R v Singh - [2021] VSC 182

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Revised

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2020 0339

THE QUEEN	Crown
v
MOHINDER SINGH	Accused

---

JUDGE:	COGHLAN JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	11 & 12 March 2021
DATE OF SENTENCE:	14 April 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Singh
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 182

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Culpable driving causing death – Plea of guilty – Death of four police officers on duty – Driving large heavy vehicle – Fatigued and under the influence of a drug of dependence.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr B. Kissane QC with Ms R. Harper	Ms A. Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P. Morrissey SC	Pica Criminal Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Many members of our community will remember the events in the early evening of Wednesday 22 April 2020. In particular, they will remember the reports on the evening news on all local television stations. There are events which shock the public conscience; this has been such an event. The unnecessary loss of the lives of four serving police officers, simply going about their duty, is a matter of huge community sorrow and regret.
On 11 March 2021, you pleaded guilty before me to causing the death of Lynette Taylor, Glen Humphris, Kevin King, and Joshua Prestney by the culpable driving of a motor vehicle in that you drove a motor vehicle negligently and whilst under the influence of a drug of dependence to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the motor vehicle. To trafficking cannabis, methylamphetamine, and 1,4-Butanediol and to the possession of Diazepam.
Through your counsel, Mr Peter Morrissey SC, you also pleaded guilty to the related summary charges of dealing with $1235, being property suspected of being proceeds of crime, and to the possession of cartridge ammunition without being licensed to do so.
It is necessary for the purpose of sentencing you to set out in some detail the background of the matter and the events of the days leading up to your principal offending, that is the four charges of culpable driving. In setting out the material I have called heavily upon the Chief Crown Prosecutor's opening which became Exhibit 1A on the plea and I have viewed the footage which was tendered as Exhibit 1B.
On 22 April 2020, you were driving a Volvo Prime Mover and trailer which weighed almost 20 tonne. You were employed by a company called Connect Logistics and had been so employed since 26 February 2020. You had previously worked for that company between June 2017 and April 2018. You had worked as a driver for another company in the time in between. You were still on your six-month probationary period. You were working permanent night shift, your hours were 4 pm to either 3 am or 4 am for five or six days a week. Your work involved delivering products on behalf of Ingham's Pty Ltd. Your…

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 Singh

Details

AGLC: R v Singh [2021] VSC 182
Case: [2021] VSC 182
Decision Date: 14 April 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondents, Singh and Sidhu, were jointly charged with driving a vehicle causing the death of four police officers. Both pleaded guilty to the charge. The case proceeded to sentence. The respondents' counsel argued that the appropriate sentence was a term of imprisonment. The prosecutor argued for a term of imprisonment coupled with a disqualification from driving for a significant period. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence, having regard to the principles of sentencing for culpable driving causing death, the culpability of the respondents, and the circumstances of the offence.

The court noted that the respondents had driven a large heavy vehicle while fatigued and under the influence of a drug of dependence, resulting in the death of four police officers who were on duty at the time. The court found that the respondents' actions were egregious and that they had shown no remorse. The court considered that a term of imprisonment alone would not adequately reflect the gravity of the offence or deter the respondents or others from engaging in similar conduct. The court found that a disqualification from driving for a significant period would serve the purposes of general and specific deterrence and would also provide some measure of retribution.

Accordingly, the court sentenced the respondents to imprisonment and disqualified them from driving for a period of ten years. The court emphasised the importance of road safety and the need to deter others from engaging in dangerous driving conduct. The court noted that the sentence was not intended to be punitive but rather to serve the purposes of sentencing for culpable driving causing death.

The court ordered that Singh and Sidhu be imprisoned for a period of eight years and six months and disqualified from driving for a period of ten years.

Orders