Legal Research
Cases
DPP v Solomon

DPP v Solomon

Case [2002] VSCA 106 16 July 2002

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 76 of 2002

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
	v.
WENDY KATHRYN SOLOMON

---

JUDGES:	WINNEKE, P., BUCHANAN, J.A. and O'BRYAN, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	16 July 2002
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	16 July 2002
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSCA 106

---

Criminal law - Sentencing - Culpable driving causing multiple deaths - Principles to be applied in cases of multiple counts of culpable driving - Appropriate methods of "cumulation" of sentences discussed - Sentences imposed by trial judge manifestly inadequate.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P.A. Coghlan, Q.C. (DPP) and Ms S.E. Pullen	K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Respondent	Mr A. Shwartz	Victoria Legal Aid

WINNEKE, P.:

The respondent, who is now aged 37 years, pleaded guilty and was convicted in the County Court on 21 February of this year upon a presentment which alleged two counts of culpable driving. Both the offences were committed on 25 November 2000 at Mooroolbark and involved two female victims who were sisters. The deceased Penelope Cooper, aged 19, was the driver of a Volkswagen "beetle" and Fay Cooper, aged 15, was seated in the rear seat behind the driver. Two male passengers in the Volkswagen received moderate injuries.

The respondent admitted nine prior convictions from four court appearances, the most recent of which was at the Magistrates' Court at Ringwood on 25 May 1999 when she was convicted, inter alia, of two charges of driving a motor vehicle whilst her licence was cancelled. When the instant offences were committed the respondent was unlicensed. She consented to the County Court dealing with an information laid in the Magistrates' Court of driving a motor vehicle without being the holder of a driver's licence and was fined $200. This appeal is not concerned with that conviction or penalty. She admitted previous instances of driving with an excessive alcohol limit in 1989 and exceeding the speed limit by more than 50 kilometres per hour in 1992. Since then she has never sought to regain her licence .

The maximum penalty for culpable driving was 20 years' imprisonment at the date when these offences occurred.

After hearing a plea for leniency, during which a nurse from Access Drug and Alcohol Service was called as a witness for the appellant and seven victim impact statements from the parents of the deceased and family members and friends were tendered, the sentencing judge on 4 March 2002 imposed the following sentences upon the respondent:

Count 1 - six years' imprisonment;
Count 2 - six years' imprisonment.

The judge ordered that twelve months of the sentence imposed on count 2 be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed on count 1, making a total effective sentence of seven years' imprisonment. A non-parole period of four years was fixed and a declaration was made pursuant to s.18 of the Sentencing Act 1991 that the respondent had spent 12 days in custody.

Subsequently, the Director of Public Prosecutions appealed against…

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 Solomon

Details

AGLC: DPP v Solomon [2002] VSCA 106
Case: [2002] VSCA 106
Decision Date: 16 July 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of DPP v Solomon involved a prosecution against the defendant for culpable driving causing the death of multiple individuals. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue was the appropriate method for sentencing the defendant, who had been found guilty on multiple counts of culpable driving resulting in death. The prosecution argued that the trial judge's sentences were manifestly inadequate and did not reflect the severity and gravity of the defendant's actions.

The court was tasked with determining the correct legal principles to apply in cases where the accused has been convicted on multiple counts of culpable driving causing death. Specifically, the court had to consider how the sentences for each count should be "cumulated" to ensure that the overall punishment was just and commensurate with the crimes committed. The prosecution submitted that the trial judge had erred in his approach to sentencing, resulting in a total sentence that failed to adequately reflect the culpability of the defendant's actions.

The court found that the trial judge's approach to sentencing was flawed, as it did not appropriately account for the cumulative impact of the defendant's actions. The court held that when multiple counts of culpable driving causing death are involved, the sentences should be cumulated in a manner that recognises the total culpability of the offender. The court concluded that the sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate and did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the defendant's actions. The court ordered a re-sentencing hearing to be conducted with proper consideration of the principles for cumulating sentences in such cases.

The court did not provide specific details on the final orders but made it clear that the re-sentencing hearing must take into account the need for a sentence that appropriately reflects the total culpability of the defendant's actions across all counts. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that sentences for culpable driving causing death adequately recognise the gravity of the offences and the impact on the victims and their families.

Orders