R v Darren MUMBERSON [2011] NSWCCA 54

R v Darren MUMBERSON [2011] NSWCCA 54

Although the sentencing judge's assessment that the offence was just below the mid-range of objective seriousness was not overturned, the offence remained very serious: the respondent deliberately grabbed and twisted the steering wheel of a moving car knowing of a high risk of grievous bodily harm, causing very serious injury. The respondent had substantial subjective factors, but they were not so favourable as to justify a two-year starting point or suspension of the sentence. The sentence was outside the range reasonably open and was manifestly inadequate, requiring the Crown appeal to be allowed and the respondent re-sentenced to full-time imprisonment with special circumstances...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing Appeal / Crown Appeal Against Sentence Pursuant to S 5 D of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Outcome
Appeal allowed; sentence below quashed; respondent re-sentenced.
Legal Topics
['crown Appeal' 'recklessly Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'suspended Sentence' 'subjective Features' 'plea of Guilty']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['crown Appeal' 'recklessly Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'suspended Sentence' 'subjective Features' 'plea of Guilty']

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

Criminal Sentencing Appeal / Crown Appeal Against Sentence Pursuant to S 5 D of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge should have found the aggravating feature of use of a weapon under s 21A(2)(c) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by giving a 15% discount for the plea of guilty.' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to have adequate regard to the standard non-parole period.' "Whether the sentencing judge placed too much weight on the respondent's subjective features and insufficient regard to deterrence and other purposes of punishment." 'Whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the sentencing judge's assessment that the offence was just below the mid-range of objective seriousness was not overturned, the offence remained very serious: the respondent deliberately grabbed and twisted the steering wheel of a moving car knowing of a high risk of grievous bodily harm, causing very serious injury. The respondent had substantial subjective factors, but they were not so favourable as to justify a two-year starting point or suspension of the sentence. The sentence was outside the range reasonably open and was manifestly inadequate, requiring the Crown appeal to be allowed and the respondent re-sentenced to full-time imprisonment with special circumstances...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; sentence below quashed; respondent re-sentenced.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'Sentence below quashed.' 'In lieu thereof, the respondent is sentenced to a non-parole period of fifteen months imprisonment commencing on 8 October 2010 and expiring on 7 January 2012, and a balance of term of one year, expiring on 7 January 2013.' 'The respondent is to be released on parole on...