Director of Public Prosecutions v Borg

[2015] VCC 1385

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA  Revised
(Not) Restricted
Suitable for Publication

AT LATROBE VALLEY
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

STEPHEN BORG

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE SMALLWOOD
WHERE HELD:	Latrobe Valley
DATE OF HEARING:
DATE OF SENTENCE:	30 September 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Borg
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VCC 1385

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr K. Doyle
For the Accused	Ms P. Scheffer

HIS HONOUR:

1You can stay seated during this Mr Borg.  I might say at the outset that this is I think easily the most difficult sentencing consideration I have ever had to do.  I had intended to write it all out and then simply read it but it seems to me that in this scenario it is something which all the parties are entitled to have articulated rather than presented as some sort of calculated speech.

2You, Stephen Charles Borg, have pleaded guilty to two charges of dangerous driving causing death and two charges of dangerous driving causing serious injury.  Those crimes carry maximum penalties of 12 years and five years.  You are now 22 years of age.  You were 20 years of age at the time of the offending and therefore are to be considered a youthful offender.

3You have pleaded guilty to a settled indictment and you must get the benefit of that.  I accept on the material before me that you have genuine remorse for your actions on that day and indeed, insofar as the psychologists are concerned, shame. 

4It is a situation where I accept what your counsel told me, and I say this because what is in the victim impact statements, that you have accepted responsibility for this from the outset. You did wish to write a letter of apology to the family of the victims, but were advised by your counsel not to, which is advice I have seen and heard before and fully understand.

5On the material that is provided in the Crown brief, the original charge was one of culpable driving and negligent driving causing serious injury.  I can say from where I sit after many years' experience that it would be my view that on the material contained within this brief, such a charge could not have been sustained.  That being so, it is fully understandable why you, have been prepared to plea to a lesser charge now for a considerable period of time, but not prepared to plead to that charge.  I say that with no criticism of anybody, these are very difficult and very emotional circumstances.  The result has been however, as I understand it, that an offer was made a significant time ago, that there has now been a delay of some 22 months in total.  I just realised a minute ago, I am not sure when you were charged, but that delay when someone is of your age is of real significance.

6The fact that you have pleaded in circumstances where, even on a charge of dangerous driving causing death, you had a prospect of acquittal adds to the decision I have made that you do have appropriate remorse.  Whilst it may seem to someone looking at all this that there has been recalcitrance, I accept that that is not the case.

7You have no prior convictions of any description and that goes very much in your favour in the normal course of events.  I note that you have not driven since, and I doubt that you have any desire to drive.  The situation is with these charges, I will indicate later on, a lack of priors and youth are clearly matters that I will take into account, but do not usually have the significance that they have when sentencing for other forms of crime.  In this particular form of offending, general deterrence is a very important consideration, and I will deal with the law relating to these particular crimes later on.

8The circumstances here are that on 22 November 2013, a family were travelling from Sale Airbase to Melbourne.  In the car, Mr Robert Hutchings, his wife Teresa Sinclair, who had been with him since 2002, and their three children, Andrew aged nine, Mikala aged five and Matthew aged 4.  I am not aware of the history of the family, I have simple had before me the victim impact statements which I will again refer to later.

9Clearly a totally innocent and happy and loving family were going to visit, as I understand, relatives or a grandmother in Melbourne.  They had stopped in Sale and they stopped again in Rosedale.  Mr Hutchings was working at the airbase and was looking forward to a promotion.  He described in his statement how at Sale that they apparently obtained I think some food, and at Rosedale he played with his daughter.  That was the last memory he has of her.

10They commenced the drive from Rosedale to Traralgon.  Coming the other way was you, Mr Borg.  You just turned 20 and you had a driver's licence for about 18 months.  Your history was that you had suffered, and continue to suffer real difficulties in your life.  From the time that you were very young, you had the almost impossible task of talking, which you have assistance for over a very long period of time.

11You suffered from, and undiagnosed at that stage, autistic spectrum disorder.  You had been assessed when you were about ten or 11, with and IQ of 67.  That is an IQ which gives rise to mild intellectual disability.  As is often the case, that situation did improve and when you were assessed in more recent times, it came in a full scale IQ of 83.

12You went to Year 10 with difficulty.  You had a lot of assistance or endeavoured assistance with your psychological problems.  For years it was believed that you had some sort of acquired brain injury or at least a cognitive defect of real significance.  You were bullied at school and on the material really only ever had about three friends during that period of time.

