Citation: Regina v Stephen Lawrence Wells [1999] NSWCCA 226
Court: New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 4 August 1999
Judge(s): Levine J; Smart AJ
Background
The applicant pleaded guilty in the Parramatta District Court to dangerous driving occasioning death, contrary to s 52A(1a) of the Crimes Act 1900, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. The offence arose from an incident on 24 March 1997 on the M4 motorway at Granville, when the applicant drove while significantly impaired by a combination of methadone and temazepam (Normison).
The applicant's driving was markedly erratic: he weaved between lanes, drove along a grassed median strip to avoid traffic, lost control, and crossed two lanes before his vehicle broke through a concrete barrier protecting a construction zone. The vehicle struck and killed a construction worker, Mr Panebianco, who had no warning of its approach.
Coleman DCJ sentenced the applicant to a total of six years imprisonment, comprising a minimum term of four years and an additional term of two years. His Honour found special circumstances warranting the extended additional term based on the applicant's age (23), his first period in custody, and his need for rehabilitation. The applicant sought leave to appeal, contending the sentence was manifestly excessive.
Legal Issues
- Whether the total sentence of six years with a four-year minimum term was manifestly excessive for dangerous driving occasioning death under s 52A(1a) of the Crimes Act 1900.
- Whether the sentencing judge erred in balancing the objective gravity of the offence against the applicant's subjective circumstances, including his health and drug dependency.
- What weight general deterrence should carry in sentencing for dangerous driving offences of this kind.
Decision
Levine J refused to be persuaded that the sentencing judge had erred. His Honour described the circumstances as "horrific" and found that the driving conduct, compounded by significant drug impairment, placed the offending above the mid-range of seriousness for this type of offence. The applicant's poor driving record, which displayed a flagrant disregard for licensing obligations, and his pattern of drug abuse were regarded as aggravating features.
Levine J emphasised that general deterrence carries particular weight in dangerous driving cases because the offence is one with which a large proportion of the community has direct familiarity, whether as drivers, passengers, or pedestrians. That public dimension, his Honour reasoned, demands close attention to each case on its own facts rather than reliance on sentencing statistics alone.
The Court noted that sentencing had occurred approximately one month before the Court of Criminal Appeal's decision in Regina v Jurisic (1998) 45 NSWLR 209. Levine J considered it artificial, given the nature of the offence, to characterise the sentence as a pre-Jurisic sentence requiring reassessment on that basis. He found no error in the approach taken below, and Smart AJ agreed that the gravity of the offence dictated the sentence imposed, notwithstanding the applicant's personal circumstances.
Orders Made
- Leave to appeal granted.
- Appeal dismissed.
Key Takeaways
- The Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed that public general deterrence is a critical sentencing consideration for dangerous driving offences, given their direct relevance to the daily lives of a large portion of the community.
- In dismissing the appeal, the Court found no error in the sentencing judge's treatment of the applicant's subjective circumstances, including health and drug dependency, where those factors were weighed against the serious objective gravity of the offending.
- A sentence of six years (minimum four years) was upheld as appropriate where dangerous driving occasioning death involved significant drug impairment, prolonged erratic and reckless driving across a busy motorway, and the death of an innocent bystander.
- Statistical evidence suggesting a sentence fell at the upper end of the range was held insufficient, by itself, to demonstrate manifest excess.
- No error arose merely because sentencing predated the Court of Criminal Appeal's guidance in Jurisic; the Court rejected any formulaic approach based on that timing.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 52A(1a) (dangerous driving occasioning death; maximum 10 years imprisonment)
Cases
- Regina v Jurisic (1998) 45 NSWLR 209 (Court of Criminal Appeal)
- Regina v Hill (Court of Criminal Appeal, unreported, 4 December 1998)