Ward P at [1]; Button J at [120]; Ierace J at [121]
Decision:
1. Extend time for the filing of the notice of appeal to 29 September 2023 and give leave for the appeal against sentence.
2. Uphold ground 3 of the appeal.
3. Quash the order of the sentencing judge in relation to the period of disqualification for sequence 4.
4. Disqualify the applicant for 1 year and 92 days.
5. Confirm the disqualification period for sequence 3 (s 166 matter), to be served concurrently with the disqualification period the subject of order 4 above.
6. Otherwise dismiss the appeal against sentence.
Catchwords:
SENTENCING – appeal against sentence – aggravating factors – dangerous driving occasioning death – moral culpability – objective seriousness – where the applicant was “showing off” his vehicle; grossly disregarded the speed limit and was found to have engaged in aggressive driving
Counsel: G Bashir SC (Applicant) M England (Respondent)
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 Wells v R
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Wells v R [2024] NSWCCA 8
Case
[2024] NSWCCA 8
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Wells v R involved the applicant who was sentenced to a period of imprisonment for causing the death of a pedestrian through dangerous driving. The applicant had been travelling at a high speed, significantly exceeding the speed limit, and engaging in aggressive driving behaviour. The applicant was also found to have been "showing off" his vehicle at the time of the incident, which contributed to the dangerous circumstances. The applicant appealed against his sentence, arguing that the trial judge had misapplied the principles of sentencing and had not adequately considered certain mitigating factors.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in assessing the seriousness of the offence and the applicant's moral culpability. The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate, having regard to the objective seriousness of the offence, the circumstances of the case, and the principles of sentencing applicable to such offences. The court also needed to consider whether the trial judge had appropriately weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors in reaching the sentence.
The court held that the trial judge had appropriately assessed the objective seriousness of the offence, taking into account the dangerous nature of the applicant's driving and the resulting death. The court found that the trial judge had correctly identified the relevant aggravating factors, including the applicant's reckless disregard for the safety of others, his aggressive driving behaviour, and his attempt to "show off" his vehicle. The court further held that the trial judge had adequately considered the mitigating factors, such as the applicant's remorse and the absence of a criminal history. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was not manifestly inadequate and affirmed the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial judge.