Legal Research
Cases
R v Sharp

R v Sharp

Case [2020] NSWDC 345 3 July 2020

Sentencing

Dangerous Driving

Victim Impact Statement

Mental Health Issues

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Sharp [2020] NSWDC 345
Hearing dates: 25 February 2020, 26 February 2020
Date of orders: 3 July 2020
Decision date: 03 July 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Judge Weinstein SC
Decision:
Full-time custodial order to be served by way of aggregate sentence for 4 years. For orders see [103].

Catchwords:
SENTENCING - dangerous driving causing death– dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm - victim impact statement – dispute over facts –driving whilst impaired on alprazolam –exceptional circumstances – mercy - offender’s child has profound cerebral palsy - mental health issues - application of sentencing principles – significant deviation from the statutory ratio

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:
DPP v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120
R v Byrne (1998) 104 A Crim R 456
R v Carruthers (2008) 182 A Crim R 481
R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510
R v Errington (2005) 157 A Crim R 553
R v Errington [1999] NSWCCA 18
R v Fangaloka [2019] NSWCCA 173
R v Grbin [2004] NSWCCA 220
R v Hopkins [2004] NSWCCA 105
R v Manok [2017] NSWCCA 232
R v Maslen (1995) 79 A Crim R 199
R v McKeown [2013] NSWDC 22
R v Musumeci (unreported 30 October 1997 NSWCCA)
R v Sadebath (1992) 16 MVR 138
R v Smith [2016] NSW CCA 75
R v Whyte (2002) 55 NSWLR 252
R v X [2004] NSWCCA 93

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Christopher Sharp (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
Mr C Todd (Crown)
Mr C Steirn SC (Offender)
Solicitors:
The Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Crowther Sim Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s): 2018/13049

Judgment

The offender Christopher William Sharp, born in 1978, is before the court for sentence for one count of dangerous driving occasioning death contrary to section 52A(1)(c) of the Crimes Act 1900, for which the maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment and two counts of dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm contrary to s 52A(3)(c) of the Crimes Act 1900, for which the maximum penalty is seven years imprisonment. There are no standard non-parole periods for those offences.

Evidence

Before me are 5 exhibits. Exhibit 1 is a bundle of documents prepared by the Crown which includes:

Committal documents;

A Statement of Facts, which are now agreed;

The offender’s criminal history;

The offender’s traffic antecedents;

A victim impact statement of Hamidreze Mobarrez;

A plan of the collision scene;

Five photos of the area of the collision which depict the direction travelled by the offender’s vehicle;

Two photos of the area of the collision which depict the direction travelled by Mr Mobarrez’s vehicle;

An analyst certificate setting out the substances found in the offender’s blood and urine;

An expert certificate and report of Dr Judith Perl, pharmacologist, dated 22 April 2018;

An expert certificate and report of Detective Senior Constable Stuart Davenport dated 22…

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 Sharp

Details

AGLC: R v Sharp [2020] NSWDC 345
Case: [2020] NSWDC 345
Decision Date: 03 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Sharp was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The respondent, Sharp, was convicted of dangerous driving causing death and dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm. The incident occurred when Sharp, under the influence of alprazolam, drove into oncoming traffic, resulting in a fatal collision. The deceased's family presented a victim impact statement, highlighting the profound impact of the loss. Sharp's legal team argued for a non-custodial sentence due to exceptional circumstances, including the respondent's mental health issues and the fact that his child has profound cerebral palsy. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence, considering the statutory maximum penalties, the principles of sentencing, and the unique circumstances of the case.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the statutory maximum penalties should apply and whether there were exceptional circumstances warranting a deviation from these penalties. The court considered the statutory ratio of a maximum penalty of 15 years imprisonment for the offences committed by Sharp. The court also had to assess the impact of the victim impact statement, the respondent's impaired state at the time of the offence, and the exceptional personal circumstances of the respondent, including his child's profound cerebral palsy and his own mental health issues. The court had to balance these factors against the need to deter dangerous driving and to provide just punishment and rehabilitation for the offender.

In delivering the judgment, the court recognised the severity of Sharp's actions but also acknowledged the exceptional personal circumstances of the respondent. The court found that while the statutory ratio applied, the unique personal circumstances warranted a significant deviation. The court considered the impact on Sharp's child, his mental health issues, and the fact that he had no prior convictions. The court determined that a full-time custodial sentence was necessary but could be appropriately reduced to account for the exceptional circumstances. The court imposed an aggregate sentence of four years, to be served as a full-time custodial order. The court emphasised the importance of deterrence and the need for rehabilitation, while also recognising the significant personal hardship faced by the respondent and his family.

The final orders of the court included a full-time custodial sentence for Sharp, to be served for a period of four years. The court also made orders for the sentence to be served as an aggregate sentence. Further details of the orders are provided in [103]. The court's decision balanced the need for justice and deterrence with consideration of the exceptional personal circumstances of the respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full-time custodial order to be served by way of aggregate sentence for 4 years. For orders see [103].

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.

Actions

Citations

R v Sharp [2020] NSWDC 345

Cases Citing This Decision

No citing cases yet.

