Jones v The King - [2023] VSCA 167

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2022 0113

KAYNE JONES	Appellant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	PRIEST and MACAULAY JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	20 July 2023
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 July 2023
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSCA 167
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Jones [2022] VCC 1446

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Reckless conduct endangering persons and recklessly causing injury – Appellant deliberately drove motor vehicle at pedestrians – Total effective sentence three years and three months’ imprisonment with two years and three months non-parole – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Appeal dismissed.

---

Counsel
Appellant:		Mr C Farrington
Respondent:		Ms K Hamill
Solicitors
Appellant:	Emma Turnbull Lawyers
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

PRIEST JA
MACAULAY JA:

Introduction

On 11 July 2022, the appellant, now aged 41 years,[1] pleaded guilty before a judge in the County Court to reckless conduct endangering serious injury[2] (charge 1) and recklessly causing injury[3] (charge 2). He also pleaded guilty to three relevant summary offences: failing to render assistance after an accident[4] (summary charge 3); using an unregistered motor vehicle[5] (summary charge 5); and committing an indictable offence whilst on bail[6] (summary charge 6).
[1]His date of birth is 8 April 1982.
[2]Crimes Act 1958, s 23. The maximum sentence is five years’ imprisonment.
[3]Crimes Act 1958, s 18. The maximum sentence is five years’ imprisonment.
[4]Road Safety Act 1986, s 61(1)(b). The maximum sentence is eight months’ imprisonment.
[5]Road Safety Act 1986, s 7(3)(a)(ii). The maximum sentence is 50 penalty units.
[6]Bail Act 1977, s 30B. The maximum sentence is three months’ imprisonment.
Following a plea in mitigation, on 26 July 2022 the judge sentenced the appellant to be imprisoned for two years and four months on each charge on the indictment; to two days’ imprisonment on summary charge 3; to two months’ imprisonment on summary charge 6; and to a fine of $200 on summary charge 5. The judge ordered that 10 months of the sentence on charge 1, and one month of the sentence on summary charge 6, be served cumulatively with the sentence on charge 2, leading to a total effective sentence of three years and three months’ imprisonment, upon which the judge fixed a non-parole period of two years and three months.[7] (Additionally, the judge cancelled all drivers’ licences held by the appellant, and disqualified him from obtaining a licence for two years.)
[7]Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, the judge declared that, but for the plea of guilty, he would have imposed a total effective sentence of four years and seven months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years and four months.
On 9 February 2023, a judge of this Court granted the appellant leave to appeal against his sentence on a ground that contends that:
(i) the individual sentences imposed on charges 1 and 2 are manifestly excessive;
(ii) the…

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 Jones v The King

Details

AGLC: Jones v The King [2023] VSCA 167
Case: [2023] VSCA 167
Decision Date: 20 July 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Jones versus The King, the appellant, Jones, was convicted for his deliberate act of driving a motor vehicle at pedestrians, resulting in reckless conduct endangering persons and recklessly causing injury. The case was brought to the attention of the court of appeal, where the appellant contested the sentence imposed, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances of the offence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence of three years and three months’ imprisonment, with two years and three months non-parole, was manifestly excessive. The court considered various factors in reaching its decision, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the appellant’s culpability, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. It was necessary for the court to balance the gravity of the offence with the need for a just and proportionate sentence.

The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The deliberate act of driving at pedestrians was a serious offence that posed significant risk to public safety. The court considered the appellant’s culpability and the need for appropriate punishment to reflect the seriousness of the offence. The sentence imposed was within the range of penalties typically imposed for such offences and was not considered disproportionate to the crime committed. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The court's final order was that the appeal brought by the appellant, Jones, against his sentence was dismissed. The original sentence of three years and three months’ imprisonment, with two years and three months non-parole, was affirmed as appropriate and proportionate to the offence committed.

Orders