Sanyasi v The Queen - [2019] VSCA 227

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2018 0159

NATASHA KARISHMA SANYASI	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL P, PRIEST and BEACH JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	8 October 2019
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	15 October 2019
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSCA 227
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2018] VCC 1061 (Judge Gucciardo)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Culpable driving – Gross negligence – Sentence of 7 years, non-parole period 4 years 6 months – Whether manifestly excessive – Offender psychotic at time of collision – Whether drug-induced psychosis – Whether offender aware of risk of psychotic episode – Whether aggravating feature – Verdins principles otherwise applicable – Sentence moderate – Leave to appeal refused – R v Martin (2007) 20 VR 14 applied.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms C M Randazzo SC	Rainer Martini & Associates
For the Respondent	Mr P V Bourke	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

MAXWELL P
PRIEST JA
BEACH JA:

In the early hours of 16 July 2016, the applicant drove her motor vehicle into the intersection of Sydney Road and Lorne Street, Fawkner and collided with a taxi then being driven by Dilawer Muhy Ud Din Shah. Mr Shah died at the scene of the collision.

The applicant, who had a small amount of cannabis in her system at the time, drove into the intersection against traffic lights which had been red for a minimum of seven seconds. The speed limit along the road upon which the applicant was travelling was 70 kilometres per hour. At the time of the collision, the applicant’s vehicle was travelling at approximately 137 kilometres per hour.

Subsequently, the applicant pleaded guilty to one charge of culpable driving, one charge of possessing a drug of dependence (cannabis) and one charge of driving an unregistered motor vehicle.

On 11 July 2018, following a four day plea hearing in the County Court, the applicant was sentenced to a term of 7 years’ imprisonment on the charge of culpable driving, and fined $50 on the possession charge and $150 on the unregistered motor vehicle charge. A non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months was fixed. The applicant’s licence to drive a motor vehicle was cancelled and she was disqualified from obtaining a licence for 5 years.[1]
[1]DPP v Sanyasi [2018] VCC 1061 (‘Reasons’).

The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed upon her for culpable driving.

In her application for leave to appeal, the applicant relied upon a single ground of appeal in which she asserted that the sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period was manifestly excessive. At the commencement of the hearing before us, however, the applicant applied for leave to add two further grounds of appeal. Under the proposed additional grounds, the applicant sought to argue that two of the errors she contended had led to a manifestly excessive sentence were also specific errors that vitiated the judge’s sentence.

As the…

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 Sanyasi v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Natasha Karishma Sanyasi v The Queen [2019] VSCA 227
Case: [2019] VSCA 227
Decision Date: 15 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Sanyasi v The Queen, the appellant was convicted of culpable driving causing death and was sentenced to seven years imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years and six months. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and sought leave to appeal. The primary ground for appeal was the argument that the sentence did not adequately take into account the fact that the appellant was suffering from a drug-induced psychosis at the time of the collision and was therefore unaware of the risk of a psychotic episode occurring.

The legal issues before the court included whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, whether the drug-induced psychosis was a mitigating factor, and whether the offender's awareness of the risk of a psychotic episode was an aggravating feature. The court considered the principles set out in Verdins and Martin and held that the sentence was moderate and not manifestly excessive. The court found that the drug-induced psychosis was a mitigating factor, but the offender's lack of awareness of the risk of a psychotic episode was not an aggravating feature.

The court held that the sentence was appropriate and not manifestly excessive. The court found that the offender's lack of awareness of the risk of a psychotic episode did not constitute an aggravating feature. The court held that the sentence was moderate and did not require the intervention of the Court of Appeal. The court refused leave to appeal. The principles set out in Martin were applied, and it was held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the offender's drug-induced psychosis was a mitigating factor, but this did not outweigh the gravity of the offence. The court held that the sentence was appropriate and not manifestly excessive.

Orders