Andrews v The King

Case [2025] VSCA 197

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL
S EAPCR 2024 0232
JASON ANDREWS Applicant
v
THE KING Respondent

---

JUDGES: McLEISH, BOYCE and KIDD JJA
WHERE HELD: Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING: 23 June 2025 
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26 August 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: [2025] VSCA 197
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM: [2024] VCC 746 (Judge Gamble)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Dangerous driving causing serious injury – Whether unfair plea and pressure to plead guilty – Whether full opportunity to plead case – No intention to drive dangerously – Grounds not reasonably arguable – Application for appeal bail refused – Application for extension of time to seek leave to appeal refused.

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Dangerous driving causing serious injury – Sentence 3 years’ imprisonment with non‑parole period 2 years – Guilty plea – Maximum penalty 5 years’ imprisonment – Family hardship – Extended period of extremely risky driving – Severe and life changing injuries – Prior convictions for speeding and dangerous driving – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Application for extension of time to seek leave to appeal refused.

Carabott v The King [2025] VSCA 118; Grimm v The King [2025] VSCA 11; Madafferi v The Queen [2021] VSCA 332; Mongan v The King [2024] VSCA 126; R v Nguyen [2006] VSCA 184, applied.

---

Counsel
Applicant: In person
Respondent: A French

Solicitors
Applicant: Not applicable
Respondent: A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART A:. INTRODUCTION

(1).... Circumstances of the offending

(2).... Sentencing remarks

(3).... Application for leave to appeal

PART B:. GROUNDS 1, 3 AND 4: CONVICTION

(1).... The principles of setting aside conviction after plea of guilty

(2).... The plea hearing

(3).... The applicant’s claim of involuntariness

(4).... Analysis of the applicant’s claim of involuntariness

(5).... The applicant’s claims of pressure and unfair treatment

(6).... Conclusion on conviction

PART C:. SENTENCE

(1).... The sentence was manifestly excessive

(2).... Ground 5: No medical report of [the applicant’s] health was ever done.

The parties’ arguments

Analysis

(3).... Ground 6: No compassion to [the applicant’s] grandmother who is an 88 year-old cancer patient.

The parties’ arguments

Analysis

PART D:. GROUND 2: BAIL

PART E:. CONCLUSION

MCLEISH JA

BOYCE JA
KIDD JA:

PART A:INTRODUCTION

  1. The applicant pleaded guilty to the offence of dangerous driving causing serious injury. He was sentenced on 23 May 2024 as follows:

Charge on Indictment

Offence

Max Penalty

Sentence

Cumulation
1 Dangerous driving causing serious injury (Crimes Act 1958 s 319(1A) 5 years 3 years N/A
Total Effective Sentence: 3 years
Non-Parole Period: 2 years
Pre-sentence Detention Declared: 50 days
Section 6AAA Statement:

Total Effective Sentence 4 years

Non-parole Period 3 years

Other Relevant Orders:

1. Cancellation of all Victorian licences and/or permits

2. Disqualification from obtaining any Victorian licence/permit for 30 months

  1. The applicant, who is self-represented, now seeks leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence.

  2. The application for leave to appeal was filed on 12 December 2024 and is therefore…

Continue reading Andrews v The King

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Andrews v The King [2025] VSCA 197
Case
[2025] VSCA 197
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Andrews v The King, the applicant contested both his conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial court. The applicant argued that the plea process was unfair and that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal examined the validity of the plea and the appropriateness of the sentence.

The primary legal issues addressed by the Court were whether the applicant's plea was fair and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The Court had to assess whether the applicant's plea was voluntary and made with a full understanding of the charges and consequences, as well as whether the sentence imposed was within the range of reasonable sentences for the offence.

The Court of Appeal found that there was no evidence of unfairness in the plea process. The applicant's plea constituted an admission to all essential elements of the offence, and there was no indication that the plea was induced by improper conduct or misunderstanding. The Court further found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The sentencing judge had correctly considered the high degree of risk created by the applicant's driving and the severe injuries inflicted on the victim, which justified a sentence at the upper end of the spectrum for such offences.

The Court dismissed the applicant's appeal against both conviction and sentence, confirming that the trial court's proceedings were fair and that the sentence was appropriate.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Finally, the applicant complains that he did not receive a fair hearing at the plea. We understand this complaint goes to conviction and sentence. There is no evidence that the proceedings were in any way unfair. There is no substance to the complaint.(6)Conclusion on conviction To some extent, the observations made by this Court recently in Grimm v The King apply to this case where the applicant had a subjective but misconceived belief that he had a genuine defence to a charge to which he had pleaded guilty: In circumstances where the applicant’s subjective belief is founded on a fundamental error of law and does not dispute the essential elements giving rise to the charges, that belief does not undermine the integrity of the plea. Nor does it prevent that plea from being attributable to a genuine consciousness of guilt in respect of the offence as charged.[30][30]Grimm v The King [2025] VSCA 11 [109] (Priest, Kennedy and T Forrest JJA). There was evidence which supported each element of the offence including that his driving conduct was voluntary. There was evidence before the sentencing judge that made plain that the driving in this case was relevantly dangerous and that it caused serious injury. In our view, the entry of the plea constituted an admission to all the essential elements of the offence, including that his driving conduct was voluntary. On the state of the evidence presented to us, we are far from persuaded that the applicant’s entry of his plea was made upon any misunderstanding as to what he was admitting to by his plea. It has not been demonstrated that the applicant did not understand the nature of the charge, or did not intend to admit guilt, or if, upon the facts admitted by the plea, the applicant could not in law be guilty of the offence, or the plea was induced by intimidation or improper conduct or fraud.[31][31]Mongan v The King [2024] VSCA 126 [35] (Beach, Kennedy and Taylor JJA). For all these reasons, the applicant’s contention that this conviction amounts to a substantial miscarriage of justice is without merit. The ground must fail. PART C:SENTENCE (1)The sentence was manifestly excessive The applicant seeks a reduced sentence, to time served with or without a CCO. We will treat this as a contention that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. As has been said many times before, this ground is difficult to make out. It can only succeed if the sentence is wholly outside the range of sentences open in the sound exercise of discretion. It is not enough for the appellate court to regard the sentence as stern, or that they would not themselves have passed the same sentence.[32] [32]Leimonitis v The Queen [2018] VSCA 198 [32] (Priest JA, Weinberg JA agreeing at [38]) (citations omitted). As the sentencing judge noted, the dangerousness of the driving for this offence is informed by the degree or extent of the risk of harm which the driving created and by the extent of potential harm should the risk materialise.[33] The sentencing judge considered the seriousness of the offending to be very high, at the upper end of the spectrum of seriousness.[34] He was correct to do so: •the applicant engaged in an extended period of extremely risky driving;•the risk came to pass; and•as a consequence, he inflicted severe and life changing injuries upon Mr Skandaliaris. The sentencing judge was correct to find that the injuries were close to — if not at — the upper level of the range of serious injuries.[35] [33]Stephens v The Queen (2016) 50 VR 740, 745 [20] (Redlich, Santamaria and Beach JJA); [2016] VSCA 121.[34]Reasons, [90], [93]–[94].[35]Reasons, [92].

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.