MORABITO v REGINA [2007] NSWCCA 126

MORABITO v REGINA [2007] NSWCCA 126

The conviction appeal failed because, on the whole of the evidence, it was open to the jury acting reasonably to find beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant's inattention while driving a heavily laden semitrailer at about 90 kph on a busy highway was dangerous and caused the deaths and grievous bodily harm. The jury were entitled to reject the account that the windscreen shattered before impact, and were also entitled to find that even if it did, the appellant's prior inattention had already caused the danger. The sentence appeal failed because the sentencing judge was entitled to find beyond reasonable doubt that the inattention spanned at least some seconds, was more than strictly...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted but appeal against sentence dismissed.
Legal Topics
['dangerous Driving Causing Death' 'dangerous Driving Causing Grievous Bodily Harm' 'unsafe or Unsatisfactory Verdict' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'moral Culpability' 'momentary Inattention']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'sentencing'] ['dangerous Driving Causing Death' 'dangerous Driving Causing Grievous Bodily Harm' 'unsafe or Unsatisfactory Verdict' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'moral Culpability' 'momentary Inattention']

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 Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether it was open to the jury acting reasonably to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of dangerous driving causing death and dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm.' "Whether the jury were entitled to reject the appellant's account that his windscreen shattered before impact and blinded him." 'Whether, even if the windscreen shattered shortly before impact, dangerous driving causative of death and grievous bodily harm was still established by prior inattention.' "Whether the sentencing judge erred by sentencing on the basis that the appellant's culpability was more than momentary inattention." 'Whether the effective sentence of three years three months imprisonment with a non-parole period of fifteen months was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction appeal failed because, on the whole of the evidence, it was open to the jury acting reasonably to find beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant's inattention while driving a heavily laden semitrailer at about 90 kph on a busy highway was dangerous and caused the deaths and grievous bodily harm. The jury were entitled to reject the account that the windscreen shattered before impact, and were also entitled to find that even if it did, the appellant's prior inattention had already caused the danger. The sentence appeal failed because the sentencing judge was entitled to find beyond reasonable doubt that the inattention spanned at least some seconds, was more than strictly...

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted but appeal against sentence dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal against conviction dismissed.' 'Leave to appeal against sentence granted.' 'Appeal against sentence dismissed.']