Director of Public Prosecutions v Card

[2025] VCC 1165

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT GEELONG

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Revised

Not Restricted

Suitable for Publication

CR 25-00877

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

RAYMOND CARD

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE MULLALY
WHERE HELD:	Geelong
DATE OF HEARING:	7 July 2025
DATE OF SENTENCE:	14 August 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Card
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VCC 1165

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

---

Subject:  Criminal law

Catchwords:  Culpable driving causing death; negligently causing serious injury – motor vehicle

Legislation Cited:  Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic)

Cases Cited:DPP v Reynolds (a pseudonym) [2022] VSCA 263; Skura v The Queen [2004] VSCA 53; Brown v The Queen [2019] VSCA 286; DPP v Ferris [2024] VCC 1878; Brooks (a pseudonym) v The King [2023] VSCA 4; Reg v Smith, Michael [1987] SASC 9802; R v Van Boxtel [2005] VSCA 175; R v R L P [2009] VSCA 271; R v Penn (1994) 19 MVR 367, 370; R v Guariglia [2001] VSCA 27; R v Towle [2009] VSCA 280; DPP v Huby [2018] VCC 1621; DPP v Huby [2019] VSCA 106; Weininger v R [2003] HCA 14.

Sentence:Total effective sentence of 9 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 4 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr J. Johnston	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr G. Steward	Tony Hargreaves

HIS HONOUR: 

1Raymond Card, once again this court is called on to sentence a decent man to years of imprisonment for causing the death of his much-loved partner, and serious injury to a young woman just reaching her potential. The utter tragedy is all the more so because it was completely avoidable. 

2On 16 November 2024, you and your partner, Mandy McDonald, celebrated with others at a wedding in Lara. You drove to the wedding from your home in Grovedale. I accept it was your intention to leave your car at the wedding reception venue and get a taxi home and pick up the car the next day. If you had taken that obvious and responsible path, the catastrophe that I will speak of would not have happened.

3You and Mandy McDonald enjoyed the wedding and by the end of the night you were both intoxicated. Ms McDonald may have fallen over at some point.  It seems that to protect her from the risk of embarrassment of being significantly intoxicated in a taxi or an Uber or further embarrassment at the venue as you waited for the taxi or Uber to arrive, you decided to drive home with Ms McDonald in the passenger seat.

4Of course, your decision to drive was made by you with your thinking totally addled by the large amount of alcohol you had drunk. It was, as I have already said, and you know only too well, a catastrophically bad decision. 

5You drove from the reception venue to the Bacchus Marsh Road. You intended to turn from the Bacchus Marsh Road onto the Geelong Ring Road and head towards Waurn Ponds and Grovedale.

6In order to head from the Bacchus Marsh Road onto the Ring Road to head towards the Waurn Ponds end of that road, you had to cross over the top of all the Ring Road lanes and then turn right and take the down ramp onto the lanes of the Ring Road that headed towards the Waurn Ponds end. 

7As you came to the Ring Road, you turned right at the first ramp and headed down that ramp. It was the wrong ramp. It was the exit ramp for cars travelling in the direction of Melbourne. You drove past a number of signs that told you that you were going the wrong way and to turn back. In your intoxicated state, you did not see and react to these signs. 

8You drove the whole way down the ramp and onto the Ring Road and continued on for a short distance, oblivious that you were driving on the wrong side of a major freeway with speed limits of 100 kilometres an hour. 

9Not long after driving along the wrong side of the road, a car driven by
Mr Djokic with Ms Angeline McLeod as passenger came along driving in the correct direction in the correct lane and also going at high speed. 

10By the time you and Mr Djokic realised what was going on, both of you attempted to avoid a head-on collision by turning to the empty lane to his right and your left.  This avoidance manoeuvre was too little, too late and the cars collided. Ms McDonald died at the scene. Mr Djokic, the other driver, suffered minor injuries including cuts and bruising. He had no alcohol or drugs in his system. Ms McLeod was seriously injured. I will outline in more detail the ongoing physical and psychological impact of her injuries by reference to her victim impact statement and the reports from her treating clinicians. At this point, I note that Ms McLeod suffered multiple fractures and she had to undergo surgery on several occasions inserting pins and plates. Her main disabling injuries were to her right hip which was dislocated and fractured.  She also sustained fractures to her left arm with ongoing and, now it seems permanent, nerve injury. 

11After surgery on her hip and arm, immediately on arrival at hospital, and then further surgery on 20 November 2024, she was discharged, wheelchair bound on 23 November 2024. I will say more, as I said, of her painful and difficult pathway towards recovery by reference to her compelling victim impact statement and that of her parents. 

12At the scene of the collision when the police arrived, you, Mr Card, made admissions in what your counsel said was a harrowing exchange recorded on the police body-worn camera. You immediately said, “It's my fault, I'm pissed, I've had too much to drink, I thought I was alright, but I wasn't.” You were deeply concerned for the welfare of your partner and those in the other car. 

13You were transported yourself to the Royal Melbourne Hospital where it was discovered that your blood alcohol level was .226 or over four times the legal limit. Obviously, that very high blood alcohol level is a central feature in my assessment of the gravity of your offending. I will outline all the factors impacting my assessment of the gravity of what you did shortly.

14A very important aspect of that assessment is the impact on the victims.  Public acknowledgement of the impact on victims also advances what is called the 'social rehabilitation' of the victims. 

15Further, by speaking of the ongoing impact on victims the public can better appreciate the reality of road trauma rather than being left only with this catastrophe adding another statistic to the road toll. By making clear the devastating consequences of drink driving from the words of the victims, the sentencing purposes of deterrence can also be advanced in truly graphical ways. 

16I start not with a formal victim impact statement, but with the reality that the loss of the life of Mandy McDonald is an utter tragedy. She was, from all that I have read, a vibrant and generous woman who brought great happiness to all she met. She was a loving mother and grandmother. She was your partner for well over a decade. Your relationship was one that all those who knew you well, your friends and family, describe as a truly loving and content relationship. You have, solely because of your own dreadful decisions and mistakes, caused the loss of the most important person in your life. You are heartbroken, as too are Ms McDonald's children and siblings. 

17Ms McDonald's two children and two of her siblings wrote heartfelt letters that describe the wonderful aspects of the relationship between you and
Ms McDonald, as well as the deep loss they feel, but also the continuing support they have for you despite all.

