R v Tinker [2019] NSWDC 427

R v Tinker [2019] NSWDC 427

The offender's dangerous inattention to a stationary vehicle at traffic lights caused the fatal collision and bodily harm to two other victims. The objective seriousness of the principal offence was below the mid range but not low, and moral culpability was neither high nor low. The Court was not persuaded that speed was an aggravating circumstance or that the inattention was momentary. Despite remorse, lack of criminal antecedents, low risk of reoffending and difficult family circumstances, general deterrence, denunciation and punishment required full-time imprisonment. Special circumstances were found to allow an extended parole period, and totality warranted only modest partial...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence / Sentence After Jury Verdicts of Guilty
Outcome
The offender was convicted and sentenced to an overall term of imprisonment of 3 years and 3 months with an effective non-parole period of 21 months; in each case he was disqualified from driving for 2 years.
Legal Topics
['dangerous Driving Occasioning Death' 'causing Bodily Harm by Wilful Neglect' 'remorse' 'objective Seriousness' 'driving Disqualification' 'non Parole Period']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['dangerous Driving Occasioning Death' 'causing Bodily Harm by Wilful Neglect' 'remorse' 'objective Seriousness' 'driving Disqualification' 'non Parole Period']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentence / Sentence After Jury Verdicts of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What sentence should be imposed for driving in a dangerous manner occasioning the death of Sandra Scanes in breach of s 52A(1)(c) of the Crimes Act 1900.' 'What sentences should be imposed for causing bodily harm by wilful neglect to Michael Sandiford and Pamela Sandiford in breach of s 53 of the Crimes Act 1900.' "Whether the offender's speed was an aggravating circumstance." "Whether the offender's inattention was momentary and therefore reduced moral culpability and objective seriousness." 'Whether a sentence could be served in the community by way of an intensive corrections order.' 'Whether special circumstances justified a longer parole period.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offender's dangerous inattention to a stationary vehicle at traffic lights caused the fatal collision and bodily harm to two other victims. The objective seriousness of the principal offence was below the mid range but not low, and moral culpability was neither high nor low. The Court was not persuaded that speed was an aggravating circumstance or that the inattention was momentary. Despite remorse, lack of criminal antecedents, low risk of reoffending and difficult family circumstances, general deterrence, denunciation and punishment required full-time imprisonment. Special circumstances were found to allow an extended parole period, and totality warranted only modest partial...

Court Disposition

The offender was convicted and sentenced to an overall term of imprisonment of 3 years and 3 months with an effective non-parole period of 21 months; in each case he was disqualified from driving for 2 years.

Orders

  • ['On counts 1, 3 and 4, Steven Michael Tinker is convicted.' 'On counts 3 and 4, the offender is sentenced on each count to a fixed term of imprisonment of six months commencing on 18 April 2019 and expiring on 17 October 2019.' 'On count 1, the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for three years commencing on 18...