Legal Research
Cases
The Queen v Angel

The Queen v Angel

Case [2021] NSWDC 4 29 January 2021

Dangerous Driving Occasioning GBH

Sentencing

Intensive Corrections Order

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: The Queen v Angel [2021] NSWDC 4
Hearing dates: 28 August 2020; 14 September 2020; 19 November 2020; 2 December 2020; 29 January 2021
Date of orders: 29 January 2021
Decision date: 29 January 2021
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Wilson SC DCJ
Decision:
Intensive Corrections Order imposed for a period of 3 years. Orders at [138] – [142]

Catchwords:
CRIME – sentence – Dangerous Driving Occasioning GBH – two counts – other charges on Form 1

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 NSW ss 52A, 53, 53A
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 NSW ss 5, 21A
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Sentencing Options) Bill 2017
Road Transport Act 2013 NSW ss 111, 205

Cases Cited:
Black v R [2010] NSWCCA 321
Harrigan v R [2005] NSWCCA 449
Kelly v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 357
Primmer v R [2015] NSWCCA 155
R v AB [2011] NSWCCA 229
R v Berg [2004] NSWCCA 300
R v Buckley [2012] NSWCCA 85
R v Errington [1999] NSWCCA 18
R v Fangaloka [2019] NSWCCA 173
R v Jurisic [1998] NSWSC 423
R v Kerr [2016] NSWCCA 218
R v Mansweto [2018] NSWCCA 232
R v Price [2016] NSWCCA 50
R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264
R v Takai [2004] NSWCCA 392
R v Tzanis [2005] NSWCCA 274
R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168
R v Whyte [2002] NSWCCA 343
Re Attorney General’s Application (No 1 of 2002) (NSW) (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
Rosenthal v R [2008] NSWCCA 149
Silvestri v R [2016] NSWCCA 245
Stanyard v R [2013] NSWCCA 134
Thornton v R [2020] NSWCCA 257
Wany v DPP [2020] NSWCA 318
Webb v O’Sullivan [1952] SASR 65

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (ODPP)
Kyle Bradley Angel (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
J O’Sullivan (Offender)

Solicitor Advocate:
H Cantor (ODPP)
Solicitors:
A Gunn (ODPP)
R Locker (Offender)

File Number(s): 2019/156785
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

Introduction

This sentencing exercise has been very difficult and has consumed a lot of time in Court, but also in consideration out of Court. No sentence imposed on Mr Angel will satisfactorily reflect the catastrophic injuries suffered by Jayden Jackson and the serious injuries suffered by the other passengers. I expect that the Jackson family in particular would think that even the maximum period of imprisonment would be inadequate in the circumstances. No sentence could possibly reflect the harm suffered by the victims. I hope that it is understood by these Remarks that although they may consider the sentence to be inadequate, in view of the suffering of Jayden and his family, it is a sentence which has been determined according to what I consider the proper application of legal principles to the tragic circumstances of this case.
Mr Angel is to be sentenced for two charges of dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm, in contravention of section 52A(3)(c) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (sequences 1 and 2). The maximum penalty applicable to those charges is 7 years’ imprisonment.
There are two counts of cause bodily harm…

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 The Queen v Angel

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Angel [2021] NSWDC 4
Case: [2021] NSWDC 4
Decision Date: 29 January 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of The Queen v Angel was heard in a higher court in Australia. The defendant, Angel, was charged with two counts of dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm (GBH) and additional charges. The nature of the dispute centred on the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Angel, given the severity of the offences and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation.

The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate sentence for each of the two dangerous driving charges, the applicability of any aggravating or mitigating factors, and the consideration of a non-custodial sentence such as an intensive corrections order (ICO). The court had to balance the need for punishment with the potential for rehabilitation and the protection of the community.

The court found that an ICO was appropriate for Angel. The sentencing judge considered various factors, including Angel's lack of a prior criminal record, the circumstances of the offences, and the potential for rehabilitation. The court imposed an ICO for a period of three years, with specific conditions outlined in the orders. These conditions were intended to address Angel's behaviour, promote rehabilitation, and ensure public safety. The final orders included specific directives for the duration and terms of the ICO, as well as other sentencing conditions.

