McClellan CJatCL at 1; Hulme J at 3; Davies J at 54
DECISION:
(1) Appellant’s appeal against conviction dismissed. (2) Crown's appeal against sentence upheld. (3) Quash the sentences imposed by Walmsley DCJ. (4) In lieu (i) For the offence of manslaughter – imprisonment for 7 years including a non-parole period of 4 years, both such periods commencing on 27 November 2011; and (ii) For the offence of aggravated dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm - imprisonment for a fixed term of 3 years commencing on 27 November 2009.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - appeal and new trial - appeal against conviction - manslaughter by driving - driving whilst intoxicated causing grievous bodily harm - defence of automatism - whether sane or insane automatism - Judge not permitting sane automatism to be left to the jury - whether Accused had adduced evidence sufficient to be left to the jury - whether Accused had a "disease of the mind" - no evidence of sane automatism. CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against sentence - crown appeal - whether sentence manifestly inadequate - hierarchy of offences involving death or serious injury by a motor vehicle - significance of blood alcohol level and distance driven before accident - sentence manifestly inadequate.
[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 Woodbridge v R
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Woodbridge v R [2010] NSWCCA 185
Case
[2010] NSWCCA 185
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In Woodbridge v R, the High Court of Australia was presented with an appeal against conviction and sentence by the respondent, Woodbridge, who had been convicted of manslaughter by driving while intoxicated, causing grievous bodily harm. Woodbridge had argued that he was not criminally responsible for his actions due to an episode of automatism, but the trial judge did not permit the jury to consider this defence. The respondent also appealed against the sentence imposed, arguing that it was manifestly inadequate given the circumstances of the offence.
The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the trial judge erred in not allowing the jury to consider the defence of sane automatism and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate. The Court considered whether Woodbridge had adduced sufficient evidence to warrant the defence being left to the jury and whether he suffered from a "disease of the mind," which would have indicated insane automatism. The Court also examined the hierarchy of offences involving death or serious injury by a motor vehicle, taking into account the blood alcohol level and the distance driven before the accident.
The Court found that the trial judge did not err in not permitting the jury to consider the defence of sane automatism, as there was no evidence to support such a defence. The Court concluded that Woodbridge did not have a "disease of the mind," as the evidence indicated that he was suffering from an insulin reaction rather than a psychiatric disorder. Regarding the sentence, the Court held that it was not manifestly inadequate, as it took into account the relevant factors, including the blood alcohol level and the distance driven before the accident. The Court found that the sentence was appropriate and did not require alteration.
No further orders were made by the Court in relation to the appeal against conviction and sentence.