Regina v Khatter [2000] NSWCCA 32

Regina v Khatter [2000] NSWCCA 32

By majority, the sentencing judge erred by failing to give sufficient effect to the objective seriousness of the offence, including that the respondent deliberately drove on a public street while knowing he was intoxicated, and by departing radically from the Jurisic guideline without adequate justification. The respondent's compelling subjective circumstances warranted a sentence well below the guideline range, but not a non-full-time custodial disposition; the proper result was to allow the Crown appeal, quash the periodic detention sentence, and impose a fixed term of three months imprisonment from the date of judgment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 February 2000
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal From District Court Sentence
Outcome
Crown appeal against sentence allowed; sentence quashed; respondent re-sentenced to imprisonment for a fixed term of 3 months to date from 29 February 2000.
Legal Topics
['dangerous Driving Causing Death' 'crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'guideline Judgments' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'full Time Custody' 'periodic Detention' 'special Circumstances']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['dangerous Driving Causing Death' 'crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'guideline Judgments' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'full Time Custody' 'periodic Detention' 'special Circumstances']

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

Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal From District Court Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred by departing from the R v Jurisic guideline without adequate explanation.' "Whether the sentencing judge gave undue weight to the respondent's subjective circumstances." 'Whether it was erroneous to conclude that no benefit to society would result from full-time custody.' 'Whether reliance on pre-Jurisic Judicial Commission statistics was inappropriate.' 'Whether the offence was wrongly characterised as closer to momentary inattention than a sustained course of outrageous driving.' 'Whether the sentence of two years imprisonment by way of periodic detention was manifestly inadequate.']

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the sentencing judge erred by failing to give sufficient effect to the objective seriousness of the offence, including that the respondent deliberately drove on a public street while knowing he was intoxicated, and by departing radically from the Jurisic guideline without adequate justification. The respondent's compelling subjective circumstances warranted a sentence well below the guideline range, but not a non-full-time custodial disposition; the proper result was to allow the Crown appeal, quash the periodic detention sentence, and impose a fixed term of three months imprisonment from the date of judgment.

Court Disposition

Crown appeal against sentence allowed; sentence quashed; respondent re-sentenced to imprisonment for a fixed term of 3 months to date from 29 February 2000.

Orders

  • ['That the Crown appeal against sentence be allowed.' 'That the sentence passed upon the respondent in the Court below be quashed.' "That the respondent be re-sentenced to imprisonment for a fixed term of 3 months to date from today's date."]