Matthew Jaeger v The Queen - [2020] VSCA 116

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2019 0090

MATTHEW JAEGER	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	PRIEST AND BEACH JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	11 May 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	11 May 2020
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSCA 116
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Jaeger [2019] VCC 526 (Judge Hannan)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Aggravated offence of intentionally exposing emergency worker to risk by driving and theft – Stolen vehicle used to ram police car – Plea of guilty – Total effective sentence of five years and four months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of four years and one month – Whether judge erred by not treating fact that offending caused by drug addiction as mitigating – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Leave to appeal refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr M Reardon	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Respondent	Ms E Ruddle	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

PRIEST JA
BEACH JA:

Charges, sentence and grounds of appeal

On 9 April 2019, the applicant pleaded guilty in the County Court to theft[1] (two charges — charges 1 and 2) and to the aggravated offence of intentionally exposing an emergency worker to risk by driving[2] (charge 3). He also pleaded guilty to the related summary offences of exceeding the speed limit where a speed limit sign applies[3] (summary charge 19) and failure to render assistance after an accident[4] (summary charge 21).
[1]Crimes Act 1958, s 74. The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment.
[2]Crimes Act 1958, s 317AD(1)(a). The maximum penalty is 20 years’ imprisonment.
[3]Road Safety Road Rules 2017, r 20. The maximum penalty is 10 penalty units.
[4]Road Safety Act 1986, s 61(4)(b). The maximum penalty for a first offence is not more than 80 penalty units or imprisonment for not more than 8 months; and for a subsequent offence, a penalty of not more than 240 penalty units or imprisonment for a term of not less than 4 months and not more than 2 years.

Following a plea, on 12 April 2019 the judge sentenced the applicant to be imprisoned for five years and four months, with a non-parole period of four years and one month, in accordance with the following table:

Charge Offence Sentence Cumulation

Charges on Indictment

1 Theft 12 months 4 months

2 Theft 2 months —

3 Aggravated offence of intentionally exposing an emergency worker to risk by driving 5 years Base

Related summary offences

19 Exceed speed limit where a speed limit sign
applies Aggregate fine of $1,000 —

21 Failure to render assistance following an accident —

Total Effective Sentence 5 years and 4 months’ imprisonment

Non-Parole Period 4 years and 1 month

Pre-Sentence detention 262 days

Section 6AAA Statement 6 years and 6 months’ imprisonment with 4 years and 3 months non-parole

Other orders Licence cancelled and disqualified for 4 years; forfeiture

Charge	Offence	Sentence	Cumulation
1	Theft	12 months	4 months
2	Theft	2 months	—
3	Aggravated offence of intentionally exposing an emergency worker to risk by driving	5 years	Base
Related summary offences
19	Exceed speed limit where a speed limit sign applies	Aggregate fine of $1,000	—
21	Failure to render assistance following an accident	—
Total Effective Sentence	5 years and 4 months’ imprisonment
Non-Parole Period	4 years and 1 month
Pre-Sentence detention	262 days
Section 6AAA Statement	6 years and 6 months’ imprisonment with 4 years and 3 months non-parole
Other orders	Licence cancelled and disqualified for 4 years; forfeiture

The applicant now seeks leave to appeal on…

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 Matthew Jaeger v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Matthew Jaeger v The Queen [2020] VSCA 116
Case: [2020] VSCA 116
Decision Date: 11 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Matthew Jaeger appealed against his sentence for the aggravated offence of intentionally exposing an emergency worker to risk by driving and theft, as well as the offence of theft itself. The incident involved the accused driving a stolen vehicle and ramming it into a police car. Jaeger had pleaded guilty to both charges. The primary legal issues were whether the judge had erred by not considering the accused's drug addiction as a mitigating factor and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The appeal against sentence was heard in the High Court of Australia, which reviewed the trial judge's decision.

The High Court considered whether the trial judge had failed to properly account for the mitigating factor of the accused's drug addiction when determining the sentence. The court noted that the trial judge had taken into account the accused's drug addiction but did not consider it to be a significant mitigating factor. The High Court held that the trial judge had not erred in this regard, as the mitigating factor had already been considered in the context of the accused's overall circumstances. Regarding the second issue, the High Court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, given the seriousness of the offences and the need to protect the community.

After considering the arguments presented, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The Court found that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was appropriate, taking into account all relevant factors, including the accused's drug addiction. The High Court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and did not constitute an error of law. Consequently, the accused's appeal against sentence was unsuccessful, and the original sentence stood.

Orders