Richmond v Saunders (Sentence)
[2019] VCC 1980
•3 December 2019
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. AP-19-1160
IN THE MATTER OF
AN APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION AND SENTENCE RECORDED AT THE MAGISTRATES' COURT AT DANDENONG ON 13 MAY 2019
BETWEEN
| HANS RICHMOND |
| v |
| DOROTHEA SAUNDERS |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE HOGAN | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 21 October and 7 November 2019 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 3 December 2019 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Richmond v Saunders (Sentence) | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2019] VCC 1980 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Convicted of charges of contravening a Personal Safety Intervention Order whilst stalking by driving, turning right without indicating and changing lanes without giving way – sentenced to pay an aggregate fine of $2,000 – on Charge 1 of Contravention of a Personal Safety Intervention Order, pursuant to s89A of the Sentencing Act 1991 all licences and permits to drive cancelled and disqualified for a period of six months.
Legislation Cited: Fines Reform Act 2014 ; Sentencing Act 1991
Cases Cited:
Sentence:
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Appellant | Appellant in person | |
| For the Respondent | Dr J Harkess | Solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions |
HER HONOUR:
1 Hans Richmond, following a contested appeal from the Magistrates’ Court, I have found you guilty of three charges, namely contravention of a Personal Safety Intervention Order by stalking by driving, which carries a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment; failing to give proper right change direction signal, which carries a maximum penalty of three penalty units; and failing to give way by moving between marked lanes, which carries a maximum penalty of five penalty units.
2 The circumstances of your offending are set out in my Reasons for Judgment handed down this day.
3 I am satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that your offending driving behaviour on the Princes Highway on 17 September 2018 was deliberately designed to intimidate Mr Delahaye. It is plain that relations between you and he had been very troubled for some time and had culminated in Mr Delahaye taking out an Interim Intervention Order against you two months prior to your offending.
4 I regard this driving to be in a category of dangerous driving and am frankly surprised that the charge of dangerous driving was not prosecuted. We have enough injuries and deaths on our roads through people who drive carelessly, but I am satisfied that your offending driving was intentionally calculated to frighten Mr Delahaye. Courts cannot turn a blind eye to people who use a vehicle and a public highway to exact revenge against another person with whom they have a grievance.
5 You are 69 years old and apparently run a successful business. Although you have no prior convictions for driving offences, and have held a licence in Australia for nearly 40 years, you should be ashamed of your childish and vindictive behaviour. If it had not been for Mr Delahaye sensibly doing all that he could to counteract your multiple acts of offensive driving, there may well have been a collision which could have injured him as well as your passengers.
6 Even though there is no evidence that you anticipated that Mr Delahaye would have been driving along the Princes Highway at the same time as yourself, you certainly took advantage of the situation once you became aware of his presence by engaging in multiple very erratic manoeuvres in breach of the law. I regard this as a serious example of stalking.
7 It is pitiful that you behaved with such scant regard for the welfare of a neighbour in the first place, such that a Personal Safety Intervention Order became necessary. To go on and breach that intervention order shows a deliberate disregard for the law. You have demonstrated arrogant behaviour as though you are above the law.
8 In sentencing you, this Court must denounce such behaviour and place emphasis upon general deterrence so that others, who may be minded to conduct themselves in the way that you have done will know that they will meet just punishment. Also, you, personally, must be specifically deterred. Further, a person like Mr Delahaye, who has obtained a Personal Safety Intervention Order, must know that he will have the protection of the law and that appropriate punishment for contravening such an order will be imposed.
9 I warned you on 21 October 2019 at the close of the prosecution case, both before and after the luncheon adjournment, that, in the event that I were to find these charges proven, you faced the risk of the imposition of higher penalties than those imposed by the Magistrates’ Court. In my view, the Magistrates’ Court sentences were very lenient indeed, particularly in circumstances where you failed to accept responsibility for the offending.
10 Charge 1, contravening a Personal Safety Intervention Order, is the most serious offence because it encompasses the totality of your egregious driving behaviour over approximately 2 kilometres, although the fact of the matter is that Charges 3 and 5 do involve discrete charges relating to breach of the regulations.
11 I order that the Orders of the Magistrates’ Court at Dandenong made on 13 May 2018 be set aside.
12 In their stead, the following orders are made.
13 On Charges 1, 3 and 5, you are convicted and sentenced to pay an aggregate fine of $2,000. Pursuant to s13 of the Fines Reform Act 2014, I order that such amount be paid to the County Court Registry within a period of 28 days.
14 On Charge 1, pursuant to s89A of the Sentencing Act 1991, I order that all licences and permits to drive be cancelled, and you be disqualified from obtaining a licence or permit for a period of six months from today.
15 I cause to be entered in the records of the court that I have made such an order pursuant to s89A in respect of the offence of Charge 1, breaching a Personal Safety Intervention Order by stalking by driving a vehicle.
---
0
0
0