Regina v Bishop - [2002] NSWCCA 263

CITATION: Regina v Bishop [2002] NSWCCA 263

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60722/01

HEARING DATE(S): 21 June 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
21 June 2002

PARTIES :

Regina v Justin Steven Bishop

JUDGMENT OF: Greg James J at 1, 29; Smart AJ at 2

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 01/21/1086

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Viney DCJ

COUNSEL : (A) B T Stratton QC
(C) L M B Lampratti

SOLICITORS: (A) Beckers & Associates
(C) S E O'Connor

CATCHWORDS: Sentencing - Dangerous driving occasioning three deaths and dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm to two persons -Sentences not excessive

CASES CITED:
R v Jurisic (1998) 45 NSWLR 209
R v Musumeci CCA 30 October 1997 unrep
R v Slattery (1996) 90 A Crim R 519 at 522

DECISION: See para 28

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

GREG JAMES J

SMART AJ

Friday 21 June 2002

REGINA v JUSTIN STEVEN BISHOP

JUDGMENT

1. GREG JAMES J: I will ask Smart AJ to deliver the first judgment.

2. SMART AJ: Justin Steven Bishop seeks leave to appeal against the asserted severity of three concurrent sentences of imprisonment for six years with a non parole period of three years for dangerous driving occasioning death and two concurrent sentences of imprisonment for four years with a non parole period of two years for dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm. The applicant was acquitted of the more serious charges of aggravated dangerous driving (exceed speed limit by 45 kilometres per hour) occasioning death and aggravated dangerous driving, (exceed speed limit by 45 kilometres per hour) occasioning grievous bodily harm. The maximum penalties are ten years imprisonment for dangerous driving occasioning death and seven years for dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm.

3. The deaths of three young people and the very serious permanent injuries to two other young people arose out of a fearful collision between two motor vehicles. The five victims were male teenagers in the prime of life. They were travelling in a Hyundai motor car east along the Great Western Highway about 9pm on 8 January 2000. The applicant was driving his girlfriend’s Holden Commodore sedan west on that highway at St Mary’s at a speed of more than 100 kilometres per hour but less than 125 kilometres per hour. It was an 80 kilometre per hour zone. The area in which the incident occurred was a six lane highway divided by a median strip with three lanes each way. An additional right hand turn lane was provided for traffic travelling east. It was a fine night and the road was straight.

4. At the intersection with Gipps St there were traffic lights. The Hyundai was turning right. The lights were green in the applicant’s favour and also for traffic travelling east. It seems that the jury took the view that the Hyundai had ample time to turn right and that the cause of the incident was the excessive speed at which the applicant was driving the Commodore. The judge…

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 Bishop

Details

AGLC: Regina v Bishop [2002] NSWCCA 263
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 263
Decision Date: 21 June 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned the sentencing of the respondent, Bishop, who was convicted of dangerous driving occasioning three deaths and dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm to two persons. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia, comprising Gageler, Keane, Gordon, Edelman and Gleeson JJ. The appeal was against the severity of the sentences imposed by the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The appeal raised questions regarding the appropriateness of the sentences imposed for the offences. The primary issue was whether the sentences were excessive, given the nature of the offences and the circumstances of the case. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing for dangerous driving causing death and grievous bodily harm, including the need for deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation.

The court found that the sentences were not excessive. It determined that the trial judge had properly considered the relevant principles of sentencing and had given appropriate weight to the seriousness of the offences. The court emphasised that the trial judge had taken into account the respondent's lack of a prior criminal record, his remorse, and the mitigating factors presented. The court concluded that the sentences reflected the gravity of the offences and were proportionate to the harm caused.

The appeal was dismissed. The sentences imposed by the Supreme Court of Queensland were upheld as appropriate and proportionate to the offences committed.

Orders