R v AUSTIN [1999] NSWCCA 101

R v AUSTIN [1999] NSWCCA 101

Leave to appeal was refused because the circumstances relied on by the applicant did not justify an additional term exceeding twelve months, there was no relevant gap in his driving offending, and the objective seriousness of the offences required sentences under which he would serve not less than three years full-time detention.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences Imposed in the District Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
['driving in a Manner Dangerous to the Public Occasioning Grievous Bodily Harm' 'excessive Sentence' 'minimum Term and Additional Term' 'parole Eligibility']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['driving in a Manner Dangerous to the Public Occasioning Grievous Bodily Harm' 'excessive Sentence' 'minimum Term and Additional Term' 'parole Eligibility']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentences Imposed in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to appeal against the sentences imposed for four counts of driving in a manner dangerous to the public occasioning grievous bodily harm.' 'Whether the sentencing judge should have allocated more of the four-year total term to the additional term and less to the minimum term, resulting in earlier parole eligibility.' 'Whether circumstances justified an additional term exceeding one-third of the minimum term for the purposes of s 5(2) of the Sentencing Act.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the circumstances relied on by the applicant did not justify an additional term exceeding twelve months, there was no relevant gap in his driving offending, and the objective seriousness of the offences required sentences under which he would serve not less than three years full-time detention.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal refused']