Leddin v The Queen - [2014] VSCA 155

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2014 0007

EAMONN FRANCES LEDDIN
	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	WEINBERG, WHELAN and BEACH JJA
WHERE HELD:	WARRNAMBOOL
DATE OF HEARING:	22 July 2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	22 July 2014
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSCA 155
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2013] VCC 2074 (Judge Taft)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Culpable driving causing death – Application for leave to appeal against sentence – Young offender of good character – Absence of usual features of culpable driving – Sentence of 4 years 3 months with non-parole period of 2 years 3 months not manifestly excessive – Leave to appeal refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr J McLoughlin	Victoria Legal Aid, Warrnambool
For the Respondent	Ms F L Dalziel	Office of Public Prosecutions

WEINBERG JA:

I will invite Whelan JA to deliver the first judgment.

WHELAN JA:

On 4 December 2013 the applicant, who is now aged 22 years, pleaded guilty to one count of culpable driving causing death. The offence was committed in 2011 when the applicant had just turned 19.

Following a plea on 11 December 2013, the applicant was sentenced on 19 December 2013 to a term of imprisonment of 4 years 3 months. A non‑parole period of 2 years 3 months was fixed.

The applicant now seeks leave to appeal from that sentence on the ground that the sentence and the non‑parole period are manifestly excessive in the light of:

(a) the circumstances of the offence, in particular the low level of objective culpability in the range of circumstances comprehended by the offence;

(b) the guilty plea;

(c) the applicant’s youth, vulnerability in custody, immediate and substantial remorse, and previous excellent character and contributions to the community; and

(d) the unacceptable and onerous delay which occurred in finalisation of the prosecution.

The circumstances of the offence itself were as follows.

The applicant was driving a motor car which struck and killed a cyclist at around 11:00 am on 7 April 2011. The collision occurred on a straight stretch of road just outside Warrnambool. The road is a carriageway with a single lane in each direction. The speed limit is 100 kilometres per hour. The weather was fine and

visibility was good. Approximately 480 metres before the collision there was a large sign warning of the presence of cyclists on the road. The deceased was a 47‑year‑old mother of four who was an experienced cyclist. She was wearing a pink high visibility top. After the collision, the applicant and his passenger performed CPR on the deceased but she had been killed instantly.

The applicant’s passenger later told police that the cyclist had been travelling about 30 centimetres from the left kerb and that she had seen her from several hundred metres away.

The applicant spoke to the police at the scene and was formally interviewed three hours after the collision. He told the police that he had seen the sign warning of cyclists on the road and…

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 Leddin v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Leddin v The Queen [2014] VSCA 155
Case: [2014] VSCA 155
Decision Date: 22 July 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Leddin v The Queen, the respondent appealed against his sentence for culpable driving causing death. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant, Leddin, had been found guilty of driving a vehicle in a manner dangerous to the public, causing the death of a pedestrian. The dispute centred on the severity of the sentence imposed, which was four years and three months in prison, with a non-parole period of two years and three months. Leddin argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive, particularly considering his young age and otherwise good character.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was manifestly excessive. The court needed to determine if the sentence was disproportionate to the offence and whether it took into account all relevant mitigating factors, including Leddin's age and lack of prior criminal history. The court also considered whether the sentence appropriately balanced the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. While Leddin was a young offender with no prior criminal history, the court acknowledged that the absence of typical features of culpable driving did not negate the gravity of the offence. The court emphasised the importance of deterrence and the need to send a strong message about the consequences of dangerous driving. The sentence imposed was considered proportionate to the crime, and the non-parole period was deemed appropriate to achieve the objectives of punishment and deterrence. Consequently, the court refused leave to appeal.

The High Court upheld the sentence imposed by the lower court, and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders