R v Spong

In the case of R v Spong, the appellant appealed against his sentence for causing bodily harm by dangerous driving, as he believed that the sentencing judge had erred in his considerations. The appellant was convicted after a guilty plea and was sentenced to imprisonment for 20 months, with a non-parole period of 9 months, and was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for 6 years. The sentencing judge considered two matters of aggravation: the appellant’s conduct in the moments preceding the collision, and his conduct immediately after the collision, in that he loudly abused the victim and behaved in a threatening manner towards bystanders. The appellant argued that these factors should not have been considered as matters of aggravation, and that the judge erred in considering the question of suspension of sentence before the question of setting a non-parole period. The court needed to determine whether the judge erred in his considerations, and if the sentence should be suspended.

The court found that the appellant's conduct before and after the collision was not a matter of aggravation, as the manner of driving immediately prior to the collision was part of the conduct that constituted the offence. Additionally, the court held that the process followed by the sentencing judge in considering the non-parole period and whether to suspend the sentence did not involve error. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was re-sentenced. The sentence was suspended on the appellant entering into a 3-year good behaviour bond.

In conclusion, the court held that the appellant's sentence of imprisonment should have been suspended, and that the sentencing judge did not err in his considerations. The appellant was re-sentenced with the sentence being suspended on the condition that he enters into a 3-year good behaviour bond.