Veerman v The Queen - [2012] VSCA 194

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No S APCR 2012 0024

DANIEL VEERMAN	Appellant
	v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES	WEINBERG, HARPER JJA and T FORREST AJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	24 August 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT	24 August 2012
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2012] VSCA 194
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	DPP v Veerman (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Hampel, 16 December 2011)

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Appeal against sentence — Appellant pleaded guilty to multiple charges arising from fatal ‘hit and run’ incident and subsequent conduct — Total effective sentence of five years and three months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of three years — Sentences of three years and six months’ imprisonment imposed on both charge 1 (dangerous driving causing death) and charge 2 (failure to render assistance) — 12 months’ of sentence imposed on charge 2 ordered to be served cumulatively upon sentence imposed on count 1 — Whether sentence imposed on charge 2 manifestly excessive — Serious example of failing to render assistance — Principles in R v Verdins (2009) 16 VR 269 applicable to charge 2 — Sentence imposed on that charge outside the range — No error in degree of cumulation ordered — Appeal allowed — Appellant resentenced to same total effective sentence and non-parole period — No point of principle.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr R F Edney	Robert Stary Lawyers
For the Crown	Mr B F Kissane	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

WEINBERG JA:

On 12 December 2011, the appellant, Daniel Veerman, then aged 33, pleaded guilty in the County Court at Melbourne to an indictment containing one charge of dangerous driving causing death, one charge of failing to render assistance after an accident, one charge of arson, one charge of attempted theft, and three charges of theft. He also pleaded guilty to one summary charge of stating a false name when requested.

He was sentenced on 16 December 2011 as follows:

Charge on Indictment Offence Maximum Sentence Cumulation

1 Dangerous driving causing death 10 years
[Crimes Act 1958, s 319] 3 years and 6 months Base

2 Failing to render assistance after an accident 10 years [Road Safety Act 1986, s 61(1)(b)] 3 years and 6 months 1 year

3 Arson 10 years [Crimes Act 1958, s 197(1), (6)] 1 year 3 months

4 Attempted theft 5 years [Crimes Act 1958, ss 321M, 74] 9 months 2 months

5 Theft 10 years [Crimes Act 1958, s 74] 1 year 4 months

6 Theft 10 years [Crimes Act 1958, s 74] Fine of $100 N/A

7 Theft 10 years [Crimes Act 1958, s 74] Fine of $100 N/A

Summary State false name when requested 5 penalty units [Crimes Act 1958, s 456AA(3) Fine of $100 N/A

Total Effective Sentence: 5 years and 3 months

Non-Parole Period: 3 years

Pre-sentence Detention Declared: 281 days

6AAA Statement: TES 7 years 9 months;

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 Veerman v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Veerman v The Queen [2012] VSCA 194
Case: [2012] VSCA 194
Decision Date: 24 August 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Veerman v The Queen, the appellant was convicted and sentenced for his involvement in a fatal 'hit and run' incident and subsequent conduct. He pleaded guilty to multiple charges, resulting in a total effective sentence of five years and three months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years. The appellant was sentenced to three years and six months' imprisonment for dangerous driving causing death, and another three years and six months' imprisonment for failure to render assistance. The sentence for the failure to render assistance was ordered to be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed on the first count. The appellant appealed against the sentence imposed for the charge of failing to render assistance, arguing that it was manifestly excessive.

The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed on the charge of failing to render assistance was manifestly excessive. The court considered the principles in R v Verdins (2009) 16 VR 269, which are applicable to the charge of failing to render assistance. The court found that the sentence imposed on that charge was outside the range and thus manifestly excessive. However, the court found no error in the degree of cumulation ordered. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was resentenced to the same total effective sentence and non-parole period. The court found no point of principle in the case.

The court's reasoning was based on the principles in R v Verdins (2009) 16 VR 269, which provide guidance on the sentencing of charges related to failing to render assistance. The court found that the sentence imposed on the charge of failing to render assistance was outside the range and thus manifestly excessive. However, the court found no error in the degree of cumulation ordered. The appellant was resentenced to the same total effective sentence and non-parole period. The court found no point of principle in the case, and thus the appeal was allowed.

Orders