Legal Research
Cases
R v Skrill

R v Skrill

Case [2002] NSWCCA 484 20 November 2002

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Regina v Skrill [2002] NSWCCA 484

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60432/02

HEARING DATE(S): 20 November 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
20 November 2002

PARTIES :

Regina v Ryan Michael Skrill

JUDGMENT OF: Heydon JA at 1 & 83; Hulme J at 5; Carruthers AJ at 9

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 02/11/0212

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : His Honour Judge Shillington QC

COUNSEL : Crown - P. G. Ingram
Respondent - P.R. Boulten

SOLICITORS: Crown - S.E. O'Connor
Respondent - D.J. Humphreys

CATCHWORDS: Sentencing - Crown appeal - one count of dangerous driving causing death - one count of aggravated dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm - whether sentencing judge erred in imposing concurrent sentences - whether sentences manifestly inadequate.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900, s 52A(2), s 52A(4)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 44(2)

CASES CITED:
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v AEM; KEM; MM [2002] NSWCCA 58
R v Comber (Unreported, CCA 11/11/98)
R v Dunlop [2001] NSWCCA 435
R v Gleeson [2000] NSWCCA 101
R v Hanlon [2000] NSWCCA 55
R v Hammoud (2000) 118 A Crim R 66
R v Jurisic (1998) 45 NSWLR 209
R v Kalanj (1997) 98 A Crim R 505
R v McKinney (1999) NSWCCA 51
R v Musumeci (Unreported, CCA 30/10/97)
R v Sen [1999] NSWCCA 199
R v Whyte [2002] NSWCCA 343

DECISION: By majority, appeal allowed. Sentences imposed by Shillington DCJ quashed and in lieu thereof the following sentences are imposed: On the second count, sentence of three years to date from 12/7/02 and to expire on 11/7/05. On the first count a head sentence of six years to commence on 12/1/03 and to expire on 11/1/09. In relation to the first count a non-parole period of two and a half years fixed to date from 12/1/03 and to expire on 11/7/05. No non-parole period fixed in relation to the second count. Disqualification from holding a driver's licence for three years to date from 10/3/01 confirmed.

60423/02

HEYDON JA
HULME J
CARRUTHERS AJ
Wednesday, 20 November 2002

regina v Ryan Michael skrill

Judgment

1 HEYDON JA: This Crown appeal should be dismissed.

2 It would be an undue waste of time to give detailed reasons for that conclusion since this judgment is a dissenting judgment. It is sufficient to note that the arguments advanced with his usual skill by Mr P Boulten for the respondent for dismissing the appeal were powerful and in my opinion correct.

3 At the heart of these arguments lay the general findings of the immensely experienced sentencing judge recorded on pages 3 and 4 of his brief but clear and direct remarks on sentence. Those findings were amply supported by detailed evidence and by impressions which the judge formed of the respondent in the witness box. In short, the judge found that the crimes which the respondent has committed have had a deeply damaging effect on him and that effect is likely to last for…

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 Skrill

Details

AGLC: R v Skrill [2002] NSWCCA 484
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 484
Decision Date: 20 November 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Skrill, the respondent was convicted of one count of dangerous driving causing death and one count of aggravated dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm. The Crown appealed against the sentences imposed by the sentencing judge, contending that the sentences were manifestly inadequate and that the judge erred in imposing concurrent sentences. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal in Australia.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the sentencing judge erred in imposing concurrent sentences for the two offences and whether the sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate. The Crown argued that the sentences should have been consecutive to reflect the gravity of the respondent's actions and the severity of the harm caused.

The Court of Appeal held that the sentencing judge did not err in imposing concurrent sentences as the offences were part of a single course of conduct and the judge had adequately considered the principles of totality in sentencing. However, the Court found that the sentences were manifestly inadequate given the severity of the harm caused and the need for general deterrence. The Court allowed the appeal, quashed the sentences imposed, and remitted the matter to the sentencing judge for re-sentencing.

In its judgment, the Court emphasised the need for sentences to reflect the gravity of the offences and the harm caused, as well as the importance of general deterrence. The Court did not specify the exact sentences to be imposed but indicated that the re-sentencing should adequately address the concerns raised by the Crown.

Orders