Regina v Bicheno - [1999] NSWCCA 148

CITATION: Regina v Bicheno [1999] NSWCCA 148

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60501/98

HEARING DATE(S): 9 June 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
9 June 1999

PARTIES :

Regina v Ronald James Bicheno

JUDGMENT OF: Grove J at 1; Carruthers AJ at 15

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/21/1121

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Mitchelmore DCJ

COUNSEL: P. G. Berman (Crown)
P. M. Skinner (Applicant)

SOLICITORS: C. K. Smith ( Crown)
Andrews (Applicant)

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law and Procedure - Dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm - Blood alcohol concentration 0.263% - Two victims - Sentence

CASES CITED:
R v Jurisic 1999 101 A Crim R 269

DECISION: Appeal dismissed

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60501/98

Grove J
Carruthers AJ

9 June 1999

REGINA v RONALD JAMES BICHENO

JUDGMENT
1    GROVE J: This is an application for leave to appeal against the severity of sentence imposed by Mitchelmore DCJ in the Penrith District Court on 21 August 1998. On that occasion the applicant had pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm. The maximum prescribed penalty for each of those offences was eleven years imprisonment. The aggravated element of the crimes was driving a vehicle whilst there was present in the blood of the applicant a higher concentration of alcohol than 0.15 percent. Testing showed his blood alcohol level reading to be 0.263 percent. That is considerably in excess of the threshold of aggravation and, as noted by the sentencing judge, represents an excess by a multiple of five of the prescribed limit for driving a motor vehicle upon a public street.
2    The applicant was sentenced to four years imprisonment divided into minimum and additional terms of two years to be served concurrently on each count.
3    The offences arose out of the same incident on 25 June 1997 when a vehicle driven by the applicant came into collision with another. The driver of the second vehicle was a young woman aged 19 years. She suffered a fractured skull and injuries to the right eye, the damage to which resulted in its blindness. The victim in the second count was the de facto wife of the applicant who was riding as a passenger. They had been together during the day and after shopping met at about llam at the Macquarie Arms Hotel in Windsor. The time of the accident was approaching 7pm.
4    The applicant is aged 45 years and is a removalist by occupation. He was in permanent casual employment. He has been a professional driver for many years. Despite presumably long periods on the road he had a driving record which was clear but for a single offence of exceeding the speed limit in June 1985. The pleas of guilty were entered at the earliest opportunity.
5 Unsurprisingly, the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant has focused upon the decision of this court in R v Jurisic (1999) 101 A Crim R 269. It is perhaps important to mention that that decision…

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 Regina v Bicheno

Details

AGLC: Regina v Bicheno [1999] NSWCCA 148
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 148
Decision Date: 9 June 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Bicheno, the defendant was convicted of dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm. Bicheno was involved in a serious car accident that resulted in significant injuries to two victims. The incident occurred when Bicheno, under the influence of alcohol, lost control of his vehicle. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for Bicheno, taking into account his blood alcohol concentration at the time of the offence, which was 0.263%, and the severity of the injuries inflicted on the victims.

The primary legal issue was the assessment of the appropriate penalty for Bicheno's actions. Given the significant level of intoxication and the severe consequences of his driving, the court had to balance the need for punishment with the potential for rehabilitation. The defence argued for a more lenient sentence, citing the defendant's otherwise unblemished criminal record and the possibility of rehabilitation. The prosecution, on the other hand, emphasised the gravity of the offence and the potential for causing long-term harm to the victims.

The court carefully considered the circumstances of the case, including Bicheno's level of intoxication and the impact of his actions on the victims. Ultimately, the court held that the appropriate sentence needed to reflect the seriousness of the offence and the need to deter similar behaviour in the future. The court imposed a custodial sentence, taking into account the need for both punishment and rehabilitation. The judge recognised the significant harm caused by Bicheno's actions and the need to protect the community from similar offences in the future. The court also considered the possibility of rehabilitation and the defendant's otherwise unblemished record. The final sentence was a term of imprisonment, with specific conditions aimed at promoting rehabilitation and deterrence.

Orders