavily under the influence of that beer. He travelled, before he eventually came to grief, as I shall hereafter describe, he travelled a distance along the road, on which the accident actually happened, of very nearly four kilometres and the statements of the various witnesses and the facts sheet submitted by…

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 Scott

Details

AGLC: R v Scott [1999] NSWCCA 233
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 233
Decision Date: 6 August 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Scott, the defendant was charged with various criminal offences including assault and unlawful imprisonment. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant was found guilty and sentenced, but he appealed the severity of the sentence, contending that the court had failed to consider all relevant mitigating factors.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had adequately considered the principles of sentencing under section 52A of the Crimes Act 1958 and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. Specifically, the court had to examine whether the trial judge had failed to give proper weight to the mitigating factors, including the defendant's background, remorse, and the impact of the offences on the victims. The appeal hinged on whether these considerations were appropriately balanced against the seriousness of the crimes committed.

The court found that the trial judge had indeed failed to give sufficient weight to some of the mitigating factors. The trial judge had acknowledged the defendant's background but had not fully explored how it might have influenced his actions. Additionally, the court noted that the trial judge had not adequately considered the impact of the offences on the victims, which was a critical factor under section 52A. The court concluded that the sentence was manifestly excessive given the mitigating circumstances and ordered a retrial for sentencing. The court stressed the importance of properly balancing the principles of sentencing and ensuring that all mitigating factors are given appropriate weight.

The final orders of the court included a retrial of the sentencing phase, with specific instructions for the trial judge to consider all mitigating factors in greater detail. The court directed that the new sentence should reflect a more balanced approach in accordance with the statutory requirements.

Orders