Dangerous Driving Occasioning GBH

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Dangerous Driving Occasioning GBH Dangerous driving occasioning GBH Prior to 1 January 2014 Transitional Sentencing Provisions: This table is divided into thirds based on the three relevant periods of Sentencing Provisions: - Post-transitional provisions period - Transitional provisions period - Pre-transitional provisions period These periods are separated by a row which shows when the transitional provisions were enacted, and another showing when they were repealed. Glossary: imp imprisonment susp suspended conc concurrent cum cumulative PG plead guilty BAC blood alcohol content att attempted EFP eligible for parole DDOGBH dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm DDOD dangerous driving occasioning death DDOBH dangerous driving occasioning bodily harm agg aggravated circ circumstances TES total effective sentence RTA Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) DUI driving under the influence DDOGBH 29.01.16 Current as 29 January 2016 No. Case Antecedents Summary/ facts Sentence Appeal 12. Timbrell v The 21 yrs at time of offending. Ct 1: DDOGBH RTA s59(1)(b) Ct 1: 8 mths imp. Allowed by majority. State of Western 22 yrs at time of sentencing. Ct 2: DDOD RTA s59(1)(b) Ct 2: 12 mths imp Australia [No 2] (conc). Mazza J dissenting. Convicted after early PG. The appellant was driving his motor [2013] WASCA vehicle on Leach Highway in Shelley. He TES 12 mths imp. Terms of conc and order stand. 269 No prior criminal record; no prior drove into the intersection of Leach TES of 12 mths imp susp for 9 traffic convictions; no unpaid fines. Highway and Vahland Avenue in Extreme and mths. Delivered contravention of a red traffic control light. genuine remorse and 28/11/2013 Attended private Catholic School; contrition. At [56] … By comparison with house captain; completed Bachelor of The bullbar of his vehicle struck another other cases, the appellant’s Commerce degree; represented the motor vehicle in the intersection. The other Character references culpability was towards the low State in underage football. vehicle had been travelling on Vahland spoke well of him. end of the scale of seriousness. Avenue. Mr Liddiard was the driver and There was no suggestion he was Employed with a finance company. his sister, Ms Liddiard, was a passenger. Judge not satisfied under the influence of illicit Mr Liddiard lawfully entered the that appellant drugs. There was no evidence he No difficulties with alcohol or illicit intersection on a green traffic control light deliberately drove had been exceeding the speed drugs. in order to execute a right turn. The force through the red limit. It was not alleged the of the impact propelled his vehicle into a light. appellant had deliberately Strong and stable family. light pole. The appellant’s vehicle rolled. ignored the red traffic control Sentencing judge signal … the cause of his Due to the collision now suffering from Mr Liddiard died at the scene from spinal noted that appellant inattention is unknown. an adjustment disorder; experiencing and head injuries suffered as a result of the had a ‘momentary symptoms of increased depression and collision. Ms Liddiard received rib and appalling lapse At [111] Patterns of sentencing stress, social avoidance, increased fractures, a punctured and collapsed lung, of either judgment with respect to the recently irritability, feelings of guilt, reduced multiple lower limb lacerations, a hip or attention…’ increased penalties are yet to self-confidence, increased emotionality wound, facial cuts, a chipped tooth and emerge … & greater level of dependence on his whiplash injuries. The collapsed lung was VIS described as parents. a life-endangering injury. Ms Liddiard ‘absolutely spent a week in hospital after the collision. heartbreaking’. DDOGBH 29.01.16 Current as 29 January 2016 The appellant received a head injury. He was treated in hospital but the injury was Very low risk of re- relatively minor. offending. The appellant undertook a preliminary breath test at the scene. His blood alcohol level was zero. The speed limit where the incident occurred was 70 km/hr. There was no evidence to suggest the appellant had been speeding. Also, there was no evidence to suggest he had braked before the collision. The road was dry, the weather conditions were clear and the intersection was well lit. Ideal driving conditions. As a result of the head injury the appellant had no memory of the incident and could not say why he drove into the intersection. 