DPP v Towle (Ruling no 11)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1460 of 2007

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

THOMAS GRAHAM TOWLE

Ruling No. 11

JUDGE:	CUMMINS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	12 March 2008
DATE OF RULING:	13 March 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Towle (Ruling No 11)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 64

---

Criminal law and procedure – jury trial – verdicts of guilty of dangerous driving causing death (6 counts) and dangerous driving causing serious injury (4 counts) – constituent events in Cardross and Red Cliffs – jury trial in Melbourne – application by prosecution that plea and sentence be remitted for hearing in Mildura – considerations applicable – application refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr M Gamble SC with Ms A Forrester	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr R Richter QC with Ms K Blair	Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service

---

Ruling No. 11

HIS HONOUR:

The constituent events in this case occurred in Cardross and Red Cliffs, just south of Mildura. On 20 December 2007 in Ruling No. 1 I directed under s.359(1) Crimes Act 1958 that the trial be held in Melbourne; solely because, given the very large number of victims and afflicted persons, it would have been difficult in Mildura to have a representative jury with no knowledge of or connection with the case. Accordingly the trial was held in Melbourne, commencing on 1 February 2008. On 9 March 2008 the jury returned verdicts of guilty on the alternative counts to counts 1 to 10, namely of dangerous driving causing death (counts 1-6) and dangerous driving causing serious injury (counts 7-10), and of not guilty on the other counts. Next week submissions as to sentence are to be heard.

The prosecution has applied for the plea and sentence to be heard in Mildura, as the considerations guiding the removal of the jury trial no longer apply and the legitimate interests of the many persons affected by the trial warrant the matter being remitted to Mildura for the completion of the process. The defence has opposed the application, submitting that the principles of regularity and of unity of proceedings require that the curial process once commenced in Melbourne should run its course in Melbourne.

I am conscious of the very heavy burden placed upon victims and their families and loved ones by the proceedings being heard in Melbourne. However, having considered the matter overnight, I have concluded that the defence submission is correct. I have researched the matter and can find no instance in the history of the Court in which a jury trial has been heard to completion in Melbourne and then the plea and sentence remitted to the regional city of origin. I think the principles of regularity and of unity of proceedings require that the balance of these proceedings remain in Melbourne. Accordingly I so direct.

Unfortunately something else needs be said. Yesterday in submissions, senior counsel for the accused stated “I don’t fancy walking into court and being spat on” (T.2210). That was an irresponsible statement and should not have been made. I have no doubt – none whatsoever – that if held in Mildura the proceedings would be conducted in a proper and orderly way. The many grieving and afflicted families involved in this case have conducted themselves with the most admirable dignity throughout. The city of Mildura is a fine city with fine citizens. Counsel’s comment should not have been made.

In order to assist persons in Mildura to observe the proceedings, the Court shall arrange for contemporaneous video transmission of the plea and sentence to the Mildura court. The court regularly receives evidence by video link and the method, although two-dimensional, is of utility. Any witnesses from Mildura to be called during the plea may give evidence from Mildura to Melbourne by video link. Further, for those good persons who come from Mildura to Melbourne for the balance of the proceedings, arrangements are being made for their proper care and consideration at the Court in Melbourne.

---------------------------------

The case involved the Director of Public Prosecutions seeking a ruling in relation to a plea and sentence hearing for a defendant, Towle, who had been found guilty of multiple charges of dangerous driving causing death and serious injury. The incidents in question occurred in Cardross and Red Cliffs, and the trial was held in Melbourne. The prosecution sought to have the plea and sentencing remitted to Mildura for hearing, raising several legal issues regarding the appropriate venue for such proceedings.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plea and sentencing hearing should be held in Mildura rather than Melbourne, considering the location of the offences and the logistical and practical considerations involved. The court had to balance the interests of the defendant, the victims, and the administration of justice in determining the most suitable venue for the hearing. The court also considered the precedent set by previous cases and the principles of fairness and efficiency in the judicial process.

In its ruling, the court determined that the application for remission should be refused. The court found that the primary consideration was the location of the offences, which were in Mildura, and that holding the hearing in that location would be more convenient for the victims and witnesses. However, the court also noted that the trial had already been conducted in Melbourne, and there were no compelling reasons to change the venue for the plea and sentencing hearing. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining consistency in the administration of justice and the need to avoid unnecessary delays and additional costs.

The court's final order was that the application for remission be refused, and the plea and sentencing hearing would proceed in Melbourne. This decision ensures that the proceedings are conducted in a location that has already been involved in the case, thereby maintaining consistency and minimising disruption for all parties involved.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established