Cases Cited

R v Fangaloka [2019] NSWCCA 173
Citation 1 (Para 98)

…In R v Fangaloka [2019] NSWCCA 173, the court discussed the effect of the competing purposes of sentencing on the consideration of whether a sentence of imprisonment should be served in custody or by way of an ICO. It was observed, at [67] that:-…
R v Manok [2017] NSWCCA 232
Citation 2 (Para 68)

…In R v Manok [2017] NSWCCA 232 at [78]–[79], Wilson J reiterated the importance of general deterrence, explaining that this was “because of the prevalence of the activity of driving, and the terrible consequences that can flow from a failure by a driver in the management of a motor vehicle”. The risk that any driver…
R v Jarad Smith [2016] NSWCCA 75
Citation 3 (Para 91)

…To paraphrase Hulme J in R v Smith [2016] NSWCCA 75 at [18] and [19], sentencing in a case of this type is amongst the most difficult judicial tasks. As Haesler SC DCJ said in R v McKeown [2013] NSWDC 22:-…
R v McKeown [2013] NSWDC 22
Citation 4 (Para 91)

…16] NSWCCA 75 at [18] and [19], sentencing in a case of this type is amongst the most difficult judicial tasks. As Haesler SC DCJ said in R v McKeown [2013] NSWDC 22:-…
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39
Citation 5 (Para 93)

…As the High Court said of s3A in Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 at [20]:…
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
Citation 6 (Para 72)

…In my opinion, the factors set out in DPP v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194, are to some extent present here. In particular I find that the state of the offender’s mental health (and his abuse of alprazolam) likely contributed to, and is linked to the commission of the offences. The offender gave evidence that he could…
R v Carruthers [2008] NSWCCA 59
Citation 7 (Para 70)

…In R v Carruthers (2008) 182 A Crim R 481 at [29]–[31]. McClellan CJ at CL emphasised the fact that holding a driver’s licence is a privilege, and that the use of alcohol (or in the present case pharmaceuticals) significantly increases the risk to other drivers on the road.…
R v Whyte [2006] NSWCCA 75
Citation 8 (Para 59)

…In R v Whyte (2002) 55 NSWLR 252, the court recognised the discretion given to a judge at first instance but set out a typical case and suggested a guideline penalty. In that case at [214], Spiegelman CJ observed that “a custodial sentence will usually be appropriate unless the offender has a low level of moral culpab…
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25
Citation 9 (Para 94)

…vant to the sentencing discretion and then to make a value judgment as to the appropriate sentence in all the circumstances ( Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25).…
R v Grbin [2004] NSWCCA 220
Citation 10 (Para 80)

…e hardship goes beyond the sort of hardship that inevitably results when the breadwinner is imprisoned: R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510; R v Grbin [2004] NSWCCA 220; R v X [2004] NSWCCA 93.…
R v Hopkins [2004] NSWCCA 105
Citation 11 (Para 84)

…e of the sentence I will impose upon the offender. I observe that in this case, the sentencing considerations, to paraphrase the court in R v Hopkins [2004] NSWCCA 105, appear incompatible with one another. It is not necessarily the case that the end result must constitute an averaging of them.…
R v X [2004] NSWCCA 93
Citation 12 (Para 80)

…e sort of hardship that inevitably results when the breadwinner is imprisoned: R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510; R v Grbin [2004] NSWCCA 220; R v X [2004] NSWCCA 93.…
R v Whyte [2002] NSWCCA 343
Citation 13 (Para 59)

…In R v Whyte (2002) 55 NSWLR 252, the court recognised the discretion given to a judge at first instance but set out a typical case and suggested a guideline penalty. In that case at [214], Spiegelman CJ observed that “a custodial sentence will usually be appropriate unless the offender has a low level of moral cul…
R v Errington [1999] NSWCCA 18
Citation 14 (Para 81)

…term is not normally considered an exceptional circumstance: R v Byrne (1998) 104 A Crim R 456 at 464; R v Sadebath (1992) 16 MVR 138; R v Errington [1999] NSWCCA 18 at [29]–[30].…

Legislation Cited

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 11)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
1 mention (from Para 1)

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Sharp [2020] NSWDC 345
Hearing dates:	25 February 2020, 26 February 2020
Date of orders:	3 July 2020
Decision date:	03 July 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Judge Weinstein SC
Decision:	Full-time custodial order to be served by way of aggregate sentence for 4 years. For orders see [103].
Catchwords:	SENTENCING - dangerous driving causing death– dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm - victim impact statement – dispute over facts –driving whilst impaired on alprazolam –exceptional circumstances – mercy - offender’s child has profound cerebral palsy - mental health issues - application of sentencing principles – significant deviation from the statutory ratio
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	DPP v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 R v Byrne (1998) 104 A Crim R 456 R v Carruthers (2008) 182 A Crim R 481 R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510 R v Errington (2005) 157 A Crim R 553 R v Errington [1999] NSWCCA 18 R v Fangaloka [2019] NSWCCA 173 R v Grbin [2004] NSWCCA 220 R v Hopkins [2004] NSWCCA 105 R v Manok [2017] NSWCCA 232 R v Maslen (1995) 79 A Crim R 199 R v McKeown [2013] NSWDC 22 R v Musumeci (unreported 30 October 1997 NSWCCA) R v Sadebath (1992) 16 MVR 138 R v Smith [2016] NSW CCA 75 R v Whyte (2002) 55 NSWLR 252 R v X [2004] NSWCCA 93
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Christopher Sharp (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr C Todd (Crown) Mr C Steirn SC (Offender) Solicitors: The Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Crowther Sim Lawyers (Offender)
File Number(s):	2018/13049