Kehayias v The Queen

The case of Kehayias v The Queen involved the appellant who was sentenced to a base sentence of four years’ imprisonment for recklessly exposing an emergency worker to risk by driving. The appellant was also sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment for reckless conduct endangering persons, with 15 months’ cumulation, and 18 months’ imprisonment for dangerous or negligent driving whilst pursued by police, with 9 months’ cumulation. The appellant sought leave to appeal against his sentences and the orders for cumulation. The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge misapplied the principles set out in Bugmy v The Queen and whether the individual sentences and orders for cumulation were manifestly excessive.

The court held that the trial judge gave appropriate weight to the appellant’s difficult background and the need for community protection and general and specific deterrence in light of the objective gravity of the offending and the appellant’s prior offending and long-standing drug problem. The court found that the judge did not misapply the principles in Bugmy v The Queen and that the individual sentences and orders for cumulation were not manifestly excessive. The court emphasised that the principles in Bugmy v The Queen do not require that all sentences be aggregated and then reduced to a single sentence. Rather, the trial judge must consider the culpability of each offence, the circumstances in which it was committed, and the need for general and specific deterrence. The court also noted that the appellant’s offending was serious and that he had a long history of drug use and offending. The court found that the sentences imposed were appropriate in all the circumstances.

The application for leave to appeal was refused. The court held that the appellant had not demonstrated that the sentencing judge’s approach was erroneous or that the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive. The court emphasised that the sentencing judge had considered all relevant factors and had exercised his discretion in a manner that was consistent with the principles of sentencing in Australian law. The court found that the appellant had not made out a case for leave to appeal and that the appeal should be dismissed.