R v Kennedy - [2006] VSCA 77

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 183 of 2005

THE QUEEN
	v.
WAYNE GEOFFREY KENNEDY

---

JUDGES:	BUCHANAN, VINCENT and NEAVE, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	5 April 2006
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	5 April 2006
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSCA 77

---

Criminal law – Culpable driving – Alcohol and excessive speed – Father caused death of one son and serious injury to another – Sentence of nine years’ imprisonment with a minimum term of seven years’ imprisonment not manifestly excessive.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J.D. McArdle, Q.C.	Mr S. Carisbrooke, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant	Mr O.P. Holdenson, Q.C.	Galbally Rolfe

BUCHANAN, J.A.:

In the evening of Sunday 18 January 2004 the appellant drove his Holden Commodore station wagon down the Heyfield-Seaton Road, a narrow country road. Seated in the front passenger seat was his son Jyden, aged six years. In the rear seat was his other son, Brady, aged four years. The appellant was separated from his wife and had weekend access to his children. The appellant drove at a speed of at least 136 kilometres per hour. The speed limit was 100 kilometres per hour. The appellant was affected by alcohol. He had been drinking with friends at his house outside Cowwarr. When the appellant's friends left, he drove with his sons to a hotel in town and consumed two pots of beer.

The left-hand wheels of the appellant's car drifted off the bitumen to the gravel shoulder. The car went out of control, spun across the road, hit an embankment, became airborne and rolled over. The appellant's elder son was killed, trapped in the smashed car. His other son was thrown onto the road, suffering serious head and chest injuries. His treating doctor has said that he believes that Brady will make a complete physical recovery from these injuries, but will suffer significant psychological trauma from the death of his sibling.

The appellant was breathalysed at the scene of the accident, recording a blood alcohol concentration of 0.171 per cent. An analysis of the appellant's blood more than two hours later disclosed a blood alcohol concentration of .175 per cent.

The appellant was arraigned in the County Court and pleaded guilty to a presentment containing one count of culpable driving and one count of negligently causing serious injury. He also pleaded guilty to a summary charge of driving while his blood contained a concentration of alcohol in excess of the prescribed limit. After a plea the appellant was sentenced to be imprisoned for a term of eight years on the count of culpable driving and to a term of two years on the count of negligently causing injury. One year of the sentence imposed in respect of the latter count was ordered to be served cumulatively on the sentence imposed on the first count, producing a total effective sentence of nine years' imprisonment. The sentencing judge fixed a minimum term of seven years before the…

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 Kennedy

Details

AGLC: R v Kennedy [2006] VSCA 77
Case: [2006] VSCA 77
Decision Date: 5 April 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Kennedy, the High Court of Australia was called upon to review the sentence handed down to the defendant, Kennedy, by the lower courts. Kennedy had been found guilty of culpable driving, having caused the death of one of his sons and serious injuries to another while under the influence of alcohol and driving at excessive speed. The case came before the High Court on an appeal against the sentence imposed, which was nine years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of seven years. The central issue before the Court was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, taking into account the gravity of the offence and the circumstances in which it was committed.

The Court considered the principles of sentencing for culpable driving, emphasising the need to balance the interests of society, the deterrence of such conduct, and the need for proportionality and mercy. In assessing the sentence, the Court took into account the devastating consequences of Kennedy's actions, the loss of life and severe injury to his own children, and the impact on the victims' family. The Court also considered the degree of culpability, the degree of intoxication, and the excessive speed at which Kennedy was driving at the time of the incident.

After careful consideration, the Court found that the sentence of nine years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of seven years was not manifestly excessive. The Court held that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offence and appropriately balanced the competing principles of sentencing. The Court also noted the unique and tragic circumstances of the case, including the familial relationship between the offender and the victims. Consequently, the appeal against the sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

No additional orders were made by the Court beyond the dismissal of the appeal and the upholding of the original sentence. The High Court's decision in this case underscores the importance of proportionality and mercy in sentencing for culpable driving, while also acknowledging the severe consequences of such offences.

Orders