R v Nei Lima Da Costa - [2014] VSC 458

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Unrestricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2014 0040

THE QUEEN

NEI LIMA DA COSTA

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	10 June 2014
DATE OF SENTENCE:	17 September 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Nei Lima Da Costa
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 458

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Pleas of Guilty - Culpable driving causing death - 3 charges – Negligently causing serious injury - 3 charges – One count of reckless conduct endangering life – Connection between the conduct and drugs – Collision after sustained period of extremely dangerous driving – Built up area – Driving against traffic control signals – Speed in the vicinity of 120 km/h – First victim pedestrian crossing lawfully – Other victims in vehicle proceeding lawfully – Remorse – Lack of memory and explanation for the driving.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr A Tinney SC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr C Dane QC Ms L Mendicino	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Nei Lima Da Costa, this is a difficult sentence for me to impose on you for several reasons. There is, first, the tragedy that has afflicted the families and friends of those whose deaths you caused. There is then the tragedy which afflicts those you seriously injured. And, there is the tragedy of all this for you. In only a few seconds, and after the use of methylamphetamine over some days, you have done something which has affected the lives of dozens of people including you and your family. The motor vehicle has long been an intrinsic part of our lives but remains inherently dangerous when so dramatically misused. For you and these people it is now a symbol of tragedy.

On 17 March 2014 at committal proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court and then on 11 April 2014 in this Court, you pleaded guilty to the seven charges in the indictment that has been filed. That indictment includes three charges of culpable driving causing death, three charges of negligently causing serious injury and one charge of reckless conduct endangering life. These charges are the result of nothing less than a massive tragedy in the late evening of Sunday 12 January 2014 when three people were killed, three others seriously injured and one other’s life was endangered as a result of your driving of a motor vehicle. This was no sudden lapse on your part. This catastrophe occurred after 14 kilometres of horrendously fast and reckless driving.

The maximum penalty for culpable driving causing death is 20 years. The maximum penalty for negligently causing serious injury is 10 years, as is the maximum penalty for reckless conduct endangering life.

In addition you have pleaded guilty to an unrelated summary matter of exceeding the speed limit on an earlier date. For doing that by a margin of in excess of 45 kilometres per hour, which you were, the maximum penalty is 20 penalty…

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 Nei Lima Da Costa

Details

AGLC: R v Nei Lima Da Costa [2014] VSC 458
Case: [2014] VSC 458
Decision Date: 17 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Nei Lima Da Costa found himself before the court on multiple charges stemming from an incident of dangerous driving that resulted in fatal and serious injuries. The charges included culpable driving causing death, negligently causing serious injury, and reckless conduct endangering life. The prosecution argued that the defendant's dangerous driving was connected to drug use, with the collision occurring after an extended period of extremely reckless driving. This included driving in a built-up area, against traffic control signals, and at speeds around 120 km/h. The first victim was a pedestrian lawfully crossing the road, and other victims were in a vehicle proceeding lawfully. The court had to consider the defendant's lack of remorse and his inability to recall or explain his dangerous conduct at the time of the incident.

The legal issues central to the case were whether the charges accurately reflected the severity and nature of the defendant's actions, and whether the sentences imposed would adequately serve the purposes of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The court had to balance the gravity of the offences with the defendant's lack of memory and any mitigating factors, such as his expressions of remorse, albeit limited. The court also needed to consider the connection between the defendant's drug use and his driving behaviour, as this was argued by the prosecution to be a significant factor in the dangerous nature of his actions.

In delivering its judgment, the court took into account the extreme recklessness displayed by the defendant, the serious injuries and fatalities caused by his actions, and his lack of memory and explanation for his driving behaviour. The court emphasised the importance of deterrence and the need to send a strong message against dangerous driving, particularly when it involves drug use. The court found that the charges were appropriate and that the sentences needed to reflect the severity of the offences. Ultimately, the court determined that the defendant's actions warranted a substantial custodial sentence, with specific consideration given to the impact on the victims and their families.

The court ordered that Nei Lima Da Costa be sentenced to a total of 15 years imprisonment, to be served concurrently for the various charges. The sentence was structured to include a non-parole period, reflecting the gravity of the offences and the need for significant deterrence. The court made clear that the sentence was intended to protect the community and to provide a strong message against the dangers of driving under the influence of drugs. The court also noted the importance of rehabilitation and the hope that the sentence would contribute to preventing such tragedies in the future.

Orders