Regina v Simpson

[1999] NSWCCA 367

CITATION:	Regina v Simpson [1999] NSWCCA 367 revised - 15/12/99
FILE NUMBER(S):	CCA CCA 60049/99
HEARING DATE(S):	Friday 10 September 1999
JUDGMENT DATE:	10 September 1999
PARTIES :	Appellant- Regina Respondent- Peter Frederick Simpson
JUDGMENT OF:	Meagher JA at 1; Grove J at 9; Hidden J at 10

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:	District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :	98/21/1283
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:	Luland DCJ

COUNSEL:	Appellanr: R. Ellis Respondent: J. Andrews
SOLICITORS:	Appellant: S.E. Connor Dept of Public Prosecutions Respondent: T.A.Murphy
CATCHWORDS:	aggravated dangerous driving occasioning death.; High blood alcohol reading of accused; appeal against sentence
DECISION:	Appeal dismissed-although offence of serious nature, sentence imposed well within range.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CCA 60049/99

MEAGHER JA
GROVE J
HIDDEN J

FRIDAY 10 SEPTEMBER 1999

REGINA v PETER FREDERICK SIMPSON

JUDGMENT

1   MEAGHER JA: This is a Crown appeal against the sentence imposed by his Honour Judge Luland at Penrith District Court on 4 February 1999 when one Mr Peter Frederick Simpson was sentenced on a charge of aggravated dangerous driving occasioning death. He pleaded guilty to this charge.

2   The facts of the matter can be stated fairly simply. On Thursday, 19 March 1998 at about 6.15pm, Mr Simpson was driving a large lightly-laden tabletop truck in an easterly direction along the Great Western Highway at a place called Valley Heights. There were two lanes of traffic travelling in an eastern direction where a concrete barrier had been erected in connection with the roadworks authority to merge the lanes in a single direction. The road was sealed, dry bitumen. Visibility was open. It was daylight and the weather was fine.

3   Mr Simpson overtook a coach travelling in the kerb lane going in the same direction, and going about 90 kilometres an hour. He was slightly, but not excessively, over the speed limit. Having passed the coach, he then hit a concrete safety barrier erected in connection with the roadworks which I referred, and went across the incorrect side of his road where his truck collided with a van, then being driven in the opposite direction by a Mr Mark Kenneth Agett. Mr Agett's vehicle and his came to rest on the southern embankment. Unfortunately in the accident, Mr Agett was killed, leaving a widow and a small child.

4   The accident took place at 6.30pm and Mr Simpson's blood reading an hour later at 7.45pm, was 0.254. It is an extraordinarily high reading. If one examines his behaviour during the day, he started his driving at about 4am and drove to various places - Newcastle, Lithgow and so on, around Sydney. He must have, on the evidence, been fairly drunk at all relevant stages, and there is no doubt that his offence was a very grave one. He was driving a truck, which is a very serious weapon, as it were, on other drivers on the road. He could have been involved in a variety of accidents which caused injury, death or harm to a number of people. In fact he did kill one person. That is one person too many.

5   No-one would suggest that the crime was other than a very serious crime. His Honour sentenced Mr Simpson to five years imprisonment, imposing a minimum term of three and a half years with an additional term of one and a half years.

6   To my mind, this Crown appeal, which is an appeal against the leniency of the sentence, should fail, not because one thinks that there is anything much to be said in favour of Mr Simpson's behaviour, but that his Honour, taking into account all relevant facts, imposed a sentence well within the range.

7   Mr Simpson was forty-three years old. He had been driving for 20 years or so and had no criminal record. His driving record was very fine. He pleaded guilty, and it was not a merely nominal act of contrition. He was, on the evidence, extremely contrite, as he should be for the damage he has done. One takes all those objective features into account and adds to them the factor of double jeopardy.

8   In my view, the Crown appeal should be dismissed. That is the order I propose.

9   GROVE: I agree. I would merely state that I am unpersuaded that on any view of the facts it can reasonably be said that the sentencing discretion exercised by the judge had miscarried.

10   HIDDEN: I also agree.

********