Tang v R [2019] NSWCCA 267

Tang v R [2019] NSWCCA 267

The sentence of 3 years imprisonment with an 18 month non-parole period was not manifestly excessive. The offence was serious, the applicant's dangerous driving did not involve mere momentary inattention or misjudgement, and she had an opportunity to see and avoid the pedestrians. The sentencing judge properly considered the guideline judgment as a check or sounding board, recognised that the applicant was not the typical offender, and gave close attention to her strong subjective case, including age, mental health, good character, remorse and low risk of reoffending. The sentence was within the legitimate exercise of the sentencing discretion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['dangerous Driving Causing Death' 'manifest Excess' 'guideline Judgments' 'general Deterrence' 'subjective Circumstances of Offender']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['dangerous Driving Causing Death' 'manifest Excess' 'guideline Judgments' 'general Deterrence' 'subjective Circumstances of Offender']

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 Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentence imposed for dangerous driving causing death contrary to s 52A(1)(c) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) was manifestly excessive.' "Whether the sentencing judge gave appropriate weight to the guideline judgments in R v Jurisic and R v Whyte and to the applicant's advanced age, mental health, good character, remorse and prospects of rehabilitation."]

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence of 3 years imprisonment with an 18 month non-parole period was not manifestly excessive. The offence was serious, the applicant's dangerous driving did not involve mere momentary inattention or misjudgement, and she had an opportunity to see and avoid the pedestrians. The sentencing judge properly considered the guideline judgment as a check or sounding board, recognised that the applicant was not the typical offender, and gave close attention to her strong subjective case, including age, mental health, good character, remorse and low risk of reoffending. The sentence was within the legitimate exercise of the sentencing discretion.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']