R v Errington [1999] NSWCCA 18

R v Errington [1999] NSWCCA 18

The original sentence was manifestly inadequate because the respondent's very high intoxication, prolonged drinking, excessive speed, the serious injuries inflicted and the risk to passengers and other road users showed an abandonment of responsibility requiring a custodial sentence above the Jurisic minimum. The sentencing judge erred by treating the victim's conduct as mitigating and by giving insufficient weight to retribution and denunciation. Although mitigating factors existed, they did not justify an eighteen month sentence to be served by home detention. Applying double jeopardy principles on a Crown appeal, the sentence was quashed and replaced with imprisonment comprising a...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 March 1999
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence for Aggravated Dangerous Driving Causing Grievous Bodily Harm / Appeal From District Court Sentence Imposed After Guilty Plea
Outcome
Appeal allowed; sentence quashed; respondent resentenced to imprisonment with a minimum term of twelve months and an additional term of eighteen months, backdated to 6 November 1998.
Legal Topics
['dangerous Driving Causing Grievous Bodily Harm' 'crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'home Detention' 'guideline Judgments' 'aggravating and Mitigating Factors' 'alcohol Related Driving Offending']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['dangerous Driving Causing Grievous Bodily Harm' 'crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'home Detention' 'guideline Judgments' 'aggravating and Mitigating Factors' 'alcohol Related Driving Offending']

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 for Aggravated Dangerous Driving Causing Grievous Bodily Harm / Appeal From District Court Sentence Imposed After Guilty Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentence of eighteen months imprisonment to be served by way of home detention was inadequate for aggravated dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm contrary to s 52A(4) Crimes Act 1900.' 'Whether the sentencing judge gave sufficient weight to retribution, denunciation and the aggravating features of intoxication, speed, injuries and risk to others.' "Whether the victim's knowledge of the respondent's intoxication and conduct could mitigate sentence." "Whether hardship to the respondent's family justified a lesser sentence." 'Whether special circumstances justified a longer parole supervision period under s 5(2) of the Sentencing Act 1989.']

Ratio Decidendi

The original sentence was manifestly inadequate because the respondent's very high intoxication, prolonged drinking, excessive speed, the serious injuries inflicted and the risk to passengers and other road users showed an abandonment of responsibility requiring a custodial sentence above the Jurisic minimum. The sentencing judge erred by treating the victim's conduct as mitigating and by giving insufficient weight to retribution and denunciation. Although mitigating factors existed, they did not justify an eighteen month sentence to be served by home detention. Applying double jeopardy principles on a Crown appeal, the sentence was quashed and replaced with imprisonment comprising a...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; sentence quashed; respondent resentenced to imprisonment with a minimum term of twelve months and an additional term of eighteen months, backdated to 6 November 1998.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'Sentence quashed.' 'In lieu thereof, the respondent was sentenced to imprisonment for a minimum term of twelve months, deemed to have commenced on 6 November 1998, with an additional term of eighteen months.' 'The earliest date on which the respondent will be eligible for release on parole is 5...