Legal Research
Cases
DPP v Whiteside and Dieber

DPP v Whiteside and Dieber

Case [2000] VSCA 142 4 August 2000

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL Not Restricted

No. 80 of 2000
No. 81 of 2000

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

Appellant

JOHN WHITESIDE and KRISTIAN PETER DIEBER

Respondents

---

JUDGES:	WINNEKE, P., BROOKING and PHILLIPS, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATES OF HEARING:	31 July and 1 August 2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	4 August 2000
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSCA 142

---

Criminal Law – D.P.P. appeal against sentence – Manslaughter – Respondents chasing and bashing victims in belief (erroneous) that they had sexually assaulted young woman – Finding that respondents decided to “punish” victims – Consequences of “taking the law into one’s own hands” – “Vigilante conduct” – Judge misconstruing gravity of conduct and erroneously failing to have regard to principles of general deterrence – Partially suspended sentences “manifestly erroneous” – Principles to be applied on “Director’s appeals” discussed – s.567A Crimes Act 1958.

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel

Solicitors

For the Crown

Mr. G.R. Flatman Q.C. and
Ms. S. Pullen

P.C. Wood, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

For 1^st Respondent

For 2^nd Respondent

Mr. P.A. Dunn Q.C. and
Mr. G. Bryant

Mr. I.D. Hill Q.C.

G.R. Bryant & Associates

A. Isaacs

WINNEKE, P.:

On 31 May of this year the respondents, John Whiteside and Kristian Dieber, pleaded guilty in the Supreme Court to the manslaughter of Keith Hibbins ("the deceased"). They were initially presented on a charge of murder but immediately before the plea, the Crown was given leave to file over a further presentment alleging charges of manslaughter based on unlawful and dangerous act. After hearing pleas in mitigation on behalf of the respondents, who are aged 28 and 24 years respectively, and admittedly of previous good character, the learned judge, on 23 June 2000, sentenced each to a period of three years' imprisonment and, in the case of both, suspended the whole of that term save the period during which they had been detained in custody prior to sentence. Thus Whiteside served 165 days in prison and Dieber 193 days. From the date of sentence, they have been at large.

Pursuant to s.567A of the Crimes Act, the Director of Public Prosecutions has appealed to this Court against the sentences imposed. In each case, the grounds of appeal relied upon by the Director, stated in summary form, are that the sentences are manifestly inadequate; that the learned judge erroneously gave excessive weight to factors of mitigation and too little to the gravity of the offence and the need for general deterrence; and that he erred in concluding that the suspension of all but five and six months respectively of the sentences passed, resulting in immediate release from custody, was adequate to meet the circumstances of those offences, to meet the requirement for general deterrence and to provide sufficient time in custody. Before considering these grounds, it will be necessary to briefly rehearse the facts which his Honour had found.

The assault which led to the death of the deceased occurred in Lansdowne Street, East…

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 Whiteside and Dieber

Details

AGLC: DPP v Whiteside and Dieber [2000] VSCA 142
Case: [2000] VSCA 142
Decision Date: 4 August 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of DPP v Whiteside and Dieber, the Director of Public Prosecutions sought to appeal the sentences handed down to the respondents, who had been found guilty of manslaughter. The respondents had chased and assaulted the victims, believing (incorrectly) that the victims had sexually assaulted a young woman. The respondents claimed their actions were an attempt to "punish" the victims for their alleged crime. The central legal issues before the court involved whether the judge had correctly assessed the gravity of the respondents’ conduct and if the sentences were appropriate, particularly considering the principles of general deterrence and the respondents' vigilante conduct.

The court found that the trial judge had misconstrued the gravity of the respondents' actions and had not adequately considered the principles of general deterrence. The judge's characterisation of the respondents' conduct as an attempt to "punish" the victims, while technically accurate, failed to capture the full extent of the respondents' vigilante behaviour and the serious consequences of taking the law into one’s own hands. The sentences were considered to be manifestly erroneous because they did not sufficiently reflect the seriousness of the offence and the need to deter similar conduct in the future. The court emphasised that, in cases of Director's appeals, the principles of general deterrence and the need to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system must be paramount.

Consequently, the court determined that the sentences imposed were manifestly erroneous and did not align with the principles guiding appeals by the Director of Public Prosecutions under section 567A of the Crimes Act 1958. The court ordered that the sentences be set aside and that the matter be remitted to the trial court for re-sentencing, ensuring that the new sentences appropriately reflected the gravity of the offence and the necessity for general deterrence.

Orders