Moodie v R [2020] NSWCCA 160

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Moodie v R [2020] NSWCCA 160 Hearing dates: 12 June 2020 Date of orders: 15 July 2020 Decision date: 15 July 2020 Before: Bell P at [1]; Davies J at [150]; N Adams J at [160] Decision: (1) Grant leave to appeal against sentence. (2) Appeal allowed. (3) Set aside the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge. (4) Sentence the applicant to a term of imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of 1 year 8 months and a balance of term of 1 year 2 months. The sentence is to date from 17 October 2019. The total sentence will conclude on 17 August 2022. The Applicant is to be released on parole upon the expiration of the non-parole period on 17 May 2021. (5) Set aside the period of licence disqualification ordered by the sentencing judge. (6) In lieu thereof, order that the Applicant be disqualified from driving for a period of 5 months from his release to parole. Catchwords: CRIME – Appeals – Appeal against sentence – Application for leave to appeal – denial of procedural fairness – manifest excess – objective seriousness – re-sentence. CRIME – Appeals – Particular offences – Driving offences – Sentencing – Driving occasioning death or grievous bodily harm – Guideline judgment for sentencing – Crimes Act 1900 s 52A. CRIME – Guideline judgment for sentencing – whether or not guideline judgment is followed is a matter of substance – failure by sentencing judge to formally refer to guideline judgment is a relevant but not determinative consideration. CRIME – Re-sentencing – power to re-sentence enlivened where sentencing judge's discretion has miscarried – an appellate court's determination of appropriate sentence is, exceptional cases apart, based on material before the sentencing judge, the sentencing judge's unchallenged factual findings, and any relevant evidence of the offender's post-sentence conduct– whether the present proceedings constituted an "exceptional case" – relevance of sentencing judge's findings of fact for the purpose of re-sentencing – where factual findings infected by a lack of procedural fairness. CRIME – Procedural fairness – where sentencing judge departed from the Agreed Facts without notice to the parties – where factual finding was adverse to the Applicant – requirement of notice to parties. CRIME – Comparative sentences – appropriateness of taking into account comparative sentences where cases share common or similar features – FL v R [2020] NSWCCA 114 considered. Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 52A(1) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 5, 10, 10A, 44, Pt 3 Div 4 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) s 166 Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW) ss 111(1)(a), 205(2)(d), 206A, 206B Cases Cited: Barnett v R [2014] NSWCCA 296 Betts v R (2016) 258 CLR 420; [2016] HCA 25 Carroll v R [2009] HCA 13; (2009) 83 ALJR 579 Chow v Director of Public Prosecutions (1992) 28 NSWLR 593 Costello v R [2017] NSWCCA 32 Cvetjovski (Cvetkovski) v R [2019] NSWCCA 100 DL v R (2018) 265 CLR 215; [2018] HCA 32 DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194 FL v R [2020] NSWCCA 114 Hili v R (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45 House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 Kentwell v R (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37 Lowe v R (1984) 154 CLR 606; [1984] HCA 46 Magro v R [2020] NSWCCA 25 Markham v R [2007] NSWCCA 295 McKinnon v R [2020] NSWCCA 106 Mina Nashed v R [2010] NSWCCA 282 Morabito v R [2007] NSWCCA 126 Mulato v R [2006] NSWCCA 282 Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39 Nguyen v R [2015] NSWCCA 268 Preston v R [2011] NSWCCA 25 Purdie v R [2019] NSWCCA 22 R v Barnett [2016] NSWDC 302 R v Clampitt-Wotton [2002] NSWCCA 383 R v Craig Besant [2003] NSWCCA 388 R v Crowley [2004] NSWCCA 256 R v Fahda [2013] NSWCCA 86 R v Gardiner [2004] NSWCCA 365 R v Gerard De Groot [2016] NSWDC 93 R v Jarad Smith [2016] NSWCCA 75 R v Jurisic (1998) 45 NSWLR 209; (1998) 101 A Crim R 259 R v Khatter [2000] NSWCCA 32 R v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566; [2006] NSWCCA 242 R v Melissa McKeown [2013] NSWDC 22 R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54 R v Speechley [2012] NSWCCA 130; (2012) 221 A Crim R 175 R v Tinker [2019] NSWDC 427 R v Whyte (2002) 55 NSWLR 252; [2002] NSWCCA 343 Sabbah v R (Cth) [2020] NSWCCA 89 Scott v R [2020] NSWCCA 81 Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531; [1979] HCA 9 Wong v R (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Sean Ritchie Moodie (Appellant) The Crown (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: A Cook (Appellant) M Kumar (Respondent)