Crowley v R [2021] NSWCCA 45

Crowley v R [2021] NSWCCA 45

Leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed because the sentencing judge was open to find that the applicant had not proved that a panic attack or mental condition caused or influenced his decision to drive or his prolonged dangerous driving; any inconsistency in Dr Rodriguez's history and any alleged representative deficiencies did not cause practical injustice; the use of the ERISP did not deny procedural fairness; and the aggregate sentence, although severe, was not unreasonable or plainly unjust given the sustained, high-speed, wrong-way driving, multiple collisions, death, and grievous bodily harm caused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal From District Court Sentence Imposed After Guilty Pleas
Outcome
Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Sentence' 'alleged Miscarriage of Sentence Proceedings' 'incompetence of Counsel' 'denial of Procedural Fairness' 'manifest Excess' 'manslaughter' 'aggravated Dangerous Driving Causing Grievous Bodily Harm' 'mental Condition as Mitigation' 'further Evidence on Appeal']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['appeal Against Sentence' 'alleged Miscarriage of Sentence Proceedings' 'incompetence of Counsel' 'denial of Procedural Fairness' 'manifest Excess' 'manslaughter' 'aggravated Dangerous Driving Causing Grievous Bodily Harm' 'mental Condition as Mitigation' 'further Evidence on Appeal']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal From District Court Sentence Imposed After Guilty Pleas

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentence proceedings miscarried because of circumstances including counsel incompetence, the refusal or likely refusal of an adjournment, and the use of the ERISP.' 'Whether the applicant was denied procedural fairness by adverse inferences drawn from the ERISP without sufficient notice.' "Whether further evidence about the applicant's mental state showed a miscarriage of the sentence proceedings." "Whether the aggregate sentence of 14 years and 3 months' imprisonment with a 10 year non-parole period was manifestly excessive." 'Whether the applicant proved that panic attacks or other mental conditions causally affected his decision to drive or his driving so as to reduce moral culpability.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed because the sentencing judge was open to find that the applicant had not proved that a panic attack or mental condition caused or influenced his decision to drive or his prolonged dangerous driving; any inconsistency in Dr Rodriguez's history and any alleged representative deficiencies did not cause practical injustice; the use of the ERISP did not deny procedural fairness; and the aggregate sentence, although severe, was not unreasonable or plainly unjust given the sustained, high-speed, wrong-way driving, multiple collisions, death, and grievous bodily harm caused.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal against sentence.' 'Dismiss the appeal.']