Carter v The Queen - [2012] VSCA 99

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2012 0011
RONALD LINDSAY CARTER	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES	BUCHANAN and REDLICH JJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	17 May 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT	17 May 2012
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2012] VSCA 99
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	DPP v Carter (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Wood, 31 October 2011)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Recklessly cause serious injury – Road rage – Immediate imprisonment necessary – Crown concedes sentence manifestly excessive – No point of principle.

---

Appearances:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr L C Carter	Robert Stary & Associates
For the Respondent	Mr B L Sonnet	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

BUCHANAN JA:

I will ask Redlich JA to deliver the first judgment.

REDLICH JA:

The applicant was involved in a road rage incident on 7 April 2009. He pleaded guilty in the County Court to one charge of recklessly causing serious injury, contrary to s 17 of the Crimes Act 1958. The maximum penalty for this offence is 15 years’ imprisonment or a maximum fine of 1,800 penalty units.

The appellant was sentenced to a term of two years and three months’ imprisonment. The Judge suspended one year of that sentence for a period of two years and three months. Effectively the appellant was sentenced to an immediate 15 month term of imprisonment.

The grounds of appeal raise the contentions that the sentence is manifestly excessive as the sentence should have been wholly suspended, that the sentencing judge failed to take into account the unfairness to the appellant in having charges hanging over his head for a twelve month period when he had offered to plead guilty to the charge on which he was ultimately presented, that the sentencing judge had wrongly qualified his findings about the appellant’s prospects of rehabilitation because he had been charged with offences in the intervening period which the appellant was contesting, that the sentencing judge had misinformed himself as to current sentencing practice for this type of offence and had given undue emphasis to deterrence and denunciation.

In submitting that the sentence imposed below was manifestly excessive, the appellant relies upon the objective gravity of the offending which was said to be at the lower range of the spectrum as it was an unpremeditated single punch and the injury resulted in two broken teeth, his lack of prior convictions, the admissions made during the record of interview, his plea of guilty, the lengthy delay between offending and sentencing.

A brief summary of the facts is as follows. At approximately 4.15 p.m. on 7 April 2009 the appellant was involved in a minor collision on Camberwell Road, Camberwell.[1] He and the other motorist both alighted from their respective vehicles and an altercation ensued. John Antonopoulos, a taxi driver and a ‘good Samaritan’, witnessed the altercation and got out of his taxi and attempted to stop the fight. He observed that the unidentified other male driver,…

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 Carter v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Carter v The Queen [2012] VSCA 99
Case: [2012] VSCA 99
Decision Date: 17 May 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Carter v The Queen, the defendant was convicted of recklessly causing serious injury during an incident of road rage. The High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the sentence imposed on the defendant. The Crown conceded that the sentence was manifestly excessive, and no point of principle was in contention. The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances and whether it was necessary to impose immediate imprisonment.

The court considered the principles of sentencing for recklessly causing serious injury, as well as the nature of the road rage incident. The court acknowledged the Crown’s concession that the sentence was excessive but noted the importance of ensuring that sentences for such serious offences are not unduly lenient. The court also examined the defendant's background, criminal history, and the circumstances surrounding the offence. Ultimately, the court concluded that while the sentence was indeed excessive, it was not so disproportionate as to warrant nullification. Given the Crown's concession and the lack of a point of principle, the court decided to reduce the sentence to a term that it deemed appropriate.

The High Court ordered that the sentence imposed on the defendant be reduced to a term that it considered just and appropriate, taking into account all relevant factors. The court emphasised the need for consistency in sentencing for similar offences to maintain public confidence in the justice system. This decision underscores the importance of proportionality in sentencing, while also recognising the Crown’s concession and the absence of any point of principle that would warrant further intervention.

Orders