Legal Research
Cases
Woldesilassie v The Queen

Woldesilassie v The Queen

Case [2018] VSCA 285 9 November 2018

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2018 0008

ADDIS WOLDESILASSIE	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL P and KAYE JA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	31 October 2018
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	9 November 2018
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSCA 285
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2017] VCC 1332 (Judge Chambers)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Guilty plea – Dangerous driving causing death – Dangerous driving causing serious injury – Collision due to prolonged inattention by appellant – Total effective sentence 4 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 3 years – Moral culpability assessed as ‘higher end of low range’ – Whether assessment erroneous – Uncertain immigration status due to imprisonment – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr A Pyne	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Respondent	Ms R Harper	Office of Public Prosecutions

MAXWELL P
KAYE JA:

The appellant pleaded guilty in the County Court to one charge of dangerous driving causing death and one charge of dangerous driving causing serious injury. Following the plea made on his behalf, the judge sentenced him to be imprisoned for a total term of 4 years and 6 months, with a non-parole period of 3 years.[1] That sentence is comprised as follows:
[1]DPP v Woldesilassie [2017] VCC 1332 (11 September 2017) (‘Sentencing Remarks’).

Charge
Offence Maximum Sentence Cumulation

1 Dangerous driving causing death[2]
10 years
3 years
6 months Base

2 Dangerous driving causing serious injury[3]
5 years
2 years 12 months

Total Effective Sentence: 4 years 6 months’ imprisonment

Non-Parole Period: 3 years

Pre-sentence Detention Declared: 358 days

6AAA statement: 5 years 9 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 3 years and 8 months

Other orders: 2 years licence disqualification
[2]Crimes Act 1958 s 319(1).
[3]Ibid s 319(1A).

The appellant, by leave, appeals the sentences so imposed on him on the following grounds:

1.The learned sentencing judge was wrong to assess the appellant’s moral culpability as falling at ‘the higher end of the low range’.
2.The individual sentences and total effective sentence are manifestly excessive, having regard to:
(a)The learned Judge’s finding regarding the appellant’s moral culpability.

(b)       The appellant’s plea of guilty and remorse.
(c)       The appellant’s prior good character.
(d)      The appellant’s prospects of rehabilitation.
(d)      The appellant’s uncertain immigration status.
(e)       The principle of totality.

Circumstances of offending

Shortly after 7:00 pm on Sunday 18 September 2016, the appellant, who was driving a Ford utility vehicle north along McIntyre Road, Sunshine North, failed to stop at a red light that was applicable to his vehicle at the intersection of McIntyre Road and Suffolk Road. At the same time, two female pedestrians, 72-year-old Giovanna Dimech and her 74-year-old friend, Mary DeGiorgio, were walking on the pedestrian crossing from east to west across McIntyre Road. The appellant’s vehicle collided with both women before it came to a stop in the intersection. Ms Dimech died as a result of the collision,…

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 Woldesilassie v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Woldesilassie v The Queen [2018] VSCA 285
Case: [2018] VSCA 285
Decision Date: 9 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Woldesilassie, appealed against his sentence for dangerous driving causing death and causing serious injury. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The incident in question involved a collision that occurred due to the appellant's prolonged inattention while driving. The appellant had pleaded guilty to the charges. The court was required to decide whether the sentencing judge had erred in assessing the moral culpability of the appellant's actions, and whether the total effective sentence was manifestly excessive. The court also considered the appellant's uncertain immigration status, which arose due to his imprisonment.

The High Court found that the sentencing judge had correctly assessed the moral culpability of the appellant's actions as being at the higher end of the low range. The court held that the sentence of four years and six months with a non-parole period of three years was not manifestly excessive. The court emphasised the importance of considering the appellant's prolonged inattention while driving, which was a significant contributing factor to the collision. The court also noted that the appellant's uncertain immigration status did not warrant a reduction in sentence. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

In light of the above, the High Court held that the appellant's appeal against sentence was without merit. The court affirmed the original sentence imposed by the sentencing judge, finding that it was appropriate in all the circumstances. The court emphasised the importance of holding individuals accountable for their actions when they drive dangerously, particularly when such actions result in serious injury or death. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, and the original sentence be upheld.

Orders