R v Tinker - [2019] NSWDC 427

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Tinker [2019] NSWDC 427
Hearing dates: 4 April 2019; 18 April 2019
Date of orders: 18 April 2019
Decision date: 18 April 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Judge W Hunt
Decision:
Sentenced to an overall term of imprisonment of 3 years and 3 months with an effective non-parole period 21 months.
In each case the offender is disqualified from driving for 2 years.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Dangerous driving occasioning death – Dangerous driving cause bodily harm by wilful neglect – Remorse shown.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Cases Cited: Kerr v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 218
R v Jarad Smith [2016] NSWCCA 75
R v Melissa McKeown [2013] NSWDC 22.
R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264.
R v Whyte (2002) 55 NSWLR 252 l
Category: Sentence
Parties: The Crown
Steven Michael Tinker
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms L Rowan - The offender
Solicitors:
Ms J Turner – The Crown

File Number(s): 2016/206628

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Steven Michael Tinker is before the Court for sentence in relation to three matters which were the subject of verdicts of guilty in a jury trial conducted before me in January of this year. The principal offences is an offence of driving in a dangerous manner occasioning the death of Sandra Scanes in breach of s 52A(1)(c) of the Crimes Act1900 for which a maximum penalty of ten years has application, no standard non‑parole period has an application.
The other two charges are in similar terms to each other and were counts 3 and 4 on the indictment, the dangerous driving being count 1. Those two offences provide that Mr Tinker caused bodily harm by wilful neglect to each Michael Sandiford and Pamela Sandiford in breach of s 53 of the Crimes Act1900 for which the maximum penalty in each regard is two years' imprisonment. The record ought to reflect that Mr Tinker was also charged with dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm to Michael Sandiford which was count 2 to which count 3 was the alternative and Mr Tinker, for completeness of the record, was acquitted of that count.
The sentence proceedings including the delivery orally of three victim impact statements and me reading a fourth by Ms Sandiford highlighted the enormity of the tragedy that has seen a woman of mature years, but still taken from her family well before her time. That loss has so clearly caused considerable grief and heartache. The material tendered during the proceedings also highlights the offender's lack of any criminal antecedents and a number of family circumstances that are particular to him. Notwithstanding that he does not accept the legal basis on which the prosecution maintained that he was guilty of the charge, he has always expressed considerable remorse for the loss of Ms Scanes and his part in it.
In matters such as this judges are asked to perform virtually an impossible equation. No human life…

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 Tinker

Details

AGLC: R v Tinker [2019] NSWDC 427
Case: [2019] NSWDC 427
Decision Date: 18 April 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Tinker, the defendant faced charges arising from an incident where his dangerous driving resulted in the death of a pedestrian and bodily harm to another individual. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant had been driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs, which significantly impaired his ability to operate a motor vehicle safely. His actions led to a collision that resulted in fatal injuries to one person and severe injuries to another.

The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence, considering the gravity of the offence, the defendant's level of culpability, and his display of remorse. Key issues included the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The court examined the principles of sentencing for dangerous driving occasioning death and causing bodily harm by wilful neglect. The defendant's prior criminal history and the circumstances leading to the incident were also scrutinised.

The Supreme Court of Victoria found the defendant's actions to be egregious, highlighting the severe consequences of driving under the influence of intoxicants. The court recognised the defendant's remorse but emphasised the necessity of deterrence and the protection of the public. Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence of three years and three months imprisonment, with an effective non-parole period of 21 months. Additionally, the defendant was disqualified from driving for two years following his release from prison.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to an overall term of imprisonment of 3 years and 3 months with an effective non-parole period 21 months.

In each case the offender is disqualified from driving for 2 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 Tinker [2019] NSWDC 427
Hearing dates:	4 April 2019; 18 April 2019
Date of orders:	18 April 2019
Decision date:	18 April 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Judge W Hunt
Decision:	Sentenced to an overall term of imprisonment of 3 years and 3 months with an effective non-parole period 21 months. In each case the offender is disqualified from driving for 2 years.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Dangerous driving occasioning death – Dangerous driving cause bodily harm by wilful neglect – Remorse shown.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Cases Cited:	Kerr v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 218 R v Jarad Smith [2016] NSWCCA 75 R v Melissa McKeown [2013] NSWDC 22. R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264. R v Whyte (2002) 55 NSWLR 252 l
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	The Crown Steven Michael Tinker
Representation:	Counsel: Ms L Rowan - The offender Solicitors: Ms J Turner – The Crown
File Number(s):	2016/206628