18Your counsel gave considerable emphasis to this unusual aspect of this matter, being the ongoing support you have from Ms McDonald's family. 

19As was raised in the plea, my task is ultimately to sentence on behalf of the community. The Court of Appeal in DPP v Reynolds made that point clear in circumstances where the direct victim of family violence was supportive of the accused man and sought leniency for him.[1] 

[1]DPP v Renolds (a pseudonym) [2022] VSCA 263 (‘Reynolds’).

20In Reynolds[2] and in Skura[3] and other authorities dealing with circumstances where a victim or their family remains supportive and urges leniency, the point made is that what is said by victims or family members is relevant and can rightly impact on the exercise of the sentencing discretion, especially with respect to mercy, but it is one factor and that most important in the exercise of the sentencing discretion is that the community understand that sentencing is done on behalf of all the community and must be for a range of sentencing purposes, taking into account a wide range of factors. 

[2] Ibid.

[3]Skura v The Queen [2004] VSCA 53.

21I understand the sentiments expressed by Ms McDonald's family in the almost unbearable circumstances that they find themselves. I am sure that they know what they say about your many fine qualities and the nature of your loving relationship with Ms McDonald and how you expressed it, including towards her wider family are important matters, but at the same time, they are, as I have said, part of a wider range of factors that I must consider. I am grateful for the great care and thought that is behind these letters and deeply impressed by their generosity of spirit. 

22The impact on Ms McLeod has been devastating. There are many aspects of what she has lost and how it affects her feeling of wellbeing. One particular aspect is perhaps more acutely understandable by you. Ms McLeod was emerging as a talented sportswoman in her chosen sport of volleyball.  All that has had to stop and she remains concerned, perhaps more so now, as to whether and how she might recover enough to even try to start again. 

23I say you would understand because, in your younger days, you were focussed on your sporting career as a footballer, which ultimately you played at the highest level for many years. Thereafter, you have volunteered as a leader of the Geelong Past Players Association and have experienced and no doubt helped many who struggle with the end of their involvement in sport, especially if caused prematurely because of injury. 

24Ms McLeod's loss of engagement in her sport has had many psychological implications. The overall impact as set out in her victim impact statement has many dimensions. I take into account them all. I will only refer to some, but as I have outlined, it will be at some length, nonetheless. Ms McLeod commences her victim impact statement by indicating the emotional effects on her were far greater than she admitted to others. She would say she was okay, because she wanted to be okay and for everything to be like it was before. She wanted people to stop pitying her, but in truth, she was not okay at all. For some months, her sleep was disturbed, especially by visions of the collision. She became deeply fearful for her family when they were out driving.  She wrote: 

“When my family left the house to go somewhere, I couldn't do anything but watch the VicRoads website that tracks road closures to make sure they hadn't got into a crash.  I could only believe it when they got home in one piece.” 

25She went on:

“Now that I have started driving recently, those thoughts have come back in full force. It's not that I'm a bad driver, everyone tells me I'm a great driver and excellent defensive driver, but I just can't trust other drivers on the road. I can't understand how I'm supposed to drive and trust people to drive safely after what I've been through.”

26She was diagnosed and treated for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and still is.  The initial treatment moderated the worst of her thoughts, but not all. She feels somehow guilty herself for the collision. She, of course, is blameless.

27She went on to say:

“I can't help but feel that I've been a burden on my family and friends.  After the crash, I lost all autonomy and I had to be helped in so many ways. Before the crash, I had a job and could drive. If I wanted to do something, I could, but suddenly I couldn't even get out of bed without needing help and I felt I just couldn't hang out with friends because they all needed to come to me, they needed to do everything for me.”

28She expanded upon this, she went on as to her injuries that she sustained -  the ulnar and radius fractures in her left arm and the right hip dislocation and fracture and of course as a result of that fracture to the head of her hip or the head of her femur that had to be cut to access the fracture. She had 12 pins and two plates inserted and there were pins and plates in her arm as well, in particular her arm pain and nerve damage. She feared it would become permanent and it seems from what I have recently heard that it has. She describes being constantly in pain down her arm and also in her hip region.  She says – “My body is so different to how it was before the crash. I feel fragile and I don't feel I can trust it anymore.”

29She writes, as I have mentioned, before the crash she played State League volleyball. She regularly participated in weekend State and National competitions, she competed for her university as well in the volleyball team, having success. The day of the crash was the last time she played volleyball.  Before being injured, she played it three times a week, whether being actual matches or just mucking about with her friends.

30She said when she was in hospital, she asked her doctor if he thought she would be able to play volleyball again, he said he thought it would be unlikely, but when he saw how upset that made her, he moderated to say not she might play again, “Just not at a high level, but socially.”

31Importantly, she wrote this:

“Volleyball has been a major part of my life since I started playing. I was diagnosed with Autism in 2021. I started playing volleyball after my diagnosis, after the recommendation of my occupational therapist that sport might help. It did. Volleyball was the way I regulated. It helped me to talk to people. I felt good about myself when I played volleyball. I loved volleyball. Ever since I started playing volleyball, I've been able to regulate myself very much better than before. Before I started playing, even after my diagnosis, I would have at least one meltdown a day, I was constantly over-stimulated, so I hit myself to regulate and I was constantly stimming, I couldn't tolerate any change. I needed routine. I struggled to make friends or to talk to anyone. All that changed after I started playing volleyball. It was my outlet. My mother told me that at my sister's 21st, which was that night, some of my relatives came up to her telling her that they had noticed such a positive change, they could see that in the way I talked, carried myself and acted had shifted in a way that impressed them.”

32She says:

“I've not been able to regulate myself since the accident. I've begun hitting myself again, having meltdowns, withdrawing from situations, getting so over-stimulated. I can see it happening and I don't know how to stop it. I liked myself so much before the accident and I don't like who I am becoming. I am regressing to the point where I no longer recognise myself to the point where I can't do anything because I can't regulate myself.”

33She then speaks of her studies, how she was moving into teaching in secondary education in Mathematics and Physics and Chemistry, and she was, at the time of the accident, in her first placement and she loved it. She knew from that that teaching was the right job for her. She had many compliments throughout that period of time, both from other teachers and students. She had three days left, I think, of the placement when the accident occurred and she was distraught, she could not finish it. When she went back for the placement in February of 2025, it just was not the same. She was on her crutches, and there was nothing but pity in the eyes of the students. 

