Noddy v The Queen

KANGAROO COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Noddy v The Queen

[2001] TCA 44

TOYLAND COURT OF APPEAL

Before Chief Justice Skittle and Golliwog and Dildo JJ

EX TEMPORE

SKITTLE CJ: On November 3 the applicant Mr Noddy pleaded guilty in the Toyland District Court to one count of dangerous driving occasioning death and one count of failing to stop after an accident. The District Court sentenced the applicant to seven years imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years. This is an application for leave to appeal against that sentence.

It should be noted that the applicant’s Notice of Appeal was filed one week late. No explanation for this delay was proffered to the Court by either the applicant or his legal representative, Mr Snail QC. However, given the minor nature of the delay and absence of any objection from the respondent, I am prepared to deal with the application as though it were filed within time.

The facts surrounding this case may be summarised briefly. On 15 October, the applicant was observed operating his motor car in a reckless manner down the main thoroughfare of Toyland. An elderly teddy bear had just commenced to cross the intersection of Toyland Road and Sunshine Avenue when the applicant’s vehicle rounded the corner at speed and struck her, causing the victim to bounce off the front of the vehicle and onto the road. Several witnesses saw the applicant then stop, reverse, drive around the supine body and continue down the road.

Several police units were despatched to pursue the applicant, who was apparently proceeding rapidly towards Fairyland in an attempt to evade the jurisdiction of the Toyland Police. However, this plan faltered when the applicant ran out of fuel and he was quickly apprehended by pursuing officers.

The applicant was initially uncooperative with police. He informed officers that his name was “Big Ears” and disclaimed responsibility for the accident. He was also unable to produce a driver’s licence. However, the applicant later modified his position and agreed to plea guilty.

This brings me to the main ground of appeal before the Court today, namely whether the sentence of seven years was manifestly excessive in light of the applicant’s guilty plea and his contrition. In my view the applicant’s case is entirely without merit. The applicant’s guilty plea was entered late and in the context of an overwhelming prosecution case against him. In those circumstances, no inference of remorse could reasonably be drawn.

Even if this were not the case, I would not be inclined to allow the appeal. It is quite clear from the psychiatric assessments which have been tendered in this Court that the applicant is emotionally immature and does not understand the seriousness of what he has done. This is confirmed by observations made by the Court during the proceedings. When subjected to questioning, the applicant frequently descended into self-pity, rocking back and forth and wailing “poor Noddy” and similar remarks. At other times, the applicant observed the proceedings with child-like interest, not appearing to grasp the gravity of the situation. In short, I am not satisfied that the applicant has come to accept personal responsibility for the tragic events of 15 October, much less felt any remorse.

Accordingly, I would allow the application but dismiss the appeal.

GOLLYWOG J: I agree with Skittle CJ that the appeal should be dismissed. The sentence was, if anything, at the lower end of the scale and no appellate intervention is warranted.

DILDO J: I agree with my learned colleagues that the appeal should be dismissed. The original seven year sentence should be affirmed.

APPLICANT: Oh dear. I do feel dreadfully unhappy.

DILDO J: The orders of the Court will be those proposed by Skittle CJ.

***Judgment reprinted with the exclusive permission of the Kangaroo Court. Copyrights remain with the original author.