R v Scott - [2012] VSC 514

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT SHEPPARTON

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. S CR 2012 0009

THE QUEEN

NATHAN AARON SCOTT

---

JUDGE:	BEACH J
WHERE HELD:	Shepparton
DATE OF HEARING:	19 October 2012
DATE OF SENTENCE:	7 November 2012
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Scott
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSC 514

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Manslaughter - Criminal negligence – Victim struck by motor vehicle driven by offender – Serious example of manslaughter by criminal negligence – Youthful offender – Prior convictions – Failing to stop after accident – Initial lack of remorse – Attempt to cover up the crime – Crime committed while on bail for other matters – Relevance of offender’s mental state – Verdins considerations – Sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment with minimum term of six years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms M.M. Williams SC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr W.M. Toohey	C. Marshall & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Nathan Aaron Scott, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of manslaughter and one charge of failing to stop after an accident contrary to s 61(1)(a) and (3) of the Road Safety Act 1986. The maximum term of imprisonment for manslaughter is 20 years. The maximum term of imprisonment for failing to stop after an accident contrary to s 61(1)(a) and (3) of the Road Safety Act is 10 years.

On the evening of 18 March 2011, you met up with a number of friends in Shepparton. The plan was to celebrate your 19^th birthday, which was the next day. There were five occupants in your vehicle. Jodie Turvey was the designated driver. While driving laps of the main streets of Shepparton CBD, you and your friends made stops at McDonald’s and a store called “Premix King”, which specialises in “Alcopop” style drinks.

Throughout the evening, you and the other passengers of the vehicle consumed alcoholic beverages. Turvey continued the role as designated driver and did not drink alcohol.

On the night in question, there was a party at 52 Gilchrist Street, Shepparton. The party was to celebrate the 18^th birthday of a resident of that address, Matthew Ormiston. You were not invited to the party. However, after receiving a telephone call, you directed Turvey to drive to the party. I accept that you went there to talk to someone, rather than to attend the party uninvited.

A short time after your arrival at 52 Gilchrist Street, you were confronted by Matthew Ormiston. Ormiston made it clear to you that you were not welcome at the party and demanded that you leave immediately. Words were exchanged, resulting in Ormiston headbutting you. Ormiston’s assault on you caused your nose to bleed.

Upon seeing the altercation developing, another person at the party intervened. You and your friends got back into your vehicle, and Turvey drove away from the party. At this time, you were upset, agitated and angry. You were making threats. You told Turvey to…

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 Scott

Details

AGLC: R v Scott [2012] VSC 514
Case: [2012] VSC 514
Decision Date: 7 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Scott, the respondent was convicted of manslaughter by criminal negligence. The court was called upon to determine the appropriate sentence for the respondent, who had struck a pedestrian with his motor vehicle while driving negligently. The victim, unfortunately, did not survive the incident. The respondent, a young person with prior convictions, exhibited initial lack of remorse and attempted to cover up the crime, which he committed while on bail for other matters.

The legal issues before the court included the severity of the offence, the respondent's age, criminal history, and mental state, as well as the circumstances surrounding the incident. The court was tasked with balancing these factors against the principles of deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation in determining an appropriate sentence.

The court considered the seriousness of the offence, the respondent's culpability, and the need to protect the community. In particular, the court noted the gravity of the crime, the respondent's failure to stop after the accident, and the attempt to cover up the crime. While acknowledging the respondent's young age and prior convictions, the court held that these factors did not outweigh the need for punishment and deterrence. Ultimately, the court sentenced the respondent to nine years’ imprisonment with a minimum term of six years, reflecting the gravity of the offence and the need to protect the community.

The court's decision provides guidance on the appropriate sentencing for manslaughter by criminal negligence, taking into account the circumstances of the offence and the offender's background. The sentence reflects the court's consideration of the principles of punishment and deterrence, while also acknowledging the respondent's age and prior criminal history.

Orders