AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 25 February 2021

R v Squires

[2021] NSWDC 199

Traffic & driving
CRIME SENTENCE LOW MORAL CULPABILITY PRIOR GOOD CHARACTER REMORSE AND CONTRITION ABSENCE OF USUAL AGGRAVATING FACTORS

Citation: R v Squires [2021] NSWDC 199
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 25 February 2021
Judge: Norrish QC DCJ

Background

The offender, Graham William Squires, was convicted by jury of two counts of driving in a manner dangerous to persons, contrary to the Road Transport Act, where his driving caused the deaths of two people on the M1 Motorway near Wollongong on 28 June 2019. He had been travelling to Shoalhaven Heads for a period of rest from caring for his son, and was not familiar with the section of road where the incident occurred.

The sequence of events began when Squires moved his Ford Territory from an inside lane that was becoming a left-turn-only lane into the middle lane of the Motorway, doing so alongside a B-double truck driven by a professional driver. The manoeuvre forced the truck to brake heavily. A Mitsubishi Pajero then collided with the rear of the truck's dog trailer, and an Isuzu truck immediately behind could not stop in time and struck the Pajero. A fire broke out almost instantly, incinerating both the Pajero and the cabin of the Isuzu. The two deceased, who were occupants of the Pajero, perished in the fire.

There was no suggestion that Squires was affected by alcohol or drugs, that he was speeding, or that his vehicle was defective. He was unaware of the deaths of the two deceased until he was interviewed at the police station following the incident, and expressed immediate and genuine devastation upon learning of the outcome.

  • What sentence was appropriate for two counts of dangerous driving causing death, having regard to the totality of the offending?
  • What weight should be given to mitigating factors, including low moral culpability, prior good character, remorse, and the absence of the usual aggravating features of this type of offence?
  • Whether the circumstances constituted "exceptional circumstances" for the purposes of the sentencing discretion, permitting a non-custodial or suspended sentence to be considered under the principles established in R v Jurisic and related authority.
  • What period of licence disqualification was appropriate, given the period of suspension already served and the legislative requirement that disqualification run from the date of release from custody?

Decision

His Honour found that Squires's moral culpability was low. The driving error, moving into a lane when it was unsafe to do so while travelling alongside a large vehicle, was a misjudgement rather than a course of prolonged or deliberate dangerous conduct. None of the conventional aggravating features of dangerous driving offences were present: there was no speed, no alcohol or drugs, no fatigue, no prior criminal or traffic history of significance, and no road rage or recklessness of a grave kind.

The court accepted that Squires held genuine remorse and contrition, supported by his immediate distress upon learning of the deaths and his conduct throughout the proceedings. His prior good character, including his role as the primary carer for his son, was given meaningful weight. The court noted that the personal circumstances of the offender were relevant to explaining, though not excusing, the circumstances in which the offending occurred.

His Honour considered the question of whether exceptional circumstances existed that might take the case outside the norm for custody. However, the court ultimately imposed a custodial sentence, reflecting the serious objective consequences of the offending, namely two deaths caused by a single course of dangerous driving. The principles of totality were also applied in structuring the sentences for the two offences.

On disqualification, His Honour noted that legislation prevented backdating the disqualification period to account for the suspension already served from the date of the offence. The court imposed the minimum statutory disqualification of 12 months on each count, to run concurrently, commencing from the date of release from custody. His Honour acknowledged the practical hardship this caused but found no legislative mechanism to reduce the period further.

Orders Made

• Mr Squires is disqualified from holding a motor vehicle driver's licence for a period of 12 months concurrently for each offence, to commence upon his release from prison

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court confirmed that low moral culpability in a dangerous driving causing death case does not automatically attract a non-custodial sentence, even where exceptional circumstances are argued, where the objective consequences of the offending are severe.
  • Where the conventional aggravating features of dangerous driving, such as speed, alcohol, drugs, and prior history, are entirely absent, the sentencing court must still weigh the gravity of the outcome, here two deaths caused by a single driving error.
  • Genuine remorse, prior good character, and personal circumstances such as primary carer responsibilities are relevant mitigating factors, but their weight is assessed against the objective seriousness of the offence and the need for general deterrence in road death cases.
  • Under the applicable legislation, a period of licence suspension already served prior to sentencing cannot be backdated against the disqualification period formally imposed at sentence, as the disqualification runs from the date of release from custody rather than from the date of the offence or the commencement of suspension.
  • Applying the principle of totality from Mill v R and Pearce v R, the court structured the sentences for the two concurrent offences to reflect the overall criminality of what was, in substance, a single course of dangerous driving.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
- Road Transport Act (NSW)

Cases
- Jimmy v R [2020] NSWCCA 60
- Johnson v R (2004) 78 ALJR 216
- Mill v R (1988) 166 CLR 59
- Pearce v R (1988) 194 CLR 610
- R v Berg [2004] NSWCCA 300
- R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510
- R v Hammoud (2008) 118 A Crim R
- R v Janceski [2005] NSWCCA 288
- R v Jurisic (1998) (CCA, unreported, 12 October 1998)
- R v MMK (2006) 164 A Crim R 481
- R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
- R v Richards [2006] NSWCCA 262
- R v Whyte [2002] NSWCCA 343; 55 NSWLR 252
- R v XX (2009) 195 A Crim R 38
- SBF v R [2009] NSWCCA 231
- Stumbles v R [2006] NSWCCA 418
- Thomson and Houlton v R [2000] NSWCCA 309
- Veen (No 2) v R [1988] HCA 14; 164 CLR 465
- Whelan v R [2012] NSWCCA 147