Legal Research
Cases
Dennert v The King

Dennert v The King

Case [2024] VSCA 250 23 October 2024

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2024 0113

WAYNE DENNERT	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Kenny JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	Determined on the papers
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	23 October 2024
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSCA 250
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2024] VCC 578 (Judge Carlin)

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

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Intentionally causing serious injury – Unprovoked attack – Life-threatening injuries – Permanent physical and psychological effects – Total effective sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment – Non-parole period 6 years and 10 months – Whether the sentencing judge erred with regard to the principle of delay – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Leave to appeal refused.

Criminal Procedure Act 2009, ss 278, 280, 315.

R v Merrett, Piggott and Ferrari (2007) 14 VR 392, applied; Merryfull v DPP [2023] VSCA 244, applied; Clarkson v The Queen (2011) 32 VR 361, applied; R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269, considered; Rohen v The King [2024] VSCA 1, compared.

---

Counsel for written submissions
Applicants:		Mr M D Stanton
Respondent/s:		Mr E Fryar
Solicitors
Applicants:	Stary Norton Halphen
Respondent/s:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

KENNY JA:

Introduction

On 13 October 2023, in the County Court of Victoria at Warrnambool, the applicant was found guilty at trial of one charge of intentionally causing serious injury (‘ICSI’).
The applicant’s plea in mitigation was heard on 25 January 2024 and 22 February 2024. On 1 May 2024, the applicant was sentenced as follows:

Charge on Indictment	Offence	Max Penalty	Sentence	Cumulation
1	Intentionally causing serious injury (contrary to s 16 of the Crimes Act 1958)	20 years’ imprisonment	10 years’ imprisonment	N/A
Total Effective Sentence:		10 years’ imprisonment
Non-Parole Period:		6 years and 10 months
Pre-sentence Detention Declared:		1,103 days
Section 6AAA Statement:		N/A
Other Relevant Orders: Forfeiture order in respect of the crowbar and various other evidentiary items.

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against sentence. The proposed grounds of appeal are as follows:
Ground 1: The sentencing judge erred with regard to the principle of delay.
Ground 2: The sentence imposed on charge 1 is manifestly excessive.
For the reasons stated below, leave to appeal is refused.

The offending conduct

The parties accepted the summary of the offending contained in the judge’s sentencing reasons.[1] This was as follows:
[1]See DPP v Dennert (County Court of Victoria, Judge Carlin, 1 May 2024), [6]–[11] (‘Reasons’).
Mr Nancarrow, who was a builder, cabinet maker, checked into the Hamilton Caravan Park around lunch time on 24 April 2021, with his female partner and two dogs. After being made to surrender his dogs, he started drinking. He was a heavy drinker and consumed something in the order of about 3.5 litres of wine over about three hours. He recalled walking to the toilet block with his partner at some point…

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 Dennert v The King

Details

AGLC: Dennert v The King [2024] VSCA 250
Case: [2024] VSCA 250
Decision Date: 23 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Dennert, appealed against his sentence for intentionally causing serious injury in an unprovoked attack on the victim. The incident resulted in life-threatening injuries and permanent physical and psychological effects for the victim. The Supreme Court of the relevant jurisdiction had imposed a total effective sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 6 years and 10 months. The appellant contested the sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge had erred in applying the principle of delay and that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard and determined by the Court of Appeal.

The central legal issues in this case revolved around the sentencing principles applied by the trial judge and the proportionality of the sentence. The appellant argued that the delay in bringing the case to trial should have been considered more heavily in mitigation of the sentence. Additionally, the appellant contended that the sentence imposed was excessively severe given the circumstances of the case and the principles of sentencing.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the sentencing principles and the evidence presented during the trial. The Court found that the trial judge had appropriately considered the principle of delay, weighing it against other relevant factors such as the gravity of the offence and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The Court also examined the proportionality of the sentence, considering the severity of the injuries inflicted on the victim and the overall impact on the victim’s life. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the trial judge had exercised sound judicial discretion in imposing the sentence and found no error in the sentencing process. The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.

Orders