13You left school with the prospect of employment and were ultimately able to obtain a job.  I have reports before me as to how that came about and you were persistent and were finally able to get a job washing dishes in a bar.

14You were described in the material as a diligent worker, a person who would go off in a world of your own, and be very simplistic in the way that you existed.  You take things literally - largely I understand it because of your language difficulties.  In that scenario of working you then obtained another job as a storeman in Morwell working hours from the early morning in that.  You were therefore, as is not always the case these days, a young man with ongoing difficulties and significant defects who was working hard and indeed working two jobs to try and get ahead.

15There is a deal of material in the brief about your sleeping circumstances prior to what occurred.  It would be, I think, dangerous of me to draw any conclusions from that.  Indeed the allegation of dangerousness that arises in this particular case, comes from the time shortly before the collision.  It is not put that there was an act of danger or negligence in this situation of you getting into the car and driving.  This came about in the course of that journey.

16Whilst there were matters raised which could have given rise to a defence, I think that the real answer to this probably is that you were in as what is described by one of the witnesses "Zoned out”. Having lived and worked in this area for a long period of time.  It is hard to think of a better stretch of road to do that on.  You had only had a licence for about 18 months and I take that into account.

17What happened was described by witnesses.  You left work with a half hour drive to get home to Dennison.  Passing the lights at Maffra Road, a Mr Showel was driving behind you.  He followed your car from Traralgon almost to Rosedale.  His observations were "At about five to ten minutes after leaving the traffic lights at Maffra Road, I noticed that this utility started to wander a bit on the road, his vehicle was wandering across into the oncoming lane across the double white lines.  The first this happened, his driver's side wheels were on the double white lines and he came back into his lane.  A few 100 metres further on, he wandered further across, so his driver's side wheels were completely in the oncoming lane over the double white lines.  Where this happened was on a bend to the left.  He would only be over the centre line for a second and then he would correct and steer back to the left."  That clearly shows that you were sufficiently awake, and I use that word advisedly, to realise and to go back to the correct side.  It is in that scenario that the danger of what you then did comes to pass.

18Mr Showel overtook your car around about 3 km before the collision.  If your vehicle was travelling at around 100, and there is no suggestion of excessive speed, you would have got to the point of collision in a couple of minutes from that.  As he drove past, Mr Showel looked into your vehicle.  He said, "The driver looked like he was zoned out and was looking straight ahead.  He was a male in his 20's, with dark, wavy, curly hair.  His eyes were open but I didn't see him do anything at all.  So he was not texting and he didn't look at me when I drove past."  A further witness, a Mr Hutton, observed the same sort of behaviour. 

19As I indicated, Mr Hutchings and his family were coming from Sale to Melbourne.  They came around the bend just out off Rosedale to be confronted by you on the wrong side of the road.  The inference I will draw from the material was that you were sufficiently aware of that to have endeavoured to get back on to the correct side, and it would appear Mr Hutchins in that millisecond he had to react, tried to go the same way.  The impact was massive and the consequences almost too difficult to describe.

20The reconstruction evidence said that your vehicle was going at 102.3, that would always be with a bit of give and take, and Mr Hutchins vehicle, 86.3 at the point of impact.  The reconstruction says that you were on the incorrect side of the road prior to impact and at impact, the passenger side tyres were on the double white lines.  And I have already indicated that is the basis of the Crown case, that you, in the preceding couple of minutes had become either zoned out or tired, whatever it might have been but persisted in driving.

21There are a number of signs between Traralgon and Rosedale about driving whilst tired and the like.  It is at this point that I think, it is in fairness to you to point out some of the findings subsequent to all of this that had been made by the medical professionals.  Psychologist Mr Pyneman says, and I will not be going into these in great detail, they are documents that have been referred to and are on the court file in any event, "Firstly regarding the accident, Stephen's level of fatigue and or autistic functioning are likely to have combined to reduce his level of self-awareness in regards to his physical and psychological functioning.  Without the ability to reflect and focus appropriately, the mental processing of external stimuli and internal cognitions, is therefore likely to have overwhelmed his conscious mind, resulting in a mind that's 'Zoned out' state."  I interpret the same was described by Mr Showel.

