DPP v Whittaker - [2002] VSCA 162

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 95 of 2002

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
	v.
DARREN JOHN WHITTAKER

---

JUDGES:	WINNEKE, P., CALLAWAY, J.A. and O'BRYAN, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	3 October 2002
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	3 October 2002
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSCA 162

---

Criminal law - Sentencing - Culpable Driving causing two deaths and serious injury to two passengers - Total effective sentence manifestly inadequate resulting from failure to cumulate.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr C.G. Hillman, S.C.	K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Respondent	Mr P.F. Tehan, Q.C. and Mr T.E. Wraight	Ryan Carlisle Thomas

WINNEKE, P.:

I invite O'Bryan, A.J.A. to give the first judgment in this appeal.

O'BRYAN, A.J.A.:

On 9 January 2001, an horrific single-vehicle accident occurred at Pascoe Vale in which two female passengers were killed instantly and two male passengers suffered serious injury. The respondent, the driver of the vehicle, also sustained serious injury. The respondent was charged on 13 September 2001 with two counts of culpable driving of a motor vehicle by driving negligently and two counts of causing serious injury by driving negligently.

The respondent pleaded guilty to the four charges in the County Court and following a plea was sentenced on 20 March 2002 as follows:

Count 1, causing the death of Karin Lee Hubbard, four years' imprisonment.
Count 2, causing the death of Samantha Dwyer, four years' imprisonment.
Count 3, causing serious injury to Peter Miller, six months' imprisonment.
Count 4, causing serious injury to Bradley Miller, 18 months' imprisonment. No order was made for cumulation of the sentences. A minimum term of two-and-a-half years was fixed before the respondent could become eligible for parole. A declaration was made that 41 days had been spent in pre-sentence detention and was deemed to have already been served under the sentence. An order was made pursuant to s.28 of the Road Safety Act 1986 that all licences and permits to drive be cancelled and that the respondent be disqualified from obtaining a licence for a period of four years.

The Director of Public Prosecutions gave notice of appeal on 19 April 2002 on three grounds:

1.The sentences imposed in respect of counts 1 and 2 are manifestly inadequate.
Particulars
In fixing the terms of imprisonment in respect of each of the grounds the sentencing judge -
(a)failed to adequately reflect the gravity of the offence generally and in this case in particular;
(b)failed to take into account or sufficiently take into account the aspect of general and specific deterrence;

(c) gave too much weight to factors going to mitigation.
2.The total effective sentence of 4 years' imprisonment and the non-parole period of 2 years 6 months' imprisonment was manifestly inadequate.
Particulars:
In fixing the total effective sentence and the non-parole period the sentencing judge -
(a)failed to adequately reflect the gravity of the offending conduct generally and in this case in particular by failing to order partial cumulation as between…

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 Whittaker

Details

AGLC: DPP v Whittaker [2002] VSCA 162
Case: [2002] VSCA 162
Decision Date: 3 October 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of the Director of Public Prosecutions versus Whittaker, the accused was charged with multiple offences including culpable driving causing the death of two individuals and serious injury to two others. The incident occurred when the defendant, under the influence of drugs, lost control of his vehicle, resulting in a collision that was fatal for two passengers and left two others severely injured. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the accused contested the severity of the sentences imposed, arguing that they did not reflect the gravity of the offence. The court was tasked with reviewing the appropriateness of the sentence handed down by the lower court and whether it was adequate given the circumstances of the case.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentences imposed for the various offences were adequate in light of the significant harm caused. The court had to consider whether the sentences should be cumulative to reflect the totality of the harm caused by the defendant's actions. The defence argued that the sentences were inadequate and did not adequately reflect the severity of the harm caused by the accused's actions, while the prosecution contended that the sentences were appropriate and reflected the court's consideration of the relevant factors. The court was required to assess the sentences in the context of the principles of sentencing for culpable driving offences, particularly in cases involving multiple fatalities and serious injuries.

The court found that the sentences imposed by the lower court were manifestly inadequate due to the failure to cumulate the sentences for the various offences. The court recognised that the harm caused by the accused's actions was significant, with two fatalities and two serious injuries resulting from a single incident. The Supreme Court concluded that the sentences did not adequately reflect the gravity of the situation and increased the overall sentence to better reflect the harm caused. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that sentences for culpable driving causing death and serious injury are sufficient to adequately punish the offender and to deter others from engaging in such reckless behaviour. The court's decision underscores the need for sentences in such cases to be carefully considered to ensure they are commensurate with the harm caused.

Orders