Legal Research
Cases
R v Vukic

R v Vukic

Case [2003] NSWCCA 13 27 February 2003

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Sentencing

Consistency in Sentencing

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: Regina v Vukic [2003] NSWCCA 13

FILE NUMBER(S):
60459/02

HEARING DATE(S): 18 December 2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 27/02/2003

PARTIES:
Regina v Joshua Barry Vukic

JUDGMENT OF: Adams J Smart AJ

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/11/0539

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Finnane DCJ

COUNSEL:
(A) P M Strickland
(C) E A Wilkins

SOLICITORS:
(A) Kennedys - The Law Firm
(C) S E O'Connor

CATCHWORDS:
Aggravated dangerous driving causing death - bad case but not worst type of case, need for consistency in sentencing - sentence imposed out of kilter with pattern of sentencing.

LEGISLATION CITED:
American Law Review 5:1Codes and the Arrangement of the Law (1870)
Commentaries on Equity Jurisprudence
Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Justices Act 1902

DECISION:
See para 75

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60459/02
ADAMS J
SMART AJ
Thursday, 27 February 2003
Joshua Barry VUKIC v REGINA (NSW)
JUDGMENT
1. ADAMS J: I agree with the judgment of Smart AJ but I wish to make some observations of my own.

It has recently been suggested that reference by sentencing judges to perceived patterns of sentencing in relation to particular offences is not only wrong but contrary to the public interest. This view is not only mistaken but is also dangerous. As Spigelman CJ said in R v Jurisic (1998) 45 NSWLR 209 at 216 –
“That there are a multiplicity of factors that need to be considered in sentencing has long been recognised. There is, however, a tension between maintaining maximum flexibility in the exercise of the discretion, on the one hand, and ensuring consistency in sentencing decisions, on the other. Inconsistency in sentencing offends the principle of equality before the law. It is itself a manifestation of injustice. It can lead to a sense of grievance amongst individuals upon whom uncharacteristically severe sentences are imposed and amongst the broader community, or victims and their families, in the case of uncharacteristically light sentences…”
Although the Chief Justice cited Griffiths v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 293 at 326-327, per Jacobs J as an example of a similar statement of principle in the High Court of Australia, the proposition to which his Honour adverted has long been of fundamental importance in the administration of criminal justice. The most recent restatement of the principle may be found in Wong v The Queen; Leung v The Queen (2002) 76 ALJR 79, where Gleeson CJ said ([at 6]) –
“One of the legitimate objectives of such guidance [as is given by guideline judgments] is to reduce the incidence of unnecessary and inappropriate inconsistencies. All discretionary decision-making carries with it the probability of some degree of inconsistency. But there are limits beyond which such inconsistency itself constitutes a form of injustice. The outcome of discretionary decision-making can never be uniform, but it ought to depend as little as possible upon the identity of the judge who happens to hear the case. Like cases should…

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 Vukic

Details

AGLC: R v Vukic [2003] NSWCCA 13
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 13
Decision Date: 27 February 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Vukic involved the respondent, Vukic, who was charged with aggravated dangerous driving causing death. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Vukic, considering the need for consistency in sentencing for similar offences.

The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was consistent with other sentences for similar offences. It was emphasised that while Vukic's case was a bad one, it was not the worst type of case, and therefore, the sentence should not be the maximum possible. The court was required to assess the proportionality of the sentence and ensure it aligned with the broader pattern of sentencing for aggravated dangerous driving causing death.

In reaching its decision, the court highlighted the importance of maintaining consistency in sentencing. It found that the sentence imposed by the lower court was out of step with the general pattern of sentencing for similar offences. The High Court considered that while Vukic's actions were reckless and resulted in a fatality, the sentence should not be the harshest possible. Consequently, the court determined that the sentence was inappropriate and directed the lower court to reconsider the matter. The High Court's decision underscored the necessity for a balanced approach in sentencing to ensure fairness and consistency in the legal system.

Orders