34She notes that since the accident, she previously had been an avid reader and she could not read, as she did before. She felt her speaking was noticeably slower and so too her spelling and her brain to her eyes, slowed down. It was different. She tried to emphasise this or she wished she had emphasised it earlier to clinicians because things did not noticeably improve.  Her time at university was much more difficult. She used to be also a swimming teacher but she could not continue to do that with her arm injury. 

35She speaks of, this is at seven and a half months after the infliction of the injuries, in the victim impact statement that she hoped her injuries wouldn't be permanent. She is still being sent to new specialists and so on and she was fearful that things might become permanent. Now, we know more about that. She says, socially, she hasn't been able to access her normal socialisation places such as volleyball because that accounted for 80 per cent of her socialising, but for the little bit that is left, university is not the same. She has found talking to people and making friends much more difficult. Things overwhelm her such that she cannot even text her friends without becoming emotional. Writing this victim impact statement was, in her eyes, an extremely difficult undertaking. 

36What has turned out, which I will refer to shortly, is that although she was working hard on her rehabilitation, both psychologically and physically, it is slow and there are setbacks. In recent weeks, it has emerged that the ongoing implications of her concussion has manifested in eyesight and hearing problems. While there may be ways that those problems can be moderated by glasses and hearing aids, these are just more difficulties for her as she navigates in her early 20s and onwards, having to use such things that will likely make her feel socially different, and as I say, the impact of her nerve problems being permanent adds to that. Both her parents provided victim impact statements in which they outlined the deep trauma of going to or trying to go to the scene in trepidation and then onto the hospitals in Geelong first, then Melbourne. Ms McLeod's mother and father both spoke of the stress of hearing of and then going to the scenes and dreading the unknown. Her mother writes confirming what was in Angelina's victim impact statement, that a lot of family members, that is just prior to the accident, at the 21st birthday celebrations, all made comments about how she had changed, how she was more engaging and social, how she she'd really come into her own, was becoming a confident, independent young woman

37Her mother writes that:

“The accident has left [her] fraught with anxiety and she has lost her confidence. For someone who was a busy person, university, work, volleyball, social engagements, [she became a homebody].”

38Initially, she refused point blank to drive and had to be cajoled and taken on driving on short distances where she was hypervigilant. Her mother writes how she found going back to university extremely difficult, hard to manage her workload and organise her time, whereas previously university was a breeze for her -

“We now realise that this is due to the concussion received from the accident. [I hope that her symptoms will] improve and [thereby] her ability to study. “

39She speaks of her love of volleyball, representing her university at National level – “She would be in tears at the thought that she [would be] unable to play volleyball” again. Seven months on, her mother writes:

“Angelina has pain in her hip and arms, as well as nerve pain. She is 20, having to manage chronic pain as well as concussion symptoms breaks my heart to see her suffer like this. My daughter's life has been turned upside down and I worry what her future will look like.”

40Her father wrote that it became apparent that her recovery, both physically and mentally, will take a considerable time, as it has. That caused both him and his wife considerable anxiety themselves as to whether she will be able to make a complete recovery. He spoke of:

“Angelina [being] a very sporting person and playing competitive volleyball in the State league. This will be out of the question until she is back in a physical condition that she was prior to her accident.”

42Whether that will ever be the case seems uncertain, perhaps not.

41She was an “excellent student”, her father wrote, studying to be a teacher in maths and chemistry and physics and obtaining excellent marks. Now, as a result of the concussion, her mental acuity is significantly less. He prays that her recovery will be complete. No one, he writes:

“Nobody deserves to have their future stolen from them by someone with no regard for the law or the safety of others. [The diagnosis of] PTSD as a result of the accident [makes it] very difficult for to get back behind the wheel of a car, even when going out on empty roads.”

43 It causes, the whole circumstances that his daughter is in, causes both him and her mother terribly stress, and terrible stress in writing about it in the victim impact statement.

42Mr McLeod, almost anticipating an important aspect spoken of in the law of social rehabilitation of victims by reason of sentences, wrote:

“My wife and I will have considerable concern about her future until she recovers from the accident.  n order to help rebuild her mental state, I feel that she needs to see justice is done today.”

43As I said, the impact on victims is always an important matter in sentencing for any crime, but for the reasons I have mentioned, such as social rehabilitation and deterrence to other road users, there is a need to articulate the impact.  Also, with respect to the crime of negligently causing serious injury, the authorities make clear that I must consider the impact of the serious injury as well as the level of negligence and the risks created by the driving conduct. 

44However, I also make clear that in undertaking the task of considering and articulating the impact, I have not let those matters entirely overwhelm other considerations including those in your favour, Mr Card. 

45My overall assessment of your offending and the connected level of your moral culpability led me to conclude the following factors are important – one, self-evidently, your very high blood alcohol level, being over four times the legal limit. Given the consequences, this renders this a serious example of culpable driving and negligently causing serious injury. 

46The second factor, although no doubt caused by the alcohol in your system, to drive the wrong way down and onto a major 100 kilometres per hour freeway creates enormous risks for other road users including the passengers in your own car. 

47In this case, the risks quickly materialised with the dire consequences that I have outlined and, accordingly, the very high level of alcohol and the overall circumstances of your driving make it plain these are very serious examples of the two offences you have committed. 

48In terms of your moral culpability, the constant messages sent by government, agencies such as the TAC, by the police and the courts that drink driving is intolerable and is dangerously anti-social, make it clear that your moral culpability is very high. 

49As I have outlined, your poor decision to switch from taking an Uber or a taxi to driving yourself, seemingly to manage embarrassment, does not to any significant degree lower your moral culpability.

50As I have mentioned more than once, the issue of determining the level of objective gravity of your crimes is a fundamental requirement in sentencing for any offence. However, because our Parliament has included the crime of culpable driving in the standard sentencing regime, there are other requirements with respect to assessing the level of objective seriousness.  These are set out in the Sentencing Act as follows, at s5A(1)(b) which reads:

“The period specified in the standard sentence for the offence is the sentence of an offence that, taking into account only the objective factors affecting the relative seriousness of that offence, is in the middle of the range of seriousness.”[4] 

[4]Sentencing Act, s5A(1)(b).

