R v Truelove - [2001] VSCA 78

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 17 of 2001

THE QUEEN
	v.
GARTH IVAN TRUELOVE

---

JUDGES:	PHILLIPS, BATT and CHERNOV, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	10 May 2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	10 May 2001
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSCA 78

---

Criminal law - Sentencing – Negligently causing serious injury – Collision with oncoming car – Elderly victim quadriplegic – Unclear whether collision caused by driver fatigue, alcohol or heart condition – Finding that offender drove when he knew he ought not to – Sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment with 9 months minimum, not manifestly excessive - Licence cancellation and need to fix period of disqualification - Sentencing Act 1991 s.89(1).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms S.E. Pullen	Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant	Mr. P.F. Tehan, Q.C.	Slades & Parsons

PHILLIPS, J.A.:

The appellant appeals by leave against sentence imposed in the County Court on 2 February 2001. On 1 February the appellant was presented on one count of negligently causing serious injury contrary to s.24 of the Crimes Act 1958, a charge arising out of a traffic accident that occurred on 28 February 1999, when the appellant was 26 years old. The appellant pleaded guilty and, although no previous convictions were averred by way of further presentment, the psychological report tendered on his behalf as Exhibit C in the course of the plea in mitigation records, as a matter of the history taken, that the appellant admitted two previous convictions for “drink-driving related offences”. As recounted in the psychologist's report, "one was in 1989/90 when he still held a provisional licence, and one in 1994/95 when he was charged with driving under the influence. In the first incident his licence was suspended for eleven months, and in the second, for two years." The admission of those two previous convictions was confirmed during the plea.

The plea in mitigation was made on behalf of the appellant by counsel and in the course of that a number of documents was tendered: a medical report by Dr Jensen, the neurosurgeon, and a medical report by Dr Lefkovits, a consulting physician (both of those reports dealing with the condition of the victim of this incident); the psychological report already mentioned, dated 25 May 2000; a medical report dated 16 May 2000 on the appellant’s own condition, and a report dated 22 January 2001 from a social worker who was also called to give evidence viva voce. In addition eight character references were tendered. There were also a number of victim impact statements. The maximum penalty for the offence of negligently causing serious injury is five years' imprisonment. On 2 February the appellant was sentenced to two years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of nine months.

Initially the appellant appealed on four grounds: 1, that the judge misdirected himself when considering whether or not to suspend the sentence; 2, that the judge failed to fix the length of period of disqualification following cancellation…

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 Truelove

Details

AGLC: R v Truelove [2001] VSCA 78
Case: [2001] VSCA 78
Decision Date: 10 May 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Truelove, the defendant was charged and subsequently convicted of negligently causing serious injury in a car collision with an oncoming vehicle. The victim, an elderly woman, was left quadriplegic following the incident. The dispute centred on the exact cause of the collision, with evidence suggesting that it may have been due to the defendant's fatigue, alcohol consumption, or a heart condition. The case was heard and determined by the sentencing court.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was the appropriate sentence for the defendant, given the serious consequences of his actions. The court needed to consider the circumstances of the offence, the degree of culpability, and the need to deter and rehabilitate the offender. The court also had to decide on the appropriate length of licence disqualification.

The court found that the defendant had driven knowing that he ought not to have done so, which indicated a significant degree of culpability. While it was unclear what specifically caused the collision, the fact that the defendant knowingly drove in an unfit state contributed to the serious injury of the victim. The court determined that a sentence of two years imprisonment with a minimum of nine months was not manifestly excessive. Additionally, the court ordered the defendant's licence to be cancelled and directed that the period of disqualification be fixed in accordance with the Sentencing Act 1991 s.89(1). This decision emphasised the importance of addressing both the punishment and the rehabilitation of the offender, as well as the protection of the public from further harm.

Orders