22"His age and mental state is also meant that is critical driving skills in terms of automatic responses to danger, are likely to have been lower than they would be in a more experienced driver.” I accept that for what it is worth.  “When combined his distracted state and reduced levels of skill, has meant that his brain did not direct his attention back to his driving at the critical time."  The other material suggests that your capacity to understand and to absorb information is limited and if tired, and in a zoned out state, would be significantly limited.

23The fact of the matter however is that you have pleaded guilty to these charges and you have, to your credit, assumed responsibility for them.  This type of offending is not uncommon as I have indicated, general deterrence has to play a significant part.  In your particular situation, I do not think specific deterrence is of real significance.  I would be very surprised if you ever did this again.  Denunciation and punishment are also matters which must come into play and they have to be balanced insofar as all the overall circumstances are concerned.  It is not put here that you got into a car knowing that you should not have been driving and took off from there.  As I have said this fatigue or zoning out, obviously crept up on you.

24It is important in this situation to look at what does not exist in this case, as is so often the circumstance.  Both of the vehicles were roadworthy.  Sometimes you have situations where there are no back tyres, the vehicle is in disrepair, whatever.  There is no alcohol involved and indeed as I understand it you do not use drugs and very rarely drink alcohol.  There are no drugs.  There is no excessive speed.  There is no texting or mobile phone use.  There is no what is in these days is referred to as hooning.  There is no aggressive driving.  There is no deliberate action in that sense of, or intentional action of putting yourself or other people into danger and the sleep deprivation is, as I have described, it would be problematic to make that decision.  You therefore fall to be sentenced in circumstances which are, in my view, very unusual for this type of offending.

25Sleep fatigue can come in many situations.  The one most commonly seen, as I understand it, is the long-distance truck driver, or commercial driver who may take ephedrine, dodges up their log books, knowing that they are driving and are very tired and very dangerous state.  That is the extreme end of the spectrum for fatigue, and obviously each case then has to be looked at it in its own circumstances.

26I am aware, as I will go through in a moment that this crime is really one of consequence.  Culpable driving deals with gross negligence.  Dangerous driving deals with simple dangerous driving, where nobody is actually injured, and these two charges deal with the situation where either death occurs or somebody is injured.  Clearly therefore consequence is of real significance.

27I then look to the consequences for the people that you ran into.  The Crown opening, which is a tendered document, has a deal of material in it and it very succinctly describes what occurred to the people inside of that car.  The mother was killed.  The daughter was killed.  The older of the two boys was put in a wheelchair where he will remain, and the father was seriously injured, though as I understand it fortunately, with prospects of rehabilitation and recovery.

28The injuries sustained by all concerned were clearly catastrophic.  They are very clearly outlined in the victim impact statement of Mr Hutchins.  I think there is no need to take everybody through the medical descriptions of all of those.  What the opening describes is the medical consequences, for example, young Andrew the nine year old, who had already been diagnosed with the same disorder as you Mr Borg.  However, as I understand it, a brain injury was acquired during the course of the accident which will then impound indefinitely at least the difficulties that he will have or have had with that condition.

29What the Crown opening does not describe is the absolute devastation something like this causes to a family and a community.  Mr Hutchins read his victim impact statement out aloud in court.  I have read again all of the victim impact statements on a number of occasions.  They show the devastation that not only occurs to the people immediately involved but to the extended family.  The sense of loss, the sense of frustration, the sense of anger, the sense of bewilderment I think in some situations will persist for a very long period of time.

30The impact statement of Mr Hutchins describes the psychological aspects of all of this.  Your actions for which you fall to be sentenced Mr Borg, not only took away lives, they decimated a loving and caring and clearly well respected family.  Your actions destroyed the hopes of this young family and their prospects for happiness together for a long period of time.  They have caused the ongoing, not only in terms of loss, the ongoing practical difficulties that will be involved in the caring for young Andrew.  There is not just the emotional matters that the family all have to deal with and that he has to clearly deal with himself as he gets older, but there are the financial aspects, there is buying of houses, there is the fear of the father of who will look after him, all of those aspects come into play in a situation like this.  I do not believe I have the capacity to describe all that properly.  I am a father myself and I think I can begin to understand but I do not think, unless a similar thing happened to me, could ever emotionally quantify the consequences of what occurred on that day. 

