Legal Research
Cases
Sharma v The Queen

Sharma v The Queen

Case [2017] VSCA 63 27 March 2017

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2017 0008

AJAY SHARMA	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:	SANTAMARIA JA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	On the papers
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	27 March 2017
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSCA 63
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Sharma (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Gucciardo, 14 December 2016)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for leave to appeal against sentence – Two charges of dangerous driving causing death – Driving motor vehicle – Sentence 2y 6m – Whether manifestly excessive – Low moral culpability but high objective gravity – Serious example of offence – Leave refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
No appearances

SANTAMARIA JA:

The applicant, now aged 32, pleaded guilty on 21 November 2016 to two charges of dangerous driving causing death contrary to s 319(1) of the Crimes Act 1958.

The applicant was sentenced on 14 December 2016 as follows:

Charge

Offence

Maximum

Sentence

Cumulation

1

Dangerous driving causing death [s 319(1) Crimes Act 1958]

10 years’ imprisonment [s 319(1) Crimes Act 1958]

2 years’ imprisonment

Base

2

Dangerous driving causing death

10 years’ imprisonment

2 years’ imprisonment

6 months

Total Effective Sentence:

2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment

Non-Parole Period:

12 months

Pre-sentence detention declaration:

23 days

Section 6AAA statement:

Total effective sentence of 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years

Other relevant orders:

Licence disqualification for 18 months from date of expiration of non-parole period; Forensic Sample Order

The applicant now seeks leave to appeal his sentence.

Circumstances of offending

On 23 July 2014 at approximately 5.10pm, the applicant was driving a car along Sunbury Road between the main entrance to Melbourne Airport and the intersection of Sunbury Road and Oaklands Road.

The road at that location was sealed and in good condition, it had one lane in each direction and was separated by continuous double white lines. The speed zone for that stretch of road was 100 kilometres per hour. The weather was dry and visibility was good. That part of Sunbury Road in which the collision occurred is a relatively straight section of road whichever, however, has the beginning of a long sweeping curve to the left.

After passing Gate 2 to the airport and before reaching the intersection with Oaklands Road, the applicant drove across the double white lines in the centre of the road so that his car was entirely on the wrong side of the road and proceeded into the path of oncoming traffic.

The applicant’s car first ‘side-swiped’ a Ford station wagon which spun out of control before stopping some distance south. The driver of that car was not injured. The applicant then continued travelling on the wrong side of the road with a slight movement towards the centre of the road, causing the driver of an…

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 Sharma v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Ajay Sharma v The Queen [2017] VSCA 63
Case: [2017] VSCA 63
Decision Date: 27 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sharma v The Queen involved the appellant, who was convicted on two counts of dangerous driving causing death. The appellant was sentenced to two years and six months in prison. The appeal was against the sentence imposed, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The matter was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the circumstances of the case warranted a reduction in the sentence. The court examined the principle of proportionality in sentencing and the balance between moral culpability and objective gravity of the offence. The appellant's low moral culpability contrasted with the high objective gravity of the offence, as the incident resulted in two fatalities. The court considered whether the sentence could be justified as a serious example of the offence, given the gravity of the harm caused.

The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. It found that the sentence appropriately reflected the seriousness of the offence and the need to deter similar conduct in the future. The appellant's moral culpability was low, but the objective gravity of the offence was high, justifying a sentence that demonstrated the gravity of the consequences. The court held that the sentence served as a serious example of the consequences of dangerous driving causing death, and therefore, the appeal against the sentence was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the leave to appeal against the sentence was refused, and the original sentence of two years and six months imprisonment remained in place.

Orders