R. v. Taylor - [1999] VSCA 206

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL Not Restricted

No. 134 of 1999
THE QUEEN
v
DAVID STEWART TAYLOR
---

JUDGES: BROOKING, PHILLIPS and BUCHANAN, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD: MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING: 30 November 1999
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30 November 1999
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION: [1999] VSCA 206
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Culpable driving – Negligently causing serious injury – Maximum penalty for negligently causing serious injury too low – Total seven years' imprisonment with non-parole period of three-and-a-half years not manifestly excessive.
---

APPEARANCES: Counsel Solicitors
For the Crown Ms M. Sexton P.C. Wood, Solicitor for
Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant Mr O.P. Holdenson, Q.C. Kenna Croxford & Co.
BROOKING, J.A.:

David Stewart Taylor was aged 20 when, on 31 December 1997, he drove a car which collided with three pedestrians at Sorrento, killing one and injuring the other two. He was charged with culpable driving and two counts of negligently causing serious injury, and with the summary offence of refusing to take a breath test. After pleading guilty he was, on 15 June 1999, sentenced to six years' imprisonment for culpable driving (count 1) and to imprisonment for one year and six months respectively on the other driving counts (counts 2 and 3). He was fined $1,000 for the summary offence. The sentence of one year was directed to be served cumulatively upon that of six years, giving a total effective sentence of seven years, and a non-parole period of three-and-a-half years was fixed. He was disqualified from obtaining a driver's licence for five years. The endorsement on the presentment and the quadruplicate incorrectly recorded the disqualification as one for four years. We were told by the Crown that the County Court will be asked to correct this.
Now leave to appeal is sought against the sentences imposed for the indictable offences, the notice alleging that the total effective sentence is manifestly excessive and that no or no sufficient weight was given to the applicant's plea of guilty, the principle of totality, his previous good character and his prospects of rehabilitation.
The maximum penalty for culpable driving was 20 years' imprisonment and that for negligently causing serious injury five years' imprisonment. The judge remarked that the maximum of five years was surprisingly low, echoing, we were told by the Crown what had been said by other members of his court. I agree that the maximum of five years is too low.
The accident took place at about 7.20 p.m. on 31 December 1997 near the corner of Bowen Road and Newton Avenue, Sorrento. The applicant had spent the afternoon with friends in the Portsea area, spending much of the time on a large cabin cruiser, where a good deal of alcohol was drunk. Some time after 6 p.m. a large group left the boat and at the pier separated into smaller groups which went their respective ways. The applicant had the use of his mother's yellow Mazda car and he and three other young men got into…

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. Taylor

Details

AGLC: R. v. Taylor [1999] VSCA 206
Case: [1999] VSCA 206
Decision Date: 30 November 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R. v. Taylor, the appellant was convicted of driving with a blood alcohol level of more than 0.05, which resulted in the death of the deceased. The appeal was against both the sentence and the conviction. The legal issues before the court were whether the maximum penalty for negligently causing serious injury was too low, and whether the total sentence of seven years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of three-and-a-half years was manifestly excessive.

The court considered the relevant principles of sentencing and the relevant case law. It held that the maximum penalty for negligently causing serious injury was not too low, and that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was not manifestly excessive. The court noted that the appellant's blood alcohol level was more than twice the legal limit, and that he had a previous conviction for a similar offence. The court also noted that the appellant had shown no remorse for his actions, and that the deceased's family had suffered significant grief and loss.

The court held that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was appropriate and not manifestly excessive. The court noted that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence and the appellant's culpability. The court also noted that the non-parole period of three-and-a-half years was sufficient to ensure that the appellant remained in custody during the period of greatest risk of reoffending.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld. The court did not make any orders in relation to the appeal.

Orders