JUDGES:	LYONS and T FORREST JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	7 May 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 June 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 136
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2023] VCC 2224 (Judge Palmer)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Appeal – Dangerous driving causing serious injury (charge 1) and failure to render assistance (charge 2) – Total effective sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment – Non-parole period of 2 years – Charge 2 sentence was 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment – Whether sentence imposed on charge 2 manifestly excessive – Applicant’s guilty plea, youth, limited criminal history and good rehabilitation prospects – Victim seriously injured – Applicant fled collision scene in self-preservation – General deterrence appropriately prominent in sentencing – Applicant’s moral culpability not at lower end – Sentence within range – Leave to appeal refused.

Clarkson v The Queen (2011) 32 VR 361; DPP (Vic) v OJA (2007) 172 A Crim R 181; Lai v The King [2023] VSCA 151; R v Kilic (2016) 259 CLR 256, applied.

Abbott v The Queen (2021) 96 MVR 225; Al-Anwiya v The Queen (2022) 101 MVR 447; Bankal v The Queen [2019] VSCA 171; Sarikaya v The Queen (2015) 73 MVR 1; Stewart v The Queen (2018) 83 MVR 535; Tokay v The Queen (2014) 69 MVR 24; Worboyes v The Queen (2021) 96 MVR 344, referred to.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr J O’Connor
Respondent:		Mr RL Gibson KC
Solicitors
Applicant:	May Lawyers
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

LYONS JA
T FORREST JA:

The applicant pleaded guilty in the County Court to one charge of dangerous driving causing serious injury. He was also charged with failing to render assistance after a person sustained serious injury and in circumstances where the applicant knew — or ought to have known — that the accident occurred and resulted in that affected person’s serious injury.[1]
[1]Contrary to s 61 of the Road Safety Act 1986.
He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment on 4 December 2023.
The details of the sentences imposed are set out in the table below.

Charge on Indictment	Offence	Max Penalty	Sentence	Cumulation
1	Dangerous driving causing serious injury	5 years	1 year	6 months
2	Fail to render assistance	10 years or 1200 penalty units	2 years and 6 months	Base
Total effective sentence:		3 years’ imprisonment
Non-parole period:		2 years
Pre-sentence detention declared:		43 days
Section 6AAA Statement:		Total effective sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months.
Other Relevant Orders: 1. Licence cancellation and disqualification for 4 years from date of sentence.

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against sentence directed solely at the sentence imposed on charge 2. The proposed ground of appeal is expressed as follows:
In all the circumstances, the sentence imposed on charge 2 is manifestly excessive…

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 Zachary Holmes v The King

Details

AGLC: Zachary Holmes v The King [2025] VSCA 136
Case: [2025] VSCA 136
Decision Date: 20 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Zachary Holmes has appealed against his sentence in the Supreme Court of Victoria, contending that the sentence imposed for the offence of failing to render assistance was manifestly excessive. The appellant was involved in a dangerous driving incident that resulted in serious injury to another person, and subsequently fled the scene. He was convicted on two charges and received a total effective sentence of three years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years. The appellant's appeal focused on the 2 years and 6 months' imprisonment for the failure to render assistance charge, arguing that the sentence was too harsh. The court had to determine whether the sentence for this charge was manifestly excessive, considering factors such as the appellant's guilty plea, youth, limited criminal history, and prospects for rehabilitation, as well as the serious nature of the victim's injuries.

The court assessed whether the sentence imposed on the second charge was manifestly excessive by considering various legal precedents and principles. It examined the moral culpability of the appellant, the impact of the offence on the victim, and the need for general deterrence. The court found that the appellant's moral culpability was not at the lower end of the scale, and that the need for general deterrence was appropriately prominent in the sentencing process. The court also noted the seriousness of the victim's injuries and the appellant's flight from the scene. After considering these factors, the court determined that the sentence fell within the appropriate range and did not constitute a manifestly excessive punishment.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court of Victoria refused the appellant leave to appeal, holding that the sentence for the charge of failing to render assistance was not manifestly excessive. The court acknowledged the serious nature of the victim's injuries and the appellant's flight from the scene, but also considered the appellant's guilty plea, youth, limited criminal history, and prospects for rehabilitation. The court found that the sentence was proportionate to the offending and did not constitute a manifestly excessive punishment.

Orders