DPP v Weybury (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Meredith, 6 October 2017)
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Crown appeal – Dangerous driving causing death and dangerous driving causing serious injury – Respondent sentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of two years – Whether sentence manifestly inadequate – Undesirability of classifying offending as falling within a certain range – Appeal allowed – Respondent resentenced to five years and six months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of three years and six months – Stephens v The Queen (2016) 50 VR 740 considered.
---
APPEARANCES:
Counsel
Solicitors
For the Appellant
Mr B Kissane QC with Mr J McWilliams
Mr John Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Respondent
Mr D D Gurvich QC with Mr P J Smallwood
Emma Turnbull Lawyers
MAXWELL P HARGRAVE JA:
On 14 September 2017 and 2 October 2017 the respondent Ebonie Weybury (then aged 31) pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing death and dangerous driving causing serious injury. A County Court judge sentenced the respondent on 6 October 2017 as follows:
Charge on Indictment
Offence
Maximum
Sentence
Cumulation
1
Dangerous driving causing death[1]
10y
3y
Base
2
Dangerous driving causing serious injury[2]
5y
18m
6m
Total Effective Sentence
3y 6m
Non-parole period
2y
Pre-sentence detention declared
4 days
6AAA Statement
4y 6m, with non-parole period of 2y 6m
Other orders: Licence cancelled and disqualified from driving on Victorian roads for 2 y 6 m
The appellant (‘the Director’) appeals against the sentences imposed on charges 1 and 2, and the order for cumulation, on the ground that they are manifestly inadequate. The Director relies on the following particulars of manifest inadequacy, contending that the sentencing judge:
(1) failed to have sufficient regard to the maximum penalties prescribed for the offences;
(2) failed to properly reflect the objective gravity of the offences;
(3) failed to have sufficient regard to the need for general deterrence;
(4) failed to have sufficient regard to the need for specific deterrence;
(5) failed sufficiently to manifest the denunciation by the court of the type of conduct in which the offender engaged;
(6) failed to have sufficient regard to the need for protection of the community;
(7) failed to have sufficient regard to the need for just punishment;
(8) failed to reflect the objective gravity of the offences in the orders for cumulation made upon the base sentence;
(9) failed to have sufficient regard to the impact of the offending upon the victims;
(10) had regard to the statements in Stephens v The Queen[3] that, while current sentencing practices…
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 Weybury
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
DPP v Weybury [2018] VSCA 120
Case
[2018] VSCA 120
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of the Director of Public Prosecutions versus Weybury, the High Court of Australia was tasked with evaluating the adequacy of a sentence handed down in the County Court of Victoria. Weybury was convicted of dangerous driving causing death and dangerous driving causing serious injury. He was sentenced to a total of three years and six months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years. The Crown appealed, arguing that the sentence was manifestly inadequate.
The legal issues before the court centred on the severity of the sentence and whether it appropriately reflected the gravity of Weybury's crimes. The court was required to consider if the original sentence was manifestly inadequate, and if so, whether the sentence should be altered. The court also had to consider the undesirability of classifying the offending within a specific range of sentences. The Crown argued for a harsher penalty, contending that the original sentence did not sufficiently reflect the culpability of Weybury's actions.
The court held that the original sentence was indeed manifestly inadequate. The court noted the high level of culpability and the severe consequences of Weybury's actions, including the death of one person and serious injury to another. The court took into account the principles outlined in Stephens v The Queen, which emphasised the need for a sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offending. The court resentenced Weybury to a total of five years and six months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years and six months, finding that this sentence was more reflective of the gravity of the offences.
The court's decision underscores the importance of ensuring that sentences adequately reflect the culpability of the offender and the harm caused by their actions. The resentenced terms are designed to better align with the principles of justice and deterrence in cases involving dangerous driving with fatal or serious injury outcomes.