11. Lutumba v The 29 yrs at time of offence & sentencing. Indictment Indictment Allowed. State of Western Ct 1: DDOD RTA s59(1)(b) Ct 1: 5 yrs imp. Australia Convicted after early PG. Ct 2: DDOGBH RTA s59(1)(b) Ct 2: 3 ½ yrs imp. Sentencing judge’s decision in Ct 3: DDOGBH RTA s59(1)(b) Ct 3: 3 ½ yrs imp. relation to Ct 1 on the [2013] WASCA No prior criminal record in WA. Ct 4: DDOGBH RTA s59(1)(b) Ct 4: 3 ½ yrs imp. indictment, and orders in 172 relation to accumulation and Born in Congo; Arrived in WA in 2009 s32 Notice s32 Notice concurrency of the individual Delivered as a refugee. DDOBH 4 mths imp. sentences of imp, set aside. 01/08/2013 DDOBH 4 mths imp. Early life traumatic; his environment Unauthorised driving (learner) $250 fine Re-sentenced to 3 yrs 6 mths disrupted by ongoing fighting, Drive vehicle contrary to compliance $600 fine imp (Ct 1) and TES 4 yrs 6 mths DDOGBH 29.01.16 Current as 29 January 2016 widespread disease and famine; saw his notice $300 fine imp. father and brother both killed. Disorderly behaviour in public Ordered to serve 12 At [39] … the appellant’s Full time employment since been in All of the offences, except for the offence mths of term criminal conduct was not in the WA; financially supported his mother. of disorderly behaviour in public, arose out imposed on Ct 3 on upper range of seriousness for of single course of conduct while the indictment before offences of dangerous driving Former partner, who was pregnant with appellant drove a motor vehicle on 1 commenced to serve occasioning death, where the their unborn son, remained in Congo January 2012. term imposed for Ct offence is not committed in when he relocated to WA. In early 1 on indictment. circumstances of aggravation. 2012, his son died from malnutrition. At about 8:45pm the appellant drove his sedan on Dunreath Drive towards Perth All other terms At [41] … bearing in mind the Very limited English skills. Airport. Dunreath Drive is a single conc. increase in the maximum carriageway with one lane provided for penalty, with effect from 1 each direction of travel. The appellant was TES 6 yrs imp. August 2008, it is apparent from transporting four passengers, being three my scrutiny of earlier sentencing adults and a 6 yr old child. EFP. decisions that the term of 5 years’ imprisonment is outside Immediately prior to the incident, the MDL disq 6 yrs. the range available on a proper appellant was seen by other road users to exercise of sentencing be travelling dangerously close to the rear Appears to have discretion. of a Mercedes truck. This limited his view been contrite and of oncoming traffic. remorseful for his At [51] It was appropriate, in offending and its the circumstances, for the About 1.9km from the airport, at the impact on the seriousness of the appellant’s approach to a right-hand curve in Dunreath victims. offending, and the consequences Drive, the appellant crossed double white for multiple victims, to be dividing lines onto the incorrect side of the recognised by some carriageway. He performed this accumulation of the individual manoeuvre in an attempt to overtake the sentences of imprisonment. truck, which had reduced its speed in However, when the total accordance with a ‘reduce speed’ sign. The effective sentence of 6 years’ appellant’s vehicle collided head on with imprisonment is evaluated in the DDOGBH 29.01.16 Current as 29 January 2016 an oncoming vehicle which contained a context of the maximum driver and a passenger. penalties for the offences for which individual sentences of As a result of the collision, the rear imprisonment were imposed driver’s side passenger in the appellant’s ……the only conclusion vehicle, a woman, suffered multiple severe reasonably open is that the injuries. She died shortly after in hospital sentencing outcome infringed (Ct 1). The deceased woman’s partner, the first limb of the totality who was seated in the middle rear seat, principle. … was seriously injured (Ct 2). The two occupants of the oncoming vehicle sustained extensive injuries amounting to GBH (Cts 3 and 4). The deceased’s 6 yr old son, who was seated in the rear of the vehicle, and the front seat passenger, received injuries amounting to bodily harm (Cts 1 and 2 on s32 notice). The appellant broke his ankle. When the offences occurred, the appellant was driving contrary to the conditions of his learner’s permit in that he was not properly supervised and he failed to display ‘L’ plates. He should not have been driving in the circumstances. The appellant’s vehicle was, to his knowledge, subject to a compliance notice and was therefore unfit for use on the road. 10. Shee v Jennings 30 yrs at offending. s 284(2) Criminal Code Culpable 18 mths imp. Appeal allowed. 31 yrs at sentencing. driving (other than of motor vehicle) [2013] WASC causing GBH. EFP. Re-sentenced to 12 mths imp 162 Convicted after early PG. susp 12 mths. DDOGBH 29.01.16 Current as 29 January 2016 The appellant was the owner of a 4.25m Sentencing Delivered No criminal record at time of offence. dinghy. He held a recreational skipper’s Magistrate ordered At [28] No range of sentences 06/05/2013 ticket.
