AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 29 June 2012

R v Jarryd HYDE aka Jarryd RAYWARD

[2012] NSWDC 93

HomicideTraffic & drivingPublic order & justice offences
CRIMINAL LAW MANSLAUGHTER DRIVING WHILE DISQUALIFIED AGGREGATE SENTENCE

Citation: R v Jarryd HYDE aka Jarryd RAYWARD [2012] NSWDC 93
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 29 June 2012
Judge: Judge Haesler SC

Background

The offender, a 22-year-old man with a significant history of stealing and dangerously driving motor vehicles, was sentenced following guilty pleas to a series of offences committed on and around 2 December 2010. At the time of the offences, he was on parole after serving part of a prior custodial sentence. He had never held a driving licence.

On 2 December 2010, the offender was driving a stolen Holden Commodore with two juvenile passengers when police commenced a pursuit on the Hume Highway near Narellan. To avoid road spikes, he crossed the median strip and drove at speed the wrong way against oncoming traffic for approximately 600 metres before turning up an access ramp in the wrong direction. A collision with an oncoming vehicle was inevitable. The driver of that vehicle, John Ferella, died from his injuries. Both juvenile passengers in the offender's car were also injured, one seriously.

The offender did not stop to assist the deceased or his injured passengers after the crash. He fled and was arrested shortly afterwards, still carrying stolen jewellery. The two juveniles had told him to stop during the pursuit because they were frightened.

  • What aggregate sentence was appropriate for manslaughter, aggravated dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm (escape pursuit), furious driving occasioning actual bodily harm, and driving while disqualified?
  • How should the competing purposes of sentencing (punishment, deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation) be balanced given the offender's youth, background, and early guilty pleas?
  • What discount was appropriate for the utilitarian value of early guilty pleas?
  • What licence disqualification period should apply across multiple convictions arising from a single incident?

Decision

Judge Haesler SC identified the offending as gravely serious. The offender's driving in the lead-up to the fatal collision was described as "truly dangerous," reflecting a gross abandonment of personal responsibility. The fact that the offences occurred while the offender was on parole was treated as an aggravating factor, though the court was careful to note the offender was not being sentenced for his past conduct as such.

The court acknowledged the offender gave candid and truthful evidence, accepted full responsibility, and expressed some remorse. However, the court doubted he yet had the emotional resources to fully comprehend the enormity of his crimes. His lengthy history of stealing and dangerously operating motor vehicles since the age of 14 was relevant to understanding why the offences occurred, culminating in what the court described as the "tragic climax" of that pattern on 2 December 2010.

The court applied a 25 percent reduction to the sentences to reflect the utilitarian value of early guilty pleas indicated in the Local Court. The court also balanced the need for significant punishment against the community interest in rehabilitation, expressly recognising that a lengthy custodial term might itself serve as a deterrent to the offender.

On licence disqualification, the court applied the automatic disqualification periods for each offence but, in the exercise of its discretion under the Road Transport (General) Act 2005, declined to impose a disqualification period beyond the maximum five-year period applicable where offences arise from a single incident. The court reasoned that an unduly long disqualification would hamper the offender's prospects of employment and community reintegration upon his eventual release.

Orders Made

  • Fixed term of 6 months for the matter on the section 166 Certificate, commencing 2 December 2010.
  • Aggregate sentence of 11 years 3 months for the remaining offences (manslaughter, aggravated dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm, and furious driving occasioning actual bodily harm), commencing 2 January 2011.
  • Indicative sentence of 10 years 6 months for the manslaughter (taking into account Form 1 matters).
  • Indicative sentence of 3 years 4 months for aggravated dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm to the first juvenile passenger (taking into account Form 1 matters).
  • Indicative sentence of 1 year 3 months for furious driving occasioning actual bodily harm to the second juvenile passenger.
  • Aggregate non-parole period of 7 years 3 months, expiring 1 April 2018.
  • Parole period of 4 years, commencing 2 April 2018 and expiring 1 April 2022.
  • Disqualification from driving for 5 years, commencing at the expiry of the existing disqualification period (17 December 2014).

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court treated the commission of serious driving offences while on parole as an aggravating factor in sentencing, while maintaining that the offender was not being punished for prior offending in its own right.
  • A 25 percent reduction in sentence was applied to reflect the utilitarian value of early guilty pleas entered in the Local Court, consistent with established NSW sentencing principles.
  • Where multiple driving offences arise from a single incident, the Road Transport (General) Act 2005 caps the total automatic disqualification period at the highest individual period applicable, though a court retains discretion to impose a longer term.
  • Rehabilitation and community reintegration were treated as legitimate considerations capable of influencing both the structure of a custodial sentence and the length of ancillary orders such as licence disqualification, even in cases involving death.
  • The court acknowledged an inherent tension between the purposes of sentencing, noting that any apparent moderation of a sentence to accommodate rehabilitative goals should not be read as diminishing the gravity of the underlying conduct.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
- Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1998 (NSW)
- Road Transport (General) Act 2005 (NSW), ss 25, 188(3)(d)(ii)

Cases
- Attorney General's Application under s 37 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518
- R v Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102; (2009) 195 A Crim R 1
- Bombardieri v R [2010] NSWCCA 161; (2010) 203 A Crim R 89
- Bugmy v The Queen [1990] HCA 18; (1990) 169 CLR 525
- R v Cameron [2005] NSWCCA 359; (2005) 157 A Crim R 70
- Duncan v R [2012] NSWCCA 78
- R v DW [2012] NSWCCA 66
- Eedens v R [2009] NSWCCA 254
- Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; (2010) 242 CLR 520
- Jackson v R [2010] NSWCCA 162
- R v M.A.K., R v M.S.K. [2006] NSWCCA 381
- R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2
- R v Oliver (1980) 7 A Crim R 174
- Postiglione v The Queen [1997] HCA 26; (1997) 189 CLR 295
- Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; (1998) 194 CLR 610
- Weininger v The Queen [2003] HCA 14; (2003) 212 CLR 629
- Whyte (Dale Shane) [2002] NSWCCA 343; (2002) 55 NSWLR 252