R v Stockdale - [2002] VSCA 202

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 125 of 2001

THE QUEEN
	v.
FRANKIE JOHN STOCKDALE

---

JUDGES:	ORMISTON, CHARLES and VINCENT, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	3 December 2002
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	4 December 2002
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSCA 202

---

Criminal law - Conviction - Culpable driving - Intoxication - Amnesiac state - Whether acting consciously and voluntarily - Appropriate directions in judge's charge.

Sentencing - Culpable driving - Sentence of 7 years' imprisonment not manifestly excessive.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms K.E. Judd	K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr A.J. Howard, Q.C.	Brendan Wilkinson

ORMISTON, J.A.:

I will ask Charles, J.A. to deliver the first judgment.

CHARLES, J.A.:

The applicant, who was born on 15 May 1973, on 23 April 2001 pleaded not guilty in the County Court at Melbourne to a presentment alleging one count of culpable driving causing death, ten counts of recklessly engaging in conduct placing another in danger of death, two counts of recklessly causing serious injury, five counts of recklessly causing injury and two alternative counts of causing serious injury negligently. On 7 May the jury found the applicant guilty on all counts, save the two last-mentioned alternatives.

During the plea the applicant admitted 14 previous convictions and three non-conviction dispositions from seven court appearances. He had also pleaded guilty pursuant to s.359AA of the Crimes Act 1958 to the summary offence of exceeding the prescribed concentration of alcohol in a blood sample taken within three hours of driving contrary to s.49(1)(g) of the Road Safety Act 1986. Some ten character witnesses were called on behalf of the applicant. On 18 May the judge sentenced the applicant on the count of culpable driving to seven years' imprisonment, on the ten counts of recklessly engaging in conduct placing another in danger of death and the two counts of recklessly causing serious injury, in each case to three years' imprisonment, and on the five counts of recklessly causing injury, to one year's imprisonment in each case. The judge ordered that one year of the first count of recklessly engaging in conduct placing another in danger of death, and one year of the first count of recklessly causing serious injury, be cumulated upon the seven year sentence imposed for culpable driving, making a total effective sentence of nine years' imprisonment. A non-parole period of seven years was fixed. On the charge of exceeding .05 per cent under s.49(1)(g), the applicant was fined $750. The judge also made an order cancelling the applicant's licence and disqualifying him from obtaining a further licence for a period of seven years.

The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against conviction on two grounds, first, that the judge erred in the direction given to the jury in relation to the significance of evidence of intoxication, and secondly, on the ground that his Honour erred in directing the jury on the burden of proof in relation to the evidence led…

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 Stockdale

Details

AGLC: R v Stockdale [2002] VSCA 202
Case: [2002] VSCA 202
Decision Date: 4 December 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Stockdale, the respondent faced charges related to culpable driving while intoxicated. The respondent, who had been driving under the influence and subsequently caused a fatal accident, was found to be in an amnesiac state at the time of the incident. The case was heard in the higher court where the conviction and sentencing were contested. The legal issues before the court involved whether the respondent had acted consciously and voluntarily during the incident, and whether the judge had appropriately directed the jury in the charge. Additionally, the court examined the appropriateness of the 7-year imprisonment sentence imposed on the respondent.

The court delved into the complexities of the respondent's mental state at the time of the incident. It examined whether the respondent's intoxication had rendered him incapable of acting consciously and voluntarily. The court also considered the adequacy of the judge's directions to the jury regarding these issues. In its deliberations, the court noted the challenges in determining the respondent's state of mind given the amnesiac condition and the intoxication involved. The court found that the judge had provided appropriate directions to the jury, ensuring that they were properly guided in their consideration of the evidence.

In determining the appropriateness of the sentence, the court assessed the severity of the crime and the respondent's culpability. The court noted the tragic consequences of the incident, which resulted in loss of life. It considered the mitigating factors, including the respondent's amnesiac state, but ultimately concluded that the 7-year imprisonment sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the respondent's culpability.

The court confirmed the conviction and the sentence of 7 years' imprisonment. The respondent's appeal against the conviction and the sentence was dismissed, upholding the lower court's decision.

Orders