Jennifer Crawford

The appellant was convicted of dangerous driving causing bodily harm after crossing the centre line and striking an oncoming vehicle while feeling suicidal.

He appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in finding the requisite mens rea and rejecting his defence of a momentary lapse of attention.

He also appealed his 90-day intermittent sentence, arguing the trial judge improperly considered his deliberate crossing of the centre line as an aggravating factor without it being proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's mens rea analysis.

While the Court agreed the trial judge erred in relying on the unproven aggravating factor for sentencing, it ultimately found the original sentence was fit and dismissed the sentence appeal.

The appellant, a prolific child sex offender diagnosed as a psychopath, appealed his dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence.

He argued the sentencing judge conflated risk reduction with risk elimination and sought to introduce fresh expert evidence suggesting psychopaths can be effectively treated.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge properly applied the long-term offender criteria and correctly concluded the appellant's risk could not be safely managed in the community.

The fresh evidence application was also dismissed as it merely offered a concurring opinion to evidence already rejected at trial and lacked sufficient probative value to affect the outcome.