Legal Research
Cases
DPP v Evans

DPP v Evans

Case [2019] VSCA 239 25 October 2019

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2019 0005

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS	Appellant
v
MATTHEW JOHN EVANS	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL P, T FORREST and WEINBERG JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	15 August 2019
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	25 October 2019
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSCA 239
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Evans [2018] VCC 2154 (Judge Smallwood)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Crown appeal – Intentionally causing serious injury – Family violence – Assault on wife’s new partner – Life-threatening injuries – Victim permanently incapacitated – Sentence of 5 years and 6 months’ imprisonment with non‑parole period of 2 years and 9 months – Whether manifestly inadequate – Offender made significant admissions – Whether prosecution otherwise viable – Substantial sentencing discount warranted – General deterrence – Appeal allowed – Resentenced to 7 years and 6 months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months – R v Doran [2005] VSCA 271 applied.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr B F Kissane QC with Mr P J Smallwood	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Respondent	Mr P S Tiwana with Mr G Nikolovski	Dribbin & Brown

MAXWELL P
T FORREST JA
WEINBERG JA:

On 14 December 2018, in the County Court at Bairnsdale, the respondent pleaded guilty to one charge of having intentionally caused serious injury, contrary to s 16 of the Crimes Act 1958. On the same day he was sentenced as follows:

Charge on Indictment

H13004918
Offence Maximum Sentence Cumulation

1 Causing serious injury intentionally 20 years’ imprisonment 5 years and 6 months’ imprisonment -

Non-parole period: 2 years and 9 months

Pre-sentence detention declaration pursuant to s 18(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991: 21 days

6AAA statement: 9 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 years.

The Director of Public Prosecutions has appealed against that sentence. She relies on the following ground of appeal:

The individual sentence and non-parole period are each manifestly inadequate in all of the circumstances.
Particulars:
In fixing the sentence referred to above, the learned sentencing judge:
(a) Failed to give sufficient weight to the nature and objective gravity of the offending and the culpability of the offender;
(b) Failed to have sufficient regard to the impact on the victim;
(c) Failed to have sufficient regard to the maximum penalty prescribed for the offence of intentionally causing serious injury;
(d) Failed to give sufficient weight to the principles of general deterrence, just punishment and denunciation; and
(e) Gave too much weight to factors in mitigation.

For reasons which follow, we would allow the appeal. In our view, it was not reasonably open to his Honour to impose the sentence that he did if proper weight had been given to all of the relevant factors including established sentencing standards for offences of this gravity. We would set aside the sentence imposed, and resentence the respondent to a term of 7 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, with a…

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 Evans

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Matthew John Evans [2019] VSCA 239
Case: [2019] VSCA 239
Decision Date: 25 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) appealed the sentence of the respondent, Evans, who had been found guilty of intentionally causing serious injury. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal. The underlying dispute involved a violent assault on the wife’s new partner, resulting in life-threatening injuries and permanent incapacitation of the victim. The trial court had sentenced Evans to 5 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 2 years and 9 months.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate. The court considered whether the sentence adequately reflected the gravity of the offence, including the severity of the injuries inflicted and the impact on the victim. Additionally, the court examined the offender's admissions and the viability of the prosecution. The court also assessed whether the original sentence warranted a substantial discount due to the offender’s cooperation and the general principles of deterrence.

The Court of Appeal found that the original sentence was manifestly inadequate. It took into account the significant admissions made by the offender, the severe injuries inflicted on the victim, and the need for general deterrence. The court held that a substantial discount was warranted given the offender's cooperation with the prosecution. Applying the principles from R v Doran, the court resentenced Evans to 7 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months. This sentence was deemed appropriate to reflect the seriousness of the offence and to serve as a deterrent against similar conduct.

Orders