Regina v Skrill [2002] NSWCCA 484

Regina v Skrill [2002] NSWCCA 484

By majority, the Court held that the sentencing judge erred by imposing identical fully concurrent sentences for two offences involving different victims, different consequences and different maximum penalties, without partial accumulation. The respondent's conduct involved a high level of moral culpability and multiple aggravating features, and the offences warranted sentences at the upper end of the available range, although strong subjective circumstances and double jeopardy required moderation on re-sentencing.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal From Sentences Imposed in the District Court
Outcome
By majority, appeal allowed; sentences imposed by Shillington DCJ quashed and new sentences imposed.
Legal Topics
['dangerous Driving Causing Death' 'aggravated Dangerous Driving Causing Grievous Bodily Harm' 'manifest Inadequacy of Sentence' 'concurrent and Cumulative Sentences' 'totality' 'crown Appeal' 'double Jeopardy' 'driver Licence Disqualification']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['dangerous Driving Causing Death' 'aggravated Dangerous Driving Causing Grievous Bodily Harm' 'manifest Inadequacy of Sentence' 'concurrent and Cumulative Sentences' 'totality' 'crown Appeal' 'double Jeopardy' 'driver Licence Disqualification']

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

Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal From Sentences Imposed in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred by imposing concurrent sentences for aggravated dangerous driving causing death and aggravated dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm arising from the same collision.' 'Whether the sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate.' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to apply the principles in Pearce v The Queen concerning individual sentences, cumulation or concurrence, and totality.' "What sentences should be imposed on re-sentencing in light of the respondent's objective criminality, subjective circumstances, and double jeopardy on a Crown appeal."]

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the Court held that the sentencing judge erred by imposing identical fully concurrent sentences for two offences involving different victims, different consequences and different maximum penalties, without partial accumulation. The respondent's conduct involved a high level of moral culpability and multiple aggravating features, and the offences warranted sentences at the upper end of the available range, although strong subjective circumstances and double jeopardy required moderation on re-sentencing.

Court Disposition

By majority, appeal allowed; sentences imposed by Shillington DCJ quashed and new sentences imposed.

Orders

  • ['On the second count, the respondent is sentenced to imprisonment for three years to date from 12 July 2002 and to expire on 11 July 2005.' 'On the first count, the respondent is sentenced to a head sentence of six years to commence on 12 January 2003 and to expire on 11 January 2009.' 'In relation to the first...