Recommended publications
  • Crimes Act 2016
    REPUBLIC OF NAURU Crimes Act 2016 ______________________________ Act No. 18 of 2016 ______________________________ TABLE OF PROVISIONS PART 1 – PRELIMINARY ....................................................................................................... 1 1 Short title .................................................................................................... 1 2 Commencement ......................................................................................... 1 3 Application ................................................................................................. 1 4 Codification ................................................................................................ 1 5 Standard geographical jurisdiction ............................................................. 2 6 Extraterritorial jurisdiction—ship or aircraft outside Nauru ......................... 2 7 Extraterritorial jurisdiction—transnational crime ......................................... 4 PART 2 – INTERPRETATION ................................................................................................ 6 8 Definitions .................................................................................................. 6 9 Definition of consent ................................................................................ 13 PART 3 – PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY ................................................. 14 DIVISION 3.1 – PURPOSE AND APPLICATION ................................................................. 14 10 Purpose
    [Show full text]
  • Victoria Police Force
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. -----~~. -------~ ., .-., )\ '.;.. I t· (J ;f// '. ~\ i:.· .. Ii' ::1)" ,1-,';'" \. .ti} r.? ~, : .. j",C::::i r[. o "1 ~ . I o .~ '\ o 1I .-v,. \ 'i~.. , I\' " '; o l~ I ,zl ." I ·t• r? /I. :/ ,"; o ... 1: --- -~--~~----::-- --"... ··~,-,-.-·"~ ... ·l'~""-,.v.~ -. ::1{-~'~'"':~:':~""""----"" ~ .. < ~~, - - ~ 'l • ,~-'-'-"-----<+.-~-~~'~"' "I) VICTORIA t " POLICE ANNUAL I'· J( REPORT .~, 1981 ) '. (,I C .. U.S. Department 01 Justice 86657 National Institute of Justice This document has been exactly from the reproduc~d af~;eceived \ .\ person or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or polic).es of the National Institute of i 11 i Justice. I Permissioh to reproduce this copyrighted material has been ! granted by (. ! <I I. Victoria Police Department i I I to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). f,p I Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ sion of the copyright owner, I i " ~',) ~ a ,-- -- ~ __~F""-'-- - ~- ~-- -~- --­ VICTORIA r , I ,I . i Report and Financial Statement of the VICTORIA POLICE FORCE for the Year ended 31 Decenlber 1981 Ordered by the Legislative Assembly to be printed ", ,.,.d ..' , .' : ' . , \ , \ ACQUISHTnONS '. MELBOURNE F D ATKINSON GOVERNMENT PRINTER 1982 No. 22 Preceding I a . page blank 10 f t f " ... The Hon. C.R. T. Mathews, M.P., Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Parliament House, MELBOURNE Dear Minister, I have pleasure in submitting to you, for the information of Parlia­ ment, the Annual Report and Statement of Accounts for the year ended 31st December, 1981.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Ite Offences Against the Person
    OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ’ITE OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS 1. short title. Homicide 2. Capitall murders. 3. Sentence of death. Sentence of death not to be passed on pregnant mmm. Procedure where woman convicted of capital offence alleges she is pregnant. 3~.Life imprisonment for non-capital murder. 3~.Provisions as to procedure and regarding repulted and multiple murders. 3c. Proyisions as to appeab in relation to repeated and multiple murders. 3~.Provisions as to procedure regarding two or more murders tried together. 4. Abolition of ‘‘ms~~emalice’’. 5. Persons suffering from diminished responsibility. 6. Provocation. 7. suicide pact. 8. Conspiring or soliciting to commit murder. 9. Manslaughter. 10. Exasable homicide. 11. Petit tnasm. 