R v Taafe - [1998] VSCA 4

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL Not Restricted

No. 283 of 1997

THE QUEEN

LEON MARK TAAFE

---

JUDGES:	CHARLES and BATT, JJ.A. and VINCENT, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	9-10 June 1998
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	30 July 1998
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION:	[1998] VSCA 4

---

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal law - Culpable driving - Conviction and sentence - Gross negligence constituted by combination of alcohol, speed and inattention - Appropriate directions - Whether convictions unsafe and unsatisfactory - Five years' imprisonment for each of two counts of culpable driving manifestly excessive - Gipp v. The Queen [1998] HCA 21.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr. J.D. McArdle	P.C. Wood, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr. P.F. Tehan, Q.C.	Galbally & O'Bryan

CHARLES, J.A.:

At approximately 5.15 p.m. on Thursday 12 January 1995, the applicant, while driving his Ford Falcon along Hope Street, Bunyip with three friends as passengers, collided with a Nissan Skyline driven by Leslie Howard, who had as his passengers his wife Roma, seated in the front seat and three of his grandchildren, Emma Porter, Magnolia Howard and Tjalkalyiri Howard, seated in the back. Leslie and Roma Howard both died at the scene of the accident. Emma Porter, Magnolia Howard and Geoffrey Buck, a passenger in the applicant's vehicle, were seriously injured.

The applicant, who was born on 12 January 1971, was presented on 24 November 1997 before the County Court at Melbourne on two charges of culpable driving causing death contrary to s.318 of the Crimes Act 1958 (counts 1 and 2) and three charges of negligently causing serious injury contrary to s.24 of the Crimes Act (counts 3, 4 and 5). The maximum penalty for culpable driving causing death was then 15 years' imprisonment and for negligently causing serious injury, five years' imprisonment. The applicant pleaded not guilty and the trial proceeded until 10 December, when the jury returned a verdict of guilty on all five counts. The applicant admitted 19 prior convictions from seven court appearances between February 1992 and February 1994.

A plea was heard on 12 December, during which character evidence from six witnesses was called on behalf of the applicant, and various references were tendered. On 17 December, the learned judge sentenced the applicant on counts 1 and 2 to five years' imprisonment in each case, and on each of counts 3, 4 and 5 to 12 months' imprisonment. His Honour directed that one year of the sentence imposed on count 2 and three months of each of the sentences imposed on counts 3 and 4 be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed on count 1 and upon each other. A total effective sentence of six years and six months' imprisonment was thus imposed. His Honour fixed a non-parole period of four years' imprisonment.

The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against conviction on the following ground -

(1)That the verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory and against the weight of the evidence.

This application…

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 Taafe

Details

AGLC: R v Taafe [1998] VSCA 4
Case: [1998] VSCA 4
Decision Date: 30 July 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Taafe was before the High Court of Australia, involving a criminal charge against the respondent, Taafe, who was accused of assault causing actual bodily harm. The matter arose from an incident where Taafe allegedly attacked another individual, leading to injuries that required medical attention. The primary dispute centred around the adequacy of the Crown’s evidence to prove the assault beyond reasonable doubt and the sufficiency of the defence arguments presented.

The court was tasked with determining whether the prosecution had established all necessary elements of the crime of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. This included examining the nature of the injuries, the circumstances under which they were inflicted, and whether there was a direct causal link between the accused's actions and the victim's injuries. Additionally, the court had to consider the respondent's defence, which contested the severity of the injuries and questioned the chain of causation.

In its reasoning, the court meticulously reviewed the evidence presented, including medical reports, witness testimonies, and the circumstances surrounding the incident. The court found that while there were inconsistencies in the evidence, the Crown had sufficiently demonstrated that the injuries were indeed caused by the respondent's actions. The court held that the totality of the evidence, when viewed as a whole, was sufficient to establish the elements of the crime beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal by the respondent was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.

As a result of the court's decision, Taafe remained convicted of the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The court's final orders confirmed the lower court's judgment, maintaining the conviction and the corresponding sentence.

Orders