The Court of Appeal held that a sentence of 3 years and 9 months' imprisonment for dangerous driving causing death was manifestly excessive where the offending involved a failure to give way at an intersection without aggravating factors such as excessive speed, alcohol, fatigue, or mobile phone use, and where the offender had an unblemished record, demonstrated profound remorse, and had very good prospects of rehabilitation. The Court resentenced to 2 years and 9 months with a 16-month non-parole period. The Court reaffirmed that a sentencing judge's characterisation of the gravity or moral culpability of offending is ordinarily not a specific appellable error but rather a step in reasoning that informs the manifest excess analysis, though it left open that a finding not reasonably open on the evidence may constitute vitiating error. Ground 4, challenging the rule that third-party hardship is only relevant in exceptional circumstances, was rejected as bound by Charisiou, with the Court noting the issue is before the High Court but declining to defer or reconsider.
The full text is available to signed-in members.