60 likes | 280 Views
Dangerous Driving. Grace and Nick . A Typical Case. Young Offender Good character with no or limited prior convictions Death of permanent injury to a single person The victim is a stranger No or limited injury to driver or the driver’s intimates Genuine remorse
E N D
Dangerous Driving Grace and Nick
A Typical Case • Young Offender • Good character with no or limited prior convictions • Death of permanent injury to a single person • The victim is a stranger • No or limited injury to driver or the driver’s intimates • Genuine remorse • Plea of guilty or limited utilitarian value
Statutory Features • S25 Road Transport (General) Act 1999 • S21A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 • S52A Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) • The Crimes Amendment (Grievous Bodily Harm) Act 2005 • 3A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 • S6 Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 • S37 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Common Features • Custodial sentence usually appropriate unless offended has low level of moral culpability • If moral culpability is high, full-time custodial head sentence of less than three years (in the case of death) not appropriate • Offender’s moral culpability relevant in determining sentence • Judge must make it clear in where they found the moral culpability in the offender • The must be always be room for non-custodial sentence • Extent of injuries is a factor of determining the sentence • Licence disqualification is mandatory in addition to a penalty
Relevant Law • Aggravating factors affect the sentence • Nature of injuries • People affected • Speed, intoxication or aggressive driving • Driving style, sleep deprivation and journey length • Custodial sentence appropriate unless low level culpability
Sentencing Guidelines • Custodial sentencing up to 3 years for death, up to 2 years for grievous bodily harm • Custodial sentence will be appropriate unless the offender has a low level of moral culpability • R v Berg [2004] “The factors in the list set out in Whyte, as indicative of a typical case, do not operate as a checklist, the presence or absence of characteristics having some mathematical relationship with the sentence to be imposed. They merely describe the typical case and were not intended to circumscribe the sentencing judge’s discretion”