Application for leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:
Criminal law - appeal against sentence - aggravated dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm - applicant drove through a red light a collided with a pedestrian - ingestion of a combination of drugs - discount for guilty plea - guideline judgment in Jurisic - prospects of rehabilitation - sentencing judge rejected expressions of remorse without evidentiary basis of genuineness - aggravating features were elements of the offence - error in sentencing process
1 BASTEN JA: In this matter I have had the benefit of reading in draft the judgment of Hall J, which relieves me of the need to refer to the factual and legal background to this application for leave to appeal against sentence.
2 I agree with His Honour’s proposed orders and, subject to the following qualifications, his Honour’s reasons. The matters I would wish to address, are as follows:
(a) the approach to be taken to the “aggravating factors” identified in s 21A(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (“the Sentencing Procedure Act ”);
(b) the assessment of prospects of rehabilitation, and
(c) criticisms of the opinions expressed by a clinical psychologist, and
[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 Elyard v R
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Elyard v R [2006] NSWCCA 43
Case
[2006] NSWCCA 43
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case involved Elyard, the appellant, who was convicted of aggravated dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm. Elyard drove through a red light, colliding with a pedestrian. The incident was exacerbated by Elyard's ingestion of a combination of drugs. Elyard appealed against the sentence imposed by the court, challenging both the severity and the factors considered in the sentencing process. The High Court of Australia heard the appeal, reviewing the appropriateness of the sentence and the court's consideration of mitigating and aggravating factors.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge had erred in the process of determining the appropriate sentence and whether the judge had properly considered all relevant factors, including the discount for the guilty plea and the prospects of rehabilitation. Specifically, the court had to assess whether the sentencing judge was correct in rejecting expressions of remorse without a evidentiary basis of genuineness and whether the aggravating features were properly considered as elements of the offence.
In its judgment, the High Court found that the sentencing judge had erred in the process by not adequately considering the discount for the guilty plea and the prospects of rehabilitation. The court emphasised that the aggravating features were elements of the offence and thus should not have been given additional weight. The court noted that the sentencing judge's rejection of expressions of remorse without an evidentiary basis of genuineness was also an error. The High Court concluded that the error in the sentencing process warranted a reduction in the sentence imposed.
Consequently, the High Court set aside the sentence and remitted the case back to the lower court for resentencing. The court ordered that the resentencing process must take into account all relevant mitigating and aggravating factors, including the discount for the guilty plea and the prospects of rehabilitation, in a manner consistent with the principles set out in the High Court's judgment.