R v Y [2002] NSWCCA 191

R v Y [2002] NSWCCA 191

The majority held that the sentencing judge's findings that excessive speed and erratic driving were not relevant factors were open on the evidence, and that it was open to find that the respondent's conduct was a serious error of judgment due to inexperience rather than an abandonment of responsibility. The sentencing judge did not give excessive weight to youth or good character, and the suspended sentences were within the permissible range. In any event, the delay in serving the Notice of Appeal and the element of double jeopardy would have justified dismissing the appeal in the exercise of discretion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence Pursuant to S 5 D of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From Sentences Imposed in the Dubbo District Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['dangerous Driving Occasioning Death' 'dangerous Driving Occasioning Grievous Bodily Harm' 'crown Appeal Against Inadequacy of Sentence' 'suspended Sentence' 'juvenile Offender' 'objective Seriousness' 'subjective Circumstances' 'delay' 'double Jeopardy']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['dangerous Driving Occasioning Death' 'dangerous Driving Occasioning Grievous Bodily Harm' 'crown Appeal Against Inadequacy of Sentence' 'suspended Sentence' 'juvenile Offender' 'objective Seriousness' 'subjective Circumstances' 'delay' 'double Jeopardy']

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 Pursuant to S 5 D of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From Sentences Imposed in the Dubbo District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erroneously assessed the objective seriousness of the offences by failing to find an abandonment of responsibility.' 'Whether the sentencing judge elided the two steps required when imposing a suspended sentence.' "Whether the sentencing judge gave erroneous weight to the respondent's subjective circumstances, including youth and prior good character." 'Whether delay in serving the Notice of Appeal and double jeopardy warranted dismissal of the Crown appeal in the exercise of discretion.']

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that the sentencing judge's findings that excessive speed and erratic driving were not relevant factors were open on the evidence, and that it was open to find that the respondent's conduct was a serious error of judgment due to inexperience rather than an abandonment of responsibility. The sentencing judge did not give excessive weight to youth or good character, and the suspended sentences were within the permissible range. In any event, the delay in serving the Notice of Appeal and the element of double jeopardy would have justified dismissing the appeal in the exercise of discretion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.']