Taylor v R - [2006] NSWCCA 7

CITATION: TAYLOR v REGINA [2006] NSWCCA 7

HEARING DATE(S): 23 January 2006

JUDGMENT DATE:
3 February 2006

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJ at CL at 1; Howie J at 42; Latham J at 43

DECISION: Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS: Applicant appeal against sentence - dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm - fatigue - influence of marijuana and alcohol - serious permanent injury caused - serious offence - knowledge of own physical condition - recent personal emotional turmoil impairing psychological functioning - whether a mitigating factor - whether lowers moral culpability - whether sentence manifestly excessive - importance of general deterrence - high moral culpability - extent and nature of injuries

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

CASES CITED: R v Dutton [2005] NSWCCA 248
R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228
R v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 225
R v Jiminez [1999] NSWCCA 7
R v Jurisic (1998) 45 NSWLR 209
R v Lauritsen (2000) 114 A Crim R 333
R v Letteri, NSWCCA, 18 March 1992, unreported
R v Pearson [2004] NSWCCA 129
R v Tsiaras [1996] 1 VR 398
R v Whyte (2002) 55 NSWLR 252

PARTIES: Jeffrey Thomas Taylor (Appl)
The Crown

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2005/2356

COUNSEL: G I O Rowling (Crown)
C Smith (Appl)

SOLICITORS: Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid Commission of NSW (Appl)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 04/61/0061

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Andrew ADCJ

2005/2356

McCLELLAN CJ at CL
HOWIE J
LATHAM J
FRIDAY, 3 FEBRUARY 2006

TAYLOR, Jeffrey Thomas v REGINA

Judgment

1 McCLELLAN CJ at CL: The applicant pleaded guilty to a charge of dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm contrary to s 52A(3)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty for the offence is seven years imprisonment. The applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years with a non-parole period of twelve months. He was disqualified from driving for twelve months.

2 A statement of agreed facts was tendered before the sentencing judge, which indicates that at about 7.15 pm on Tuesday 3 June, 2003, Scott Jefferay was driving a red Daihatsu Charade, and had just turned right from Harwood Street onto Currajong Road in Parkes and was going south.

3 The applicant was driving a Nissan Patrol wagon towing a trailer and was also travelling south on the Peak Hill Road.

4 At a point approximately 30 metres south of the intersection of Webb Street with Currajong Road the applicant’s vehicle collided with the rear of Mr Jefferay’s vehicle. Following impact with Mr Jefferay’s vehicle the applicant’s vehicle continued to push Mr Jefferay’s vehicle until it hit a telegraph pole.

5 The applicant’s vehicle continued south along Currajong Road for a distance of two further houses before the applicant got out and entered his residence at 2 Currajong Road. The applicant stayed at this address only a matter of minutes before walking back outside, scuffling with a neighbour and then…

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 Taylor v R

Details

AGLC: Taylor v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 7
Case: [2006] NSWCCA 7
Decision Date: 3 February 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Taylor v R, the applicant appealed against his sentence of imprisonment imposed for dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm. The applicant was found to have been driving while fatigued, under the influence of marijuana and alcohol, and caused serious permanent injury to the victim. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, where the applicant contested the severity of the sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive given the mitigating factors.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant's fatigue, influenced by marijuana and alcohol, along with his recent personal emotional turmoil, could be considered mitigating factors that lowered his moral culpability. The court was also required to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the importance of general deterrence outweighed the mitigating factors presented. The court considered the extent and nature of the injuries caused and the high moral culpability of the applicant's actions.

The court found that while the applicant's personal circumstances and state of mind at the time of the offence did provide some mitigating factors, they did not sufficiently reduce his moral culpability to warrant a significantly lower sentence. The serious nature of the injuries and the high culpability involved in the dangerous driving warranted a substantial penalty. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, considering the need for general deterrence. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the original sentence of imprisonment imposed on the applicant.

Orders