Regina v Oddie - [2001] NSWCCA 524

CITATION: REGINA v. ODDIE [2001] NSWCCA 524

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA No. 60221 of 2001

HEARING DATE(S): Wednesday 12 December 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
12 December 2001

PARTIES :

REGINA v.
ODDIE, Dougal John

JUDGMENT OF: Greg James J at 1; Bell J at 30

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/21/1178

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Backhouse DCJ.

COUNSEL : Crown: M.C. Grogan
App: H. Dhanji

SOLICITORS: Crown: S.E. O'Connor
App: C.J. Humphreys

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - appeal - sentence - dangerous driving - application of R. v. Jurisic - culpable conduct not identified in trial judge's reasons - error - applicant re-sentenced - disqualification confirmed.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED:
Jurisic (1998) 45 NSWLR 209

DECISION: Appeal allowed. Sentences quashed. In lieu of those sentences, sentences to commence 11 April 2001 as follows: on the first count, a sentence of 16 months imprisonment together with a non-parole period of eight months and on counts two and three, concurrent fixed term sentences of eight months. All sentences to be concurrent, so as to provide for a release date of 10 December 2001.

No. 60221 of 2001

GREG JAMES, J.
BELL, J.

WEDNESDAY 12 DECEMBER 2001

REGINA v. DOUGAL JOHN ODDIE

JUDGMENT

1 GREG JAMES, J: This is an application for leave to appeal against a sentence of two years imprisonment with a non-parole period of one year imposed upon the applicant in the District Court of New South Wales on 11 April 2001. The sentence was imposed in respect of the crime of which the applicant had been convicted, following a trial before her Honour Judge Backhouse of Queen's Counsel, and a jury in the District Court.

2 He had been convicted on three counts; the first a count of dangerous driving occasioning death, an offence under s.52A(1)(c) of the Crimes Act 1900, for which the maximum penalty is ten years imprisonment. The second and third counts had been counts of dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm. These are crimes provided for by s.52A(3)(c) of the Crimes Act 1900, for which the maximum penalty prescribed is seven years imprisonment.

3 The applicant had pleaded not guilty and relied at trial upon an explanation for the vehicle he was driving moving to the incorrect side of the road; that is, that it was affected by a mechanical defect. It is apparent that the jury rejected that explanation.

4 It is far more difficult to deal with what was inherent in the case against him as his culpable conduct than it is to define what was not the cause of the vehicle departing from the correct side of the road to the incorrect side of the road, and occasioning the collision which caused the injuries leading to the charges.

5 Following the verdict, the trial judge, in her remarks on sentence, referred to the nature of the applicant's conduct, firstly, when she came to set out the circumstances of the commission of…

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 Oddie

Details

AGLC: Regina v Oddie [2001] NSWCCA 524
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 524
Decision Date: 12 December 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Oddie, the applicant appealed against his conviction and sentence for dangerous driving. The case was heard in the court of appeal, which was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was appropriate and whether there were any errors in the trial judge's reasoning. The applicant argued that the trial judge did not properly identify the culpable conduct that warranted the sentence imposed, and that there was an error in the application of R v Jurisic. The court of appeal was required to determine whether the trial judge's reasons for the sentence were sufficient and whether the applicant's appeal had merit.

The court of appeal considered the arguments put forward by the applicant and examined the trial judge's reasons for the sentence. The court found that the trial judge had not properly identified the culpable conduct that warranted the sentence imposed. The court also found that there was an error in the application of R v Jurisic, as the trial judge had not considered the appropriate principles for sentencing in cases of dangerous driving. The court of appeal concluded that the applicant's appeal had merit and ordered that he be re-sentenced. The court also confirmed the disqualification imposed on the applicant.

The court of appeal's decision in Regina v Oddie highlights the importance of properly identifying the culpable conduct in a case and applying the appropriate legal principles when sentencing. The court found that the trial judge had not properly identified the culpable conduct in this case and had made an error in the application of R v Jurisic. The court of appeal's decision also confirms that errors in sentencing can lead to an appeal being allowed and the applicant being re-sentenced. The final orders of the court of appeal confirmed the disqualification imposed on the applicant and ordered that he be re-sentenced in accordance with the court's directions.

Orders