R v Rees - [2005] VSCA 25

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 247 of 2002

THE QUEEN
	v.
STEPHEN NORMAN REES

---

JUDGES:	WINNEKE, P., CHARLES and CHERNOV, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	3 February 2005
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	3 February 2005
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSCA 25

---

Criminal Law - Sentence - Applicant convicted of culpable driving causing two deaths and negligent driving causing serious injury to two persons - Head-on collision after erratic driving and dangerous overtaking manoeuvre - Sentence of 7 years' imprisonment on each of the counts causing death not manifestly excessive - Total effective sentence of 10 years and 6 months' imprisonment not manifestly excessive - Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J.D. McArdle, Q.C. with Mr K.G. Gilligan	Ms K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr L.C. Carter	Victoria Legal Aid Morwell

WINNEKE, P.:

I will invite Chernov, J.A. to give the first judgment in this application.

CHERNOV, J.A.:

On 27 May 2002, following an eleven-day trial during which 32 Crown witnesses were called and cross-examined by counsel for the applicant, Stephen Norman Rees ("the applicant"), who is now aged 42, the applicant was convicted by the jury of two counts of culpable driving causing death (counts 1 and 2) and two counts of negligent driving causing serious injury (counts 3 and 4). The maximum penalty for culpable driving causing death is 20 years' imprisonment and for negligent driving causing serious injury, five years' imprisonment. The applicant admitted 37 prior convictions from 13 court appearances between August 1985 and January 2000. These convictions related, in the main, to drug related charges and assaults. Save for a conviction in 1985 for driving a motor vehicle in a careless manner, the applicant has held an unblemished driving record for a period of 22 years.

After hearing a plea in mitigation made by counsel for the applicant, the learned judge imposed, on 4 October 2002, the following sentences of imprisonment: on each count of culpable driving, seven years, and on counts 3 and 4, two years and one year respectively. His Honour directed that three years of the sentence imposed on count 2 and six months of that imposed on count 3 be served cumulatively with the sentence imposed on count 1 and each other, thus making a total effective sentence of ten years and six months' imprisonment. His Honour ordered that the applicant serve a minimum term of seven years and four months' imprisonment before becoming eligible for parole. He further ordered that the applicant's driver's licence be cancelled and that he be disqualified from obtaining a licence for a period of nine years and six months from the date of sentence.

On 8 October 2002 the applicant filed Notices of Application for Leave to Appeal against conviction and sentence. He later abandoned his appeal against conviction and, on 30 July 2004, his application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused by Ormiston,…

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 Rees

Details

AGLC: R v Rees [2005] VSCA 25
Case: [2005] VSCA 25
Decision Date: 3 February 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent was convicted of multiple offences of driving in a manner that was dangerous to the public, resulting in serious injuries and fatalities. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal, where the applicant sought to appeal against the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the sentence imposed on the respondent for culpable driving, causing two deaths and negligent driving causing serious injury to two other persons, was manifestly excessive.

The Court considered the nature and circumstances of the offences, which involved a head-on collision due to the respondent's erratic driving and dangerous overtaking manoeuvre. The Court held that the sentence of seven years' imprisonment on each of the counts for causing death was not manifestly excessive, given the severity of the respondent's actions. The total effective sentence of 10 years and six months' imprisonment was also found to be not manifestly excessive, as it reflected the gravity of the respondent's conduct and the impact on the victims and their families. The Court ultimately dismissed the application for leave to appeal against the sentence.

Orders