DPP v Wilson - [2000] VSCA 112

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL Not Restricted

No. 256 of 1999

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

JAMES ANTHONY WILSON

---

JUDGES:	WINNEKE, P., BATT and BUCHANAN, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	29 May 2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	23 June 2000
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSCA 112

---

Criminal law – Sentence – Director’s appeal – Respondent pleading guilty to counts of failing to stop after accident and failing to render assistance – Prior convictions for driving with blood alcohol content exceeding .05% and driving whilst unlicensed – Sentence of six months’ imprisonment to be served by way of intensive correction order – Sentence already served – Sentence not manifestly inadequate.

Criminal law – Pre-sentence reports – Contents – s.96(2) Sentencing Act 1991.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	C.G. Hillman	P.C. Wood, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Respondent	P.F. Tehan, Q.C. and K. J. Doyle	Simon Northeast

WINNEKE, P.:

The Director of Public Prosecutions, by Notice dated 14 October 1999, has appealed pursuant to s.567A of the Crimes Act 1958, against the sentences imposed upon the respondent by the County Court at Melbourne on 23 September 1999.

On 13 September 1999, the respondent had pleaded guilty to a presentment containing two indictable offences arising out of events which had occurred on 5 November 1998. In summary terms, count 1 alleged that, being the driver of a motor vehicle involved in an accident as a result of which another person had suffered serious injury, the respondent had failed to immediately stop his vehicle. Count 2 alleged that on the same date, and being the driver of the vehicle alleged in count 1, he had failed to immediately render such assistance as he could. These two offences are created by s.61 of the Road Safety Act 1986 and each carries a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of $8,000 (s.61(3)).

In addition to the above mentioned charges, the respondent admitted two summary offences of “careless driving” and “driving whilst disqualified” in respect of which jurisdiction of the County Court is invoked by s.359AA of the Crimes Act 1958. The offence of “careless driving” is punishable by a fine up to a maximum of $2,500, whilst a second or subsequent offence of driving whilst disqualified, which this one was, carries a term of imprisonment of not less than one month and not more than two years.

Upon the hearing of the plea, the respondent admitted a number of previous convictions which would, on any view, appear to be significant, extending from June 1993 to September 1997. There were 25 such previous convictions arising from seven court appearances. They included three convictions for driving with a blood alcohol content exceeding .05%, the last of which (recorded on 25 September 1997) involved a reading of .201%, two prior convictions for “driving a motor vehicle whilst disqualified”; four convictions for “driving whilst unlicensed”; one for “careless driving”; one for driving an unregistered vehicle and one for “failing…

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 Wilson

Details

AGLC: DPP v Wilson [2000] VSCA 112
Case: [2000] VSCA 112
Decision Date: 23 June 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of the Director of Public Prosecutions v Wilson involved an appeal by the Director against a sentence imposed on the respondent, Wilson, who had pleaded guilty to charges of failing to stop after an accident and failing to render assistance. Wilson had previous convictions for driving with a blood alcohol content exceeding 0.05% and driving while unlicensed. The sentence given was six months’ imprisonment, which was to be served by way of an intensive correction order. This sentence had already been served by the time the appeal was heard.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate and whether the pre-sentence report complied with the requirements of section 96(2) of the Sentencing Act 1991. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing and whether the sentence was sufficient to achieve the purposes of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The court also had to examine the contents of the pre-sentence report to determine if it met the statutory requirements.

The court found that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate. It noted that the sentence imposed was consistent with the principles of sentencing and was not so lenient as to undermine public confidence in the justice system. The court held that the sentence achieved the purposes of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The court also found that the pre-sentence report complied with the requirements of section 96(2) of the Sentencing Act 1991, as it contained sufficient information for the court to make an informed decision on the sentence. The court dismissed the appeal.

The court did not issue any further orders, as the sentence had already been served. The decision reinforces the importance of considering the principles of sentencing and the statutory requirements for pre-sentence reports in criminal cases.

Orders