Stevenson v The Queen - [2014] VSCA 184

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2014 0050

BRETT STEVENSON
	v
THE QUEEN

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE (DETERMINED BY A SINGLE JUDGE PURSUANT TO S 315 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2009)

JUDGE	ASHLEY JA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF JUDGMENT	22 August 2014
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2014] VSCA 184
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	DPP v Stevenson (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Pullen, 16 December 2013)

---

DETERMINED ON THE PAPERS

---

Appearances:	Counsel	Solicitors
No Appearances

ASHLEY JA:

The applicant, Brett Stevenson, was convicted after trial in the County Court in September 2013 of dangerous driving causing death[1] and dangerous driving causing serious injury.[2] In December 2013, the trial judge imposed upon him a total effective sentence of two years and six months’ imprisonment. She fixed a non-parole period of 18 months’ imprisonment.
[1]Crimes Act1958 (Vic) s 319(1).
[2]Crimes Act1958 (Vic) s 319(1A).

Grounds

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against his conviction, relying upon these grounds:

(1)the trial judge erred in failing to discharge the jury in the applicant’s trial following the closing address of counsel for the co-accused;
(2)the verdict is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence.

Circumstances

The Western Highway in the vicinity of Myrniong is a divided road. As at July 2010, it consisted of an emergency lane and two running lanes.

The permissible speed on that section of the roadway at the relevant time was 110 kilometres per hour.

Shortly after 6.00pm on 19 July 2010, a motor vehicle driven by a co-accused, Travis Dunkley-Price, stopped in the left hand running lane of the west-bound section of the highway. That is the conclusion evidently reached by the jury, although the co-accused contended that he had brought his vehicle to a stop in the emergency lane.

A second vehicle (“the victims’ vehicle”) stopped behind the co-accused’s vehicle.

A number of vehicles evaded the obstruction which was thereby created.

The applicant’s vehicle did not do so. It drove into the rear of the victims’ vehicle. The driver of that vehicle was killed and a passenger was seriously injured.

At the time of the collision, it was dark, or nearly so.

There was evidence that the tail lights of the co-accused’s vehicle and the victim’s vehicle were illuminated.

Investigations showed that the applicant

(1)was not alcohol or drug affected at the time of the collision;
(2)was driving his vehicle within the permitted speed limit of 110 kilometres per hour;
(3)did not take evasive action or apply the brakes of his vehicle before the collision.

The applicant told a police officer at the scene:

I noticed two cars up ahead approximately 50 metres in front of me, and I couldn’t pull up in time. I wasn’t sure how fast they were going.

The applicant told another police officer at the scene:

I was driving in the left lane, towards home. Next thing I know is a car in front of me and I hit…

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 Stevenson v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Stevenson v The Queen [2014] VSCA 184
Case: [2014] VSCA 184
Decision Date: 22 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Stevenson v The Queen, the respondent was convicted of a serious drug trafficking offence. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia, which was required to determine whether the trial judge had correctly applied the law when admitting certain evidence into the proceedings. The case was determined on the papers, which included the trial judge's written reasons for judgment and the respondent's appeal submissions.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence of the respondent's previous drug-related activities. The respondent argued that the evidence was inadmissible as it was irrelevant and prejudicial. The court needed to determine whether the trial judge's decision to admit the evidence was legally sound and whether it had any bearing on the outcome of the case. The court was also required to consider the principles of relevance and fairness in the admission of evidence.

In reaching its decision, the court noted that the evidence in question was relevant to the respondent's knowledge and intent, which were key elements of the drug trafficking charge. The court held that the trial judge had correctly applied the law in admitting the evidence, as it was relevant to the respondent's case and did not unfairly prejudice him. The court further found that the admission of the evidence did not affect the outcome of the case, as the respondent's guilt was established through other means. The appeal was subsequently dismissed.

The court's final order was that the appeal against conviction and sentence be dismissed, and that the conviction and sentence of the respondent be upheld. The court's decision provided clarity on the admissibility of evidence in drug trafficking cases and reinforced the importance of relevance and fairness in the legal process.

Orders