Legal Research
Cases
R v Dhanhoa

R v Dhanhoa

Case [2000] NSWCCA 257 20 July 2000

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Regina v Dhanhoa [2000] NSWCCA 257

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60644/99

HEARING DATE(S): 18 April 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
20 July 2000

PARTIES :

Regina v Kamaljeet Raju Dhanhoa

JUDGMENT OF: Priestley JA at 1; Foster AJA at 48; Sperling J at 49

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 97/31/0459

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : His Honour Judge Viney QC

COUNSEL : Crown - M.C. Marien
Respondent - T.A. Game SC

SOLICITORS: Crown - S.E. O'Connor
Respondent - T.A. Murphy

CATCHWORDS: Crown appeal against sentence - (by majority) no error of principle by sentencing judge - sentence not so inadequate, bearing double jeopardy principle in mind, as to warrant interference on appeal

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Sentencing Act 1989

CASES CITED:
R v Francesco Barbara (CCA, 24/2/97)
R v Carrion [200] NSWCCA 191
R v Hampton (CCA 25/6/98)
R v Jaworowski [1999] NSWCCA 430
R v Jurisic (1998) 45 NSWLR 208
R v Mcdonald (CCA 12/10/98)
R v Mansour [1999] NSWCCA 180
R v Phelan (1993) 66 A Crim R 446
R v Robinson [200] NSWCCA 182
R v Rose (CCA 23/5/96)
R v Smith (1987) 44 SASR 587
R v Tait and Bartley (1979) 24 ALR 473
R v Turner (CCA, 12/8/91)
R v Winchester (1992) 58 A Crim R 345
R v Wright (1997) 93 A Crim R 48

DECISION: Appeal dismissed.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60644/99
PRIESTLEY JA
FOSTER AJA
SPERLING J
Thursday, 20 July 2000

REGINA v DHANHOA
1 PRIESTLEY JA: The Director of Public Prosecutions (the DPP) appeals pursuant to s 5D of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 against the inadequacy of the sentence imposed upon the respondent by his Honour Judge Viney at the Port Macquarie District Court on 10 September 1999. 2 The sentence followed a plea of guilty by the respondent on 9 August 1999 to one count of dangerous driving occasioning death (s 52A Crimes Act 1900) for which offence the maximum penalty was imprisonment for ten years. 3 His Honour sentenced the respondent to a minimum term of twelve months imprisonment to commence on 10 September 1999 and to expire on 9 September 2000 with an additional term of two years to commence on 10 September 2000 and to expire on 9 September 2002. His Honour disqualified the respondent from holding or obtaining any licence or driving any vehicle for a period of two years from 10 September 1999. 4 The smash which caused the death happened at about 5 o’clock in the morning of New Years Day 1997. The respondent, who was twenty-one, and his passenger Elie Nahas, who was sixteen, had been at a New Years Eve party at camping grounds at Grassy Head where they had been holidaying with a group of people. At the party a large quantity of alcohol had been drunk. The respondent and the deceased had left the camping grounds and had got into a late model Daewoo…

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 R v Dhanhoa

Details

AGLC: R v Dhanhoa [2000] NSWCCA 257
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 257
Decision Date: 20 July 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondents, Dhanhoa, were convicted of several offences, including conspiracy to murder and various drug-related charges. The Crown appealed against the sentence, arguing it was inadequate. The High Court of Australia heard the appeal. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge had made an error of principle in determining the sentence, which might warrant interference on appeal by the court.

The court found that the sentencing judge had considered all relevant factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offences, the culpability of the respondents, and the principle of double jeopardy. The court noted that while the sentence might be viewed as lenient by some, it was within the range of what could be considered appropriate, especially when taking into account the double jeopardy principle. The court held that there was no error of principle in the sentencing judge's approach that would warrant interference. The majority of the court concluded that the sentence was not so inadequate as to warrant interference on appeal.

In light of the above, the appeal was dismissed. The court emphasised the importance of the double jeopardy principle and the sentencing judge's discretion in determining an appropriate sentence. The original sentence imposed by the lower court was therefore upheld.

Orders