Legal Research
Cases
DPP v Reid

DPP v Reid

Case [2020] VSCA 247 24 September 2020

Sentencing

Culpable Driving Causing Death

Conduct Endangering Life

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2019 0180

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS	Appellant
v
JESSE CHRISTIAN REID	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	PRIEST, T FORREST and WEINBERG JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	17 September 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	24 September 2020
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSCA 247
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2019] VCC 1362 (Judge Wraight)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Director’s appeal against sentence – Sentence of 9 years on charge of culpable driving causing death – Sentences of 3 years on each of two charges of conduct endangering life – Total effective sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 7 years – Whether individual sentences, and total effective sentence, manifestly inadequate – Separate victims – Appalling driving over protracted period – Youthful offender – Early plea of guilty – Dysfunctional upbringing contributing to post-traumatic stress disorder – Long history of drug use – Efforts to overcome methylamphetamine addiction – Judge assessed prospects of rehabilitation as reasonable – Overall sentence arguably lenient but within range – No error of any kind on part of sentencing judge – Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant:	Mr B F Kissane QC with Mr J C J McWilliams	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Respondent:	Mr D D Gurvich QC with Mr P J Smallwood	Emma Turnbull Lawyers

PRIEST JA
T FORREST JA
WEINBERG JA:

On 14 August 2019, Jesse Reid, then aged 22, pleaded guilty in the County Court at Melbourne to one charge of culpable driving causing death and two charges of conduct endangering life.

On 29 August 2019, he was sentenced as follows:

Charge on

Indictment

Offence

Maximum

Sentence

Cumulation

1 Conduct endangering life [s 22 — Crimes Act1958]
10 years
3 years 9 months

2 Conduct endangering life [s 22 — Crimes Act1958]
10 years
3 years 3 months

3 Culpable driving causing death [s 318(2)(a) — Crimes Act1958]
20 years
9 years Base

Total effective sentence: 10 years’ imprisonment

Non-parole period: 7 years

Pre-sentence detention declared: 349 days

Section 6AAA statement: 12 years and 6 months’ imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 8 years and 6 months

Ancillary orders: Forensic sample order; licence cancellation and disqualification for seven years

Charge on Indictment	Offence	Maximum	Sentence	Cumulation
1	Conduct endangering life [s 22 — Crimes Act1958]	10 years	3 years	9 months
2	Conduct endangering life [s 22 — Crimes Act1958]	10 years	3 years	3 months
3	Culpable driving causing death [s 318(2)(a) — Crimes Act1958]	20 years	9 years	Base
Total effective sentence:	10 years’ imprisonment
Non-parole period:	7 years
Pre-sentence detention declared:	349 days
Section 6AAA statement:	12 years and 6 months’ imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 8 years and 6 months
Ancillary orders:	Forensic sample order; licence cancellation and disqualification for seven years

By notice of appeal dated 25 September 2019, the Director of Public Prosecutions challenged each of the individual sentences, the orders for cumulation, the total effective sentence, and the non-parole period on the sole ground of manifest inadequacy. The particulars to that ground are:

The sentences reflect that the learned sentencing judge:

(a)Failed to give sufficient weight to the objective gravity of the offending conduct;
(b)Failed to give sufficient weight to the sentencing principles of just punishment, denunciation, general deterrence, specific deterrence and the protection of the community;
(c)Failed to make appropriate orders for cumulation of the sentences for charges 1 and 2 (reckless conduct endangering life);
(d)Gave too much weight to mitigating factors concerning the offender, in particular, his plea of guilty and…

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 Reid

Details

AGLC: DPP v Reid [2020] VSCA 247
Case: [2020] VSCA 247
Decision Date: 24 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Director of Public Prosecutions filed an appeal against the sentence of Mr Reid, who was found guilty of culpable driving causing death, and two charges of conduct endangering life. The Supreme Court of Victoria was tasked with determining whether the sentences imposed by the trial judge were manifestly inadequate. The trial judge had sentenced Mr Reid to 9 years for the charge of culpable driving causing death, and 3 years for each of the two charges of conduct endangering life, resulting in a total effective sentence of 10 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years. The Director argued that the individual sentences, and the total effective sentence, were manifestly inadequate.

The court considered the nature and gravity of the offences, the need for general and specific deterrence, and the personal circumstances of the offender. The court found that while the sentence might be considered lenient, it was not manifestly inadequate and was within the appropriate range. The court also took into account Mr Reid’s early guilty plea, his dysfunctional upbringing, his post-traumatic stress disorder, and his efforts to overcome his drug addiction. The judge had assessed Mr Reid’s prospects of rehabilitation as reasonable.

In light of the above considerations, the court concluded that there was no error of any kind on the part of the sentencing judge. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court emphasised that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offences, while also taking into account the personal circumstances of the offender. The court found that the sentence was appropriate and proportionate to the offending, and that it was not manifestly inadequate. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, and the original sentence be upheld.

Orders