R v Stanton - [2020] NSWDC 454

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Stanton [2020] NSWDC 454
Hearing dates: 30 June 2020
Decision date: 30 June 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Colefax SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years and 6 months with a non parole period of 3 years.

Catchwords:
CRIME - SENTENCE - dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm whilst under the influence of a prohibited drug.

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW): s52A(3)(a).

Cases Cited:
R v Whyte [2002] NSWCCA 343

Category: Sentence
Parties:
Regina (Crown)
Shane Robert Stanton (The Offender)
Representation:
Mr Ranadive (ODPP Campbelltown)
Mr Koh (Counsel for the offender)

File Number(s): 2018/00336441
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

Shane Stanton you appear for sentence today in relation to two offences.
Each of those offences is dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm whilst under the influence of a prohibited drug, namely methtylamphetamine.
Each of those offences involves a contravention of s 52A(3)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The maximum penalty for each offence is 7 years imprisonment. There is no standard non-parole period, although there is a relevant guideline judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal, R v Whyte [2002] NSWCCA 343.
In addition to the term of imprisonment, there is a minimum period of disqualification of 12 months and an automatic period of 3 years.
The facts surrounding your offending were, in part, contained in a statement of agreed facts - supplemented or qualified by the evidence of a Crown expert, together with your own oral evidence today.
As at May 2018 you were 35 years of age. You were living in south-west Sydney and you were working as a cabinetmaker.
One of your work colleagues was Mr Mitchell Clarke and it was your habit, on your way to work, to pick up Mr Clarke from his home in Campbelltown. The two of you would then drive in your vehicle to your place of employment at Picton. You started work each day relatively early.
On 8 May 2018 you picked up Mr Clarke at about 5.45am. After you picked him up, you drove to your place of employment initially along the Hume Highway and then along Picton Road. After you and Mr Clarke set off for Picton, he fell asleep while you were driving. But at one point he awoke to find that you had veered into the emergency lane on the left hand side. He asked you if you were okay and you responded that you were and he went back to sleep.
As you were travelling along Picton Road at about 6:30am, Ms Cox was travelling in the opposite direction with her sister and a friend.
As your vehicle approached theirs, you veered onto the wrong side of the road. You crossed over double white dividing lines and your vehicle collided with the rear driver’s side of the vehicle being driven by Ms Cox. The collision caused her vehicle to spin around to face the opposite direction and finally to come to rest…

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 Stanton

Details

AGLC: R v Stanton [2020] NSWDC 454
Case: [2020] NSWDC 454
Decision Date: 30 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Stanton, the defendant was convicted of dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm while under the influence of a prohibited drug. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The prosecution brought the case against the defendant, Stanton, who was charged with driving dangerously and causing serious injury to another person while under the influence of a prohibited drug. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for Stanton, considering the severity of his actions and the potential for rehabilitation.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine an appropriate sentence for Stanton, considering the gravity of the offence and the need to balance punitive and rehabilitative aspects of the criminal justice system. The court also had to consider the impact of Stanton's drug use on his capacity to exercise control over his actions and the risk he posed to the community if not appropriately detained. The court needed to weigh these factors against the possibility of Stanton's rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

The court found that the offence was of high culpability, as Stanton had driven dangerously while under the influence of a prohibited drug, resulting in grievous bodily harm to another person. The court considered the severity of the harm caused, Stanton's lack of remorse, and the risk he posed to the community if not detained. The court determined that an aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years and 6 months was appropriate, with a non-parole period of 3 years. The court also ordered Stanton to undergo a drug and alcohol assessment and treatment program while in custody.

The court made an order for Stanton to serve an aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years and 6 months, with a non-parole period of 3 years. The court also ordered Stanton to undergo a drug and alcohol assessment and treatment program while in custody.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years and 6 months with a non parole period of 3 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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Stanton [2020] NSWDC 454
Hearing dates:	30 June 2020
Decision date:	30 June 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Colefax SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years and 6 months with a non parole period of 3 years.
Catchwords:	CRIME - SENTENCE - dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm whilst under the influence of a prohibited drug.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW): s52A(3)(a).
Cases Cited:	R v Whyte [2002] NSWCCA 343
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Shane Robert Stanton (The Offender)
Representation:	Mr Ranadive (ODPP Campbelltown) Mr Koh (Counsel for the offender)
File Number(s):	2018/00336441
Publication restriction:	Nil