R v Sahhitanandan - [2018] VSC 550

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2017 0266

THE QUEEN

MAIROWN SAHHITANANDAN

---

JUDGE:	CHAMPION J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	18 July 2018
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	18 September 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Sahhitanandan
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSC 550

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Dangerous driving causing serious injury – Victim sustained significant and enduring injuries – Mid to upper level of seriousness of offence of dangerous driving causing serious injury – Guilty plea – General deterrence, denunciation and punishment – Specific deterrence and protection of the community – Time spent in immigration detention – Pre-sentence detention – Deportation – Total effective sentence of two years and four months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of one year and six months.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M Gibson SC Mr N Hutton	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr M Dempsey	Stary Norton Halphen

HIS HONOUR:

Mairown Sahhitanandan, on 15 May 2018, you pleaded guilty to one charge of driving a motor vehicle in a manner that was dangerous to the public, by which you caused serious injury to Katherine Sweeney, on 25 October 2016. The maximum penalty for committing this offence is five years’ imprisonment.

Circumstances of offending

At the time of your offending, you were 35 years of age and Ms Sweeney was aged 37.

In the early evening of 25 October 2016, Ms Sweeney and a second female complainant (‘the second complainant’), who was 14 years of age, were outside the Coles supermarket on Princes Highway in Dandenong. They approached a white 2006 Toyota Hiace van, which you owned but were not driving at that time. It was being driven by Mr Kandipan who was a friend of yours. You had been disqualified from driving in February 2016.

The two women spoke to you and Mr Kandipan. After some conversation, you all decided go for a drink together. You and Mr Kandipan went to the supermarket to purchase alcohol. With Mr Kandipan driving, the four of you then drove to a parkland area at the corner of Alsace Street and Alexander Avenue in Dandenong West. Shortly after arriving, you and the second complainant went into the parkland area [redacted]. At one point, the second complainant gave you her mobile telephone number, and you used your phone to call that number to check if it was correct. Police later observed a missed call from your telephone number on her phone.

[Redacted]

While you and the second complainant were in the park, Mr Kandipan called his friend, Iruthaythasab Amalautpavan, also known as ‘Temcy’. Mr Kandipan drove with Ms Sweeney to a nearby service station where he met up with Mr Amalautpavan, who was driving a Toyota Camry sedan. They returned in both vehicles to the park location, and parked near each other. Your van was parked with its front facing towards the park and the roadway behind.

You and the second…

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 Sahhitanandan

Details

AGLC: R v Sahhitanandan [2018] VSC 550
Case: [2018] VSC 550
Decision Date: 18 September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Sahhitanandan involved a dispute over the appropriate sentence for an individual who had been found guilty of dangerous driving causing serious injury. The accused, Sahhitanandan, had caused significant and enduring injuries to the victim. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issue before the court was determining the appropriate sentence, considering the mid to upper level of seriousness of the offence, the accused’s guilty plea, and various other factors.

In addressing the appropriate sentence, the court considered the principles of general deterrence, denunciation, and punishment, as well as specific deterrence and the protection of the community. The court also took into account the time Sahhitanandan had already spent in immigration detention, his pre-sentence detention, and the possibility of deportation following his sentence. The court found that these factors, alongside the severity of the injuries sustained by the victim, warranted a sentence that adequately reflected the seriousness of the offence while also considering the unique circumstances of the accused.

The court determined that a total effective sentence of two years and four months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of one year and six months, was appropriate. This sentence balanced the need for general and specific deterrence with the protection of the community, while also considering the time already served by the accused and the potential for deportation. The court’s reasoning and outcome reflect a careful consideration of the various factors involved in sentencing for serious offences such as dangerous driving causing serious injury.

Orders