AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 12 July 2021

R v Haydon Charles Ready

[2021] NSWDC 341

Traffic & driving
CRIMINAL LAW OFFENDING FOUND TO BE IN MID RANGE OF OBJECTIVE SERIOUSNESS N O IMPACT ON DRIVING SENTENCE NO AGGRAVATING FACTORS MITIGATING FACTORS

Citation: R v Haydon Charles Ready [2021] NSWDC 341
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 12 July 2021
Judge(s): Hatzistergos AM DCJ

Background

A public bus driver was acquitted after a five-day trial of driving dangerously but was convicted on a back-up charge of negligent driving occasioning death following an incident on 3 February 2019 at Carlingford. The driver had been operating a Mercedes City Bus on behalf of the NSW bus authority when, while executing a right-hand turn on a green traffic light at the intersection of Pennant Hills Road and Coleman Avenue, the bus struck a pedestrian who had also received a green walk signal.

The pedestrian, an adult male, died from blunt force head injuries. A post-collision inspection of the bus found no mechanical defects contributing to the collision. CCTV footage from within the bus showed the pedestrian did not appear in the driver's view until approximately one second before the collision.

A separate charge arose from blood and urine tests taken after the accident, which detected residual traces of cannabis metabolites, a benzodiazepam breakdown product, and amphetamines. Expert toxicological evidence established that all substances reflected consumption well before the incident and had caused no impairment at the time of driving.

  • Whether the offending on the negligent driving charge (Sequence 2) fell within the mid-range of objective seriousness, and what weight should attach to the driver's obligations when operating a heavy vehicle with impaired sightlines
  • Whether the presence of illicit drug residues in blood and urine, without accompanying impairment, remained a relevant factor in sentencing on the drug-driving charge (Sequence 4)
  • What discount, if any, applied for an early guilty plea entered after the Crown declined a pre-trial offer
  • Whether the sentence for Sequence 2 could be served by way of an Intensive Corrections Order (ICO) with a home detention condition, and what further assessment was required

Decision

On Sequence 2, the court found the offending fell within the mid-range of objective seriousness. The driver had failed to keep a proper lookout during the turn in circumstances where his view was impaired by a combination of environmental factors: low evening sun, shading at the intersection, and a structural blind spot created by the bus's A-frame. The court emphasised that a driver of a heavy vehicle bears a heightened obligation to respond appropriately whenever driving conditions are compromised.

On Sequence 4, the court accepted the expert evidence of Dr Judith Perl, who concluded that all drug traces reflected prior consumption and had produced no impairment at the time of the collision. The presence of inactive metabolites only, without any active substance in the blood, pointed to use occurring more than 24 hours earlier. The court treated the drug-driving offending as less serious in context.

The court identified no aggravating factors. Mitigating factors included the driver's remorse, reasonable prospects of rehabilitation, and an early guilty plea. Because the Crown had declined the defence's pre-trial offer, the plea was entered on the first day following the acquittal on the more serious charge. The court applied a discount accordingly.

On Sequence 2, the court imposed a term of nine months imprisonment but deferred finalisation of the method of service pending a further Sentence Assessment Report on suitability for an ICO with a home detention condition. The execution of the sentence was stayed and bail continued in the meantime.

Orders Made

  • Sequence 2 (negligent driving occasioning death): Nine months imprisonment imposed; execution stayed pending further assessment
  • A further Sentence Assessment Report ordered to assess suitability for an Intensive Corrections Order with a home detention condition
  • Further consideration of the method of service deferred to 20 August 2021 under ss 17C and 17D of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
  • Bail to continue in the interim
  • Disqualification from driving for the statutory period of three years under the Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW), with credit for any time served under suspension
  • Sequence 4 (driving with illicit substances in blood): Convicted and fined $300 (reduced from a notional $400 by reason of the guilty plea)
  • Disqualification from driving for the statutory period of six months, with credit for any time served under suspension

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court confirmed that a driver of a heavy public vehicle bears a heightened duty of care: where driving conditions are compromised by environmental factors such as sun glare, shading, or structural blind spots, the obligation to keep a proper lookout is correspondingly greater.
  • Failing to maintain an adequate lookout during a right-hand turn, in circumstances where the driver's view was demonstrably impaired by a combination of factors, was sufficient to constitute negligent driving at the mid-range of objective seriousness, even without findings of dangerous driving.
  • Where illicit drug residues are detected in blood or urine but expert evidence establishes no active substance in the blood and no impairment at the time of driving, that evidence bears directly on the weight given to the drug-driving offence at sentencing.
  • A guilty plea entered after the Crown declines a pre-trial offer, but on the first occasion following acquittal on a more serious charge, still attracts a discount, though the precise quantum reflects the timing and procedural history.
  • Under ss 17C and 17D of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), a court may stay execution of a sentence of imprisonment and defer consideration of ICO suitability while awaiting a supplementary Sentence Assessment Report, particularly where home detention conditions require specific assessment.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 17C, 17D, 21A, 30E, 66
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 166
- Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW), ss 111, 117

Cases
- Bonsu v R [2009] NSWCCA 316
- Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Mansouri [2016] NSWLC 17
- Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Pelletier [2014] NSWLC 9
- Director of Public Prosecutions v Markovski [2011] NSWLC 31
- Director of Public Prosecutions v Victoria Bhandari [2011] NSWLC 7
- Mitchell v R (2009) 52 MVR 488
- R v Fageer [2017] NSWLC 18
- R v Janceski [2005] NSWCCA 288