31Devastation is a word which would, I think, pale into significance.  I say it is to very much Mr Hutchins credit that he had the courage to come into this court room and tell the world what this has done to him, and what it has done to his family.  As I say, I am not going to quote from victim impact statements, I think what I have said outlines what is there and I have read and taken into account all of them. 

32In a situation such as this, the courts have been clear that the usual sentence is one of active custody.  You had just turned 20 at the time, and at that point in time, could have received a youth justice order.  That option is no longer available.  The option that has been sought by your counsel, is one of a community corrections order, and I will be going into some detail about the current state of sentencing and the current state of the law in regard to that.  The Crown's submission is that a custodial sentence would be appropriate.

33I have outlined your background already to indicate who the person was that collided or ran into this family.  You have been examined by a number of specialists and in summary, they point out what I have said that you had an unhappy childhood, you had very few friends, you were badly bullied, you had ten years of speech therapy, and you went years without people even be able to understand what you said other than you family.  You find chit chat as it describes here very difficult, you can make repetitive comments without detecting the lack of interest in the listener.  When visually occupied you may ignore your name being called, you go into your own world.  You require instructions to be repeated and preferably one at a time.  You still take language literally and you take general stirring comments very personally. 

34Mr Pyman the psychologist goes onto say that you are clearly, with your capacities, a very diligent worker, which in people with limitations is quite often the case.  He points out, it goes without saying, as do all the others, that with your personal problems, you are particularly vulnerable and you would have a real difficulty in a prison environment.  You will be very vulnerable and I have no hesitation accepting that.  You do not have the ability to read cues in others and you have been subjected to bullying earlier in your life.

35As to what occurred to you in the collision, you yourself suffered injuries, and I think that is of little consequence here, it was brought about by your own actions.  There has been discussion as to whether in fact you were knocked out in the accident That remains debatable and I would not make a finding.  Monash Neurology, tend to take the view that you were concussed.

36In terms of their report, they said that your parents had commented that there would be periods of time you would seem blank and distance.  They said that you also have sleep difficulties, although that is not being diagnosed into a situation which has any real effect here.

37The report that was put in about how you got your job is sad indeed for somebody in your circumstances.  You have not worked since and you have not driven a car since.  But you, as opposed to what we so often have to do within these courts, were a 20 year old with limited abilities who was having a serious go at being a member of the community.

38Since the collision occurred, as I have said you have not driven, you are being diagnosed as having severe depression and an adjustment disorder, together with anxiety.  You have been receiving psychiatric treatment and you have been on a variety of medications including Seroquel which is known to be an anti-psychotic.  Indeed your sense of guilt for what you did has resulted in you having been admitted to Latrobe Regional Hospital into the Flynn Ward as I understand it, for people having serious psychiatric disability. You were clearly, at that stage, suicidal, even though you denied trying to kill yourself.

39Subsequent to that, there has been psychotropic medication applied which you have been taking.  It said that in reviewing you that when anyone tries to talk about this case, you withdraw from the conversation, you sometimes say you want to go away just to escape and your family fears for your safety throughout this time, especially for your suicide and your very poor capacity to deal with an active custodial sentence.  Your mother in particular said that as a child, you did not have the normal protective responses and it would be an absolute nightmare in a custodial environment.

40The references that were tended on your behalf simply repeat what I have said.  Often unfortunately these matters come about where the accused has no prior convictions and is young.

41I then look to the authorities in regard to sentencing for this particular crime.  I go firstly to the decision of Neethling,  No.884 of 2008 of the Victorian Court of Appeal.  That decision was handed down prior to the decision in Boulton and prior to the existence of community corrections order.  Mr Neethling received what's called then an intensive corrections order which was said to amount to the equivalent of gaol.  Mr Justice Vincent in that decision had quite a bit to say about that, which I would quite, with the greatest respect, agree.

42What is set out in Neethling, are a number, and I am not going to go through the history of all these cases obviously, but there are a number of factors which need to be taken into account.  These are also referred to in the decision of Oates of the Victorian Supreme Court and effectively come from a New South Wales decisions, as I recall it, of Jurisic and Whyte.  They are these.  "General deterrence must be given considerable weight in sentencing an offender for dangerous driving causing death or serious injury."  I have already said that.

43"A person who kills and injuries another while driving dangerously is likely to receive a significant term of imprisonment."  I have already said that.  "The sentence which is imposed must take account of variations in the moral culpability of the person responsible," and I will refer to that again in a moment.  "A custodial sentence would usually be appropriate of this offence expect in cases where the offender's level of moral culpability is low."

