JUDGE:	JANE DIXON J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	30 November 2015
DATE OF SENTENCE:	1 December 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Vega
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 683

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Assist Offender – Undertaking to give evidence against principal offender – Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 325

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms A Hassan	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr T Kassimatis with Ms A Burchill	Michael J Gleeson & Associates

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

Daniel Vega, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of ‘assist offender’, and you have admitted prior convictions.

The charge is brought pursuant to s 325 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). The principal offender, Scott McDonald, is charged with murder, and your conduct assisted him after the commission of that crime.

The maximum available sentence is 20 years’ imprisonment. You were originally charged with murder and have spent nearly 20 months in prison on remand.

Circumstances of the principal offence

At 7.24 am on Tuesday, 1 April 2014, Michael Jones was shot in the chest by Scott McDonald.

At the time of the shooting, Mr Jones had just left his home in Lancewood Avenue in Heidelberg West, walked eastwards along Lancewood Avenue, and then turned left into Ebony Parade, where he continued to walk east until he reached the intersection with Blackwood Parade and was confronted by Mr McDonald in his maroon Holden Commodore.

Mr McDonald raised a sawn off shot gun to the driver’s door window sill and shot Mr Jones, before quickly driving away.

You were seated next to Mr McDonald when he performed that act, and, subsequently, you took steps to assist him in avoiding apprehension and prosecution for that crime.

A nearby motorist, who observed the deceased lying on the ground, contacted emergency services. Police and ambulance paramedics arrived within a short time after the shooting, but were unable to resuscitate Mr Jones. He was declared dead at 7.35 am.

The background to this shooting was that you were residing with Mr McDonald and his partner, Maddison Power, at their premises at 6/10 Coral Street, Heidelberg West, pursuant to a short term arrangement.

Mr McDonald is said to have rescued you from a rural property in Greenvale, which was described as a ‘farm’, but was a location where amphetamine manufacture was occurring.

You had been addicted to amphetamine-based substances for most of your adult life and you were also a heavy consumer of alcohol. You were being exploited at the Greenvale property because of your drug and alcohol dependency and inability to leave.

You were permitted to leave with Mr McDonald on your birthday on 26 March 2014, and a plan was then developed to start a new life in Tasmania with…

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 Vega

Details

AGLC: DPP v Vega [2015] VSC 683
Case: [2015] VSC 683
Decision Date: 1 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of the Director of Public Prosecutions v Vega was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, Vega, was charged with being an accessory after the fact to a serious crime. The central issue was whether Vega, who had assisted the principal offender, was eligible for a lesser sentence under the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) section 325, which provides for a lesser punishment if an accessory undertakes to give evidence against the principal offender. The prosecution argued that Vega did not genuinely intend to give evidence, while the defence maintained that Vega had a firm intention to testify against the principal offender.

The court was tasked with determining the validity of Vega’s undertaking to testify and whether this commitment was made in good faith. The key legal issue revolved around the interpretation of section 325 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) and the requirement for an accessory to genuinely intend to give evidence against the principal offender. The court examined the circumstances under which Vega made the undertaking and assessed the credibility of the evidence presented regarding Vega’s intentions.

In reaching its decision, the court found that Vega’s undertaking was not made in good faith and did not meet the requirements of section 325 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). The evidence indicated that Vega had no genuine intention to testify against the principal offender, which meant that he was not eligible for the reduced sentence. Consequently, the court ruled that Vega would be sentenced as a principal offender. The court emphasised the importance of an accessory’s genuine intention in qualifying for the reduced sentence provision.

Orders