12. Provision for trial of certain cases of murder or manslaryhtcr. Attempts to Murder 13. Administering poison, or wounding with intent to murder. 14. Destroying or damaging building with intent to murder. 15. Setting 6re to ship, etc., with intent to murder. 16. Attempting to administer poison, etc.. with intent to murder. 17. By other means attempting to commit murder. htters Threatening to Murder 18. Letters threatening to murder. [The inclusion of thiu page is authorized by L.N. 42/1995] OFFENCES A CAINST THE PERSON Acts Causing or Tending to Cause Donger to rife, or Bodily Harm 19. Preventing person endeavouring to save his life in shipwreck. 20. Shooting or attempting to shoot or wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm. 21. What shall be deemed loaded arms. 22. Unlawful wounding. 23. Attempting to choke, etc., in order to commit indictable offence.
    [Show full text]
  • Simon Kealey QC
    Simon Kealey QC Call to the Bar: 1991 Silk Year 2017 Simon Kealey was appointed Queens Counsel in 2017. He is an extremely popular advocate who enjoys a busy practice concentrating solely on criminal law for both defence and prosecution. Simon has been involved in a large number of the leading cases both on the North Eastern Circuit and beyond. The principal offence groups CONTACT DETAILS undertaken are murder and manslaughter, serious fraud, high value drug offences, people trafficking, sexual offences and driving offences resulting in fatalities. Email: The work undertaken by Simon often includes cases of significant factual and legal Simon.Kealey@lincolnhousechambers.com complexity and involve legal teams which Simon will lead. In addition to the work Telephone: undertaken in the Crown Court Simon also has an impressive appeal practice and has been involved in many complex appeal court matters throughout his career. 0161 832 5701 PRACTICE AREAS Simon will accept instructions in significant cases from legally aided clients and will cover the full spectrum of criminal offences and appeal work for private clients. Fraud All enquiries in relation to Simon’s work and availability to accept instructions should be Murder/Serious Violence made to the Director of Clerking, David Wright. Drug Offences Murder/Manslaughter Sexual Offences Regulatory R v Lawler – Acted for Defendant in high profile murder of elderly man, case featured on BBC's Crimewatch. Professional Discipline R v Dormer – Lead advocate in murder trial & subsequent conviction appeal concerning expert Private Client evidence & recovered memory. MEMBERSHIPS R v Taylor – Acted for prosecution in the trial of a man kicked to death.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Assault Includes Both a Specific Intent to Commit a Battery, and a Battery That Is Otherwise Unprivileged Committed with Only General Intent
    QUESTION 5 Don has owned Don's Market in the central city for twelve years. He has been robbed and burglarized ten times in the past ten months. The police have never arrested anyone. At a neighborhood crime prevention meeting, apolice officer told Don of the state's new "shoot the burglar" law. That law reads: Any citizen may defend his or her place of residence against intrusion by a burglar, or other felon, by the use of deadly force. Don moved a cot and a hot plate into the back of the Market and began sleeping there, with a shotgun at the ready. After several weeks of waiting, one night Don heard noises. When he went to the door, he saw several young men running away. It then dawned on him that, even with the shotgun, he might be in a precarious position. He would likely only get one shot and any burglars would get the next ones. With this in mind, he loaded the shotgun and fastened it to the counter, facing the front door. He attached a string to the trigger so that the gun would fire when the door was opened. Next, thinking that when burglars enter it would be better if they damaged as little as possible, he unlocked the front door. He then went out the back window and down the block to sleep at his girlfriend's, where he had been staying for most of the past year. That same night a police officer, making his rounds, tried the door of the Market, found it open, poked his head in, and was severely wounded by the blast.
