The appeal is allowed and the sentences imposed by Acting Judge Ducker are quashed. In respect of each count the respondent is sentenced to 3 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 months to date from 27 November 2003. The non-parole period is to expire on 26 November 2004 the date upon which the respondent is to be released to parole. It is to be a condition of his parole that he places himself under the supervision of the Probation and Parole Service.
CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Practice and Procedure - Sentencing - Crown appeal following conviction on two counts of dangerous driving causing death - application of R Whyte - relevance of the number of deaths - Crown appeal allowed and the respondent re-sentenced.
1 HULME J: In this matter I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Simpson J and Howie J. Subject to what follows I agree with their Honours.
2 In my view in respect of the first count the Respondent should be sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years and 9 months, including a non-parole period of 1 year and 6 months, both such terms to commence on 27 November 2003 and in respect of the second count the Respondent should be sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years and 9 months, including a non-parole period of 1 year and 3 months, both such terms to commence on 27 February 2005. The total effective sentence would thus be one of 4 years imprisonment, including a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months. The non-parole period of the second sentence has been reduced in order to provide a parole period which gives reasonable effect to the finding of special circumstances and not because of any view that the Respondent’s criminality the subject of that charge is less than that the subject of the first charge.
3 Both the objective circumstances of the Respondent’s offences and his subjective circumstances have been detailed by their Honours and I need not repeat…
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
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Price [2004] NSWCCA 186
Case
[2004] NSWCCA 186
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Price involves the Crown appealing a sentence imposed on the respondent, Price, who was convicted on two counts of dangerous driving causing death. The respondents' actions resulted in the deaths of two individuals. The matter was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal, where the primary focus was the adequacy of the original sentence in light of the severity of the crimes committed. The appeal specifically targeted the sentencing approach taken by the trial judge, which was deemed to have inadequately reflected the gravity of the respondent’s actions.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge erred in the sentencing process by not sufficiently considering the principles outlined in R v Whyte, particularly in relation to the number of deaths caused by the respondent’s dangerous driving. The court had to determine if the original sentence was manifestly inadequate and whether the trial judge failed to appropriately balance the circumstances of the case with the applicable legal standards. Additionally, the court examined whether the trial judge correctly assessed the aggravating factors inherent in causing multiple fatalities through reckless driving.
In delivering its judgment, the Court of Criminal Appeal found that the trial judge had indeed erred in the sentencing process. The court emphasised that the number of deaths significantly impacted the gravity of the offence and that the trial judge's sentence did not adequately reflect this. The court noted that the trial judge had not sufficiently considered the principle that the severity of the sentence should escalate with the number of fatalities caused. Consequently, the Crown’s appeal was allowed, and the court re-sentenced the respondent, imposing a more severe penalty that appropriately reflected the seriousness of the crimes committed. The court's final orders included a re-sentencing of the respondent to a term that adequately accounted for the multiple deaths resulting from his dangerous driving.