Hit and run driver appeals against sentence

By Veronica Apap
Updated November 5 2012 - 7:14pm, first published December 2 2008 - 10:30am
Ashleigh Harriss, who was run down and killed by Michael John Shumack in 2006.
Ashleigh Harriss, who was run down and killed by Michael John Shumack in 2006.

A Horsley man who killed 16-year-old Ashleigh Harriss in a hit-and-run accident in 2006 yesterday appealed against his seven-year jail term, claiming it was too severe.Michael John Shumack, 36, did not appear in the NSW Supreme Court of Appeal yesterday, but his lawyer Helen Cox described his sentence as "manifestly excessive". She also told the court that he was in effect being punished twice for failing to stop to help Ashleigh after hitting her with his Ford XR8.The teenager was crossing Horsley Dr, Horsley, on September 15, 2006, with two friends when she was hit by Shumack.She later died from severe head injuries.Throughout his trial, Shumack maintained that he was not at the wheel of his car when it hit Ashleigh. He claimed the car was for sale and was being test-driven by two unknown males at the time of the collision.Shumack was sentenced in December last year by Judge Paul Conlon in Wollongong District Court after a jury found him guilty of driving in a manner dangerous causing death and failing to stop and render assistance following a collision.Judge Conlon sentenced Shumack to six years' jail for the first offence and five years for the second offence.When combined, the sentences would effectively keep Shumack behind bars for a minimum of five years and a maximum of seven years.Delivering his judgment, Judge Conlon said Shumack's failure to stop after hitting the teenager was an aggravating factor in the dangerous driving charge.Ms Cox argued yesterday that Shumack was in effect being punished twice for failing to stop - once when it was considered an aggravating factor of the dangerous driving charge and a second time in the sentence for the charge of failing to stop.While quoting from a precedent case Ms Cox said: "A person should not be twice punished for what is substantially the same act."She also argued his sentence was too severe when compared to similar cases.Crown lawyer Jennie Girdham said Judge Conlon took several aggravating factors into account when sentencing Shumack for driving in a manner dangerous including his speed, level of intoxication and that he placed more than one person at risk.She said it was impossible to know how much weight Judge Conlon gave to each aggravating factor or by what increment it increased his sentence.Shumack's sentence in relation to sentences for similar offences was appropriate, Ms Girdham said, considering Shumack had never admitted to driving the car when it hit the teenager and showed no remorse for his actions."A harsh sentence was not unjust," she said.The court has reserved its judgment.

Subscribe now for unlimited access.

$0/

(min cost $0)

or signup to continue reading

See subscription options

Get the latest Wollongong news in your inbox

Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.

We care about the protection of your data. Read our Privacy Policy.