Legal Research
Cases
R v Shannon

R v Shannon

Case [2003] NSWCCA 106 17 April 2003

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Regina v Shannon [2003] NSWCCA 106

HEARING DATE(S): 10/04/03

JUDGMENT DATE:
17 April 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Hidden J at 1; Bell J at 1; Buddin J at 1

DECISION: Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW: Sentence - Crown appeal - dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm (two counts) - driving offences on Form 1 - mature woman with significant health problems, physical and mental - driving while affected by prescription drugs - exceptional case.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act, 1900 - s 52A(3)(a)

CASES CITED: Attorney-General's Application under Section 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (No 1 of 2002) [2002] NSWCCA 518
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 at 623-4
Regina v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67 at 70-1
Regina v Harris (2001) 125 A Crim R 27
Regina v Whyte [2002] NSWCCA 343 at par 215

PARTIES :
Regina
Candy Patricia Shannon

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60014/03

COUNSEL: PJP Power SC - Crown
D Brezniak - Respondent

SOLICITORS: SE O'Connor - Crown
Ford Gaitanis Lawyers - Respondent

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/51/0143
01/51/0178

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Christie DCJ

60014/03
HIDDEN J
BELL J
BUDDIN J

Thursday, 17 April, 2003

Regina v Candy Patricia SHANNON

Judgment

1 THE COURT: This Crown appeal against inadequacy of sentence was heard on 10 April 2003. The Court dismissed the appeal on that day. These are our reasons for that decision.

2 The respondent, Candy Patricia Shannon, pleaded guilty before Christie DCJ to two counts of dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm, being under the influence of a drug: an offence under s 52A (3) (a) of the Crimes Act, carrying a maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment. She also asked his Honour to take into account on a Form 1, two summary charges: driving under the influence of a drug and driving whilst her licence was suspended. On the first count his Honour sentenced her to a fixed term of nine months imprisonment, to date from 12 December 2002. On the second count, taking into account the matters on the Form 1, he sentenced her to imprisonment for eighteen months, also to date from 12 December 2002, with a non parole period of nine months. The overall sentence, then, was eighteen months with a non-parole period of nine months.

Facts

3 The first offence of dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm occurred on 17 November 2000. The respondent was driving from her home at Woolgoolga, when her car veered across double unbroken lines and collided with an oncoming car. Both cars were extensively damaged and she and the other driver were trapped in their cars for a period of time. The driver of the other car suffered severe multiple fractures to his left leg, severe bruising and lacerations and nerve damage to the right side of his face. A blood sample taken from the respondent revealed a level of morphine sufficient to have impaired her driving ability. It also detected 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 Shannon

Details

AGLC: R v Shannon [2003] NSWCCA 106
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 106
Decision Date: 17 April 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Shannon, the appellant, a mature woman with significant health problems, physical and mental, was convicted of two counts of dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm. The convictions arose from an incident in which the appellant, while driving and affected by prescription drugs, collided with a vehicle and caused serious injuries to the occupants. The Crown appealed the sentence, arguing it was too lenient. The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly inadequate.

The central issue before the court was whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate, taking into account the appellant's exceptional circumstances, including her age, health issues, and the fact that she was driving while affected by prescription drugs. The court considered the principles of sentencing in dangerous driving cases and the need to balance the need for deterrence and denunciation with the circumstances of the offender. The court also examined the impact of the appellant's health problems on her capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of her actions.

The court concluded that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and replaced it with a custodial sentence of imprisonment for a term of three years, with a non-parole period of one year and nine months. The court found that the appellant's health problems and the fact that she was driving while affected by prescription drugs did not absolve her of responsibility for her actions, but they did warrant a degree of leniency. The court also emphasised the need for appropriate deterrence and denunciation in cases of dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm.

Orders