Regina v Sharon Maree Buchanan - [2004] NSWCCA 141

CITATION: REGINA v SHARON MAREE BUCHANAN [2004] NSWCCA 141

HEARING DATE(S): 6 May 2004

JUDGMENT DATE:
12 May 2004

JUDGMENT OF: McColl JA at 1; Levine J at 2; Hidden J at 17

DECISION: 1. Leave to appeal granted.; 2. Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - sentencing - s52A(4) Crimes Act 1900 - aggravated dangerous driving whilst under the influence of intoxicating liquor causing grievous bodily harm

LEGISLATION CITED: s52A(4) Crimes Act 1900

CASES CITED: R v Dandachli [2004] NSWCCA 100
R v Whyte (2002) 55 NSWLR 252

PARTIES :

REGINA
(Respondent)
v
SHARON MAREE BUCHANAN
(Applicant)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60502 OF 2003

COUNSEL:
G I O Rowling
(Respondent)

SOLICITORS:
S Kavanagh
(Respondent)
R Day
(Applicant)

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/21/3387

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Sides DCJ

60502 OF 2003

McCOLL JA
LEVINE J
HIDDEN J
Wednesday May 12 2004

REGINA v SHARON MAREE BUCHANAN

Judgment

1 McCOLL JA: I agree with Levine J.

2 LEVINE J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal from a sentence imposed upon her by his Honour Judge Sides QC at Campbelltown District Court on 2 June 2003. The applicant was charged with aggravated dangerous driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor causing grievous bodily harm under s52A(4) Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty for the offence is 11 years imprisonment.

3 The sentence imposed by his Honour was imprisonment for 2 ½ years to commence on 2 June 2003 and to expire on 1 December 2005. His Honour fixed a non-parole period of 15 months to expire on 1 September 2004. His Honour also disqualified the applicant from obtaining a driving license for 3 years.

4 The offence occurred on 1 June 2001 and the circumstance of aggravation was constituted by what his Honour found to be, on the evidence of Dr Perl, a blood alcohol concentration in the range of 0.25 to 0.28. His Honour also accepted that the offender’s driving ability would have been “very significantly impaired”.

5 In brief, the facts of the driving incident were: at about 6.15pm on 1 June 2001 the applicant was driving a red Magna vehicle south along Gould Road at Eagle Vale. When approaching the intersection of Aquamarine Place it was necessary for her to negotiate a right, upward curve. As she did so she crossed the double unbroken separation lines and collided with a Falcon being driven in the opposite direction by the 19-year-old victim.

6 The applicant received from his Honour a 25 per cent reduction in penalty for the utility of her plea of guilty. There had been some “delay” in relation to that plea but his Honour quite properly gave her the full benefit of it as the delay was founded in a live issue as to whether “grievous bodily harm” had been suffered by the victim.

7 The principal ground of appeal is that his Honour erred in characterising the offence as involving “a very high degree of moral culpability”. That his Honour should so…

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 Sharon Maree Buchanan

Details

AGLC: Regina v Sharon Maree Buchanan [2004] NSWCCA 141
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 141
Decision Date: 12 May 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The court heard the case of Regina v Sharon Maree Buchanan, where the defendant was convicted for committing aggravated dangerous driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, resulting in grievous bodily harm. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The defendant, Sharon Maree Buchanan, drove under the influence of alcohol and caused harm to another person, leading to the charges against her.

The primary legal issues that the court needed to address were whether the dangerous driving was indeed aggravated and if the intoxicating liquor was a contributing factor in the commission of the offence. Additionally, the court needed to consider the appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account the gravity of the crime and the applicable provisions under the Crimes Act 1900.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the defendant's driving was indeed dangerous and aggravated due to the presence of intoxicating liquor, which impaired her ability to drive safely. The court acknowledged the severity of the harm caused to the victim and held the defendant accountable for her actions. The court also considered the defendant's previous criminal history, which included prior driving-related offences, in determining the appropriate sentence. Ultimately, the court found that the defendant's actions warranted a custodial sentence, and she was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, along with other penalties as required by law.

Orders