NSW Caselaw
Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Ellis v R [2020] NSWCCA 303 Hearing dates: 19 October 2020 Decision date: 25 November 2020 Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]; Harrison J at [67]; Bellew J at [68] Decision: (1) Leave to appeal against sentence is granted. (2) The appeal against sentence is dismissed. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence appeal – driving in a manner dangerous occasioning grievous bodily harm and cause bodily harm by misconduct in charge of a vehicle – collision between semi-trailer and two cars – serious injuries caused to occupants of cars – whether objective seriousness of offending aggravated by knowledge of defective brakes and ignoring the speedometer – whether aggregate sentence manifestly excessive – appeal against sentence dismissed. Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – ss 52A, 53 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) – ss 3A, 21A, 66 Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) – s 5(1)(c) Cases Cited: AB v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 111; [1999] HCA 46 Barbaro v The Queen; Zirilli v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58 [2014] HCA 2 Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37 Costello v R [2017] NSWCCA 32 Cvetjovski (Cvetkovski) v R [2019] NSWCCA 100; 89 MVR 1 Edwards v R [2020] NSWCCA 141 JM v R (2014) 246 A Crim R 528; [2014] NSWCCA 297 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25 Markham v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 295 Mitreski v R; R v Mitreski [2008] NSWCCA 301 Morabito v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 126 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39 Obeid v R (2017) 350 ALR 103; [2017] NSWCCA 221 Preston v Regina [2011] NSWCCA 25; 57 MVR 346 R v Jurisic (1998) 45 NSWLR 209; [1998] NSWSC 423 Regina v Clampitt-Wotton [2002] NSWCCA 383; 37 MVR 340 Regina v Craig Besant [2003] NSWCCA 388 Regina v Errington (2005) 157 A Crim R 553; [2005] NSWCCA 348 Regina v Gardiner [2004] NSWCCA 365 Regina v Whyte (2002) 55 NSWLR 252; [2002] NSWCCA 343 Thornton v R [2020] NSWCCA 257 Wong v The Queen; Leung v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Desmond James Ellis – Applicant Regina – Respondent Representation: Counsel: D Carroll – Applicant M Kumar – Respondent
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate