R v Singh [2024] NSWDC 261

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Singh [2024] NSWDC 261 Hearing dates: 10/5/24, 24/5/24 Date of orders: 24 May 2024 Decision date: 24 May 2024 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Bourke SC DCJ Decision: Re Aggravated dangerous driving occasioning death – Convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 6 years with a NPP of 3 years 10 months (6/11/22-5/9/26). A 25 percent discount has been taken into account. I find special circumstances. Disqualified for 3 years – automatic. Catchwords: Crime – Sentence – Aggravated dangerous driving occasioning death Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Cases Cited: R v Whyte (2002) 55 NSWLR 252 Rosenthal v R [2008] NSWCCA 149 Category: Sentence Parties: NSW DPP – Crown Surinder Singh - Offender Representation: Ms J Kelton for Crown Mr W Shukoor for Offender File Number(s): 22/332301

remarks on sentence 1. The offender, Mr Surinder Singh, appears for sentence in relation to an offence under s 52A(2) of the Crimes Act 1900, that being an offence of aggravated dangerous driving occasioning death. The maximum penalty for that offence is 14 years' imprisonment. The maximum penalty is, of course, an important guidepost in the sentencing exercise to which I have had regard. He pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and therefore I will allow a 25% discount by reason of the utilitarian value of that plea of guilty.

FACTS 1. The facts are agreed and in essence are as follows. The offender is an Indian national living in Australia on a bridging visa. At the time of the collision he had been in Australia for at least 18 months. He lived in rented accommodation in Tighes Hill which he shared with several housemates. The street on which he lived intersected with Maitland Road in that suburb. 2. On Saturday 5 November 2022 the offender was at home with one of his housemates, the deceased, Mr Jujhar Singh, who was not related to the offender. The two of them were drinking a 750 ml bottle of whiskey, which was their habit on a weekend, and by 10 o'clock that night the bottle had been consumed. At about 10pm the offender and the deceased had another housemate drive them to a nearby store to buy a vape because they were too intoxicated to drive. The housemate returned the two men home and then left for work. 3. At some time after about 10.40pm the offender and the deceased left the house again. The offender was driving his car which was a Hyundai sedan. The deceased was in the front passenger seat. At 11.07pm the offender drove into a drive-thru bottle shop on Maitland Road. After purchasing a six-pack of beer the offender drove his car along Maitland Road. 4. The road between the bottle shop and the scene of the subsequent collision comprised four lanes with two lanes in each direction. The premises along that part of the road are mostly commercial and include several pubs, a service station and some fast food outlets. There is foot traffic in the area. It is the main road in that suburb. The road surface was sealed with clear lane markings and otherwise well-lit by streetlights. The centre lines were double white lines. There were several sets of traffic lights along the relevant portion of the road. 5. The length of the drive from the bottle shop to the point of impact was about 1.5 kilometres. The speed posted for the area was 50 kilometres per hour and increased to 60 kilometres per hour shortly before the collision site. The weather was clear and the road was dry. The path of the offender's travel between the bottle shop and the scene of the collision was captured by CCTV and in-car video from various locations. The information from these sources allowed police to calculate the approximate average speed at which the offender was driving at various points. 6. After leaving the bottle shop the offender's car was captured on footage overtaking other cars including on the inside lane and weaving in and out of traffic. Assessments of his approximate average speed included 112 kilometres per hour while the cars around him were travelling at or close to the 50 kilometre per hour speed limit. At another point the offender's car was captured at an approximate average speed of 130 kilometres per hour in a 50 kilometre zone. 7. The offender then drove past a roadside breath test station which was on the opposite of the road and which was being packed up for the night. Police saw the offender driving past at speed and this was captured on their in-car video equipment. At that point the approximate average speed was about 103 kilometres per hour. Shortly after that point the signposted speed increased to 60 kilometres per hour. 8. The speed at which the offender was driving at the time of impact could not be determined with accuracy. However, the point of collision was only 230 metres past where the RBT station was located and the impact occurred about eight seconds after the offender's vehicle passed that point. At a point between the RBT station and the collision site the road has a slight crest where the roadway forms a bridge over a railway corridor and shortly past that point the road veers sharply to the right. 9. The impact took place out the front of the Royal Oak Hotel in Mayfield. At that location there was a large wooden telegraph pole on the corner of the road out the front of the hotel. At 11.11pm the offender's car impacted with this wooden telegraph pole at the front passenger side door. The pole was pushed backwards by the force of the impact. The car's front left fender, the front passenger door and the external shell of the rear passenger door were torn off on impact and the front passenger seat snapped. 10. The force of the impact was such that the front and rear of the car separated into two parts and, clearly, the car was very extensively damaged. The front driver's side, however, was comparatively undamaged. The door was functional and there was little to no intrusion by car parts into the front driver's seating area. The deceased suffered extensive injuries and was ejected from the car and died at the scene. 11. A Mr Minhas was driving in his car a distance in front of and going in the same direction as the offender. He heard a car engine revving from behind him and saw headlights coming towards him and then a loud bang. There was a second bang when the rear portion of the offender's car, which had separated from the front section, impacted the back of Mr Minhas's car. He was not injured, but his car suffered damage including a shattered front passenger window and large dents along the passenger side. 12. The front portion of the offender's car impacted with a parked car and then collided with the wall of the Royal Oak Hotel causing the wall to crack. The offender undid his seatbelt and got out of the car. Civilians who heard the collision came to assist. 13. The offender asked on numerous occasions about the welfare of the deceased. When asked what had happened, the offender said that he had been the passenger and the deceased had been driving. Police from the RBT unit attended the scene shortly after. 14. The offender also told police that he was the passenger and that the deceased had been driving. He maintained that version throughout all discussions with other civilians, police and medical personnel. He also told ambulance officers that he had "begged his friend not to drive due to having a few drinks". Once in the ambulance he asked ambulance officers about the deceased's welfare and was told that he had died. 15. At the hospital he told police, "I told him, 'Don't drive. It's not important enough to leave the house', but he said we needed food." He told hospital staff that the deceased had lost control of the car "'cause he was over speed. I was sitting beside him and I said, 'Please go slow'". At the hospital the offender appeared drowsy with slurred and slow speech, slow breathing and drooping eyelids consistent with the depressant effects of alcohol. 16. The offender suffered a small laceration to his left eyebrow, which required stitches, as well as other lacerations, abrasions and incisional wounds to his face and large swelling to his left cheekbone. He also needed four stitches in total to two lacerations on his left tricep. 17. In addition he had a laceration to the dorsum of the left hand, abrasions to his knees and mild bruising across the pelvis. He was otherwise uninjured and was released to police custody the same day. He was spoken to with the assistance of an interpreter and said, "Me and my friend went and drank at home. Both were drunk, but my friend told me, 'I need to go. I have some work.' I told him, 'No, we are drunk, we can't go'...and he told me to come with him and I went and I was sitting in the passenger seat." 1. He reiterated that the deceased was the driver of the car. 2. Police assessed the scene of the accident and found no evidence of harsh or sudden braking or steering immediately prior to the impact. The area was well lit and the road surface was in a reasonable condition. The manual transmission of the car was found to be in the fifth gear position when examined by police. 3. A blood sample collected from the offender was analysed and it was determined that the blood alcohol content at the time of the collision would have been between about .161 and .179 grams per 100 mls of blood and most likely at a level of about .167. The agreed facts note that at a blood alcohol reading of .161 the offender would have been very substantially impaired in terms of his driving ability. Those are the relevant facts of the offence.