Regina v Kaddour [2002] NSWCCA 112

Regina v Kaddour [2002] NSWCCA 112

The proposed evidence was not fresh because, with reasonable diligence, the appellant's expert could have examined the engine before trial, particularly given Constable Thompson's statement and evidence about the throttle assembly. In any event, the proposed evidence was of doubtful quality and did not create a significant possibility of acquittal. The sentence was manifestly excessive because, although the offence involved excessive speed, a bad traffic record and unlicensed driving, there was no alcohol, drugs, competitive driving or ignoring of warnings, and the sentence was the highest among the statistics provided. A sentence of 4 years imprisonment with a 3 year non-parole period...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 April 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal From the District Court
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against sentence allowed; sentence set aside and substituted.
Legal Topics
['driving in a Manner Dangerous Causing Grievous Bodily Harm' 'fresh Evidence on Appeal' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'non Parole Period' 'special Circumstances']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['driving in a Manner Dangerous Causing Grievous Bodily Harm' 'fresh Evidence on Appeal' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'non Parole Period' 'special Circumstances']

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the appellant's proposed evidence from Mr Wingrove was fresh evidence that was not available at trial with reasonable diligence." 'Whether, if admitted, the proposed fresh evidence created a significant possibility that the jury would have acquitted the appellant.' 'Whether the sentence of 6 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 1/2 years was manifestly excessive.' "Whether the appellant's prison classification constituted special circumstances justifying a non-parole period of less than three-quarters of the sentence."]

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed evidence was not fresh because, with reasonable diligence, the appellant's expert could have examined the engine before trial, particularly given Constable Thompson's statement and evidence about the throttle assembly. In any event, the proposed evidence was of doubtful quality and did not create a significant possibility of acquittal. The sentence was manifestly excessive because, although the offence involved excessive speed, a bad traffic record and unlicensed driving, there was no alcohol, drugs, competitive driving or ignoring of warnings, and the sentence was the highest among the statistics provided. A sentence of 4 years imprisonment with a 3 year non-parole period...

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against sentence allowed; sentence set aside and substituted.

Orders

  • ['Appeal against conviction dismissed.' 'Leave to appeal against sentence granted and the appeal allowed.' 'Set aside the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge and, in lieu thereof, the appellant is sentenced to 4 years imprisonment to date from 3 March 2000 and to expire on 2 March 2004.' 'A non-parole period of...