JUDGES:	NIALL CJ, KIDD and RICHARDS JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	20 June 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	3 July 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 154
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2023] VCC 2106 (Judge Carlin)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Application for leave to appeal against sentence –Dangerous driving causing death and related summary offence – Driving while under influence of methylamphetamine – Collision with pedestrian causing death – Plea of guilty – Genuine remorse – Prospects of rehabilitation reasonable to good – Seriousness of offending above mid-range – Sentence of 3 years 6 months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 2 years 2 months – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Sentence within range consistent with current sentencing practices – Leave to appeal refused.

Sentencing Act 1991, ss 5(2), (2H).

Stephens v The Queen (2016) 50 VR 740; Clarkson v The Queen (2011) 32 VR 361; DPP v Dalgliesh (2017) 262 CLR 428; R v Kilic (2016) 259 CLR 256, referred to.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr CK Wareham
Respondent:		Ms EH Ruddle KC with Ms S Goegan
Solicitors
Applicant:	Galbally & O’Bryan
Respondent:	Abbey Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

NIALL CJ:

I agree with Richards JA.

KIDD JA:

I agree with Richards JA.

RICHARDS JA:

On 9 August 2023, Meggan Ritchie pleaded guilty to one charge of dangerous driving causing death and a related summary offence, and one charge of possession of a drug of dependence. After a plea hearing, Ms Ritchie was sentenced on 15 November 2023, as follows.

Charge on Indictment

Offence

Max Penalty

Sentence

Cumulation

Indictment M12727177A.1

1 Dangerous driving causing death (contrary to s 319(1) of the Crimes Act 1958) 10 years 3 years 6 months Base

Related Summary Offences

7 Contravene a conduct condition of bail (contrary to s 30A(1) of the Bail Act 1977) 3 months or 30 penalty units 1 month N/A

Total Effective Sentence

Indictment M12727177A.1
3 years 6 months’ imprisonment

Indictment M12727177B.1

1 Possession of a drug of dependence (contrary to s 73(1) of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981) 1 year or
30 penalty units $500 fine N/A

Total Effective Sentence

Indictment M12727177B.1
$500 fine

Total Global Effective Sentence: 3 years 6 months’ imprisonment

Non-Parole Period: 2 years 2 months

Pre-sentence Detention Declared: 0 days

Section 6AAA Statement:
Total Effective Sentence 5 years’ imprisonment

Non Parole-Period 3 years

Other Relevant Orders:

1. Driver’s licence cancellation and disqualification for 30 months from 15 November 2023.

2. Forfeiture and disposal order.

Ms Ritchie now seeks leave to appeal against sentence on the ground that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.
For the reasons that follow, leave to appeal should be refused.

Circumstances of offending

On 30 December 2021, a car driven by Ms Ritchie struck Julie Barnes. The collision took place in the late morning in Catherine Street, McCrae, near…

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 Ritchie v The King

Details

AGLC: Ritchie v The King [2025] VSCA 154
Case: [2025] VSCA 154
Decision Date: 3 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Ritchie, appealed against his sentence for dangerous driving causing death and a related summary offence, following a guilty plea. The incident occurred when Ritchie, under the influence of methylamphetamine, collided with a pedestrian, resulting in their death. The court considered Ritchie's genuine remorse and prospects of rehabilitation, which were assessed as reasonable to good. The primary legal issue was whether the sentence of 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 2 years and 2 months, was manifestly excessive. The court examined the seriousness of the offending, which was deemed above mid-range, and the principles of sentencing in light of current practices.

The court thoroughly reviewed the relevant sentencing principles, particularly the need for general and specific deterrence, and the need to reflect community standards. It considered the precedents set in Stephens v The Queen, Clarkson v The Queen, DPP v Dalgliesh, and R v Kilic. The court found that the sentence was within the range consistent with current sentencing practices for such offences. The seriousness of the crime, coupled with Ritchie’s drug-influenced state and the tragic outcome, warranted a sentence that balanced punishment with the possibility of rehabilitation. The court concluded that the sentence did not exceed what was appropriate or excessive under the circumstances.

The court further deliberated on Ritchie's plea of guilty, which warranted a discount in sentence, and his demonstrated remorse, which supported the prospects for rehabilitation. However, these factors were weighed against the gravity of the offence and the need for deterrence. Ultimately, the court held that the sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor inappropriate, given the statutory framework and the need to reflect community standards. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

In summary, the court found the sentence to be within the appropriate range, considering the circumstances of the offence and the sentencing principles applicable. The appeal was dismissed, and Ritchie's sentence stood as imposed by the trial judge.

Orders