R v Romanic - [2000] NSWCCA 524

CITATION: R v Romanic [2000] NSWCCA 524 revised - 14/12/2000

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60625/00

HEARING DATE(S): 28 November 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
28 November 2000

PARTIES :

Regina
Milorad Romanic

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJatCL at 1; Dunford J at 35; Carruthers AJ at 36

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/21/2110

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Sorby DCJ

COUNSEL : R Hulme for Crown (Applicant)
B C Stratton QC for Respondent

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor

DECISION: Appeal allowed. Sentence quashed. In lieu, respondent sentenced to a period of imprisonment for 12 months, to commence from today (28/11/00) with a non parole period of 9 months from today, and to expire on 27 august 2001, The release of the respondent is directed at the expiration of the non parole period.

THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60625/00

WOOD CJ AT CL
DUNFORD J
CARRUTHERS AJ

TUESDAY 28 NOVEMBER 2000

REGINA v MILORAD ROMANIC
JUDGMENT

1 WOOD CJ AT CL: This is an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions, pursuant to section 5D of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912, against a sentence imposed upon the respondent following his plea of guilty to the offence of dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm. 2 This offence is punishable by a maximum penalty of seven years' imprisonment - section 52A(3)(a) Crimes Act 1900. 3 On 31 August 2000, the respondent was sentenced by his Honour Judge Sorby, in the District Court, to 22 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months, such sentence to be served by way of periodic detention. The sentence was specified to commence on 8 September 2000.

FACTS

4 At about 9.50pm, on Sunday 12 July 1998, the respondent drove his Hyundai Lantra sedan east on Elizabeth Drive, Bonnyrigg, when it crossed to the incorrect side of the road, and collided with an oncoming Mitsubishi Magna sedan driven by Mr Jose Kaduthodil. As a result of the collision, Mrs Vinodini Kaduthodil, the front seat passenger in the Magna, suffered a dislocated and fractured pelvis, broken teeth, chest pain from the impact of the seatbelt and bruising to the stomach. She was hospitalised for two weeks and underwent surgery for open reduction and internal fixation of the fractured pelvis. Mr Kaduthodil suffered a fractured ankle and chest pain from the impact of the seatbelt. Their two sons and a friend, who were seated in the rear of the vehicle, did not suffer any significant injury. 5 The respondent had declined to be interviewed by police and did not give evidence in the sentencing proceedings. However, the pre-sentence report recorded:

"Mr Romanic agrees with the police facts. He stated that he had consumed an unknown quantity of alcohol prior to the commission of this offence."

6 A blood sample taken from him at 12 am yielded a reading of 0.241 grams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. Only a sample taken within a period of two hours can be deemed to be the blood and alcohol level at…

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 Romanic

Details

AGLC: R v Romanic [2000] NSWCCA 524
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 524
Decision Date: 28 November 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Romanic is an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions against the sentence imposed on Milorad Romanic by the District Court for the offence of dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm. The Crown appealed the sentence on the grounds that it was manifestly inadequate and inconsistent with the guideline judgment in Jurisic. The District Court had sentenced Romanic to 22 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months, to be served by way of periodic detention.

The Court of Criminal Appeal found that the District Court had erred in several respects when passing sentence. Firstly, the Court found that his Honour had failed to give consideration to the aspect of general deterrence, which is an important element in sentencing for dangerous driving offences. Secondly, the Court found that the District Court had given excessive weight to the respondent's subjective circumstances, resulting in a manifestly lenient sentence. Thirdly, the Court found that the approach taken to the discount for the plea of guilty and the finding of special circumstances had resulted in arithmetic errors in the calculation of the non-parole period. The Court found that these errors resulted in a sentence that was manifestly inadequate and inconsistent with the Jurisic guideline.

The Court of Criminal Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the original sentence, and re-sentenced Romanic to a period of imprisonment for 12 months, with a non-parole period of 9 months. The Court considered that this sentence was appropriate, having regard to the principle of double jeopardy and the period of three months periodic detention which Romanic had already served. The Court directed that Romanic's release be at the expiration of the non-parole period.

In summary, the Court of Criminal Appeal found that the District Court had erred in its sentencing of Romanic, and that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and inconsistent with the Jurisic guideline. The Court allowed the appeal, quashed the original sentence, and imposed a new sentence of 12 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 9 months.

Orders