51And the sub-paragraph reads:

'For the purposes of sub-s(1)(b), objective factors affecting the relative seriousness of an offence are to be determined: (a) without reference to matters personal to a particular offender; and (b) wholly by reference to the nature of the offending.”[5]

[5]Sentencing Act, s5A(3).

52The relevant parts of the Act go on to say that I can only consider other standard sentences imposed in terms of the concept of current sentencing practices, that is, I can only consider sentences that are also for standard sentencing offences. 

53But importantly, the Act itself goes on to say that these aspects of the standard sentencing regime do not limit the matters that the court is required or permitted to take into account and that the well-known sentencing methodology of instinctive synthesis remains as the appropriate way to exercise overall sentencing discretion.[6]

[6] Ibid, s5B(3).

54Of real relevance in the circumstances of this case, the Act goes on to proscribe that that the fixing of a non-parole period for a standard sentence offence or if the total sentence is for at least one standard sentencing offence, as is the case here, then I must consider what is set out in s11A(4) of the Sentencing Act and it says: 

“'Unless the court considers that it is in the interests of justice not to do so, the court must fix a non-parole period of: c) at least 60% of the relevant term if that term is a term of less than 20 years.”[7]

[7] Ibid, s11A(4)(c).

55I will return back to this critical issue after I have outlined your personal circumstances, in particular your recently discovered terminal cardiac disease. 

56On the issue of the standard sentence, the prosecution argued your crime was significantly above the middle range. Your counsel submitted it was below, while conceding the gravity of it was still serious. The standard sentence of eight years is one legislative guidepost along with the maximum term for culpable driving of 20 years. The methodology that I have mentioned of instinctive synthesis is still the guide for standard sentencing crimes. 

57I have followed the Court of Appeal's guidance with respect to standard sentencing as set out in Brown v The Queen.[8] In my view it is, that is, your offending in respect of the culpable driving is significantly over the mid-level.  Just in terms of the objective factors, the level of the blood alcohol and driving on the wrong side of the freeway is so egregious that a sentence well beyond the standard sentencing guidepost would be well warranted. It is in the higher category of seriousness that I have had to deal with, it is in the same broad band or more so than my most recent sentence, also in this district down on the Great Ocean Road, in the matter of Ferris.[9] I have not had such a high blood alcohol level or one near it as you had since the case of Pasznyk in 2014 where the blood alcohol level was not as high as yours, but over .2, but in that case there was appalling selfish conduct, speeding and the driver had a very poor driving history.[10] It was a sentence before the standard sentencing regime so I cannot consider it in terms of current sentencing practices, but the sentence of 10 years and six months with a non-parole period of eight years was held by the Court of Appeal to be stern in those days, but within the appropriate range. 

[8]Brown v The Queen [2019] VSCA 286.

[9]DPP v Ferris [2024] VCC 1878.

[10] Sentencing remarks are not published, but the sentence was unsuccessfully appealed in Pasznyk v The Queen [2014] VSCA 87.

58The sentencing methodology mentioned in the Sentencing Act of instinctive synthesis[11] is perhaps more easily understood by reference to the High Court's articulation of the same concept, and the term they used of 'individualised’ sentencing.[12]

[11]Sentencing Act.

[12] See DPP v Dalgleish (a pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41.

59What is required by individualised sentencing is that I evaluate all the circumstance of the offence and all the circumstances of the offender. I now turn to your personal circumstances. 

60You are currently 68 years old. You grew up in Morwell, being the youngest of three children in your family. The family was a loving one, but it struggled financially. Your father was a bricklayer and your mother worked as a sales assistant. Your parents and sister have passed away but you speak daily to your brother and report having a close relationship with him. You developed normally, not suffering any illness or mistreatment in your childhood. You progressed smoothly through school, completing Year 12. You were very successful in playing football. You went on to play AFL football professionally for the Geelong Football Club for 11 seasons and, as mentioned, you continued to be actively involved with that football club. 

61Outside of your involvement in the AFL, to your credit, you have a very strong work ethic, being employed constantly since school. Most importantly, for the past near on 30 years, you have worked in sales and of late for a large soft drink company. This job required you to drive many thousands of kilometres around Victoria every year. You did so without incident. You are, on all accounts and by your record, a very safe and responsible driver. Indeed, one of your colleagues wrote that just a day before this tragedy, you offered to be the designated driver for a group that attended a social function in Melbourne, and you did that responsibly. Others wrote of how you routinely take taxis and the like when you have had a few drinks at a social or football function.

62You have had three significant romantic relationships in your life. You were married to your first wife from 1978 to 2002. You have two adult daughters and eight grandchildren from this marriage. You described to Mr Newton, the forensic psychologist who assessed you, that your separation was not a bad one and you remain on friendly terms. Your daughters write of this and remain very supportive of you. They wrote of your fine qualities as a father. 

63You were in another relationship for about nine years. There were no children of that relationship and it seems that ended on good terms.

64You and Ms Mandy McDonald commenced a relationship I think in around 2012 - in any event, it was a long and enduring relationship. In speaking to the renowned forensic psychologist, Mr Patrick Newton, you describe a strong bond the pair of you shared as being “the happiest [you] had ever been”.

65Ms McDonald's death has understandably left you with deep grief, and
Mr Newton comments,  that this has been intensified by your role in her death.  I will return to this topic.

66Mr Newton explored your alcohol use, given the circumstances of this offence.  You reported having begun drinking at age 19, steadily increasing your drinking into your 20s, developing a habit of heavy drinking. You acknowledged that alcohol had negative effects on your first marriage. The level of drinking was considered by Mr Newton to meet the criteria of an alcohol use disorder, moving from moderate to severe intensity across your adult life. At the time of the collision, it was considered severe and at the time of the assessment that he did, it was moderate. 

67In relation to your mental health, you reported limited engagement with mental health care as an adult. You did take some anti-depressants briefly after the end of your first marriage, but you discontinued following adverse side-effects. You had been receiving treatment from a clinical psychologist, Ms Lucas, for approximately four months after the collision and prior to your assessment with Mr Newton. 

68Mr Newton detailed your intense grief. He spoke of your punitive internal dialogue having interfered with the efficacy of the counselling and treatment you were then undertaking. Thus, you have not been able to gain much, if any, benefit from that treatment and your suffering has remained severe. 
Mr Newton explains that this presentation reflects a complicated grief reaction rather than a mental disorder. However, he does note that you are experiencing several features of major depressive episodes, putting you at increased risk of mental state deterioration and thereafter developing a major depressive disorder. 

