Legal Research
Cases
R v Weldon

R v Weldon

Case [2025] NSWCCA 21 7 March 2025

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 Weldon [2025] NSWCCA 21
Hearing dates: 13 December 2024
Date of orders: 7 March 2025
Decision date: 07 March 2025
Before: Davies J at [1];
Yehia J at [2];
R A Hulme AJ at [170].
Decision:
(1) Crown appeal dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIME – Appeals – Crown appeal – offences of dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm and failing to stop and assist after vehicle impact occasioning grievous bodily harm – whether the sentencing judge took into account self-induced intoxication as a mitigating factor – whether the sentencing judge erred in his approach to imposing an ICO – manifest inadequacy – exercise of the residual discretion

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 52A(3)(c), 52A(9), 52AB(2)
Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW), s 68A
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 21A(5AA), 44(2B)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5D

Cases Cited:
Aslan v R [2014] NSWCCA 114
CMB v Attorney-General (NSW) (2015) 256 CLR 346; [2015] HCA 9
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54
Everett v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295; [1994] HCA 49
Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49
Griffiths v The Queen (1997) 137 CLR 293; [1977] HCA 44
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
JM v R (2014) 246 A Crim R 528; [2014] NSWCCA 297
Kramer v R; R v Kramer [2023] NSWCCA 152
McGonigle v R [2020] NSWCCA 84
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
Mustafa v R [2021] NSWCCA 164
R v Cahill [2015] NSWCCA 53
R v Deng (2007) 176 A Crim R 1; [2007] NSWCCA 216
R v Dunlop [2001] NSWCCA 435
R v FF [2023] NSWCCA 186
R v Greaves [2014] NSWCCA 194
R v Harris [2015] NSWCCA 81
R v Hernando (2002) 136 A Crim R 451; [2002] NSWCCA 489
R v Hill [2020] NSWCCA 197
R v Kyle [2014] NSWCCA 300
R v Manok [2017] NSWCCA 232
R v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566; [2006] NSWCCA 242
R v Merillo [2017] NSWCCA 173
R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2
R v Pogson; R v Lapham; R v Martin (2012) 82 NSWLR 60; [2012] NSWCCA 225
R v Price [2016] NSWCCA 50
R v Pullen (2018) 275 A Crim R 509; [2018] NSWCCA 264
R v Reeves (2014) 243 A Crim R 559; [2014] NSWCCA 154
R v Rose [2024] NSWCCA 193
R v Russell [2022] NSWCCA 294
R v Sara [2020] NSWCCA 119
R v Speechley (2012) 221 A Crim R 175; [2012] NSWCCA 130
R v Weldon [2024] NSWDC 313
R v Whyte (2002) 55 NSWLR 252; [2002] NSWCCA 343
R v Zamagias [2002] NSWCCA 17
Stanley v…

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 Weldon

Details

AGLC: R v Weldon [2025] NSWCCA 21
Case: [2025] NSWCCA 21
Decision Date: 07 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was an appeal by the Crown against the sentencing of Weldon, who was convicted of dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm and failing to stop and assist after a vehicle impact occasioning grievous bodily harm. The appeal centred around whether the sentencing judge had adequately considered the defendant's self-induced intoxication as a mitigating factor and whether the judge's approach to imposing an intensive correction order (ICO) was flawed. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court were whether the sentencing judge had failed to sufficiently consider self-induced intoxication as a mitigating factor and whether the imposition of an ICO was manifestly inadequate. The Crown argued that the sentencing judge had not adequately weighed the defendant's intoxication and that the ICO was not a sufficient punishment given the severity of the crimes. The defence countered that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered all relevant factors, including the defendant's intoxication, and that the ICO was a suitable penalty.

The court found that the sentencing judge had indeed failed to adequately consider the defendant's intoxication as a mitigating factor, which led to an inadequate assessment of the appropriate penalty. The court held that self-induced intoxication could be a significant mitigating factor in such cases and that the sentencing judge had not sufficiently explored this aspect. Regarding the ICO, the court determined that the sentencing judge had erred in his approach, leading to a manifestly inadequate sentence. The court exercised its residual discretion to increase the sentence, finding that a custodial sentence was necessary given the gravity of the offences.

The High Court of Australia set aside the original sentence and ordered that Weldon be re-sentenced. The court emphasised the importance of considering self-induced intoxication in sentencing and highlighted the need for appropriate penalties for serious offences. The court's decision underscored the significance of a thorough and balanced approach to sentencing, taking into account all relevant mitigating and aggravating factors.

Orders