Sutic v The Queen

The appellant, Mr Sutic, was convicted of two charges of negligently causing serious injury and two charges of reckless conduct endangering serious injury. He was sentenced to a total effective term of imprisonment of 4 years, 9 months. Mr Sutic applied for an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal against his sentence, arguing that there was an 11-month delay due to him being under the mistaken belief that he had signed documents that preserved his appeal rights. He sought legal advice promptly after his sentence, engaged new solicitors, and applied for Legal Aid funding. The application for an extension of time was granted as significant parts of the delay were not attributable to Mr Sutic.

The court had to decide whether Mr Sutic's application for an extension of time should be granted and if the application for leave to appeal against his sentence should be refused. The court examined whether the trial judge mischaracterised the objective gravity of the negligently causing serious injury offences and whether the judge erred in adopting an incremental approach to upward adjustment of current sentencing practices. The court also considered whether the judge doubly punished Mr Sutic and whether the sentence of 3 years, 2 months’ imprisonment for the first negligently causing serious injury charge and orders for cumulation were manifestly excessive.

The court found that the trial judge did not mischaracterise the objective gravity of the offences and did not err in adopting an incremental approach to sentencing. The court also found that Mr Sutic was not doubly punished and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused. The application for an extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal was granted as significant parts of the delay were not attributable to Mr Sutic.

No further orders were made.