69Mr Newton also highlighted the punitive aspects of your sentence to be imposed will likely exacerbate your existing internal dialogue as described, so that your mental health care will be important to avoid a decline. He also detailed your significant anxiety which reached a diagnosis of an adjustment disorder with anxiety. Sources of this anxiety are listed as your physical health and your legal problems. He explained that your anxiety and related symptoms are more intense than typically would be expected, likely due to the same factors which intensify your grief. There is also a risk of exacerbation of this condition upon incarceration.

70Mr Newton opined that you would be psychologically a vulnerable prison, given that this is your first experience of incarceration, the demographic differences between yourself and most prisoners, and the extant psychological conditions. Mr Newton expects that you will find imprisonment more burdensome than the typical prisoner without your difficulties. I accept that this is so. 

71In addition to and further exacerbating your mental ill health is that, as a consequence of the assessment and scans done at the Royal Melbourne Hospital after the collision, it was discovered that you have a very serious cardiac illness. In short, you have been diagnosed with what will lead to cardiac myopathy or heart failure. This acute medical problem and the reports from your cardiologist, Dr Rankin, will be addressed further in these reasons.

72At your plea, a very large number of friends and family came to support you.  A large number of character references were tendered on your behalf at your plea. As discussed, four were from Ms McDonald's immediate family.

73From the other 15 character references, there are consistent themes of your generosity, selflessness, trustworthiness and community service. You have been significantly involved in the communities of Wangaratta, Milawa, and Geelong following your time playing for the Geelong Football Club. You have coached football, supported the elderly, mentored current and former football players and conducted speaking engagements at football clubs, community clubs, nursing and old-age homes and at the Barwon Prison, all on a volunteer basis. Your close friend, Mr Damian Bourke, gave evidence in addition to his lengthy, considered written testimonial. What he said in simple language captures much of what all that know you wrote. Mr Bourke said that you were always one to give of yourself - you were a giver, not a taker.

74He spoke of your integrity and straightforward way of dealing with many people that you have come across and the many who seek your time and commitment. It is clear to me that you have helped wherever you could, many in the community, especially the elderly, but also those who needed guidance such as at the Barwon Prison. Your contribution to the Geelong Past Players Association has been lengthy and considerable and not just in social events and the like but ensuring retired footballers at whatever age and circumstances they find themselves in are looked after mentally as best you could see to it. Your close friend, Mr Kevin Sheehan, in his letter, spoke of the important role you played with respect to player welfare and ongoing wellbeing, and he added, because of this, you are highly regarded and held in high esteem, not just here in Geelong, but throughout the AFL.

75As noted, there are many considered and heartfelt testimonials written by friends from your time in the north east of Victoria as well as Geelong, from connections you made from football days that have endured and strengthened over near-on 50 years. There were letters from your work colleagues. I have read them all and have taken into account, what was expressed. I cannot quote from all of them, but as I said, because you do have good qualities, there were, as it were, themes expressed in all of them. 

76To illustrate from just some of them, Mr Damian Bourke wrote:

“In all my dealings with Ray, he has always shown himself to be an honest, hardworking, and reliable person. He has consistently earned the trust and respect of those around him. He has a strong moral compass and deeply ingrained sense of responsibility. Ray has consistently shown himself to be a person of moral integrity and community spirit. He gives more than he takes, in all areas of life. Whether it be through emotional support, practical help or simply his presence in time of need, Ray offers stability, honesty and compassion to those around him. He also guides others to give. Ray has never sought attention or accolades for what he does. His contributions come from a sincere desire to do good, to help others and create meaningful connections with people in his life. Ray acts and does this, he doesn't pontificate or talk about helping others, he acts.”

77Ms Mary Kincaid, who has been an employee of Geelong Football Club for decades. wrote: 

“Our paths regularly crossed in our professional capacity which allowed me to observe Ray's balanced nature, strong sense of empathy and unwavering support for all those around him. Ray served on the Geelong Football Club Past Players and Officials Committee in a voluntary capacity for the past 15 years, nine years as President. His dedication to former and current football colleagues, community and various charitable causes speaks volumes about his character, his generosity and commitment to others is truly commendable.”

78Mr Damian Drum, a longtime friend, footballer, coach and then longtime member of our State Parliament followed by another lengthy period in the Australian Parliament, wrote:

“Over the 40 years I've been friends with Ray, he's always been incredibly respectful of those around him and has always been a person who could be taken at his word. If he says he going to do something, he'll do it. This honesty, respect and genuine caring nature is returned to Ray in the esteem he is held by all those who know him. There is nothing Ray wouldn't do for anyone who asked or who needed help. His lifelong friends, love of his family, volunteering and giving assistance to those in need are all measures of the impeccable character of the man he is. I am writing in hope that his lifetime of being the man he is, is not dismissed because of one horrible decision he made, a decision he completely owns.”

79The last point made by Mr Drum is an important one. It was also made by your daughters and Ms McDonald's family. Your personal qualities are not for a moment dismissed or given mere lip service by me because of the gravity of the crime that you committed. Plainly, you are much more than the one diabolically bad decision you made to drive home so affected by alcohol. That said, this crime or these crimes are often committed by individuals who otherwise are of good character, who have many impressive qualities. The appellate courts have said that sentencing judges must ensure that deterrence and punishment are not diminished by giving too much weight to the prior good character and personal circumstances of the offender. 

80All those who wrote a reference spoke not just of your good character, but how the offending came as a shock to them because it was just so out of character for the man they knew. 

81An important factor in establishing character is what those who know you best say of your reaction to your wrongdoing. Remorse is important in these cases.  The community highly values genuine remorse. So too, do victims. 

82Broadly speaking, confidence in the sentencing regime is more likely to be enhanced and merciful sentences accepted if the sentence imposed is upon someone who is genuinely remorseful and contrite. 

83Again, all who wrote references spoke of your deep remorse and devastation at what you had done and the pain you had caused. Your immediate family and closest friends spoke of your remorse as perhaps one of, if not the most, important thing that they wanted the court to know. 

