R v O'Dea [2002] NSWCCA 91

R v O'Dea [2002] NSWCCA 91

Leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed because the undisclosed pregnancy and asserted family hardship were not shown to be exceptional or capable of affecting the sentence, the sentencing judge had considered the applicant's lack of intention to drive and Mr Howard's urging but was entitled to find a gross abandonment of responsibility, the claimed self-punishment did not amount to the kind of psychiatric disorder considered in R v Dhanhoa, and the concurrent sentences of 6 years with non-parole periods of 3 years and 5 months were not manifestly excessive for a particularly bad case involving three deaths, intoxication by alcohol and cannabis, excessive speed, erratic...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 March 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Leave to make application for leave to appeal out of time granted. Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed. Sentence confirmed.
Legal Topics
['dangerous Driving Causing Death' 'driving Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor and Drugs Causing Death' 'fresh Evidence on Sentence Appeal' 'pregnancy in Custody' 'family Hardship' 'manifest Excess']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['dangerous Driving Causing Death' 'driving Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor and Drugs Causing Death' 'fresh Evidence on Sentence Appeal' 'pregnancy in Custody' 'family Hardship' 'manifest Excess']

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 Extension of Time and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether fresh evidence that the applicant was pregnant at the time of sentencing should affect the sentence.' "Whether the sentencing judge failed to give proper consideration to hardship to the applicant's children arising from imprisonment." "Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the applicant's culpability, including alleged coercion by Mr Howard and the applicant's lack of intention to drive." "Whether the sentencing judge failed to take into account the applicant's self-punishment." 'Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed because the undisclosed pregnancy and asserted family hardship were not shown to be exceptional or capable of affecting the sentence, the sentencing judge had considered the applicant's lack of intention to drive and Mr Howard's urging but was entitled to find a gross abandonment of responsibility, the claimed self-punishment did not amount to the kind of psychiatric disorder considered in R v Dhanhoa, and the concurrent sentences of 6 years with non-parole periods of 3 years and 5 months were not manifestly excessive for a particularly bad case involving three deaths, intoxication by alcohol and cannabis, excessive speed, erratic...

Court Disposition

Leave to make application for leave to appeal out of time granted. Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed. Sentence confirmed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to make application for leave to appeal out of time granted.' 'Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.' 'Sentence confirmed.']