1. Crown appeal is upheld and sentences are quashed. 2. In lieu, the following sentences are imposed (i) On the first count a total sentence of imprisonment for 4 years commencing on 11 February 2004 and concluding on 10 February 2008 with a non-parole period of 2 years commencing on 11 February 2004 and concluding on 10 February 2006. (ii) On the second count, a total sentence of imprisonment for 4 years commencing on 11 February 2005 and concluding on 10 February 2009 with a non-parole period of 2 years commencing on 11 February 2005 and concluding on 10 February 2007. 3. The respondent will be eligible for release on parole on 10 February 2007. 4. The disqualification of the respondent for 3 years is confirmed.
CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Law - Sentencing - Crown appeal - Sentence imposed after trial for two counts of dangerous driving causing death - car chase through suburban streets - impact caused by driver of other vehicle - concurrent sentences - insufficient weight given to culpability of respondent - appeal allowed - respondent resentenced.
G. Smith SC with D. Arnott - Crown H. Dhanji - Respondent
SOLICITORS:
S. Kavanagh - Crown Murphy's Lawyers Inc - Respondent
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
03/41/0098
LOWER COURTJUDICIAL OFFICER:
J B Phelan DCJ
2004/2625
SPIGELMAN CJ HUNT AJA HOWIE J
THURSDAY 18 AUGUST 2005
REGINA v DARKO JANCESKI
Judgment
1 SPIGELMAN CJ: I agree with Hunt AJA.
2 HUNT AJA: The respondent to this Crown appeal, Darko Janceski, was found guilty by Judge J B Phelan (sitting without a jury) on two charges of dangerous driving. The first charge was that he was driving a vehicle in a manner dangerous to other persons when that vehicle was involved in an impact with another vehicle occasioning the death of the driver of that other vehicle. The second charge was in the same terms and related to the death of…
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 Janceski
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Janceski [2005] NSWCCA 288
Case
[2005] NSWCCA 288
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v Janceski, the appellant appealed against the sentence imposed by the lower court following a trial where the respondent, Janceski, was found guilty of two counts of dangerous driving causing death. The incident involved a high-speed car chase through suburban streets, which culminated in a fatal collision with another vehicle. The lower court had imposed concurrent sentences, which the Crown deemed insufficient, particularly in light of the respondent's culpability. The appeal focused on the adequacy of the sentence given the severity of the respondent's actions.
The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in the circumstances and whether the lower court had given insufficient weight to the culpability of the respondent. The Crown argued that the sentences were too lenient considering the gravity of the offences, particularly the dangerous nature of the driving and the resultant deaths. The defence, on the other hand, contended that the sentences were proportionate and took into account all relevant factors.
The court found that the lower court had not sufficiently considered the culpability of the respondent. The court acknowledged the dangerous and reckless nature of the driving, which directly led to the deaths of two individuals. Given the severity of the offences and the respondent's culpability, the court deemed the original sentences inadequate. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the respondent was resentenced to reflect the seriousness of the crimes committed. The court emphasised the need for sentences that appropriately reflect the gravity of such dangerous driving offences and their tragic consequences.