    [Show full text]
  • Conspiracy and Attempts Consultation
    The Law Commission Consultation Paper No 183 CONSPIRACY AND ATTEMPTS A Consultation Paper The Law Commission was set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Mr Justice Etherton, Chairman Mr Stuart Bridge Mr David Hertzell Professor Jeremy Horder Kenneth Parker QC Professor Martin Partington CBE is Special Consultant to the Law Commission responsible for housing law reform. The Chief Executive of the Law Commission is Steve Humphreys and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WC1N 2BQ. This consultation paper, completed on 17 September 2007, is circulated for comment and criticism only. It does not represent the final views of the Law Commission. The Law Commission would be grateful for comments on its proposals before 31 January 2008. Comments may be sent either – By post to: David Hughes Law Commission Conquest House 37-38 John Street Theobalds Road London WC1N 2BQ Tel: 020-7453-1212 Fax: 020-7453-1297 By email to: criminal@lawcommission.gsi.gov.uk It would be helpful if, where possible, comments sent by post could also be sent on disk, or by email to the above address, in any commonly used format. We will treat all responses as public documents in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act and we will include a list of all respondents' names in any final report we publish. Those who wish to submit a confidential response should contact the Commission before sending the response. We will disregard automatic confidentiality disclaimers generated by an IT system.
    [Show full text]
  • ~. Provocation As a Defence to Murder
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. LAW REFORM COMMISSIONER VICTORIA , r Working Paper No.6 : -­ I ~. PROVOCATION AS A DEFENCE "~I TO MURDER MELBOURNE 1979 '. NCJf:'~~S SEP 261979 ACQUISITIONS, LAW REFORM COMMISSIONER I VICTORIA . " ! . , ". ~. I :'! .~, . ' .. " \ .. ' , Working Paper No.6 _} " ",!, I .. 1:. : . : ~ , PROVOCATION AS A DEFENCE TO MUR'D'ER MELBOURNE 1979 / Views expressed in this Working Paper are provisional only and such suggestions as are made are tentative. Comment and criticism are invited and it would be greatly appreciated if these could be forwarded before 1st October, 1979. Law Reform Commissioner 155 Queen Street, Melbourne, Vic. 3000. I CONTENTS Paragraph Page Introduction 1 5 What is Provocation? 4 S 19th Century Views 5 6 The Emergence of "The Reasonable Man" and "The Ordinary Man" 9 7 "The Ordinary Man" in Legislation 13 9 "The Reasonable Man" and the Common Law 18 11 The Case of Holmes 20 11 More of "The Reasonable Person" 28 13 Legislative Change 32 15 The New Zealand Crimes Act 1961 37 16 The New Zealand Case 38 16 Victoria Today 41 18 Ever the Problem of "The Ordinary Man" 59 23 A Climate of Reform 64 24 (a) Eire 64 24 (b) England 65 24 (c) U.S.A.- The Model Penal Code . 68 25 (d) South Australia 72 26 Reform for Victoria 76 27 References 31 3 WORKING PAPER No.6 PROVOCATION AS A DEFENCE TO MURDER. Introduction 1. By letter dated the 13th day of March, 1979 The Honourable the Attorney-General acting pursuant to section 8 (b) of the Law Reform Act 1973 referred to the Law Reform Commissioner the following reference:- "To investigate and report upon the necessity for reform of the law relating to provocation as a defence to a charge of murder." 2.
