R v Fennell (No 2)

Case

[2019] NSWDC 652

11 November 2019


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
R v Fennell (No 2) [2019] NSWDC 652 [2019] NSWDC 652 11 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Fennell, was convicted of dangerous driving causing the death of a pedestrian and subsequently sentenced to imprisonment. The case reached the court on appeal regarding the appropriateness of the sentence imposed. The deceased, a pedestrian, was struck and killed by the appellant's vehicle. The appellant argued that the pedestrian had stepped into the path of the car and thus contributed to the accident. However, this defence was rejected by the jury. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence was appropriate, considering the various factors relevant to sentencing in cases of death by dangerous driving.

The legal issues before the court included the assessment of the appellant's moral culpability, the consideration of various sentencing principles, and the application of these principles to the specific circumstances of the case. The court had to evaluate the severity of the offence, the impact of the death on the deceased's family and the appellant's family, the appellant's remorse and character, the need for general deterrence, and the prospects for rehabilitation. The court also needed to determine whether special circumstances warranted a moderation of the penalty.

The court found that the appellant's moral culpability was not low but also not exceptionally high. The key factors contributing to the incident were the appellant's speed being too high for the conditions, particularly in a high pedestrian area, and a degree of distraction at the time of the incident. The court applied the general principles in death by dangerous driving cases, taking into account the specific circumstances. The court held that the sentence was appropriate, given the need for general deterrence and the appellant's potential for rehabilitation, particularly through the referral to the Jacaranda House Mothers and Children’s Program. The court upheld the original sentence of three years imprisonment with a non-parole period of one year, while also making other orders as detailed in the judgment.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Criminal Law

Legal Concepts

  • Sentencing

  • Compensatory Damages

  • Remorse

  • Good Character

  • General Deterrence

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

16

Statutory Material Cited

3

R v Fennell [2019] NSWDC 397
R v Whyte [2002] NSWCCA 343
Legge v R [2007] NSWCCA 244