Smith v The State of Western Australia
Case
•
[2022] WASCA 170
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Smith v The State of Western Australia [2022] WASCA 170
[2022] WASCA 170
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal in Smith v The State of Western Australia was heard by the Court of Appeal in Western Australia, with Buss P, Mitchell and Vaughan JJA presiding. The appellant, Ross Michael Smith, had entered a guilty plea to one count of dangerous driving occasioning death under section 59(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA). The maximum penalty for this offence is 10 years' imprisonment and a fine of any amount, in addition to a disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for a minimum of two years. Smith was sentenced to 3 years' immediate imprisonment with parole eligibility by Goetze AUX DCJ in the District Court of Western Australia, and was also disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for 2 years. Smith appealed against the length of his imprisonment term, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, which held that the sentence was commensurate with the seriousness of the offence.
In assessing whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, the Court of Appeal examined the maximum penalty prescribed by law for the offence, the standards of sentencing customarily observed with respect to that offence, the place which the criminal conduct occupies on the scale of seriousness of offences of the kind in question, and the personal circumstances of the offender. The Court of Appeal noted that the appellant's driving behaviour in relation to Mrs Sorensen and her vehicle was dangerous, as he failed to keep a proper lookout and was travelling at about 15 km per hour in excess of the speed limit. The Court of Appeal also noted that there was some mitigation, such as the appellant's early plea of guilty and his acceptance of responsibility for his offending. However, the Court of Appeal found that the sentence of 3 years' immediate imprisonment was commensurate with the seriousness of the appellant's offence, and that the length of the sentence was not unreasonable or plainly unjust.
In assessing whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, the Court of Appeal examined the maximum penalty prescribed by law for the offence, the standards of sentencing customarily observed with respect to that offence, the place which the criminal conduct occupies on the scale of seriousness of offences of the kind in question, and the personal circumstances of the offender. The Court of Appeal noted that the appellant's driving behaviour in relation to Mrs Sorensen and her vehicle was dangerous, as he failed to keep a proper lookout and was travelling at about 15 km per hour in excess of the speed limit. The Court of Appeal also noted that there was some mitigation, such as the appellant's early plea of guilty and his acceptance of responsibility for his offending. However, the Court of Appeal found that the sentence of 3 years' immediate imprisonment was commensurate with the seriousness of the appellant's offence, and that the length of the sentence was not unreasonable or plainly unjust.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Criminal Law
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Dangerous Driving
-
Causation
-
Sentencing
-
Jurisdiction
-
Early Plea of Guilty
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
The State of Western Australia v Ridout [2024] WASCA 98
Cases Citing This Decision
4
The State of Western Australia v Staltari
[2024] WASCA 141
The State of Western Australia v Ridout
[2024] WASCA 98
The State of Western Australia v Staltari
[2024] WASCA 141
Cases Cited
11
Statutory Material Cited
0
Rhodes v The State of Western Australia
[2022] WASCA 168
Lutumba v The State of Western Australia
[2013] WASCA 172
Timbrell v The State of Western Australia [No 2]
[2013] WASCA 269