R v Do [2000] NSWCCA 459

R v Do [2000] NSWCCA 459

Although the offences were very serious and the sentences were at the bottom of the range, the evidence did not establish deliberate acceleration, the sentencing judge did not give undue weight to character, and the sentences were not manifestly inadequate. Even if the sentences fell outside the appropriate discretionary range, the principle of double jeopardy meant the Court should not interfere on the Crown appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 November 2000
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence for Two Convictions of Manslaughter / Appeal Under S 5 D of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw) From the District Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['manifestly Inadequate Sentence' 'manslaughter Arising From Motor Vehicle Accident' 'good Character in Sentencing' 'double Jeopardy on Crown Appeal' 'guideline Judgment for Dangerous Driving']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['manifestly Inadequate Sentence' 'manslaughter Arising From Motor Vehicle Accident' 'good Character in Sentencing' 'double Jeopardy on Crown Appeal' 'guideline Judgment for Dangerous Driving']

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

Crown Appeal Against Sentence for Two Convictions of Manslaughter / Appeal Under S 5 D of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw) From the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentences imposed for two counts of manslaughter were manifestly inadequate.' "Whether the sentencing judge placed undue weight on the respondent's good character and personal circumstances." 'Whether the evidence established deliberate acceleration by the respondent.' 'How the principle of double jeopardy applies on a Crown appeal against sentence.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the offences were very serious and the sentences were at the bottom of the range, the evidence did not establish deliberate acceleration, the sentencing judge did not give undue weight to character, and the sentences were not manifestly inadequate. Even if the sentences fell outside the appropriate discretionary range, the principle of double jeopardy meant the Court should not interfere on the Crown appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed']