R v Eades - [2001] VSC 407

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1445 of 2001

THE QUEEN

TRAVIS WILLIAM EADES

---

JUDGE:	COLDREY, J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF SENTENCE:	5 SEPTEMBER 2001
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R. v. EADES
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSC 407

---

CATCHWORDS: Sentence – Plea of guilty to culpable driving – Offender deliberately drove into victim knocking him to the roadway – Subsequently the offender reversed over the body of the injured victim before leaving the scene without stopping – The second episode of driving which caused death, constituted a serious case of reckless driving – Offender's prior convictions including dangerous driving – Limited remorse but failure to fully accept responsibility – Need for specific and general deterrence – Sentenced to 10 years with a non-parole period of 7 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Prosecution	Mr. Morgan-Payler Q.C.	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr. C. Dane	Cole & Magazis

HIS HONOUR:

Travis William Eades, you have pleaded guilty to the culpable driving of a motor vehicle causing the death of Peter Hess at Glen Iris on 13 August 2000. The form of culpable driving to which you have pleaded guilty is that you drove your motor vehicle recklessly. The law is that a person drives a motor vehicle recklessly "if he consciously and unjustifiably disregards a substantial risk that the death of another person or the infliction of grievous bodily harm upon another person may result from his driving".

It is necessary to briefly outline the circumstances surrounding the commission of this offence since they are relevant to the sentence which I must impose upon you.

On the evening of 1 August 2000 about 8.30 p.m. the deceased, Peter Hess, and a work colleague, Peter Gray, were driving in a truck with a trailer along the Monash Freeway. They were travelling to a work site in Preston in the course of their occupation of preparing and installing pipes and hydrants. After a tyre retread detached itself from the inside tire on the rear near side of the vehicle, it was decided to leave the freeway in order to change the wheel.

The truck was driven to the carpark of the Gardiner Railway Station which was quiet, virtually unoccupied, and well lit. The two men were in the process of changing the tire when, according to Mr Gray, he became aware of the presence of a man standing in front of a four-wheel drive vehicle which was facing towards the parked truck. The man walked towards Mr Gray and Mr Hess yelling abuse, such as, "What are you cunts doing here?" that man was you. You were addressing men with whom you had never had any previous contact. Mr Gray describes you as having rage on your face and shaking with anger.

On its face your demeanour and conduct was both inexplicable and bizarre. Subsequent to the events of this evening you declined to give any explanation…

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 R v Eades

Details

AGLC: R v Eades [2001] VSC 407
Case: [2001] VSC 407
Decision Date: 5 September 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Eades, the defendant was charged with culpable driving leading to the death of the victim. Eades deliberately drove into the victim, knocking them onto the roadway, and then reversed over the victim's body before fleeing the scene. This incident was the second instance of reckless driving by Eades, who had previous convictions for dangerous driving. While Eades exhibited some remorse, they did not fully accept responsibility for their actions.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Eades's actions, taking into account the gravity of the offence, the need for specific and general deterrence, and Eades's prior criminal history. The court recognised the severity of Eades's actions, including the deliberate nature of the assault and the failure to stop and render aid. The court also considered Eades's limited acceptance of responsibility and the necessity of deterring not only Eades but also the broader community from engaging in such reckless behaviour.

After careful deliberation, the court sentenced Eades to 10 years in prison with a non-parole period of 7 years. The court emphasised the importance of both specific and general deterrence in its decision. The sentence reflected the gravity of the offence and the need to protect the community from further harm caused by Eades. The court also considered Eades's prior convictions and the limited remorse shown, which contributed to the length of the sentence.

Orders