Peters v The Queen - [2013] VSCA 222

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2013 0047

JAMES PETERS
	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL P, OSBORN JA and HARGRAVE AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	16 August 2013
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	16 August 2013
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSCA 222
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	R v Peters [2013] VSC 93 (T Forrest J)

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Appeal — Sentence — Negligently causing serious injury — 55 counts — 55 victims — 14 years’ imprisonment — Non-parole period 10 years— Offender was medical practitioner who infected patients with Hepatitis C — Breach of trust — Offender addicted to narcotics — Appropriateness of orders for cumulation where multiple victims — Totality — Whether sentence disproportionate to total criminality — Stage at which offender became aware of injury irrelevant — No breach of principle of totality — Not manifestly excessive — Application for leave to appeal refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr J Dickinson SC	Slades & Parsons
For the Respondent	Mr G Silbert QC	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

MAXWELL P:

The applicant, James Peters, pleaded guilty to 55 charges of negligently causing serious injury. He was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment on each of those charges. The sentencing judge, T Forrest J, ordered that there be cumulated, on the base sentence of five years on Count 1, two months’ imprisonment for each of the subsequent 54 charges. That produced a total effective sentence of 14 years. A non‑parole period of ten years was fixed.

Dr Peters now seeks leave to appeal against that sentence. For reasons which follow, I consider that none of the grounds advanced is reasonably arguable and I would therefore refuse leave to appeal.

The circumstances of the offending are clearly described in his Honour’s careful reasons. Those reasons are publicly available and it is unnecessary for the purposes of this application to repeat what his Honour said about the circumstances. It is necessary, however, to set out the following passage from his Honour’s reasons, which deals with the particular characteristics of the offending and the degree of culpable negligence involved:

The offending

On 55 occasions you injected yourself with Fentanyl using the same syringe that was subsequently used to supply Fentanyl to your patients. The prosecution summary, amended on this aspect by your counsel, reads as follows:

As a medical practitioner and specialist anaesthetist he well knew the risks of transmission by injecting himself with Fentanyl and proceeding to use the syringe for his patients.

I accept that you would remove a Fentanyl syringe from the theatre, take it to a private place, attach a needle and inject yourself. On the 55 occasions that are the subject of these proceedings, you must have used the same syringe on your patients. There is simply no other explanation for their infection.

Your counsel maintained, no doubt upon instructions, that you would intend to substitute the used syringe with a clean syringe either with another drug or…

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 Peters v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Peters v The Queen [2013] VSCA 222
Case: [2013] VSCA 222
Decision Date: 16 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Peters v The Queen, the respondent, a medical practitioner, was convicted for negligently causing serious injury to 55 patients, all of whom contracted Hepatitis C as a result of his actions. The respondent, who was addicted to narcotics, breached his professional duties and trust, leading to widespread harm. The High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the sentence imposed on the respondent, specifically the 14-year imprisonment term with a non-parole period of 10 years. The central legal issue was whether the sentence was appropriate and proportionate to the gravity of the respondent's crimes. The court had to consider the cumulative effect of the 55 counts and the impact of the breach of trust by a medical practitioner on the appropriate sentence.

The court considered the principles of totality and proportionality in sentencing, ensuring that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the crimes while also avoiding manifest excessiveness. It was noted that the respondent’s addiction to narcotics and his professional status as a medical practitioner exacerbated the breach of trust. The court also held that the stage at which the respondent became aware of the harm caused was irrelevant for the purposes of sentencing. The court concluded that the sentence was not disproportionate to the total criminality and did not breach the principle of totality. The court found that the sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor disproportionate, and therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

Ultimately, the High Court upheld the sentence, confirming that the 14-year term with a non-parole period of 10 years was appropriate given the circumstances. The court ruled that the sentence was proportionate to the respondent's conduct, considering the multiple victims and the significant breach of trust involved. The application for leave to appeal was refused, and the original sentence was affirmed.

Orders