R v Williamson - [2009] VSCA 21

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No 862 of 2007

THE QUEEN
	v
NEIL GILBERT WILLIAMSON

---

JUDGES:	NEAVE and WEINBERG JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	18 February 2009
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	27 February 2009
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSCA 21

---

Criminal law – Culpable driving and negligently causing serious injury – Alcohol and excessive speed – Young offender – Sentence of nine years’ imprisonment with six and a half year minimum – Appeal dismissed – Sentence severe but within available range

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr T Gyorffy	Mr S Ward, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant	Mr P J Matthews	Victoria Legal Aid

NEAVE JA
WEINBERG JA:

The appellant pleaded guilty in the County Court, at Geelong, to one count of culpable driving, one count of negligently causing serious injury, and the summary offence of exceeding the prescribed concentration of alcohol.

On 22 October 2007, the appellant was sentenced as follows:

Count 1: culpable driving causing death – eight years’ imprisonment;

Count 2: negligently causing serious injury – two years’ imprisonment (one year cumulative);

Summary offence: exceeding the prescribed concentration of alcohol – $500 fine.

The appellant’s total effective sentence was therefore nine years’ imprisonment. The sentencing judge fixed a non-parole period of six years and six months. The appellant’s driver’s licence was cancelled and he was disqualified from obtaining a driver’s licence for two years, effective from 1 April 2014. Additionally, it was ordered that the appellant could not be issued with a new licence save upon the order of a Magistrate. The appellant now appeals against that sentence.

Circumstances of the offence and the offender

The circumstances surrounding the commission of these offences were as follows. On 3 February 2007, the appellant left his car at a friend’s home in Belmont, a suburb of Geelong. He attempted, unsuccessfully, to obtain entry to a party in neighbouring Grovedale. He then returned to Belmont and consumed some alcohol before taking a taxi into Geelong proper. At about 1 am, he went to the Eureka nightclub where he met up with several friends, including Jeremy Campbell.

The appellant, Mr Campbell and another friend, Andrew Morgan, went to various other licensed premises, where the appellant had a number of vodkas mixed with Red Bull.

At about 5 am, the appellant, Morgan and Campbell returned to Belmont. The appellant then got into his car accompanied by his two friends. Morgan was in the front passenger seat and Campbell was seated behind him. Morgan offered to drive, as he had stopped drinking some time earlier, but the appellant refused his offer. As the appellant drove through Grovedale towards Torquay, Morgan again asked the appellant to let him drive. However, the appellant again refused.

After leaving Grovedale, the appellant accelerated, reaching a speed of about 200 kilometres an hour. At that speed, the appellant exclaimed: ‘yeah, 200.’ He then began to slow down. Even then, he was travelling at a great speed. His vehicle…

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 Williamson

Details

AGLC: R v Williamson [2009] VSCA 21
Case: [2009] VSCA 21
Decision Date: 27 February 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Williamson, the respondent, a young offender, appealed against a sentence of nine years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of six and a half years, imposed for culpable driving and causing serious injury while under the influence of alcohol and driving at excessive speed. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal, which reviewed the sentence imposed by the lower court.

The appeal centred on whether the sentence was excessively severe, considering the offender's age and the mitigating factors presented, such as the offender's remorse and lack of prior criminal history. The court was required to assess the proportionality of the sentence in light of the statutory provisions and the principles of sentencing for culpable driving and negligently causing serious injury. The court also considered the need for general and specific deterrence in its reasoning.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the sentence was severe, it was within the range of available penalties for the offences committed. The court emphasised the gravity of the respondent's actions, which resulted in serious injury to another person due to reckless and negligent driving under the influence of alcohol. The appeal court held that the lower court had appropriately balanced the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation in imposing the sentence. The appeal court was satisfied that the sentence imposed was proportionate to the severity of the crime and the offender's culpability.

Orders