44The list of aggravating features of such a crime have been outlined and I have already outlined a significant number of them that go to the culpability even though this is not culpable driving of such a matter.  Firstly, the extent and nature of the injuries inflicted, devastating.  The number of people put at risk, significant.  The degree of speed, not excessive.  The degree of intoxication or substance abuse, non existent.  Erratic or aggressive driving, non existent.  Competitive driving or showing off, non existent.  Length of the journey during which others were exposed to risk, a couple of minutes or a few minutes.  Ignoring - sorry I will make that clear.  The risk where you were tired is of a few minutes, obviously the drive itself was longer than that it was about a half hours' worth as I understand it.

45The ignoring of warnings, problematic in your situation bearing in mind your condition.  Escaping police pursuit, not applicable.  Degree of sleep deprivation, very difficult to ascertain.  Failing to stop, not applicable.  So they are the matters that are looked at.

46In the decision of Oates as well as in the decision of Neethling as I have just read out.  Justice Neave said that you need a case of low level moral culpability before a non-custodial sentence would be imposed.  That was a case of fatigue when driving and I find the comparative cases do not necessarily assist a lot.  In that situation there was a non-custodial disposition imposed and that of course was prior to community corrections orders coming into existence and the decision of Boulton.

47In that particular decision, Justice Nettle who is now gone to higher things said, it was presented by the Crown that in that matter it was not put that he had a level of tiredness sufficient to put him up on a culpable driving, and that is the situation I have no doubt here.

48The level of moral culpability here in, the circumstances described here of your incapacities and disabilities to recognise the danger that you were putting others in is of a low order.

49The next matter that has to be looked at is the question of a community corrections order.  As the Court of Appeal in the R v Leach, "It's particular important that this court should not devalue or deny the right of a sentencing judge to act mercifully in a case where it seems to the judge to be an instance where an opportunity for reformation of an offender ought be grasped. That, after all, may be a decision which rebounds very much to the benefit of the community."  The president of the Court of Appeal, President Maxwell said in Tocava, "A sentencing judge should be astute to investigate whether a non-custodial disposition is to be preferred, even in the case of a serious offence, if in the long term the community’s interests will be best served by that course. This court should seek to promote public understanding of the fact that apart from the interest of the individual whom is sought to be rehabilitate, an important interest in itself, there is a vital community interest in maximising the prospects of rehabilitation of an individual who has been convicted of a serious crime."  That was the situation prior to the creation of community corrections orders.

50The decision of Boulton has, as it has been said a number of times, changed the landscape of sentencing in this state.  I think initially there were concerns about it.  There have been a number of decisions since.  Essentially, what the Court of Appeal said in that guideline judgment was that the community corrections order was a new and flexible sentencing option which can be for a term up to the maximum term of the imprisonment.  It also said that in some case it would be appropriate to impose a community corrections order with or without imprisonment for relatively serious offences which would previously have attracted quite substantial amounts of imprisonment. 

51It says that the judge should first assess the objective nature and gravity of the offence in the moral culpability and I have been through all those principles.  That a CCO, in the situation where the judge looks at it from that point of view, would satisfy the requirements of just punishment.

52A CCO, it was said, would be punitive and would act as a general deterrent, as long as the courts sufficiently explain the reasons for that the CCO will be sufficient punishment for the offender of the particular offence.  That decision also says that a CCO is likely to be a particularly important sentencing option in the case of a young offender and the reason needs to punish and insofar that both the community and offender are concerned.  I have already made mention of that and in cases such as this, I acknowledge that I have to give it lesser weight that I might otherwise have done.

53In Sherritt v R, the President of the Court of Appeal outlined I think with sufficient accuracy but sufficiently briefly the purposes of a community corrections order as a community disposition.  The President said, "The court in Boulton emphasised that if the community corrections order is to serve the purpose which parliament quite clearly envisaged for it sentencing courts need to rethink the conventional wisdom about whether prison is really the only option.  The court was at pains to spell out the grave disadvantages of imprisonment, both for the offender and for the community, and the unique advantages of a community corrections order in enabling real punishment to be imposed at the same time as advancing the offender's rehabilitation, in a way no prison term ever can.

