Legal Research
Cases
Chaplin v The Queen

Chaplin v The Queen

Case [2010] VSCA 145 18 June 2010

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2010 0028

BRENTON DAVID CHAPLIN	Applicant
	v
THE QUEEN
	Respondent

---

JUDGES	MAXWELL P and NEAVE JA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	24 May 2010
DATE OF JUDGMENT	18 June 2010
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2010] VSCA 145
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	DPP v Chaplin (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Howie, 15 February 2010)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Culpable driving causing death – Guilty plea, good character – Sentenced to four years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months – Additional punishment – Victim’s father subsequently murdered offender’s mother – R v Daetz (2003) 139 A Crim R 398 considered – Concept of general deterrence where additional punishment suffered – Sentence not manifestly excessive – Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr C B Boyce	Brendan Wilkinson
For the Crown	Mr J D McArdle QC	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

MAXWELL P
NEAVE JA:

Summary

On 3 January 2008, the applicant, Brenton Chaplin, was driving at high speed and under the influence of alcohol when he lost control of the car he was driving. The car hit a pole. His best friend, Leigh Charter, was killed. They were both only 20 years old.

On 15 February this year Mr Chaplin was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment after pleading guilty to one count of culpable driving. A non-parole period of 18 months was fixed. Mr Chaplin sought leave to appeal against the sentence and a grant of bail pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.

In the event, the application for leave to appeal was argued as if it were the appeal. All grounds of appeal were fully dealt with, both in writing and orally. For reasons which follow, we would grant leave to appeal but dismiss the appeal. No occasion arises, therefore, to consider the bail application.

The basis of our decision may be summarised quite shortly. The submissions on Mr Chaplin’s behalf focused on the terrible events which occurred as a direct result of the fatal accident. In an act of apparent revenge, Leigh Charter’s father, Leigh Charter Snr, murdered Mr Chaplin’s mother, seriously injured his father and brother, and stabbed his cousin. He then killed himself.

So devastating were these consequences for Mr Chaplin, so it was submitted, that the sentencing judge should not have required him to serve any actual custody. In other words, the only reasonable sentencing option available in these exceptional circumstances was a wholly suspended sentence. That not having occurred at the time of sentence, Mr Chaplin’s counsel urged this Court to quash the sentence and, in re-sentencing, to suspend any term of imprisonment which was imposed.

Appellate intervention would only have been justified if the sentence imposed on Mr Chaplin had been shown to be outside the range reasonably open to the sentencing judge. Put differently, Mr Chaplin would have had to persuade this Court that no reasonable judge dealing with this particular…

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 Chaplin v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Chaplin v The Queen [2010] VSCA 145
Case: [2010] VSCA 145
Decision Date: 18 June 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Chaplin v The Queen involves an appeal against the sentence imposed on Chaplin, who was found guilty of culpable driving causing death. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. Chaplin pleaded guilty and was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 18 months. The primary issue for the court was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive given the additional punishment Chaplin suffered, namely the murder of his mother by the father of the deceased victim.

The court considered the concept of general deterrence and whether the additional punishment Chaplin experienced could be taken into account when determining the sentence. The court examined the principle established in R v Daetz (2003) 139 A Crim R 398, which holds that additional punishment suffered by the offender, such as personal tragedy, may be relevant in assessing the overall sentence. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive when taking into account all relevant factors, including Chaplin’s good character and the additional punishment he endured. The court further found that the sentence appropriately balanced the need for general deterrence with the individual circumstances of the case.

Based on the reasoning provided, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The court was satisfied that the sentence imposed was proportionate and appropriate, taking into account the mitigating factors and the additional punishment suffered by Chaplin. The sentence of four years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 18 months, was upheld. The court did not consider the sentence to be manifestly excessive and therefore dismissed the appeal against the sentence imposed.

Orders