Leave to appeal granted Appeal against sentence dismissed
B
PDF Version
Parties:
DYLAN GERALD EASTHOPE DANIEL GRAHAM WHITNEY
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure Appeal against sentence Dangerous driving involved in incident occasioning two deaths Whether error in fact made Whether sentences manifestly excessive Use of comparable cases Whether contributions of victims to incident occasioning deaths relevant to sentencing Sentencing for multiple deaths occasioned by same incident involving same dangerous driving Whether total effective sentence disproportionate to total criminality
Legislation:
Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), pt 2 Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 59, s 59B, s 64 Road Traffic Amendment (Dangerous Driving) Act 2004 (WA) Road Traffic Amendment Act (No 2) 2007 (WA) Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 6
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Easthope v Whitney
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Easthope v Whitney [2011] WASC 190
Case
[2011] WASC 190
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Easthope was convicted of two counts of dangerous driving occasioning death in relation to an incident in which he was driving under the influence of alcohol and collided with a car, killing both occupants. Whitney, the appellant, was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 14 years imprisonment, comprising 10 years for each count of dangerous driving occasioning death, with a non-parole period of 7 years. Whitney appealed against his sentence, arguing that the trial judge had erred in fact, that the sentences were manifestly excessive, and that the contributions of the victims to the incident occasioning their deaths were relevant to sentencing. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal, which was required to determine whether the trial judge had erred in fact, whether the sentences were manifestly excessive, whether the contributions of the victims to the incident were relevant to sentencing, and whether the total effective sentence was disproportionate to the total criminality.
The court noted that the trial judge had considered the totality of the circumstances, including the gravity of the offences, the degree of culpability, and the impact on the victims' families. The court rejected the argument that the trial judge had erred in fact, finding that the evidence supported the trial judge's findings. The court also rejected the argument that the sentences were manifestly excessive, finding that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offences and the need for general deterrence. The court held that the contributions of the victims to the incident occasioning their deaths were not relevant to sentencing, as the focus should be on the culpability of the offender. Finally, the court held that the total effective sentence was not disproportionate to the total criminality, as the sentences reflected the gravity of the offences and the need for general deterrence.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against sentence. The court found that the trial judge had not erred in fact, that the sentences were not manifestly excessive, and that the contributions of the victims to the incident were not relevant to sentencing. The court held that the total effective sentence was proportionate to the total criminality, and that the appeal against sentence should be dismissed. The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was granted.