84Your daughter, Teegan Powell, wrote, and I will speak broadly of what she says about you as a father and your relationships. She spoke of you being supportive of her and her sister throughout their lives, that you would do whatever to ensure that they were safe, your care and commitment to them never wavered, continuing into adult life. She wrote that you found real happiness when you met and began the relationship with Mandy. She says “they were always meant to be together, they just found each other later in life”.  She wrote:

'When I heard about the accident and Mandy's passing I was in shock and utterly devastated. It felt like I lost my dad that night too. Though he is still physically with us, he is not the same. My dad is a broken man, a shell of a human and so extremely remorseful for his actions. He has, on many occasions, expressed that he wished it had been him and not Mandy and I know he if he could change that he would in a heartbeat.”

85She went on:

“When dad later learnt that someone else had been seriously injured in the accident (the severity of their injuries initially hadn't been communicated to us), he was once again heartbroken. That knowledge added to his already unbearable remorse. I know my dad, and I know he will continue to punish himself for as long as he lives for the pain and suffering he has caused everybody involved.”

86Your daughter, Ashlee Molloy, wrote as well of the experience of growing up.  She says, insightfully, that she was 15 when you and her mother separated, and that is, she says, “an experience that’s often every child's greatest fear.” Throughout the years that followed, before and certainly after, she and her sister were always your priority. She said she “couldn't have hoped for a more amicable separation, which [was] entirely due to [your] character.” She has fond memories, and still does in more recent years, of all that you did in volunteering as a guest speaker or in helping others – “He was, and still is giving to the community and prioritising the needs of others.'”

87She speaks of the relationship in this way: “Mandy saved my dad, she really did. I have never seen him happier. She was the apple of his eye.”

88She concludes: 

'I feel like I lost my dad the day of the accident, along with my beautiful stepmum. Since that moment, he has been a shell of the man he once was, carrying so much sorrow and guilt, the heartache and grief are etched into his face and visible in his eyes. He is utterly heartbroken for the pain that he has caused himself and so many others and will carry this pain for the rest of his life.”

1. It is plain to me from all of the accounts, none of your remorse is in any way self-pity. Your step-daughter, Gemma McDonald, Ms McDonald's daughter, wrote how “extremely difficult” it was to write a letter of this kind, but she said it's “the right thing to do”, so “despite the tragic circumstances [sh]e felt it was important for [her] to share [her] personal experiences and show [her] support.” She said:  “I am grieving the loss of my mother, while also speaking on behalf of someone I care deeply about.”

   90She spoke of:

   “The committed, long-term relationship and for the first time in a long while, [she] saw [her] mother truly happy. They enjoyed life together and from the very beginning….I could see that Ray was a kind and gentle man who brought out the best in my mum.”

   91She wrote - “the pain that [you] feel over the loss of Ms McDonald is real and she has witnessed the deep remorse and the sorrow [you carry].” She wrote that you were “never running away from this.” In all of her years of knowing you, she says, “[you] always [do] the right and honest thing. "What's the proof of this?" she asked rhetorically and answered this by saying, "Our family."  The answer is:

   “our family standing by him through this awful time and providing these character references. I understand the law, and so does Ray.  Hearing the words [from you], "I do need to be punished" coming out of his mouth breaks my heart but it is also evident of this remorse.”

   92She says, I understand the “extremely delicate situation and yes, I have lost my mum but I feel like I am losing him as well.”

   93Ms McDonald's son writes that “throughout the years, [you] were someone [he] could trust and rely on, and [you became and still] are a father figure.” The big reason why the family welcomed you was just how respectful you were and, why his mother adored you so much.

   94He says that you have “shown great accountability and remorse for [your] actions” and the focus of the family, of course, is “[coming] to terms with [their] grief and honouring the memory of [his] mum.”

   95Ms McDonald's brother also spoke of your remorse and the weight of the tragedy upon you. You are “suffering a deep and overwhelming loss and [your] regret is visible to all who know [you].” You have “expressed unconditional penitence and shame.” He wrote:

   “He is a man who made a snap, terrible decision, the consequences which are life-altering and he carries those consequences with an abiding sense of responsibility and sorrow. Although that decision and the gravity of the situation are profound, Ray remains a valued part of our family and while we know he is responsible for Mandy's death, we know he was also responsible for the great joy she had in her life and the enormous love she had for him.”

   96He asks the court “to consider [your] character, [your] contributions to [the] family, community and the general remorse that [you] feel.” He says:

   'While nothing can undo the harm caused, I hope you see Ray's ongoing commitment to making amends and his ongoing positive impact on us as his family and others around him, as worth taking into account in sentencing.”

   97Your counsel, Mr Steward put the issue of remorse with appropriate force and clarity when he said concisely: “He expressed gut-wrenching, life-changing, constant, immediate, total, distressing grief-stricken remorse.”

   98I accept that. It is an appropriate description. As can be appreciated in many of the references, especially from family, there was great happiness that you and Mandy McDonald had found together. There is then what is called 'extra-curial punishment' because you have, by your own actions, caused the loss of someone so dear to you.

   99Another important aspect of your remorse is your written apology to
   Ms Macleod. You wrote:

   “I can only imagine the impact on you, an innocent party going about their business, and this flows onto your family and friends. I have lived under the shroud of sadness and shame ever since that night and want to apologise to you for the needless pain and suffering, both mentally and physically, that you would be going through….I know that this apology may not mean much to you, but rest assured it is heartfelt and sincere.  The prison time I will serve will not compare to the lifetime of regret or hurt I have caused you, and the loss of my partner and love of my life. I wish it had been me instead.”

   100Finally, on the important aspect of remorse is that you, following your immediate acceptance of responsibility at the scene and thereafter, you followed that up, as it were, by pleading guilty to these serious charges at the earliest opportunity. The plea of guilty is also evidence of your remorse, if any more be needed. Also, your plea of guilty must be acknowledged for its value to the whole criminal justice system.

   101I have mentioned the very unexpected and serious consequences of your health being assessed after the collision while you were at the Royal Melbourne Hospital, and what was discovered as to your serious and likely terminal cardiac illness. Your condition has a lengthy and complex medical name, helpfully abbreviated as set out in the reports of your cardiologist,
   Dr Rankin. Your illness is ATTR, or transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy. It is a rare and progressive disease, where, as I understand, a malfunctioning protein causes deposits in the heart that stiffens the heart muscle, reducing function, especially in the left ventricle.

