JUDGE:	WEINBERG JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	29, 30, 31 January and 1 February 2019
DATE OF SENTENCE:	22 February 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Gargasoulas
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 87

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Murder of six people and reckless conduct endangering the life of 27 others – Drove at high speed along crowded footpath in Central Business District in order to evade police – Long-term methamphetamine user – ‘Drug induced psychosis’ – Subsequent development of mental illness – Paranoid schizophrenia – Verdins principles 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 considered – Sentenced to life imprisonment – Non-parole period of 46 years fixed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms K Judd QC, Director of Public Prosecutions with Mr R L Gibson SC and Ms G A Coghlan	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Dr T R Alexander with Mr T Antos	James Harris Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

James Gargasoulas, on 20 January 2017 you deliberately drove, at high speed, through a crowd of pedestrians in the Central Business District of Melbourne. You murdered six young people. You also inflicted serious injuries upon 27 others. This was one of the worst examples of mass murder in Australian history. It was entirely fortuitous that you did not kill or injure many more.

After a trial lasting some five days, a jury found you guilty, on 13 November 2018, of those six murders, and of 27 charges of reckless conduct endangering life. It is now my responsibility to sentence you for these offences. The maximum sentence for murder is life imprisonment, and for reckless conduct endangering life, ten years’ imprisonment.

At about 1.30pm on the day of your offending, you drove a stolen maroon coloured Holden Commodore into the centre of Melbourne. When you reached Bourke Street, you turned left into the Bourke Street Mall.

The Bourke Street Mall, as its name suggests, is a pedestrian and tram-only section of the Central Business District. On a normal Friday afternoon, it is crowded with people shopping, tourists and those going about their everyday business.

You deliberately swerved from the tram lines in the Bourke Street Mall onto the southern footpath which was, of course, crowded. You accelerated, mowing down many of the pedestrians who were walking along that footpath. You were obviously well aware of their presence. You were also well aware of the likelihood that by driving through the crowds in the way that you did, you would kill, or at least seriously injure, those that you struck.

You continued driving along the footpath all the way along the Bourke Street Mall from just opposite the Myer department store, and then past Elizabeth, Queen and William Streets. Eventually, your car came to a stop in Bourke Street, between William and King Streets. You left a trail of destruction behind…

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 Gargasoulas

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Gargasoulas [2019] VSC 87
Case: [2019] VSC 87
Decision Date: 22 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) versus Gargasoulas was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the defendant was convicted of six counts of murder and one count of reckless conduct endangering the life of 27 others. The incident involved the defendant driving at high speed along a crowded footpath in the Central Business District in an attempt to evade police. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant, who was a long-term methamphetamine user, and who had subsequently developed a drug-induced psychosis and paranoid schizophrenia. The court considered the Verdins principles 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 in determining the sentence.

The court considered the Verdins principles, which include the need for denunciation, general deterrence, specific deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation. The court noted that the defendant's actions were premeditated and callous, with no regard for the safety of others. The court also considered the defendant's drug-induced psychosis and subsequent mental illness, but ultimately found that these factors did not excuse his actions. The court also noted that the defendant had a history of criminal behaviour and had shown no remorse for his actions. The court found that the appropriate sentence was life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 46 years.

The Supreme Court of Victoria sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 46 years. The court found that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offences and the need for general and specific deterrence. The court also noted that the sentence provided an opportunity for the defendant to rehabilitate and address his mental health issues while in custody. The court emphasised the importance of protecting the community from the defendant's dangerous behaviour.

The final orders of the court included the defendant being sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 46 years. The court also ordered that the defendant be placed on a supervision order upon his release from prison, and that he be subject to a range of other conditions designed to protect the community and prevent reoffending. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the defendant did not pose a risk to the community upon his release from prison.

Orders