R v Watkins - [2013] SASCFC 150

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Criminal Appeal)
R v WATKINS
[2013] SASCFC 150
Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal
(The Honourable Chief Justice Kourakis, The Honourable Justice Vanstone and The Honourable Justice Stanley)
20 December 2013
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE - SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - SENTENCING PROCEDURE - SENTENCING GUIDELINES
The appellant pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated causing death by dangerous driving, one count of aggravated causing serious harm by dangerous driving and four counts of aggravated causing harm by dangerous driving.
The appellant's offending occurred at around 2:00 am on 6 November 2011 at Woodville North. He was driving along Torrens Road towards the city. He had four passengers in his vehicle. He travelled at very high speeds. He was driving under the influence of alcohol and methylamphetamine. It is less clear whether he was affected by cannabis. His driving was reckless and resulted in a collision with an oncoming car. The collision caused the death of one of the passengers in the appellant's car, serious injury to two others and minor injuries to the remaining passenger in the the appellant's car and the occupants of the oncoming vehicle.
The Court fixed a single sentence pursuant to s 18A of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) ("the Sentencing Act"). The appellant was sentenced to a term of eight years imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years and five months.
Whether the sentence is manifestly excessive. Whether the judge erred in imposing a non-parole period of four-fifths of the head sentence.
Held per Stanley J (Kourakis CJ and Vanstone J agreeing) (dismissing the appeal):
1. The sentence imposed is not manifestly excessive (at [23] - [27]).
2. Given that the four-fifths rule applied to the charge of aggravated causing death by dangerous driving, s 32(5a)(c) of the Sentencing Act applied once the sentencing judge utilised s 18A (at [29] - [32]).
Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) s 10, s 18A, s 32; Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) s 45A, s 47BA; Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 340, referred to.
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; R v Dundovic (2008) 101 SASR 32; Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321, discussed.
R v Abdulla (2011) 109 SASR 258, considered.

R v WATKINS
[2013] SASCFC 150
Court of Criminal Appeal: Kourakis CJ, Vanstone and Stanley JJ

KOURAKIS CJ: I would dismiss the appeal for the reasons given by Stanley J.
VANSTONE J: I agree that this appeal should be dismissed and with the reasons of Stanley J.
STANLEY J:
Introduction
This is an appeal against sentence.
The appellant pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated causing death by dangerous driving, one count of aggravated causing serious harm by dangerous driving and four counts of aggravated causing harm by dangerous driving.
The Court fixed a single sentence pursuant…

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 Watkins

Details

AGLC: R v Watkins [2013] SASCFC 150
Case: [2013] SASCFC 150
Decision Date: 20 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned the sentencing of the respondent, R, by the Supreme Court of South Australia. The appellant, the Crown, sought to appeal against the sentence imposed.

The central legal issue before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia was whether the sentencing judge had erred in imposing a particular sentence and non-parole period, and whether there were proper grounds to interfere with those decisions.

The Court considered the sentencing guidelines and the principles applicable to sentencing in South Australia. After reviewing the submissions and the sentencing decision of the trial judge, the Court concluded that there were no proper grounds to interfere with the head sentence imposed. Consequently, the Court found no basis to interfere with the non-parole period.

The appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

Accordingly, given my view that there are no proper grounds to interfere with the head sentence, it follows that no basis exists to interfere with the non-parole period. Conclusion I would dismiss the appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.