DPP v Coleman - [2001] VSCA 59

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 1 of 2001

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

RONALD SYDNEY COLEMAN

---

JUDGES:	WINNEKE,P., TADGELL and BUCHANAN, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	1 May 2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	2 May 2001
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSCA 59

---

Criminal law - Sentence - Crown appeal - Road rage - Recklessly causing serious injury by abuse of motor car - General deterrence of primary importance in sentencing for the offence - Failure of prosecutor to mention on hearing of plea in mitigation the need to protect community against such conduct no bar to complaint on appeal that sentence gave insufficient weight to the principle - 4 years' imprisonment manifestly inadequate.
Crimes Act 1958, s.17.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J.D.McArdle,Q.C.	Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Respondent	Mr O.P.Holdenson,Q.C. and Mr P.J.Morrissey	Clarebrough Pica

WINNEKE, P.:

I will invite Tadgell, J.A. to give the first judgment in this appeal.

TADGELL, J.A.:

In this appeal the Crown alleges inadequacy of sentences imposed on the respondent, Ronald Sydney Coleman, in the County Court on 4 December last year. After a five-day trial the respondent was convicted by a jury on 27 October last of the following crimes, to which he had pleaded not guilty: one count of common assault (count 2); one count of recklessly causing serious injury (count 3); one count of failing to stop after an accident (count 6); one count of failing to render assistance after an accident (count 7).

Following a plea in mitigation the respondent was sentenced to three months' imprisonment on count 2, to four years' imprisonment on count 3, to one year's imprisonment on count 6 and to one year's imprisonment on count 7. There was no order for cumulation, so the total effective sentence was one of four years' imprisonment. A minimum term of two years nine months was fixed. A period of 323 days of pre-sentence detention was declared. Any driver licence or permit held by the respondent was cancelled and he was disqualified for two years from obtaining another. An order for taking an intimate sample was made pursuant to s.464ZF(2) of the Crimes Act 1958.

After conviction the respondent, who was born on 15 December 1973, admitted 101 previous offences - 92 convictions and 9 findings of guilt without conviction - in 17 court appearances from April 1991, when he was aged 17 years and 4 months, down to July 1998, when he was aged 24 years and 7 months. The prior offences included the following: intentionally damaging property (11 counts); unlawfully damaging property of the Public Transport Corporation (40 counts);

possession of an article with intent to damage property (6 counts); theft (18 counts); handling stolen goods (1 count); robbery (one count); going equipped to steal (1 count); possession of property suspected of being stolen (1 count); failing to answer bail (5 counts); cultivating or possessing or using cannabis (5 counts); unlawful assault (1 count); breach of…

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 DPP v Coleman

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Coleman [2001] VSCA 59
Case: [2001] VSCA 59
Decision Date: 2 May 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of DPP v Coleman, the appellant, the Director of Public Prosecutions, sought an appeal against the sentence imposed on Coleman, the respondent, who was convicted of recklessly causing serious injury by the abuse of a motor car. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal of Victoria. The central issue was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge, a term of four years' imprisonment, was manifestly inadequate given the nature of the offence and the need for general deterrence.

The court considered the principles of sentencing, particularly the importance of general deterrence in cases of reckless endangerment. It noted that the prosecutor's failure to emphasize the need for community protection during the plea hearing did not prevent the court from addressing the issue on appeal. The court found that the sentence did not adequately reflect the gravity of Coleman's actions and the need to deter similar conduct in the future. It concluded that the four-year sentence was manifestly inadequate and that a more substantial penalty was warranted to serve the interests of justice.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and quashed the sentence imposed by the trial judge. It ordered that Coleman be re-sentenced, with the court considering the appropriate term of imprisonment to reflect the seriousness of the offence and the imperative of general deterrence. The court emphasised that the new sentence should adequately protect the community and deter others from engaging in similar reckless behaviour.

Orders