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are separated by a row which shows when the transitional provisions were enacted, and another showing when they were repealed.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.