Ford v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 9

Ford v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 9

Double counting of aggravating features by considering them both under the guideline judgment and under s 21A(2) is an error; further, where there are multiple offences each relating to a separate victim arising from a single act, the sentences should not be wholly concurrent nor should multiple victims be an aggravating factor for each offence. The sentencing discretion miscarried; the original sentences should be quashed and resentencing conducted.

Parties
Applicant: Scott James Ford; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Leave Granted; Appeal Allowed; Resentencing
Outcome
Application for leave granted; appeal allowed; sentences imposed are quashed; resentencing imposed.
Legal Topics
Sentence, Dangerous Driving Causing Grievous Bodily Harm, Concurrent Sentences, Double Counting of Aggravating Factors, Guideline Judgment, Principle of Totality
Criminal Law Sentence Dangerous Driving Causing Grievous Bodily Harm Concurrent Sentences Double Counting of Aggravating Factors Guideline Judgment Principle of Totality

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 14
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Scott James Ford

Applicant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Leave Granted; Appeal Allowed; Resentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentencing Judge erred by treating the existence of multiple victims as an aggravating factor under s 21A(2) where multiple charges were before the court.
  2. 2 Whether the Judge erred in making the sentences for the two offences concurrent rather than partly concurrent and partly cumulative.
  3. 3 Whether the Judge erred by double counting aggravating factors when applying both the guideline judgment in R v Jurisic and s 21A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

Ratio Decidendi

Double counting of aggravating features by considering them both under the guideline judgment and under s 21A(2) is an error; further, where there are multiple offences each relating to a separate victim arising from a single act, the sentences should not be wholly concurrent nor should multiple victims be an aggravating factor for each offence. The sentencing discretion miscarried; the original sentences should be quashed and resentencing conducted.

Court Disposition

Application for leave granted; appeal allowed; sentences imposed are quashed; resentencing imposed.

Orders

  • In respect of the first charge: non-parole period of 1 year and 10 months from 22 March 2005 to 21 January 2007; balance of term 8 months from 22 January 2007; applicant to be released to parole at the expiration of the non-parole period, subject to the next sentence.
  • In respect of the second charge: non-parole period of 1 year and 9 months from 22 September 2005 to 21 June 2007; balance of term 9 months from 22 June 2007; applicant to be released to parole at the expiration of the non-parole period.