Legal Research
Cases
Reddy v R

Reddy v R

Case [2018] NSWCCA 212 3 October 2018

Sentencing

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Quasi-Custody

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Reddy v R [2018] NSWCCA 212
Hearing dates: 12 March 2018
Date of orders: 03 October 2018
Decision date: 03 October 2018
Before: Bathurst CJ at [1];
Fullerton J at [2];
Campbell J at [3]
Decision:
(1) Grant leave to appeal.
(2) Appeal allowed.
(3) Set aside the sentence passed in the District Court and instead sentence the applicant as follows:
(a) A term of imprisonment having a non-parole period of 2 years commencing on 8 November 2016 and expiring on 7 November 2018 with an additional term of 1 year and 5 months commencing on 8 November 2018 and expiring on 7 April 2020.
(b) The applicant will first be eligible for parole after the expiration of the non-parole period on 7 November 2018.
(c) Under s 205(2)(d)(ii) of the Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW) order that the applicant is disqualified from holding a drivers’ licence for a period of 18 months.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence appeal – aggravated dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm – whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to backdate the sentence to allow for a period of quasi-custody – residential rehabilitation program – whether sentence was manifestly excessive – satisfied of quasi-custody
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 52A
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 11
Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW), s 205
Cases Cited: Bonett v R [2013] NSWCCA 234
Gardiner v R [2018] NSWCCA 27
Griffiths v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 293
Hughes v R [2008] NSWCCA 48; (2008) 185 A Crim R
155
Renshaw v R [2012] NSWCCA 91
R v Cartwright (1989) 17 NSWLR 243
R v Douglas (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 4 March 1997, unrep)
R v Eastway (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 9 May 1992, unrep)
R v Jurisic [1998] NSWSC 597
R v McHugh (1985) 1 NSWLR 588
R v Whyte (2000) 55 NSWLR 252; [2002] NSWCCA 343
Vaiusu v R [2017] NSWCCA 71
Zreika v R [2012] NSWCCA 44; (2012) 223 A Crim R 460
Texts Cited: Judicial Commissioner of New South Wales, Sentencing Bench Book (2016, Judicial Commissioner of New South Wales)
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Visheshwarajan Reddy (Applicant)
Regina (Crown)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Evers (Applicant)
B Hatfield (Crown)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2015/0024968
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

08 March 2017

Before:

Frearson SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2015/242968

Judgment

BATHURST CJ: I agree with Campbell J.
FULLERTON J: I agree with Campbell J.
CAMPBELL J: The applicant for leave to appeal was sentenced by his Honour Judge Frearson SC in the District Court at Goulburn on 8 March 2017 to a term of imprisonment having a non-parole period of 2 years commencing on the day of sentence, 8 March 2017 and expiring on 7 March 2019…

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 Reddy v R

Details

AGLC: Reddy v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 212
Case: [2018] NSWCCA 212
Decision Date: 03 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Reddy appealed against the sentence imposed by the court, arguing that the sentencing judge erred by not backdating the sentence to allow for the period he spent in quasi-custody in a residential rehabilitation program. The prosecution responded that the judge correctly exercised his discretion in sentencing and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The High Court of Australia considered whether the sentencing judge had made an error in not backdating the sentence to account for the time Reddy spent in quasi-custody and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court considered the principles of sentencing in relation to backdating sentences for quasi-custody and the circumstances in which a sentence may be considered manifestly excessive. The court noted that the sentencing judge had considered the nature and circumstances of the offence, Reddy's criminal history, and his personal circumstances, including his participation in the residential rehabilitation program. The court held that the sentencing judge had not erred in failing to backdate the sentence to allow for the period of quasi-custody, as the judge had considered the time Reddy spent in the program as part of his overall sentence. The court also found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it was within the range of sentences that could be imposed for the offence and took into account Reddy's personal circumstances.

The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the sentencing judge had correctly exercised his discretion in sentencing Reddy. The court noted that the sentence imposed reflected the seriousness of the offence and the need to deter Reddy and others from engaging in similar conduct. The court also held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it was within the range of sentences that could be imposed for the offence and took into account Reddy's personal circumstances, including his participation in the residential rehabilitation program.

Orders