Jobandeep Gill v The Queen - [2016] VSCA 261

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2016 0032

JOBANDEEP GILL	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	REDLICH, BEACH and KYROU JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	27 October 2016
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	4 November 2016
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSCA 261
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Gill (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Chettle, 6 November 2015)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Evidence – Evidence of lies – Relevance of lies – Admissibility of evidence of lies – Culpable driving causing death – Accused’s explanation for collision – Explanation for collision given at scene of collision – Explanation false – Whether evidence of explanation relevant – Whether evidence of explanation admissible – No objection taken to relevance and admissibility at trial – Forensic choice by accused’s counsel – Evidence relevant and admissible – Judge’s charge about evidence unduly favourable to accused – Application for leave to appeal refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr D Ternovski	Michael J Gleeson & Associates
For the Respondent	Ms D Piekusis	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

REDLICH JA
BEACH JA
KYROU JA:

On 28 February 2014, a collision occurred between a truck driven by the applicant and a sedan motor vehicle carrying five members of the one family. The collision occurred at an intersection on a country road. The intersection was controlled by a stop sign applicable to traffic approaching the intersection on the road on which the applicant was travelling. The applicant failed to give way at the intersection and four of the five occupants of the other vehicle suffered fatal injuries.

At the scene of the collision, the applicant gave contradictory accounts of what happened. Essentially, the applicant gave two versions. First, that he was slowing down as he approached the intersection but then his gears ‘got jammed.’ Secondly, that he stopped at the intersection, checked to see if it was clear, started crossing the intersection and then his gears got jammed. Significantly, both versions contained an acknowledgement by the applicant, either express or implied, that as he approached the intersection he was aware that he was obliged to stop or give way to other traffic.

At trial, and on appeal, it was not disputed that, in giving these versions, the applicant lied, although precisely what portions of his utterances were untruthful was never articulated.

On 5 November 2015, following a six-day trial in the County Court, the applicant was convicted of four charges of culpable driving causing death. On 6 November 2015, the applicant was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of six and a half years.[1]
[1]DPP v Gill (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Chettle, 6 November 2015).

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against conviction. The applicant’s proposed ground of appeal is that the ‘judge erred in admitting the applicant’s lies at the scene of the collision’.

The intersection and the circumstances of the collision

The applicant…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Jobandeep Gill v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] VSCA 261
Decision Date: 4 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Jobandeep Gill, was convicted in the Supreme Court of Victoria for culpable driving causing death. Gill appealed to the Court of Appeal against his conviction. The primary issue before the court was whether evidence of a false explanation provided by Gill at the scene of the collision was relevant and admissible. Gill's counsel did not object to the relevance and admissibility of this evidence at trial, leading to a forensic choice. The court found that the evidence was both relevant and admissible.

The court examined the role of the judge in providing a charge about the evidence, considering whether it was unduly favourable to the accused. The court held that the judge's charge was appropriate, and there was no basis for the appeal. The court emphasised the importance of forensic choices made by defence counsel and the consequences of not objecting to evidence at trial. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.

In the case, the court underscored the significance of the accused's counsel making a deliberate decision not to challenge the admissibility of the false explanation provided by Gill. The court found no error in the trial judge's handling of the evidence, and thus, the appeal was dismissed. The final orders of the court were that the application for leave to appeal was refused, and the conviction was upheld.

Orders