Sadiq v The Queen - [2016] VSCA 294

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2016 0165

SHAMEER SADIQ	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE (DETERMINED BY A SINGLE JUDGE PURSUANT TO S 315 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2009)

---

JUDGES:	WHELAN JA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	On the papers
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	25 November 2016
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSCA 294
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Sadiq (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Hannan, 26 July 2016)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for leave to appeal against sentence – Reckless conduct endangering life – Sentence 4y 6m (charge 1) – Negligently causing serious injury (by driving) – Sentence 4y 6m (charge 2) – Total effective sentence 6y 6m – Non-parole period 4y – Leave refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	No appearance	Tait Lawyers
For the Respondent	No appearance	Mr John Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

WHELAN JA:

On 25 May 2016 the applicant, Shameer Sadiq, pleaded guilty in the County Court to the offences of reckless conduct endangering life, and negligently causing serious injury. After a plea hearing, the applicant was sentenced on 26 July 2016 as follows:

Charge on Indictment

Offence

Maximum

Sentence

Cumulation

1 Reckless conduct endangering life [Crimes Act 1958 s 22] 10 years imprisonment [Crimes Act 1958 s 22 ] 4 years 6 months’ imprisonment Base

2 Negligently causing serious injury [Crimes Act 1958 s 24] 10 years [Crimes Act 1958 s 24] 4 years 6 months’ imprisonment 2 years

Total Effective Sentence:

6 years and 6 months’ imprisonment

(New) Non-Parole Period:

4 years

Pre-Sentence detention declaration pursuant to s 18(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991:

80 days

6AAA Statement: 8 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 6 years

Other relevant orders: Licence disqualified for 4 years. Forensic Sample Order pursuant to s 464ZF of the Crimes Act 1958.

The applicant now seeks leave to appeal on the ground that the sentences imposed on charges 1 and 2, the order for cumulation, the total effective sentence, and the non-parole period fixed are each manifestly excessive.

Circumstances of the offending

On the afternoon of Sunday 28 September 2014 the applicant drove erratically, at high speed and under the influence of methylamphetamine over a significant distance on major arterial roads (charge 1). This culminated in the applicant entering an intersection against a red light and colliding with a vehicle, the driver of which suffered a serious injury (charge 2).

The driving the subject of charge 1 included the applicant performing a U-turn across the M11 freeway median strip at high speed, causing a driver to slow down to avoid collision; approaching a stationary car from behind at high speed, only to swerve at the last moment, narrowly avoiding collision; disregarding a red light signal; and swerving dangerously through traffic at speeds estimated by one witness to be in excess of 120 km/h in a 70 km/h zone. This conduct forced a number…

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 Sadiq v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Sadiq v The Queen [2016] VSCA 294
Case: [2016] VSCA 294
Decision Date: 25 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sadiq v The Queen involved the defendant, Sadiq, appealing against his sentence imposed by the court. Sadiq had been convicted of two charges: recklessly engaging in conduct that endangered life and negligently causing serious injury by driving. He was sentenced to a total effective sentence of six years and six months, with a non-parole period of four years. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and therefore warranted leave to appeal. The court needed to determine if the sentence was disproportionate considering the nature and circumstances of the offences.

In addressing the appeal, the court considered the gravity of the offences, the culpability of the defendant, and the need for general and specific deterrence. The court emphasised the significant harm caused by Sadiq's actions, which led to serious injury and potential loss of life. It also noted the importance of upholding public confidence in the criminal justice system and ensuring that sentences reflect the seriousness of the crimes committed. After careful deliberation, the court found that the sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor inappropriate. It concluded that the sentence adequately reflected the severity of the offences and the need to deter similar conduct in the future.

Consequently, the court refused Sadiq's application for leave to appeal against his sentence. The ruling affirmed the original sentence, which stood as a balanced and proportionate response to the offences committed. The decision underscored the importance of maintaining appropriate sentence levels to ensure justice is served and public safety is protected.

Orders