Legal Research
Cases
Young v R

Young v R

Case [2009] NSWCCA 298 18 December 2009

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Plea of Guilty

Discount for Plea of Guilty

Assessment of Objective Gravity of Offence

Manifestly Excessive Sentence

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Reubin Gary YOUNG v R [2009] NSWCCA 298

HEARING DATE(S): 2 July 2009

JUDGMENT DATE:
18 December 2009

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJatCL at 1; Hidden J at 2; McCallum J at 32

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - application for leave to appeal against sentence - manslaughter (motor vehicle) - plea of guilty - vehicle deliberately driven towards deceased to scare him - discount for plea of guilty - assessment of objective gravity of offence - whether sentence manifestly excessive

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: R v Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102
R v Thompson & Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309, 49 NSWLR 383
R v Whyte [2002] NSWCCA 343, 55 NSWLR 252
R v Cameron [2005] NSWCCA 359, 157 A Crim R 70
R v Do [2000] NSWCCA 459
R v Falzon [2000] NSWCCA 530
R v Lavender [2004] NSWCCA 120
Lawler v R [2007] NSWCCA 85, 169 A Crim R 415

PARTIES: Reubin Gary YOUNG (Applicant)
REGINA (Respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/1253

COUNSEL: M Thangaraj & Kenneth Averre (Applicant)
L Babb SC & M Rabsch (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: (pro bono through Bar Association) (Applicant)
S Kavanagh (Solicitor for Public Prosecutions)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 2007/193

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Matthews AJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 27/07/2007

2007/1253

McCLELLAN CJ at CL
HIDDEN J
McCALLUM J
Friday 18 December 2009

Reubin Gary YOUNG v R

Judgment

1 McCLELLAN CJ at CL: I agree with Hidden J.

The applicant, Reubin Gary Young, pleaded guilty before Matthews AJ to manslaughter. He was sentenced to imprisonment for 8 years, comprising a non-parole period of 5 years and a balance of term of 3 years. He seeks leave to appeal against that sentence.

Facts

3 In the evening of 16 March 2006, the deceased was drinking with friends at a hotel in Newcastle. The applicant was drinking at the same hotel, also with a group of friends. The deceased and the applicant did not know each other. The applicant had a considerable amount to drink, and at the time of the offence was heavily affected by alcohol.

4 In the hotel there were verbal altercations between the two groups, the deceased and the applicant being the main protagonists. However, the conflict escalated after they left the hotel, particularly between the applicant, on one side, and the deceased and one of his companions, on the other. There was verbal abuse and some physical aggression, although not of a major kind. By this time it was the small hours of 17 March.

5 The applicant’s car, a Nissan Patrol four wheel drive vehicle, was parked on the opposite side of the same street. Suddenly, without saying anything to his companions, he went to it. He started it, accelerated out, and drove towards a building opposite at what her Honour described as “some speed”. The deceased was on the footpath in…

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 Young v R

Details

AGLC: Young v R [2009] NSWCCA 298
Case: [2009] NSWCCA 298
Decision Date: 18 December 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Young, sought leave to appeal against his sentence for manslaughter following a plea of guilty. The incident involved the applicant deliberately driving his vehicle towards the deceased with the intention to scare him. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia. The central legal issues revolved around the discount for the plea of guilty, the assessment of the objective gravity of the offence, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The court examined the principles governing the discount for a guilty plea and the factors relevant to determining the objective gravity of the offence. It was noted that while a discount was appropriate, it was not absolute and must be balanced against the severity of the crime. The court assessed the gravity of the offence considering the deliberate act of driving a vehicle towards another person with the intent to cause fear, resulting in death. The court held that the sentence, while severe, was not manifestly excessive given the circumstances and the need to deter similar conduct in the future.

Ultimately, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. It affirmed that the trial judge had appropriately balanced the discount for the plea of guilty against the gravity of the offence. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The High Court's decision underscored the importance of considering both the nature of the offence and the principles of sentencing in determining the appropriate sentence. It highlighted the need for a balanced approach when applying discounts for guilty pleas and the assessment of objective seriousness.

Orders