DPP v Scott - [2003] VSCA 25

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 182 of 2002

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
	v.
JASON DANIEL SCOTT

---

JUDGES:	PHILLIPS, C.J., VINCENT, J.A. and CUMMINS, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	18 March 2003
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	11 April 2003
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSCA 25

---

Criminal Law – Sentence – Crown Appeal – One count culpable driving causing death – One count causing serious injury negligently – Principles upon which Crown Appeals decided – Appellant with poor driving record – Evidence that appellant ignored passenger’s repeated requests to drive reasonably – Whether sentence manifestly inadequate – Youth – Total effective sentence of four years and six months with a non-parole period of two years increased to five years and six months with a non-parole period of three years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P.A. Coghlan, Q.C., D.P.P. Mr B. Kayser	K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Respondent	Mr P.F. Tehan, Q.C. Mr B.J. Halpin	Remington Wright & Co.

PHILLIPS, C.J.:

In this matter, I have had the advantage of reading the judgment of Vincent, J.A. in draft form. I agree with his Honour’s conclusions expressed therein and that this appeal should be allowed and the respondent re-sentenced. I will not depart this matter, however, without referring to the extent to which the interests of the victims and their loved ones were accommodated in the proceedings. Very shortly after he began his opening address, the Crown Prosecutor tendered four Victim Impact Statements – those of Anne Longmore, Peter Longmore and Ebony Longmore – the mother, step-father and sister of the deceased victim of Jason Scott’s culpable driving Also tendered was the Victim Impact Statement of Amanda Cameron, the seriously injured victim of the second count. (In this, her mother, Leanne Cameron, joined.) When these documents were tendered the learned judge did not read them, either to himself or aloud.

A little later in the opening the Prosecutor alluded to an aspect of Amanda Cameron’s statement saying “It would seem that she has made a full recovery from those injuries” (“a fractured pelvis, a broken wrist and cuts and bruises”).

During the presentation of the case for Jason Scott, his counsel remarked, “…After today, the family of Alisha (Longmore) will continue to feel her loss. The family of Jason Scott will continue to feel distress. Especially during the time that he will be in prison. Jason Scott will feel distress.” Later, in this presentation, defence counsel tendered, on behalf of Scott, a bundle of documents. His Honour suspended proceedings while he read them. Then defence counsel tendered a number of character references for Scott and six certificates relating to his efforts at rehabilitation. His Honour suspended proceedings while he read these. Then, defence counsel tendered a report of a Dr Gill, a Psychiatrist, and a report of a Mr Dungey, a Psychologist. Again, his Honour suspended proceedings while he read them. All these documents contained material favourable to Jason Scott. Counsel for…

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 Scott

Details

AGLC: DPP v Scott [2003] VSCA 25
Case: [2003] VSCA 25
Decision Date: 11 April 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Scott, was convicted of one count of culpable driving causing death and one count of causing serious injury negligently. The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed the sentence of four years and six months with a non-parole period of two years, contending it was manifestly inadequate. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central legal issue was whether the original sentence was manifestly inadequate, particularly considering Scott's poor driving history and the evidence that he disregarded his passenger's requests to drive more cautiously.

The Court examined the principles guiding appeals by the Crown concerning sentencing. It noted the need to balance the need for general deterrence, specific deterrence, and the protection of the community, alongside the personal circumstances of the offender. The Court found that the original sentence did not sufficiently address these considerations. Scott's previous driving violations and the evidence that he ignored his passenger's requests to drive more safely were critical factors. These points suggested a higher level of culpability and a greater need for deterrence.

The Court increased the total effective sentence to five years and six months with a non-parole period of three years. This decision reflected a need for a more substantial sentence to meet the objectives of general and specific deterrence, while also considering Scott's youth. The Court held that the original sentence failed to adequately account for the seriousness of the offenses and the appellant's history. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the sentence was revised accordingly.

Orders