Orders

Orders of the court

Intensive Corrections Order imposed for a period of 3 years. Orders at [138] – [142]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citations

AGLC Citation

The Queen v Angel [2021] NSWDC 4

Most Recent Citation

R v Judge [2021] ACTSC 118

Cases citing this decision · 1 of 1 shown

R v Judge
[2021] ACTSC 118 Para 1

…offender on the decision in Higgins to deal with a matter by way of an ICO. In that regard, I was also referred to the decision in The Queen v Angel [2021] NSWDC 4 ( Angel ) and the decision referred to in that case of R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264.…

View all 1 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 23 of 23 shown

Wany v Director of Public Prosecutions
[2020] NSWCA 318 Para 118

…More recently in Wany v DPP [2020] NSWCA 318, McCallum JA set out at [18]-[21] the 3 step approach to be adopted by sentencing judges before making an ICO direction:…
Thornton v The Queen
[2020] NSWCCA 257

…02) (NSW) (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 Rosenthal v R [2008] NSWCCA 149 Silvestri v R [2016] NSWCCA 245 Stanyard v R [2013] NSWCCA 134 Thornton v R [2020] NSWCCA 257 Wany v DPP [2020] NSWCA 318 Webb v O’Sullivan [1952] SASR 65 Category: Sentence Parties: Regina (ODPP) Kyle Bradley Angel (Offender) Representation: Counsel: J O…
R v Fangaloka
[2019] NSWCCA 173 Para 117

…In R v Fangaloka [2019] NSWCCA 173 , Basten JA (with Johnson and Price JJ agreeing) observed at [65] and [66]:…
R v Pullen
[2018] NSWCCA 264 Para 128

…In the context of offending of this type, the suitability of an ICO was considered by the Court of Criminal Appeal in R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264. At [66] Harrison J (with whom Johnson and Schmidt JJ agreed) stated:…
Mansweto v The Queen
[2018] NSWCCA 232

…WCCA 85 R v Errington [1999] NSWCCA 18 R v Fangaloka [2019] NSWCCA 173 R v Jurisic [1998] NSWSC 423 R v Kerr [2016] NSWCCA 218 R v Mansweto [2018] NSWCCA 232 R v Price [2016] NSWCCA 50 R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264 R v Takai [2004] NSWCCA 392 R v Tzanis [2005] NSWCCA 274 R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168 R v Whyte [2002] N…
Silvestri v The Queen
[2016] NSWCCA 245

…2002] NSWCCA 343 Re Attorney General’s Application (No 1 of 2002) (NSW) (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 Rosenthal v R [2008] NSWCCA 149 Silvestri v R [2016] NSWCCA 245 Stanyard v R [2013] NSWCCA 134 Thornton v R [2020] NSWCCA 257 Wany v DPP [2020] NSWCA 318 Webb v O’Sullivan [1952] SASR 65 Category: Sentence Parties: Regina (OD…
Kerr v R
[2016] NSWCCA 218

…SWCCA 300 R v Buckley [2012] NSWCCA 85 R v Errington [1999] NSWCCA 18 R v Fangaloka [2019] NSWCCA 173 R v Jurisic [1998] NSWSC 423 R v Kerr [2016] NSWCCA 218 R v Mansweto [2018] NSWCCA 232 R v Price [2016] NSWCCA 50 R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264 R v Takai [2004] NSWCCA 392 R v Tzanis [2005] NSWCCA 274 R v Way (2004)…
R v Price
[2016] NSWCCA 50

…NSWCCA 18 R v Fangaloka [2019] NSWCCA 173 R v Jurisic [1998] NSWSC 423 R v Kerr [2016] NSWCCA 218 R v Mansweto [2018] NSWCCA 232 R v Price [2016] NSWCCA 50 R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264 R v Takai [2004] NSWCCA 392 R v Tzanis [2005] NSWCCA 274 R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168 R v Whyte [2002] NSWCCA 343 Re Attorney Gener…
Primmer v Regina
[2015] NSWCCA 155

…013 NSW ss 111, 205 Cases Cited: Black v R [2010] NSWCCA 321 Harrigan v R [2005] NSWCCA 449 Kelly v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 357 Primmer v R [2015] NSWCCA 155 R v AB [2011] NSWCCA 229 R v Berg [2004] NSWCCA 300 R v Buckley [2012] NSWCCA 85 R v Errington [1999] NSWCCA 18 R v Fangaloka [2019] NSWCCA 173 R v Jurisic [19…
Stanyard v R
[2013] NSWCCA 134

