Richardson v Barnes - [2018] TASSC 46

[2018] TASSC 46

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Richardson v Barnes [2018] TASSC 46

PARTIES:  RICHARDSON, Carolyn Patricia
  v
  BARNES, Alisha (Constable)

FILE NO:  LCA 595/2018
DELIVERED ON:  2 October 2018
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  2 July 2018
JUDGMENT OF:  Geason J

CATCHWORDS:

Traffic Law – Offences – Particular offences – Negligent driving – Negligent driving causing grievous bodily harm – Whether sentence manifestly excessive.

Aust Dig Traffic Law [1103]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  G Stevens
             Respondent:  E Bill
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  G Stevens
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2018] TASSC 47
Number of paragraphs: 34

Serial No 46/2018
File No LCA 595/2018

CAROLYN PATRICIA RICHARDSON v CONSTABLE ALISHA BARNES

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT GEASON J

2 October 2018

On 7 February 2018, the applicant was sentenced by Magistrate G Hay to two months' imprisonment for negligent driving causing grievous bodily harm. That sentence was wholly suspended for two years. She was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for 12 months.
It is the applicant's contention that the sentence of two months' imprisonment was manifestly excessive when considered in relation to the offence, the circumstances of the case, and the imposition of a "lengthy disqualification".
The applicant bears the onus of establishing that the sentence imposed was unreasonable or plainly unjust: House v The King (1936), 55 CLR 499 at 505. The applicant must establish that the sentence imposed was "outside the permissible range of dispositions": AB v R (1999) 198 CLR 111 per Hayne J at [129]–[130].

Facts

On 6 January 2017, the applicant was travelling on the Arthur Highway towards Sorell. She was travelling at a speed estimated to be between 70 and 100 km/h, and thus within the speed limit for the area, which was 100 km/h. She was travelling with a passenger. The applicant collided with another vehicle. That vehicle was stationary behind a car turning from the highway into a residential driveway.
The complainant in this case, Ms Chambers, was a passenger in that stationary car. She sustained injuries requiring her hospitalisation for 56 days. She sustained a fractured sternum, bilateral rib fractures, a fracture to her left heel bone, and bilateral leg skin tears. Those injuries required treatment, including the debridement of skin and skin grafts. She suffered a mild traumatic brain injury which required ongoing rehabilitation, and she suffered a loss of independence because of her injuries. The evidence was that she required the use of a walker to remain mobile, and that she suffers from ongoing pain and anxiety. A victim impact statement was tendered to the court.
The driver of that vehicle sustained a torn left tendon in his left arm and bruising to his rib cage. He could not recall the crash.
The applicant's passenger, a Mr Almond, yelled to the applicant to stop before the collision. He told police he did not believe the applicant had seen the stationary cars.
On 28 June 2017 the applicant attended…

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 Richardson v Barnes

Details

AGLC: Richardson v Barnes [2018] TASSC 46
Case: [2018] TASSC 46
Decision Date: 2 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Richardson versus Barnes, the case arose from an incident involving the defendant, Barnes, who was convicted of negligent driving causing grievous bodily harm to the plaintiff, Richardson. The incident occurred when Barnes, while driving, collided with Richardson's vehicle, resulting in significant injuries. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the primary concern was the severity of the sentence imposed on Barnes for his actions.

The legal issues that the court needed to address included whether Barnes's sentence was manifestly excessive in light of the circumstances surrounding the incident. The defence argued that the sentence, which was a combination of imprisonment and a fine, was disproportionate given the lack of a prior criminal record and the mitigating factors present in the case, such as Barnes's immediate remorse and cooperation with authorities post-incident. The prosecution contended that the severity of the injuries sustained by Richardson warranted a stringent punishment to serve as a deterrent to others.

The court carefully considered the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. In its reasoning, the court noted the gravity of the offence, taking into account the nature of the injuries and the impact on Richardson's life. The court also acknowledged Barnes's remorse and lack of prior convictions but ultimately found that the sentence was necessary to uphold the principles of justice and deterrence. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and was justified given the circumstances.

Orders