R -v- WHITE [2000] WASCA 118

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASCA 118
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:241/1999	Heard:	4 FEBRUARY 2000
Coram:	PIDGEON J WALLWORK J MURRAY J	Delivered:	5/05/00
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed
PDF Version

Parties:	THE QUEEN GREGORY MALCOLM WHITE
Catchwords:	Criminal law & procedure Sentencing Crown Appeal Manslaughter by motor vehicle High blood alcohol content of driver Vehicle driven at speed and erratically Sentence increased from 2 to 4 years
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	A M Smith v The Queen [1976] WAR 97 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 73 ALJR 1007 R v Grein [1989] WAR 178 R v Stebbings (1990) 4 WAR 538 R v S (No 2) (A Child) (1992) 7 WAR 434 McKenna v The Queen (1992) 7 WAR 455 R v Punch (1993) 67 A Crim R 46 R v Jurisic (1998) 101 A Crim R 259 R v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386 R v De Havilland (1983) Crim LR 489

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : R -v- WHITE [2000] WASCA 118 CORAM : PIDGEON J

WALLWORK J

MURRAY J

HEARD : 4 FEBRUARY 2000 DELIVERED : 5 MAY 2000 FILE NO/S : CCA 241 of 1999 BETWEEN : THE QUEEN

Appellant

AND

GREGORY MALCOLM WHITE

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law & procedure - Sentencing - Crown Appeal - Manslaughter by motor vehicle - High blood alcohol content of driver - Vehicle driven at speed and erratically - Sentence increased from 2 to 4 years

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal allowed

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr R E Cock QC

Respondent : Mr B D Meertens

Solicitors:

Appellant : State Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent : Halperin Flemming Meertens

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

A M Smith v The Queen [1976] WAR 97
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 73 ALJR 1007
R v Grein [1989] WAR 178

Case(s) also cited:

R v Stebbings (1990) 4 WAR 538
R v S (No 2) (A Child) (1992) 7 WAR 434
McKenna v The Queen (1992) 7 WAR 455
R v Punch (1993) 67 A Crim R 46
R v Jurisic (1998) 101 A Crim R 259
R v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386
R v De Havilland (1983) Crim LR 489

(Page 3)

1 PIDGEON J: The Crown are appealing in respect of a sentence of 2 years imprisonment imposed on the respondent following his being found guilty by the jury of a charge of manslaughter. The facts found by the sentencing Judge, who presided at the trial, were stated very concisely by him in his sentencing remarks. They are: (AB23)

"The facts are that on 2 August 1997 in Barnsley Street, Queens Park on an afternoon of what would otherwise be a quiet suburban street you were driving a motor vehicle in which the deceased and one other was a passenger. Witnesses heard the…

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 White

Details

AGLC: R v White [2000] WASCA 118
Case: [2000] WASCA 118
Decision Date: 5 MAY 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the defendant, White, was convicted of manslaughter by motor vehicle following a high-speed and erratic driving incident that resulted in the death of a pedestrian. The matter proceeded to the Court of Appeal where the Crown sought an increase in the sentence imposed on White. The Crown argued that the original sentence of two years was manifestly inadequate given the severity of the offence and the dangerous driving behaviour exhibited by White, who had a high blood alcohol content at the time of the incident.

The court was tasked with determining whether the original sentence was manifestly inadequate and whether it should be increased. The appeal hinged on the gravity of the offence, the level of culpability of the offender, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court considered various factors, including the circumstances of the offence, the impact on the victim and their family, and the need to uphold public confidence in the criminal justice system.

The court found that the original sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence or the culpability of the offender. It emphasised the importance of sentencing in cases involving high-speed and erratic driving under the influence of alcohol, given the significant risk to public safety. The court concluded that a sentence of four years was necessary to achieve the purposes of punishment, including deterrence, denunciation, and retribution. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the sentence was increased to four years.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

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.