Legal Research
Cases
Di Gregorio v The King

Di Gregorio v The King

Case [2025] VSCA 103 16 May 2025

Type to search within this case.

KSUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2024 0019

KRISTIAN DI GREGORIO	Appellant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	ORR and KAYE JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	1 May 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	16 May 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 103
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2023] VCC 1980 (Judge Doyle)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Negligently causing serious injury by driving – Appellant sustained traumatic brain injury with ongoing cognitive deficits due to collision – Whether proper approach taken to appellant’s ongoing injuries as a mitigating factor – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 2 years and 4 months was within range – Appeal dismissed.

Harrison v The Queen (2015) 49 VR 619; R v Barci (1994) 76 A Crim R 103; DPP v King (2008) 187 A Crim R 219; Romero v The Queen (2011) 32 VR 486.

---

Counsel
Appellant:		Mr D Dann KC with Mr V Andreou
Respondent:		Mr L McAuliffe
Solicitors
Appellant:	Christopher James Lawyers Pty Ltd
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

ORR JA
KAYE JA:

On the afternoon of 14 November 2021, the appellant lost control of his Ford Falcon XR6 Turbo utility while playing a game of ‘cat and mouse’ at high speed with another vehicle. The appellant was driving at a speed of at least 47 km per hour over the prescribed speed limit. The tyres on the vehicle had insufficient tread and two were nearly bald. His vehicle spun, veered off the road, went through a protective steel fence and struck the victim, Ms Diana Pukaj, who was walking home along the footpath. The force of the impact threw Ms Pukaj into nearby vegetation, where she was found by witnesses against a tree. Ms Pukaj was 19 years old at the time of the collision. She sustained severe life-threatening injuries. The appellant, who was then 29 years old, also sustained serious injuries.
The appellant pleaded guilty to one charge of negligently causing serious injury[1] and one charge of using a vehicle that was not in a roadworthy condition.[2] The maximum penalty for negligently causing serious injury is 10 years’ imprisonment. On 27 October 2023, the appellant was sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment for the charge of negligently causing serious injury and was fined $250 on the charge of using a vehicle that was not in a roadworthy condition. A non-parole period of 2 years and 4 months was set. The judge declared pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act1991 that were it not for the appellant’s plea of guilty, he would have sentenced the appellant to a total effective sentence of 5 years and 10 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 4 years and 2 months. The judge cancelled the appellant’s driver licence and disqualified him from driving for two years.
[1]Contrary to s 24 of the Crimes Act 1958.
[2]Contrary to reg 295(1) of the Road Safety…

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 Di Gregorio v The King

Details

AGLC: Di Gregorio v The King [2025] VSCA 103
Case: [2025] VSCA 103
Decision Date: 16 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Di Gregorio v The King involved the appellant, who was convicted of causing serious injury by driving negligently. The dispute centred around the sentencing of the appellant, who sustained a traumatic brain injury with ongoing cognitive deficits as a result of the collision. The appeal was heard by the court, which was tasked with determining whether the sentence was appropriate in light of the appellant's ongoing injuries and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court considered relevant legal precedents, including Harrison v The Queen, R v Barci, DPP v King, and Romero v The Queen, to assist in its decision-making.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge had properly considered the appellant's ongoing injuries as a mitigating factor and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appellant argued that the sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years and 4 months was disproportionate to the circumstances, given the appellant's traumatic brain injury and cognitive deficits. The court examined the sentencing principles and the specific circumstances of the case, including the appellant's culpability and the gravity of the offence.

The court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the appellant's ongoing injuries as a mitigating factor in the sentencing process. The court also determined that the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range for the offence of negligently causing serious injury by driving. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and upheld the original sentence. The appeal was subsequently dismissed, and the original sentence was affirmed.

The court's decision in Di Gregorio v The King serves as a reminder of the importance of considering mitigating factors, such as the impact of a traumatic brain injury, in the sentencing process. The court's reasoning and outcome in this case provide valuable guidance for sentencing in similar cases involving negligent driving and the consequences of traumatic brain injuries.

Orders