SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COURT OF APPEAL
No S APCR 2010 0150
| DAMIAN RODI | |
| Applicant | |
| v | |
| THE QUEEN | Respondent |
---
JUDGES: | ASHLEY and HARPER JJA and HARGRAVE AJA | ||
WHERE HELD: | MELBOURNE | ||
DATE OF HEARING: | 14 February 2011 | ||
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 3 March 2011 | ||
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2011] VSCA 48 | ||
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM: | (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Lewitan, 14 May 2010) | ||
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Conviction – Dangerous driving causing death and dangerous driving causing serious injury – Applicant’s vehicle not subject to collision – Whether verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory – Whether open to jury to conclude that applicant and driver of the other car drove in dangerous manner by racing at excessive speed – Whether open to jury to conclude that applicant’s driving was cause of collision and of resulting death and injuries – Whether open to jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of alternative case based on concert – Application for leave to appeal against conviction refused.
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Whether total effective sentence of three years and three months imprisonment with non-parole period of 18 months manifestly excessive – Whether inadequate weight given to applicant’s youth (18 at time of offence and 21 at time of sentence) and delay, and excessive weight to general deterrence – In all the circumstances of the offence and the offender, sentence appropriate – Appeal allowed in respect of commencing date of licence cancellation and disqualification.
---
| APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Applicant | Mr L C Carter | Victoria Legal Aid |
| For the Crown | Mr D A Trapnell, SC | Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions |
ASHLEY JA:
Damian Rodi was found guilty by a jury in the County Court on a count of dangerous driving causing death and three counts of dangerous driving causing serious injury. On 2 March 2010 he was convicted and sentenced to two years and six months’ imprisonment on the first count, and to nine months’ imprisonment on each of the other counts. With cumulation, the total effective sentence was three years and three months’ imprisonment. The judge fixed a non-parole period of 18 months’ imprisonment. She further cancelled the applicant’s driving licence, and disqualified him from obtaining a licence for a period of 18 months after his release from imprisonment.
The events giving rise to Rodi’s conviction took place on the evening of 10 February 2007. In consequence of those events, Rodi, a man then aged 18, and a man named Jarrod Rooke were each presented on a count of culpable driving and on three counts of negligently causing serious injury. Each of them was acquitted on those counts, but was convicted on the alternative counts to which I have just referred.
Now Rodi seeks leave to appeal against conviction and, if he fails to overturn his conviction, then against sentence. In a separate proceeding, Rooke seeks leave to appeal against sentence. [1]
[1]Rooke was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment on count 1, and to 12 months’ imprisonment on each of counts 2–4.…
Continue reading Rodi v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Rodi v The Queen [2011] VSCA 48
- Case
- [2011] VSCA 48
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the legal issues surrounding the jury's verdict and the appropriateness of the sentence. In terms of the conviction, the court found that it was open to the jury to conclude that the applicant and the other driver were racing at excessive speeds, and that the applicant's dangerous driving contributed to the collision. Regarding the sentence, the court acknowledged that while the total effective sentence of three years and three months was appropriate in the circumstances, the non-parole period of 18 months did not adequately consider the applicant's youth and delay in the proceedings, and placed excessive emphasis on general deterrence.
The court refused the application for leave to appeal against conviction, finding the verdict to be safe and satisfactory. However, the court granted leave to appeal against the sentence, specifically in relation to the order for licence cancellation and disqualification. The court determined that the starting date for the licence cancellation and disqualification should be different, taking into account the applicant's youth and delay in the proceedings.
In summary, the court upheld the applicant's conviction for dangerous driving causing death and serious injury but allowed an appeal against the sentence, modifying the order for licence cancellation and disqualification. The court found that the total sentence was appropriate, but the non-parole period did not adequately consider the applicant's youth and delay, and placed excessive weight on general deterrence. The court's decision demonstrates the importance of balancing the principles of justice, deterrence, and rehabilitation in sentencing.
Orders
Orders of the court
I would refuse the application for leave to appeal against conviction. I would grant leave to appeal against sentence, and grant the appeal only so as to make a different order in respect of licence cancellation and disqualification.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.