Krewaz v Jordan

The appeal in Krewaz v Jordan involved the appellant, Krewaz, who was appealing against his sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court of Victoria. The appellant was convicted of a drink-driving offence and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, a fine, and an automatic disqualification from obtaining a driver’s licence for a period of two years. Krewaz sought to appeal the sentence on several grounds, including that the court had failed to consider his mental illness as a mitigating factor, that the sentence was manifestly excessive, and that the disqualification period was not justified. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the sentence was appropriate in the circumstances, whether the court had erred in its consideration of the appellant's mental illness, and whether the length of the disqualification period was justified.

The Court of Appeal held that the appeal should be upheld on the grounds that the Magistrates Court had failed to adequately consider the appellant's mental illness as a mitigating factor in sentencing. The Court noted that while the appellant had a history of mental illness, the sentencing judge had not considered the connection between this illness and the offending behaviour. The Court held that there was insufficient evidence to establish the facts about the nature of the mental impairment and its connection to the offending, and that this was an error that warranted the appeal. The Court also held that the length of the disqualification period was not justified, as there was no good reason to reduce the default period under the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act.

In light of the above, the Court of Appeal quashed the sentence and re-sentenced the appellant to a term of imprisonment, a fine, and an automatic disqualification from obtaining a driver’s licence for a period of 12 months. The Court noted that the appellant had completed his community service obligation while the sentence was stayed on appeal, and this was taken into account in the re-sentencing. The Court also noted that the respondent had failed to comply with the Court Procedures Rules regarding the filing of submissions, but allowed the respondent to file with a caveat and warned of the consequences of late filing. The appeal was upheld, and the sentence was varied as set out above.

The Court further noted that the case highlighted the need for law reform in relation to the sentencing of offenders with mental illness, and the importance of gathering sufficient evidence to establish the facts about the nature of the mental impairment and its connection to the offending. The Court also highlighted the need for greater compliance with Court Procedures Rules regarding the filing of submissions in sentence appeals.