Criminal law – Sentencing – Culpable driving causing death – Negligently causing serious injury – Possession of heroin – Whether total effective sentence of 10 years' imprisonment with non-parole period of seven years manifestly excessive –Youth – Early pleas of guilty – Differences in injuries sustained by victims – Whether those differences need be reflected in sentences imposed – Complicity of one of the victims – R. v. Howarth (2000) 1 V.R. 593 – Disqualification from obtaining driver licence – Crimes Act 1958, s.318 – Sentencing Act1991, ss.5, 89.
---
APPEARANCES:
Counsel
Solicitors
For the Crown
Mr J.D. McArdle, Q.C. Miss G. Cannon
K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant
Mr P.C. Priest, Q.C. Mr M.J. Croucher
Michael J. Gleeson & Associates
CALLAWAY, J.A.:
Introduction
The appellant, who was born on 1st November 1979, pleaded guilty in the County Court to two counts of culpable driving causing death (counts 1 and 2), four counts of negligently causing serious injury (counts 3, 4, 5 and 6) and one count of possession of a drug of dependence, namely heroin (count 7). The maximum custodial penalty for the first of those three offences is 20 years' imprisonment; the maximum custodial penalty for the other two offences is five years' imprisonment. The forms of culpability[1] specified in counts 1 and 2 were those in s.318(2)(b) and (d) of the Crimes Act 1958, i.e. negligence of the same degree as that required to support a charge of manslaughter[2] and being under the influence of a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the motor vehicle. The appellant had no previous convictions as such, but she had appeared in the Children’s Court and the Magistrates' Court on four occasions between January 1997 and August 2000, on each of which charges were found proven. They related to trafficking in and possession of heroin, failing to answer an undertaking of bail and theft.
[2]R. v. Shields [1981] V.R. 717 at 724, R. v. Franks (No.1) [1999] 1 V.R. 518 at [5]
and R. v. Wright [1999] 3 V.R. 355 at [9].
The learned sentencing judge heard a plea for leniency on behalf of the appellant and reserved his decision. On 10th May 2001 his Honour sentenced her to five years' imprisonment on each of counts 1 and 2, two years' imprisonment on each of counts 3, 4, 5 and 6 and six months’ imprisonment on count 7. He directed that two years of the sentence imposed on count 2 be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed on count 1 and that nine months of each of the sentences imposed on counts 3, 4, 5…
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 Tran
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Tran [2002] VSCA 52
Case
[2002] VSCA 52
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v Tran, the respondent was convicted of driving under the influence of heroin, resulting in the death of one passenger and serious injury to another. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The legal issues at the core of the case centred around the appropriateness of the total effective sentence of 10 years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of seven years, given the circumstances of the case. Specifically, the court needed to consider whether this sentence was manifestly excessive, taking into account the respondent's youth and the early pleas of guilty. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the differences in the severity of injuries sustained by the victims should influence the sentences imposed, and whether the complicity of one of the victims played a role in the sentencing.
The court's reasoning focused on the principles outlined in R v Howarth, which emphasised the importance of proportionality in sentencing. The court acknowledged that the respondent's actions were reckless and resulted in severe consequences, but also recognised mitigating factors such as the respondent's youth and early guilty pleas. The court found that while the sentence was severe, it was not manifestly excessive when considering the gravity of the offences and the need for general deterrence. Furthermore, the court held that the differences in the injuries sustained by the victims did not necessarily require a variation in the sentences imposed, as the primary focus should be on the culpability of the respondent.
The court concluded that the total effective sentence of 10 years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of seven years, was appropriate in this case. The court also noted that the respondent would be disqualified from obtaining a driver's licence for a period of 15 years under the Crimes Act 1958, section 318, and that the sentences were to be served concurrently under the Sentencing Act 1991, sections 5 and 89.