    [Show full text]
  • CODE OFFENSE Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Totals 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 0 0 0 0
    CODE OFFENSE Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Totals 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AA35E ASLT 4-GM-INFLICT-ATTEMPT BODILY HARM-SCHOOL OFFICIAL 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 AA357 ASLT 4-GM-INFLICT BODILY HARM-POLICE 0 0 2 2 1 3 1 2 1 0 AD302 ASLT 5-GM-INFLICT BODILY HARM-NO WEAPON-ADULT KNOWN 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AD351 ASLT 5 PRIOR CONVICTION 2Y-GM-ADULT FAMILY 0 0 4 2 3 5 3 4 6 3 AD354 ASLT 5 PRIOR CONVICTION 2Y-GM-CHILD FAMILY 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AD401 ASLT 5 PRIOR CONVICTION 5Y-GM-ADULT FAMILY 0 1 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 AG301 ASLT 5 FE-INFLICT ATTEMPT BODILY HARM-ADULT FAMILY 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 AG302 ASLT 5-FE-INFLICT BODILY HARM-NO WEAPON-ADULT KNOWN 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AG351 ASLT 5 FE-INFLICT ATTEMPT BODILY HARM-HANDS-ADULT FAMILY 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 AG401 ASLT 5 FE-FEAR BODILY HARM-NO WEAPON-ADULT FAMILY 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 AJ251 DOM ASLT-FE-INFLT SUBST B 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AJ351 DOM ASLT-FE-INFLT ATTEMPT BODILY HARM-HANDS-ADULT FAMILY 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 1 0 1 AJ352 DOM ASLT-FE-INFLICT ATTEMPT BODILY HARM-HANDS-ADULT KNOWN 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 2 0 0 AJ401 DOM ASLT-FE-FEAR BODILY HARM-NO WEAPON-ADULT FAMILY 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 AJ551 DOM ASLT-FE-INFLICT BODILY HARM-HANDS-ADULT FAMILY 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AK302 DOM ASLT-GM-INFLICTS ATTEMPT BODILY HARM-UNKNOWN-ADULT FAMILY 0 1 AK351 DOM ASLT-GM-INFLICTS ATTEMPT BODILY HARM-HANDS-ADULT FAMILY 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 AK352 DOM ASLT-GM-INFLICTS ATTEMPT BODILY HARM-HANDS-ADULT KNOWN 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AL301 DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HARM-NO WEAPON-ADULT FAMILY 0 0 5 2 4 2
    [Show full text]
  • Grievous Bodily Harm – Provocation and Self Defence
    Grievous bodily harm – provocation and self defence Date: Monday May 10, 2021 . A common criminal charge resulting from a physical altercation is ‘grievous bodily harm’ (often referred to as GBH). Many grievous body harm charges arise out of a fight scenario (often involving alcohol) – there is a verbal exchange, then a scuffle, before someone punches or kicks the other, causing serious injury. If you are the person who delivers the ‘final hit’, can you defend the charge? The law does not expect citizens to be passive when their safety is threatened by someone else. Sometimes an attacker may come off second best but it does not necessarily follow that the one who wins the fight has committed the crime. What is grievous bodily harm? Legally, the term ‘grievous bodily harm’ means an injury that causes: •the loss of a distinct part or an organ of the body; or •serious disfigurement; or •any bodily injury of such a nature that, if left untreated, would endanger or be likely to endanger life, or cause or be likely to cause permanent injury to health. Options for the defence of self-defence The most common defence to grievous bodily harm charges is that of self-defence. The law relating to self-defence in the context of grievous bodily harm is split into two categories: 1. Self defence to an unprovoked assault; and 2. Self defence to a provoked assault. What is a provoked assault? A provoked assault involves an insult or act of such a nature to be likely to deprive an ordinary person of the power of self-control, and induce them to assault the person who insulted them.
