Bullock v The Queen (No 2)

The appellant, Bullock, appealed against a sentence imposed by the trial judge. He had been sentenced to seven months imprisonment for one offence and four years imprisonment for another, to be served cumulatively, resulting in a head sentence of four years and seven months. A non-parole period of three years and eight months was fixed, with the serious repeat offender legislation mandating that this period be at least 80% of the head sentence. The appeal was brought on the grounds that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The legal issues before the court concerned the appropriateness of the cumulative sentence and the non-parole period imposed. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the sentencing judge erred in ordering the sentences to be served consecutively, and whether the non-parole period was excessive in light of the circumstances of the offences and the appellant's history as a repeat offender. The court was also required to assess whether the overall sentence reflected an appropriate balance between punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation, given the gravity of the offences, which involved a fatal collision with a young child and the appellant's subsequent failure to stop at the scene.

The court considered the facts of the collision, where the appellant's vehicle struck and killed a two-year-old child on a residential street. The appellant did not stop at the scene but drove to his nearby home before his wife contacted emergency services. The appellant's evidence suggested he swerved to avoid another child and then heard a noise, realising he had run over a child. He stated he panicked and left the scene due to fear, referencing a prior home invasion. The court noted the appellant's admission that his dog was unrestrained in the vehicle and that he had acknowledged running over a child and believing the child was dead. The court ultimately found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the seriousness of the offences, including the failure to stop and render assistance, and the appellant's prior criminal record.

The appeal against sentence was dismissed.