Legal Research
Cases
Paulson v The King

Paulson v The King

Case [2024] VSCA 188 30 August 2024

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA COURT OF APPEAL
S EAPCR 2023 0098
AMALA PAULSON	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	PRIEST, NIALL and ORR JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	25 July 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	30 August 2024
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSCA 188
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2023] VCC 703 (Judge Moglia)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Whether verdicts of guilt unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to evidence – Verdict in relation to dangerous driving causing death not unreasonable – Defence theory that cyclist swerved at last minute purely speculative – Verdicts unsafe in relation to failing to stop and render assistance after motor vehicle accident – Insufficient evidence to establish that applicant should have known that collision had occurred – Verdicts set aside and acquittals entered on those charges.

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Applicant sentenced to 2 years and 5 months’ imprisonment on charge of dangerous driving causing death – Error in sentence for dangerous driving causing death as a result of relationship to other charges – Applicant re-sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 14 months – Applicant disqualified from obtaining driver licence or permit for 2 years.

Road Safety Act 1986, s 61; Sentencing Act 1991, ss 5(2H), 5(2HC).

Georgiou v The Queen (2022) 301 A Crim R 229; M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308, considered.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr DA Dann KC with Mr CF Thomson
Respondent:		Mr JCJ McWilliams
Solicitors
Applicant:	James Dowsley & Associates
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

PRIEST JA
NIALL JA
ORR JA:

On 1 March 2023, the applicant, now aged 36 years,[1] was convicted by a jury in the County Court sitting at Horsham, of one charge of dangerous driving causing death,[2] one charge of failing to stop after a motor vehicle accident,[3] and one charge of failing to render assistance after a motor vehicle accident.[4]
[1]Her date of birth is 5 December 1987.
[2]Crimes Act 1958, s 319(1).
[3]Road Safety Act 1986, s 61(1)(a), (3).
[4]Ibid s 61(1)(b), (3).
The applicant was sentenced as follows:

Charge on Indictment	Offence	Max Penalty	Sentence	Cumulation
1	Dangerous driving causing death	10 years’ imprisonment	2 years and 5 months’ imprisonment	Base
2	Failing to stop after motor vehicle accident	1200 penalty units or 10 years’ imprisonment	1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment	11 months
3	Failing to render assistance after motor vehicle accident	1200 penalty units or 10 years’ imprisonment	1 year imprisonment	Nil
Total Effective Sentence:		3 years and 4 months’ imprisonment
Non-Parole Period:		1 year and 8 months
Section 6AAA Statement:		Not applicable
Other Relevant Orders: 1. Cancellation of all Victorian licences and/or permits. 2. Disqualification from obtaining such licences or permits for 4 years.

We note that dangerous driving causing death is a ‘category 2 offence’.[5] Accordingly, s 5(2H) of the Sentencing Act1991 provides that a…

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 Paulson v The King

Details

AGLC: Paulson v The King [2024] VSCA 188
Case: [2024] VSCA 188
Decision Date: 30 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Paulson v The King, the appeal centred on the applicant's conviction and sentence for dangerous driving causing death, as well as failing to stop and render assistance after a motor vehicle accident. The applicant contested the verdicts, arguing that they were unreasonable and not supported by the evidence, as well as the appropriateness of the sentence imposed. The case was heard and determined by the relevant court of appeal in Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the verdicts of guilt were unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence presented. Specifically, the court had to consider if the verdict in relation to dangerous driving causing death was unreasonable, as well as whether the verdict in relation to failing to stop and render assistance after a motor vehicle accident was unsafe. The applicant argued that the defence theory that the cyclist swerved at the last minute was purely speculative, and there was insufficient evidence to establish that the applicant should have known that a collision had occurred.

After considering the evidence and the arguments presented, the court found that the verdict in relation to dangerous driving causing death was not unreasonable, as the defence theory that the cyclist swerved at the last minute was speculative and not supported by the evidence. However, the court determined that the verdict in relation to failing to stop and render assistance after a motor vehicle accident was unsafe, as there was insufficient evidence to establish that the applicant should have known that a collision had occurred. Consequently, the verdicts were set aside, and acquittals were entered on those charges. Furthermore, the court identified an error in the sentence for dangerous driving causing death due to its relationship to other charges. As a result, the applicant was re-sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14 months, and disqualified from obtaining a driver licence or permit for 2 years.

In summary, the court found that the verdict in relation to dangerous driving causing death was not unreasonable, but the verdict in relation to failing to stop and render assistance after a motor vehicle accident was unsafe. The applicant's sentence was also adjusted due to an error identified by the court. The final orders of the court included setting aside the original verdicts, entering acquittals on certain charges, and re-sentencing the applicant.

Orders