54The availability of the community corrections order dramatically changes the sentencing landscape.  The sentencing court can now choose a sentencing disposition which enables all of the purposes of punishment to be served simultaneously, in a coherent and balanced way, in preference to an option (imprisonment) which is skewed towards retribution and deterrence.  The community corrections order option offers the court something which no term of imprisonment can offer, namely, the ability to impose a sentence which demands of the offender that he/she take personal responsibility for self-management and self-control, pursue treatment and rehabilitation, refrain from undesirable activities and associations and avoid undesirable persons and places." Most of those - interpolate, most of those do not apply to you Mr Borg.

55Importantly though with you, and I now quote again, "The CCO also enables the offender to maintain the continuity of personal and family relationships, and to benefit from the support they provide."  It is clear to me that you have needed that for a significant period of your life.  Indeed just about all of it.

56The President then said " In short, the CCO offers the sentencing court the best opportunity to promote, simultaneously, the best interests of the community and the best interests of the offender and of those who are dependent on him.  On this analysis, if defence counsel submits that a CCO would be appropriate, it is no answer for a prosecutor (or a judge) to say, ‘How could a CCO be appropriate given that an offence of this seriousness has always received imprisonment?’  As we have endeavoured to explain, that question should mark the beginning, not the end, of the court's consideration."  He then goes on to say that the Act has been changed to reinforce those circumstances.

57The decision of McGrath v R, of more recent times goes onto explain a number of the situations where judges in these intermediate courts have imposed custodial sentences with the Court of Appeal have then transformed into community corrections order, albeit with some gaol.  I note that most of those seem to be circumstances where the person already served some gaol before the matter got before the Court of Appeal.

58All those matters have to be taken into account when sentencing you Mr Borg, and I have absolutely no doubt that probably 40 of the last 45 minutes has been totally lost upon you having read this material.

59As I have said, this is the most difficult sentencing decision I think I have had to make as a judge and I have considered it with great anxiety.  In the end, I think that the low moral culpability of what you did is sufficient despite the almost, indescribable as I have said consequences, that a community corrections order would fit within what is described in Boulton. It is with a degree of reluctance that I do that.  However I have to look at this objectively and my objective decision that that is sufficient in this situation.

60The only thing I can do is to impose work hours which will be the maximum that is allowed to me.  Which will 500.  I will impose a time on that community corrections order, which in this situation is the maximum available to me, because of the head sentence for dangerous driving causing serious injury. I believe it to be the maximum but in any event, I would have done it in any event, five years.  It will be with conviction, which is a punishment in itself. 

61You will, if you agree, also have the following conditions.  You have been assessed and found to be suitable and counsel have no submissions to make.  You will have the condition of treatment and rehabilitation for mental health.  Hopefully that will a circumstance where you can be treated and assisted with your autism disability which you have lived with for 20 years without such treatment.  You will also be subject to supervision.  You will have people available to you and it is to be hoped that this process can be used to reintroduce you to a society which you have previously and now withdrawn from. 

62Your counsel pointed out to me that you do not drive, you virtually never leave the house and you have become a social isolate in a sense.  Hopefully that can be alleviated because it is of no real benefit to anybody.  You have had the courage of pleading guilty to all this and presenting yourself to be sentenced.

63Insofar as your driver's licence is concerned, again it is a situation of lawyer's talk, low moral culpability.  You have now not driven for two years.  This is not an example of drunkenness or drugs or deliberate hooning or anything like that.  What I am proposing to do because you will need to do a lot of community work will be to disqualify you from having a licence, bearing in mind you have not driven for two years and prohibit you from obtaining a licence for a further period of two years.  Clearly you, living where you do, in the country, will need a licence to work and the Court of Appeal has been clear on this previously that taking licences away will virtually deprive opportunity and employment, is in nobody's particular interest.

64I do not consider you to be a danger on the roads in the commonly accepted sense and indeed Community Corrections have assessed you as being a low risk of reoffending.  Are there any other orders I have to make other than entering into that document?

65MR DOYLE:  No, Your Honour.

66HIS HONOUR:  Can you print that off please.  If you take it to you, if you go with him please Madam Instructor.  That community corrections order is now made and entered into it.  Can I simply say this in closing that had this matter involved alcohol or drugs or speeding or hooning the end result in terms of this sentence would have been very, very different indeed.  All right.  I will just stand now.

‑ ‑ ‑