Pershouse v The King - [2025] VSCA 189

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2024 0079

MICHAEL PERSHOUSE	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	NIALL CJ and PRIEST JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	4 August 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	25 August 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 189
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2024] VCC 397 (Judge Todd)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Two charges of dangerous driving causing serious injury – Total effective sentence 3 years 2 months – Non-parole period 2 years 1 month – Applicant serving sentences for additional offending – Deprived background – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Whether principle of totality infringed – Leave to appeal refused.

Bugmy v R (2013) 249 CLR 571; Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59; Morgan v The Queen [2013] VSCA 33.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		In person
Respondent:		Mr J O’Connor
Solicitors
Applicant:	N/A
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

NIALL CJ
PRIEST JA:

On 22 March 2024, the applicant pleaded guilty in the County Court to two charges of dangerous driving causing serious injury and three related summary offences.[1] On 27 March 2024 he was sentenced as follows:
[1]DPP v Pershouse [2024] VCC 397, [1] (‘Reasons’).

Charge on Indictment	Offence	Max Penalty	Sentence	Cumulation
1	Dangerous driving causing serious injury[2]	5 years’	27 months’	Base
2	Dangerous driving causing serious injury[3]	5 years’	27 months’	9 months’
Related Summary Offences
5	Failing a drug test within three hours of driving[4]	120 penalty units	Fined $400	N/A
6	Driving while disqualified[5]	30 penalty units or 4 months’ imprisonment	2 months’ imprisonment	1 month
8	Contravening a family violence intervention order[6]	240 penalty units and 2 years’ imprisonment	3 months’ imprisonment	1 month
Total Effective Sentence:		3 years 2 months’ imprisonment to be served concurrently with an earlier sentence then being served
Non-Parole Period:		2 years 1 month
Pre-sentence Detention Declared:		Nil.
Section 6AAA Statement:		Total Effective Sentence 4 years 6 months Non Parole-Period 2 years 9 months
Other Relevant Orders: 1. All Victorian licences and/or permits held by the offender be cancelled and that the offender be disqualified from obtaining any such licence or permit for a period of 24 month/s from 27 March 2024. 2. Pursuant to s 89C of the Sentencing Act 1991, the court finds that the offence was committed while MICHAEL PERSHOUSE was under the influence of a drug, which contributed to the offence.

[2]Contrary to s 319(1A) of the Crimes Act 1958.

[3]Ibid.

[4]Contrary to s 49(1)(i) of the Road Safety Act 1986.

[5]Contrary to s 30(1) of the Road Safety Act 1986.

[6]Contrary to s 123(2) of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008.

The applicant, who is unrepresented, seeks leave to appeal on the ground that the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was manifestly excessive.

Circumstances of the offending

On 10 June 2018, the applicant was driving on Dandenong Road in Murrumbeena.[7] There were four passengers in the vehicle: one…

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 Pershouse v The King

Details

AGLC: Pershouse v The King [2025] VSCA 189
Case: [2025] VSCA 189
Decision Date: 25 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Pershouse v The King, the applicant appealed against his sentence for two charges of dangerous driving causing serious injury, which resulted in a total effective sentence of three years and two months, with a non-parole period of two years and one month. The applicant, already serving sentences for additional offences, argued that his sentence was manifestly excessive and that the principle of totality was infringed. The court had to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the principle of totality was correctly applied.

The legal issues revolved around the severity of the sentence in relation to the principle of totality, which requires that the combined sentence for multiple offences should not be excessive compared to the severity of the individual offences. The applicant's argument centred on his deprived background, which he claimed should be taken into account when assessing the appropriateness of the sentence. The court considered the principle of totality and the role of background circumstances in sentencing.

The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the principle of totality was correctly applied. The court noted that the principle of totality does not demand exact proportionality between the sentences for multiple offences but rather ensures that the combined sentence is not disproportionately severe. Given the nature and seriousness of the offences, the court held that the sentence was appropriate. The court also acknowledged the applicant's deprived background but found that it did not warrant a different outcome in this case. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed and that leave to appeal be refused.

Orders