Legal Research
Cases
DPP v Weston

DPP v Weston

Case [2016] VSCA 243 10 October 2016

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2016 0001

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS	Appellant
v
DARREN WESTON	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL P, TATE and OSBORN JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	19 July 2016
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	10 October 2016
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSCA 243
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2015] VCC 1790 (Judge Ryan)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Crown appeal – Negligently causing serious injury – Baby shaking – Infant victim – Fractured skull, haemorrhages, fractured ribs and femur – Plea of guilty – Sentenced to two years’ imprisonment – Whether manifestly inadequate – High level negligence – High culpability – Offender warned previously – Victim’s condition – Risk of future seizures, cognitive decline – Loss of enjoyment of life – Appeal allowed – Resentenced to four years’ imprisonment.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr G J C Silbert QC with Mr B L Sonnet	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Respondent	Mr D Dann QC with Mr C Pearson	Greg Thomas Barristers and Solicitors

MAXWELL P
OSBORN JA:

Charge on Indictment	Offence	Maximum	Sentence	Cumulation
1	Negligently causing serious injury[1]	10y	2y	Base
2	Recklessly causing injury[2]	5y	1m	Nil
Total Effective Sentence:		2y
Non-Parole Period:		15m
6AAA Statement:		42m with a non-parole period of 30m

[1]Crimes Act 1958 s 24.

[2]Ibid s 18.

The respondent, Darren Weston (‘DW’), pleaded guilty to one charge of negligently causing serious injury (to a four week old infant) and one charge of recklessly causing injury (to her older sister, aged three years). The victims were his de facto partner’s children. He was sentenced as follows:

The Director of Public Prosecutions has appealed on the ground that the sentence is manifestly inadequate. For reasons which follow, we would allow the appeal and resentence DW to four years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years and six months.

Circumstances of the offending[3]

[3]Paragraphs 3–20 are based on the Summary of Prosecution Opening.

DW is the father of four children from a previous marriage. Following the breakdown of that marriage, he commenced a de facto relationship with Mary,[4] who was then in the early stages of her third pregnancy. DW began living with Mary and her two daughters. DW’s former wife (Susan) maintained contact with him and with Mary. Susan provided support to them both before and after the birth of Mary’s third daughter, Laura.
[4]This and other names used in the judgment (apart from the name of the respondent) are pseudonyms. They are used in order to protect the victims’ privacy.

During the first weeks of Laura’s life, several family members saw DW treating her roughly. As detailed below, he was seen shaking her, throwing her at another person and holding her by one leg. He was observed becoming easily frustrated and angry with her.

When Laura was a week old, Susan was at the home of DW and Mary. Susan was helping with Laura, who had been discharged…

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 Weston

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Darren Weston [2016] VSCA 243
Case: [2016] VSCA 243
Decision Date: 10 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of the Director of Public Prosecutions versus Weston came before the court, where the appeal was against the sentence imposed on the appellant following his guilty plea to charges of negligently causing serious injury. The incident involved the appellant shaking a baby, resulting in severe injuries including a fractured skull, haemorrhages, fractured ribs, and a fractured femur. The original sentence was two years’ imprisonment, which the Crown deemed manifestly inadequate. The appeal focused on the severity of the injuries and the level of negligence demonstrated by the appellant.

The central legal issue for the court was whether the original sentence was manifestly inadequate considering the gravity of the appellant's actions and the extent of the harm caused. The court had to consider the high level of negligence exhibited by the appellant, his prior warnings, and the significant long-term consequences for the victim, including a risk of future seizures, cognitive decline, and a substantial loss of enjoyment of life. The Crown argued that the sentence did not adequately reflect the culpability of the appellant or the severity of the harm inflicted on the infant.

The court found that the original sentence was indeed manifestly inadequate. It highlighted the appellant's high level of negligence, his previous warnings, and the severe, long-lasting impact on the victim. The court emphasised the need for a sentence that appropriately reflected the culpability of the offender and the harm caused. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was resentenced to four years’ imprisonment. This new sentence was deemed more reflective of the appellant's actions and the gravity of the injuries inflicted.

Orders