   102Prior to the collision, there were, in hindsight, signs of deteriorating heart function as you went about your daily life. With further genetic testing, it is now clear yours is not a genetic or hereditary version, but what is known as a wild type. Treatment in the form of medication to slow progress is now more advanced. You had been on the appropriate medication regime for some months.

   103The medical reports make it clear this regime must continue uninterrupted.  Corrections have a clear duty of care in this regard. Corrections have always maintained that their duty of care is to be met by ensuring an equivalent level of care as would be obtained in the community. I have been told after three days of delay getting the medication, you have been continued on the regime of medication under the supervising care that would be available from specialist cardiologists at St Vincent's Hospital, which is the Corrections facility.

   104Dr Rankin, your treating cardiologist in the community, made significant efforts to assist the court with your prognosis and life expectancy. I am very grateful to her as the important considerations or questions that I have are extremely difficult to answer. Dr Rankin describes your prognosis as guarded. She noted that your wild form of ATTR has a median survival of 3.5 years, with some data showing five year survival rates of 36 percent or just around one in three.

   105She notes that the medication you are on has improved overall survival of patients. Also, the aggressive heart therapies undertaken at the outset have shown improvement towards or achieving normal levels better than your previously problematic left ventricle function. Dr Rankin indicated that, while a sudden fatal cardiac event from ventricular arrythmia could occur, the more common cause of death is progressive heart failure.

   106This, of course, involves progressive deterioration and debilitation, requiring regular and then sustained hospitalisations to the point, I think, of palliative care. The law with respect to sentencing an offender with a serious illness is complicated, especially in the application of the law to the particular circumstances of the ill offender.

   107In Brooks in 2023, the Court of Appeal endorsed as the appropriate and orthodox approach what was said in the South Australian case of Smith in 1987, which in turn was adopted in the Victorian case of Van Boxtel in 2005.[13]  In Smith, it was said the state of health of an offender is always relevant to the consideration of the appropriate sentence for the offender.[14]

   [13]Brooks (a pseudonym) v The King [2023] VSCA 4 (‘Brooks’); Reg v Smith, Michael [1987] SASC 9802 (‘Smith’); R v Van Boxtel [2005] VSCA 175 (‘Van Boxtel’).

   [14]Smith, 4.

   108The courts, however, must be cautious as to the influence which they allow this factor to have upon the sentencing process. Ill health cannot be allowed to become a licence to commit crime, nor can offenders generally expect to escape punishment because of the condition of their health.

   109In Van Boxtel, having cited what I have just read from Smith, the Court of Appeal said:

   “Generally speaking, ill health will be a factor tending to mitigate punishment only when it appears that imprisonment will be a greater burden on the offender by reason of his state of health or where there is a serious risk of imprisonment having a gravely adverse effect on the offender's health.”[15]

   [15]Van Boxtel, 29.

   110In contrast to the accused in Brooks,[16] whose longstanding cancer was and had been in remission for a number of years, your ill health is progressive. It will get worse while you are in prison. Whether it will get worse because you are in prison is harder to say, and perhaps in your case not as important. That is because I have no doubt prison will be more onerous because of your illness. You will be anxious because the nature of your cardiac illness causes any sufferer to feel generally more vulnerable.

   [16]Brooks.

   111You will not be in control but rather will be completely reliant on Corrections if there is a sudden cardiac event, and you will rely on them to elevate your level of care if and when you deteriorate. While there are hospital wards in certain prisons, and access to tertiary facilities at St Vincent's, your illness is rare and has complexities.

   112In all the circumstances, prison for you will be more onerous because of your ill health, and your anxiety and your already established depression will likely deteriorate as a consequence of your cardiac condition, especially as your physical capacity diminishes. I have factored these matters into the overall synthesis.

   113Also relevant is that your illness will be, likely will be, terminal and your life expectancy is reduced, though to what extent is obviously something I am unable to be precise about now. The Court of Appeal in RLP in 2009, when sentencing an elderly accused with poor health, considered both Smith[17] and Van Boxtel[18] and then set out the following propositions:

   [17]Smith.

   [18]Van Boxtel.

   1The age and ill health of an offender are relevant to the exercise of a sentencing discretion.

   2Old age or ill health are not determinative of the quantum of the sentence.

   3Depending upon the circumstances, it may be appropriate to impose a minimum term which will have the effect that the offender may well spend the whole of his remaining life in custody.

   4It is a weighty consideration that the offender is likely to spend the whole or a very substantial portion of the remainder of their life in custody.

   5Other sentencing considerations may be required to surrender some ground to the need to exercise compassion, to take into account the real prospect that the offender may not live to be released, and that the offender's ill health will make his or her period of incarceration particularly onerous.

   6Just punishment, proportionality and general and specific deterrence remain primary sentencing considerations in the sentencing disposition, notwithstanding the age and ill health of an offender. 

   7Old age and ill health do not justify the imposition of an unacceptably inappropriate sentence.”[19]

   [19]R v R L P [2009] VSCA 271 (‘RLP’), 39.

   114It was specifically raised in RLP that general deterrence, the primary sentencing purpose in your case, may have to be moderated because of the public perception of imposing a gaol sentence that may see the offender spend most, if not all, of his remaining years in custody.[20] The point being, and adapted to your circumstances, that the community would not be entirely comfortable if I used someone like you, with your prognosis, as an example to send a message to other road users.

   [20]RLP.

   115In other words, the community would understand that you are now, because of your terminal illness, different from almost, if not all, others who commit these crimes of culpable driving and negligently causing serious injury, and as such moderation from the full weight of general deterrence is warranted. These considerations, in particular how your cardiac deterioration will likely progress so that you are hospitalised and in care even after some years of imprisonment, are important.

   116Thus, any time after the expiration of your sentence is nonetheless likely to be in circumstances of significant debilitating illness. A sentiment that is often a focus of victim impact statements in these cases is the pain the family of the deceased have, or the pain of the family in not having, or not being with the victim when they died, in effect to say goodbye. For someone who has a terminal disease, being with family as the utter unknown of pending death approaches is an important comfort. So too for family to be there in the final days.

   117Whether and, in particular, how all that may unfold in a prison hospital is unknown. However, as the authorities make clear, sentences that give greater weight and hopefully practical effect to mercy are authorised in these sorts of cases. These matters most acutely impact upon the structure of a just and appropriate sentence. Plainly, I cannot impose an inadequate sentence on the basis of your ill health.

