Regina v Bradley James HANLON [2000] NSWCCA 55

Reported Decision : [2000] 31 MVR 268

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION : Regina v Bradley James HANLON [2000] NSWCCA 55 FILE NUMBER(S) : CCA 60299/99 HEARING DATE(S) : 16/2/2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 16 February 2000

PARTIES : Regina Bradley James Hanlon JUDGMENT OF : Sully J at 1; Carruthers AJ at 28

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/31/0089 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL Job DCJ OFFICER :

COUNSEL : C. K. Maxwell QC - Crown A. Webb - Appellant SOLICITORS : S. E. O'Connor - Crown T. A. Murphy - Appellant

Crimes Act 1900 LEGISLATION CITED : Sentencing Act 1989 Criminal Appeal Act 1912 CASES CITED: Jurisic DECISION : Leave to appeal granted; Appeal allowed and sentence in Court below quashed; Re-sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years, divided between minimum term of 3 years and additional term of 2 years; The minimum term is to commence on 21 May 1999 and expire on 20 May 2002; The additional term is to commence on 21 May 2002

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

60299/99

SULLY J CARRUTHERS AJ

16 February 2000

REGINA v Bradley James HANLON

JUDGMENT

1 SULLY J: Mr Bradley James Hanlon applies for leave to appeal against a sentence passed on him by his Honour Judge Job QC in the Newcastle District Court on 24 May 1999. 2 The applicant pleaded guilty before his Honour to a charge of aggravated dangerous driving occasioning death. The particular circumstance of aggravation was the presence in the applicant's blood of a concentration of alcohol greater than that permitted by the relevant provisions of the law. Such an offence attracts, upon conviction, a maximum penalty of imprisonment for fourteen years as provided by s.52A of the Crimes Act 1900. 3 His Honour sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for five years apportioned between a minimum term of three years and nine months to commence on 21 May 1999 and to expire on 20 February 2003, and an accompanying additional term of one year and three months commencing on 21 February 2003. 4 So far as concerns the objective facts they can be stated as follows: at about 5.20pm on 3 November 1998 the prisoner was driving a particular stationwaggon along Wollombi Road towards a bridge known as Bishops Bridge. Seated beside him in the front passenger seat was his brother David Hanlon. 5 As the vehicle approached the bridge it was necessary to negotiate a downhill right-hand bend. In the course of negotiating that bend, as it would seem from the available material, the applicant lost control of the vehicle that he was driving. He crossed a double unbroken centre line into the lane of traffic travelling in the opposite direction. There his vehicle collided with an oncoming vehicle driven by a Mrs Neville. 6 Following that impact the vehicle driven by the prisoner appears to have left the road surface to have travelled down a gully, and to have come finally to rest at the bottom of the bridge. The applicant's brother, and passenger, was killed as a result of that impact. The applicant himself suffered some injuries, but they were, fortunately from his point of view, not significantly serious. 7 Mrs Neville did suffer injury. She suffered severe bruising and soft tissue damage across her chest and stomach and on her hips, knees, back, hands and right ankle. There were, fortunately from her point of view, no fractures and no more serious or permanent injuries. 8 In due course a sample of blood was taken from the applicant. There was before the learned sentencing Judge the customary expert opinion evidence as to the implications of the particular reading. The opinion expressed by the relevant expert reads relevantly as follows: "Based on the above information I am of the opinion that at the time of driving (the applicant) was under the influence of alcohol to the extent that his driving ability would have been very significantly impaired. His blood alcohol concentration at the time of the collision would have been within a range, the lower limit being not less than 0.180 grams per 100 millilitres and the upper limit being 0.202 grams per 100 millilitres. At a blood alcohol concentration of 0.180 grams per 100 millilitres or above, all people would be under the influence of alcohol to the extent that driving ability would be very seriously impaired. Driving ability includes cognitive, motor and visual functions such as reaction skills, tracking ability, motor co-ordination, perception, judgment and decision-making, glare resistance and peripheral vision which would all be impaired."