R v Melas [2004] NSWCCA 198

R v Melas [2004] NSWCCA 198

Although the sentencing judge failed to take into account as he ought to have done the Crown concession that the applicant pleaded guilty at the first opportunity, even taking that matter and all other matters advanced for the applicant at their highest, the circumstances of the offence did not warrant any less severe sentence in law. The applicant drove in broad daylight at between 90 and 100 kilometres per hour through an area with pedestrian refuge barriers, saw the victim, and struck and killed him. No lower sentence should have been passed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Severity Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['driving in a Manner Dangerous Occasioning Death' 'severity Appeal' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'non Parole Period']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'traffic Offences'] ['driving in a Manner Dangerous Occasioning Death' 'severity Appeal' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'non Parole Period']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Severity Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentence for Driving In A Manner Dangerous Occasioning Death contrary to s52A(1)(c) of the Crimes Act 1900 was manifestly excessive or otherwise warranted a less severe sentence.' "Whether insufficient credit was given for the applicant's guilty plea, which was conceded to have been entered at the first opportunity." "Whether the sentencing judge gave excessive weight to the applicant's previous driving record or made findings about speed, observation of the victim, and opportunity to observe the victim that affected sentence."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the sentencing judge failed to take into account as he ought to have done the Crown concession that the applicant pleaded guilty at the first opportunity, even taking that matter and all other matters advanced for the applicant at their highest, the circumstances of the offence did not warrant any less severe sentence in law. The applicant drove in broad daylight at between 90 and 100 kilometres per hour through an area with pedestrian refuge barriers, saw the victim, and struck and killed him. No lower sentence should have been passed.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is granted.' 'The appeal is dismissed.']