Legal Research
Cases
R v Jarad Smith

R v Jarad Smith

Case [2016] NSWCCA 75 28 April 2016

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Smith, Jarad [2016] NSWCCA 75
Hearing dates: 28 April 2016
Decision date: 28 April 2016
Before: McCallum J at [1];
R A Hulme J at [2];
Schmidt J at [81]
Decision:
Crown appeal dismissed

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Crown appeal against sentence – aggravated dangerous driving occasioning death – two counts – Crimes Act 1900 s 52A(2) – whether sentence manifestly inadequate – guilty pleas – further offence of failure to stop and assist taken into account – high objective seriousness and moral culpability – general deterrence of particular importance – favourable subjective circumstances – consideration of comparable cases and statistics confirms sentence within range – appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 52A(2), 52AB(1)
Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) s 68A
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 3A, 44(2B)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) s 5D
Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW) Ch 7 Pt 7.4 Div 1, s 206A
Cases Cited: Berg v R [2004] NSWCCA 300
Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41
CMB v Attorney General for New South Wales [2015] HCA 9; 317 ALR 308
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; 79 NSWLR 1
Gommesen v R [2012] NSWCCA 226
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 244 CLR 520
Lawrence v R [2007] NSWCCA 349
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357
Munda v State of Western Australia [2013] HCA 38; 249 CLR 600
R v GWM [2012] NSWCCA 240
R v Jurisic (1998) 45 NSWLR 209
R v JW [2010] NSWCCA 49; 77 NSWLR 7
R v McKeown [2013] NSWDC 22
R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2
R v Morrow [2009] NSWDC 78
R v Pevy [2004] NSWCCA 414
R v Skrill [2002] NSWCCA 484
R v Smith [2005] NSWCCA 19
R v Whyte [2002] NSWCCA 343; 55 NSWLR 252
R v Wright [2013] NSWCCA 82; 229 A Crim R 245
Skocic v R [2014] NSWCCA 225
Spark v R [2012] NSWCCA 140
Wong v The Queen; Leung v The Queen [2001] HCA 64; 207 CLR 584
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Appellant)
Jarad Michael Smith (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms M Cinque SC (Crown)
Mr H Dhanji SC (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
Legal Aid NSW

File Number(s): 2014/366974
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Date of Decision:

13 November 2015

Before:

McClintock SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2014/366974

Judgment

McCALLUM J: I have read the judgment of R A Hulme J. The reasons stated by his Honour reflect my own reasons for joining in the order dismissing the appeal.
R A HULME J: Jarad Michael Smith (“the respondent”) was sentenced by his Honour Judge McClintock SC in the District Court at Sydney on 13 November 2015 for two offences of aggravated dangerous driving…

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 Jarad Smith

Details

AGLC: R v Jarad Smith [2016] NSWCCA 75
Case: [2016] NSWCCA 75
Decision Date: 28 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a Crown appeal against the sentence handed down to the defendant, Jarad Smith. The defendant had been convicted for two counts of aggravated dangerous driving occasioning death under section 52A(2) of the Crimes Act 1900. The Crown argued that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate, given the high objective seriousness and moral culpability of the crimes committed. The appeal raised significant legal issues regarding the appropriateness of the sentence, the consideration of a further offence of failure to stop and assist, and the balancing of subjective and objective circumstances in sentencing.

The court examined the nature of the offences, acknowledging the gravity of aggravated dangerous driving resulting in death and the need for general deterrence. It considered the defendant's guilty pleas, which were a mitigating factor, and the additional offence of failure to stop and assist. The court also noted the defendant's favourable personal circumstances. Through a detailed analysis of comparable cases and relevant sentencing statistics, the court concluded that the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range. The court held that the sentence reflected both the seriousness of the crimes and the mitigating factors, and thus the appeal was dismissed.

The reasoning and outcome of the court underscore the importance of balancing various factors in sentencing, particularly in cases involving serious offences. The court's dismissal of the appeal confirmed that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate, taking into account all relevant circumstances. This case serves as a reminder of the need for a comprehensive approach to sentencing, considering both the nature of the crime and the individual circumstances of the offender.

Orders