R v Romanic [2000] NSWCCA 524

R v Romanic [2000] NSWCCA 524

The sentence was manifestly inadequate because the sentencing judge failed to give proper effect to general deterrence, gave excessive weight to subjective circumstances, imposed periodic detention in a case involving more than momentary inattention or misjudgment and significant intoxication, applied an impermissible double discount for the guilty plea by overlooking that the Jurisic guideline assumed a plea, and made errors concerning special circumstances and the non-parole period. Those errors warranted Crown appellate intervention and resentencing.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 November 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions Against Sentence Under Section 5 D of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal Against District Court Sentence Following Guilty Plea
Outcome
Appeal allowed; sentence quashed; respondent resentenced to full-time imprisonment for 12 months with a non-parole period of 9 months.
Legal Topics
['dangerous Driving Occasioning Grievous Bodily Harm' 'crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'guideline Judgments' 'general Deterrence' 'periodic Detention' 'plea of Guilty Discount' 'special Circumstances' 'manifest Inadequacy']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Procedure'] ['dangerous Driving Occasioning Grievous Bodily Harm' 'crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'guideline Judgments' 'general Deterrence' 'periodic Detention' 'plea of Guilty Discount' 'special Circumstances' 'manifest Inadequacy']

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

Appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions Against Sentence Under Section 5 D of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal Against District Court Sentence Following Guilty Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred by failing to give consideration to general deterrence.' "Whether the sentencing judge gave excessive weight to the respondent's subjective circumstances." 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in applying a discount for the plea of guilty given the Jurisic guideline.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in finding special circumstances and in structuring the non-parole period.' 'Whether the sentence of periodic detention was manifestly inadequate for dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm involving significant intoxication.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence was manifestly inadequate because the sentencing judge failed to give proper effect to general deterrence, gave excessive weight to subjective circumstances, imposed periodic detention in a case involving more than momentary inattention or misjudgment and significant intoxication, applied an impermissible double discount for the guilty plea by overlooking that the Jurisic guideline assumed a plea, and made errors concerning special circumstances and the non-parole period. Those errors warranted Crown appellate intervention and resentencing.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; sentence quashed; respondent resentenced to full-time imprisonment for 12 months with a non-parole period of 9 months.

Orders

  • ['Sentence imposed by the District Court quashed.' 'In lieu, the respondent is sentenced to imprisonment for 12 months to commence on 28 November 2000.' 'A non-parole period of 9 months is fixed to commence on 28 November 2000 and expire on 27 August 2001.' 'The release of the respondent is directed at the...