Legal Research
Cases
DPP v L'Eveille

DPP v L'Eveille

Case [2018] VSCA 60 19 March 2018

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2017 0189

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS	Appellant
v
LOUIS L’EVEILLE	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	WEINBERG, PRIEST and HARGRAVE JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	9 March 2018
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	19 March 2018
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSCA 60
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v L’Eveille [2017] VCC 1130 (Judge Gaynor)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Crown appeal – Intentionally causing serious injury – Respondent sentenced to two years and four months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 14 months – Whether sentencing judge misapplied principles laid down in Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 – Claim of specific error rejected as Crown bound by concessions made at trial – Whether sentence manifestly inadequate – Appeal allowed – Respondent resentenced to six years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of four years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director	Mr B Sonnet	Mr John Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Respondent	Ms L Taylor QC with Mr M Reardon	Victoria Legal Aid

WEINBERG JA
PRIEST JA
HARGRAVE JA:

The respondent, Louis L’Eveille, was charged with one count of intentionally causing serious injury contrary to s 16 of the Crimes Act 1958. The offence carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years. The respondent pleaded guilty on 4 August 2017 before a County Court judge and was sentenced on that day to two years and four months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14 months’. The sentencing judge declared under s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 that, but for the respondent’s plea of guilty, she would have sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 20 months.

On the same day, the respondent also pleaded guilty to contravention of a community correction order (CCO) which was current at the time of his offending. That order related to the respondent’s earlier conviction for the offences of assault and criminal damage, which had arisen out of the same motivating factors which resulted in his plea of guilty to the subject offence. By reason of his contravention of the CCO, the respondent was re-sentenced on the original offences to six months’ imprisonment with two months cumulative on the sentence for the subject offence. This resulted in a total effective sentence of two years and six months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 16 months.

The Director of Public Prosecutions has appealed against the total effective sentence on two grounds:

(1) Ground 1 — The sentencing judge erred in finding that the respondent’s psychological state (compromised by substance abuse) was a mitigating factor.

(2) Ground 2 — The sentence imposed on the charge of intentionally causing serious injury is manifestly inadequate in all the circumstances.

Circumstances of the offending

The following account of the circumstances of the offending is taken from the sentencing reasons:

Just after midnight on 2 January 2017, you were present at the home of your sister, Mary Goda and her husband, Cedric, and their…

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 L'Eveille

Details

AGLC: DPP v L'Eveille [2018] VSCA 60
Case: [2018] VSCA 60
Decision Date: 19 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent in this case appealed against a sentence of imprisonment for a term of two years and four months, with a non-parole period of 14 months, imposed following a conviction for intentionally causing serious injury. The matter was heard by the High Court of Australia. The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) sought leave to appeal against the sentence, claiming it was manifestly inadequate.

The central issue was whether the sentencing judge misapplied the principles set out in Bugmy v The Queen. The court considered whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate, taking into account the principles of proportionality, denunciation, and deterrence. The Crown argued that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and did not accord with the principles of sentencing for serious offences of intentional violence. The respondent argued that the sentence was appropriate, given the circumstances of the case.

The court held that the sentence was manifestly inadequate. It found that the sentencing judge had misapplied the principles set out in Bugmy v The Queen, leading to an under-estimation of the seriousness of the offence. The court rejected the claim of specific error as the Crown was bound by concessions made at trial. The appeal was allowed, and the respondent was resentenced to six years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of four years.

The court emphasised the importance of proportionality in sentencing, particularly for offences of intentional violence. It held that the original sentence did not accord with the principles of sentencing for such offences. The court considered the principles of denunciation and deterrence in reaching its decision. The respondent was resentenced to reflect the seriousness of the offence and to provide appropriate punishment and deterrence.

Orders