Peberdy v R [2023] NSWCCA 144

Peberdy v R [2023] NSWCCA 144

None of the sentencing judge's findings were unsupported by the evidence. The period of failed lookout, extent of lane crossing, and injury gravity justified marked moral culpability and objective seriousness toward or just below the mid-range (or above mid-range for one offence). There was no House v The King error. Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: David William Peberdy; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Appeal Against Sentence, Dangerous Driving Occasioning Death, Dangerous Driving Occasioning Grievous Bodily Harm, Objective Seriousness, Moral Culpability, Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
Criminal Law Appeal Against Sentence Dangerous Driving Occasioning Death Dangerous Driving Occasioning Grievous Bodily Harm Objective Seriousness Moral Culpability Aggravating and 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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David William Peberdy

Applicant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing judge mistook key facts regarding the applicant's driving conduct causing miscarriage of sentencing discretion
  2. 2 Whether the sentencing judge erred in the assessment of objective seriousness and moral culpability

Ratio Decidendi

None of the sentencing judge's findings were unsupported by the evidence. The period of failed lookout, extent of lane crossing, and injury gravity justified marked moral culpability and objective seriousness toward or just below the mid-range (or above mid-range for one offence). There was no House v The King error. Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Grant leave to appeal
  • Appeal dismissed