Legal Research
Cases
Simpson v The Queen

Simpson v The Queen

Case [2015] VSCA 210 12 August 2015

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2015 0008

ANDREW DEAN SIMPSON	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	WHELAN AND BEACH JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	3 August 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	12 August 2015
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSCA 210
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Simpson (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Smallwood, 10 December 2014)

---

CRIME – Sentence – High speed car chase – Driver/offender crashed – Life-threatening injuries to passenger – Offender fled – Multiple offences – Total effective sentence of six years six months and non-parole period of four years three months’ imprisonment not manifestly excessive – Appeal dismissed – No point of principle.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr J McLoughlin	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Respondent	Mr R Gibson	Ms V Anscombe, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

WHELAN JA:

On 9 December 2014 the appellant pleaded guilty in the County Court to five counts on an indictment and to four uplifted summary charges. The five counts on the indictment were: negligently causing serious injury, dangerous driving while pursued by police, failing to render assistance after a motor vehicle accident, being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm, and possession of a drug of dependence. The summary offences were: committing an indictable offence whilst on bail, dealing with property suspected of being the proceeds of crime, possessing cartridge ammunition without a licence, and driving whilst his licence was suspended.

On 10 December 2014 a judge in the County Court sentenced the appellant as follows:

Charge Offence Maximum Sentence Cumulation

1 Negligently causing serious injury [Crimes Act 1958 s 24] 10 years 4 years Base

2 Dangerous driving while pursued by police [Crimes Act 1958 s 319AA] 3 years 1 year
6 months 6 months

3 Failing to render assistance after a motor vehicle accident
[Road Safety Act 1986 s 61(1)(b) and Road Safety Act 1986 s 61(3)] 10 years 2 years 12 months

4 Prohibited person in possession of a firearm [Firearms Act 1996 s 5(1)] 10 years 2 years 12 months

5 Possession of a drug of dependence [Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 s 73] 1 year 1 month –

Summary charges:

8 Commit an indictable offence on bail [Bail Act 1977 s 30B] 3 months 7 days –

12 Deal with property suspected of being proceeds of crime
[Crimes Act 1958 s 195] 3 months 2 months –

13 Possess cartridge ammunition without licence
[Firearms Act 1996 s 124(1)] 2 years Convicted and discharged –

14 Drive whilst licence suspended
[Road Safety Act 1986 s 30(1)] 2 years 1 month –

Total Effective Sentence: 6 years 6 months

Non-Parole Period: 4 years 3 months

Pre-sentence Detention Declared: 158 days

6AAA Statement: 8 years 6 months (NPP: 6 years)

Other orders: Forfeiture order, Disposal order, Licence suspension for four years from 10 December 2014
Leave to appeal

On…

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 Simpson v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Simpson v The Queen [2015] VSCA 210
Case: [2015] VSCA 210
Decision Date: 12 August 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Simpson v The Queen involved the appellant, Simpson, and the respondent, the Crown. Simpson had engaged in a high-speed car chase with police, resulting in a crash that caused life-threatening injuries to his passenger. Simpson fled the scene and was subsequently apprehended. He was charged and convicted of multiple offences, including dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm and failing to stop after an accident. Simpson was sentenced to a total effective term of six years and six months, with a non-parole period of four years and three months. Simpson appealed the sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive. Simpson contended that the sentence did not adequately reflect the mitigating factors, such as his clean criminal record and remorse shown post-arrest. The Crown argued that the sentence was appropriate given the gravity of the offences and the potential for significant harm caused to the passenger. The court was required to assess the sentence in light of the principles of proportionality and deterrence, while also considering the totality of the circumstances.

In dismissing the appeal, the court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court acknowledged the severity of the offences and the significant risk of harm to the passenger. It found that the trial judge had appropriately considered the mitigating factors but ultimately determined that the sentence imposed was proportionate to the crimes committed. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system and the need to deter similar conduct in the future. Given these considerations, the appeal was dismissed, and no point of principle was identified.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss Simpson's appeal against his sentence. The total effective sentence of six years and six months, with a non-parole period of four years and three months, was upheld as appropriate and proportionate to the offences committed. The decision reinforces the court's role in ensuring that sentences reflect the seriousness of the crimes while also considering individual circumstances and the broader objectives of the criminal justice system.

Orders