…neral’s Application (No 1 of 2002) (NSW) (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 Rosenthal v R [2008] NSWCCA 149 Silvestri v R [2016] NSWCCA 245 Stanyard v R [2013] NSWCCA 134 Thornton v R [2020] NSWCCA 257 Wany v DPP [2020] NSWCA 318 Webb v O’Sullivan [1952] SASR 65 Category: Sentence Parties: Regina (ODPP) Kyle Bradley Angel (Offende…
Buckley v The Queen; R v Buckley
[2012] NSWCCA 85

…SWCCA 449 Kelly v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 357 Primmer v R [2015] NSWCCA 155 R v AB [2011] NSWCCA 229 R v Berg [2004] NSWCCA 300 R v Buckley [2012] NSWCCA 85 R v Errington [1999] NSWCCA 18 R v Fangaloka [2019] NSWCCA 173 R v Jurisic [1998] NSWSC 423 R v Kerr [2016] NSWCCA 218 R v Mansweto [2018] NSWCCA 232 R v Price…
R v AB
[2011] NSWCCA 229

…Cited: Black v R [2010] NSWCCA 321 Harrigan v R [2005] NSWCCA 449 Kelly v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 357 Primmer v R [2015] NSWCCA 155 R v AB [2011] NSWCCA 229 R v Berg [2004] NSWCCA 300 R v Buckley [2012] NSWCCA 85 R v Errington [1999] NSWCCA 18 R v Fangaloka [2019] NSWCCA 173 R v Jurisic [1998] NSWSC 423 R v Kerr [2…
Black v The Queen
[2010] NSWCCA 321

…, 21A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Sentencing Options) Bill 2017 Road Transport Act 2013 NSW ss 111, 205 Cases Cited: Black v R [2010] NSWCCA 321 Harrigan v R [2005] NSWCCA 449 Kelly v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 357 Primmer v R [2015] NSWCCA 155 R v AB [2011] NSWCCA 229 R v Berg [2004] NSWCCA 300 R v Buckle…
Rosenthal v R
[2008] NSWCCA 149

…(2004) 60 NSWLR 168 R v Whyte [2002] NSWCCA 343 Re Attorney General’s Application (No 1 of 2002) (NSW) (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 Rosenthal v R [2008] NSWCCA 149 Silvestri v R [2016] NSWCCA 245 Stanyard v R [2013] NSWCCA 134 Thornton v R [2020] NSWCCA 257 Wany v DPP [2020] NSWCA 318 Webb v O’Sullivan [1952] SASR 65 Catego…
Kelly v R
[2007] NSWCCA 357 Para 122

…The common law also recognises that mercy has a place in sentencing. In several decisions, including Kelly v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 357 at [30], the Court of Criminal Appeal endorsed the following observation of Napier CJ in the South Australian Supreme Court in the matter of Webb v O’Sullivan [1952] SASR 65, at [6…
Harrigan v R
[2005] NSWCCA 449

…ure) Amendment (Sentencing Options) Bill 2017 Road Transport Act 2013 NSW ss 111, 205 Cases Cited: Black v R [2010] NSWCCA 321 Harrigan v R [2005] NSWCCA 449 Kelly v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 357 Primmer v R [2015] NSWCCA 155 R v AB [2011] NSWCCA 229 R v Berg [2004] NSWCCA 300 R v Buckley [2012] NSWCCA 85 R v Erringto…
R v Tzanis
[2005] NSWCCA 274

…6] NSWCCA 218 R v Mansweto [2018] NSWCCA 232 R v Price [2016] NSWCCA 50 R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264 R v Takai [2004] NSWCCA 392 R v Tzanis [2005] NSWCCA 274 R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168 R v Whyte [2002] NSWCCA 343 Re Attorney General’s Application (No 1 of 2002) (NSW) (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 Rosenthal v R [2008] NSWCCA…
R v Takai
[2004] NSWCCA 392

…1998] NSWSC 423 R v Kerr [2016] NSWCCA 218 R v Mansweto [2018] NSWCCA 232 R v Price [2016] NSWCCA 50 R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264 R v Takai [2004] NSWCCA 392 R v Tzanis [2005] NSWCCA 274 R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168 R v Whyte [2002] NSWCCA 343 Re Attorney General’s Application (No 1 of 2002) (NSW) (2002) 56 NSWLR 146…
R v Berg
[2004] NSWCCA 300