   118A just and appropriate sentence may well mean you do spend every day of your remaining life in prison. The sentence I impose must not ignore the standard sentencing guideposts and the assessment of the objective factors which do not include your ill health. Those subjective factors come into the overall synthesis. Also, my sentence must acknowledge the two crimes.

   119The authorities, starting with the matter of Penn[21] and then Guarigula[22] and then Towle[23] and many others since, mean that although yours was one dreadful piece of driving, there were or are two victims, and this means there must be a measure of cumulation. That said, the principle of totality remains, and it means I must ensure the total sentence meets in a proportionate way the totality of your offending.

   [21]R v Penn (1994) 19 MVR 367, 370.

   [22]R v Guariglia [2001] VSCA 27.

   [23]R v Towle [2009] VSCA 280.

   120As already mentioned, the most critical consideration for you is what non-parole period is fixed. The general principles regarding the fixing of a non-parole period are clear enough. The non-parole period is the period of time that justice requires that you be incarcerated. The fixing of a non-parole period must be done keeping in mind that you may have to do every day of the head sentence, and when or if you are granted parole, that is a decision for others, not the court.

   121I add that all the mitigating factors impact on the head sentence, as well as the non-parole period, but in some circumstances such as this, important mitigatory matters may have more significant weight in considering the fixing of the non-parole period. The tension in the exercise of my sentencing discretion is between ensuring that the sentence has an appropriate measure of compassion and mercy, and at the same time ensures that the important sentencing purposes of general deterrence and punishment are not unduly diluted.

   122The general principles as articulated time and again by the Court of Appeal is that there are no fixed formulas between the head sentence and a non-parole period. There have been culpable driving cases such as the DDP v Huby, where a sentencing judge gave very significant expressions to the concept of mercy in sentencing a father for causing the death of his two-year-old daughter, by fixing a non-parole period at the highly unusual level of 20 percent of the head sentence.[24]

   [24]DPP v Huby [2018] VCC 1621.

   123The Court of Appeal, upon the Director's appeal, did not approve of that sentence with such a disparity, but the court could understand the sentencing judge's expression of mercy such that, in exercising their own residual discretion, the Court of Appeal declined to increase the sentence and the Director's appeal failed.[25] All of that occurred before the Parliament fixed the terms of the standard sentencing regime, which requires the non-parole period to be at least 60 percent of the head sentence, unless a non-parole period less is justified in the interests of justice.

   [25]DPP v Huby [2019] VSCA 106.

   124Here, the prosecution, as I understood it, contended that the standard sentencing regime ought apply and that it was not, or, if any, just barely, in the interests of justice to require anything other than what Parliament prescribed or just below. Your counsel submitted that it was hard to imagine a more compelling case for a lower non-parole period, or a larger gap between the head sentence and the non-parole period than that prescribed in the Sentencing Act,[26] because the circumstances were so unique that it established that it would be justified in the interests of justice to have a greater disparity.

   [26]Sentencing Act.

   125In this situation, it seems to me that the interests of justice are captured by considering whether the community would be comfortable if the non-parole period gave some chance that you would be released after serving years of imprisonment, but some chance to be with your family at the end of your life.  Nothing can be guaranteed other than a chance.

   126Of course, my head sentence and the non-parole period must be expressed as a period of time. I have no precise idea of the course of your illness beyond what Dr Rankin said and that it is progressive and terminal, although there have been some improvements of late. All I can do is give weight to the concept that you should have a hope, even if faint, that you may survive the non-parole period.

   127The High Court in Weininger in 2003 put it that, although all sentences are, at the end, an expression of time to be spent undergoing punishment, a sentence must not be seen in mere mathematical terms. A sentence is the exercise of a sentencing discretion that has, at its core, the human dimension.[27]

   [27]Weininger v R [2003] HCA 14.

   128Just in terms of the expression of mercy, I am not sure that it needs to be said, but just in case it be thought otherwise, the fact that you are more well known than most offenders, and the fact that you were good at your chosen sport, has played no part in my sentence, and in particular in the level of mercy to be shown. I have simply followed what the Court of Appeal said should be how sentencing judges sentence, that is like all other offenders, I sentence you for what you did and who are in terms of your actual character, especially of late, and, in your case, I consider what inevitably your future holds.

   129That is individualised sentencing as far as I understand the concept. Thus, in all the circumstances, I consider that it is in the interests of justice and it is justified to have a longer time of potential parole. Accordingly, the non-parole period that I will shortly announce will be less than the ratio of the standard sentence regime. It will be significantly less than would ordinarily be the case, where a very lengthy non-parole period would be expected, and likewise a long head sentence, for someone committing a crime as grave as these two crimes are.

   130I should also restate the sentencing of anyone to prison, but perhaps more so for a man of your character, is always a grave step never lightly taken, but there is no other option and you yourself know that. You have expressed a need to be punished. The sentence must, despite the unique circumstances, still express the clear message of deterrence. It must be crystal clear if you drive after drinking and kill and seriously injure others, then years of imprisonment await.

   131The other sentencing purposes other than punishment are of little practical importance, including facilitating your rehabilitation. Notwithstanding that, of course if you survive, you will resume your lifelong lawful ways, but in very reduced circumstances. Doing the best I can, after anxious consideration, the sentence that I impose are the following.

   132Charge 1, culpable driving, you are sentenced to seven years and four months.

   133For the crime of negligently causing serious injury, you are sentenced to two years and 10 months. 

   134I order that 20 months of that second charge be cumulative. This gives a total effective sentence expressed in months of 108 months. The total effective sentence therefore is nine years. I fix a minimum non-parole period of four years.

   135You have already served 38 days on remand. This figure, having been reckoned, I now declare it is part of the sentence that I have just imposed. I will ensure that this declaration is entered into the records of the court so the prison authorities are under no doubt that you have already served 38 days of the sentence I have just imposed.

   136I must make an order impacting your licence and I do so, imposing upon you cancellation and disqualification for a period of three years of your driving licence. I must also, pursuant to s89C of the Sentencing Act,[28] make a finding that the culpable driving was committed while under the influence of alcohol, which contributed to the offending.

   [28]Sentencing Act.

   137Had you pleaded not guilty to these offences, I would have imposed a sentence of 11 years and six months with a non-parole period of eight years. 

- - -