DUNDOVIC, MR D.V.

Ms FOX (Bright) (14:46): Can the Attorney-General advise the house whether the Director of Public Prosecutions has decided to appeal against the sentence imposed on Denis Vlado Dundovic for killing Mr Peter Godfrey?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon—Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (14:46): I can tell the house that the Director of Public Prosecutions has advised me that he has lodged an application to the Court of Criminal Appeal against the sentence imposed by Judge Millsteed in the District Court on 25 February on Denis Vlado Dundovic. Dundovic was committed to the District Court for sentence after pleading guilty in the Magistrates Court to offences of aggravated causing death by dangerous driving and aggravated causing harm by dangerous driving. The offences were aggravated by reason of their being committed in the course of attempting to escape a pursuit by police and in the course of a prolonged and deliberate course of very bad driving.

Dundovic was exposed to a maximum penalty, for the first offence, of imprisonment for life and a minimum licence disqualification of 10 years and, for the second offence, imprisonment for seven years and a minimum licence disqualification of three years. Dundovic was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a period of five years, 10 months and two weeks, with a nonparole period of four years, two months and two weeks, which included a period of parole. The offender was also disqualified from driving or holding a driver's licence for a period of 10 years.

On the morning of 12 February 2007, while on release from custody on parole, Dundovic fled police at high speeds, with his headlights switched off, in a vehicle reported stolen. Under the influence of methamphetamine, Dundovic crashed into the Ford motor vehicle driven by the victim, State Emergency Services volunteer and newlywed, Mr Peter Godfrey, who was travelling to work along South Road. Alas, Mr Godfrey died at the scene from the injuries he suffered.

A police accident reconstruction expert estimated that, at the moment of impact, Dundovic was travelling at a speed of between 152 and 163 km/h. The judge remarked that Dundovic had a poor criminal record, which included convictions for offences of dishonesty and violence but, primarily, for driving offences. Significantly, in recent years he had been involved in two high-speed police chases.

The Director of Public Prosecutions has advised me that the grounds upon which leave to appeal is sought are that the sentence imposed is manifestly inadequate in that it fails to maintain an adequate standard of punishment for the offence of aggravated cause death by dangerous driving; that the learned sentencing judge erred in starting with the sentence of seven years imprisonment given that the maximum penalty for the offence is life imprisonment; that he found that the offending was and I quote 'towards the upper end of the scale of seriousness for crimes of this type'; and that the conduct of the defendant and his prior history puts the matter into the most serious class of offences.

The learned sentencing judge erred in imposing a sentence that was so disproportionate to the seriousness of the offending as to shock the public conscience. This matter has caused much public disquiet. These sorts of offences are shocking to the South Australian public, and in 2005 Mr Greg James QC was appointed to conduct the Kapunda Road Royal Commission. One of the results of that commission was that the government proposed, and this parliament carried, changes to the criminal law to increase penalties for offenders evading police pursuit and to create aggravated driving offences.

I know that the member for Unley in debate this morning was condemning me for advocating increases in sentencing in our criminal justice system; mocking and criticising me for doing that. I refer members to the parliamentary record. Who knows what he thinks about the case of Dundovic? I would be frightened to know.

Dundovic was subject to those laws and the higher maximum penalties they included. This was acknowledged by the sentencing judge in his remarks. The entire sentencing remarks are available on the Courts Administration Authority's website, and I encourage honourable members to view them at www.courts.sa.gov.au. Like many, I was thoroughly perplexed by the sentence imposed and, soon after the sentence was handed down on Denis Vlado Dundovic, I met the Director of Public Prosecutions to consult on this matter and he informed me of his intention to appeal.

We sit here on the government bench opposite an opposition that criticises us whenever we as a government make comment on individual cases. If one reads the member for Heysen's electorate newsletter, you will see in it front-page criticism of the government for canvassing individual decisions. I make no apology for canvassing this individual decision. Moreover, the member for Heysen told the house during the last sitting week that, if she had been the attorney-general, she would not have appealed against the suspended sentence handed to Paul Habib Nemer. Let us get it really clear—

Mr WILLIAMS: Mr Speaker, I think for the last five minutes the Attorney has been debating rather than answering the question, which is against standing orders.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I think the Attorney has pushed the bounds of the substance of the question. Perhaps he might wind up.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: If the opposition becomes the government and the member for Heysen becomes the attorney-general, there will never be appeals against sentences ordered by the attorney-general.

Mr WILLIAMS: I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker .

The SPEAKER: Order! I know what the member for MacKillop's point of order is and I uphold it.

Mr WILLIAMS: Sir, can I seek a point of clarification from you?

The SPEAKER: Of course you can.

An honourable member interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WILLIAMS: Sir, you have conceded that you knew what my point of order was and you agreed with the points that I was going to put, yet you allowed the Attorney to continue with that debating; whereas, when the opposition asked the question, you automatically, without a point of order being called from the other side, called the opposition to order.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: I am seeking a point of clarification.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, please! Member for MacKillop, I called the Attorney to order as soon as you got to your feet. He took some time to sit down and I am happy to rebuke him for not taking his seat as soon as you rose to your feet.