The majority (Emerton P and Walker JA) held that while the base sentence of 3 years 3 months on charge 1 was very lenient but not manifestly inadequate, the sentences of 2 years 1 month and 1 year 6 months on charges 2 and 3 were manifestly inadequate for serious examples of negligently causing serious injury by driving, given the high objective gravity and moral culpability. The respondent was resentenced on charges 2 and 3 to 3 years and 2 years 9 months respectively, with increased cumulation, yielding a total effective sentence of 5 years with a 2 year 6 month non-parole period. McLeish JA dissented, holding that the appeal should be dismissed because the total effective sentence, while very lenient, was not manifestly inadequate, and that increasing cumulation orders by modest amounts to add only 6 months to the total effective sentence constituted impermissible 'tinkering' inconsistent with a finding of manifest inadequacy. The Court confirmed that for objectively serious driving offences, general deterrence and denunciation are the most important sentencing considerations, and mitigating factors such as youth, good character, remorse and rehabilitation prospects must be accorded less significance.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 5 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.