…WCCA 321 Harrigan v R [2005] NSWCCA 449 Kelly v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 357 Primmer v R [2015] NSWCCA 155 R v AB [2011] NSWCCA 229 R v Berg [2004] NSWCCA 300 R v Buckley [2012] NSWCCA 85 R v Errington [1999] NSWCCA 18 R v Fangaloka [2019] NSWCCA 173 R v Jurisic [1998] NSWSC 423 R v Kerr [2016] NSWCCA 218 R v Manswet…
R v Way
[2004] NSWCCA 131 Para 67

…at I did not wish to send his client to prison, in keeping with the principle that imprisonment should be used as a sanction of last resort ( R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168 at [115]), it would be inappropriate and contrary to law for me to commence with determining that an ICO with conditions was appropriate and to struc…
Re Attorney-General's Application (No 1 of 2002) (NSW)
[2002] NSWCCA 518 Para 6

…ce. The second is the community’s entitlement to extract retribution for serious offences: Re Attorney General’s Application (No 1 of 2002) (NSW) (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 at [65].…
R v Whyte
[2002] NSWCCA 343

…2016] NSWCCA 50 R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264 R v Takai [2004] NSWCCA 392 R v Tzanis [2005] NSWCCA 274 R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168 R v Whyte [2002] NSWCCA 343 Re Attorney General’s Application (No 1 of 2002) (NSW) (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 Rosenthal v R [2008] NSWCCA 149 Silvestri v R [2016] NSWCCA 245 Stanyard v R [2013]…
R v Errington
[1999] NSWCCA 18

…07] NSWCCA 357 Primmer v R [2015] NSWCCA 155 R v AB [2011] NSWCCA 229 R v Berg [2004] NSWCCA 300 R v Buckley [2012] NSWCCA 85 R v Errington [1999] NSWCCA 18 R v Fangaloka [2019] NSWCCA 173 R v Jurisic [1998] NSWSC 423 R v Kerr [2016] NSWCCA 218 R v Mansweto [2018] NSWCCA 232 R v Price [2016] NSWCCA 50 R v Pullen [2…

Legislation cited in this decision · 3

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 8)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
1 mention (from Para 2)
Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 4)

Medium Neutral Citation:	The Queen v Angel [2021] NSWDC 4
Hearing dates:	28 August 2020; 14 September 2020; 19 November 2020; 2 December 2020; 29 January 2021
Date of orders:	29 January 2021
Decision date:	29 January 2021
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Wilson SC DCJ
Decision:	Intensive Corrections Order imposed for a period of 3 years. Orders at [138] – [142]
Catchwords:	CRIME – sentence – Dangerous Driving Occasioning GBH – two counts – other charges on Form 1
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 NSW ss 52A, 53, 53A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 NSW ss 5, 21A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Sentencing Options) Bill 2017 Road Transport Act 2013 NSW ss 111, 205
Cases Cited:	Black v R [2010] NSWCCA 321 Harrigan v R [2005] NSWCCA 449 Kelly v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 357 Primmer v R [2015] NSWCCA 155 R v AB [2011] NSWCCA 229 R v Berg [2004] NSWCCA 300 R v Buckley [2012] NSWCCA 85 R v Errington [1999] NSWCCA 18 R v Fangaloka [2019] NSWCCA 173 R v Jurisic [1998] NSWSC 423 R v Kerr [2016] NSWCCA 218 R v Mansweto [2018] NSWCCA 232 R v Price [2016] NSWCCA 50 R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264 R v Takai [2004] NSWCCA 392 R v Tzanis [2005] NSWCCA 274 R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168 R v Whyte [2002] NSWCCA 343 Re Attorney General’s Application (No 1 of 2002) (NSW) (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 Rosenthal v R [2008] NSWCCA 149 Silvestri v R [2016] NSWCCA 245 Stanyard v R [2013] NSWCCA 134 Thornton v R [2020] NSWCCA 257 Wany v DPP [2020] NSWCA 318 Webb v O’Sullivan [1952] SASR 65
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (ODPP) Kyle Bradley Angel (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: J O’Sullivan (Offender) Solicitor Advocate: H Cantor (ODPP) Solicitors: A Gunn (ODPP) R Locker (Offender)
File Number(s):	2019/156785
Publication restriction:	None