Regina v Janceski [2005] NSWCCA 288

Regina v Janceski [2005] NSWCCA 288

The original overall sentence of two years imprisonment with a one year non-parole period was plainly and manifestly inadequate. The respondent's moral culpability was high because he pursued the other vehicle dangerously over a prolonged distance at high speed, after confronting its occupants and after being put on notice of the risks, and the deaths would not have occurred had he desisted. The sentencing judge's errors, including wholly concurrent sentences, misapplication of multiple victims as aggravation, and excessive mitigation for subjective factors, contributed to the inadequacy. The appeal was allowed and the respondent was resentenced to partly cumulative sentences of four...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal After Conviction at Trial for Two Counts of Dangerous Driving Causing Death
Outcome
Crown appeal upheld; original sentences quashed; respondent resentenced; driving disqualification confirmed.
Legal Topics
['crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'dangerous Driving Causing Death' 'concurrent and Cumulative Sentences' 'multiple Victims' 'moral Culpability' 'subjective Mitigating Factors']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'dangerous Driving Causing Death' 'concurrent and Cumulative Sentences' 'multiple Victims' 'moral Culpability' 'subjective Mitigating Factors']

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 Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal After Conviction at Trial for Two Counts of Dangerous Driving Causing Death

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentences of two years imprisonment with a one year non-parole period for each count, wholly concurrent, were manifestly inadequate.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by making the two sentences wholly concurrent while also treating multiple victims as an aggravating factor for each count.' "Whether the deceased driver's responsibility for the impact reduced the respondent's culpability." 'Whether excessive weight was given to subjective features including asserted altruistic motive, driving record, absence of a guilty plea and admissions to police.' 'What sentences should be imposed if the Crown appeal were allowed.']

Ratio Decidendi

The original overall sentence of two years imprisonment with a one year non-parole period was plainly and manifestly inadequate. The respondent's moral culpability was high because he pursued the other vehicle dangerously over a prolonged distance at high speed, after confronting its occupants and after being put on notice of the risks, and the deaths would not have occurred had he desisted. The sentencing judge's errors, including wholly concurrent sentences, misapplication of multiple victims as aggravation, and excessive mitigation for subjective factors, contributed to the inadequacy. The appeal was allowed and the respondent was resentenced to partly cumulative sentences of four...

Court Disposition

Crown appeal upheld; original sentences quashed; respondent resentenced; driving disqualification confirmed.

Orders

  • ['The Crown appeal against the sentences imposed by Judge JB Phelan on 2 September 2004 is upheld and those sentences are quashed.' 'On the first count, a total sentence of imprisonment for four years is imposed, commencing on 11 February 2004 and concluding on 10 February 2008, with a non-parole period of two years...