Legal Research
Cases
DPP v Trueman

DPP v Trueman

Case [2017] VSCA 24 23 February 2017

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2016 0141

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS	Appellant
v
MICHAEL PATRICK TRUEMAN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	WEINBERG, WHELAN and FERGUSON JJA
WHERE HELD:	MORWELL
DATE OF HEARING:	21 February 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	23 February 2017
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSCA 24
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Trueman [2016] VCC 883 (Judge Lacava)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – DPP appeal – Culpable driving causing death (two charges); negligently causing serious injury (one charge) – Total effective sentence 11 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of seven years and six months – Whether sentence manifestly inadequate – Offender youthful and had other mitigating circumstances –Purpose of Crown appeals to correct error of principle – Whether judge erred in not applying Harrison & Rigogiannis v The Queen (2015) 74 MVR 58 – Sentences within range –Appeal dismissed – Harrison & Rigogiannis v The Queen (2015) 74 MVR 58; The Queen v Kilic [2016] HCA 48 referred to.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr B Kissane QC with Ms D Pikusis	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Respondent	Mr D A Dann QC with Mr B W Johnston	Chris McLennan & Co

WEINBERG JA
WHELAN JA
FERGUSON JA:

Introduction

On 11 March 2016 the respondent pleaded guilty to two charges of culpable driving, one charge of negligently causing serious injury and one charge of possession of a drug of dependence, as well as a summary charge of driving whilst disqualified. The charges arose out of an incident when the respondent crashed the car he was driving into a minibus killing two of its passengers and rendering a third passenger a quadriplegic. At the time, the respondent was driving on the wrong side of the road. He was drug affected.

On 27 June 2016, the respondent was sentenced as follows:

Charge on Indictment Offence Maximum Sentence Cumulation

1
Culpable driving causing death

[Crimes Act 1958 s 318(1)]
20 years and/or Level 3 Fine [Crimes Act 1958 s 318 (1)] 8 years Base sentence

2 Culpable driving causing death 20 years and/or Level 3 Fine 8 years 2 years

3 Negligently cause serious injury [Crimes Act 1958 s 24] 10 years [Crimes Act 1958 s 24] 4 years 1 year

4 Possess drug of dependence [Drugs, Poisons & Controlled Substances Act 1981 s 73] 1 year and/or 30 penalty units [Drugs, Poisons & Controlled Substances Act 1981 s 73(1)(b)] 1 month Nil

Summary Charge 7 Drive whilst dis-qualified [Road Safety Act 1986 s 30] 2 years and/or 240 penalty units [Road Safety Act 1986 s 30(1)] 9 months Nil

Total Effective Sentence: 11 years’ imprisonment

Non-Parole Period: 7 years and 6 months

Pre-sentence Detention Declared: 320 days

6AAA Statement: 15 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 10 years

Other orders:
Drivers’ Licence disqualified for 10 years from 12 August 2015.
Forfeiture Order.
Forensic Sample Order.

The Director of Public Prosecutions appeals on two…

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 Trueman

Details

AGLC: DPP v Trueman [2017] VSCA 24
Case: [2017] VSCA 24
Decision Date: 23 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, the Director of Public Prosecutions, brought an appeal against the sentences imposed on the respondent, who had been convicted on three counts of culpable driving causing death and one count of negligently causing serious injury. The primary judge sentenced the respondent to a total effective term of imprisonment of 11 years, with a non-parole period of seven years and six months. The central legal issue was whether the sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate. The respondent argued that the sentence was too harsh, while the DPP contended that the sentence was too lenient.

The court considered the principles set out in Harrison & Rigogiannis v The Queen (2015) 74 MVR 58, which held that the purpose of Crown appeals in sentencing is to correct errors of principle. The court examined the principles of sentencing for culpable driving causing death and negligently causing serious injury. It held that the judge did not err in principle by imposing a sentence that fell within the range of sentences that could be regarded as appropriate. The court also considered the mitigating factors, including the respondent's youth and the absence of prior convictions.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal. It found that the sentences imposed were not manifestly inadequate, as they fell within the appropriate range of sentences for the offences committed. The court noted that the primary judge had considered the relevant mitigating factors and had not erred in principle in imposing the sentences. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the original sentences were upheld.

Orders