(The Honourable Acting Chief Justice Gray, The Honourable Justice Peek and The Honourable Justice Nicholson)
3 September 2015
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRIVING OFFENCES - SENTENCE - CULPABLE OR DANGEROUS DRIVING CAUSING DEATH - SOUTH AUSTRALIA
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE - SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - SENTENCING PROCEDURE - SINGLE SENTENCE FOR MULTIPLE OFFENCES
Appeal against sentence. The appellant pleaded guilty to four counts of causing death by dangerous driving and one count of causing serious harm by dangerous driving. The appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for four years and two months with a non-parole period of two years. The sentence was not suspended. The appellant was also disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for a period of 10 years.
The appellant contends that the sentence which started at seven years before allowances is manifestly excessive and that the sentencing Judge erred in considering the proper test for and in failing to suspend the period of imprisonment.
Held (per the Court):
1. Appeal allowed.
2. The starting point of seven years was too high to an extent such that the head sentence as ordered by the Judge is manifestly excessive.
3. The District Court sentence is set aside.
4. The appellant is resentenced to the one penalty of imprisonment for all five offences of three years, one month and one week with a non-parole period of one year, five months and one week, suspended.
5. With respect to count one, the appellant is to be disqualified from holding or applying for a driver’s licence for a period of 15 years from 3 September 2015.
6. With respect to each of the remaining four counts, the appellant is to be disqualified from holding or applying for a driver’s licence for a period of 15 years with each such disqualification to be served, as to ten years, concurrently with, and as to five years, cumulatively upon the 15 years ordered for count one, giving rise to a total period of disqualification of 35 years.
The approach to sentencing multiple counts of causing death or harm by dangerous driving when all arise from the same act of dangerous driving, considered and discussed.
[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 Wooldridge
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Wooldridge [2015] SASCFC 125
Case
[2015] SASCFC 125
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal concerned the sentencing of the respondent, Mr. Wooldridge, by the District Court of South Australia. The dispute arose from the imposition of a single sentence for multiple offences, which the appellant argued was manifestly excessive. The matter was heard by Acting Gray CJ, Peek and Nicholson JJ of the Supreme Court of South Australia.
The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the sentencing judge erred in law by imposing a single global sentence for several distinct offences, and if so, whether this sentence was manifestly excessive. The Court was required to consider the principles governing the imposition of single sentences for multiple offences and the grounds upon which an appellate court may interfere with a sentence imposed by a lower court.
The Court reasoned that while it is permissible to impose a single sentence for multiple offences, this practice should generally be reserved for cases where the offences are closely related or form part of a single criminal enterprise. In this instance, the offences were distinct and occurred over a period of time, making the imposition of a single sentence inappropriate. The Court found that the sentencing judge had failed to properly consider the individual circumstances of each offence and the appropriate penalty for each. Consequently, the single sentence imposed was deemed to be manifestly excessive. The Court allowed the appeal, quashed the sentence, and remitted the matter back to the District Court for resentencing.