Regina v Pates [2001] NSWCCA 142

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION : Regina v Pates [2001] NSWCCA 142 FILE NUMBER(S) : CCA 60413/00 HEARING DATE(S) : 6/4/01 JUDGMENT DATE : 6 April 2001

PARTIES : REGINA v STEPHEN PATES JUDGMENT OF : O'Keefe J at 1;32; Smart AJ at 31

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/11/0445 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL McGuire DCJ OFFICER :

COUNSEL : G E Smith - for Crown Applicant in person SOLICITORS : Applicant in person S E O'Connor - for Crown CATCHWORDS : Dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm - Appeal against sentence - Hardship as ground of appeal - Extreme or exceptional hardship required - Onus of establishing hardship is on appellant LEGISLATION CITED : Crimes Act 1900 CASES CITED: Queen v Edwards (1996) 19 ACR 510 Queen v Jurisic (1998) 45 NSWLR 209 DECISION : Leave to appeal refused.

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

No: 60413/00

O'Keefe J Smart AJ

Friday, 6 April 2001

REGINA v STEPHEN PATES

JUDGMENT

1 O'KEEFE J: Stephen Pates, the applicant, has sought leave to appeal against the severity of the sentence imposed in the District Court by Judge McGuire (the Judge) on 30 June 2000. 2 The applicant pleaded guilty to a charge of driving in a manner dangerous causing grievous bodily harm in circumstances of aggravation. That charge carried a maximum penalty of 11 years imprisonment. In addition, the applicant asked the Court to take into account an offence of car stealing and another of larceny, each of which carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. 3 The judge sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for four years and six months to commence on 9 June 2000 and to expire on 8 December 2004. The non-parole period was fixed at three years. 4 The circumstances which gave rise to the principal charge were that the applicant had stolen a car some four or five days prior to the date of his arrest. He did not then have a current driver's licence. The records show that he had only ever held a learner's permit and that it had expired in 1986. Having stolen the car, he was observed by police on 25 May 1999, and was followed by them in a police vehicle. The applicant sought to escape by accelerating through a give-way sign, accelerate again and went through a red light at speed at a busy suburban intersection. In the course of so doing, the vehicle he was driving collided with another vehicle. The force of the collision was such as to push the vehicle with which he had collided a number of metres so that it hit the kerb and struck a light pole with the front of the vehicle he was driving embedded in its side. The force of the collision trapped the driver of the other vehicle in his vehicle for some 45 minutes and caused him serious injuries, including a broken shoulder and five broken ribs. His condition was serious enough to require mechanical assistance for his breathing. It was later found he had also suffered damage to internal organs. Lacerations which he sustained required 17 sutures. 5 The area where the applicant was driving was a busy suburban intersection. Where the collision occurred was part of a major thoroughfare, and at the time of the collision there was heavy traffic present upon it. Furthermore, there was a significant number of pedestrians in the vicinity. 6 From this recounting of events it can be seen that the circumstances were such as to give rise to a high likelihood of other vehicles and pedestrians present being subjected to danger and potential for harm. However, as the judge properly remarked, the applicant simply ignored what might have happened to these people. He also ignored the danger that was posed to his own passenger, his only concern apparently being to preserve his own liberty. 7 The application for leave is based upon six express grounds. 8 Ground 1 - Legal Aid did not present the case as instructed.