    [Show full text]
  • Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering 18 U.S.C. § 1959 a Manual for Federal Prosecutors
    Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering 18 U.S.C. § 1959 A Manual for Federal Prosecutors December 2006 Prepared by the Staff of the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20005 (202) 514-3594 Frank J. Marine, Consultant Douglas E. Crow, Principal Deputy Chief Amy Chang Lee, Assistant Chief Robert C. Dalton Merv Hamburg Gregory C.J. Lisa Melissa Marquez-Oliver David J. Stander Catherine M. Weinstock Cover Design by Linda M. Baer PREFACE This manual is intended to assist federal prosecutors in the preparation and litigation of cases involving the Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering Statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1959. Prosecutors are encouraged to contact the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section (OCRS) early in the preparation of their case for advice and assistance. All pleadings alleging a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959 including any indictment, information, or criminal complaint, and a prosecution memorandum must be submitted to OCRS for review and approval before being filed with the court. The submission should be approved by the prosecutor’s office before being submitted to OCRS. Due to the volume of submissions received by OCRS, prosecutors should submit the proposal three weeks prior to the date final approval is needed. Prosecutors should contact OCRS regarding the status of the proposed submission before finally scheduling arrests or other time-sensitive actions relating to the submission. Moreover, prosecutors should refrain from finalizing any guilty plea agreement containing a Section 1959 charge until final approval has been obtained from OCRS. The policies and procedures set forth in this manual and elsewhere relating to 18 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Colin Banham Crime
    Colin Banham Crime Colin has over 17 years’ experience both defending and prosecuting in the criminal courts. He has been instructed as a leading Junior, led Junior and acting alone in serious and complex criminal allegations. He regularly defends and prosecutes cases including aggravated burglary, grievous bodily harm with intent, violent disorder, drugs conspiracies, robbery and large-scale fraud. Colin is graded by the CPS as a Level 4 Prosecutor and is a member of the Specialist Panels for Fraud (including fiscal fraud) and Serious Year of Call: 1999 Crime (including terrorism). Clerks Colin has extensive experience in serious road traffic offences. He is regularly instructed by insurers to represent defendants, particularly in Senior Practice Manager cases involving serious injury with underlying civil litigation. He accepts Andrew Trotter private instructions in all forms of motoring offences either directly or by referral. Chief Executive & Director of Clerking RECENT CASES Tony McDaid R v RS, DB & KM (2016): Instructed by the NCA in a multi-handed Contact a Clerk conspiracy to supply Class A drugs amounting to £50.4m. The case Tel: +44 (0) 845 210 5555 was conducted against a silk and two leading juniors. Fax: +44 (0) 121 606 1501 crime@no5.com R v KS-R (2016): Case involving allegations of causing serious injury by dangerous driving. R v CP (2016): Successfully defending a middle-aged lady alleged to have defrauded a pension scheme. R v ZN (2016): Defending a male alleged to have conspired to import a large amount of Khat into the UK. R v AB, PB & AE (2016): Prosecuting an allegation of conspiracy to supply cannabis amounting to almost £500,000.
    [Show full text]
  • 2012 Criminal Code (Amendment) Act 29 711
    2012 Criminal Code (Amendment) Act 29 711 ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES 1. Short Title 2. Amendment of section 20 of principal Code 3. Amendment of section 50 of principal Code 4. Amendment of section 70 of principal Code 5. Insertion of new section in principal Code 6. Insertion of new sections in principal Code 7. Amendment of section 82 of principal Code 8. Insertion of new section in principal Code 9. Amendment of section 83 of principal Code 10. Amendment of section 87 of principal Code 11. Amendment of section 88 of principal Code 12. Amendment of section 95 of principal Code 13. Amendment of section 97 of principal Code 14. Amendment of section 99 of principal Code 15. Insertion of new sections in principal Code 16. Amendment of section 137 of principal Code 17. Amendment of section 175 of principal Code 18. Amendment of section 176 of principal Code 19. Repeal 20. Amendment of section 186 of principal Code 21. Amendment of section 187 of principal Code 22. Amendment of section 188 of principal Code 23. Insertion of new sections in principal Code 24. Amendment of section 189 of principal Code 25. Amendment of section 190 of principal Code 26. Amendment of section 194 of principal Code 27. Amendment of section 195 of principal Code 28. Amendment of section 198 of principal Code 29. Amendment of section 199 of principal Code 30. Amendment of section 203A of principal Code 712 Act 29 Criminal Code (Amendment) 2012 31. Insertion of new sections in principal Code 32. Amendment of section 205 of principal Code 33.
    [Show full text]