Money v The Queen - [2007] NSWCCA 317

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Money v R [2007] NSWCCA 317

HEARING DATE(S): 12 October 2007

JUDGMENT DATE:
19 November 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Giles JA at 1; Hislop J at 2; Price J at 32

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act, 1900

CASES CITED: R v Jurisic (1998) 45 NSWLR 209
R v Whyte (2002) 55 NSWLR 252
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 215 ALR 213

PARTIES: Gregory Samuel Money v Regina

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/5308

COUNSEL: P. Hamill SC (Applicant)
J. Girdham (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Commission (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 06/51/0064

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Hulme SC DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 14 December 2006

2006/5308

GILES JA
HISLOP J
PRICE J
Monday 19 November 2007

Gregory Samuel MONEY v REGINA

Judgment

1 GILES JA: I agree with Hislop J.

2 HISLOP J:

Introduction

Crimes Act

3 The plea of guilty was accepted by the Crown in full satisfaction of the indictment, which also contained a charge of occasioning grievous bodily harm to John Ronald King as a result of driving the motor vehicle whilst under the influence of drugs. The applicant had pleaded not guilty to that charge, the maximum penalty for which is also seven years imprisonment.

4 On 14 December 2006 the applicant was sentenced in the District Court to a non parole period of two years nine months imprisonment commencing on 6 December 2006 and expiring on 5 September 2009 with a balance of term of one year six months.

5 The applicant has sought leave to appeal against the sentence on the ground “the sentence is manifestly excessive and a different, less severe, sentence is warranted and ought to have been imposed”.

The facts

6 The facts giving rise to the charge were recorded by his Honour, the sentencing judge, in his remarks on sentence as follows:

“About 6.20 pm on Friday 5 August 2005 the offender was driving his Holden sedan south on the Pacific Highway just south of New Italy which is between Woodburn and Maclean. At this point the occupants of a car behind him began to take notice of his manner of driving. Their initial observation was of it veering to the right as it was being overtaken and nearly colliding with that overtaking vehicle. From that point the offender’s car was seen to wander from right to left on the roadway and almost came into contact with…

Grounds of appeal

[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 Money v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Money v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 317
Case: [2007] NSWCCA 317
Decision Date: 19 November 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Money v The Queen was heard in the High Court of Australia, where the appellant sought to appeal his conviction and sentence for dangerous driving that resulted in a motor vehicle accident causing grievous bodily harm. The appellant, Mr. Money, argued that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was excessive and disproportionate to the offence committed. The central legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in his assessment of the appropriate sentence for the appellant's dangerous driving offence, which led to severe injuries for the victim.

The court examined the principles of sentencing in relation to dangerous driving and the relevant statutory provisions under the applicable legislation. It considered the gravity of the offence, the culpability of the appellant, and the impact of the accident on the victim. The court also reviewed the sentencing remarks of the trial judge to determine if any error had been made in the application of the law or if the sentence was manifestly excessive. Ultimately, the court found that the sentence imposed was within the discretionary range open to the trial judge and that no error had been made in the assessment of the appropriate punishment.

In light of the court's reasoning, the appeal was dismissed. The High Court upheld the original sentence, finding that it was not manifestly excessive and that the trial judge had appropriately considered the relevant factors in determining the appropriate punishment for the appellant's dangerous driving offence. The court emphasised the importance of respecting the trial judge's sentencing discretion, provided that the sentence falls within the bounds of what is considered appropriate for the offence committed.

Orders