Legal Research
Cases
Camin v The King

Camin v The King

Case [2024] VSCA 124 7 June 2024

Dangerous Driving Causing Death

Dangerous Driving Causing Serious Injury

Sentencing

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2024 0001

RILEY CAMIN	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	BEACH, KENNEDY and TAYLOR JJA
WHERE HELD:	Shepparton
DATE OF HEARING:	5 June 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	7 June 2024
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSCA 124
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Camin (County Court of Victoria, Judge Brookes, 7 December 2023)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Leave to appeal – Sentence – Dangerous driving causing death – Dangerous driving causing serious injury – 18 year old applicant failed to recognise intersection and to stop at stop sign – Driver of other vehicle in collision sustained fatal injuries as result of collision – Front seat passenger in offender’s vehicle sustained complex trauma as result of collision – Sentenced to total effective sentence of 2 years’ detention in a Youth Justice Centre – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Sentence not wholly outside the range of available sentencing options – Leave to appeal refused.

Minutolo v The King [2023] VSCA 300; Leddin v The Queen [2014] VSCA 155, DPP v Neethling (2009) 22 VR 466, applied; DPP v Lewis [2019] VCC 1174; DPP v Sameri [2019] VCC 2218, distinguished.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Ms S Locke
Respondent:		Ms E Ruddle KC
Solicitors
Applicant:	Slater Law
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

BEACH JA
KENNEDY JA
TAYLOR JA:

On 7 December 2023, following an earlier plea of guilty, the applicant was sentenced by a County Court judge at Shepparton as follows:

Charge on Indictment	Offence	Max Penalty	Sentence	Cumulation
1	Dangerous driving causing death[1]	10 years’ imprisonment	2 years’ detention in a Youth Justice Centre (aggregate)	N/A
2	Dangerous driving causing serious injury[2]	5 years’ imprisonment		N/A
Total Effective Sentence:		2 years’ detention in a Youth Justice Centre
Non-Parole Period:		N/A
Pre-sentence Detention Declared:		Nil
Section 6AAA Statement:		Total Effective Sentence 3 years’ imprisonment Non Parole-Period 2 years
Other Relevant Orders: 1. Licence cancelled and disqualified from driving for 18 months

[1]Contrary to Crimes Act 1958, s 319.

[2]Ibid.

The applicant seeks leave to appeal on the following proposed ground:
The aggregate term of youth detention imposed on charges 1 and 2 is manifestly excessive.
For the reasons set out below, we will refuse leave to appeal.

Circumstances of the offending[3]

[3]DPP v Camin (County Court of Victoria, Judge Brookes, 7 December 2023) [3]–[21] (‘Sentencing Reasons’).

The applicant was 18 years old at the time of the offending. He was the holder of a New South Wales probationary driver’s licence.
The first victim, Alexander William Eagle, was 69 years old at the time of the offending. The second victim, Lachlan Turpin, was 18 years old at the time of the offending.
On 20 January 2023, at approximately 10:35 pm, the applicant was driving in a northerly direction on Dunbar Road, with Mr Turpin as the front seat passenger, when he collided with a utility being driven by Mr Eagle who was driving east along Lancaster Road.

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 Camin v The King

Details

AGLC: Camin v The King [2024] VSCA 124
Case: [2024] VSCA 124
Decision Date: 7 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Camin, sought leave to appeal against his sentence in relation to charges of dangerous driving causing death and serious injury. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Camin, an 18-year-old, was involved in a collision where he failed to recognise an intersection and did not stop at a stop sign. The driver of the other vehicle sustained fatal injuries, and the front-seat passenger in Camin’s vehicle sustained complex trauma.

The central legal issue was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The applicant argued that the sentence was not proportionate to the offence, while the prosecution maintained that the sentence was within the appropriate range. The court was required to determine whether the sentence was wholly outside the range of available sentencing options, taking into account the severity of the offence and the principles of proportionality and deterrence.

The court found that the sentence of two years' detention in a Youth Justice Centre was not wholly outside the range of available sentencing options. The court considered the principles established in Minutolo v The King, Leddin v The Queen, and DPP v Neethling, which emphasised the importance of proportionality and individual circumstances. While distinguishing cases such as DPP v Lewis and DPP v Sameri, the court concluded that the sentence was appropriate given the facts of the case. As a result, the application for leave to appeal was refused.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders