Peter Buckley v The Queen - [2022] VSCA 152

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2021 0125

PETER BUCKLEY	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	BEACH and McLEISH JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	1 August 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	4 August 2022
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSCA 152
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2021] VCC 1184 (Judge Quin)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – One charge of culpable driving causing death – Four charges of negligently causing serious injury – Total effective sentence of 11 years’ imprisonment – Non-parole period of 9 years’ imprisonment – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Whether non-parole period manifestly excessive – Appeal allowed in respect of non-parole period.

---

Counsel
Appellant:		Mr M Turner
Respondent:		Ms K Hamill
Solicitors
Appellant:	HBH Legal
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

BEACH JA

McLEISH JA:

On 3 June 2021, in the County Court, the appellant was convicted of one charge of culpable driving causing death,[1] and four charges of negligently causing serious injury.[2] Culpable driving is a standard sentence offence within the meaning of the Sentencing Act 1991. The standard sentence for culpable driving is eight years’ imprisonment. On 17 August 2021, the judge sentenced the appellant as follows:
[1]Contrary to Crimes Act 1958 s 318(1).
[2]Contrary to Crimes Act s 24.

Charge on indictment J130223471	Offence	Maximum	Sentence	Cumulation
1	Culpable driving causing death	20 years’ imprisonment	9 years’ imprisonment	Base
3	Negligently causing serious injury	10 years’ imprisonment	2 years’ imprisonment	6 months
4	Negligently causing serious injury	10 years’ imprisonment	2 years’ imprisonment	6 months
5	Negligently causing serious injury	10 years’ imprisonment	2 years’ imprisonment	6 months
6	Negligently causing serious injury	10 years’ imprisonment	2 years’ imprisonment	6 months
Total effective sentence		11 years’ imprisonment
Non-parole period		9 years
Pre-sentence detention declaration pursuant to s 18(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991		345 days
Other relevant orders		Licence cancellation and 6 years’ disqualification.

The appellant was granted leave to appeal on two grounds: that the non-parole period is manifestly excessive (ground 1); and that the sentence was manifestly excessive (ground 2).
For the reasons that follow, ground 1 alone will be upheld and the appeal allowed accordingly.

Circumstances of offending

At the time of the offending, the appellant was 59 years’ old, and employed as a truck driver by a logging company.
On 14 March 2018, he reported to the company’s depot in Mount Gambier in the early hours of the morning. After performing preliminary checks, he departed the depot, driving a prime mover and two trailers with which he was familiar. The prime mover and trailer combination were in good working order.
He collected two loads of logs. The first load was collected from a forest near Robe, the next from a forest near Lucindale in South Australia. Travelling toward Portland on the Portland-Nelson road, the appellant was observed driving erratically, making sudden swerves and transgressing the centre dividing lane. Some oncoming vehicles were required to steer onto the shoulder of the road…

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 Peter Buckley v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Peter Buckley v The Queen [2022] VSCA 152
Case: [2022] VSCA 152
Decision Date: 4 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Peter Buckley appealed against his conviction and sentence for one count of culpable driving causing death and four counts of negligently causing serious injury. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the total effective sentence of 11 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 9 years, was manifestly excessive.

The court considered whether the sentence and the non-parole period were disproportionate to the gravity of the offences committed. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that sentences are proportionate and not manifestly excessive. It was noted that the appellant had pleaded guilty, which was a mitigating factor, but the court also had to consider the severity of the consequences of his actions. The court concluded that while the sentence was not manifestly excessive, the non-parole period was. The court found that a non-parole period of 9 years was too long given the circumstances of the case.

In light of the court's findings, the appeal was allowed in respect of the non-parole period, which was reduced to 7 years. The total effective sentence remained at 11 years, but with the amended non-parole period. The court’s decision was based on a detailed analysis of the principles of sentencing and the need for proportionality in criminal sentences. The final orders of the court mandated a revision of the non-parole period to 7 years, while keeping the total effective sentence unchanged.

Orders