DPP v Walden - [2003] VSCA 139

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 95 of 2003

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
	v.
DAVID WALDEN

---

JUDGES:	PHILLIPS, C.J., VINCENT, J.A. and ASHLEY, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	20 August 2003
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	12 September 2003
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSCA 139

---

Criminal Law – Sentence – Crown Appeal – Single counts of culpable driving, reckless conduct endangering persons and theft of motor vehicle – Charge of driving whilst unlicensed – Young offender with bad driving record - Short course of conduct giving rise to counts of culpable driving and reckless endangerment – No evidence that persons actually endangered – Matters in mitigation – Prospect of rehabilitation – Alleged complicity of deceased in offending conduct – Interruption of pre-sentence detention by imprisonment for earlier offence – Total effective sentence of 5 years and 6 months imprisonment with non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months increased to 6 years and 3 months with non-parole period of 3 years and 7 months – Fresh sentences discounted for double jeopardy.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P.A. Coghlan, Q.C., D.P.P. Ms K.E. Judd	K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Respondent	Mr P.F. Tehan, Q.C. Mr M.J. Croucher	Grubissa While

PHILLIPS, C.J.:

In this matter I have had the advantage of reading the judgment of Mr Justice Ashley, in draft form. I agree with his Honour’s conclusions and I would subscribe to his reasons therefor.

VINCENT, J.A.:

I agree that this appeal should be allowed and the respondent re-sentenced as proposed by Ashley, A. J.A. I do so for the reasons advanced by him.

ASHLEY, J.A.:

Background

The respondent, David Walden, pleaded guilty in the County Court at Melbourne on 17 December 2002 to the following offences:

One count of theft (Count 1).
One count of reckless conduct endangering persons (Count 2).
One count of culpable driving (Count 3).
He also admitted his guilt with respect to a summary offence of driving whilst unlicensed.

The maximum penalties for the various offences are as follows:

Count 1 (s. 72 Crimes Act 1958) 10 years imprisonment
Count 2 (s. 23 Crimes Act) 5 years imprisonment
Count 3 (s. 318 Crimes Act) 20 years imprisonment
Driving whilst unlicensed (s. 18(1)(a) Road Safety Act 1986) 3 months imprisonment and/or $2,500 fine.

On 11 March 2003 the respondent was sentenced as follows:

Count 1 – 2 years imprisonment
Count 2 – 3 years and 6 months imprisonment
Count 3 – 5 years imprisonment
Driving whilst unlicensed - 6 months imprisonment

The judge cumulated 6 months of the sentence on Count 2 on the sentence imposed on Count 3. The total effective sentence was thus 5 years and 6 months. The judge fixed a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months.
The Appeal

Now the Director appeals against the sentence which was imposed. The sole ground of appeal is that the individual sentences imposed, the total effective sentence and the non-parole period were each manifestly inadequate.

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 Walden

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Walden [2003] VSCA 139
Case: [2003] VSCA 139
Decision Date: 12 September 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of DPP v Walden involved the Director of Public Prosecutions appealing against the sentence imposed on the respondent, Walden, who had been found guilty on single counts of culpable driving, reckless conduct endangering persons, and theft of a motor vehicle. The appeal focused on the severity of the sentence imposed by the lower court. Walden, a young offender with a poor driving record, was convicted following a short sequence of events that led to the charges. The court was tasked with determining whether the original sentence was appropriate in light of the circumstances of the case, the nature of the offences, and the prospects for Walden's rehabilitation.

The central legal issues addressed by the court included the appropriate sentence for the offences committed by Walden, the consideration of matters in mitigation, and the impact of Walden's prior driving record and the prospect of rehabilitation on the sentencing decision. The court also considered the contention that Walden's co-offender, who had since died, was equally responsible for the offences, and the effect of Walden's pre-sentence detention being interrupted by imprisonment for an earlier offence.

The court determined that the original sentence was inadequate, given the seriousness of the offences and Walden's history. It found that while there was no evidence that actual persons were endangered by the reckless conduct, the potential for serious harm was significant. The court increased the sentence to a total of 6 years and 3 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 3 years and 7 months. The court acknowledged the mitigating factors, including the prospect of rehabilitation, but emphasised the need for deterrence and denunciation. The fresh sentences were discounted to avoid double jeopardy. The appeal was thus upheld, and the revised sentence was imposed.

Orders