R v Price [2004] NSWCCA 186

R v Price [2004] NSWCCA 186

The sentences imposed by Acting Judge Ducker were manifestly inadequate, failed to properly reflect the objective seriousness and increased criminality arising from the deaths of two persons, and the totality principle required a sentence greater than for a single death. However, given delay in appeal and...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 September 2004
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment Following District Court Sentencing
Outcome
Appeal allowed; sentences quashed; respondent resentenced.
Legal Topics
['sentencing' 'dangerous Driving Causing Death' 'crown Appeals' 'concurrent Vs Cumulative Sentences' 'general Deterrence']
['criminal Law'] ['sentencing' 'dangerous Driving Causing Death' 'crown Appeals' 'concurrent Vs Cumulative Sentences' 'general Deterrence']

Source-derived case record

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

Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment Following District Court Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate' 'Proper application of general deterrence in sentencing for dangerous driving causing death' 'Whether concurrent sentences were appropriate for multiple deaths' 'Consideration of subjective and objective factors in sentencing']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentences imposed by Acting Judge Ducker were manifestly inadequate, failed to properly reflect the objective seriousness and increased criminality arising from the deaths of two persons, and the totality principle required a sentence greater than for a single death. However, given delay in appeal and respondent's progress in custody, the Court imposed concurrent sentences of 3 years imprisonment for each count with a non-parole period of 12 months, to be served from 27 November 2003.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; sentences quashed; respondent resentenced.

Orders

  • ['Sentences imposed by Acting Judge Ducker are quashed.' 'In respect of each count, respondent is sentenced to 3 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 months, commencing from 27 November 2003.' 'Non-parole period to expire on 26 November 2004; respondent to be released to parole on that date.' 'Condition...