Bradley John Azzopardi v The Queen - [2017] VSCA 299

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2017 0157

BRADLEY JOHN AZZOPARDI	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	SANTAMARIA JA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	On the papers
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	19 October 2017
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSCA 299
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2017] VCC 861 (Judge Mullaly)

---

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE (DETERMINED BY A SINGLE JUDGE PURSUANT TO S 315 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2009)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for leave to appeal against sentence – Dangerous driving causing death – Failure to stop after accident – Three summary charges – Where vehicle driven by applicant collided with cyclist – Sentence of 7 years and 9 months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 6 years and 9 months – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Whether non-parole period disproportionate – Leave to appeal refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
On the papers

SANTAMARIA JA:

The applicant, now aged 26, pleaded guilty to one charge of dangerous driving causing death, one charge of failing to stop after an accident and three summary charges. On 26 June 2017, he was sentenced in the County Court as follows:

Charge on indictment Offence Maximum penalty Sentence Cumulation

1 Dangerous driving causing death [Crimes Act 1958 s 319(1)] 10 years’ imprisonment 5 years’ imprisonment Base

2 Failure to stop after accident [Road Safety Act 1986 s 61(1)(a)] 10 years’ imprisonment 4 years’ imprisonment 2 years and 6 months

Summary charges

9 Drive while disqualified [Road Safety Act 1986 s 30] 240 penalty units or 2 years’ imprisonment 6 months’ imprisonment 3 months

10 Resist arrest [Summary Offences Act 1966 s 51] 60 penalty units or 6 months’ imprisonment 2 months’ imprisonment 1 month

16 Possess cartridge ammunition [Firearms Act 1996 s 124] 40 penalty units $300.00 fine N/A

Total effective sentence: 7 years and 9 months’ imprisonment

Non-parole period: 6 years and 9 months’ imprisonment

Pre-sentence detention declaration 170 days

Section 6AAA Statement 10 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 8 years’ imprisonment

Other relevant orders Disposal order and forfeiture order

The applicant now seeks leave to appeal his sentence.

Circumstances of the offending

At the time of the offending, the applicant was a disqualified probationary driver.

On 10 May 2015, the applicant drove to his parents’ home in Anakie. He arrived at around 11:30 am and left shortly before 2:00 pm. He drove south on the Geelong-Ballan Road.

The victim, Gordon Ibbs, then aged 77, had been riding his bicycle in Anakie. At some stage, he rode from Carrs Road and turned south onto the Geelong-Ballan Road.

Ibbs had travelled approximately 30 metres on the Geelong-Ballan Road when the car driven by the applicant, which had been travelling in the same direction as the victim, approached Ibbs and struck his bicycle with the front left headlight area. The impact sent Ibbs flying into the air, almost 40 metres forward of the impact zone. The applicant had failed to take any…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Bradley John Azzopardi v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Bradley John Azzopardi v The Queen [2017] VSCA 299
Case: [2017] VSCA 299
Decision Date: 19 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bradley John Azzopardi appealed against his sentence for dangerous driving causing death and failure to stop after an accident, which resulted in the death of a cyclist. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. Azzopardi's vehicle collided with the cyclist, leading to three summary charges being brought against him. He was sentenced to 7 years and 9 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 6 years and 9 months. Azzopardi argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the non-parole period was disproportionate.

The court examined whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the non-parole period was disproportionate. The court considered the severity of the offences, the culpability of the offender, and the need for general deterrence. The court also took into account the impact of the offence on the victim and their family. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the non-parole period was not disproportionate.

The court rejected Azzopardi's appeal and refused him leave to appeal against his sentence. The court held that the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the offences committed, and that the non-parole period reflected the seriousness of the offences and the need for general deterrence. The court also noted that the sentence was within the range of sentences typically imposed for similar offences. The court found that the sentence was just and appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

Orders