Legal Research
Cases
R v Price

R v Price

Case [2016] NSWCCA 50 8 April 2016

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Price [2016] NSWCCA 50
Hearing dates: 26 October 2015
Decision date: 08 April 2016
Before: Gleeson JA at [1]
Button J at [2]
Fagan J at [144]
Decision:
(1) The Crown appeal is allowed.
(2) The aggregate sentence imposed on 5 June 2015 is quashed.
(3) The respondent, Jeremy Paul Price, is sentenced to an aggregate head sentence of imprisonment of 8 years and 6 months to date from 15 November 2014 and expire on 14 May 2023, with a non-parole period of 5 years and 8 months to expire on 14 July 2020.
(4) The period of disqualification imposed on 5 June 2015 is quashed.
(5) The respondent is subject to a period of disqualification from driving of five years. Pursuant to s 206A of the Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW), that period of disqualification commences upon the first date upon which the respondent is released from custody.
(6) The earliest possible date upon which the respondent may be released to parole is 14 July 2020.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against sentence – two counts of dangerous driving occasioning death – one count of dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm – three further offences placed before the sentencing judge pursuant to a s 166 certificate – whether the aggregate sentence imposed is manifestly inadequate – whether offences that are placed before the District Court or the Supreme Court by way of a s 166 certificate can be incorporated in an aggregate sentence
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 52A(1)(c), 52A(2), 52A(3)(c), 52A(4), 154A(1)(a), 527C(1)(a)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5D
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), Div 7, ss 166, 168(3), 168(4), 267(2), Sch 1
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 49, 53A
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), ss 10(1), 12(1), 25(1)
Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW), s 206A
Cases Cited: JM v R [2014] NSWCCA 297
King v R [2015] NSWCCA 99
R v Harris [2015] NSWCCA 81
R v JW [2010] NSWCCA 49; (2010) 77 NSWLR 7
R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; (2015) 90 ALJR 13
R v Sward [2014] NSWCCA 259
R v Thomson; R v Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309; (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Whyte [2002] NSWCCA 343; (2002) 55 NSWLR 252
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Applicant)
Jeremy Paul Price (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
N Noman SC (Applicant)
T Gartlemann (Respondent)
Solicitors:
C Hyland – Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Applicant)
S E O’Connor – Legal Aid New South Wales (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2014/126912
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

5 June 2015

Before:

McClintock SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2014/00126912

Judgment

GLEESON JA: I agree with Button J.
BUTTON J: This is a Crown appeal brought pursuant to s 5D of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW). It is against an aggregate sentence imposed by his Honour Judge…

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 Price

Details

AGLC: R v Price [2016] NSWCCA 50
Case: [2016] NSWCCA 50
Decision Date: 08 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Price, appealed against his sentence in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Court of Criminal Appeal, for two counts of dangerous driving occasioning death and one count of dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm. The court also considered three further offences that were placed before the sentencing judge under a section 166 certificate. The appeal focused on whether the aggregate sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate and whether offences placed before the District Court or the Supreme Court by way of a section 166 certificate could be incorporated in an aggregate sentence.

The legal issues before the court included the interpretation of section 166 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) and the principles governing the calculation of an aggregate sentence. The court had to determine if the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate and if the section 166 certificate process allowed for the incorporation of certain offences into the aggregate sentence.

The court held that the sentence was manifestly inadequate because it failed to reflect the seriousness of the appellant's offending. The court found that section 166 certificate offences could be incorporated into an aggregate sentence if they were part of the same course of conduct. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the District Court for re-sentencing. The court emphasised the need for sentences to reflect the gravity of the offences and to deter similar conduct in the future.

Orders